Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CaptainGemini" data-source="post: 6738256" data-attributes="member: 6801122">I have one question for you... Why are you hung up on the price of a arrow in an age where firearms were taking over the market? In the 1520s, the arquebus was one of the most common military weapons in usage; in 1518, you would have seen an ongoing military switch from longbows and similar weapons to firearms. Add in the fact that by that point armor had switched from trying to protect against arrows to trying to protect against bullets and you start to see arrows really lose their battlefield effectiveness.The price you're seeing is likely either from inflation due to a ramping down of industry as the military switched to the more advanced weaponry or military surplus being dumped on the market. Even more likely, both.Well, even today one of the hunting skills still taught related to bows and arrows is how to make your own arrows. Just in case you run out. Do you honestly think that hunters of the 1400s and 1500s, many of whom likely were poor by today's standards, would not have also known this skill and made use of it?The archaeological evidence backs me up on this. Military arrows were more frequently made, but at the same time had few design styles; this is indicative of mass production to set of military standards. Hunting arrows, on the other hand, had numerous design styles and even varied much more in materials used. This is more indicative of cottage industries and personal-use production, given the technology of the era.The longbow was also the military superweapon of Henry V's era, and unmatched in its destructive capacity. By 1518, it had mostly fallen by the wayside as the arquebus became more and more dominant on battlefields across Europe.My point is that you're judging the price of arrows without taking into consideration historical context outside of your limited resource and trying to make an argument that the arrows in DnD are unrealistic in price based on that misreading of history. The result is you have come up with an idea of arrow value that is even more unrealistic than that presented in DnD.Realistically-priced arrows are impossible to include in DnD, as it does not include realistic prices of most of its equipment. And is lacking some technology that was necessary for the development of some of that equipment.It does come from a military theory. The military theory of "soldier complain when their weapons explode in their faces."No, I'm not being snarky with that. That's actual spending policy for most militaries.The problem with low-cost ammunition is that it's usually also low-quality and, thus, low-effectiveness. Either this results in it shattering hopelessly against armor (arrows), or having very poor performance in general in firearms if not increasing chances of the gun to jam or even misfire... or worse. Plus, the military sees need for certain expensive specialized ammunitions that are very expensive that the public will never have a use for; armor-piercing ammunition, for example.So, in general, for your military you actually do want to splurge a bit on your ammunition because it generally does result in greater battlefield effectiveness.</blockquote>

Verification