Troll Lord Games

I just noticed something:

Both the shortbow and longbow are listed as doing 1d6 damage. But the composite bow (short and long) are listed as 1d8 damage.

Assuming all arrows are equal, then the damage inflicted ought to be related to range. That is, a longer distance must mean a faster release speed. And a faster release speed ought to mean more damage.

So what makes composites inflict more damage? What's the logic there?

-Fizz

Fizz wrote:
I just noticed something:

Both the shortbow and longbow are listed as doing 1d6 damage. But the composite bow (short and long) are listed as 1d8 damage.

Assuming all arrows are equal, then the damage inflicted ought to be related to range. That is, a longer distance must mean a faster release speed. And a faster release speed ought to mean more damage.

So what makes composites inflict more damage? What's the logic there?

-Fizz

They require more pull. Its naught to do with range, but stored muscle power. A composite bow is made of several pieces that reinforce its self.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
They require more pull. Its naught to do with range, but stored muscle power. A composite bow is made of several pieces that reinforce its self.

That's fine- more pull means more power. More power means higher arrow speed. Higher arrow speed means longer range and more damage. It's all related. That's physics.

So it makes no physical sense that a composite shortbow would do more damage than a non-composite longbow. The longbow has greater range. That means it must loose the arrow at a higher speed. That means it must store more energy on the draw. See the problem?

The composite shortbow may be more efficient than a standard longbow, but it's the final release speed that ultimately determines both range and damage. You can't increase range yet reduce damage (assuming the same ammunition).

-Fizz

Try this then:

Primitive Bow: 1d4 damage, 50 ft. range, 20 gp, EV 2

Short Bow: 1d6 damage, 60 ft. range, 30 gp, EV 3

Short Composite Bow: 1d8 damage, 70 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 3

Nomad Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 80 ft. range, 150 gp, EV 3

Long Bow: 1d8 damage, 100 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 4

Long Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 110 ft. range, 120 gp, EV 4

Elven Composite Bow: 1d12 damage, 120 ft. range, 240 gp, EV 3
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

Fizz wrote:
See the problem?

The composite shortbow may be more efficient than a standard longbow, but it's the final release speed that ultimately determines both range and damage. You can't increase range yet reduce damage (assuming the same ammunition).

-Fizz

No actually, I don't see a problem. I just happened to remember some snippet about the construction of the composite bow that made it functionally more powerful than the longbow. I also don't assume the same ammunition. From what I recall, having seen both weapons in action, the arrows were also functionally different. Weight of the arrow and the type of arrowhead can also have its effects on physics.. and range.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

jamesmishler wrote:
Primitive Bow: 1d4 damage, 50 ft. range, 20 gp, EV 2

Short Bow: 1d6 damage, 60 ft. range, 30 gp, EV 3

Short Composite Bow: 1d8 damage, 70 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 3

Nomad Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 80 ft. range, 150 gp, EV 3

Long Bow: 1d8 damage, 100 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 4

Long Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 110 ft. range, 120 gp, EV 4

Elven Composite Bow: 1d12 damage, 120 ft. range, 240 gp, EV 3

Almost. If the long bow has a longer range than the nomad bow, it should do at least identical damage, not less. Change the long bow to 1d10 and it works.

-Fizz

gideon_thorne wrote:
No actually, I don't see a problem.

The problem is that range and damage must correlate. Both are determined by the speed of the arrow at release. The arrow doesn't care how you get to that speed, be it from a longbow, composite bow, or a cannon. Its range and lethality are all from kinetic energy.

Quote:
I just happened to remember some snippet about the construction of the composite bow that made it functionally more powerful than the longbow.

For a given size bow, that may be valid. A composite longbow could have more power than a standard longbow. I have no problem with that.

But what doesn't make physical sense is a composite short bow that has less range than a longbow, but yet the less powerful bow somehow does more damage.

Quote:
I also don't assume the same ammunition. From what I recall, having seen both weapons in action, the arrows were also functionally different. Weight of the arrow and the type of arrowhead can also have its effects on physics.. and range.

