BR Crossbows.

[ConjurerDragon]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:58:05 -0700, Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:

...

>I`ve fired a LOT of bows and crossbows in my time, and my personal take on

>the subject is that they certainly improved crossbows in 3e, but they still

>aren`t "realistic" in many regards. One thing that I thought was a good

>addition to the 1e-2e rules was the "point blank" concept that was

>sometimes used. Unfortunately, the rule itself was a little unwieldy for

>practical use when playing out combat, but it was the kernal of a good idea.

>At 12:04 AM 10/8/2002 +0200, Carl Cramer wrote:

>>We let crossbows cause auto-criticals on any threat roll that is also a hit

>>within 30 ft. That way, anyone with a crossbow has at least a 5% chance of

>>inflicting a critical hit - which makes them pretty dangerous militia

>>weapons.

>

>Now, that`s a very interesting additional rule. I like it. It

>incorporates the aforementioned "point blank" concept but is much easier to

>handle. Kudos.

>

>>Also, we allow crossbows to scale freely in size. That gives quite a

>>>varietyof crossbows:

>>Hand crossbow: T: 1d4, S: 1d6, M: 1d8 - short range, one-handed

>>Light crossbow: S: 1d8, M: 2d6, L: 2d8 - medium range, quick to reload

>>Heavy Crossbow: M 1d10, L: 2d6 - long range, slow reload

>

>What do you mean by those reload times? 1 per round and 1/2 per round per

>the core rules, or is it something else?

>>We also made the Hand Crossbow a martial weapon (at least for Ainureans),

>>and it is qute a common cavalry weapon - check the illustration on the

>>cavalry war cards.

>

>That seems sensible. Any particular cultures that use the hand crossbow

>other than Anuireans? I`d probably limit it to Anuirean, Brecht and maybe

>the Khinasi, personally.

>Gary



It is quite some time since this thread, but I wanted to add something to

the crossbow discussion that bothered me.



The 2E Birthright specific rule did not increase the damage done, as does

the abovementioned houserule which lets crossbows cause auto-critical hits.

It did make causing damage easier.



The 3E houserule does not make inflicting damage easier, but lets it do more

damage on average as the chance for critical hits is higher. And 3E already

raised the damage of crossbows as compared to the 2E crossbows.



The major difference I see is that with the 2E version a commoner would have

had a chance to inflict damage to a full-plate-armoured knight as his

chances to penetrate the armour would have been much better than as compared

to shooting a bow.



The 3E equivalent, the 1st level Commoner shooting the crossbow has a higher

chance to do more damage - but the chance that he actually does any damage

at all is low as he is unlikely to hit at all. If the Commoner in question

is proficient with the crossbow (he has proficiency with 1 simple weapon

according to the 3.0 DMG) he has only a chance of a D20 compared to the AC

of 18 of the knight in full plate armour, so 10% to hit and a 5% to hit and

do a critical hit using the houserule from above. If the commoner has not

used his 1 simple weapon proficiency on crossbow, then he suffers a -4

penalty for not being proficient and is able to hit only on a 20 with a 5%

to hit and automatically do a critical hit.



This does IMO not reflect the threat that let the pope ban crossbows as

weapons that could kill an armoured knight fired from the hands of a peasant.



I would prefer a version that makes it possible for a commoner to fire a

crossbow and penetrate plate armour, not one that in the rare cases that he

actually hits makes more damage.

bye

Michael

[Athos69]

Keep in mind too that there is another point that, when looked at from a non-game mechanic standpoint, increase the deadliness.

Simple Weapon. This means that almost anyone can be trained to use this weapon. In non-game terms, this means that the weapons could be passed out to peasants, and with a bare minimum of training they could point and shoot this weapon, as opposed to the years of practice needed to use a longbow.

Looking at it from a game standpoint, the Light Crossbow and the Longbow both do an equivalent amont of damage. The Heavy Crossbow does, on average, 1 point more damage per hit, virtually guaranteeing the death of an average soldier when hit by the weapon. Both crossbows are simple weapons, and this are much more dangerous in the hands of rabble. The advantage of the Light Crossbow is a similar rate of fire to a Longbow.

[Doyle]

Boy do I have a problem with that bit of the rules. I`ve used light

crossbows, short and long bows in SCA combat and target shooting and

there is no way they can compare speed-wise.

With the clubs archery competition, there is a speed round of 30 seconds

which I`ll use for the comparison. With a short bow the best I`ve

gotten was 14 shots into the target, though 12 was more usual. The best

I think I managed with the crossbow was 5. That`s 2-3 shots per 6

second round (3/2 rate) with the short bow and 1 per round with the

light crossbow.

While this is just a personal gripe with rules vs. reality, if you are

thinking of modifying the rules to suit such things, you may wist to

consider it.



Regards,

Doyle.



-----Original Message-----

From: Athos69

<snip>



... The advantage of the Light Crossbow is a similar rate of fire to a

Longbow.

[RaspK_FOG]

Err... Whoever wrote those notes on crossbows (except for Doyle) was pretty much confused when it comes to both rules and reality: a crossbow is VERY slow to reload, while the bow is as fast as you can get an arrow from a quiver, knock it on the bow, then fire&#33; There is a feat that many of you might have liked, Rapid Reload, which allowed one to reload a hand/light crossbow as a free action once per round, or a heavy crossbow as a move action. That rounds up as a maximum of 2 shots per round for the hand/light crossbow and 1 shot per round for the heavy crossbow&#33;

As for realism, the problem is not the ruling for crossbows: the problem lies with the fact that armour normally reduces the possibility of getting hit (armour bonus) only slightly, but most importantly reduces the overall damage dealt by a blow, with a slight weakness against one form of attack, like the characteristic problem chainmail had with piercing weapons, like daggers, rapiers, longswords (not broadswords), gladii, spears, and morningstars (damage reduction).

[teloft]

Here is one thing about bows.

Armour piercing

a knigth in full plate is not save from a hail of armour pierching arrows.

the armour pierching arrow is stha standard for combat. While the hunting arrow is the standard for hunting.

Im not sure How I sould handle this houserule

I imagen the armour pierching arrow will ignor any armour, But not shield.
I imagen thet the armour pierching arrow will ignor natural armour as well.

Can i use the benifit of armour pierching arrows at point blanck?
Can crossbow bolts be armour pierching?
Can shortbow bolts be armour pierching?
Can only longbow arrows be armour pierching?

- - -

On related notes, anyone tretening you with a crosbow should be a real treat, no mater who you are. shoul be similar to a modern day shot gun,

[Green Knight]

Interesting topic, since BR Crossbows specifically got a bonus vs. armor

at short and medium ranger under 2E. No other weapon did, and if carried

over to 3E, would make the Crossbow a very effective weapon, especially

considering its status as a Simple weapon.



However, if the crossbow bolt is piercing at short ranges, then surely a

pick head also is. What about axes then, they certainly have better

piercing capabilities than light swords.



In the end, I think it boils down to 3E using a very abstract system for

defense and damage. The crossbow bolts power is already figured into its

range, damage dice, critical range/multiplier, status as a simple weapon

etc. The same goes for very other weapon.



If one were to want to use armor piercing for weapons, I think that is

should be applied to the system as a whole, but that would be quite a

task to rework it into a viable system.



Cheers

Bjørn

[RaspK_FOG]

I have already worked the concept of armour piercing for the STANDARD 3e/3.5e system of armour class ratings:

Armour piercing missiles effectively reduce the Armour Class rating of the target.
I based the armour piercing arrows on the japanese arrows and british bodkin arrows, which both had the same quality, if overall different: they could slice through armour like butter.
Armour piercing arrows/bolts are always masterwork.
The number by which the opponent&#39;s AC rating is lowered goes as follows:

Armour piercing arrows, shot from a longbow, reduce the AC rating by 2,...
... or 1, if shot from a shortbow.
Crossbows (except for hand crossbows) always have an armour piercing quality: light crossbows reduce the AC rating by 1,...
... heavy crossbows by 2,...
... and arbalests by 3.
Special armour piercing bolts lower the AC rating by an additional 1.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 8 2004, 07:17 AM
Armour piercing arrows/bolts are always masterwork.

