# The shortbow - what is it good for?



## Yair (Dec 21, 2006)

The shortbow is the longbow's pathetic little sister that no one wants to pick for the game. Both are martial ranged weapons, no difference. The shortbow does less damage, and has shorter range. It even weighs nearly the same, so that's no difference. 

It is a bit cheaper, so at low levels may see some use. A longbow also can't be used from horseback, but a composite longbow can. 

I am left to conclue only misers use a shortbow.

What I'm looking for is to change the rules to make longbows less of an obvious choice. I want to make shortbows preferable for mounted warriors and hunting, and longbows less useful.

I suggest the following changes:
* Longbows become Exotic, not Martial, weapons.
* Composite longbows cannot be used from horseback.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Dec 21, 2006)

Rogues only get proficiency in Shortbow but not Longbow - quite often see them using that weapon?


I think changing Composite longbows to be non usable on horseback works. Although rather than saying 'can't' my inclination is to lean towards a hefty penalty instead. -4 or so, perhaps?

What would you do about elves and their racial longbow proficiency? Make it a martial weapon for them?

My personal bugbear is that bows are so much better than any other ranged weapon. Only other one I find useful is slings - as you skirt the whole variable strength issue...


----------



## Yair (Dec 21, 2006)

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> Rogues only get proficiency in Shortbow but not Longbow - quite often see them using that weapon?
> 
> 
> I think changing Composite longbows to be non usable on horseback works. Although rather than saying 'can't' my inclination is to lean towards a hefty penalty instead. -4 or so, perhaps?
> ...



I'm actually thinking about this for an Iron Heroes game, so rogues and elves aren't much of an issue. But let's keep this D&D.

I don't like that weapon proficiency is what limits a rogue to a shortbow, and at any rate it doesn't address the main problem.
Elves should either be left with only the shortbow proficiency or have the longbow as a racial familiarity thingie. Personally, I'd prefer to just give them a shortbow. I think elves sniping with shortbows is the image here, not elves wielding gigantic longbows. (The shortness of the real-world composite longbows blurs these images, but I'd prefer to keep things extreme and have long bows be BIG.)

I can see a -4 penalty instead of a "can't" for firing a longbow from horseback, but I think a "can't" is better - just like you need two hands to use a longbow, so too you need to set it on the ground before you and draw it parallel to your body, things you just can't do on horseback.




I agree that other weapons are not sufficiently effective compared to bows. Making the longbow an exotic weapon removed their damage a little but, but the real problem is their rate of fire at high levels, and the ability to add Strength to damage. I think allowing "composite"  light and heavy crossbows (but not repeating crossbows) can help with the Strength issue; such crossbows could probably not be cocked at all by someone of lower strength. With this change, a light crossbow with Rapid Shot is nearly like a longbow with Exotic Weapon Proficiency (falling a bit short in range), as it should be. 
(Edit: A simple weapon + feat should be about the same as an exotic weapon since both can be had by any character via a single feat. The light crossbow can be used from horseback and the longbow has a longer range, otherwise their stats are about the same - 1d8 damage, and 20/x3 or 19-20/x2 critical.)

A heavy crossbow is still somewhat problematic (perhaps an additional feat can justify lowering the loading time to a free action?). 

Repeating crossbows are also a problem. I think I would allow Rapid Reload to shorten their loading time much like heavy crossbows, resolving the rate-of-fire issue in this way. I don't think adding the Strength bonus makes sense, however.


----------



## Felix (Dec 21, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> A longbow also can't be used from horseback, but a composite longbow can.



This is the problem. Just make comp longbows unusable from horseback and you have a niche for the shortbow: mounted archers.

It's not as if the Mongols didn't ravage most of Asia and Europe with the things.


----------



## evilbob (Dec 21, 2006)

One idea we used in a campaign once (can't remember what book it came from) that helped balance longbows vs. shortbows was that a longbow basically took a full-round action to "draw."  This represented the fact that you cannot just "carry around" a stringed longbow (for one, it's too big), and that you would pretty much have to string the thing before you could use it.  Shortbows, by constrast, were drawn like a normal weapon and could be "quickdrawn" if you had the feat.

However, I would personally suggest beefing the shortbow over nerfing the longbow; the longbow seems quite balanced and if anything the shortbow needs some help.

