My friend wants his Archer build improved...

"Imagine how useless a fixed position bow would be."

There is such a thing, the clever engineers of the past called this invention the Ballista and it is very, very powerful. It can shoot through multiple armoured men who happen to be standing behind each other. I'd re-evaluate the position that bracing is not required for extremely powerful draws.

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] Ballistae could aim up, down, left, and right; hence they are not fixed. Later age ballista engineers invented the universal joint for just this reason; they realized that a stationary weapon is fine, but a fixed one is not. Unless you can somehow put a universal joint (or some such device) on a composite bow, you don't have much of an argument there.

Ballistae were not grounded as a means to create more powerful draw, either. This was accomplished based on the invention of the torsion spring. In fact, the majority of ballistae used simple tripod bases when they weren't mounted to chariots or walls.

You do youself a disservice here. You know that a powerful draw needs stability. You know that a ballista, which has a very powerful shot, the tension required is too powerful for a man to draw, they are fixed in position and must be kept stable. You know that the spike idea on the bone bow is attempting to represent the same idea: it is not suitable for scenarios where it cannot be anchored properly.

This is one of those idiotic and pointless arguments on the internet that make all involved look childish. Why do otherwise intelligent people engage in this kind of bickering nonsense? It's not like we're even playing in the same game together. We certainly do not come across as clever to anyone else reading this. Quite the opposite.

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] My argument is that any stability granted by putting a bone spike in a soft surface can be matched or exceeded by bracing that same spike firmly against a boot; not that resistance isn't a factor in maximum pull strength.
The universal joint was invented specifically for ballistae to be able to aim after being set. Prior to this invention, many styles of ballistae had to be partially disassembled to adjust, which doesn't really help the other side of this argument.

It wouldn't be stable against a boot in my games but it may be in your games because your free to make that call, or at least your DM is, making this disagreement utterly pointless and both of us fools.

after 3-4 pages have we decided that the Bone Bow (which I couldn't use because we don't have Frostburn) is bad for my character

seriously though a few of you came up with nice ideas and I have worked them into a build but I don't know if I have missed anything

Fighter Level 1-12/Peerless Archer 1-3/?
Human
Human: Point Blank Shot
Level 1: Rapid Shot
Fighter 1: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Greatbow) (I know this is contended but I will leave it until I get a better feat to put here)
Fighter 2: Weapon Focus (Greatbow)
Level 3: Precise Shot
Fighter 4: Weapon Specialisation (Greatbow)
Level 6: Woodland Archer
Fighter 6: Manyshot
Fighter 8: Ranged Weapon Mastery (Piercing)
Level 9: Improved Rapid Shot
Fighter 10: Greater Manyshot
Fighter 12: Improved Precise Shot
...etc

Dandu said:

Click to expand...

my point EXACTLY!

Sekhmet said:

If you can brace it against an overhang, you can brace it against your own foot; assuming you've got a good stance.

Click to expand...

No. Not the same thing. Let apart the fact that its not mentioned in the text, it is a completely unsupported assumption. The counter forces provided from stable items or by the bow being anchored in the proper surface/material are much bigger than the ones you gain by bracing the bow against your own foot.

Moreover, the very fact that you use your own limb to do the job tells me that the body is not as free to get the maximum pull.

Sekhmet said:

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] A strong stance is much more resilient than ice or soil, especially a protruding overhang made of either.

Click to expand...

Umm... No. A strong stance is a strong stance, a thing on its own. It is irrelevant to our debate
A simple long bow, a composite longbow, a Bone Bow... or whatever bow you like, they all need a "strong" stance... if by strong we mean a "proper" stance, cause I can't give any other meaning to "strong" as you put it.

Now the Bone Bow, in order to "work" needs to be anchored on one side, then the user can attain the "proper" stance and use it. Without the bow being anchored the user does not have the required strength to pull the string, and thus, cannot attain the proper stance.

From what I've seen, you hold a normal bow from the middle.
In the case of our Bone Bow (or any other anchored bow), I imagine that when the bow is anchored by the bottom spike, you hold it above the middle, and when the bow is anchored by the top spike, you hold it bellow the middle. That's the only way it makes sense to me anyway...
Half of the force is provided by the anchorment and half the force provided you hand, whilst when using a normal bow there is one force and it is provided by your hand only.
I'm sure someone can explain it better than me, but I think I'm close to the general idea of how it works.

Sekhmet said:

Physically speaking, the spikes would be absolutely useless in a real-world scenario. Rooting one end of the bow will not help you pull the string, but it will affect the angles at which you can fire.
Imagine how useless a fixed position bow would be. Anyone with a shield would be immune to it, because the arrows are coming from a fixed angle. Anyone could crouch and the arrows would whiz over them. Anyone could move six inches left or right and be completely out of the path of the arrows. Small or smaller creatures could never be affected by it, and huge or larger would consider it a pin prick to the shin.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, or perhaps the angles depend on the flexibility you give to the bow on each shot... or by something else...

STILL, that doesn't justify your assumption that you can use your boot instead.

Sekhmet said:

[MENTION=85123]kingius[/MENTION] My argument is that any stability granted by putting a bone spike in a soft surface can be matched or exceeded by bracing that same spike firmly against a boot; not that resistance isn't a factor in maximum pull strength.

Click to expand...

I think you are entirely missing the point here. You do not use the anchorment for stability purposes. You use it so as to profit from extra force.

Moreover no one spoke of "soft" surfaces as you put it. Personally I spoke of pierce-able materials/surfaces. Ice, for example is not "soft", but is pierce-able.