csperkins got it go'n on - psionics

[Matthew]

csperkins1970 wrote:
I wanted padded armor (and leather jerkins) to be less protective than cuir bouilli. At the same time, I didn't want to bump up all other armors to accommodate padded armor having a +2 AC bonus.

Fair enough; any particular reason you want Leather Cuir Bouilli to be better protection than a Padded Gambeson?

csperkins1970 wrote:
For bows, I'm no expert so I just went with a differentiation between "stick" bows and "composite bows". My thinking was that composite bows, because they are made from layered materials, would be able to better make use of higher strength "pulls".

I just got this from Wiki:

Almost all composite bows are also recurve bows as the shape curves back away from the archer; this design gives higher draw-weight in the early stages of the archer's draw, so storing somewhat more total energy for a given final draw-weight. It would be possible to make a bow of wood that has the same shape, length and draw-weight as a traditional composite bow, but it could not store the energy and would break at full draw.

Heh, heh. well, whilst I wouldn't put too much reliance on Wikipedia, you might want to check out the English Long Bow and Long Bow entries to read about the variance in pull weight possible (50-200 lbs). Very strong Long Bows are certainly possible and they require very strong users. Composite Bows just use a different construction method (and may result in higher draw weights on shorter staves or easier construction).
_________________
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)

[csperkins1970]

Matthew wrote:
Fair enough; any particular reason you want Leather Cuir Bouilli to be better protection than a Padded Gambeson?

For simplicity's sake and because, traditionally in D&D, leather armor has afforded better protection than padded.

Matthew wrote:
Heh, heh. well, whilst I wouldn't put too much reliance on Wikipedia, you might want to check out the English Long Bow and Long Bow entries to read about the variance in pull weight possible (50-200 lbs). Very strong Long Bows are certainly possible and they require very strong users. Composite Bows just use a different construction method (and may result in higher draw weights on shorter staves or easier construction).

That's why I'd give all longbows 1d8 damage and short bows would only do 1d6. Realistically, a longbow should deal considerably more damage (pinning plate armored knights to their mounts is no small feat) but, in the interest of "fairness" and game balance, I used the d8. I could add a bit to the bow description that allows "stick" bows to add STR bonuses up to a certain point while allowing composite bows to surpass that but I went the short and sweet route.

Since I'm editing, maybe I'll redo this... hmmmm.

[Matthew]

csperkins1970 wrote:
For simplicity's sake and because, traditionally in D&D, leather armor has afforded better protection than padded.

Huh? I think you are in error. D20 was the first version of D&D to differentiate between Padded Armour and Leather Armour. Both provide AC 8 in AD&D.

csperkins1970 wrote:
That's why I'd give all longbows 1d8 damage and short bows would only do 1d6. Realistically, a longbow should deal considerably more damage (pinning plate armored knights to their mounts is no small feat) but, in the interest of "fairness" and game balance, I used the d8. I could add a bit to the bow description that allows "stick" bows to add STR bonuses up to a certain point while allowing composite bows to surpass that but I went the short and sweet route.

Since I'm editing, maybe I'll redo this... hmmmm.

Don't believe everything you read. That account of an arrow pinning a man to a horse is the archery equivalent of a man in full harness being cut in half by a sword [i.e. likely exaggeration]. There are as many, perhaps more, accounts of armour resisting arrows than not. That said, it's a controversial subject area.

The way I currently handle this:

Bow - 1d6 Damage.

Characters may apply their Strength Bonus in place of their Dexterity Bonus to hit with Bows. They may also use their Strength Bonus to damage with Bows. However, the following limitations apply:

Short Bow +0 Strength Bonus

Long Bow +1 Strength Bonus

Great Bow +2 Strength Bonus

Heavier versions of these Bows can be made to accomodate characters with higher strength ratings at the discretion of the DM and for an appropriate cost. Characters who attempt to use Bows that require a higher strength than they possess are considered to be non proficient in their use and may suffer additional penalties at the discretion of the DM.
_________________
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)

[csperkins1970]

Matthew wrote:
Huh? I think you are in error. D20 was the first version of D&D to differentiate between Padded Armour and Leather Armour. Both provide AC 8 in AD&D.

You are correct sir. I guess I based this on C&C and 3rd edition. Either way I don't see this as much of an issue, as it provides an alternative for characters wanting REALLY light armor. It also gives an AC bonus to heavily armored characters who only have time to don their padded gambeson before a fight (such as when they are ambushed while camping).

