He was talking about the history. What lead up to the use of modern weapons. Bows --> Muskets --> etc.

It was easier to load a bow with an arrow then it was to load a Musket with a bullet, but the Musket could shoot farther then an arrow and it was easier to make a round bullet then to make an arrow.

And it's easier to train someone with a Rifle than it is with a Bow, with greater accuracy.

Its not too unrealistic to believe that a heavily compounded bow can easily do as much damage to a single target as some of the more powerful gun based weapons, if you take into account that the firer is able to apply a significant amount of strength to the task

The reason why crossbows, and then guns took over from bows was because anyone can pick up a gun and learn to fire them, you don't need to be strong to fire a gun. To fire a bow that can do the same kind of damage as a gun requires a level of dedication that most people just don't bother with. You need to maintain a level of strength capable of pulling your bow of choice, and you very quickly notice when you are slacking as the bow gets harder and harder to pull. Its a specialists field, made up of very dedicated archers.

As for the idea that the bow would be some solid polearm like chunk of alloyed metals, it probably wouldn't. It would be more likely to be some very heavily compounded bow, with lots of cables and pulleys. That way, the force it outputs would be significantly higher than could normally be applied by the strength needed to pull the bow (which is why it does strength + 2 dmg, rather than (str/2)+2. It would also be a really bad idea to attack someone with the bow physically (in that you'd very easily damage the Cams/cables etc), thus making the bow unfireable until some maintenance was performed.

As for the game balance, well the bow allows you to hit individual targets much harder, thus being more likely to succeed in injuring an armoured target, but reduces the total number of targets you can hit. However even a basic handgun allows you to shoot twice as many times, and would be more effective against lightly armoured opponents. You are more likely to 'one-shot' someone using a bow, its an exceptionally powerful weapon in the hands of someone who could probably bend a sword into a pretzel, but not so powerful in the hands of the regular archer. A skilled gunner though could utilise a standard heavy pistol to take down twice as many lightly armoured opponents. In essence, the bow is equivalent in role to the sniper rifle. Great if you get the chance to draw and aim, but totally useless in melee combat.

Whilst firing a gun at a melee target only applies a -2 modifier, i suspect firing a bow at a melee target should have even worse negative modifiers. I'd also allow the melee target to dodge the attack as if it was a melee attack, rather than a ranged one (due to the fact that its easier to perceive where the attacker is aiming, with a bow, than it is with a gun) (thus, a standard dodge would be reaction + dodge/gymnastic dodge/combat skill, rather than just reaction).

In all of this though, the single most important point of failure isn't the possibility of making a bow which can produce 500+lbs of force, but rather of manufacturing an arrow capable of surviving such a shot. A standard wooden arrow would shatter upon the release of the string, in fact modern compound bows can shatter wooden arrows. The best modern arrows for the top end compound bows are made out of an aluminium/carbon alloy. In game terms, i'd require that arrows be made specifically for the bow for strength 7+ bows. A standard arrow would have an availability equivalent to a bow of the same strength, and likely some cost increase.

I've been hit with a 70-pound longbow, or more precisely the (thankfully blunt) arrow shot from a 70-pound longbow. It staggered me a bit. It would shift my 3/4" plywood shield when I blocked with it. I should also point out that it was a golf-tube arrow with a tennis ball on the front, so it didn't have the same mass as an arrow would have and struck with more surface area.

I was also just last night talking to a lady who uses a 75-pound longbow and was just last night talking about being eligible for AARP, and not in any ironic way.

I know a little old lady that uses a 75-pound bow, and I know first-hand the kind of force a 70-pound bow can generate, and I feel that the current rules for bow damage are just fine.

If bows could put out the damage they can according to the rules, our military would use them instead of heavy weapons.

Yeah because pulling a bow string is just as easy as pulling a trigger. A good bowman would cost as much to train as a good sniper. In all seriousness they did use bows in limited capacity in Vietnam to deliver grenades and other explosives.

Okay, I found the bow rules in BBB (and I believe I'm repeating previous posts here). Bows have a minimum strength rating that must be met in order to be used else there is a -2 penalty blah, blah, etc... Damage is calculated by the strength rating of the bow +2 physical and range is determined by strength rating. So you don't want your Cybertrollbowman punching holes through tanks? Limit the bow strength rating to 6 or whatever you think is reasonable. Doesn't matter how strong the user is if the tensile strength of the bow doesn't allow for higher damage.

