The discussion resulting from this tread made me realize that I don't know all the details of bow "physics", and that some of my source of information were iffy at best. So real life archers and physics scientists, these are questions for you:
Assuming two bows of different length (a longbow and a shortbow) both adjusted for the same tension at the same 'draw length' (arms length) would both give out the same amount of kinetic energy (i.e. velocity of their projectile)?
If so, would the arrow coming from a longbow be significantly longer/heavier to justify a greater impact (i.e. greater damage) for the same velocity?
Since the 'prods' of a longbow have less to travel than those of a shortbow, how would it affect the projectile? Is it correct to assume a smoother acceleration? Would that really result in a better 'flight pattern', increasing the range of its projectile?
'findel
|
I am not positive, but I don't think you can get the same poundage on a short bow as on a longbow. So you wouldn't get the same kinetic energy put into the arrow. Current "small" bows get around this by being compound bows. Because of the pulley system they are able to increase the poundage without increasing the length of the bow.
I am not positive, but I don't think you can get the same poundage on a short bow as on a longbow. So you wouldn't get the same kinetic energy put into the arrow. Current "small" bows get around this by being compound bows. Because of the pulley system they are able to increase the poundage without increasing the length of the bow.
The force needed to draw back a bow is not directly related to the size of the bow: The bow's construction is the deciding factor.
Composite shortbows from the Middle East often featured horn reinforcing the bow's rigid face and sinew providing elasticity. Leather covered the bow's surface, protecting the sinew from damage. These bows were not normally as powerful as the Welsh longbow, but they could be: Persian composite "footbows" were used in seiges by prone archers. These weapons launched arrows remarkable distances.
The main factor contributing to the fearsome power of the longbow was the relentless practice that enhanced its bearers' strength. A Tudor-era archer was expected to practice six days each week, attending competitions on Sunday afternoons. This conditioned the archers to pull bows far more powerful than most modern men would consider wielding.
I am not positive, but I don't think you can get the same poundage on a short bow as on a longbow. So you wouldn't get the same kinetic energy put into the arrow. Current "small" bows get around this by being compound bows. Because of the pulley system they are able to increase the poundage without increasing the length of the bow.
Sure you can, it's easy to match a longbow and shortbow poundage. The problem is, you can only match them up to the maximum of the shortbow, not to the maximum of the longbow. :)
Given that, if you put the longbow and shortbow to the same poundage, the arrow should go the same distance. The difference will be that the longbow will be easier to pull (since it's only at some fraction of it's maximum, whereas the shortbow is at it's maximum pull).
You'd use the same arrow in both, arrows are pretty standard in length regardless of what you use to fire them. You'd just have the arrow pulled farther back with a longbow over a shortbow.
The game isn't a very good representation of archery to be honest. It doesn't take poundage into account, it assumes the bows are set for 'maximum' poundage. That's assuming you can actually get it's maximum range, which the game doesn't account for either (it assumes you are always on a flat plane, archers in battlements should get longer range, and those firing uphill should lose range).
I am not positive, but I don't think you can get the same poundage on a short bow as on a longbow. So you wouldn't get the same kinetic energy put into the arrow. Current "small" bows get around this by being compound bows. Because of the pulley system they are able to increase the poundage without increasing the length of the bow.Sure you can, it's easy to match a longbow and shortbow poundage. The problem is, you can only match them up to the maximum of the shortbow, not to the maximum of the longbow. :)
Given that, if you put the longbow and shortbow to the same poundage, the arrow should go the same distance. The difference will be that the longbow will be easier to pull (since it's only at some fraction of it's maximum, whereas the shortbow is at it's maximum pull).
You'd use the same arrow in both, arrows are pretty standard in length regardless of what you use to fire them. You'd just have the arrow pulled farther back with a longbow over a shortbow.
The game isn't a very good representation of archery to be honest. It doesn't take poundage into account, it assumes the bows are set for 'maximum' poundage. That's assuming you can actually get it's maximum range, which the game doesn't account for either (it assumes you are always on a flat plane, archers in battlements should get longer range, and those firing uphill should lose range).
Actually they wont neccessarily leave the bow at the same speed with the same poundage. Draw length also matters. For every inch of draw length you gain around 10-15 fps I think, because that draw length affects how long the impulse of the bow on the arrow is. Longer the length the longer the force of the bow is applied to the arrow.