OK, well that's a different ball of wax. Certainly different ammunition makes a difference. My argument assumes identical ammunition (because different arrows were not listed in the equipment list of the PH).

However, then longbows shouldn't only do 1d6. The English weren't using shortbows at Agincourt or Crecy. It was the longbow that was built for war, with the sheaf arrows that could penetrate full plate mail.

So, sorry, the ammunition argument doesn't make much sense to me either.
Can i put it up as errata yet?
-Fizz

I know longbows used different arrows then shortbows. Longbow arrows were ... longer.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Fizz wrote:
The problem is that range and damage must correlate. Both are determined by the speed of the arrow at release. The arrow doesn't care how you get to that speed, be it from a longbow, composite bow, or a cannon. Its range and lethality are all from kinetic energy.

Not really. Something may go farther, but hit with less force. This can have much to do with many factors. Weight among them.

Quote:
Can i put it up as errata yet?

Well, since its really not errata, I wouldn't think so. Errata has to be one of those major things that cause the foundations of the game to fall apart. Damage, that someone can change whenever they feel like it, doesn't fall into that category.
If something doesn't make sense, fix it, don't let some artists babble on the net stop you.

_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Fizz you forgot the dissipation of energy. It is not only a cinematic problem, but dynamics enters, also. Something that flies longer loses energy unless it is selfpropelled (we are not in void). If you take this into account, then it makes sense that composite and normal bows do different amounts of damage with the same range. Besides, it is a game, not a physics simulation

Why not simply give shortbows 1d6, longbows 1d8, and the composite variant simply adds a "+1" to the damage (i.e. 1d6+1 and 1d8+1)? Easy solution.

By the way, the Range increment is less about the direct power of the bow in question, but more about how efficiently you hit at that range. It's a marker of which bow you can aim more precisely with, which is why the penalty for longer ranges is to the attack roll, not the damage roll.

But don't ask me what makes one kind of bow more precise to aim with than another...maybe longbows are easier to pull and hold at the same amount of pull than shortbows, and thus lead to less shaking when aiming. No idea.

Fizz wrote:
Not really. Something may go farther, but hit with less force. This can have much to do with many factors. Weight among them.

Again, i was assuming identical ammunition. In that event, the lethality and range must correlate, because both are a consequence of kinetic energy. This is high school physics.

And FYI, weight does not significantly affect flight distance assuming you have the same release speed. Drag may have a lesser impact, so the heavier object may not slow down quite as much. However, you need really high speeds (artillery) to see significant differences in this. Of course, a heavier object needs more energy to get that same release speed, and thus higher damage would be justified in that case.

But for identical ammunition, my point still stands.

-Fizz

rabindranath72 wrote:
Fizz you forgot the dissipation of energy. It is not only a cinematic problem, but dynamics enters, also. Something that flies longer loses energy unless it is selfpropelled (we are not in void). If you take this into account, then it makes sense that composite and normal bows do different amounts of damage with the same range. Besides, it is a game, not a physics simulation

Not at all. If you're using identical ammunition, the dissipation of energy will be identical at any given speed. The arrow doesn't "know" how it got up to that speed. The bow doesn't impact the drag coefficient of the arrow.

And regardless of bow used, the arrow is going to lose a certain fraction of its speed on its way to the target. But that applies to any arrow, and is not dependent on the bow.

I realize that C&C is not a physics simulation (else magic would really piss me off ). However, this particular issue is about inconsistency. The fundamentals of gravity are the same here as they are on Earth, and so their should be some internal consistency in the numbers. Higher speed yet less energy??? GAH!

I'm sure the fact that i'm a physics major has something to do with this peeve of mine.
-Fizz

Fizz wrote:
I'm sure the fact that i'm a physics major has something to do with this peeve of mine.
-Fizz

It has a lot to do with it. I'm an ancient history major and I get into the same peeves. Just ask my wife and friends.

Here's the helpful advice they give me when I'm frothing about Romans ridding horses with stirups or Ancient Egyptians using steel long swords, "Get over it."

