Alternatives to bows

[MerakSpielman]

Crossbows were also, IIRC, far more powerful than most bows, something that doesn't get properly modeled, I think. I remember one historical footnote that a tavern in europe has a breastplate with a fist sized hole in it from a bolt; the breastplate isn't notable because of the hole but because the wearer survived.

I'd swear that this was from a description of an inn in Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series....

 

[MerakSpielman]

I think part of the problem is the additional training required to use a bow isn't adequately modeled in D&D. Sure, xbows are "simple" weapons and bows are "martial," but there's not any sort of difficulty involved in gaining the favorable "can use martial weapons" status. Just take a level of fighter, and BOOM, you can use every single martial weapon, without spending years of time practicing with them.

Imagine how the game would change with this little tweak (not suggesting anybody actually go for this, but it's worth discussing): All classes that currently provide Martial Weapon Proficiency (All) instead provide a single, free Martial Weapon proficiency feat for every 3 levels of such classes. Thus, a 9th level fighter (or Ftr5/Brb4) would be able to use 3 martial weapons proficiently.

This would model the fact that the ability to use such weaponry requires a certain level of dedication and practice...

 

[Darklone]

Merak: Welcome to some of my low level games

 

[irdeggman]

I'd swear that this was from a description of an inn in Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series....

Actually the most powerful hand held missile weapon in history was the English Longbow - which decimated the French. Well there was also the Japanese equivalent, but they are still bows and not xbows.

Beats the heck out of any xbow.

The advantage of xbows are, as someone pointed ut, they are easier to learn how to use.

 

[Rackhir]

I think part of the problem is the additional training required to use a bow isn't adequately modeled in D&D. Sure, xbows are "simple" weapons and bows are "martial," but there's not any sort of difficulty involved in gaining the favorable "can use martial weapons" status. Just take a level of fighter, and BOOM, you can use every single martial weapon, without spending years of time practicing with them.

Imagine how the game would change with this little tweak (not suggesting anybody actually go for this, but it's worth discussing): All classes that currently provide Martial Weapon Proficiency (All) instead provide a single, free Martial Weapon proficiency feat for every 3 levels of such classes. Thus, a 9th level fighter (or Ftr5/Brb4) would be able to use 3 martial weapons proficiently.

This would model the fact that the ability to use such weaponry requires a certain level of dedication and practice...

The same thing exists for taking an addtional level as a Wizard. It's D&D, there's a certain level of abstraction to these things. If it really bothers you then impose in game restrictions, like it takes a year of training to get that first level of fighter/wizard/cleric/etc...

But frankly it really doesn't matter. While it might vary by campaign, most characters pick two maybe three weapons and stick with those, the "additional" martial weapon proficiencies are essentially irrelevant.

 

[Unseelie]

Actually the most powerful hand held missile weapon in history was the English Longbow - which decimated the French. Well there was also the Japanese equivalent, but they are still bows and not xbows.

Beats the heck out of any xbow.

The advantage of xbows are, as someone pointed ut, they are easier to learn how to use.

Actually, recent evidence indicates that the English longbow had much less effect at Agencort(sp) than originally believed, and leaves the massive French losses on the shoulders of poor French leadership.

 

[MerakSpielman]

"most powerful" is also a deceptive term. There were bows with a greater accurate range. There were weapons that dealt greater amounts of damage. There were bows that could be wielded from horseback accurately. There were bows that were not quite as good, but cheaper and easier to make (and therefore saw greater use).

We've had the historical longbow discussion before, and there are some real pocket experts on the subject here. Let's try not to get too far off-topic, though.

Quote: Originally Posted by MerakSpielman
I'd swear that this was from a description of an inn in Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series.... ​

Actually the most powerful hand held missile weapon in history was the English Longbow - which decimated the French. Well there was also the Japanese equivalent, but they are still bows and not xbows.

Beats the heck out of any xbow.

The advantage of xbows are, as someone pointed ut, they are easier to learn how to use.

My point was the specific description (armor in an inn), with the story attached (survived the attack), seems very familiar to me, and from the above-mentioned fiction series, not from real life.

 

[LokiDR]

Actually the most powerful hand held missile weapon in history was the English Longbow - which decimated the French. Well there was also the Japanese equivalent, but they are still bows and not xbows.

Beats the heck out of any xbow.

The advantage of xbows are, as someone pointed ut, they are easier to learn how to use.

The crossbow was the only weapon made illegal by the papacy. The battle of Agincourt was won by French stupidity, not english bows. Their bows couldn't penetrate the steel plate worn by the french. The bow's effectiveness was its abilty to be fired en-masse and cover the field at range. This is not modeled in D&D.

However, I don't believe D&D should be historically accurate, I think it should stick to being a fun game. Any point where history is conflict, the game should win out.

 

[Sigma]

How about a wand projectile weapon? It could be a somewhat complicated undertaking to balance it and get the feel right. Make it a ranged weapon that does 1d6 (or even 1d4) force damage, ranged touch attack to hit. You wouldn't get the strength bonus, but then again, you could do some serious damage by virtue the low AC for touch attacks and things like sneak attack and rapid shot.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Off Topic
Except that, regardless of the factors in the Battle of Agincourt, the English longbow IS more powerful than hand-held crossbows. The reason is a matter of leverage: The length of bow and draw is much greater on a longbow than on a crossbow. Hence, a longbow can afford to have a much weaker apparent "pull" and still maintain arrow momentum. Which is why many crossbows were so strong as to require special equipment to pull back- they had to maintain power despite size considerations.

And PS: Longbows can penetrate plate armor quite well, provided said armor is struck at the proper angle. This angle isn't any different for bolts.