D&D 5E L&L December 1st design finese. Part 2

[Texicles]

...Hence, you have to hold the bow at least far enough away from the target to enable the arrow to accelerate as it moves forward as it is pushed by the string as the tension leaves the string. I'm not sure how many centimetres this would be...

Assuming the English longbow as the paradigm and considering varying historical accounts of its dimensions, draw length should be about 30" (~76 cm), brace height 6-6.5" (~15-16 cm) with an arrow length of 36" (~91 cm). In order for such a bow to reach its maximum velocity, the target must be greater than 30" away from the bow.

Assuming a proper stance, with an anchor point roughly above the center of mass, that places the body of the archer 60" (or 5') from the target to fire the bow and have it successfully release the nock from the string (maximum velocity).

It's worth mentioning that an arrow that impacts a target before it has left the bow is still more than capable of killing, but I'm not sure of the math and I'm not willing to risk injury or death, let alone my bows to test the minimum length of travel.

...But that is because you have nothing to block with, and an opponent has a chance to disarm your weapon, not because shooting people that are 5ft away is hard.

It's not exactly easy either. Let's assume in these examples, you're using the longbow described above and your target moves through half his square (2.5') laterally to try not to get shot. At 5' you must move the bow ~7.5" to maintain your point of aim. At 10', it drops to 3.75" and at 15' it's 2.5" You must also rotate your upper body fast enough, but with enough control to keep from swinging past the target. I know 7.5" doesn't seem like a lot of movement to do precisely, but if some jerk is trying to lop off your dome, it is.

This is why, in defensive pistol training, when someone is pointing a weapon at you, close distance, no cover, you side-step at the same time as you draw. Forcing them to arc their aim to track you does make a difference.

 

[Texicles]

Technically, they do. It's just that the acceleration takes place very close to the point where it is released.

What you're describing (and the graph is illustrating) is the acceleration of the arrow from release (when you release the string from your fingers) until the arrow leaves the string. The arrow is not in flight until it is no longer being accelerated by the string, after which there is no more horizontal acceleration.

 

[pemerton]

Assuming the English longbow as the paradigm and considering varying historical accounts of its dimensions, draw length should be about 30" (~76 cm), brace height 6-6.5" (~15-16 cm) with an arrow length of 36" (~91 cm). In order for such a bow to reach its maximum velocity, the target must be greater than 30" away from the bow.

Assuming a proper stance, with an anchor point roughly above the center of mass, that places the body of the archer 60" (or 5') from the target to fire the bow and have it successfully release the nock from the string (maximum velocity).

Thanks for working that out.

It's worth mentioning that an arrow that impacts a target before it has left the bow is still more than capable of killing, but I'm not sure of the math and I'm not willing to risk injury or death, let alone my bows to test the minimum length of travel.

I was wondering about this. I have no idea of the maths.

 

[Mistwell]

What you're describing (and the graph is illustrating) is the acceleration of the arrow from release (when you release the string from your fingers) until the arrow leaves the string. The arrow is not in flight until it is no longer being accelerated by the string, after which there is no more horizontal acceleration.

Yes.

 

[howandwhy99]

I would argue that wielding a weapon while in melee is partly defensive and partly offensive. If you have no weapon, you can't parry my attacks. You are defenseless and take a -4 penalty to AC. However, you can focus your actions to be wholly defensive and get that +4 back, but you won't be able to attack in return (i.e. act offensively) as your focusing solely on not being hit. If you rushed me without a weapon, you might be able to engage me in hand-to-hand or grappling combat, something different than melee, but I would typically get a chance to attack you when in range, if I was armed.

If you engage in melee with a bow, you can fire at your opponent. At least, if you're in a space where you can maneuver your bow around. Using a bow while grappling requires quite a bit more detail about who has who where, but I don't see anyone advocating for that option.

The big deal however is your bow basically sucks as a defensive weapon. Engaging in melee with all the blocks and parries means your bowstring will quickly break or snap and your wooden weapon will need repair before it can be fired again. You can try and avoid getting your bow struck while in a melee, but then you are going wholly defensive again and not attacking with it.