Overall this seems pretty straight forward to me.

The one comment would be that armor piercing arrows should have the cost of being masterwork but not also gain the masterwork benefit.

That is a masterwork arrow gets a +1 to hit and as presented for the same cost the arrow also gains armor piercing quality.

Another tact could be to parallel the &#39;keen&#39; ability when used against armor (i.e., increased critical range). Just a thought.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178

> irdeggman wrote:

>
Armour piercing arrows/bolts are always masterwork.

>

> Overall this seems pretty straight forward to me.

> The one comment would be that armor piercing arrows should have the cost of being masterwork

> but not also gain the masterwork benefit.

> That is a masterwork arrow gets a +1 to hit and as presented for the same cost the arrow

>also gains armor piercing quality.

> Another tact could be to parallel the `keen` ability when used against armor (i.e.,

> increased critical range). Just a thought.



The Arms&Equipment guide listed another type of arrow, the flight arrow.

For the benefit that the range increment is increase by 25 feet the

flightarrow does only double critical damage (as compared to the PHB 3.0

X3), and weighs more with 1/5 lb. or 0,2 lb per arrow (the PHB has 20

arrows for 3 lb, only 0,15 per arrow. Finally the Flight Arrow costs 8

gp, while the normal Masterwork Arrow only 7 gp and normal arrows are 20

for 1 gp.



However the Flight Arrow is a masterwork arrow and gains the normal

masterwork benefits.



In my opinion a armourpiercing masterwork arrow should gain the normal

masterwork benefit as well in addition to the armourpiercing as does the

Flight Arrow. Naturally the AP arrow should then also like the Flight

arrow cost more than the normal 7 gp masterwork arrow, better even more

than the flight arrow, and weigh more, perhaps more than the flight arrow.



For normal adventurers starting with the PHB random starting gold (240

gp maximum for a fighter) they are too expensive to use anyway or else

they have no money for any other equipment. And for characters with

enough money to afford them there is still the problem to find someone

with enough skill in Craft (Bowmaking or Fletcher?) to beat the DC 20

for making a masterwork item.

bye

Michael

[RaspK_FOG]

Sorry, Irdeggman, for not making things clear, as I should.

Armour piercing arrows should always be considered to be masterwork, but cost more as well. The average (market) cost of a bodkin arrow should be from 15 to 50 gp, based on the availability of the item in regard to conditions, not economy. Troops who have to fight against foreigners that favour heavy armour would be carrying more bodkin arrows than any rich perfectionist who is hunting.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:17 AM





> I have already worked the concept of armour piercing for the STANDARD

3e/3.5e system of armour class ratings:



There needs to be some specification of range. All projectile weapons,

gunpowder included, lose velocity (hence kinetic energy) because of wind

resistance. This also explains why projectiles have an arc trajectory. The

old BR materials gave the crossbow a benefit at close and medium range. In

3e a benefit during the first two range increments makes sense for longbows

and crossbows. I would restrict shortbows to 30 yds, because the number of

accounts of their not penetrating even light armors are so numerous. I

would also assume that all arrows shot at armored targets are using armor

piercing arrows. Other kinds of arrows would be obviously inappropriate.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Green Knight]

But why the extremely high cost? It`s about the cost of magic arrows.



The arrows we are talking about are just arrows with narrow heads so

that the kinetic energy of the arrow is concentrated on a smaller area

and is thus better able to penetrate armor.



-----Original Message-----

From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of RaspK_FOG

Sent: 8. januar 2004 23:23

To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

Subject: Re: BR Crossbows. [2#2178]



This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178



RaspK_FOG wrote:

Sorry, Irdeggman, for not making things clear, as I

should.



Armour piercing arrows should always be considered to be masterwork,

but cost more as well. The average (market) cost of a bodkin arrow

should be from 15 to 50 gp, based on the availability of the item in

regard to conditions, not economy. Troops who have to fight against

foreigners that favour heavy armour would be carrying more bodkin arrows

than any rich perfectionist who is hunting.



************************************************** **********************

****



Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

[Peter Lubke]

A side note:

Somewhere in the evolution of D&D between the original published works and

2nd Ed, the crossbow was severely weakened as a weapon - especially in

comparison to bows. In original D&D (i.e. not "Original D&D" the product)

all missile weapons except crossbows were limited to 1-3 damage beyond short

range. By AD&D (1st Ed), all other missile weapons had been greatly boosted

in effectiveness by allowing all to inflict the same damage at all ranges,

and, the number of attacks for most non-crossbow missile weapons effectively

increased (by a factor of 3 in the case of bows!).

[Javelins also became relatively less effective, especially in comparison to

other hurled weapons.]



It would be more correct to say that bows and most other missile weapons

were boosted, while crossbows were not.

Now I personally believe that the boost was mostly unintentional (a boo

boo), and that it was better left the way it was. Of course no-one in

publishing likes to admit they got it wrong and it`s politically almost

impossible to take a bonus back - someone will always howl. But bows became

more than twice as damaging at short range as longswords are in melee -

think about that - a short bow at 50 yards or a longsword at 3 feet - what

is more threatening?



BR (2nd Ed) beefed up the crossbow. Just a bit, although the BR crossbow is

still less powerful relative to bows than original D&D crossbows and

original D&D bows.

original D&D: crossbow 7 bow 12 -- ratio 1.7

2nd Ed AD&D: crossbow 7 bow 21 -- ratio 3.0

BR 2nd Ed: crossbow 8.4 bow 21 -- ratio 2.5





Peter



----- Original Message -----

From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: BR Crossbows. [2#2178]





> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:17 AM

>

>

> > I have already worked the concept of armour piercing for the STANDARD

> 3e/3.5e system of armour class ratings:

>

> There needs to be some specification of range. All projectile weapons,

> gunpowder included, lose velocity (hence kinetic energy) because of wind

> resistance. This also explains why projectiles have an arc trajectory.

The

> old BR materials gave the crossbow a benefit at close and medium range.

In

> 3e a benefit during the first two range increments makes sense for

longbows

> and crossbows. I would restrict shortbows to 30 yds, because the number

of

> accounts of their not penetrating even light armors are so numerous. I

> would also assume that all arrows shot at armored targets are using armor

> piercing arrows. Other kinds of arrows would be obviously inappropriate.

>

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:17 AM

>> I have already worked the concept of armour piercing for the STANDARD

> 3e/3.5e system of armour class ratings:

> There needs to be some specification of range. All projectile weapons,

> gunpowder included, lose velocity (hence kinetic energy) because of wind

> resistance. This also explains why projectiles have an arc trajectory. The

> old BR materials gave the crossbow a benefit at close and medium range. In

> 3e a benefit during the first two range increments makes sense for longbows

> and crossbows. I would restrict shortbows to 30 yds, because the number of

> accounts of their not penetrating even light armors are so numerous. I

> would also assume that all arrows shot at armored targets are using armor

> piercing arrows. Other kinds of arrows would be obviously inappropriate.

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com



All arrows shot at armoured targets should be armourpiercing arrows?

If the armourpiercing arrow/bolt is a masterwork arrow with a cost of at

least 8 gp, likely more, for only 1 arrow, while the normal arrows cost

1 gp for 20, or 0,05 then that means 160 times the price. Would not the

muster and maintenace cost of archers/crossbowmen raise dramatically if

they were equipped with such expensive ammunition, and perhaps even the

supply in numbers large enough simply not possible as not enough

fletchers exist that are able to create masterwork ammunition instead of

normal arrows?