Doesn't make it all just go away?

JediOre wrote:
[Doesn't make it all just go away?

No, because i'm an amateur military history buff myself, so i'd get the same peeves there too.
-Fizz

Fizz wrote:
Again, i was assuming identical ammunition.

However, weight does not significantly affect flight distance assuming you have the same release speed. Drag may have a lesser impact, so the heavier object may not slow down quite as much. However, you need really significant speeds (artillery) to see significant changes from this. (You of course need more energy to get that same release speed.)

-Fizz

I think keeping track of different arrows is way too much. And one could be lead to believe they were all the same type since there is just that one entry on the list.

Just as melee combat involves a bit of abstraction, so too does ranged combat. While one attack roll is supposed to simulate one arrow's flight (unlike melee attacks) the actual round is long enough to afford more then one shot. So we are to assume this is one well aimed shot then a slew of let fly types. A traditional noncomposite bow depends on wind for accuracy moreso then the composite bows. So the archer could be assumed to hesistate until the most favorable breeze in that round before firing. The composite shooter is less concerned with wind. This allows a bowshooter to match the distance but not the force of a composite shooter. And ,realistically speaking, the crossbow was much deadlier (at shorter ranges) then the longbow for it's armor piercing potential. So much dealier, in fact, that the Papacy outlawed the weapon as "unchristian" for a time.

So, we can conclude that a fair amount of realism is not involved with ranged combat (or any other combat for that matter). If, however, we should feel the need to add more realistic depth to ranged combat I would suggest that a composite get 25% additional distance (1d6 being approximately 75% of a 1d8 in potential).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Fizz wrote:
Not at all. If you're using identical ammunition, the dissipation of energy will be identical at any given speed. The arrow doesn't "know" how it got up to that speed. The bow doesn't impact the drag coefficient of the arrow.

And regardless of bow used, the arrow is going to lose a certain fraction of its speed on its way to the target. But that applies to any arrow, and is not dependent on the bow.

I realize that C&C is not a physics simulation (else magic would really piss me off ). However, this particular issue is about inconsistency. The fundamentals of gravity are the same here as they are on Earth, and so their should be some internal consistency in the numbers. Higher speed yet less energy??? GAH!

I'm sure the fact that i'm a physics major has something to do with this peeve of mine.
-Fizz

Sorry, I did not complete my reasoning. Consider the material of which each bow is done. Not all material is efficient the same way. So, normal bows might dissipate part of the potential energy of the puller, whereas composites do not. So with arrows of the same weight, you get different effects.

Overall, no physical model could really predict how a bow will behave in the real world (fluid mechanics, tensile strength of materials, nonuniform pull, Newton laws which are only approximate etc.)

But if you are happy with tinkering these aspects, more power to you
Cheers,

Antonio

CharlieRock wrote:
I think keeping track of different arrows is way too much. And one could be lead to believe they were all the same type since there is just that one entry on the list.

I recall 2nd Ed AD&D had 2 arrow types, flight and sheaf. The flight had longer range, while the sheaf did more damage.

Quote:
A traditional noncomposite bow depends on wind for accuracy moreso then the composite bows.

That makes no sense. What is the logic behind that?

Quote:
And ,realistically speaking, the crossbow was much deadlier (at shorter ranges) then the longbow for it's armor piercing potential. So much dealier, in fact, that the Papacy outlawed the weapon as "unchristian" for a time.

I don't think that it was `deadlier', but rather that it was so easy to use. An expert archer took years to train. But any peasant could pick up a crossbow, pull a trigger, and easily kill a knight.

And crossbow bolts are an entirely different beast than arrows, so the analogy gets much trickier.

-Fizz

rabindranath72 wrote:
Sorry, I did not complete my reasoning. Consider the material of which each bow is done. Not all material is efficient the same way. So, normal bows might dissipate part of the potential energy of the puller, whereas composites do not. So with arrows of the same weight, you get different effects.