That said, dnd has never been a good representation of the specifics of most forms of combat. Its simplified so that it is a practical game. I mean honestly there are so many potential combat modifiers that the game would become insanely complicated if they were all accounted for.
*Raises hand*
Also note that with most short bows the arms have the 're-curve' thing happening.
That forward sweeping of the arms? Yup, it acts like a simple, primitive offset cam system and hence increases the mechanical efficiency of the bows arms. ^_^
Cheers!
Actually they wont neccessarily leave the bow at the same speed with the same poundage. Draw length also matters. For every inch of draw length you gain around 10-15 fps I think, because that draw length affects how long the impulse of the bow on the arrow is. Longer the length the longer the force of the bow is applied to the arrow.That said, dnd has never been a good representation of the specifics of most forms of combat. Its simplified so that it is a practical game. I mean honestly there are so many potential combat modifiers that the game would become insanely complicated...
LOL,
True, I really meant if you zero them in at the same level, they do the same range/damage, I just didn't say it very well. :) I used poundage but what I really meant was moment energy. If you zero them in for the same moment energy at time of release, they perform identically.But yeah, if you try to simulate bows (or swords for that matter) correctly in the system, it get's horribly complicated. For example, a greatsword should be a bludgeoning weapon, not a slashing weapon. The entire idea behind it was you put enough metal in motion and slam it into the other guys armor and shatter his ribcage through his armor. You don't cut through the armor. The reason you kept the edges sharpened was for in case the target was unarmored (or very lightly armored with leather) and to also concentrate the impact energy on armor down to a thin line.
hummm. from the bit of research I did, it seems that the tension (or poundage) of a bow is only second-handily related to the velocity (and ultimately, damage) of its projectile.
Those are actually calculated from the draw weight (the force one has to exert to draw the bow) and draw length (the distance from the handle it can be drawn). Obviously, the higher the poundage; the higher the draw weight for the same bow (which is limited by the archer's strength). Similarly, the longer the bow, the higher the draw length (which is limited by the size of the archer).
So in order to get full efficiency out of a longbow, one has to be tall (actually, one has to have long arms).
A composite bow allows for more poundage, increasing the draw weight.
A recurved bow allows for a short bow to have the same draw length as a longer bow.
If I get this right, the short bow and longbow that are both set at the same poundage would NOT be equally easy to draw and NOT be equally strong IF the draw length is the same. But at its effective draw length, the longbow may have the same draw weight and perform equally well. If the archer is tall enough, it may actually be superior. The details are a matter of physics.
'findel
[edit] 'guess I missed kolo's post...
[edit] I should have mentioned that this discussion was started more to satisfy my curiosity than with the intention to re-invent the combat system...
|
Composite shortbows from the Middle East often featured horn reinforcing the bow's rigid face and sinew providing elasticity. Leather covered the bow's surface, protecting the sinew from damage. These bows were not normally as powerful as the Welsh longbow, but they could be: Persian composite "footbows" were used in seiges by prone archers. These weapons launched arrows remarkable distances.
And don't forget how the Turks on horseback could run circles around their enemies, firing at them with shortbows! Any longbow wielder would be hard pressed to keep up with the moving targets at the distances a longbow was ordinarily used. The great battles of history involving the English longbow included hundreds of archers firing en masse into an advancing army, essentially without aiming. The climactic battle seen towards the end of Braveheart is pretty accurate in that regard.
Also, I know that arrows are very particular when it comes to balistics. They, flex, they rotate, they come in different thickness and length, all of which affect their penetration factor and range (I don't want to hear any bad jokes about the last comment OK?)
At any case, some of these qualities are proper to the arrow itself, but I seem to remember that some are conferred by their launcher as well. Draw length has something to do in all of that, doesn't it?
Anyone can help?
'findel
Also, I know that arrows are very particular when it comes to balistics. They, flex, they rotate, they come in different thickness and length, all of which affect their penetration factor and range (I don't want to hear any bad jokes about the last comment OK?)
At any case, some of these qualities are proper to the arrow itself, but I seem to remember that some are conferred by their launcher as well. Draw length has something to do in all of that, doesn't it?
