BR Crossbows.

[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!
• Sorry about the mistake of not including the shield bonus as well! ^_^
• 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! The people have spoken!
• 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! 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'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! 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!

[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/ind...=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.

[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/ind...=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.