|
When in my game players try to climb trees or squeeze through narrow caves with a longbow on their back or want to sneak through undergrowth with a longbow in hand, I make it a -4 circumstance penalty.
Something similar came up in the the daggers thread, that the key to daggers is their concealability compared to larger weapons ... but there isn't really a rule for this. Someone suggested a circumstance penalty for trying to Hide/Move Silently/Sneak with a big weapon like a two-handed sword or great axe. Same could apply to Diplomacy checks in certain situations. Much like your climbing with a longbow. Good idea.
Here's the problem. DM assigned circumstance bonuses are fine. I do it all the time... in my home campaign. Maybe a little DM Tips gray sidebar called "Skill Checks and Big Weapons" would be helpful. But what about Pathfinder Society games, where the DM isn't playing with an established group? Hopefully Pathfinder players won't be like this, but I've seen the real rules lawyer types come out at other Living events, and if it isn't in the rules, they freak! Again, the DM Tips sidebar that gives a DM leeway in assigning some penalties (or bonuses) would be helpful as backup.
|
i think its not broken, yes its a bit aboused, but in agame that the DM letshis players use it so freely... well nothing to do about it.I think that's the clear #1 reason every time something is said to be unbalanced or broken.
not this time
we are tlking about a weapon that might do 2 more points of damage in exchange for weight, cost, expertise, and less flexibilityif a DM let his player climb aboulder or shot in narrow space with a longbow... then is the DM fault, not the rules
Isn't that what I said?
Hmm... making two-handed weapons in general take longer to sheathe/draw sounds like a real "game fixer" to me regardless. Full round action if no +1 BAB, move action (can't be done while moving as a free action) if you do have +1 BAB.
I think I'll give this a try. Might help differentiate things and give people a reason to choose something besides longbow or greatsword/greataxe (currently universal favorites among my groups)
Problem is the shortbow is also a 2 hander.
|
I believe that was in 2e. In 1e, it was all 1d6 in the PH.
You are right. I was referring to 2e. I always refer to 1e as "1st edition" and 2e as "AD&D", because I grew up playing 2e AD&D. Sort of like how some people refer to all colas as "coke".
I forgot that AD&D could refer to 1e too.
Still, in at least one major version of D&D previous to 3e, damage came from the arrow not the bow.
|
At this point you are still handwaving. You even say it "cant be done is impossible".. and yet ive already posted a vid of a man doing just that, with an authentic english longbow, while galloping through a stream.
As for there being no historical evidence of it, 15 seconds searching googlebooks or 15 minutes at your local library will rock your world.
I don't think you could call it entirely handwaving since the most notorious horse archers used a shorter composite bow than the English longbow or came up with other adaptations on the basic design to make it work better (the yumi as cited above).
While there may be historical evidence for some mounted longbow archery, there's a lot of historical evidence that it was in the vast minority of uses of the longbow in action.
Those two factors suggest that there's something about using the longbow on horseback that encourages alternatives.Plus, do we know just how authentic the presenter's longbow is? We'd be looking at about an 80lb draw, minimum, with evidence that many of the bows went significantly higher. Just how hard core is his simulation? Nor is it evident that the mounted archers would be working at the same higher end as the bowmen on foot, nor what we're really expecting the D&D longbow to represent.
When it comes to reality, there are plenty of exceptions to general rules. There always have been. When it comes to abstracting reality into a game, taking the step back and saying that the difference between long and short bows, as far as whether you can use one mounted in the game, reflects well the typical uses the weapons were put to in reality.
And if you want to extend the use of the longbow to mounted characters, let them use a feat to do it. That's what feats are for, after all, going above and beyond the things people can typically do while reflecting the specialized training someone might elect to do.
Especially since the majority of mounted knights never used bows, short or long. heavy horse was used for the shock value.
Footmen used bows, not heavily armored knights. Now in D&D sure knights are gonna use bows.
Using a long bow on the opposite side is going to prove nigh impossible, since the archer would have to shift hands and fire with the opposite hand forward. A Daikyu could actually be fired forward as well due to the offset of the bow, while standing in the saddle. The longbow would only be able to be fired on the forward hand's side.