Matthew wrote:
Don't believe everything you read. That account of an arrow pinning a man to a horse is the archery equivalent of a man in full harness being cut in half by a sword [i.e. likely exaggeration]. There are as many, perhaps more, accounts of armour resisting arrows than not. That said, it's a controversial subject area.

The way I currently handle this:

Bow - 1d6 Damage.

Characters may apply their Strength Bonus in place of their Dexterity Bonus to hit with Bows. They may also use their Strength Bonus to damage with Bows. However, the following limitations apply:

Short Bow +0 Strength Bonus

Long Bow +1 Strength Bonus

Great Bow +2 Strength Bonus

Heavier versions of these Bows can be made to accomodate characters with higher strength ratings at the discretion of the DM and for an appropriate cost.

Longbows doing 1d6+1 or 1d8 leads to the same average (4.5 points on average) damage, so I'll probably keep that as is. As for the STR bonus being added to various types of bows... that's something I'll definitely consider switching.

I do appreciate the feedback, even when I don't use it to re-edit the rules. Thanks!

[Omote]

Same average but a better minimum. I'd go for the 1d6+1. But that is just me.
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Matthew]

csperkins1970 wrote:
You are correct sir. I guess I based this on C&C and 3rd edition. Either way I don't see this as much of an issue, as it provides an alternative for characters wanting REALLY light armor. It also gives an AC bonus to heavily armored characters who only have time to don their padded gambeson before a fight (such as when they are ambushed while camping).

To be honest, that's one of the reasons why I am happier with the +2 interpretation, as it means characters who have only time to put on their gambeson don't have a truly terrible AC. From a 'historical' perspective, a padded gambeson without mail is arguably better protection than mail without a padded gambeson and many medieval soldiers wore only a padded gambeson, being unable to afford mail. In D20, though, soldiers unable to afford mail buy leather!

As for truly 'light armours' I like to have some room between padded armour and no armour for furs, a very thick cloak, etc...

csperkins1970 wrote:
Longbows doing 1d6+1 or 1d8 leads to the same average (4.5 points on average) damage, so I'll probably keep that as is. As for the STR bonus being added to various types of bows... that's something I'll definitely consider switching.

Yep, I just switch it to 1d6 for the sake of consistancy and because I see 1d6 as the 'basic' damage die. 'Short', 'Long' and 'Great' Spears all do 1d6 in my games as well (though 1d8 when used Two Handed).

csperkins1970 wrote:
I do appreciate the feedback, even when I don't use it to re-edit the rules. Thanks!

No problem, mate. It's your document and it should reflect your preferences. I just enjoy airing my opinions.
_________________
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)

[Jason Vey]

serleran wrote:
Yes, think of it more as a double-convex bow, whether self or composite, would have greater tension and pull, increasing both range and penetration, due to closing the distance between tip and tip; they are also harder to draw back completely because of that. In my opinion, that would be the "strength bow."

Technically what you are describing is a recurve bow. A compound bow is, as has been previously stated, a specific type of modern bow that uses a pulley system and has nothing at all to do with the strength of the user (save you might not be able to draw one to its "break point" if it is set higher than you can handle). However, compund bows are in point of fact easier to draw than their traditional counterparts, as they are designed to have a "break" or "let off," which lessens the string tension for the wielder by about 20-30% after a certain point, making it easier to draw and hold, which with old bows (despite what you see in Lord of the Rings and Robin Hood) just wasn't done. With traditional bows you didn't draw, carefully aim, hold, and release. You raised, aimed, drew, and released. The draw and release was/is generally one fluid motion.

I know this because I archery hunt and have for 21 years.

Recurve bow:

Compound bow:

Longbow:

short bow

composite recurve bow (which I think serleran is referencing)

[serleran]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Jason Vey]

serleran wrote:
Thanks for proving my point.

Um...you called a composite recurve bow a compound bow. I was correcting your mistake, which was fairly substantial as it's an entirely different animal.

[Matthew]

If I understand Serleran right, he knew what he was saying. He has an odd sense of humour, you have to understand.
_________________
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)

[serleran]

Hehe, next we'll have a debate over whether a scorpion is a whirlwind, too.

[dcs]

Treebore wrote:
All you have to do is give credit where credit is due, since you aren't trying to make money off of it. Getting their permission would be best of all worlds, but as long as you say who the art belongs to (Hasbro/WOTC), then your pretty good to go. At least that is what the copyright law professors at Texas A&M told me.

Distribution of copyrighted works is illegal whether you do it for free or not and whether you give proper attribution or not. One exception is "fair use" (also see here).
_________________
Pied Piper Publishing - Rob Kuntz's Pathways to Enchantment
Castle Zagyg - Yggsburgh Expansions