Composite bows [3.5]
Ian R Malcomson
This might be something I've missed...
Under 3.0, composite bows could be "mighty", and the "Special & Superior
Items" table (p114) listed up to mighty composite shortbows +2, and
mighty composite longbows +4. The implication (of the table, at least -
not the descriptive text) is that composite shortbows have a max Str
rating of +2, and composite longbows +4.
Under 3.5, the "mighty" idea has been dropped (in name), and *all*
composite longbows have a Strength rating (default being +0). The
entries for composite bows in the 3.5 PHB blow the 3.0 table implication
out of the water by listing a cost example for a Str +4 composite
shortbow.
The question is this: Given that the 3.5 PHB doesn't list any specific
maximum for composite bow Strength, what do you feel would be a logical
maximum Strength, if any? Do you feel they can have any Strength rating
possible? Limited to +4 (i.e., 18-19 Str)? Do you feel that material
integrity would prevent a composite bow being manufactured above a
certain Strength rating (if so, what and why)? Could a titan
comfortably have a composite bow with a +16 Strength rating to
accommodate its average 43 Str? Would such a bow need special materials
above and beyond the normal additive cost per Str bonus point, or is
+1,600gp enough of a cost modifier to accommodate this? (I know a
titan-sized composite longbow would have a greater effective cost mod
through size increase - that's a non-issue for this li'l poser; treat
the titan comment as a non-specific example).
Am I missing something that limits composite bow ratings, or is it
literally as the weapon description entries in the PHB suggests -
limitless?
--
Ian R Malcomson
Tetsubo
I'd allow a masterwork composite longbow a maximum of +6 without
requiring special materials. The +6 is the most an unaugmented human can
achieve (Strength 23). Since humans are often the "average" race this
seems logical. For a bow with a rating higher than +6 for a Medium sized
figure I would require some sort of expensive exotic materials. A Large
composite longbow might have an upper limit of +8 without special
materials. You could set these numbers at the level you as a GM are
happy with. The search for such exotic materials could be an adventure
in and of itself.
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France
Justin Bacon
> The question is this: Given that the 3.5 PHB doesn't list any specific
> maximum for composite bow Strength, what do you feel would be a logical
> maximum Strength, if any? Do you feel they can have any Strength rating
> possible? Limited to +4 (i.e., 18-19 Str)? Do you feel that material
> integrity would prevent a composite bow being manufactured above a
> certain Strength rating (if so, what and why)? Could a titan
> comfortably have a composite bow with a +16 Strength rating to
> accommodate its average 43 Str? Would such a bow need special materials
> above and beyond the normal additive cost per Str bonus point, or is
> +1,600gp enough of a cost modifier to accommodate this?
I'd say the cost modifier would cover it. In general, I'd say
real-world materials would have some problems. But I just recently
took a page from Clark Ashton Smith and had my more powerful composite
bows constructed from ironwood.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
news:5rCdnS7tjOI...@comcast.com...
> I'd allow a masterwork composite longbow a maximum of +6 without
> requiring special materials. The +6 is the most an unaugmented human can
> achieve (Strength 23). Since humans are often the "average" race this
> seems logical. For a bow with a rating higher than +6 for a Medium sized
> figure I would require some sort of expensive exotic materials. A Large
> composite longbow might have an upper limit of +8 without special
> materials. You could set these numbers at the level you as a GM are
> happy with. The search for such exotic materials could be an adventure
> in and of itself.
I think you have something here that's good in your line of thinking.
Rather than fussing overmuch about materials in particular (which the
formula already handles, cost-wise), let the extra effort be represented by
treating such bows as masterwork items, which makes them more difficult to
make.
As an alternative, you could simply demand that people wanting bows that
are strong enough for an ogre to use be as *big* as an ogre's (ie; to use a
+8 str modifier, you have to be enlarged).
-Michael
DMK
> The question is this: Given that the 3.5 PHB doesn't list any specific
> maximum for composite bow Strength, what do you feel would be a logical
> maximum Strength, if any? Do you feel they can have any Strength rating
> possible?