Longbows are superior in range and damage. Why would someone take a shortbow? Here's what I can think of:
1) Longbows cost more (but not that much more)
2) Some classes only have access to shortbows
3) You can shoot a shortbow from horsebackIs that it? Still seems like most folks are going to go with longbows if they can.
What am I forgetting?
And if that really is pretty much it, what about nerfing longbows a little at short range? Ranged weapons have no penalties in the first range increment, then a cumulative -2 for each increment after that. What if longbows took a -2 in the first increment, 0 in the second, -2 in the third, and so on; basically, make them weaker at close range and better at longer ranges.
Bad design and unrealistic. Having shot both I can tell you that it in my experience the longbow really is better in almost every way. The sole advantage of the shortbow - and make no mistake this is a huge advantage - is it can be used on horseback. The Mongrels showed just how effective that can be historically.
|
|
Bad design and unrealistic. Having shot both I can tell you that it in my experience the longbow really is better in almost every way. The sole advantage of the shortbow - and make no mistake this is a huge advantage - is it can be used on horseback. The Mongrels showed just how effective that can be historically.Longbows are superior in range and damage. Why would someone take a shortbow? Here's what I can think of:
1) Longbows cost more (but not that much more)
2) Some classes only have access to shortbows
3) You can shoot a shortbow from horsebackIs that it? Still seems like most folks are going to go with longbows if they can.
What am I forgetting?
And if that really is pretty much it, what about nerfing longbows a little at short range? Ranged weapons have no penalties in the first range increment, then a cumulative -2 for each increment after that. What if longbows took a -2 in the first increment, 0 in the second, -2 in the third, and so on; basically, make them weaker at close range and better at longer ranges.
Mongols, not Mongrels...LoL
Simple Solution...Make longbow exotic. Makes perfect sense.
No, it doesn't. If anything a longbow is easier to shoot then a shortbow. I ride occasionally and shoot bows and I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about shooting with even remote accuracy on horseback.
Honestly I think that bows in general should fall under the simple weapon category - since that's what they were historically. There is even some record that English men were required to know how to shoot a longbow for the purpose of national defense.
Mongols, not Mongrels...LoLBad design and unrealistic. Having shot both I can tell you that it in my experience the longbow really is better in almost every way. The sole advantage of the shortbow - and make no mistake this is a huge advantage - is it can be used on horseback. The Mongrels showed just how effective that can be historically.Longbows are superior in range and damage. Why would someone take a shortbow? Here's what I can think of:
1) Longbows cost more (but not that much more)
2) Some classes only have access to shortbows
3) You can shoot a shortbow from horsebackIs that it? Still seems like most folks are going to go with longbows if they can.
What am I forgetting?
And if that really is pretty much it, what about nerfing longbows a little at short range? Ranged weapons have no penalties in the first range increment, then a cumulative -2 for each increment after that. What if longbows took a -2 in the first increment, 0 in the second, -2 in the third, and so on; basically, make them weaker at close range and better at longer ranges.
Moot point.
|
|
Simple Solution...Make longbow exotic. Makes perfect sense.No, it doesn't. If anything a longbow is easier to shoot then a shortbow. I ride occasionally and shoot bows and I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about shooting with even remote accuracy on horseback.
Honestly I think that bows in general should fall under the simple weapon category - since that's what they were historically. There is even some record that English men were required to know how to shoot a longbow for the purpose of national defense.
No, they were required to constantly practice with the longbow, to the point where a king actually outlawed soccer for a time because men weren't practicing the bow. The longbow was anything but simple to master, apparently, if the royals were that serious about Englishmen practicing.
On the other hand, any idiot could fire a crossbow, after about a day's training, so the simple/martial difference between crossbow and long/shortbow is fine with me...
Simple Solution...Make longbow exotic. Makes perfect sense.No, it doesn't. If anything a longbow is easier to shoot then a shortbow. I ride occasionally and shoot bows and I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about shooting with even remote accuracy on horseback.