Then again, there are a slew of crappy weapons that no one would ever use and have basically zero tactical advantage anyway, so why really worry about it - that's just the way the equipment list is.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Dec 21, 2006)

I do agree with your thinking - there's problems with the other weapons. Rate of fire for crossbows, magical/cost issues for thrown weapons and so on.


I thought about mighty crossbows as well. My thinking was an increasing load time if you were below the strength bonus. Represent cranking the things up as you can't pull the cord back. The issue that bothered me was they'd make lethal opening weapons. Reload out of combat - make that first shot really vicious. Then just ignore them. Kind of sets a whole party using a weapon that the strongest guy can draw.

Another big problem with light crossbows is that move action to reload them. Soon as someone can fire more than once a round, they don't want to be doing that?


Did consider having magical thrown weapons done differently. You'd wear some kind of magical gizmo that temporarily enchanted weapons as you threw them. Puts them on a par with other stuff IMO?


However, when I bought up the subject with the people in my game and they wern't really fussed, so figured I'd just ingore the whole thing and everyone would keep using composite longbows (except for NPCs!). I bottle it up and will let it all explode some day. 


On the side issue, I don't like 'can't' in DnD, much prefer - penalty so big no normal person could do it... like trying to tumble with a tower shield. Just semantics and personal preferance though. 


And another tangent! : Those mongols did have some funny weapons - IIRC, they had some serious range on them? Not sure what... Looked small though. Not a good historian over here!


----------



## lukelightning (Dec 21, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> This is the problem. Just make comp longbows unusable from horseback and you have a niche for the shortbow: mounted archers.
> 
> It's not as if the Mongols didn't ravage most of Asia and Europe with the things.




I know. Composite bows were invented for the very purpose of being used on horseback.

It's not as if many D&D characters fight from horseback, and when they do it's to twink out on lance charging goodness.


----------



## ivocaliban (Dec 21, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> The shortbow is the longbow's pathetic little sister that no one wants to pick for the game. Both are martial ranged weapons, no difference. The shortbow does less damage, and has shorter range. It even weighs nearly the same, so that's no difference.
> 
> It is a bit cheaper, so at low levels may see some use. A longbow also can't be used from horseback, but a composite longbow can.
> 
> ...




While I understand your problem, I don't think making longbows exotic weapons is the answer. However, I completely agree with making shortbows the chosen weapon of riders. I wasn't aware that composite longbows could be used from horseback and I've never allowed it (at least, not without a substantial penalty to attack) in my campaigns. 

The best way to prove the usefulness of a shortbow is to put your players in areas where longbows get in the way. Having a weapon that's almost as long as you are (or in some cases longer) strapped to your back can often be a hassle. In low tunnels, compact corriders, thick foliage and so forth...provide penalities to those using longbows. Furthermore, longbows are far more likely than shortbows to get tangled in branches, webs, and the like. 

By the same token provide certain incentives to those who favor the shortbow. For example, it's conceivable that an unstrung shortbow might be hidden in a thick cloak or even strapped to a leg as part of a disguised makeshift splint...it's almost impossible to hide a longbow on your person. 

In most cases, your players will still take their chances with the longbow and you shouldn't hit them over the head with it if they do. You should, however, make it clear that the shortbow is simply more effective in certain environments and situations...and, likewise, that the longbow can be a hinderance in tight spaces.


----------



## Bladesong (Dec 21, 2006)

Happy Holidays Everyone!

     I'll start by saying that I am not an expert on the longbow, but I will tell you what few things I did find out and what we did with it.
     Summary: It was not real easy to use (not even a fighter could just pick one up and use it), it made movement difficult, it really was only "effective" at longer than short range, but it was devastating when scores of them were fired together at an approaching army (it was never really meant or used in "one-on-one" combat.
     Composite bows seemed to have come later and were much harder to make, and for a time we did not have them available in our games at all.
     Anyway, in our games shortbows are readily available and useable as a martial weapon. The longbow (and recently the comp. longbow) was turned into an exotic weapon, the damage increased to 2d6, and it is -2 to hit at close range. You are also limited to normal movement when wielding it (you cannot run).
     What this has done is make the longbow available only to someone who wants to be a dedicated archer. I've been runnng one and frankly it has been my favorite character in years.
     Elven characters can treat it a marial weapon so elven wizards are limited to shortbows.


----------



## dangerous jack (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm thinking about making the longbow a martial weapon when used to fire one arrow / round as a full attack action, but exotic if you want to fire multiple arrows / round [Full Attack] or one arrow / round [Standard Action].  Similar to the bastard sword's martial / exotic dual nature.

