lack lustor missle damage

[Dracyian]

Before this turns hostile let me state: Beef Wellington is delicious. I have a recipe for Basilisk similarly prepared in the "Dirty Bowbe's Roadhouse Recipes" cook book

C.

The real question is that do we have to kill the basilik in a standard melee all brauns no brain manner or can we use the fireballl necklace arrows on it, you know to "sear the flavor in"

[Bowbe]

The common tactic as I got it from the chief chef and bottle washer at the Roadhouse is to use caltrops to agitate its multiple legs then spear it in the back of the head with reach weapons to avoid damaging any of the good loin cuts.

[Snoring Rock]

I must put my hat in the ring here. I am an historic re-enactor and I build guns as a hobby. I own a Brown Bess musket, a Pennsylvania rifle (designed after the Jager -- German rifle), a smooth bore 1812 land service pistol and an 1804 Harper's Ferry (Louis & Clark expedition) rifle.

First, anyone with a bow and arrow loses hands down.

Given having the bowmen, accuracy is better, RoF is better, damage is sufficient. (Over the Brown Bess) Which is why he would have choosen the longbow option to fight Napoleon.

When YOU have as much actual period battlefield experience as Wellington I might take your evaluation over his... Until then, no.

Uh....Dude, if the bow was better than the gun, the gun would have faded into history. The arrows take much longer to make and are more expensive and take up space. The musket beat every arrow-toting culture that ever faced it, Hawaii, S. America, N. America, Mongolia, etc. And the rate of fire of a musket is not as bad as you think. You can even hit more than one target with same projectile. I fire one every 6 seconds. A rifle is slower, I give you that. And how many arrows can you shoot in 6 seconds? At close range I can take down 3 targets simultaneously in 6 seconds or less. A hand full of rocks can be loaded down the muzzle of the musket. At close range that just sucks. Ask the militia of 1780 in NC who faced the British who used them.

Accuracy of a bow? At 40 yards you start to stretch it. And that would be a compound bow with weighted sites. A long bow at 100 yards? No. It must be arched (thus the name archery) and lobbed at the target. When you shoot, you don't even look at the target, you look 60 ft. over their head. Good effect if there are 100 arrows raining down at random, but one archer vs. several aware targets at 100 yards+.....no way. On a windy day, you are out of luck.

As for Wellington, it does not take an expert to figure it out. Guns beat bows. History and technology are on my side. You and Wellington; well go get your bows.

Sorry, don't mean to be snarky, we need to just agree to disagree.

[Arduin]

Uh....Dude, if the bow was better than the gun, the gun would have faded into history.

Uh ... Dude, the Long bow (with a trained longbow man) WAS better than a soldier with a Brown Bess. You are generalizing while I'm being specific. Are you doing it on purpose or, just not reading what I'm posting???

[Dracyian]

I think it comes down to opinion ,bows are more accurate quieter and more dangerous but costly while guns were easier didn't require destringing and bullets were cheAper

[Crab_Daddy]

Frankly I feel the best solution is to leave the arrows behind all together and stick with the good ole godentag And if you really need some range just give it a good hurl, no ones going to question you when they have a spiked log of pain flying at them

[koralas]

Uh....Dude, if the bow was better than the gun, the gun would have faded into history.

Uh ... Dude, the Long bow (with a trained longbow man) WAS better than a soldier with a Brown Bess. You are generalizing while I'm being specific. Are you doing it on purpose or, just not reading what I'm posting???

A firearm, yes even the Brown Bess is far superior to the longbow, when considering mass combat, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is the amount of training required to use each weapon. The longbow has two main drawbacks in this regard. First, to become a good shot requires an extensive amount of training. Second, and more importantly, the strength required to use a longbow requires even more training than it does for accuracy.

Second, following on the second note above, the archers have to be careful lest they exhaust themselves. While an exceptional archer can get as many as 20 decently aimed arrows off in a minute, this would quickly exhaust the archer, and run a high risk of injury if attempted for an extended period of time. Most archers will loose 6-9 well aimed arrows in a minute.

Third, the crown must bend to the people to keep the archers well trained. This comes at a cost of power and treasure.

Fourth, most arrows would not penetrate plate armor that was growing in use prior to the use of the gun.

Fifth, supplying arrows to an squad of archers is no menial task. The length of time to craft, cost, weight, and bulk of the arrows are a logistical nightmare.

The Brown Bess in particular, but most muskets have the following traits.

A man can be trained quickly to utilize the weapon. It takes little skill to fire into a block of the enemy, and it does not take extraordinary strength or endurance.

Since a man can be trained quickly, levies can be raised and trained, relieving the burden of training and maintaining the skills of the missile troops.

