Why is archery the prefered combat style?

[Thanee]

And as I said, things like manyshot have nothing to do with realism.

But with Robin Hood.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Choranzanus]

This is just not true. (I'm a former champion archer, if an Appeal to Self-Authority won't annoy you too much.)

At least it explains your point of view.

First let me say that I don't want this thread to derail to something like "We, the English, are better than you, guys on the continent, because you never mastered archery." or something like that.

The point is in medieval Europe, bows were almost completely replaced by crossbows, even among the most elite shooters with years of training. This is true even for England, in fact.

It's true that crossbows have a flatter trajectory, but that's reflected in crossbows being simple weapon (i.e., easier to learn).

You know, if something has a flatter trajectory and is not lighter than arrow (as crossbow bolts are considerably heavier), than it probably hits harder. And historical sources corroborate this.

And only the heaviest of crossbows hits harder than a self bow with a respectable pull. (And heavy crossbows do hit harder than bows in D&D.) Once you start dealing with a seriously powerful draw, a self bow hits significantly harder than a crossbow. (And composite bows with high Strength bonuses do so in D&D.)

I would really like to know how you arrived at this conclusions.

I'm pretty sure GURPS has nice rules for the interaction of extra damage and reloading time. You could take a look there.

Yes, the rules in GURPS are actually pretty reasonable.

Again, if you want to reflect realism, your best best is to make bows exotic weapons. Becoming skirmish proficient with a bow could take years, compared to weeks or months with a crossbow.

I wonder why would you suggest such a thing, bows are not exotic weapons to someone from Europe. Two handed swords also take years to master.

 

[Elethiomel]

I wonder why would you suggest such a thing, bows are not exotic weapons to someone from Europe. Two handed swords also take years to master.

Because from a rule mechanics point of view, that would make bows significantly harder to learn than crossbows, so that they cost an extra feat. "Exotic" in DnD is used for weapons like the whip, which is certainly not "exotic" in the dictionary sense of "1. of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized: exotic foods; exotic plants." (dictionary.com)

Thus, "make bows an exotic weapon" means, "make bows cost a feat more", not "pretend bows come from a far-off land".

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The point is in medieval Europe, bows were almost completely replaced by crossbows, even among the most elite shooters with years of training. This is true even for England, in fact.

Because they are easier to learn. Crossbows didn't replace bows because they hit harder. They replaced bows because for the time and trouble of training one competent yeoman, you could train 20 competent crossbowmen. (Some element of mass production may have played a part, too, but that's just a guess.)

You know, if something has a flatter trajectory and is not lighter than arrow (as crossbow bolts are considerably heavier), than it probably hits harder. And historical sources corroborate this.

No, they don't. Both historical sources and empirical comparisons demonstrate that self bows and crossbows have about the same hitting power. Again, except for the heaviest of crossbows -- those that could not be cocked by hand-power alone.

A musket ball is lighter, with a flatter trajectory than an arrow, and an arrow hits much harder. Some of the more powerful archers in the world loose arrows that hit as hard as a .45 round.

I would really like to know how you arrived at this conclusions.

First, I've read on the subject extensively. Second, I've used both self bows and crossbows pretty extensively.

I wonder why would you suggest such a thing, bows are not exotic weapons to someone from Europe.

And a boomerang isn't an exotic weapon to an aboriginal tribesman. In D&D, "exotic" doesn't necessarily mean "strange and bizarre, from a far off land." It can also just mean "very difficult to master."

Two handed swords also take years to master.

Hey, if you wanna make greatswords exotic weapons, more power to you.

Sheesh. You try to help a guy ...

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

Cross bows vs Bows is like going to a gun board and askign wht is better AR15 or AK47 or 9mm vs .45 thoose debates are never finished.

Anyway historically Archers took a lot longer to train. We are talking military not adventurers. The Cross Bow took much less time to train on. This is a significant factor for military purposes. This is also one of the reasons why Nobles feared them more. A pissed commoner could use one easier to make his displeasure known than he could with a bow. This factor is shown in D&D with Xbows being simple weapons and bows being martial, though from a game stand point it doesn't really mean much. But to an army it would be significant.

