BR Crossbows.

[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/ind...=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