However as replacement for +1, +2 or other arrows that are normally

found in treasure while adventuring in D&D they would seem more

approbiate for Birthright.



Björn wrote:

> But why the extremely high cost? It`s about the cost of magic arrows.

> The arrows we are talking about are just arrows with narrow heads so

> that the kinetic energy of the arrow is concentrated on a smaller area

> and is thus better able to penetrate armor.



In the 3.0 PHB the price for the masterwork arrow in table 8-14 is 350

gp for 50 arrows (the normal 7 gp per masterwork arrows as requirement

for a magical arrow) plus from table 8-10 the price for the + bonus

which in case of +1 Arrows is 2000 gp. A price of 2350 gp for 50 arrows

+1 would be 47 gp for one. And that is only for standard D&D - in

Birthright in which magical equipment is rarer and more expensive that

might be more, for example if using the optional rule which raises the

market price for magic item creation.

15-50 gp for an armourpiercing masterwork arrow as RaspK_FOG suggested

would then not be as expensive as magical arrows +1 and easier available.

However they ought to be nearly as expensive as magical arrows +1 as

their bonus is comparably high, just not magical.

bye

Michael

[Green Knight]

But as I also pointed out, why would they be masterwork arrows at all? Any competent pair of smith/fletcher in a culture who has evolved arrows to deal with heavy armor, should be able to make arrows of any appropriate kind without them being masterwork.

>

> Fra: Michael Romes <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

> Dato: 2004/01/09 Fri AM 06:55:51 CET

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: BR Crossbows. [2#2178]

>

> Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:17 AM

> >> I have already worked the concept of armour piercing for the STANDARD

> > 3e/3.5e system of armour class ratings:

> > There needs to be some specification of range. All projectile weapons,

> > gunpowder included, lose velocity (hence kinetic energy) because of wind

> > resistance. This also explains why projectiles have an arc trajectory. The

> > old BR materials gave the crossbow a benefit at close and medium range. In

> > 3e a benefit during the first two range increments makes sense for longbows

> > and crossbows. I would restrict shortbows to 30 yds, because the number of

> > accounts of their not penetrating even light armors are so numerous. I

> > would also assume that all arrows shot at armored targets are using armor

> > piercing arrows. Other kinds of arrows would be obviously inappropriate.

> > Kenneth Gauck

> > kgauck@mchsi.com

>

> All arrows shot at armoured targets should be armourpiercing arrows?

> If the armourpiercing arrow/bolt is a masterwork arrow with a cost of at

> least 8 gp, likely more, for only 1 arrow, while the normal arrows cost

> 1 gp for 20, or 0,05 then that means 160 times the price. Would not the

> muster and maintenace cost of archers/crossbowmen raise dramatically if

> they were equipped with such expensive ammunition, and perhaps even the

> supply in numbers large enough simply not possible as not enough

> fletchers exist that are able to create masterwork ammunition instead of

> normal arrows?

>

> However as replacement for +1, +2 or other arrows that are normally

> found in treasure while adventuring in D&D they would seem more

> approbiate for Birthright.

>

> Björn wrote:

> > But why the extremely high cost? It`s about the cost of magic arrows.

> > The arrows we are talking about are just arrows with narrow heads so

> > that the kinetic energy of the arrow is concentrated on a smaller area

> > and is thus better able to penetrate armor.

>

> In the 3.0 PHB the price for the masterwork arrow in table 8-14 is 350

> gp for 50 arrows (the normal 7 gp per masterwork arrows as requirement

> for a magical arrow) plus from table 8-10 the price for the + bonus

> which in case of +1 Arrows is 2000 gp. A price of 2350 gp for 50 arrows

> +1 would be 47 gp for one. And that is only for standard D&D - in

> Birthright in which magical equipment is rarer and more expensive that

> might be more, for example if using the optional rule which raises the

> market price for magic item creation.

> 15-50 gp for an armourpiercing masterwork arrow as RaspK_FOG suggested

> would then not be as expensive as magical arrows +1 and easier available.

> However they ought to be nearly as expensive as magical arrows +1 as

> their bonus is comparably high, just not magical.

> bye

> Michael

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:55 PM





> All arrows shot at armoured targets should be armourpiercing arrows?



Yes



> If the armourpiercing arrow/bolt is a masterwork arrow with a cost of

> at least 8 gp, likely more, for only 1 arrow, while the normal arrows

> cost 1 gp for 20, or 0,05 then that means 160 times the price.



Well, then don`t make that assumption. Assume instead that in a combat game

where hobgoblins and orogs wear armor, and they are the typical targets, not

deer, birds, or rabbits, that war-type arrows are the arrows listed in the

PHB. Then if you like, you can make non-war arrows cheaper and less

effective than PHB arrows.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Green Knight" <bjorn.sorgjerd@C2I.NET>

Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:49 AM





> But as I also pointed out, why would they be masterwork arrows at

> all? Any competent pair of smith/fletcher in a culture who has evolved

> arrows to deal with heavy armor, should be able to make arrows of

> any appropriate kind without them being masterwork.



Absolutly. Check out this page and tell me that one kind is 20x more costly

than another kind of arrow.



http://www.longbow42.giointernet.co.uk/page6.htm



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, above all, costs are something you can either keep it or leave it, but I am working with both logic and game balance in mind here:

If bodkin arrows had a cost lower than a masterwork arrow, they would be cheaper versions of the exact same thing, as a reduction to a target&#39;s Armour Class is almost the same as an equal increase to your Attack Bonus&#33;
The second reason (the realistic one) is that masterwork items take more time to make, and you don&#39;t expect me to believe you can make too many bodkin arrows in one day&#33;

[irdeggman]

Having suffered through this lecture (not the post but from one of my co-players/DMs) a uncountable number of times - historically there was no hand held missile weapon as effective against armored opponents as was the English longbow, not even any sort of crossbow.

The simple reason to have banned crossbows from use was that, while more complicated to make than a shortbow, they could be used by the common man very effectively - they are a point and shoot weapon that for the most part ignores weather conditions and require little training to operate effectively.

This is the same reason that spears were much more common than were swords - easier to use. Of course making spears was also cheaper than swords, but the mass produced and use without extensive training principles apply.

[geeman]

Here`s another site with some interesting graphics of arrowheads that might

help visualize some of the issues being presented here:



http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/Arrowheads.html



It`s certainly not definitive or anything, but presents a nice variation.



One thing that I don`t think has been brought up in this thread is that

when it comes to designing arrowheads for use in war there is an inherit

trade off. Arrows meant to pierce armor require thinner, pointed

arrowheads. I`m going to refer to hunting arrows (or ones used against

less heavily armored targets) as broadheads--the triangular arrowhead that

most of us think of when we think of arrows falls into this category. The

important qualities of the broadhead are twofold. First, the "blades" of

the arrowhead create a wider, more devastating wound when striking the soft

tissue of a target. (Some modern broadheads used for hunting, BTW, have

three or four blades for exactly this reason.) Second, a thicker arrowhead

makes the arrow more difficult to remove from the target without causing

yet more damage. The important thing about this is that these two

considerations are, by definition, opposing values. One can`t fully

exploit the potential of piercing AND the damaging effects of a broadhead

at the same time.



