Longbow & Composite Longbow

[SableWyvern]

Although I have no practical experience (nor know any archers) I have to agree with dvvega.

Although I think I allowing some crossover in bow proficiencies feats etc... is reasonable, doing so is really a matter of easing things for players rather than increasing reality.

A composite longbow (which I would assume represents many of the better Middle Eastern composites) is at least as different from the longbow as the long bow is from the short bow, if not more-so.

The most logical (from a historical perspective) crossovers, IMHO, would be for composites and their mighty variants, and possibly composites in general (ie, both long and short).

Actually, I think that rather than distinguishing composites by their length, the matter of material composition, quality of curing et al should be more important factors - eg, true composite bows vs semi-composites (one including horn and sinew, the other only differing woods) etc..

 

[AGGEMAM]

DVVEGA, it is true that a compound bow is very different from a longbow, but a compound bow is not the same as a composite longbow.

A longbow is made of a straight stick of wood usually ash.

A composite longbow is made of tiny altenating layers of wood usually oak, bone, and even metal.

A compound bow is made of wood and metal gets its pull from using pullies.

It is like comparing apples, pears, and oranges respectively.

While the apple and pear (longbow and composite) are different fruits, the are in the same family. While the orange (compound) is also a fruit, it is an entirely different family.

 

[dvvega]

aggeman: you are correct, however the compound and the composite bows are closer to each other in the required strength for pulling.

A composite bow is made from composite layered materials to keep it's curve, even when not strung. Also known as a recurve bow.

A longbow does not keep it's curve when not strung.

The compound bow (which is our modern day advancement) is a recurve bow but with a strong pull requirement. This would equate to the might composite in D&D (IMO).

For an archer to draw a recurve bow, he needs a different technique to when drawing a straight bow. Feasibly the proficiency should be different, and definately the Weapon Focus should be.

 

[AGGEMAM]

DVVEGA, you are also correct.

However, I don't see a problem in applying the proficiency to both in view of the precedent presented.

Try looking at a whip and a whip dagger, I would say they require totally different techniques as well, but for some reason if you are proficient in one you are also proficient in the other.

I'm taking a relaxed rule call here, which I'm not otherwise known to do.

 

[dvvega]

AGGEMAN: If you check my original post I stated that sharing the proficiency was okay

What I didn't agree with was giving Weapon Focus the same sharing.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I'd allow it simply because few to no 1st level characters can afford composite bows. It's just nice to let them switch up from the regular bow to the good one.

 

[AGGEMAM]

AGGEMAN: If you check my original post I stated that sharing the proficiency was okay

What I didn't agree with was giving Weapon Focus the same sharing.

I agree completely.

I would also rule that if you use a Wakizashi which is equivalent to a masterwork shortsword, you should have a separate WF for that.

However, I would you to switch the WF once, as suggested in S&F.