[RL History] Why is the longbow better than the shortbow?

[Aaron2]

So, yeah, I agree. An 80lb bow should hit you like an 80lb bow, regardless of whether it is short or long. I think what you are seeing in the ruleset is the assumption that longbows are going to have a higher draw in general, hence greater range, damage, etc. D&D is full of compromises like that. Some will say that combat/armor/weapons in D&D bear very little resemblence to real life. Others will say, it's a game, it's good enough, let's play!

The problem for me comes with Mighty bows. A Mighty (+1) shortbow and a Mighty (+1) longbow both require the same Strength of 12, so should have similar draws. Yet one does more damage than the other.


Aaron

 

[Utrecht]

The problem for me comes with Mighty bows. A Mighty (+1) shortbow and a Mighty (+1) longbow both require the same Strength of 12, so should have similar draws. Yet one does more damage than the other.


Aaron

Well, there is part of your problem - looking for reality in your D&D game..

That being said I see two solutions to your issue.

1) Rule 0 stating that there are no mighty shortbows - it is simply a contradiction.

2) Assume that short bows can not match the draw of a longbow and State that the "mighty" in mighty shortbows comes not from increased drawing power - but from any of the following - increase stabity - allowing force to be applied better, superior construction allowing draw to be focused better.

 

[johnsemlak]

First off, one reason the Longbow is viewed as superior might be that the English Longbowman (who as noted above was often Welsh) has been somewhat romanticized by English-speaking historians. I'm not saying the Longbow wasn't effective, but that should be taken into consideration.

What was the pull strength of the Mongol and Turkish bows? I remember a history professor saying that it was over 200, compared with the roughly 80 of the longbow. Is that true?

 

[Nifft]

The Exalted distinction of Selfbow, Longbow and Composite Bow seems to be a good one. Remove the silly "Composite Long" & "Composite Short" distinction, and just have composite bows do 1d8+X damage.

-- N

 

[Umbran]

The problem for me comes with Mighty bows. A Mighty (+1) shortbow and a Mighty (+1) longbow both require the same Strength of 12, so should have similar draws. Yet one does more damage than the other.

Hm. I tend to avoid puttign real-world physics into things, but I'll make an exception.

The "draw" is not the only factor. Consider a modern composite bow - with it's recurve, pulleys, etc, to a an old-style bow. For the same "pull", the modern bow puts more oomph into the arrow. The specifics of engineering matter.

Comparing the "draw" or "pull" of bows is only reliable for bows of the same basic size and construction. Increasing the draw allows for increased damage, but does not fully make up for the other parts of engineering - so a shortbow with heavy pull will it harder than a normal shortbow, but it won't hit as hard as a longbow with the same pull.

 

[Endur]

I agree with the other comments in the post.

The English Longbowmen were effective for many reasons:
1) trained all their life, i.e. high level archers with a PRC
2) Their bow had a heavier pull than the average European hunting bow

Likewise, the Mongol archers with short composite bows were effective
1) trained all their life, i.e. high level archers with a PRC
2) Their bow had a heavier pull than the average short bow

 

[Hand of Evil]

See the following...

http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm

 

[AnthonyJ]

The problem for me comes with Mighty bows. A Mighty (+1) shortbow and a Mighty (+1) longbow both require the same Strength of 12, so should have similar draws. Yet one does more damage than the other.

That would be because of the draw length and force curve. The energy of a draw is proportional to (force * distance); in the case of a short bow, the distance is less.

Of course, realistically a composite bow should do more damage than a regular bow, given otherwise similar size and strength (it's more efficient). A modern compound bow does even better, but would be rather out of genre.

 

[Halivar]

Mongol Hordes were effective archers because they could shoot from horseback. This single factor put them head and shoulders above anything else on the steppes.

Now, put them up against English longbowmen, and they won't even make it to firing distance. If you'll recall the scene from Braveheart, the English lost because they insisted on the silly outmoded idea that they ought to be sending cavalry in when their longbowmen were doing well enough. It's that same silly idea that lost northern France for Britain. I forget the name of the pivotal battle, but English men-at-arms in fullplate charge right through a French mud field; they all get stuck in the mud, and the French just walk throught he mud field, sticking daggers through their visors. Bad.

Part of me has always wanted to rule that longbows penetrate armor. But then, I have to restrain myself from introducing RL stuff into D&D all the stinkin' time.

 

[johnsemlak]

I forget the name of the pivotal battle, but English men-at-arms in fullplate charge right through a French mud field; they all get stuck in the mud, and the French just walk throught he mud field, sticking daggers through their visors.

It wasn't portrayed in Braveheart, but is that the battle of Bannockburn (1314)?