If you want to read some really good Xbow/Bow debates pick up John Ringo's 'There Will Be Dragons' long and the short of it is a high tech society, the tech is equal to D&D magic falls. Fast. Over a day. They start a new society and military based on Roman Legion and USMC tactics. The arguments for bows, vs xbows is well done in the book. The book is also awesome as well. You KNOW Ringo has done some D&D when you read the book.

 

[werk]

Why is archery the prefered combat style?

Archer is more fantastical, less historical.

If something is proven to be more effective than something else from a historical perspective, guess what...boring!

 

[Choranzanus]

No, they don't. Both historical sources and empirical comparisons demonstrate that self bows and crossbows have about the same hitting power. Again, except for the heaviest of crossbows -- those that could not be cocked by hand-power alone.

A musket ball is lighter, with a flatter trajectory than an arrow, and an arrow hits much harder. Some of the more powerful archers in the world loose arrows that hit as hard as a .45 round.

Well that bows are better than muskets is certainly news to me.

First, I've read on the subject extensively. Second, I've used both self bows and crossbows pretty extensively.

Obviously, but you do not say what you have read or what weapons you used. It could be some fancy book on archery, as there are obviously many. But I see I am dragged into disscussion I wanted to avoid in the first place. Accurate replica crossbows are pretty difficult to come by, and I would guess this is similar (but slightly better) with bows so comparison is not easy.

And historical arguments cannot easily deny that elite shooters were crossbowmen. Granted they used those very heavy crossbows, but that is what we are speaking about.

EDIT: Please note, that I am not saying "crossbows are better than bows", but that the choice is nowhere near as obvious as you put it. Some people used crossbows and some used bows, and they obviously thought they had the better weapon.

 

[tzor]

As others have pointed out, it's not that crossbows were more powerful than bows, but that they were easier to use. The average English longbowman was training with the weapon from childhood. Any reasonable pesant could take up and be proficient with the crossbow. This was the reason why the Church banned the weapon for a while.

So let's consider the cimple commoner who is proficient with one simple weapon. He or she can use a crossbow without penalty. He would take a -4 penalty to use a bow. So you can train people in important stuff like farming and when there is a need to use them, give them all crossbows and let them at the enemy. (You can also give them training in the longspear which gives a reach attack.)

There is also another reason for the crossbow. It's a lot like those fancy cooking devices you see advertised on TV. "Just set it and forget it." You can have a crossbow all ready to go sitting on the ledge next to the arrowslit in the castle.

 

[tzor]

Well that bows are better than muskets is certainly news to me.

I think in general bows are better than muskets. It takes the evolution of the rifled barrel in order to give a solid advantge to the gun. Even in the 18th century they were massively innacurate. Of course the damage an arrow point does compared to a musket ball can be vastly different and depending on the circumstances can be far superior. And people forget that when used in large groups, the musket unit gets (or I should say they should get ...) instant concealment as soon as they fire their first volley. (This is how the term "fog of war" came about, the smoke from the muskets effectively provided concealment for the troops.)

On the other hand, both muskets and bows were typically used in volley formation not in targeting specific people. It wasn't until the invention of the rifled barrel that non volley tactics were used for guns. There are no good volley rules in the core d20 rules.

 

[Darklone]

Muskets vs bows: Deadly shooting distance during 19th century wars (e.g. Napoleon) for muskets: less than 60ft. Bows? Several 100 ft.

Problems with bows: I've been using longbows for 25 years now and I don't know many people who can actually use the real welsh longbows (~100 pounds drawing). My normal bow is hardly above 60 pounds. I'm pretty good at shooting and I shoot fast (record: 23 arrows who hit the target at 35m in one minute/ I missed the target with one).

Now take someone who didn't practise that long. This guy needs a weapon he can point at the enemy and push the button.