Honestly I think that bows in general should fall under the simple weapon category - since that's what they were historically. There is even some record that English men were required to know how to shoot a longbow for the purpose of national defense.
No, they were required to constantly practice with the longbow, to the point where a king actually outlawed soccer for a time because men weren't practicing the bow. The longbow was anything but simple to master, apparently, if the royals were that serious about Englishmen practicing.
Keyword here. Shot at great distance (over 100ft.) it is incredibly difficult to master. This is represented in part by the penalties you take for long distance shooting.
Here's a more accurate video of longbows in action. I can't imagine even beginning to shoot something like that from horseback - and I'm a really big guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTerr5qqKd0&NR=1
|
|
Yeah, that is the key word. But, as you and I know (you said you fire bows, right?), it takes a while to even get a feel for firing a bow properly. It took me all of 20 minutes to start hitting targets with a crossbow at 100 feet or so, a little longer for distance (I was hitting at 50 yards in about an hour). The 80lb pull compound bow took me a couple of weeks just to get used to the pull, and a couple more weeks before I was hitting a target at 30' (that's only ten yards, as in, no distance at all) with any consistency. So, again, I'm fine (from a believability standpoint) with the simple/martial designations as they are currently.
Yeah, that is the key word. But, as you and I know (you said you fire bows, right?), it takes a while to even get a feel for firing a bow properly. It took me all of 20 minutes to start hitting targets with a crossbow at 100 feet or so, a little longer for distance (I was hitting at 50 yards in about an hour). The 80lb pull compound bow took me a couple of weeks just to get used to the pull, and a couple more weeks before I was hitting a target at 30' (that's only ten yards, as in, no distance at all) with any consistency. So, again, I'm fine (from a believability standpoint) with the simple/martial designations as they are currently.
I don't have an issue with the simple/martial designations, I was simply pointing out that it hard hardly an exotic weapon and it certainly isn't worth a feat. I'd sooner believe it was a simple weapon then exotic.
I agree with you on every other point here - save that it really didn't take me long at all to get up to speed on a compound bow. I was hitting a 2ft. by 2ft. target within an hour consistently at 40+ feet.
100' isn't really "long distance" though, heck, I can throw a football further than that with accuracy ;)
I agree, but lets keep in mind that after 100' you start taking penalties due to range. My point was hitting a target at 100' as a martial weapon is fairly realistic.
|
|
100' isn't really "long distance" though, heck, I can throw a football further than that with accuracy ;)I agree, but lets keep in mind that after 100' you start taking penalties due to range. My point was hitting a target at 100' as a martial weapon is fairly realistic.
Yeah, I have to agree as well. My problem with the 80lb bow when I was in Boy Scouts wasn't the bow itself, it was that at 13, I really wasn't strong enough initially to handle the draw. It took me about a month to build up strength to handle it.
I've always thought the ranges in 3x were wonky anyway. Accuracy with a bow doesn't really degrade until past 100 yards or more, not 100 feet, but I guess some allowance to gamism has to be tolerated to make everything kinda balance out, system wise.
|
|
Simple Solution...Make longbow exotic. Makes perfect sense.No, it doesn't. If anything a longbow is easier to shoot then a shortbow. I ride occasionally and shoot bows and I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about shooting with even remote accuracy on horseback.
Honestly I think that bows in general should fall under the simple weapon category - since that's what they were historically. There is even some record that English men were required to know how to shoot a longbow for the purpose of national defense.
From Wiki, but I've read this before, also supporting my exotic suggestion:
Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than any black powder weapons, longbowmen were always difficult to produce, because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lbf)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbowmen were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain. The White Company[15], containing men-at-arms and longbowmen and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century.
Up to 200# pull longbows:
Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 N (80 lbf) and possibly more than 650 N (143 lbf) with some high-end estimates at 900N (202 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[17]
Are you talking about how easy it is to shoot a modern fiberglass bow? or an actual War Longbow?
Simple Solution...Make longbow exotic. Makes perfect sense.No, it doesn't. If anything a longbow is easier to shoot then a shortbow. I ride occasionally and shoot bows and I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about shooting with even remote accuracy on horseback.