With that in mind, I don`t think we should assume that all D&D arrows are

"war arrows" in the sense that they are of the thinner, more pointed

"bodkin" type designed to be used against heavily armored opponents. More

sensible IMO would be to assume that the standard D&D arrow is somewhere in

the middle of those two opposing extremes. It is a "medium broadhead" with

a thickened central point, but is in most respects a compromise between the

two designs. It`s 1d8 damage (for a medium longbow) with x3 critical

expresses that nicely IMO, especially since it allows us to do some

variations. For instance, when it comes to portraying these differences

I`d suggest the following might make the most sense: An arrow with a

bodkin head might have its critical damage reduced to x2, while an arrow

with a broader head might have it`s critical threat improved to

19-20/x3. Costs for such arrows should remain the same as for standard arrows.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

> Kenneth wrote:

>> Absolutly. Check out this page and tell me that one kind is 20x more costly

>> than another kind of arrow.

>> http://www.longbow42.giointernet.co.uk/page6.htm

>> Kenneth Gauck

>> kgauck@mchsi.com



Green Knight schrieb:

> But as I also pointed out, why would they be masterwork arrows at all? Any competent pair of

> smith/fletcher in a culture who has evolved arrows to deal with heavy armor, should be able to

> make arrows of any appropriate kind without them being masterwork.



Yes. Competent. Not every craftsman is competent enough to craft

everything with a good chance of succeeding.



Note that while most smiths (those with Craft: Armoursmithing) might

succed at crafting most armours (DC 10+ AC bonus) but will have problems

succeeding to craft masterwork armour (DC 20) Dc´s from the 3.0 PHB

which would mean either much lost time and lots of wasted resources

before the armour would be crafted or a smith with a higher rank in his

skill, which would be found rarer than the normal Armoursmith.



To craft normal arrows would be as I assume be less difficult than

crafting some special purpose type arrow that is intended to give

advantages. Certainly every fletcher in even tiny villages can craft

arrows for hunting, but not several types of arrows for very specific

uses that actually do what they are intended to do. I could even see the

requirement that a fletcher who wants to craft an armourpiercing arrow

should also have some Craft (armoursmithing) or similar so that he knows

what the arrows has to be like that it actually could penetrate the

armour better than an arrow of a slightly different form or weight.

Which would reduce the number of fletchers able to produce this arrows

with a good chance of succees would be even less.



Your argument that "a fletcher/smith in a culture who has evolved to

deal with heavy armor should be able" can´t be applied to the D&D rules

and I think not even to historical reality. Else we could say about

everything that a culture has evolved that everyone should be able to do

it. Every village blacksmith creates Full Plate Armour as in Anuire

Plate Armour is used ;-)



Masterwork because

a) the Armour&Equipment guide suggested the Flight Arrow to be

Masterwork (and ALSO have less critical damage and a heavier weight as

compared to the PHB arrow) to balance it´s advantages. 25 feet more

range per range increment compared to the disadvantages show that even

the small advantage has been heavily balance. The armourpiercing arrow

has even better advantages and thus should have more penaltys.



b) gamebalance issues:

The advantages that the armourpiercing arrows should have from earlier

posts were:

> Armour piercing arrows, shot from a longbow, reduce the AC rating by 2,...

> ... or 1, if shot from a shortbow.

> Crossbows (except for hand crossbows) always have an armour piercing quality: light

> crossbows reduce the AC rating by 1,...

> ... heavy crossbows by 2,...

> ... and arbalests by 3.

> Special armour piercing bolts lower the AC rating by an additional 1.



That would give the armourpiercing arrow the same chance to hit as

either the masterwork arrow

(+1), the magical arrow +1 or the magical arrow +2 depending on weapon

and the armour piercing bolt the same chance to his as the master work

bolt, bolt +1, bolt +2 (or even bolt +4 if an arbalest fires an

armourpiercing bolt using the above values. They would only lack the

additional damage and the negation of damage reduction.

And that with the availabilty of a mundane arrow that can be obtained at

every fletcher around, for the price of normal arrows so that the normal

arrows would never again be used (why should they still be used if the

armourpiercing arrow is as good as the normal arrow against unarmoured

targets and better against armoured targets for the same price?). Even

giving the armourpenetration only a the first two range increments, so

that at longer ranges the AP arrows is only as good as the normal arrow

seems for not to balance out the chance to hit.



Kenneth did I understand the page you gave the link right that arrows

tend to get heavier for better penetration? Then the armourpiercing

arrow should certainly be heavier than both the normal PHB arrow and the

Arms&Equipment Flight arrow?



And the last sentence, that bodkin are less lethal than the general

purpose warhead could mean that the arrowpiercing arrow should receive a

penalty to damage done?



Else, if armour piercing arrows are so good without any disadvantages

such as less damage, less range, higher price, more weight, then why was

historically any other arrow still used and not ONLY armourpiercing

arrows for everything?

bye

Michael

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> There needs to be some specification of range. All projectile weapons,

> gunpowder included, lose velocity (hence kinetic energy) because of wind

> resistance. This also explains why projectiles have an arc trajectory.



=) No, gravity explains why the projectiles arc. Wind resistance

explains why the second half of the arc is shaped differently (more

steeply sloped to the vertical) than the first half. Absent wind

resistance, kinetic energy at impact is the same as at launch (assuming

equal altitudes of launch and target), though it is less in between (the

missle slows as it climbs, and speeds up as it dives). Wind resistance is

generally roughly proportional to the velocity of the projectile (water

resistance goes more like the square of velocity), so faster things slow

down more. One of the important parts of this trajectory effect from the

artillerist`s point of view is the calculation of the angle at which a

projectile must be launched to obtain a particular range: for example,

absent wind, maximum range is achieved at a 45 degree elevation angle;

IIRC, with wind, it`s about 35 degrees.



That nit picked, however...



> The old BR materials gave the crossbow a benefit at close and medium

> range. In 3e a benefit during the first two range increments makes

> sense for longbows and crossbows. I would restrict shortbows to 30

> yds, because the number of accounts of their not penetrating even

> light armors are so numerous.



Yes, this sounds quite sensible to me.





Ryan Caveney

[RaspK_FOG]

Hmm... Lots of feedback, which is something that pleases me&#33; I know that sounds weird, when most feedback is criticising my work, but there is good reason for that:

First of all, productive criticism is good, because it strives us to our best&#33; ^_^
Secondly, I am designing a campaign setting for almost two years now, and I have received nothing but a few comments and remarks on my work, which means I&#39;ll be lucky if I finish all of it in another three years&#33; *SNIFF&#33;&#33;*


Anyway, to the points already brought up:

Excuse my mistake concerning the longbow&#33; I have lectured [insert evil grin here] others in the past when it came to that and a particular battle between the French knights and the English peasants, with the latter gloriously winning over the former due to the construction of the longbow, not to mention how many times I wanted to slap one or two know-it-alls for saying that the longbow was fired by bracing it against your feet while you lied on the ground, a technique which was used by the Chinese, if I am not mistaken, but certainly not the English&#33;
So, increase the armour piercing rate of the longbow to 3.
Now, to the other major mistake I made: I had a reference of "armour piercing bolts". A bolt, as is known to most die-hard fantasy/war-tactics/weapon-study fanatic (and my DM and inspirator is all of these, and so am I&#33; ^_^) knows, a "bolt" is the common word for a crossbow quarrel. My mistake here was that arrows are the ones constructed to pierce armour, and bolts were also made so that they could pierce armour or not.
So, make it that crossbows receive the following automatic armour piercing rating: light 0, heavy 1, arbalest 2, and have AP bolts increase by 1, but also have AP bolts have a lower relative cost to a common quarrel than an AP arrow to a normal arrow. Costs are still a factor I have trouble assigning, since I am missing my Arms and Equipment Guide (I lent it to a friend), and I would like to use it for more information...
Now, the arbalest is a strange thing to come up with. If I am not mistaken, the arbalest was not published in any WotC products... TO those of you who don&#39;t know what it is, an arbalest is actually a crossbow about your size (D&D), which is almost always braced against a wall or something, or else the force feedback from the shot would knock you off your feet. The greatest problem with the arbalest for most people is that it cannot be considered a Simple weapon, but a Martial one. Also, it should always be of the size of the creature using it to be used effectively (with no size penalty).
One last note: when I mentioned the armour piecing quality, I forgot to mention that the armour class reduction took into account only some of the possible bonuses: the armour bonus, the natural armour bonus, and their enhancements. I am seriously considering also including the deflection bonus, but I would like some feedback on that as well.
As for weight and stuff, as I said, I don&#39;t have my "Arms & Equipment Guide" handy, so that will have to wait... Any suggestions?
Yes, I think you are right, with range increments, but what is that about 30 yds.? 30 yards is equal to 90 feet, while the first range increment for a light crossbow is 80 feet and for a heavy crossbow 120 feet&#33; All in all, I suppose that crossbows and bows should be able to affect their targets up to a specific point given in range increments (relative distance) not a constant number of feet (given distance).