So, you're suggesting that composites essentially launch the arrow at a higher speed, because less energy is lost during the act of loosing the arrow. I can agree with that. I'm not arguing that composites are more efficient.

But when it comes to damage and range, efficiency of the bow is not the issue, it's the final amount of energy imparted to the arrow. That energy affects both range and lethality. If one goes up, so must the other.

If the composite shortbow can do more damage than a longbow, then it should also outrange the longbow. You can't just mix-match the ranges and damages, not for the same ammunition.

Quote:
Overall, no physical model could really predict how a bow will behave in the real world (fluid mechanics, tensile strength of materials, nonuniform pull, Newton laws which are only approximate etc.)

But if you are happy with tinkering these aspects, more power to you

Actually, you can get pretty close. A bow is just a spring, and the linear spring equations work pretty well in predicting how much power is imparted.

-Fizz

Had C&C given explanations of the weapons, there would be differences between the various weapons, other than EV and damage; for example, short bows are generally usable while mounted, and a composite bow requires a greater strength to pull, due to the nature of the construction process. Lastly, the ammunition would not be identical; the shaft size is different, both in length and breadth, but the real measure of an arrow's damage is the head and the speed of impact against the struck surface. A short bow arrow is often a tad wider (more surface area hitting the target) than that of a long bow arrow (thinner but longer) giving it more puncture; effectively, it "balances" to the same damage, in essence, because one is hitting you with more, but the other is hitting you "deeper."

serleran wrote:
but the real measure of an arrow's damage is the head and the speed of impact against the struck surface. A short bow arrow is often a tad wider (more surface area hitting the target) than that of a long bow arrow (thinner but longer) giving it more puncture; effectively, it "balances" to the same damage, in essence, because one is hitting you with more, but the other is hitting you "deeper."

The sheaf arrow with the bodkin tip was indeed long and narrow- designed to put all the energy into a single point to punch through armor. It was specifically designed for war. The broad arrow was a more general purpose arrow, good for hunting or unarmored opponents.
The Chronicle of Gerald de Barri desribed how an arrow from a longbow passed through the skirt of mail, through the wearers leg, then then into his horse, pinning the poor rider to his horse. Sounds like more than 1d6 to me.
But you're right, the damage should depend more on the arrow than the minor differences between a standard bow and its composite equivalent.

-Fizz

Heh, the arrow struck the leg.

Besides, HP does not equate to any measurable reality; one can take thirteen hits to the neck (1 point each) and not die if they have 14 HP... so perhaps axes should deal 1 point each as the executioner's variety is well recorded as needing many blows before severance was achieved (and this is referencing one particular story from England)?

It is a mistake to apply simulation to abstraction.

But, I would likely have a shortbow deal 1d6 and a longbow deal 1d8. The greater flexibility of the shortbow (ie, use it from horseback) makes it a better weapon.

Fizz wrote:
That makes no sense. What is the logic behind that?

-Fizz

A bit warped.

If force propels an object in one direction stronger then a second object it would take a stronger force to alter its course then the second object.

Composite bows used more force to propel an object and would need a stronger wind to alter it to the same degree a bow with less pull would.

See?
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Fizz wrote:
I don't think that it was `deadlier', but rather that it was so easy to use. An expert archer took years to train. But any peasant could pick up a crossbow, pull a trigger, and easily kill a knight.

And crossbow bolts are an entirely different beast than arrows, so the analogy gets much trickier.

-Fizz

I would say it was deadlier. It had a fearsome impact that pierced plated armor more easily then regular bows. This was what freaked out the papacy. Noblemen, who trained all their lives, were getting taken down with a quickness by (relatively) untrained peasants. It was unthinkable.

It had many drawbacks. But shortranged armor-piercing mounted troop-killing was not one of them.