Honestly I think that bows in general should fall under the simple weapon category - since that's what they were historically. There is even some record that English men were required to know how to shoot a longbow for the purpose of national defense.
From Wiki, but I've read this before, also supporting my exotic suggestion:
Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than any black powder weapons, longbowmen were always difficult to produce, because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lbf)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbowmen were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain. The White Company[15], containing men-at-arms and longbowmen and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century.
Up to 200# pull longbows:
Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 N (80 lbf) and possibly more than 650 N (143 lbf) with some high-end estimates at 900N (202 lbf)....
What you're talking about here are highly specialized shooters - akin to a fighter with weapon focus, weapon specialization, and numerous ranged weapon feats to produce the kind of longbow men they're talking about who can get off shots at speed. We're talking about hitting targets at hundreds of yards.
For someone with mild ranged weapon training with a longbow shooting at 100ft. with no penalty isn't that unrealistic.
I could consistently hit a target at 30 yards without too much training or experience. Which is basically what martial weapon proficiency is. It takes significantly more practice to learn how to effectively use many melee weapons at that level.
the longbow wasnt heavy, per se as it was long and difficult to use.
the performance of the longbow, is what required specialization, it was not necessarily the "power" of the specialist bowman that gave the bow its effectiveness, rather that the performance of the weapon, to use it effectively,meant that it took specialized training just to use it.
Similar to the bastard sword, anyne can use it (at a penalty), any martial skilled characterto use it two handed, but it takes a feat to use it effectively (as it was designed to perform)
When the standard longbowman took years to train to use it, and his arm was deformed by the extreme stress of using it, and longbowmen were hard to come by, That says exotic weapon all over it.
Remember, we are talking about a bow that could have upwards of a 200 lb pull, thats a little more than the weight of an average human male that you have to pull and hold with ONE arm.
How many of us can lift a human male with one arm?
Modern bows sometimes have pulls from 20-40 pounds and are meant to stick arrows into hay bales. These are not war bows, they are toy bows.
Modern Bows also have the advantage of pulley systems to lower the required manual strength to pull and gain maximum mechanical advantage. I wouldn't call them "Toy Bows" they are much easier to use, but that doesn't mean they are only used on stray targets (my father in law hunts with a bow during bow season).
Beyond that however the feats that english men pulled off regularly with the longbow is rather amazing.
Modern Bows also have the advantage of pulley systems to lower the required manual strength to pull and gain maximum mechanical advantage. I wouldn't call them "Toy Bows" they are much easier to use, but that doesn't mean they are only used on stray targets (my father in law hunts with a bow during bow season).
Beyond that however the feats that english men pulled off regularly with the longbow is rather amazing.
Nod. I can bring down a full sized deer with a single shot from my compound.
I wasnt referring to expensive hunting equipment as "toy bows" but rather much of what is used in peoples back yards and even at archery clubs are often "toy bows".
A good hunting bow has more than a 40 pound pull (most of the 'toy bows' have 20lbs)
The warbows are recorded as having between 64 and 200 lb pulls.
I challenge any modern day archer to learn how to do that in an afternoon of practice and be accurate with it.
Im sure you can find someone out there, today that has put the time into learning how to use a non-augmented, authentic long war bow.
Ask him how much pratice it took (above and beyond the time it took him to study 'normal' archery, which he obviously could already do before studying the warbow)
I think you'll find his answer more than qualifies the longbow to be an exotic weapon.
Game answer: Shortbow everyone elses bow, Long bow, the specialist archers bow.
with that said,however, i really like the idea of tripling the cost of goods in the PHB after intial character generation.
That makes the weapon price difference 225 gold vs, 90 gold.
to use your dex when fighting with a light weapon instead of str is a feat (weapon finesse) so the reverse is true to use a dex weapon (ie ranged weapon like a bow) with str bonuses (because of the weight of the pull) should be a feat.
"people have accepted the long bow as a common fantasy weapon"
Well in what way? because of 3.x? (which broke tons of stuff in its publication)
before 3.x the longbow only did 1-6 damage like its short buddy.