[ConjurerDragon]

RaspK_FOG schrieb:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178

> RaspK_FOG wrote:

...

> Now, the arbalest is a strange thing to come up with. If I am not mistaken, the arbalest

> was not published in any WotC products... TO those of you who don`t

know what it is, an

>arbalest is actually a crossbow about your size (D&D), which is

almost always braced against

> a wall or something, or else the force feedback from the shot would

knock you off your feet.

> The greatest problem with the arbalest for most people is that it

cannot be considered a Simple

> weapon, but a Martial one. Also, it should always be of the size of

the creature using it to be

> used effectively (with no size penalty).



The Seas of Cerilia (Naval Battle Rules for Birthright) had an Arbalest

on p. 8 but a bit larger than the one you seem to mean. This is the text

all of which is 2E rules:

Weapon Arbalest, Crew 3, THACO -, ROF 1/3, Range 10/20/40, Damage 3D3/2D4

"Arbalest: Though a true crossbow, an arbalest is larger and more

powerful than even a heavy crossbow. Usually, a captain mounts an

arbalest on a rail or gunwale and uses it to snipe at enemy sailors and

officers. Ships can mount as many as four of them per hull point easily

- for example, a roundship could carry 12. Anyone proficient with a

heavy crossbow can fire an arbalest without any penalty, and crew

members need no special skill to load or winch the weapon. Arbalests

cost 350 gp and inflict negligible damage to a ship´s hull (0 hull

points)." There was no special THACO given but "Arbalests fire as normal

missile weapons." When the crew was less than the number given, for

example for the Arbalest not 3 but 2 then the Rate of Fire (ROF) went

from once in 3 rounds to 1/4.



> One last note: when I mentioned the armour piecing quality, I forgot to mention that the

> armour class reduction took into account only some of the possible

bonuses: the armour bonus,

> the natural armour bonus, and their enhancements. I am seriously

considering also including

> the deflection bonus, but I would like some feedback on that as well.

Deflection bonus is as far as I know always magical? Then a mundane

non-magical weapon should not be able to lower it IMO the +4 to AC from

Mage Armour should not be lowered.



What about a naked target with the normal AC of 10. This AC is not

armour that could be penetrated but as I understand the chance to hit or

miss the target. So the armourpiercing arrow should not be able to lower

this value.



> As for weight and stuff, as I said, I don`t have my "Arms & Equipment Guide"

> handy, so that will have to wait... Any suggestions?



My suggestions would still be to go from the Flight Arrow from the Arms

and Equipment Guid. A more expensive version, heavier version of the

masterwork arrow as it gives more advantags than the masterwork arrow.

bye

Michael

[Doyle]

As to the deflection bonus of armour, do you recall seeing pictures (especially late period German and French) of helms with the stupidly pointed noses? I&#39;ve been told that that was a design change specifically to deflect arrows, but that it only met with limited success.

And continuing with my SCA examples, one of our group built an arbalest from one shown in a painting (pre 1600). It was 6&#39;long, the prod was about the size of a shrtbow, and it was set up to fire our equivalent of javelins. after about 6-9 months of use he decided it was best used in seige situation as it was even slower to load than the crossbows, but he did like that none of the sword fighters ever claimed "didn&#39;t feel it, must have glanced of my armour".
If I see him again, I&#39;ll ask about his source material and pass it on.

Doyle.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:42 PM





> Excuse my mistake concerning the longbow&#33; I have lectured [insert

evil grin here] others in the past when it came to that and a particular

battle between the French knights and the English peasants,



Not peasants, yeoman. This is the difference between a group who is free to

own land, move about at will, enter trades, and generally do as they please,

and another group who is obligated to produce an amount of crop and

livestock throughout the year that prevents them from doing much of anything

beyond farming. Restrictions are in place to reinforce this obligation.

There is a long tradition that goes back to the ancient world that free

peoples fight better than those who are not free, because they are fighting

for themselves. This is why Machiavelli prefers militias to mercenaries.

Such an approach might suggest that it was the alliance of English nobility

and yoemanry that won the famous battles of the HYW, and that their

technology was more or less incidental (given that France and England were

more or less technically peers).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Doyle" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:33 PM





> As to the deflection bonus of armour, do you recall seeing pictures

> (especially late period German and French) of helms with the stupidly

> pointed noses? I`ve been told that that was a design change specifically

> to deflect arrows, but that it only met with limited success.



Not just arrows, blows in general. Armor is still designed to deflect more

than it is to absorb damage. This is why tanks were all rounded (like the

Sherman) before the advent of composite armors in the late 1970`s, which

give modern armor is angular appearance.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

Thanks Ryan. Constant acceleration of gravity. Duly noted. Perhaps I

should have said "arc as much as they do"? Certainly slowing down a

projectile will increase the rate that the outside force perturbs its

motion?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[teloft]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 10 2004, 10:42 PM
One last note: when I mentioned the armour piecing quality, I forgot to mention that the armour class reduction took into account only some of the possible bonuses: the armour bonus, the natural armour bonus, and their enhancements. I am seriously considering also including the deflection bonus, but I would like some feedback on that as well.
Ap penitration.

what are thay good agenst.

I would ofcours rule it good vs normal armour bonus and natural armour bonus. But nothing else.

Deflection bonus No
Magic bonus No
Ap sould never be able to ignor magic, exept perhaps some magic thet gives armour bonus by summonng a armour, an the one transmuting the subject so it has natural armour.

Magic shield, enchantmet bonus on armour, and such cant be penetraded by Ap.

in order to penetrade the magic, you need a (masterwork) and magic-enchanted Ap no problem

[irdeggman]

AP should apply to both shield and armor bonuses (3.5 makes the distinction) since they essentially function the same way. I&#39;m not that sure about applying it to natural armor though. That is very different for different creatures, sometimes it is just a tough hide, sometimes it is a dense body, sometimes it&#39;s scales, etc. This is awful circumstantial, IMO. Therefore I think for simplicity I wouldn&#39;t have AP apply to natural armor.

Enhancement bonuses shouldn&#39;t matter really. They aren&#39;t deflection type of bonuses they mostly reflect a &#39;better quality &#39; armor type of effect - they no longer affect saving throws (like they did in 2nd ed) so the magic aura surrounding the armor providing the protection type of concept doesn&#39;t apply. Hence I think that AP should also apply to magic armors and shields, but not to force type effects (like mage armor or shield spells).

