| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes I would absolutely disallow compound bows. Composite bows however are perfectly fine as evidence suggests they've been around since 2500 bc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Cavall!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, definitely seems like a case of mistaken identity where the OP confused the words composite and compound.
For reference this is a composite bow, and this is a compound bow.
From a really out there perspective, compound bows are also composites since they're made out of many materials (plastics, metal, synthetic materials) but that's not what people mean typically when they talk about composite bows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a different type of bow is quite different from a different mechanism of damage entirely. Even if it was the same type of bow, it wouldn’t be the gotcha you seem to try to imply.
If you had a modern game and you allowed an Anachronistic firearm it wouldn’t also follow that you were unfair if you didn’t allow lasers too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a better example of this kind of anachronism, the rapier was invented in the 1500s, several centuries after gunpowder weapons had become widespread in Europe. So any campaign that throws out guns in the name of historical accuracy should also throw out rapiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this was supposed to be an in your face thing, but it's just not.
If you like guns in DnD, play a Gunslinger.
If your table disallows guns, play a different table.
Don't have to go off incorrectly casting shade on bows to try make a point...
If you are displeased with people restricting access to firearms, then address that issue directly. It has nothing to do with bows, compound, composite, or otherwise.
If you want a better example of this kind of anachronism, the rapier was invented in the 1500s, several centuries after gunpowder weapons had become widespread in Europe. So any campaign that throws out guns in the name of historical accuracy should also throw out rapiers.
Usually it’s not “historical accuracy“ it’s thematic feel. False argument. There is nothing about the rapier that would have been off despite not existing yet. It isn’t remotely the same as adding firearms.
It does feel kind of weird that there's a different proficiency for using a bow that's just made of wood and for using a bow that's the same size but is made out of composite materials.
It'd sort of like requiring a different proficiency for "a longsword" and "a longsword that's made out of adamant."
I'm 98.4% sure the proficiency is the same.
Yeah the composite version of a bow has the same proficiency as the base version.
The write up for the composite longbow also says that abilities that apply to longbows also apply to composite longbows unless they specifically state otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rapiers in the 1500s weren't the whippy, overlong things you imagine there gnoams, those came later. They were thrusting swords which were significantly better than slashing swords at finding gaps in armor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to start banning compound bows in my game.
I'm wondering what stats compound bows would have? Does Starfinder have them?
You think that's bad, Druids haven't really existed since the 7th century! Don't ban guns, ban Druids!
Seriously though, this was obviously a simple misunderstanding coupled with a bit of a rant about people selectively banning certain aspects of the game. People want certain themes in their games, and the Gunslinger doesn't fit the generic medieval fantasy tropes as well as others.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of Gunslingers, but that's more because I like the idea of early firearms being the big, slow, heavy hitting weapon that took a full minute to reload. I love the idea of having a Brace of Pistols which you'd then drop for a sword rather than the more rapid-fire modern aspects of firearms.
On the other hand, I'm playing a Half orc Barbarian with alien influences (Aberrant bloodrager) who's posessed by a Kasatha (Oracle dip) and wields a Chainsaw - alongside his lazer-wielding android techslinger companion ... we're playing Iron Gods.
Some games won't fit a Gunslinger as well, but it's not hard to make things fit with a bare minimum of effort. Your example may not have been the best Reksew_Trebla, but your frustration isn't totally unwarranted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal complaint with the Gunslinger is that the gun rules are just...horrendously bad. Combine that with the Gunslinger having a kit that isn't modular and it just feels boring rather than the exciting pirate/cowboy/dueling daredevil theme they try to evoke.
I have the same gripes with the Swashbuckler, to a lesser extent, but basically the daredevil classes really do not feel very daring to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal complaint with the Gunslinger is that the gun rules are just...horrendously bad. Combine that with the Gunslinger having a kit that isn't modular and it just feels boring rather than the exciting pirate/cowboy/dueling daredevil theme they try to evoke.
I have the same gripes with the Swashbuckler, to a lesser extent, but basically the daredevil classes really do not feel very daring to play.
My gripe is that they went so far out of their way to unfrontload the core classes from 3.x and then created two different classes you really don't need more than 5 levels in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering what stats compound bows would have? Does Starfinder have them?
The big thing about compound bows is that the pull weight “let’s off” once you’ve drawn the string all the way back. Makes it easier to take your time aiming. So maybe they would allow you to use a move action to gain +1 to hit and damage. Or not.
That too, but it would be less of an issue if the class was built so that you got to pick from a slew of abilities as you leveled up (ala Barbarian/UnMonk) that would encourage people to stay in the class to 20.
Options always attract people, provided they're good options mind. No one wants rogue talents because the vast majority are just situational garbage.
The same goes for full plate armour and guns. Knights in full plate armour are late medieval times and renaissance, times when gunpowder was commonly used on the battlefield. Even in Europe guns actually were used way before full plate armoured knights even existed - 1241 by Mongol invaders. Your famous holy knights from the crusades - they were wearing chainmail, with some plate components at best, definitely not a full plate. It is the sad story of the knights - when armour was finally at its peak (1500+) it was already kinda obsolete thing of the past and modern infantry with guns and pikes took charge instead of the knights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering what stats compound bows would have? Does Starfinder have them?
D20 modern has compound bows. Sadly, in that game all they did was take the composite bow and call it a compound bow. In my experience the primary advantage of a compound bow is that it's substantially easier to draw. This means you get a lot more power for less effort. The only way I can think to translate this in game is for the bow to treat you as having a higher strength for purposes of damage, the same way a masterwork backpack works for carrying capacity. It would probably be something like a +4 to strength.