Anyone can help?
'findel
Arrows definately can be designed with different properties. Just the design of the fletching can have a massive impact on the performance of an arrow. It can provide more or less rotation and drag. More drag will mean the arrow will pitch/yaw less, and the more the fletching is angled the more rotation will be imparted. However more drag also reduces the speed of the arrow over distance. The flexibility of the shaft also matters.
I forget what its called but when using a bow you have to compensate for the issue that you cannot actually fire an arrow straight with a traditional bow. It isnt possible. The arrow has to bend around the handle of the bow. So you aim slightly to the side of your target and the arrow must flex back towards the actual target.
Today we have 'center shot' bows where this isnt a problem since the bow is not a single long piece of wood and has a place that is actually in the middle of the bow to rest the arrow. With a traditional bow you have to pay close attention to the 'spine' or flexibility of your arrows in order to zero in on how much you need to aim to the side of your target based on how much it is going to flex back around.
If you asked a physics guy he would tell you all about levers and moment arms.
The long bow has a "longer" draw. The arrows used in a long bow are significantly longer than those used with a short bow. Because of the longer draw of the LB the arrow is pushed by the string for a longer time.
V = FT/M
Velocity = Force x Time / Mass
So the Long bow with the same draw weight will shoot a heavier arrow and it will leave the bow faster.
When it hits we are taking momentum which is
Mo = V M
Momentum = Velocity x Mass
Translation: Longbows shoot farther and hit harder than a short bow.
I forget what its called but when using a bow you have to compensate for the issue that you cannot actually fire an arrow straight with a traditional bow. It isnt possible. The arrow has to bend around the handle of the bow. So you aim slightly to the side of your target and the arrow must flex back towards the actual target.
archer's paradox?
If you asked a physics guy he would tell you all about levers and moment arms.
The long bow has a "longer" draw. The arrows used in a long bow are significantly longer than those used with a short bow. Because of the longer draw of the LB the arrow is pushed by the string for a longer time.
V = FT/M
Velocity = Force x Time / MassSo the Long bow with the same draw weight will shoot a heavier arrow and it will leave the bow faster.
When it hits we are taking momentum which is
Mo = V M
Momentum = Velocity x Mass
Translation: Longbows shoot farther and hit harder than a short bow.
Is it how it works? For the same draw weight, the longer draw length will shoot farther? Or is it simply that a longer draw length will allow for a 'heavier' draw weigth?
Really the rules are a dam good guestimate. All crossbows might need is a die increase AND a increase to martial proficiency. But as is they punch sufficiently in their weight range to stay there.
Uhm,
No, sorry. The entire concept of the crossbow was that you could make 50 of them, give them to 50 peasants, and in two days they'd be taking knights off their horses as they charged. A crossbow is a short range, very powerful, and very easy to use weapon.An english longbow took years to master. A recurve shortbow took several months of practice to get good with beyond 30 or 40 feet. A crossbow was accurate to about 50 feet the first week of using, just point and fire. And it had the punch to go through armor, you had to put a lot of force into a bow to get the arrow through armor at close range, that took skill and training. Any serf with a crossbow could punch through plate at 50 feet and took a weeks training to do so.
The crossbow was more expensive than a bow to make, but, you could have 50 decent crossbowmen in a week, or 50 good bowmen in a year. In a year with a crossbow, you could have 50 experts practicing the same amount of time it took a bowman to get to good.
That's why it's a simple weapon, not a martial weapon. Kind of like a shotgun, any idiot can pick up a shotgun and learn to hit a human sized target at 30 feet in a day routinely and center mass. Whereas using a sniper rifle (equivalent of the english longbow) takes years to master.
I would not consider a estimated real world range of 350–400 (maybe half that for effective) yards to be a short weapon myself. And that is the range for 15th century crossbows (well within the time eras for most fantasy games).
Especially comparing the estiimated 180 to 249 yds for the long bow.
-Weylin
I was referring to the accuracy range after training for a week. Not how far the crossbow could fire a bolt. Give 50 people a crossbow and they can hit a target at 50 feet and punch through knights armor at that range after a week of training.
You can't say that about a bow. And cross-bow bolts actually degraded accuracy at long range. So while the estimated range was higher than a shortbow, it was very inaccurate at those longer ranges.