This would be my preference. I particularly enjoy the notion of someone with a
magic strength enhancer having a bow made to take advantage of it, and then
losing the enhancer... :-)
> Could a titan
> comfortably have a composite bow with a +16 Strength rating to
> accommodate its average 43 Str? Would such a bow need special materials
> above and beyond the normal additive cost per Str bonus point, or is
> +1,600gp enough of a cost modifier to accommodate this? (I know a
> titan-sized composite longbow would have a greater effective cost mod
> through size increase - that's a non-issue for this li'l poser; treat
> the titan comment as a non-specific example).
For a human sized composite longbow, sure, I think the 1600 gp is enough to
cover it. The character has obviously spent a lot of gold (or gotten really
lucky) to reach that strength level.
For the titan of your example, it would be more. Each +1 of the strength bonuse
is essentially = + 100% of the bow base cost. A composite longbow for a titan
would cost more than 100 gp. So the +16 bow would cost y + 16Xy.
Cheers,
DMK
--
The Guide to Alpha Flight: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/5525/
I can't afford to make any exceptions. Once word leaks out that a pirate has
gone soft people start to disobey him and it's nothing but work, work, work all
the time. - The Man In Black, from the Princesss Bride.
Peter Knutsen
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
[...]
> Am I missing something that limits composite bow ratings, or is it
> literally as the weapon description entries in the PHB suggests -
> limitless?
I asked about this on the RPG-Create mailing list, last year,
because I wanted to get things right for my homebrew RPG system.
It turns out that the *only* really important feature of a bow
is the *draw* *strength*. So in my homebrew RPG system, a bow is
rated according to what Strength is needed to utilize it, and
Strength beyond this is useless.
Now a secondary factor is that materials may impose a minimum
size of the bow, e.g. it's impossible to build a shortbow above
a certain strength rating - if you want stronger, you have to go
longbow. But below this Strength limit, there's no reason to go
longbow - a shortbow can do exactly the same things, and weigh
less and can be used in (slightly) cramped conditions. This
means that a secondary trait is the size of the bow: short bow
or long bow.
Damage and range is thus derived *only* from draw strength. Size
does *not* matter.
Of course material isn't just material. The Strength limit, for
when a bow has to be a long bow, is lower for self bows than it
is for composite bows (including self-composite bows).
There has to be an upper limit for how strong a composite long
bow can be (although I imagine that this limit might be higher
than the Strength it is physically possible for a male Human to
develop). Beyond this, you'd have to make the bow larger than a
long bow, e.g. an Ogre-sized bow (super-long bow). Then
Titan-sized (ultra-long bow). And so forth.
I'd allow Human-sized characters to use such bows, although with
difficulty, making them shoot more slowly, and at a penalty.
Both speed and ease-of-use would be further reduced if the
character is unfamiliar with oversized bows (in FFRE, this would
be a binary skill. In D&D3 it'd be a Feat).
On top of this comes penalties for being under-strength, of
course. It's possible to shoot a bow even if you are somewhat
weaker than its rated strength, but you should get penalties
both to range and the to-hit roll. And beyond a certain Strength
disparity treshhold, you should be completely unable to use the bow.
--
Peter Knutsen
knutsen.dk
Ian R Malcomson
> I'd allow a masterwork composite longbow a maximum of +6 without
>requiring special materials.
And what for a non-masterwork one? All composite bows now have a Str
rating under 3.5. Masterwork is something that can be considered,
however, so this comment is well received in general terms.
>The +6 is the most an unaugmented human can achieve (Strength 23).
>Since humans are often the "average" race this seems logical. For a bow
>with a rating higher than +6 for a Medium sized figure I would require
>some sort of expensive exotic materials. A Large composite longbow
>might have an upper limit of +8 without special materials.
Unless you consider "epic" as equivalent to "augmented", Str 23 isn't
the upper limit. I take your point of logic for +6 being a fairly
reasonable Medium limit, but one of the points I was trying to make is
that would the +x per + *encompass* exotic material requirements for
higher Str ratings. A +7 Str composite longbow adds +700gp - that's a
lot of dosh (400gp over what is normally considered "fine
craftsmanship", i.e. masterwork).
>You could set these numbers at the level you as a GM are happy with.
>The search for such exotic materials could be an adventure in and of
>itself.
This I know - I was fishing for what other GMs would find comfortable.
I'll let it go, though, since I assume the affront at being patronised
is all just me feeling day-after-Saturday-night-recovery blues.
