After this thread and some research, here's my suggestion for revising bows:
After this thread and some research, here's my suggestion for revising bows:
Shortbow remains exactly as it is.
Composite shortbow is removed.
Composite longbow renamed to "recurve bow" and no longer counts as a longbow for feats, etc.; otherwise unchanged.
Longbow changes in the following ways: 1d10 damage, 150' range, inherent +2 Strength modifier (same rules as composite bow, but the amount of the modifier cannot be changed). Longbows larger/smaller than Medium increase/decrease the inherent Strength modifier by +2 per size category.
Interesting... I'd have to think this over a bit, but it looks good to me...
After this thread and some research, here's my suggestion for revising bows:
Shortbow remains exactly as it is.
Composite shortbow is removed.
Composite longbow renamed to "recurve bow" and no longer counts as a longbow for feats, etc.; otherwise unchanged.
Longbow changes in the following ways: 1d10 damage, 150' range, inherent +2 Strength modifier (same rules as composite bow, but the amount of the modifier cannot be changed). Longbows larger/smaller than Medium increase/decrease the inherent Strength modifier by +2 per size category.
In terms of proficiency, would classes having access to shortbows only (and therefore composite shortbows as well) have access to the recurved bow?
If so, are we still stuck with a weapon (the short bow) that will virtually never be used by PC?
If not, wouldn't it deny rogues and bards from having access to bonus damage from high STR with bows? (and would it be a big deal? Any elven character would would be likely to use a bow gets the proficiency as a racial trait anyway)
'findel
Hmm, I don't agree with some of the changes. A composite longbow should count as a longbow for feats - the use is the same, the construction is rather different. Also, not all composite longbows are of the recurve style - the samurai yumi is an asymmetrical composite longbow, for instance and is most certainly not recurved.
However, for those interested in more bows and arrows, we've got quite a few in Luven Lightfinger's Gear & Treasure, including a flatbow, bow-lance (this is an actual real-world weapon), and the Steel Bow, along with a variety of arrows.
I think the OP's point was to create 3 separate entries of bows rather than two (which then have two options each). Whether the "recurved bow" is actually recurved or not is - in the end - irrelevant with the intention of this post (correct me if I'm wrong Tejon).
I've done something similar in my game, except that the categories are bow, composite bow and longbow (with the elven bow as an exotic weapon). I'd consider the Yumi to be an exotic weapon as well.
'findel
Arrowheads are also important, with the bodkin point yielding a superior armor piercer for the relatively heavier English arrow. It was quite capable of punching through weaker plate and destroying mail. Weaker arrows and bows were deadly given the weaker armors of lands further east, with many of those being mainly leather of lighter metal configurations.
As for accuracy of the yumi, the Japanese actually had 'lace cutter' arrow heads to destroy opponents by cutting exposed leather and fabric ties. Then again, western tradition has no record of a Gochiin no Tajima, and Agincourt showed the lethality of the Longbow. The Samurai started as mounted archers and held onto the 'heroic' or challenge style of warfare much longer than in the West. Early versions of the Yumi were smaller and less attuned to long range accuracy. Indeed, all those nifty stories of incredible accuracy involve shooting from foot, be it Eastern, the Williams Marshal or Tell, or Robin Hood. The Asiatic horse archers are not spoken up as accurate, but rather as prolific and uncatchable (Parthian Shot-gad! wish I could do hyperlinks), rushing in to release a multitude of arrows before retreating to reload. Mass archery in really large battles is geared to a bunch of people hitting an area occupied by the enemy. Target shooting and Clout shooting are completely different.
The yumi, lace-cutter arrows, flesh terror arrows, and humming bulb arrows are all in the samurai equipment section of Paths of Power. Bodkin arrows are in LLG&T.
After this thread and some research, here's my suggestion for revising bows:
Shortbow remains exactly as it is.
Composite shortbow is removed.
Composite longbow renamed to "recurve bow" and no longer counts as a longbow for feats, etc.; otherwise unchanged.
Longbow changes in the following ways: 1d10 damage, 150' range, inherent +2 Strength modifier (same rules as composite bow, but the amount of the modifier cannot be changed). Longbows larger/smaller than Medium increase/decrease the inherent Strength modifier by +2 per size category. In terms of proficiency, would classes having access to shortbows only (and therefore composite shortbows as well) have access to the recurved bow?
If so, are we still stuck with a weapon (the short bow) that will virtually never be used by PC?
If not, wouldn't it deny rogues and bards from having access to bonus damage from high STR with bows? (and would it be a big deal? Any elven character would would be likely to use a bow gets the proficiency as a racial trait anyway)
'findel
if u look at the elf it specifies that they gain bow proficiency and in parenthasies says (including composite versions) niether the rogue or the bard have composite versions listed so i would assume they cant use them so this would mean nothing changed for rogues or bards if i am right. and either way it makes the elf proficiencies matter much more for a high str rogue or bard which i think is good
The only proficiency change anywhere would be that elves get the recurve bow. Yes, bards and rogues lose strength bows... no, I don't think it matters one whit. :)
The yumi has a rather prominent recurve, you lying bastard.
The only proficiency change anywhere would be that elves get the recurve bow. Yes, bards and rogues lose strength bows... no, I don't think it matters one whit. :)
The yumi has a rather prominent recurve, you lying bastard.
http://www.woodbows.com/images/yumi1l.jpg
http://www.samurai-weapons.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kyudo-yumi.jpg
http://www.mardb.com/kyudo/photos/KyudoFirstposition.jpg
Where is this prominent recurve?
Recurve: http://www.classic-bow.com/catalog/images/0367_recurve_bow.jpg
The only proficiency change anywhere would be that elves get the recurve bow. Yes, bards and rogues lose strength bows... no, I don't think it matters one whit. :)
The yumi has a rather prominent recurve, you lying bastard.
http://www.woodbows.com/images/yumi1l.jpg
http://www.samurai-weapons.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kyudo-yumi.jpg
http://www.mardb.com/kyudo/photos/KyudoFirstposition.jpg
Where is this prominent recurve?
Recurve: http://www.classic-bow.com/catalog/images/0367_recurve_bow.jpg
dude the first one of those links isnt a traditional yumi and the next two both are recurve
What definition are you using for a recurve bow? A recurve is a bow with tips that curve away from the archer when unstrung, a yumi does not. A recurve is a bow in which the string contacts the arms of the bow when strung. A Yumi, as clearly shown and illustrated, does not.
What definition are you using for a recurve bow?
Not the one you grabbed from Wikipedia.
A recurve is exactly what it says it is: "curving again." A normal bow bends entirely toward the wielder in a smooth parabola, creating a single spring. A recurve turns back away from the initial curve, creating additional springs to store more energy. It doesn't matter if it turns completely away from the wielder. It doesn't matter where, or how many times, or even in which direction the curve reverses. What matters is that you have switched from a single simple spring to a compound system. Two out of three of your yumi pictures demonstrate this. (The first one doesn't. Surprise! Japan has multiple bow types too!)
Whether or not this is a valid definition to whichever of several (frequently disagreeing) archery standards you personally subscribe to, it's the sensible one from a physical-mechanical perspective, which makes it the one I want to use for game-mechanics.
Kyrt: Hey, it's a house rule anyway. :) Give bards the recurve if you want. (Or play an elf!)