The low level army of longbowmen in the field won't behave any differently (firing one arrow from a fixed position).  The high level fighter that picks up a longbow for the first time will know how to use it, but not to it's full potential.

Thoughts?


----------



## Bladesong (Dec 21, 2006)

dangerous jack said:
			
		

> I'm thinking about making the longbow a martial weapon when used to fire one arrow / round as a full attack action, but exotic if you want to fire multiple arrows / round [Full Attack] or one arrow / round [Standard Action].  Similar to the bastard sword's martial / exotic dual nature.
> 
> The low level army of longbowmen in the field won't behave any differently (firing one arrow from a fixed position).  The high level fighter that picks up a longbow for the first time will know how to use it, but not to it's full potential.
> 
> Thoughts?




You could do this, but there should probably be more of a damage difference to make it more appealing; perhaps a d10 or at least 2d4 for a better average? Maybe a crit range of 19-20?


----------



## Ryngard (Dec 21, 2006)

bladesong said:
			
		

> It was not real easy to use (not even a fighter could just pick one up and use it), it made movement difficult, it really was only "effective" at longer than short range, but it was devastating when scores of them were fired together at an approaching army (it was never really meant or used in "one-on-one" combat.




A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten 'aimed shots' per minute. An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of fire. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield. "The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm.". This rate of fire was much higher than that of crossbows or any other projectile weapon of the period, including firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow


----------



## Bladesong (Dec 21, 2006)

Ryngard said:
			
		

> A Welsh or English military archer during the 14th and 15th Century was expected to shoot at least ten 'aimed shots' per minute. An experienced military longbowman was expected to shoot twenty aimed shots per minute. A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle, which would last the archer from three to six minutes, at full rate of fire. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield. "The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm.". This rate of fire was much higher than that of crossbows or any other projectile weapon of the period, including firearms.
> 
> The English gave them to untrained peasants. They weren't hard to use at all.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow




All accurate except for one thing, which your example actually points out, this was when shooting from groups of archers into large groups of individuals. This, unfortunately, is not how it normally gets used in D&D. You did not have to be precise (or trained) to fire into a tightly packed group of a hundred or more individuals to hit someone (how could you miss?!). Try looking up its use of one archer trying to hit a single moving target at almost any range; completely different story; even trained individuals found this difficult.
Your angle of fire is also almost always slightly up (because of its length), it would be very difficult to fire at someone directly in front of you. You would only be able to do so if you held the bow sideways, which was extremely difficult at best, yet this is how it usually gets used in-game.

The info we need to focus on, from your same source, is: 
"The longbow had a long range and high accuracy, but not both at the same time. Modern champion archers maintain that you cannot 'guarantee' a hit on an individual target at more than 80 yards with any bow whatsoever. Most of the longer range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers throwing volleys of arrows at an entire army. As they were aiming at a large mass at a particular distance, they could extend their range substantially. In its day, it was considered amazingly accurate and, by the standards of the day, it was. Standards for accuracy have changed dramatically, in the modern age... ... An archer could hit a person at 180 yards 'part of the time' and could always hit an army."

Have a great day!


----------



## Felnar (Dec 21, 2006)

bladesong said:
			
		

> Try looking up its use of one archer trying to hit a single moving target at almost any range; completely different story; even trained individuals found this difficult.
> 
> Your angle of fire is also almost always slightly up (because of its length), it would be very difficult to fire at someone directly in front of you.



recently PBS re-airred an episode of NOVA, Secrets of Lost Empires: Medieval Siege, i which the effectiveness and range of trebuchets (in Britian, used against Welsh castles) was tested.  At the beginning of the program they decided that trebuchets needed to be outside the range of a Welsh Longbow.  A dummy trebuchet commander was set up and single longbowmen stood on the castle ramparts and fired at it.  He was reasonably accurate at a couple hundred yards (as i recall, its been a few weeks).  Because he never actually hit the dummy in his handful of shots, they had him shoot from 20ish feet away (to test damage) and his arrow when clear through the center of the period breastplate.

maybe any of that is useful in this conversation
it was a cool episode of NOVA either way


----------



## Felix (Dec 22, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I know. Composite bows were invented for the very purpose of being used on horseback.
> 
> It's not as if many D&D characters fight from horseback, and when they do it's to twink out on lance charging goodness.