So it hasnt been the 1-8 long range weapon, for very long (in terms of age of the game)
There would be HUGE advantages to an archer who chose to use a feat to get the exotic longbow.
One of them being nearly no one ELSE can use your bow (no more 1st level elf wizard with longbows, they can use a shortbow because they are elves , etc)
Not every fighter, barbarian, elf or anyone else with ALL martial weapons can use your bow. Monsters that pick it up can't use it (effictvely) and when you find a magic one, there isnt three members o the party fighting over it.
ALL the hardcore achers out there wont mind spending a feat to get their coveted weapon, especially when itmeansno oneelse can use it. That makes what they chose to do even MORE special.
Then the shortbow cancome into its own as the 'standard' fantasy warbow. and in 1e, there really wasnt a difference, except halflings and gnomes and dwarves usually took the shortbow because of hieght.
I wasnt referring to expensive hunting equipment as "toy bows" but rather much of what is used in peoples back yards and even at archery clubs are often "toy bows".
A good hunting bow has more than a 40 pound pull (most of the 'toy bows' have 20lbs)The warbows are recorded as having between 64 and 200 lb pulls.
I challenge any modern day archer to learn how to do that in an afternoon of practice and be accurate with it.
Im sure you can find someone out there, today that has put the time into learning how to use a non-augmented, authentic long war bow.
Ask him how much pratice it took (above and beyond the time it took him to study 'normal' archery, which he obviously could already do before studying the warbow)I think you'll find his answer more than qualifies the longbow to be an exotic weapon.
Game answer: Shortbow everyone elses bow, Long bow, the specialist archers bow.
with that said,however, i really like the idea of tripling the cost of goods in the PHB after intial character generation.
That makes the weapon price difference 225 gold vs, 90 gold.
Yeah there is someone that holds the current (Modern) archery record with a "Traditional" Longbow that used a 200 Lbs draw bow.
I misunderstood what you where saying when you stated "modern" bows, that's why I drew the exception, I believe most of us here understand that when we are talking about archery in both D&D and real life we aren't talking about the dinky 20 lbs set ups daddies get their kids for christmas.
Longbow as an exotic doesn't quite sit right with me. I agree it takes more than a day to learn, but at the same time it was something every man in england had to learn to use at one point. Making it less that rare or unusually difficult in my mind.
Beyond that, from a game mechanics and Backwards compatability standpoint the longbow is NOT going to be changed to exotic from martial (ok maybe it could be but considering how much Jason B & Co don't want to mess with the Monk's BAB and the chain shirt I really don't see this happening).
There would be HUGE advantages to an archer who chose to use a feat to get the exotic longbow.
One of them being nearly no one ELSE can use your bow (no more 1st level elf wizard with longbows, they can use a shortbow because they are elves , etc)
Not every fighter, barbarian, elf or anyone else with ALL martial weapons can use your bow. Monsters that pick it up can't use it (effictvely) and when you find a magic one, there isnt three members o the party fighting over it.
ALL the hardcore achers out there wont mind spending a feat to get their coveted weapon, especially when itmeansno oneelse can use it. That makes what they chose to do even MORE special.Then the shortbow cancome into its own as the 'standard' fantasy warbow. and in 1e, there really wasnt a difference, except halflings and gnomes and dwarves usually took the shortbow because of hieght.
As usual your ideas are pretty much completely absurd and completely off base for the vast majority of the D&D community.
In no way is the longbow mechanically worth an extra feat over the shortbow. It wouldn't be a huge adventage having to spend an extra feat for your weapon - while at the same time making it so no one else can use it - making it extremely rare within the campaign world.
The hardcore archers are going to care about spending an extra feat to get their "coveted weapon", especially since they already blow because they're archers instead of melee fighters.
You really want an exotic weapon "longbow"? Go pick up a copy of Complete Warrior and check out page 156. Honestly the Greatbow is a more appropriate representation of the longbow away. It's described as 6ft. tall. Just long a longbow. Consider the current longbow to be something of a middle ground.
