Printable View
As topic asks... Simple question...
I know that the book says strength only adds for thrown weapons but I also think that Bows could be tuned to the strength of the archer (as it was for D&D). Since there are no crossbows in game, It could be more fair to allow everyone to add strength to the damage...
Thank you for suggestions
I wouldn't do it, personally. A higher pull on a bow might increase its range, but it's not going to deliver significantly more damage (as in: joules on target) at the sort of range of human(oid) strength we'd be talking about.
I'm generally opposed to increasing the lethality of bows simply because bows are, despite Hollywood's arguments to the contrary, simply not that lethal. Unless you're hit in the brain or the heart (very hard to do), you're most likely to die from either blood loss or infection. They were effective in the Middle Ages because of massed archer attacks that could bypass shields (because the arrows didn't fly straight, but arced up and over shields...hence the term "archery") and leave footmen pincushioned with multiple arrows that were not necessarily lethal, but sure as hell slowed them down.
If you want to make archery more effective, just remember that getting hit means that the victim has to deal with an arrow sticking out of him. Even Boromir struggled with that.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
I'd include something like along the lines of a double wound penalty to actions until the arrow is removed. And don't forget to ensure that arrow does damage on the way out :)
Personally, I incorporated some published house rules (from Hall of Fire, IIRC) for infection, as well.
Basically, in my campaign arrows are either a painful annoyance, or absolutely deadly in the absence of magical healing...which is pretty much how they really were.
Oh, one other thing: you could add damage bonuses depending on the type of arrowhead. You could have broadheads*, for example, that have poorer armour penetration (maybe double armour effectiveness), but do 2d6+3 dmg, and some bleeding after-effects.
*I would class stock-standard arrows as bodkin points. They penetrate armour fairly well (especially mail or leather), but leave a fairly narrow wound channel.
Broadheads, however, have wider heads, and often three or four "blades" that leave a massive wound channel that causes much greater bleeding. They're not particularly good at penetrating armour, however.
The only problem with the realism argument is that in the source materials bows were very lethal. In the movies, which this game is taken from, Legolas killed every target in one shot with the exception of the cave troll, the oliphants, and the orc with the torch who lit the bomb at Helms Deep. In the books is it strongly implied that each shot killed a foe as well.
Add to that the fact that melee characters quickly outstrip archers for damage and archer players end up feeling a bit marginalized (I have this happening right now in my campaign).
I changed the damage to the following: a basic hunting (or self) bow does 2D6, a composite bow does 2D6+3, longbow 2D6+4, light crossbow 2D6+1, crossbow 3D6+1, arbalest 3D6+6 (and all this other than the latter still leaves the archer behind the warrior using a long sword for 2D6+5+STR bonus).
You can see all my changes here:
http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?t=16134
Have you actually run the numbers on that? A bow doing 2D6 averages 7 points, against someone in 5 point armour that will inflict 2 points of damage. A bow doing 2D6+3 vs double armour on the same target will result in 10 points hitting 10 points of armour for zero damage.Quote:
Oh, one other thing: you could add damage bonuses depending on the type of arrowhead. You could have broadheads*, for example, that have poorer armour penetration (maybe double armour effectiveness), but do 2d6+3 dmg, and some bleeding after-effects.
Yes, but in both those sources the people we see firing and hitting with arrows have exceptionally high margins of success because of their high skill levels. In "real" terms, they're targeting those vital locations I mentioned being hard to hit.Quote:
The only problem with the realism argument is that in the source materials bows were very lethal. In the movies, which this game is taken from, Legolas killed every target in one shot with the exception of the cave troll, the oliphants, and the orc with the torch who lit the bomb at Helms Deep. In the books is it strongly implied that each shot killed a foe as well.
Well...yeah. That's kind of what I mean - if you have someone with a high enough skill (in other words, getting a high enough margin of success) then they effectively bypass armour. Otherwise, the armour stops the arrow...which is the point of armour, after all.Quote:
Have you actually run the numbers on that? A bow doing 2D6 averages 7 points, against someone in 5 point armour that will inflict 2 points of damage. A bow doing 2D6+3 vs double armour on the same target will result in 10 points hitting 10 points of armour for zero damage.
Besides which, broadheads aren't meant to be used on heavily armoured opponents - against leather or unarmoured opponents (the majority of targets in Medieval-style warfare, or for hunting, for which broadheads were originally designed) they will do more damage. Against armoured opponents, they won't...which is why you don't use them against heavily armoured opponents.
Historically, broadheads were used either for hunting or for massed volleys against un- or lightly-armoured levies. For armoured opponents, bodkin arrows, with a narrow piercing head, were used.
To use a modern equivalent, a hollow-point bullet will cause more damage to the target, but won't penetrate body armour nearly as well. An armour-piercing bullet will pierce armour nicely, but won't do as much damage to the target (because it has a tendency to 1) not break up inside the target and 2) overpenetrate and expend most of its energy on the landscape).
In the same way, the bodkin (armour-piercing) arrow is more likely to penetrate armour, but doesn't leave as great a wound channel and hence, doesn't cause as much bleeding.
A broadhead is less likely to penetrate armour, but leaves a greater wound channel.
Upshot is: hunting or fighting unarmoured opponenst? Use broadheads. Fighting armoured opponents? Use bodkins.
YMMV of course - this may be too complicated for some people to play. My group likes detail, and we use hit-location tables as well as specific damage-related penalties depending on the area hit.
Oh yeah, I know all about different types of arrows, I have a friend who is a fletcher and archer (he gets his bodkin and broadhead points from a guy in England). I'm a weapon collector and medieval military historian, so I could make the rules quite elaborate if I wanted to, but my group has three hours to play on one weeknight evening per week so I go for the more streamlined rules approach (even my friend that runs a Runequest variant game has stripped out hit locations in favour of the Stormbringer wound chart in order to speed up combat). When I was in my 20s and we played all day Sunday we favoured complex rule sets, but these days simplicity is our goal.
While my rule changes improve the lot of archers the melee characters still rule the battle board, so archers did not become overpowered, leaving me satisfied with the results.
Fair enough. Sorry if I came off sounding like a smart-arse - I'm happy to bow to your expertise with this stuff; it's just that a lot of people I've encountered have very unrealistic views of medieval weaponry, and when you question them on it, they tend to take their info from Hollywood. You obviously don't, so my points are moot. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulclaw
My area of expertise isn't in weaponry, it's in trauma and injury (operating theatre nurse for 15 years), so I tend to approach weapons from how much damage they do. :)
I understand regarding complexity/realism vs. simplicity/cinematic, too. We're avid Pathfinder players, so we also "do" hit points. One of the reasons we play LotR (though we haven't for quite a while, now) however, was that we could make the combat more realistic (with a few house rules and the like).
If it works for your game & your players, then it's the best possible thing. I was only thinking of the changes the OP was considering.Quote:
While my rule changes improve the lot of archers the melee characters still rule the battle board, so archers did not become overpowered, leaving me satisfied with the results.
I am a psychologist, maybe I should start looking in to the fear/inspire effects then! :)
Seriously great suggestions though kind of complex, I will stick with the 2d6 suggested by the errata and I won't add the strength damage since you all agree that it's the arrow's head which carry out the damage capacity
Thank you!
Absolutely! :) On the old 93GS boards for Twilight: 2013 I loved putting in some contributions to various diseases...nothing like a (former) medical person to include some truly "interesting" disease effects :)Quote:
Originally Posted by spikevampire
THere is an article in one of the issues of HOF that modfied the damage for the STR (read draw weight) of the bow. To get the bonus a character had to get or make a more powerful bow.