Bow and Crossbow proficiency

[johnsemlak]

I have always felt making bows and crossbows, especially longbows, should be more difficult to learn. They required more intense training than most melee weapons.

I've thought of making all such weapons at least martial weapons, (in effect, upgrading light and heavy crossbows, I believe) and making the Longbow and perhaps the shortbow an exotic weapon. I thought this might better reflect the difficulty in learning to use such weapons.

Of course, there have been whole armies of bowman throughout history, so perhaps it was not that difficult to learn, but my reading on the subject has always indicated that bows required much more training, usually from boyhood, than most simple melee weapons.

Any thoughts?



Edit: I decided to edit instead of bumping the thread. I'm pretty conviced by what rangerwickett and fast learner posted. Can't argue with personal experience. I'll probably dump the idea.


V

 

[Fast Learner]

Well, I used a crossbow very effectively with about 60 seconds of training, and learned to use a bow very effectively with about an hour of training. It takes many, many hours of practice to become good at using a bow, but it doesn't take long at all to become as good as you're going to be at using a crossbow.

Are you talking about creating bows and crossbows or using them?

 

[RangerWickett]

I gotta disagree, just from my boyscout and fencing club experience.

Shooting a bow is pretty easy. Once you master the basics, all it comes down to is getting used to gauging distance and keeping your hands steady. A reason training in bows took a long time in the middle ages was to make sure people were strong enough to use the danged things. I seem to recall reading that an English archer had one arm significantly bigger than the other. Great strength is very important for longbows.

Crossbows were very easy. That's why they were outlawed. Too easy for a peasant to conceal one and kill a noble.

Compare this to learning to fight with a foil or saber (and probably a rapier would be even harder). You have to learn how to outmaneuver your opponent's blade, how to react quickly and defensively, and how to control the thrust of your blade from different angles. A bow you almost always fire straight, or at a slight upward arc. With a foil, you can thrust straight, or stab in from one side, dip low and stab upward, etc. Make it a full saber, and you can slash as well.

I think they're about equally difficult to master. Bows require keen aiming at a distance, while swords require lots of quick movements and different tactics. They require different skill sets, but neither is really exotic.

A whip being exotic makes sense, because you can do freaky things with whips that you wouldn't expect, because of the way they twist and the way waves travel down them. Whips are danged fun. I want a nice bullwhip for Christmas some time.

 

[johnsemlak]

using them

well, I don't have much experience in using them, so that's a useful insight.

still, aren't modern bows and crossbows, particularly bows, much easier to use than their medieval counterparts?

It must be remembered that, the the reason the musket replaced bows in the early days wasn't because they were more powerful, but rather because it was much easier to train an army to use them (albeit, I'm don't intend to compare the ease of using bows vs muskets).

 

[Fast Learner]

still, aren't modern bows and crossbows, particularly bows, much easier to use than their medieval counterparts?

I don't think so. The design of the basic bow hasn't really changed at all, but for adding a little recurve (compound bows are another matter). Crossbows haven't really changed, either.

As to muskets replacing crossbows because they're easier to use: well, hmm. I can see some ways that they're easier: muskets don't require much strength to load while crossbows certainly do, and you can probably carry more ammunition more easily. On the downside they take longer to load. I imagine they have considerably better penetration than crossbows.

Still, from personal experience both crossbows and bows are pretty darned easy to use, and I'm a pretty physically inept guy.

 

[Buttercup]

I learned to shoot a bow (think short bow) when I was a skinny little 7 year old girl. It took me about half an hour to learn to shoot, and about 6 weeks to become very good indeed. So my take on this issue is the opposite of yours, John.

I think the shortbow should be classified as a simple weapon, and in fact, in my games, it is. Composite bows require more skill to manufacture, but a regular bow can be made from a piece of springy wood, and a long piece of gut. The only tool you need to make one is a knife. (Not to say that you can't make a more elaborate bow. I'm thinking of bare minimums here.)

 

[Zappo]

As to muskets replacing crossbows because they're easier to use: well, hmm. I can see some ways that they're easier: muskets don't require much strength to load while crossbows certainly do, and you can probably carry more ammunition more easily. On the downside they take longer to load. I imagine they have considerably better penetration than crossbows.

I read in several places that a crossbow bolt could pierce through a surprisingly thick plate of steel. I wouldn't be surprised if a good crossbow had better penetration than a relatively primitive firearm.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Oh, I don't know...

In England, yeoman werew required by law to practice, practice, practice with the longbow indefinitely, in order to achieve and maintain the ability to strike a man-sized target at 200 paces or so.

I think most of our experience (including mine) in scouts and what not, is with a bow of 1/2 or 1/3 the draw weight (or even less), and against a target much nearer--not to mention, one not intent on killing us.

(Note: This is leaving aside the issue of modern compound bows and pin sights.)

As for crossbows, they are extremely easy to aim at short range, but are much less so at longer ranges due to the trajectory.

As a final observation, short(self)bows were extremely common hunting wepons with the untrained masses.

Now, how to model all of this if you're attempting to reflect this in your game?

How about something like this...

Crossbows and Shortbows used with simple proficiency have a penalty of -3 per range increment, rather than -2. While those used with martial proficiency suffer the standard -2.

Longbows used with simple proficiency have a range increment penalty of -4, those with martial a -3, and those with exotic have the standard -2.

Or something like that--I haven't looked at a 3e PHB in quite a while.

Note: I'm not saying this should be a general change in the rules. It's just an attempt to model the 'reality' I posited.

 

[Fast Learner]

I think that's a good way to go, Thorvald. Good thinking.