We ran up against the border skirmishers of this one nation who were mounted archers. They were _mean_ sons-o-guns: it showed us what Mounted Archery could do for the Scout. They couldn't hack it in a pitched battle, but damn did they harry us to no good end.

And they used Shortbows, by the by.


----------



## zerotkatama (Dec 22, 2006)

I could be wrong, but I believe that the Japanese Daikyu and Uma-yumi could be classifiedas composite longbows, and one (The Uma-Yumi I think) was used from horseback.


----------



## Bladesong (Dec 22, 2006)

Felnar said:
			
		

> Because he never actually hit the dummy in his handful of shots, they had him shoot from 20ish feet away (to test damage) and his arrow when clear through the center of the period breastplate.




My apologies to the original author of this thread, I know this is off your topic now so I'll try not to insert any "non-subject matter" after this.

The episode you are speaking of, which was great as you said, was all about trying these items TODAY. Unfortunately it did not deal with some minor details. I, for instance, have a replica of the longbow that they found on the ship Mary Rose (I believe it was called, you can find reference to it on the link listed earlier in the thread and everyone should read the whole link if you really wish to be informed) and it's string distance is 6'9" . I am 6'2" and can fire straight ahead only if I almost rest the bow on the ground, the individual in the show actually used a shorter version of the bow, 6' I think. Unfortunately, the people of that time period usually stood just over 5' tall which means that the ground would be in the way of them holding it perpendicular to the ground; hence the slight angle up I mentioned earlier. 

For the record, I can only pull it all the way back a few times before I am too tired to pull it again, and most of my friends cannot even pull it back once, so perhaps we should consider STRENGTH requirements as well.

Anyway, the link provided earlier should provide you with enough information to come up with your own ideas.

Good luck and have fun!


----------



## Felnar (Dec 22, 2006)

Strength Requirement: this sparked my memory that i had seen a pdf about all bows/xbows being built for a specific strength and each strength had its own damage and range increment.
Discussion of Bows (linking to other communities is okay, right?)
possibly useful to Yair
also useful would be the DM playing up inconcealability/snagging, as mentioned above

about bow lengths: since roughly half the bows length extends above/below the top of the grip, it seems to me that the distance from my outstretched hand to the ground would only need to be 3.5 feet for me to shoot a 7 foot bow straight forward.  This fits with the wiki articles "bowmen were still deadly at close range", even with 5 foot tall archers.
bladesong, i cant wrap my head around your needing to rest on the ground, but i cant say i've had a different experience.  So i'll have to get back down to the local archery range and check it out for myself, i know they have some replica bows there.


----------



## airwalkrr (Dec 23, 2006)

Yair said:
			
		

> The shortbow - what is it good for?




Rogues.

Bards.

1st-level characters who can't afford a longbow.

Elf wizards with such a low strength that the extra lb. of a longbow would move them to the next encumbrance level (don't laugh, I've seen it happen).


----------



## Mycanid (Dec 23, 2006)

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> Rogues.
> 
> Bards.
> 
> ...




Hey - what about halflings and gnomes who can't wield such a massive thing as a longbow? Helpful for them too.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 23, 2006)

felnar said:
			
		

> bladesong, i cant wrap my head around your needing to rest on the ground, but i cant say i've had a different experience. So i'll have to get back down to the local archery range and check it out for myself, i know they have some replica bows there.




Maybe he was trying to draw it back across his abdomen? 

In all seriousness, it's EASY to shoot straight ahead with a longbow. I'm barely over 6' tall and I can shoot straight at a target within ~40' (depending on the draw weight of the bow). At 20 yards, you have to start taking a SLIGHT angle (unless your bow is extra powerful...proof that mighty bows should get an attack bonus, but I digress).

I have a 6' longbow. When I'm shooting (normally), I shoot in a slight crouch, pressing into the bow to draw, rather than pulling back (less fatiguing on my arms). The string goes to my ear. I shoot dead straight at anything within point blank. It's EASY to hit. On a good day, at 20', I can drop an entire flight (12 arrows) into a 12 inch circle in about a minute. And I'm far from being a world-class or Olympic-level archer.

And in no way does 3' down from my chin hit the ground. On this theory, a gnome could ALMOST shoot a longbow...but he couldn't pull it to full draw.

I normally use a recurve (composite), but I've shot a straight longbow with similar results. Oh, seasoned English yew is a natural material perfectly capable of being used to make a real life "mighty" bow. Just FYI.


----------