Whoa whoa whoa peter. I disagree in the extreme with the idea that archer's suck compared to melee. In fact I would point out the ability to take a full attack every round regardless of distance to the target and the inclusion of the "deadly aim" feat in addition to rapid shot only helps the archer all the more.
Whoa whoa whoa peter. I disagree in the extreme with the idea that archer's suck compared to melee. In fact I would point out the ability to take a full attack every round regardless of distance to the target and the inclusion of the "deadly aim" feat in addition to rapid shot only helps the archer all the more.
Archers cap out at maybe 100 damage a round. A moderate charger built can do easily 200+ without getting into cheese. Every round.
melee vs archer
*sunder bowstring*
now what?
except longbows are present in most cultures. Yes they take training, but not an exceptional amount and are readily present. I would say that makes them a martial weapon. Something that takes time but anyone can do.
Remember Exotic weapons require a +1 BAB, meaning you are already a good warrior and it is not a weapon that you would learn as a standard.
I have examples of warriors learn the longbow as a standard thing... thus martial.
Actually the ENGLISH longbow, and simply a large bow in other cultures, isnt really the same thing.
The ENGLISH longbow and the archer trained in its proper use was something un-rivaled and never reproduced in another culture.
Simply put, it was awesome.
Now an argument like the great bow, being a much better representation of the ENGLISH longbow, is probably more accurate.
but the thread and the issue is shortbow vs longbow.
Personally, there are tons of weapons like this in the game, that are basically redundant. It's always annoyed me.
But TRUE hardcore archers should be able to have a bow, that not every melee type and moderately trained humanoid can pick up and fire away with.
Most enemies on the battlefield, if there were to pick up a englishmans bw, couldnt even string an arrow it in, never mind use it as a weapon.
I think the fanatsy uber archer deserves such a bow, just as much as I think there should be a game mechanics for there to be a reason to choose shortbow over longbow. Or there shouldnt be minor (useless) differences in weapons, and just more generic descriptions (sword, bow, dagger etc)
as far as my ideas not working for "common D&D" I have never played in, nor would i ever, games min/max-ing and power gaming is important, or even present. I dont play with highschoolers, and when I was in high school, we never allowed min/max or power gaming anymore than we allowed mete gaming.
Being different and special is the point of making a character at all, not being the most powerful or efficient.
If you want to "build" the best character why even play at all. Just sit there mathematically plotting how to improved something imaginary based on a set of rules that are imaginary, and imagine how cool you are.
The rest of us, will use our imagination to add to the story, and fun.
I'd agree with Pendagast about most of this. Except, the "English" longbow was developed by the Welsh and adopted by the English for military purposes :) The longbow is not simply "longer" than the shortbow. It is different in construction (the way the stave of the bow was cut) as well as in material (it was yew wood). It is far more powerful. It did take extraordinary strength to pull (100-200 pound pulls were typical) and lifelong training to use properly. You could tell a longbowman by his upper body development. The English yeomanry were part of the feudal heirarchy in England. They recieved land for military service -- with the longbow -- much like a knight did for his service (less land though). Training was mandatory both by law and to keep their feudal land grants. The longbow was not developed / used anywhere else in Europe. English / Welsh longbowman carried the reputation of being the best archers in Europe (and proved it repeatedly on the battle field) and commanded high rates as mercenaries as a result. If the longbow could just have been picked up by anyone and used with a bit of traning or easily manufactured / imitated, it would have been done. It was too good a weapon to pass up. Other advances in weaponry / armor diseminated rapidly through Europe. Not the longbow. The longbow and the landholding yeomanry of England are unique. Having the longbow an exotic weapon seems reasonable. The limited geographic origin, specialized training and socio-economic peculiarities of the weapon would justify it. D&D has largely ignored these aspects of the longbow. It's a DM type thing though given that -- it's an exotic weapon in my game. Limited to a specific geographic region and social class.
|
Weapon that requires large amount of training = Martial
Weapon that requires very little training to use = Simple
Hence why a crossbow a weapon which anyone can be trained in a few days to do is simple. Whilst a longbow which takes years of training is a Martial weapon.