[RaspK_FOG]

One or two quick notes here:
I have to disagree with the notion that bodkin arrows should not be able to penetrate easier through hide, fur, or thick muscles: the design of the arrow is so that it can convert/apply the kinetic energy it carries into dynamic energy more effectively due to its narrower head. Thus, it does not matter whether the resistance is provided by a sheet of steel or a thick coat of fur, since they protect their owner the same way&#33;
Sorry about the mistake of not including the shield bonus as well&#33; ^_^
Irdeggman is right about what he says: magical arms and armour are now presented (and I prefer that theme) as of increased effectiveness: the magic does not protect, it enhances the armour.
To further found my point of view, increases to natural armour through magic are always enhancement bonuses.
OK, for standard D&D armour systems, no deflection bonus ignorance&#33; The people have spoken&#33;
Err... Actually, I quite have to disagree, not with what was said of the above given spells (mage armour, shield), but with their function itself&#33; The description of both spells, most prominently of mage armour, makes it seem as if it actually grants a deflection bonus, not an armour bonus: action and counteraction, or deflection, since the description clearly presents the spell as if it tries to push back all attacks...

[irdeggman]

Hmm didn&#39;t I mention that mage armor was a force type effect and not an armor bonus (like armor) that would get AP worked on?

And yes pretty much the spell description says it is a field of force. This could be interpreted as a deflection bonus, but since it is categorized as an armor bonus it does not stack with any other armor bonuses (like wearing armor for instance).

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, let me clear this up...

First of all, I think that if we say "AP does not bypass deflection bonuses", something which was pretty much accepted, then I agree with AP arrows being unable to bypass mage armour, or similar spells and effects.

Secondly, what I meant to say was that I hate the way mage armour has been implemented, because it really makes no sense to me&#33; Consider this: A force field covers your body, providing you an armour bonus.
A touch attack bypasses armour, shield, and natural armour bonuses due to the fact that the creature is touched, even if so indirectly.
A force field pushes things back, dissallowing interaction.
So, how is mage armour supposed to provide an armour bonus, if it does not simply allow the person to be touched? A touch spell should normally include the bonus to AC thus provided by mage armour.
Thus, the bonus mage armour does provide should have been a deflection bonus, not an armour bonus&#33;

[teloft]

the force field of mage armour versus clothing.

you cant tuch me if Im wering clothing for the cloth comes in betvine me and the clothing.

There can be many difrent types of force fields. And the type provided by mage armour is a property of the subject afected. therefore tuching the forcefiled is like tuching the target. There are other force efects thet are not a property of the target like wall of force, you can stand on the other side of a wall of force, and then be out of harms way (most of the time) then the wall is not a property of the target.

[Trithemius]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Not just arrows, blows in general. Armor is still designed to deflect more

> than it is to absorb damage. This is why tanks were all rounded (like the

> Sherman) before the advent of composite armors in the late 1970`s, which

> give modern armor is angular appearance.



Are you being ironic Kenneth? The sherman is a -terrible- example of

well-designed armour; look at those slab-sides! Now the T-34...

;)



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> Thanks Ryan.



My pleasure.



> Perhaps I should have said "arc as much as they do"?



Yes, that`s a good way of putting it. Arc more than they usually tell you

in high school physics, at any rate. =)



> Certainly slowing down a projectile will increase the rate that the

> outside force perturbs its motion?



Not necessarily; the force (as is the case for wind and water resistance,

and also magnetism) may be a function of the speed, and decrease with

(sometimes even faster than) the decreasing speed. The meaning of "rate

that... the force perturbs its motion" is also a bit ambiguous, depending

on what aspect of the motion you`re concentrating upon; math is much

better at expressing the subtleties of these phenomena than English.



I can`t really draw a parabola in ASCII art, nor the true curve for

projectile motion through a resistive medium, but it is true that for a

given initial velocity, wind resistance will cause the projectile to not

rise quite as high and land rather less far downrange, which generally

results in the path having a higher curvature (in a mathematically precise

sense, as well as an intuitive colloquial one).





Ryan Caveney

[ConjurerDragon]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:42:16 +0100, RaspK_FOG <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178

...

> Now, the arbalest is a strange thing to come up with. If I am not

mistaken, the arbalest was not published in any WotC products... TO those of

you who don`t know what it is, an arbalest is actually a crossbow about your

size (D&D), which is almost always braced against a wall or something,

or else the force feedback from the shot would knock you off your feet. The

greatest problem with the arbalest for most people is that it cannot be

considered a Simple weapon, but a Martial one. Also, it should always be of

the size of the creature using it to be used effectively (with no size penalty).



Besides the Seas of Cerilia I found another note about Arbalests and

Crossbows armourpiercing in my 2E AD&D Player´s Option: Combat&Tactics, p. 135:

It´s from 1994 and predates the 2E Birthright rule book that I have from 1995:



"Crossbow: A crossbow is a short, powerful bow mounted on a rifle-like

stock. It is aimed and fired like a rifle. Historically, crossbows were more

powerful than bows and had better hitting power at a greater range, but they

were also far slower. The English longbow was never decisively bested by the

crossbow simply because a trained archer could fire six arrows to the

crossbowman´s single bolt.

Crossbows were invented sometime in the Dark Ages, but didn´t come into

widespread use until the crusades. The earliest crossbows were pellet bows

that fired small stones or bullets instead of quarrels. The weapon rapidly

grew larger and more powerful. By the Renaissance, many crossbows couldn´t

be drawn by hand and had to be winched back by a hand-held cranequin.

For game purposes, crossbows are divided into five categories: the pellet

bow (the lightest crossbow commonly available), the light crossbow, the

heavy crossbow, the cho-ko-nu or repeating crossbow, and the hand crossbow.

The light crossbow can be cocked by hand, but the heavy crossbow requires

the use of an attached cranequin to draw it. The cho-ku-no is similar to a

light crossbow, but holds up to 10 bolts in a magazine that rests on top of

the weapon. Normally it´s only available in oriental settings. The hand

crossbow is derived from the Drow weapon, but could have been built in

Renaissance-like settings as a weapon for personal defense or assassination.

To reflect the power of a crossbow, the damage ratings have been increased.

Under the PHB (2E!) rules, characters have little reason to ever use a

crossbow when a short bow is handy. In addition, crossbows gain a special

armor penetration ability. At medium range, light and heavy crossbows reduce

the AC of an armored opponent by 2 ponts (see the pile arrow description

under bow.) At short range, light and heavy crossbows reduce the AC of an

armored opponent by 5 points. Pellet bows, hand crossbows, and cho-ku-no do

not have this special ability.

Heavy crossbows are also called Arbalests."



So the armor penetration rule was not specific to Birthright and the

arbalest was the heavy crossbow.

[Trithemius]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> I can`t really draw a parabola in ASCII art, nor the true curve for

> projectile motion through a resistive medium, but it is true that for a

> given initial velocity, wind resistance will cause the projectile to not

> rise quite as high and land rather less far downrange, which generally

> results in the path having a higher curvature (in a mathematically precise

> sense, as well as an intuitive colloquial one).



Hello Ryan, Hello Kenneth,



I`m not sure about it, but www.howstuffworks.com might have nifty

diagrams to show things like this... people with more knowledge of

physics than I would know the appropriate terms to load into the search

engine.



Just a random thought.



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Trithemius]

teloft wrote:

> Ap sould never be able to ignor magic, exept perhaps some magic thet gives armour bonus by summonng a armour, an the one transmuting the subject so it has natural armour.

>

> Magic shield, enchantmet bonus on armour, and such cant be penetraded by Ap.



This seems contradictory to me.

I never saw the magical bonus as being the installation of a magical

force-field (this would be a deflection bonus I believe), but rather the

`augmentation` or `enhancement` (aha!) of the armour`s natural

properties of defence.



Given this, I see no reason why a powerful armour-piercing weapon would

not also pierce magically hardened armours. -5 AC from a suit of

chainmail makes that chainmail useless; -5 from a suit of magical

chainmail +5 makes that armour half as good as it was, but still capable

of some protection.



P.S. Fans of Ars Magic might notice that this is the difference between

Rego Terram defensive enchantments ("deflection bonus" in D&D) and Muto

Terram defensive enchantments ("enhancement bonus" in D&D).