I have to agree with the general consensus that this is a fabricated problem, created solely so that there would be a need for the argument, and maybe a chance to slip in facts about timelines. In reality, reality has very little impact on what I would or would not allow in a game. If guns don't feel right for the setting, they're out, same with alien-esque options, and maybe even Lovecraftian lore. Same reason a peasant railgun doesn't work, because facts and real-world rules have little influence on my fantasy games.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my biggest problem with guns in a game like Pathfinder is they just don't work well. Very low fire rate, expensive ammunition, and when monster's HP is commonly over 90+ a bullet doing 1d10 or so is just ... insignificant. Maybe in a game like Rolemaster with a critical table (and criticals can be extremely nasty) and you can boost the chance of getting a critical by stacking modifiers to hit they can work.I take it you have never seen a well-built Gunslinger character in action? Trust me, Pathfinder guns work great for them, which is seems to be the design intent:
- Mediocre (at best) for most characters so they don't become 'required' for all martials, but
- Still very deadly in the hands of a character who actually specializes in them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compound bows are likely a gnomish prototype. Would say for certain but they aren't steam-powered.
It is worth noting, for those bringing up historical accuracy... your dealing with a different universe entirely... if we had magic in the real world, it is quite possible that weapons and armor would have followed a far different development path... simpler weapons might have remained in high use longer due to magical enhancements, weapons like the rapier may have been seen much earlier in history even as a thin thrusting blade would likely have been a perfect blade for the more magically inclined soldiers. Design wise such a blade would have been a natural militaristic evolution to a wand or rod. Heck, fencing swords and techniques follow suit with many motions that are traditionally accepted to be wand casting motions even... so a caster wielding such a blade would feel right at home and likely not need to be taught an entirely new fighting technique, rather just a few alterations to their usual motions when pressed into direct melee... plus such blades and fighting styles are meant to keep attackers at a distance, something a Spellcaster would most certainly want.
The existence of the mend spell is enough to extend the life of full plate armor and start it earlier. Then again, I'd also expect a very early gun that used a small magical charge to propel bullets out of little more than a tube on a handle.
That is, unless mortal magic is a fairly modern invention.
Anyone arguing about "historical accuracy" in relation to Earth's history compared to the history of a fictional universe in a fantasy game needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities in life.
Anyone arguing about "historical accuracy" in relation to Earth's history compared to the history of a fictional universe in a fantasy game needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities in life.
I think that's probably a minor case of "room for improvement" than something requiring deep soul searching.
Historical accuracy aside, I can see a reason to be concerned with technological accuracy of a given in-game culture. In general, less complicated things should be developed before more complicated things, and historical progression is a good indicator of how technologically advanced things are in relation to each other. Dark ages tech shouldn't have clockwork without a very good in universe reason, for instance. The OP's objection would still wrong in this particular case, because a compound bow is, to put it mildly, less complicated than a nuke.
How unlikely is it really that your 'average' pseudo-Renaissance tech D&D culture could make a compound bow? I'm not knowledgeable enough about the makings of compound bows or Renaissance technology, but I know we've had pulleys and springs for centuries, and I assume the real reason we haven't had compound bows until after the invention of the nuke and the computer is that there was little interest in creating a more powerful bow, since as a weapon of war the bow was phased out by the time sufficient tech was available. Another thing to consider is how good would a compound bow be as a weapon of war? I have no clue about how to maintain them, but they do seem rather complicated and intricate; could they stand battlefield conditions without breaking down?
thats a good point...golarion in general is moving past the bow with alkenstar.
The existence of the mend spell is enough to extend the life of full plate armor and start it earlier.At caster level 50 maybe. Mending. Single Object 1 lb/CL. Even Mithral would be beyond most parties. Luckily, Make Whole is restricted by volume instead of weight.
The cuirass weighs between 4 and 6 lbs and is the heaviest single piece. Armor with smaller, interchangeable sections was easier to repair and keep in service thus remaining more broadly useful. You could only produce so much armor, and the bottleneck was typically at the craftsman. If the cuirass is within mend range of a 4th level caster, then we have no reason to rely on scale and chain, the blacksmith isn't stuck repairing armor and can make more armor.
I usually ask about the technology available in the setting, during Session Zero. Are there springs? These are things I need to know. For one, I like me a good pocket watch. I prefer to adventure with class.
As for guns... I figure you should probably give them some leniency if you don't have an equal problem with an Alchemist's Bombs. If hand grenades are ok, a pistol probably is, too.
Compound bows, the technology is a novelty... it has never been employed in combat en masse, nor has it affected the course of evolution or history in any way. No wonder the developers ignored it and didn't include any stats for it.
Except suits of armor count as one piece for basically every other purpose; why should it be different for Mend?
I suppose I could run a game treating fragments of things as the entire thing, but that seems like it would lead to nonsense.
|
So, ...I've made it a point to not reply to Threads where the OP just drops a Troll-Post and then, significantly, never shows back up to the Thread to participate. (But I've done it three or four times over the years; here's one more.)
There's no point in commenting that 'guns not fitting the setting' has little or nothing to do with Realism, but rather to do with, you know, 'fitting' non swords-&-sorcery fantasy material into a swords-&-sorcery fantasy setting. Because the OP isn't even here and had no intention of participating in a dynamic conversation about the subject.
|
|
I'm sure the OP DID want to talk about it only before they realized how poorly it was thought out and now is hiding in well deserved embarrassment.
i don't know, he even got the 'Because nuclear bombs were invented in 1938' part of his post wrong: Whlle nuclear weapons were theorized in the late 1930s (Einstein's letter to FDR suggesting this possibility was from August 1939), the actual first nuclear weapon test wasn't until July, 1945.