Anyway, from the posts here and my own thoughts, I've decided to go this
way (what appears below are thus house rules):
MM Table 5-1 lists expected Str range by size. Using that table as a
guide, max Str ratings for non-masterwork composite bows comes out as
per:
Fine-Small: +0 (Str 1-11)
Medium: +4 (Str 19)
Large: +8 (Str 27)
Huge: +11 (Str 33)
Gargantuan: +15 (Str 41)
Colossal: +19 (Str 49)
In the interest of rounding things to nice numerical progressions, I'm
running with:
Fine-Small: +0
Medium: +4
Large: +8
Huge: +12
Gargantuan: +16
Colossal: +20
To have a composite bow of higher Str rating than base max for size
requires the bow to be of masterwork construction.
To figure out cost per size, calculate total cost as if it was a Medium
bow (regardless of modifier), *then* adjust cost for size. So a
Gargantuan +15 composite longbow would have a base cost of 1,600gp
(100gp base, +1,500 for +15 Str), multiplied by x4 (x2 per size category
increase, note multiplier stacking) for a total of 6,400gp. A Medium
+15 composite longbow would cost 100gp (base) + 300gp (masterwork) +
1,500gp (Str +15), or 1,900gp. The masterwork quality isn't included in
the Gargantuan cost calculations because a +15 Gargantuan composite
longbow doesn't need to be masterwork, whereas the Medium +15 Str bow
does.
This seems to me to encompass special crafting and material concerns.
Calculating base price before size modifier application takes into
account this material/crafting facet, as opposed to the static
masterwork cost addition which only encompasses fine crafting (a
Gargantuan +15 Str masterwork composite longbow would cost 6,700gp,
adding the +300gp masterwork modifier in as a static modifier "after the
event").
Anyway, thanks for the input all! I was half expecting someone to turn
around with a "RTFM book NN page #" on this, but it seems I've not
skipped some obscure paragraph on this subject somewhere.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Ian R Malcomson
>
>Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>[...]
>> Am I missing something that limits composite bow ratings, or is it
>>literally as the weapon description entries in the PHB suggests -
>>limitless?
>
>I asked about this on the RPG-Create mailing list, last year, because I
>wanted to get things right for my homebrew RPG system.
>
>It turns out that the *only* really important feature of a bow is the
>*draw* *strength*. So in my homebrew RPG system, a bow is rated
>according to what Strength is needed to utilize it, and Strength beyond
>this is useless.
>
>Now a secondary factor is that materials may impose a minimum size of
>the bow, e.g. it's impossible to build a shortbow above a certain
>strength rating - if you want stronger, you have to go longbow. But
>below this Strength limit, there's no reason to go longbow - a shortbow
>can do exactly the same things, and weigh less and can be used in
>(slightly) cramped conditions. This means that a secondary trait is the
>size of the bow: short bow or long bow.
>
>Damage and range is thus derived *only* from draw strength. Size does
>*not* matter.
>
>Of course material isn't just material. The Strength limit, for when a
>bow has to be a long bow, is lower for self bows than it is for
>composite bows (including self-composite bows).
Oh, there are all manner of considerations for real-world bows, if you
want to go into that depth. Flat bows, composite bows of varying
materials and layers, self bows, etc. The English longbow (ironically
developed by the Welsh) has a stave cut from the edge of a tree's
heartwood, effectively making it a "natural composite" bow (the
compression and extension characteristics of the younger and older wood
comprising the stave providing some composite traits). Then bow form,
such as recurves, and the daikyu which has a long stave but a low
nocking point permitting easier use from horseback.
A fair game-model for bows can be found in the Traveller: New Era "World
Tamer's Handbook", which calculates shaft energy, penetration, torsion
efficiency, and required Strength (all in real units or Traveller game
units). It doesn't take into account bow form - just size and material
(including composites), but it works for a more accurate game model.
However, I prefer my D&D games to be a bit more heroic, and a lot more
simplistic in terms of "science", hence the more "game rule" approach to
my original post.
>There has to be an upper limit for how strong a composite long bow can
>be (although I imagine that this limit might be higher than the
>Strength it is physically possible for a male Human to develop).
They pulled some longbow staves from the Mary Rose wreck that had
monstrous draw strengths (up to 175lbs, typical 88-120lbs) - but then
they've also dug up archers who would've been somewhat lopsided in the
arm stakes because of the differing amounts of effort each arm applies
while firing a bow.