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[ConjurerDragon]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:42:16 +0100, RaspK_FOG <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178

...

> Now, the arbalest is a strange thing to come up with. If I am not

mistaken, the arbalest was not published in any WotC products... TO those of

you who don`t know what it is, an arbalest is actually a crossbow about your

size (D&D), which is almost always braced against a wall or something,

or else the force feedback from the shot would knock you off your feet. The

greatest problem with the arbalest for most people is that it cannot be

considered a Simple weapon, but a Martial one. Also, it should always be of

the size of the creature using it to be used effectively (with no size penalty).



Besides the Seas of Cerilia I found another note about Arbalests and

Crossbows armourpiercing in my 2E AD&D Player´s Option: Combat&Tactics, p. 135:

It´s from 1994 and predates the 2E Birthright rule book that I have from 1995:



"Crossbow: A crossbow is a short, powerful bow mounted on a rifle-like

stock. It is aimed and fired like a rifle. Historically, crossbows were more

powerful than bows and had better hitting power at a greater range, but they

were also far slower. The English longbow was never decisively bested by the

crossbow simply because a trained archer could fire six arrows to the

crossbowman´s single bolt.

Crossbows were invented sometime in the Dark Ages, but didn´t come into

widespread use until the crusades. The earliest crossbows were pellet bows

that fired small stones or bullets instead of quarrels. The weapon rapidly

grew larger and more powerful. By the Renaissance, many crossbows couldn´t

be drawn by hand and had to be winched back by a hand-held cranequin.

For game purposes, crossbows are divided into five categories: the pellet

bow (the lightest crossbow commonly available), the light crossbow, the

heavy crossbow, the cho-ko-nu or repeating crossbow, and the hand crossbow.

The light crossbow can be cocked by hand, but the heavy crossbow requires

the use of an attached cranequin to draw it. The cho-ku-no is similar to a

light crossbow, but holds up to 10 bolts in a magazine that rests on top of

the weapon. Normally it´s only available in oriental settings. The hand

crossbow is derived from the Drow weapon, but could have been built in

Renaissance-like settings as a weapon for personal defense or assassination.

To reflect the power of a crossbow, the damage ratings have been increased.

Under the PHB (2E!) rules, characters have little reason to ever use a

crossbow when a short bow is handy. In addition, crossbows gain a special

armor penetration ability. At medium range, light and heavy crossbows reduce

the AC of an armored opponent by 2 ponts (see the pile arrow description

under bow.) At short range, light and heavy crossbows reduce the AC of an

armored opponent by 5 points. Pellet bows, hand crossbows, and cho-ku-no do

not have this special ability.

Heavy crossbows are also called Arbalests."



So the armor penetration rule was not specific to Birthright and the

arbalest was the heavy crossbow.

[Trithemius]

Anthony Juarez wrote:



> True, John. I think we`re all agreed on that, in general. But would

> you still want the -5 applying on a suit of Leather +2, canceling not

> only its armor bonus but also its complete magical enhancement bonus?



Yes.

Leather, even magically aided leather, is still not as powerful a

protection as mundane plate armour. I`m happy to reinforce this.



> Personally, I think it should only cancel armor bonuses, not

> enhancement, circumstance, or shield bonuses.



I think it should certainly cancel enhancement bonuses; it should

probably cancel shield bonuses, and it should not cancel circumstance

bonuses at all, unless these bonuses happen to pertain to the placing of

some penetrable object between the crossbow-wielder and the target.



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Birthright-L]

> Given this, I see no reason why a powerful armour-piercing weapon would

> not also pierce magically hardened armours. -5 AC from a suit of

> chainmail makes that chainmail useless; -5 from a suit of magical

> chainmail +5 makes that armour half as good as it was, but still

> capable

> of some protection.



True, John. I think we`re all agreed on that, in general. But would

you still want the -5 applying on a suit of Leather +2, canceling not

only its armor bonus but also its complete magical enhancement bonus?



Personally, I think it should only cancel armor bonuses, not

enhancement, circumstance, or shield bonuses.



--Lord Rahvin

[geeman]

At 09:37 AM 1/15/2004 +1300, John Machin wrote:



>Leather, even magically aided leather, is still not as powerful a

>protection as mundane plate armour. I`m happy to reinforce this.



Magically aided leather armor can be as potent as mundane plate

armor. Mundane, half-plate armor being +7 to AC, while mundane leather

armor`s +2 armor bonus can have a magical enhancement of +5 using the

standard rules, giving it an overall +7 AC bonus.



>>Personally, I think it should only cancel armor bonuses, not enhancement,

>>circumstance, or shield bonuses.

>

>I think it should certainly cancel enhancement bonuses; it should probably

>cancel shield bonuses, and it should not cancel circumstance bonuses at

>all, unless these bonuses happen to pertain to the placing of some

>penetrable object between the crossbow-wielder and the target.



An enhancement bonus is defined as one that "represents an increase in the

strength or effectiveness of a character`s armor...." If one were to give

an attack bonus to a weapon based on the supposed armor penetrating

properties of that weapon then I think having it respond to a magical

enhancement bonus would probably be sensible, even if that enhancement

bonus was from something like a Magical Vestment spell since the

enhancement bonus would seem to be the magical equivalent of an armor bonus.



Having an armor piercing weapon gain its benefits vs circumstance or shield

bonuses, however, is less justifiable IMO. Circumstance bonuses are too

broad to be associated with the particulars of pointy arrows, and shields

can certainly be pierced by arrows, but having them pierced in such a way

that they penetrate all the way through the shield and then into the person

holding it seems unlikely.



Lately, I`ve been leaning towards giving armor have a DR effect rather than

an AC bonus, since the target`s aren`t necessarily more difficult to hit,

just damage when wearing armor. I`m also thinking of making shields give a

cover bonus to AC based on their size rather than a separate shield bonus

associated with armor the way it works now. If the effect of armor is DR

rather than AC then one can give certain weapons an AP (armor piercing)

value to portray their penetrating qualities.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Gary sez:

> An enhancement bonus is defined as one that "represents an increase in the

> strength or effectiveness of a character`s armor...." If one were to give

> an attack bonus to a weapon based on the supposed armor penetrating

> properties of that weapon then I think having it respond to a magical

> enhancement bonus would probably be sensible, even if that enhancement

> bonus was from something like a Magical Vestment spell since the

> enhancement bonus would seem to be the magical equivalent of an armor

> bonus.



Oh noes! It looks like Gary and I agree. Whatever next?! :D



> Having an armor piercing weapon gain its benefits vs circumstance or shield

> bonuses, however, is less justifiable IMO. Circumstance bonuses are too

> broad to be associated with the particulars of pointy arrows, and shields

> can certainly be pierced by arrows, but having them pierced in such a way

> that they penetrate all the way through the shield and then into the person

> holding it seems unlikely.



I am less certain about how shields are thought to work in D&D. I am not

widely keen on the way they are dealt with, at least those that I have

seen. Shields are in much the same boat as parrying as far as I am

concerned, at least with respect to D&D.



> Lately, I`ve been leaning towards giving armor have a DR effect rather than

> an AC bonus, since the target`s aren`t necessarily more difficult to hit,

> just damage when wearing armor. I`m also thinking of making shields give a

> cover bonus to AC based on their size rather than a separate shield bonus

> associated with armor the way it works now. If the effect of armor is DR

> rather than AC then one can give certain weapons an AP (armor piercing)

> value to portray their penetrating qualities.



I think this is a better approach. The only reason I have not altered it

seriously in my games is because I am too damn lazy. I`d rather tinker

with setting than with rules, to be honest.