Seeing I have seen even kids never mind adults learn to use a bow and hit a fox sized centre of mass faitfully after 3 hours training I think the facts are not as myth would have you believe.
Firing fast is what took a year of drilling.As with the rules surrounding such technology changes (or doesn't) for cultural and socio-political reasons far more than optimisation reasons. Popes worry about assasins in towers, bows keep pesants busy being oppressed year in and out.
I have never seen kids, never mind adults, learn to use a bow and hit a fox sized center of mass faithfully when said fox is moving around after 3 hours. I certainly have never seen them put enough force behind the arrow to punch through plate at 50 feet after a weeks training, much less hit said armored knight while his horse charges down on them.
I have, however, seen someone hit a moving target the size of an automobile tire (actually, the tire itself) with a crossbow after a weeks training at fifty feet, and they put the bolt through the side of the tire.
Another thing is, longbow arrows are actually pretty large in and of themself. An English Longbow could fire a "clothyard" shaft, which was about 1 meter long, and about as thick around as a little finger. Much short range than the Turkish long-range flight arrows, but they weren't meant for range. They were equipped with Bodkin points (I helped a friend make a batch) which, when tempered, could penetrate 2mm of mild steel - about as thick as a piece of plate armor - several inches deep at a range of 10 yards (we didn't try for long range there) from a 60 lb draw weight bow. An Agincourt era bow had a draw weight of closer to 100 lbs.
*Sits down and takes notes*
Bodkin tips were brutal. Pretty much meant chain was useless against the archer.
-Weylin
Yeah, basically just a giant steel spike on the end meant to go right through armor.
|
Seeing I have seen even kids never mind adults learn to use a bow and hit a fox sized centre of mass faitfully after 3 hours training I think the facts are not as myth would have you believe.
Firing fast is what took a year of drilling.As with the rules surrounding such technology changes (or doesn't) for cultural and socio-political reasons far more than optimisation reasons. Popes worry about assasins in towers, bows keep pesants busy being oppressed year in and out.
I call BS on this statement. Even using a modern compund bow, it is tough to get tuned to an individual, considering draw length, draw weight, anchor point, the stiffness or "spine" of an arrow depending on how much your fingers "roll" the string, etc. Turn three hours into solid weeks and you've got a better estimate.
In general, the D&D/Pathfinder rules are pretty good at abstracting the differences for a longbow/shortbow/crossbow. The direct fire ranges are pretty good (modern hunters rarely take a shot at further than 35-50 yards). Two things the system does not replicate well are the the time needed to tune a particular bow to the individual user and the main benefit of the longbow, which is the impact of a volley.
Yet could still be stopped regularly from any serious penetration by good plate armor.Yeah, basically just a giant steel spike on the end meant to go right through armor.Bodkin tips were brutal. Pretty much meant chain was useless against the archer.
-Weylin
As with most armor protection vs. missile penetration, a lot of this was due to the angle of the hit as much as the thickness of the armor. Hence they made breastplates with curves instead of just a flat chestpiece.
Funny that's also what they do when they design armor plating for tanks.
archer's paradox?
I forget what its called but when using a bow you have to compensate for the issue that you cannot actually fire an arrow straight with a traditional bow. It isnt possible. The arrow has to bend around the handle of the bow. So you aim slightly to the side of your target and the arrow must flex back towards the actual target.
yep thats it. Thanks
Seeing I have seen even kids never mind adults learn to use a bow and hit a fox sized centre of mass faitfully after 3 hours training I think the facts are not as myth would have you believe.
Firing fast is what took a year of drilling.
You were apparently watching elven children or something. In an afternoon with a traditional recurve bow, (at age 14) I could hit a meter wide target that wasnt moving at like 30-50 paces. But fox sized, and moving? In 3 hours? Seriously? What kind of magical instructor did they have? I mean it took me an hour to find a bow I was comfortable shooting let alone learning to shoot. I think you are talking about stationary targets, which in all honestly, is not overly useful in warfare. Warriors move, and firing a bow at a moving target is MUCH harder then firing a crossbow at a moving target. I could maybe see learning to use a modern composite bow in a day or two to some degree of accuracy, but a traditional bow? I just dont believe it.
|
|
In general, the D&D/Pathfinder rules are pretty good at abstracting the differences for a longbow/shortbow/crossbow. The direct fire ranges are pretty good (modern hunters rarely take a shot at further than 35-50 yards). Two things the system does not replicate well are the the time needed to tune a particular bow to the individual user and the main benefit of the longbow, which is the impact of a volley.