You might be thinking, "there has to be a middle ground. Some means by which I can block and parry with my bow and still knock and release aimed arrows with it." Maybe, but then we're talking about something like an armored bow or bowshield and a metal cord. Armor wears with combat and should be taken to an armorer to be kept in good shape, so too weapons and a weaponsmith. I don't know what your local bowyer will say when you tell him or her what you've been up to.

 

[Balesir]

Agree that the elves in question should have had more space. The reason for this is that the archer's sight picture must travel many more degrees of arc to maintain the same point of aim on a target 5' away, moving around in a 5' square, than that archer's sight picture would have to travel to maintain the same point of aim on a target of increasing distances away, moving around in a 5' square. Because geometry.

True, but with moving targets further away you have to allow for arrow flight time. I have shot at moving targets (no, not living - just running down a wire slide or swinging on a rope, so predictable direction and acceleration) with a longbow (~60lb draw 'hunting' type bow, FWIW) and at around 10 feet it's *hard* compared to a stationary target. Closer, with the target starting stationary, was easier by some margin, but if it was trying to hit me with a sword I'm thinking it would get harder again...

Like you, I am not prepared to try this!

You might be thinking, "there has to be a middle ground. Some means by which I can block and parry with my bow and still knock and release aimed arrows with it." Maybe, but then we're talking about something like an armored bow or bowshield and a metal cord. Armor wears with combat and should be taken to an armorer to be kept in good shape, so too weapons and a weaponsmith. I don't know what your local bowyer will say when you tell him or her what you've been up to.

If I'm stood next to a guy with an edged weapon trying to kill me, my bow getting damaged is going to be fairly low on my list of priorities. I think any rule should dissuade archers from *deliberately* going in to shoot in melee, but the idea that they will decline to use a bow to defend (or attack) if caught by an armed attacker seems unlikely, to me.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

The big deal however is your bow basically sucks as a defensive weapon. Engaging in melee with all the blocks and parries means your bowstring will quickly break or snap and your wooden weapon will need repair before it can be fired again. You can try and avoid getting your bow struck while in a melee, but then you are going wholly defensive again and not attacking with it.

We have to remember that medieval sword combat was less about blocking and parrying than it was about just killing the other guy. If I have a bow and some guy is getting close to me, my only chance is to kill or disable him with one shot, rather than trying to block or parry. Same is true for melee weapons, except that they're much better for that sort of thing.

 

[Bluenose]

We have to remember that medieval sword combat was less about blocking and parrying than it was about just killing the other guy. If I have a bow and some guy is getting close to me, my only chance is to kill or disable him with one shot, rather than trying to block or parry. Same is true for melee weapons, except that they're much better for that sort of thing.

So all the sections in various medieval fighting manuals about defensive stances, different types of parries and blocks, and how to turn these into effective attacks; these weren't actual practice? I rather doubt that they were put in to be ignored.

 

[howandwhy99]

In OD&D a combatant typically gets only 1 melee attack a round. It's not a single sword swing, but a full minute of swordplay. If you land a blow significant enough to stick another, crush them, or cut them up, then you roll HP damage. Cuts and bruises, dented armor, lots of maneuvering around, blocks, feints, parries, thrusts, and such are abstracted. They just don't rise to the level of an actual hit or hp loss or whatever else the game is accounting for. That one hit may be several in a round dealing the resulting damage.

Opportunity attacks occur when someone within melee range of you drops their defenses for whatever reason, but characters still only have the 1 melee attack per round. So if you already acted this round, you do not gain a 2nd attack attempt when someone else drops their defenses to, say, knock and fire a bow at you. You already took your initiative for the round pressing in to attack or whatever other action. Add to this rerolled, variable initiative each round and its becomes harder to predict all the consequences of an action during combat. Each round grants combatants initiative status again, but do you delay until the other acts or try and land your blow first? They might lower their defenses granting you an easier chance to hit. Of course, they might down you in a single blow too.