Also one should remember that D&D is as much based on myth and folklaw as it is on real life.
|
|
Well by definition what does it mean if a weapon is an exotic weapon? The description says it represents training but that argument has already been defeated by the fact that hand crossbows and repeater crossbows are exotic weapons (In reality they would probably take no longer to train than a regular one. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well by definition what does it mean if a weapon is an exotic weapon? The description says it represents training but that argument has already been defeated by the fact that hand crossbows and repeater crossbows are exotic weapons (In reality they would probably take no longer to train than a regular one. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
I suspect the exotic status of those weapons has to do with their unfamiliarity. Neither exists in the normal setting, therefore it takes extra time / training to use.
Well by definition what does it mean if a weapon is an exotic weapon? The description says it represents training but that argument has already been defeated by the fact that hand crossbows and repeater crossbows are exotic weapons (In reality they would probably take no longer to train than a regular one. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
I've used "toy" bows and hand crossbows. The hand crossbow (a friend's surplus-store special) was easy to master. I was fairly accurate with it after a couple hours. The toy bow, by comparison, was much harder to use, and I never got that good with it.
The only way to rationalize the HC as being exotic may just be that it's not as popular as more standard bows, and is thus pretty rare. It's not exotic to the class that would want to use it (rogue). The fact remains that it's easy to use, if I can hit anything with it.
Happy Holidays!
Just some random thoughts here...
You could reduce range and damage to that of a short bow when used indoors. You could say that the range and damage is because a long bow archer is able to arc the arrow up in the air. Otherwise he has a much shorter range (and does less damage) when firing "direct-fire".
This reduces the long bow to the same stats as the shortbow when used indoors. Player's may decide that, if they assume they will be spending more time indoors, that its just more cost efficient to go with the short bow.
Just one thought... I have others but no time to post atm.
You could reduce range and damage to that of a short bow when used indoors. You could say that the range and damage is because a long bow archer is able to arc the arrow up in the air. Otherwise he has a much shorter range (and does less damage) when firing "direct-fire".
This reduces the long bow to the same stats as the shortbow when used indoors. Player's may decide that, if they assume they will be spending more time indoors, that its just more cost efficient to go with the short bow.
You could argue for a reduced range for any, and all, bow type weapons in an indoor / underground setting due the the lack of flight arc. Given that most indoor / dungeon archery is going to be at short / point blank ranges makes that moot as a point.
The arguement about reducing range doesn't hold for reduced damage though, the power would be greater at short range. You could argue for reduced damage at long ranges, and, for that matter, increased damage at short ranges due to the variation in power, but that would be a different thread I'd say...
I've used both the reduced range / variable damage in my game btw. It adds some variation, but doesn't address the "why use a short bow not a longbow" question in this thread. I think having the longbow as an exotic regionally / socioeconomically limited specific weapon does -- it increases the "cost" (in feats and character options) of using a longbow vs. a shortbow.
I guess I can see the logic of long bow needing exotic weapon feat, but in all honesty, I suspect if that were the case that virtually no one would take the long bow. I really think that 95% of the time the longer range doesn't make a difference since most encounters are at much closer range but people do like the greater damage from the long bow. So, you would have to basically justify "is spending a feat for on average 1 more point of damage worth it?"
I guess I can see the logic of long bow needing exotic weapon feat, but in all honesty, I suspect if that were the case that virtually no one would take the long bow. I really think that 95% of the time the longer range doesn't make a difference since most encounters are at much closer range but people do like the greater damage from the long bow. So, you would have to basically justify "is spending a feat for on average 1 more point of damage worth it?"
Indeed. The real justification for a feat is some mechanical difference that makes the weapon dominate it's competitors in the martial grouping. That's why single-handed bastard sword wielding takes a feat - the d10 damage with every other significant stat being virtually the same as the long sword would make it the dominant strategy. Requiring it to cost a feat puts it back in balance.
The long bow does not quite dominate the short bow. The trade-offs between the two may not weigh the same in all campaigns, but for the generic game, they're OK. In order for long bow to be worth a feat, it would have to dominate the short bow pretty much completely.