I want to say there was a write-up in Crudaser. But, I could check some of my books if you want. I keep them in the basement.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

If you can point to a source where Noblemen were freaked out by the power of the Cross Bow, I would be interested to read it. The one that usually gets cited is the Papal condemnation of the the use of the Cross Bow against other Christians and their sale to Non Christians. What people usually leave out is that the same condemnation is made of Bows in general and that war materials are often forbidden for sale to enemies (For instance, Charlemagne forbid the sale of swords to foreigners).

As for Bows, my House Rule, for what it's worth, is this:
Short Bow

Damage: 1D6

Short Range: 90'
Long Bow

Damage: 1D6

Short Range: 90'
Great Bow

Damage: 1D6

Short Range: 90'

Characters with Strength 13-15 can apply +1 to Hit and Damage with the Long Bow. Characters with Strength 16-17 can apply +2 to Hit and Damage with the Great Bow. Heavier versions of each Bow can be built as required. All to Hit Bonuses from Strength are in lieu of to Hit Bonuses from Dexterity. Shots taken from further than 90' suffer a culmative -1 to Hit and Damage penalty at increments of 90'.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Another option, which I am unsure whether it has been considered, is to have damage reduce with range. For example:

Range increment = 50 feet

Short Bow - maximum range 250 feet (or whatever)

Long Bow - maximum range 500 feet (or whatever)

Composite Short Bow - maximum range 400 (or whatever)

Composite Long Bow - maximum range 650 feet (or whatever)

Short bow deals 1d6 up to 3 range increments but reduces to 1d4 beyond this

Long bow deals 1d8 up to 5 range increments but reduces to 1d6 thereafter

Composite short bow deals 1d6 at any range increment

Composite long bow deals 1d8 at any range increment

jamesmishler wrote:
Try this then:

Primitive Bow: 1d4 damage, 50 ft. range, 20 gp, EV 2

Short Bow: 1d6 damage, 60 ft. range, 30 gp, EV 3

Short Composite Bow: 1d8 damage, 70 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 3

Nomad Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 80 ft. range, 150 gp, EV 3

Long Bow: 1d8 damage, 100 ft. range, 75 gp, EV 4

Long Composite Bow: 1d10 damage, 110 ft. range, 120 gp, EV 4

Elven Composite Bow: 1d12 damage, 120 ft. range, 240 gp, EV 3

I'll take one of the Nomad Composite bows, 2 Elven Composites, and one Long Composite. That's 750gp. Plus shipping, of course, and any taxes the Overlord requires. Do you prefer check or money order?

CharlieRock wrote:
A bit warped.

If force propels an object in one direction stronger then a second object it would take a stronger force to alter its course then the second object.

Composite bows used more force to propel an object and would need a stronger wind to alter it to the same degree a bow with less pull would.

See?

Well, sorta... kinda...

It does not take a stronger force in another direction to deflect the arrow. The wind, regardless of direction, will deflect the arrow with the same speed. A 10 mph crosswind will carry an arrow at 10 mph cross-wise, regardless of with what it's been shot. The arrow will be accelerated in the direction of the wind at the same rate, regardless of bow.

Now, if there is a significant difference in the time between the composite and non-composite bow hitting the target, then yes, that crosswind affects one more than the other. An arrow in the wind for a longer time will be deflected further.

The ranges given in the PH differ by only 10 feet. That means it's a very small difference in release speed, and the travel time difference would be maybe a tenth of a second.

So, i see what you're saying, and strictly speaking it's correct. But it's a very minor effect.

-Fizz

Damn vectors.

CharlieRock wrote:
I would say it was deadlier. It had a fearsome impact that pierced plated armor more easily then regular bows. This was what freaked out the papacy. Noblemen, who trained all their lives, were getting taken down with a quickness by (relatively) untrained peasants. It was unthinkable.

It had many drawbacks. But shortranged armor-piercing mounted troop-killing was not one of them.

I want to say there was a write-up in Crudaser. But, I could check some of my books if you want. I keep them in the basement.

Oh, i'm not saying that it wasn't actually deadlier. It depends on the specific weapons we're comparing of course. A longbow at close range could easily drive though plate armor too. I just mean that the primary reason for it being banned was ease of use.

-Fizz