Volley fire could be treated as an area of effect attack of some sort. The rules for it shouldnt be to complicated. Something similar to the D20 Modern rules for autofire perhaps.
-Weylin
I believe there was a feat you could take in 3.5 which allowed you to do this. Don't know how autofire works, but a volley shot feat would be great. Longer range, and you could shoot at an area, a larger one if others are joining in. Ideally, larger numbers could focus on a smaller area and increase the DC to avoide being hit.
There were volley fire rules in Heroes of Battle if I remember correctly.
Autofire
If a ranged weapon has an automatic rate of fire, a character may set it on autofire. Autofire affects an area and everyone in it, not a specific creature. The character targets a 10-foot-by-10-foot area and makes an attack roll; the targeted area has an effective Defense of 10. (If the character does not have the Advanced Firearms Proficiency feat, he or she takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll.) If the attack succeeds, every creature within the affected area must make a Reflex save (DC 15) or take the weapon’s damage. Autofire shoots 10 bullets, and can only be used if the weapon has 10 bullets in it.
-Weylin
That rule needs some serious rewriting. Most firearms tend to have bullets that travel from the shooter to the horizon, or until they hit something. They don't teleport into a 10x10 square and only hit people inside there. :)
I know, not your rule, but still, it's a lousy rule.
Is it how it works? For the same draw weight, the longer draw length will shoot farther? Or is it simply that a longer draw length will allow for a 'heavier' draw weigth?
You can make a short bow with the same draw weight. Draw wieght is the force a bow will put on the arrow. The longer bows stay in contact with the arrow for a slightly longer time so the string can impart more energy to the arrow.
Autofire
If a ranged weapon has an automatic rate of fire, a character may set it on autofire. Autofire affects an area and everyone in it, not a specific creature. The character targets a 10-foot-by-10-foot area and makes an attack roll; the targeted area has an effective Defense of 10. (If the character does not have the Advanced Firearms Proficiency feat, he or she takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll.) If the attack succeeds, every creature within the affected area must make a Reflex save (DC 15) or take the weapon’s damage. Autofire shoots 10 bullets, and can only be used if the weapon has 10 bullets in it.
-Weylin
That rule needs some serious rewriting. Most firearms tend to have bullets that travel from the shooter to the horizon, or until they hit something. They don't teleport into a 10x10 square and only hit people inside there. :)
I know, not your rule, but still, it's a lousy rule.
In general in dnd/d20 shooting has removed the "hit things in the way, or behind your target if you miss" situation. Its hurts realism, but its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too complicated. That said very few modern firearms will go to 'the horizon' unless you are aiming up. Generally anything over 1000 meters and the bullet will hit the ground first. Even snipers using very high powered rifles with ludicrous muzzle velocities need to aim up to account for the drop in the bullet. It is why old iron sights had adjustments that can be made for longer ranges. And modern firearms are actually designed most of the time with medium ranges in mind instead of very long ranges.
Arrows dont 'teleport' to their targets either, but you still arent going to hit something in front of or behind your target (though they can provide a cover bonus). Bullets arent any different in this regard except they move faster and there are more of them.
So how did we go from bows in Pathfinder to assault weapons?
So how did we go from bows in Pathfinder to assault weapons?Attemptng to work out volley fire rules, dulsin.
I think 300 archers is just about equivalent to 1 machine gun dont you?
In general in dnd/d20 shooting has removed the "hit things in the way, or behind your target if you miss" situation. Its hurts realism, but its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too complicated. That said very few modern firearms will go to 'the horizon' unless you are aiming up. Generally anything over 1000 meters and the bullet will hit the ground first. Even snipers using very high powered rifles with ludicrous muzzle velocities need to aim up to account for the drop in the bullet. It is why old iron sights had adjustments that can be made for longer ranges. And modern firearms are actually designed most of the time with medium ranges in mind instead of very long ranges.Arrows dont 'teleport' to their targets either, but you still arent going to hit something in front of or behind your target (though they can provide a cover bonus). Bullets arent any different in this regard except they move faster and there are more of them.