>Beyond this, you'd have to make the bow larger than a long bow, e.g. an
>Ogre-sized bow (super-long bow). Then Titan-sized (ultra-long bow). And
>so forth.
>
>I'd allow Human-sized characters to use such bows, although with
>difficulty, making them shoot more slowly, and at a penalty. Both speed
>and ease-of-use would be further reduced if the character is unfamiliar
>with oversized bows (in FFRE, this would be a binary skill. In D&D3
>it'd be a Feat).
>
>On top of this comes penalties for being under-strength, of course.
>It's possible to shoot a bow even if you are somewhat weaker than its
>rated strength, but you should get penalties both to range and the
>to-hit roll. And beyond a certain Strength disparity treshhold, you
>should be completely unable to use the bow.
This is something I don't think the D&D model does so well. The
composite bow rules apply a flat -2 penalty to attack (you still get
your Str bonus to damage) if you have a Str mod lower than the bow's Str
rating (i.e., a character with Str 12 that uses a +3 Str composite bow
has +1 damage and -2 attack). I've already house ruled this to be -2
attack per Str mod under (so Str 12 using +3 Str bow would take a -4
attack penalty), and halving the Str bonus you can apply to damage (+0
in the 12/+3 running example).
I also have a ruling that requires a Str check in order to string a bow
(DC 10 + Str rating of the bow, you can take 10 but not 20 - meaning a
character with the right Str can automatically string the thing, but a
character with lesser Str needs to make a check). Mainly because
Odysseus and his bow stringing is one of my fave bits of the Odyssey.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Tetsubo
I apologize if you did take that personally. It was only meant as a
general comment rather than a dig.
This sounds like a solid way to go.
>
>
> Anyway, thanks for the input all! I was half expecting someone to
> turn around with a "RTFM book NN page #" on this, but it seems I've
> not skipped some obscure paragraph on this subject somewhere.
>
--
CARRIER LOST
> Size does *not* matter.
iykwim
--
\----/ dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\------/ --------------------------------------------------------------
\--------/ "Darkness beyond twilight; crimson beyond blood that flows;
| [] | Buried in the flow of time..." -- Lina Inverse
CARRIER LOST
> The question is this: Given that the 3.5 PHB doesn't list any specific
> maximum for composite bow Strength, what do you feel would be a logical
> maximum Strength, if any?
imc, no maximum. they pay their gold, they get their mighty bow.
highly mighty bows may be described as being made of rare woods, spring
steel, and the sinew of a grey render, but its all just flavor.
--
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/> |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| This virus works on the honor system. If you are running a Macintosh, |
| OS/2, Unix or Linux computer, please randomly delete several files |
| from your hard disk drive and forward this .sig to everyone you know. |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
JB
> They pulled some longbow staves from the Mary Rose wreck that had
> monstrous draw strengths (up to 175lbs, typical 88-120lbs) - but then
> they've also dug up archers who would've been somewhat lopsided in the
> arm stakes because of the differing amounts of effort each arm applies
> while firing a bow.
IIRC The bow that had the highest draw strength wasn't fully tested as it
developed a crack at a sub optimal draw point. The others in similar
condition weren't tested to their full potential either. Hardy uses the
observed draw weights to estimate their fully functional potentials and he
would place an 80lb bow firmly at the lower end. The average in the low to
mid hundreds and that 175lb bow at 200lb.
Don't have the book handy and that's from memory.
JB
>
> This might be something I've missed...
>
> Under 3.0, composite bows could be "mighty", and the "Special & Superior
> Items" table (p114) listed up to mighty composite shortbows +2, and
> mighty composite longbows +4. The implication (of the table, at least -
> not the descriptive text) is that composite shortbows have a max Str
> rating of +2, and composite longbows +4.
The descriptive text has more than an implication. It says something about
adding your strength bonus up to the maximum listed value.
> The question is this: Given that the 3.5 PHB doesn't list any specific
> maximum for composite bow Strength, what do you feel would be a logical
> maximum Strength, if any? Do you feel they can have any Strength rating
> possible? Limited to +4 (i.e., 18-19 Str)? Do you feel that material
> integrity would prevent a composite bow being manufactured above a
> certain Strength rating (if so, what and why)?
Why worry about it? If the Mary Rose bows show anything it's that you can
increase significant increases in power with manageable increases in
thickness.