|
Ok, so the APG has Blunt Arrows, Flight Arrows, and Smoke Arrows. The Core Rulebook has Screaming Bolts and Arrows of Slaying. Here's my question... can these properties be equally applied (with similar increases in costs) to all basic ammunition types, namely Arrows, Bolts, and Bullets? This makes sense to me, but cannot seem to find anything that confirms nor excludes this possibility.
Thanks.
Also, would this extend to other bolt / arrow / bullet varieties?
|
A flight arrow is specifically opposed to a sheaf arrow (the standard design for rapid production and damage in mass numbers) so it wouldn't make sense to apply this as a property to other weapons. Increasing the range of a crossbow or sling should involve changes to the launcher rather than the ammunition.
Sling bullets are already blunt.
Other combinations seem reasonable.
|
|
A flight arrow is specifically opposed to a sheaf arrow (the standard design for rapid production and damage in mass numbers) so it wouldn't make sense to apply this as a property to other weapons. Increasing the range of a crossbow or sling should involve changes to the launcher rather than the ammunition.
Sling bullets are already blunt.
Other combinations seem reasonable.
Yes, Sling Bullets are already blunt. However, they could have the Smoking property, or could be a bullet version of the magical Screaming Bolt, etc. Your logic doesn't hold for flight vs. sheaf arrows as applied to crossbow bolts. The "launcher" for the arrows isn't different. The design difference is in the projectiles. This could even be applied to bullets... after all, golf balls fly farther than smooth balls for a reason. Thus, the design difference between a normal bullet vs. flight bullet would be dimples designed into the flight bullet.
|
|
A flight arrow is specifically opposed to a sheaf arrow (the standard design for rapid production and damage in mass numbers) so it wouldn't make sense to apply this as a property to other weapons. Increasing the range of a crossbow or sling should involve changes to the launcher rather than the ammunition.Your logic doesn't hold for flight vs. sheaf arrows as applied to crossbow bolts. The "launcher" for the arrows isn't different. The design difference is in the projectiles.
I'm not sure what "logic" you've responded to. That's certainly how a flight arrow interacts with a bow. The design is specific to a (long)bow. I would say that no comparable type of ammunition exists for a crossbow or sling.
A flight arrow is more like the target variety you see in day to day archery sets - has a small head and is well balanced for flight. A Sheaf arrow has a much more significant head to allow it to punch through objects... this comes at cost of weight/balance which reduces range v a flight arrow.
Similarly, crossbows come with the option of a broad headed 'hunting' variety, of the smaller 'target' style head.
So I would say that there could be a 'flight' version of the crossbow bolt too.
Not so sure about the golf ball logic though!
The pits in a golf ball only add benefit when the ball is 'spinning' which it does when it is struck, however if the ball was launched it would be better as smooth and rounded as it could be.
Pretty sure there was a Mythbusters episode where they made a "dimpled" car that got better mileage than a regular one, despite the hundreds of pounds of modeling clay they used (to allow for the "dimpling").
|
|
I'm not sure what "logic" you've responded to. That's certainly how a flight arrow interacts with a bow. The design is specific to a (long)bow. I would say that no comparable type of ammunition exists for a crossbow or sling.A flight arrow is specifically opposed to a sheaf arrow (the standard design for rapid production and damage in mass numbers) so it wouldn't make sense to apply this as a property to other weapons. Increasing the range of a crossbow or sling should involve changes to the launcher rather than the ammunition.Your logic doesn't hold for flight vs. sheaf arrows as applied to crossbow bolts. The "launcher" for the arrows isn't different. The design difference is in the projectiles.
The design for a flight arrow might be specific to a longbow / shortbow, but the design difference IS in the arrow, not the bow. Further, it is an engineering fact that golf balls fly farther than smooth balls because of the dimpling pattern. This isn't conjecture, it is fact. So tell me why that wouldn't translate to sling bullets?
As for flight bolts, it seems the accuracy (and likely range) of a bolt or arrow are controlled by fletching design. Imparting a higher rotation to the projectile increases accuracy at least, similar to bullet rifling in modern firearms. Note also that imparting said spin in modern firearms IS known to increase range. See OldenBolts.com and CrossbowHunters.com (section entitled "Now to Understand the Arrow").
|
|
Pretty sure there was a Mythbusters episode where they made a "dimpled" car that got better mileage than a regular one, despite the hundreds of pounds of modeling clay they used (to allow for the "dimpling").
I can confirm this, as I saw that episode. The coated the car in 800 lbs of modelling clay, recorded the fuel economy of the car. Then they "dimpled" the car and placed the cutouts IN the car so that the weight would not change. Then the measure the fuel economy again, and it was markedly improved. As the car was not "spinning" this lends credence that dimpling a sling bullet should work.
I personally would have much rather seen the various sorts of arrows made into a list of properties that can be applied to various missiles. As it is now there are many cases where it would be neat to have the same property on a crossbow bolt, or a sling bullet, or a dart, for example, but in each of those cases you will have to clear it with your GM.