When I say horizon, I mean until the ground or something else get's in the way. Sorry for the confusion.
As to the arrows... Things between you and your target do interfere (cover). And if those things between you and the target stop the arrow from hitting, it is that they have instead been hit. So I'd say that the 'something between you and target' is covered. This actually came up last week in my game. Someone tried to shoot a bolt at an enemy in melee. Two ally's were between the shooter and the target, so they gave 50% cover. The arrow ended up missing due to cover. We rolled randomly to see which ally it hit. One ally had a 29 AC, the other a 19 AC. It was, of course, the ally with the 19 AC, and the shooters attack of 23 was higher than the ally's 19 AC so the ally took the arrow. In fact, he took max damage (and wasn't happy about it). Had it gone the other way the arrow would have deflected off the other ally's armor.
Personally, I always check to see if an arrow hit's something else if you miss your target, if there's something important behind the target. For example, if there's a crowd of NPC's cowering against a wall, and you shoot at the BBEG who's 30 feet in front of them and miss, you will likely hit one of the NPC's.
And if those things between you and the target stop the arrow from hitting, it is that they have instead been hit.
Incorrect. That hasn't been an actual rule since 3.0. It was dropped in 3.5 and is not present in Pathfinder.
Didn't they already put out 3.5 rules for Volley Fire in Heroes of Battle?
And if those things between you and the target stop the arrow from hitting, it is that they have instead been hit.Incorrect. That hasn't been an actual rule since 3.0. It was dropped in 3.5 and is not present in Pathfinder.
Don't care if it's stated as a rule or not. If cover stops something from hitting, then it hit the cover. That's about like saying 'Oh, the grenade missed me, so it didn't blow up'. An arrow is an object hurtling around at high speeds, if cover stops it, then the cover came into contact with the object. Otherwise, the cover doesn't affect it at all.
Don't care if it's stated as a rule or not. If cover stops something from hitting, then it hit the cover. That's about like saying 'Oh, the grenade missed me, so it didn't blow up'. An arrow is an object hurtling around at high speeds, if cover stops it, then the cover came into contact with the object. Otherwise, the cover doesn't affect it at all.And if those things between you and the target stop the arrow from hitting, it is that they have instead been hit.Incorrect. That hasn't been an actual rule since 3.0. It was dropped in 3.5 and is not present in Pathfinder.
Yes but I was discussing RaW not house rules, you are house rulling in 3.0 rules. Which i dont overly disagree with I am just saying the change was made for a reason. And there is a similar reason why we dont worry about what's behind the target of a shot as well, it just gets too complicated. Every shot would be like a grenate throw.
Yes but I was discussing RaW not house rules, you are house rulling in 3.0 rules. Which i dont overly disagree with I am just saying the change was made for a reason. And there is a similar reason why we dont worry about what's behind the target of a shot as well, it just gets too complicated. Every shot would be like a grenate throw.Don't care if it's stated as a rule or not. If cover stops something from hitting, then it hit the cover. That's about like saying 'Oh, the grenade missed me, so it didn't blow up'. An arrow is an object hurtling around at high speeds, if cover stops it, then the cover came into contact with the object. Otherwise, the cover doesn't affect it at all.And if those things between you and the target stop the arrow from hitting, it is that they have instead been hit.Incorrect. That hasn't been an actual rule since 3.0. It was dropped in 3.5 and is not present in Pathfinder.
Not really all that more complicated, honestly. Most of the time, there's no real care where the arrow goes if it misses (oh , it hit in the woods somewhere, or the mountainside, or the dungeon wall).
I just don't think that just because something isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules that it isn't supposed to be taken care of. I think the rules leave it up to the GM to take care of a bunch of stuff as needed. There's no rules in the book for characters getting sick if they are not subject to a critter disease attack either. That doesn't mean they aren't ever sick, it just means it leaves it up to the GM to decide if someone get's sick if they were dumped in a chilly river naked and couldn't get to a fire for example.
I just don't consider that a house rule, I consider that part of my job as GM to handle things that the rules leave up to me.