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:14 PM



> AP should apply to both shield and armor bonuses (3.5 makes the

> distinction) since they essentially function the same way. I`m not that

> sure about applying it to natural armor though. That is very different

> for different creatures, sometimes it is just a tough hide, sometimes it

> is a dense body, sometimes it`s scales, etc. This is awful

circumstantial,

> IMO. Therefore I think for simplicity I wouldn`t have AP apply to

> natural armor.



This is the advantage of using a DR system for armor. You can have some

that

are x/ bludgeoning for hides, x/piercing for skeletel structures or

exoskeletons, and x/slashing for scales. One can always use standard DR for

monsters you see an obvious vulnerability for, but key encounters, it can

add an element of strategy. For instance, I give bears a DR of 1/

bludgeoning or piercing. Watch the spears, flails, and axes come out and

the swords remain sheathed. I rule that axes are slashing and bludgeoning,

since so much of their damage is the result of their uneven weight

distribution (the same factors that make them more tiring to wield and

nearly impossible to use defensivly).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 07:26 PM 1/14/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > AP should apply to both shield and armor bonuses (3.5 makes the

> > distinction) since they essentially function the same way. I`m not that

> > sure about applying it to natural armor though. That is very different

> > for different creatures, sometimes it is just a tough hide, sometimes it

> > is a dense body, sometimes it`s scales, etc. This is awful circumstantial,

> > IMO. Therefore I think for simplicity I wouldn`t have AP apply to

> > natural armor.

>

>This is the advantage of using a DR system for armor. You can have some

>that are x/ bludgeoning for hides, x/piercing for skeletel structures or

>exoskeletons, and x/slashing for scales.



Exactly. It not only allows for an incorporation of the concept of AP (as

opposed to the limitations of portraying armor as AC) but has a nice parity

with the DR rules in how it can be implemented. One can, BTW, use the

piercing/slashing or bludgeoning classification for how the AP value of the

weapons works. As a quickie method of playtesting the concept, the

critical multiplier of the weapon might work as the AP value.



IMO "natural" armor is, essentially, just something that prevents the

penetration of weapons, not the ability to avoid being hit in the first

place. Most of them would probably by definition be pretty similar to

"hide" armor in the first place....



Anyway, if combined with a defense value for character classes (a la the

system used in WoT) it makes for a viable set of stats for characters. It

is, of course, more work but in the long run I think it feels more

realistic in general, plus allowing one to rate functions like armor

penetration for various weapons.



Gary

[Green Knight]

This is a very sensible approach; cover from shields and DR from armor.



I`m playing with some rules at the moment, but its a lot of work, so it may never be more than a set of notes.



For even more fun, armor might not provide DR all the time. Perhaps a suit of half-plate gives a +10 bonus to AC, but only provides DR against those attacks that would other wise not have hit. Any attack roll that is high enough to deat the AC with armor bypasses the DR. Any attack that wouldn`t have hit without armor is a complete miss.



Cheers

Bjørn



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:37 AM





> Anyway, if combined with a defense value for character classes (a la the

> system used in WoT) it makes for a viable set of stats for characters. It

> is, of course, more work but in the long run I think it feels more

> realistic in general, plus allowing one to rate functions like armor

> penetration for various weapons.



Since the key for a good mechanic is really the ability of the player to be

able to make meaningful choices, so that what they choose to do effects

their success or failure, a bit more complexity in the AC system which

simultaneously enhances the difference between choices of both weapons and

armor, making one d8 weapon meaningfully different from another d8 weapon,

making one kind of armor more disticnt from those with similar bonuses.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 07:42 PM 1/16/2004 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:



> Actually, I quite have to disagree, not with what was said of the above

> given spells (mage armour, shield), but with their function

> itself&#33; The description of both spells, most prominently of mage

> armour, makes it seem as if it actually grants a deflection bonus,

> not an armour bonus: action and counteraction, or deflection, since the

> description clearly presents the spell as if it tries to push back all

> attacks...[/LIST]



Both those spells are mentioned in the definition of an enhancement bonus,

though I do agree the spell descriptions read like they could fall under

either descriptor. Legacy text from old editions of D&D that didn`t draw

the distinction between bonuses, perhaps?



To be honest the difference between a bonus to armor that is a magical

enhancement and a magical deflection bonus is a bit vague since neither

really represent anything other than the ability to divert an attack that

would normally hit the target, not something that would make the target

itself more difficult to hit--like a blur effect or displacement--because

the AC system incorporates both hit absorption and difficulty to hit the

target into the same mechanic. That is, an attack that hits but fails to

penetrate armor, shield, etc. vs an attack that physically misses the

target entirely. Within that context differentiating between armor

enhancement and deflection is a bit of overkill.



I should probably also note in regards to some of the previous discussion

on the penetrating power of weapons that one could make an argument that

any AP effect of a weapon should not penetrate an enhancement bonus in that

the magic system in D&D generally counters mundane effects. It`d probably

be too much trouble to note the actual amount of AP vs. the armor bonus

separated from the enhancement bonus to make the distinction worthwhile,

though.



Gary

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 5:21pm, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2178

>

> RaspK_FOG wrote:

> OK, let me clear this up...

>

> First of all, I think that if we say "AP does not bypass

> deflection bonuses", something which was pretty much accepted,

> then I agree with AP arrows being unable to bypass mage armour,

> or similar spells and effects.

>

> Secondly, what I meant to say was that I hate the way mage

> armour has been implemented, because it really makes no sense to

> me&#33; Consider this: A force field covers your body,

> providing you an armour bonus. A touch attack bypasses armour,

> shield, and natural armour bonuses due to the fact that the creature is

> touched, even if so indirectly. A force field pushes things

> back, dissallowing interaction. So, how is mage armour

> supposed to provide an armour bonus, if it does not simply allow the

> person to be touched? A touch spell should normally include the bonus

> to AC thus provided by mage armour. Thus, the bonus

> mage armour does provide should have been a deflection bonus,

> not an armour bonus&#33;

>



You can see the 3e rationale for it though, right? You want wizards to

protect themselves with spells, but it world be thematically helpful if

this was still useful with rings of protrction (deflection bonus) but

was only an alternative to actual armor (armor bonus). If it was a

deflection bonus, it would encourage armored wizards who give their

rings to the other party members...

...just more 3e circular logic...



--Lord Rahvin

[teloft]

I was thinking how to apply this consept of AP arrows.

What I have come up with is "touch attack" it is easely calculated and every character sheat have them listed now days.

But to tuch them down a bit. I have not aplyed any more cost then
Cost: x2 normal arrows.
To hitt: -2 the normal arrow
reach: 80% of the normal arrow

if it made master work, it is only -1 to hit. and can be enchanted as other masterwork arrows.

I have yet to test this.

if anyone dose, pleas post the results.


:ph34r:

[RaspK_FOG]

Hmm... Back to the discussion, with lots of replies: The arbalest, in reality, is not the same as the heavy crossbow. I found the arbalest (stupid me) in the Arms and Equipment Guide: Crossbow, great, Exotic Two-handed Ranged, 100 gp, Damage 1d12, 19-20/x2, 150 ft., 15 lb., Piercing
I disagree with the notion that magical enhancement (the word explains itself, and 3e did a good thing of getting rid of "extra protection" garbage) should bypass mundane effects; to me, at least, AP should be able to negate the blocking of any magically induced armour as easy as of any equivalent mundane armour.
I believe a cost of 12 gp for an AP missile would be fine. Other specifics could be worked out, but I trust that to the hands of others...
Yes, I myself have suggested a DR system (most characteristic is the classic example of chaimail being against piercing weapons), but we are talking here about the standard D&D rules... And, yes, I loved the defence system introduced in WoT.
All in all, can we work on specifics and not speak our minds heedlessly? I think that, if you want to have this thing go on, we should work it out in a more organised way, OK? A poll seems unneeded, but I ask you, should we start one? If you find it useful, by all means, initiate one, or tell me to do so.