On average 3-4 aimed shots per minutes could be taken. Yes the accuracy is much lower than the longbow, but when firing into a block of troops, this isn't critically important.

The bow had an advantage in range, but a single shot from a Brown Bess has much better armor penetration characteristics, and with a little luck, could take out multiple targets.

Plus, you can attach a bayonet to your gun...

The paper cartridge was much easier to transport in bulk, though still costly.

For those reasons, the generals of the day used the most advanced firearms available rather than the longbow.

Now if trying to hit a particular, individual target, a rifled firearm is better, and for the time, a longbow is still the best choice.

[Arduin]

A firearm, yes even the Brown Bess is far superior to the longbow, when considering mass combat, for a number of reasons.

Okay, gather 100 Longbow man, 100 carrying Brown Bess' and place them 100 paces apart. (which is what I'm talking about and you keep ignoring for some as yet unexplained reason)

The Longbowmen will massacre them. RoF & accuracy will do it.

[Bowbe]

Silly, and historically ludicrous (no offense). Despite its awesomeness, The English still lost battles when they had the longbow in their service, and in some cases they lost to guns.
Once this started happening they got wind and switched to the guns as well because they realized what everyone else already knew. Training a kid from 6 to the ripe old fighting age of 16 took forever. You can teach anybody to shoot a musket, and that anybody doesn't have to have the arm strength to pull an 80-100+ lb. draw.

Also Longbow=under 200 ft. per second. And I am being GENEROUS. Most give it sub 150 ft. per second.
Musket=1200-1600 ft. per second, about the same as a modern handgun, and yes, about as accurate at long range.

I believe the musketeers even have time to duck.

Even if you "win" with the bow (which in this case you probably wouldn't) at what cost? How many years before reinforcements are ready? Great weapon but it too had its day.

[KaiserKris]

The fact that the musket displaced the bow historically tells me that it had huge advantages, especially for mass combat. But as far as my opinion goes, longbows are cooler than muskets and thus I'm not terribly enthusiastic, personally, about most gunpowder weapons in my games.

I usually up longbow damage to d8, from d6, with composite versions of weapons simply doing +1 to damage and having a slightly longer range increment (10-20 feet). I usually allow rangers and fighters to attempt to shoot another arrow if they do not move at all in an action, with a successful SIEGE test. A light or hand crossbow has the advantage of being able to be fired from behind a shield (though reloading cannot be done thusly, though a large shield or pavise can be rigged to provide partial cover for reloading). I also allow wizards, illusionists and similar classes to use crossbows.

One could also allow a thief or ranger to attempt a sneak attack of sorts with a missile weapon with a successful SIEGE check.

Generally, I find that missile weapons hold their own in games. Everyone likes an option to hurt enemies before they lock into melee combat, or better yet, to avoid contact, period.

[koralas]

A firearm, yes even the Brown Bess is far superior to the longbow, when considering mass combat, for a number of reasons.

Okay, gather 100 Longbow man, 100 carrying Brown Bess' and place them 100 paces apart. (which is what I'm talking about and you keep ignoring for some as yet unexplained reason)

The Longbowmen will massacre them. RoF & accuracy will do it.

I'll take the 100 Brown Bess troops every time. Volley fire into a mass of troops at 100 paces is devastating. When an arrow strikes home in the volley it will almost always strike only a single target. The ball from a Brown Bess, when it strikes home has a chance of continuing on to strike a second, and rarely a third target. You may not hit the exact target you were aiming at, but often will hit someone in the mass of troops. Further, the troops with the Brown Bess will often reload on the march, drawing closer to the archers, and would eventually charge with bayonets set. Archers falling backwards will loose a shot or two on their rate of fire, the volley would not be as effective since the lines of engagement would not be consistent, and the time to aim will be lessened.

Scholars estimate the maximum range of longbow at 180-270 yards. The effective range of reliable accuracy ranged out 70-100 yards. And yes, the effective range for accuracy of the Brown Bess was 50-60 yards. But targeting accuracy is not as important when firing into a mass of troops, not hitting the target you are aiming at isn't as big a deal since you still have a good chance of hitting some target. Further if your enemy is out of your effective range, guess what, you move forward, you have to take that into account.

Individually at longer ranges, the bow is superior, and is far better for sniping. In blocks of formal engagements, the gun wins. History proves that; yet, you keep ignoring that fact.

[Bowbe]

KaiserKris. I'm with you on that. Another option (though probably broken) would be to allow additional attacks per dex bonus point in exchange for losing dex bonus "to hit", or even taking a penalty for the additional shots but your also talking a 6 second round right? (Or do I have systems all snarled again?) How many accurate shots in 6 seconds? Hmmm. Luckily its C&C so you can house rule any of this stuff any way you like it!