That's one of those GM's fiat things. Though it would have been nice if there was a max-strength rating listed in the rules to avoid arguments.

One of my hobbies is shooting bows, both from a professional perspective (Anglo-Saxon studies) and from a hobby perspective (SCA). I shoot with a 70 pound bow and I am slowly moving to a 90 pound one. Welsh archers during the battle of Agincourt had between 150-300 lbs draw strength bows (2002 archeological discovery of a ship, bodies and bows - citation needed) depending on the literature used. According to some sources archers who wished to go on campaign were expected to hit a small target at 300 yards (equivalent size of a watermelon).

Excavations of a Norman knight from the War of the Roses in Normandy discovered that he had been buried in his armor with his horse. The reason for it was that an arrow had penetrated his helm, passing through his body and embedded itself in the spine of the horse.

30 lb bow is enough to kill. My archery teacher uses it to hunt deer. 70 lb bow is enough to shatter bones. 150 lbs is enough to penetrate breast plate.

My own experience comes from a traditional bow and not from a modern one. The modern ones can use pulley systems to actually increase force of the draw beyond that of needed purely for draw strength.

Arrows for distance had an ash shaft, and a heavy bodkin point head. Those used for pentrating armor had the first six inches of its shaft made of oak and the rest ash (footed arrow) with a barbed and socketed head. An arrow could weight up to 4 ounces.

A troll with enough strength would probably be the equivalent of a windlass-pulled arbalest which could have up to 22 kN (5000 lb) draw strength and be accurate up to 500 m.

The reason for the replacement of the arrow to that of powder weapons was gradual, primarily the same reason why the crossbow replaced the bow.

You pointed out that your own post needed a citation. You are my new favorite Dumpshocker.

Is the Mary Rose the ship you're talking about?

Although bows could put out the damage they can according to the rules, your military would not use them instead of heavy weapons, unless it could make the weapons manufacturing establishment more money.

Last time i checked, the modern military always equipped max strength trolls with bows (what do you mean, we don't have any trolls atm)

So, lets look at humans - a max strength human (strongest man in the world) assuming exceptional attribute would, according to the SR rules, have a Strength of 7, so his bow would be hitting for 9P.

He would need a very large amount of training and would be required to practice with his bow constantly to keep that level of strength - remember, this guy is exceptional - he can lift 105kg off the ground without even breaking a sweat (according to the SR4 lifting rules), he can lift 35kg above his head with the same lack of effort, he can carry 70kg and never even break a sweat (or making a test).

Currently, the average army gear can weigh up to about 120 lbs (about 54.4kg) - so, if we assume every soldier has the strength required to carry such a pack without making a test, we are looking at a strength of 5-6 (6 would mean no test, 5 would mean having to make a str + bod test and getting at least 1 success)

So, using a bow, the soldier is putting out either 7P or 8P damage. One shot per IP (since we have no reaction enhancers, thats only 1IP)

in SR4: The AK-97 does a base dmg of 6P, with -1AP and can do SA/BF/FA, each clip has 38 bullets in it (imagine the awkwardness of carrying 40 arrows) - now carry several spare clips full of ammo. Can you carry several spare quivers full of arrows - probably not.

Replace the bow with a sniper rifle and we are looking at a base damage of 8P, -3AP, SA, clip of 15 (Ranger Arms SM-4)

Even using the SR4 rules, if you think bows are overpowered and better than guns for the modern army, think again.

Troll bowmen is where the issue is, not with bows in general. TBH, the bow rules in SR4 sound about right, they just look broken when you get a troll with a Strength of 10 that can lift 150kg off the ground without making a test, can lift 50kg over his head and can carry 100kg without ever having to roll for it.

Even with these figures btw, they are not really in tune with the real world. The biggest weight ever dead-lifted was 523kg. To do that in SR4, assuming a character with 6 str, you'd need to roll 99 successes.

I'd also like to point out that modern infantry are more trained for endurance, not strength.

Yes, I believe so, which would place it safely outside of the Battle of Agincourt though. I could have sworn that I remember reading about a ship found in 2002 that sank when Henry V crossed the Channel.

There are, in fact, many reasons why a man-use bow is unlikely to be suitable for modern armies.
Modern armies strongly prefer to shoot from cover (much harder with a bow.)
More importantly, armies like to put out lots of bullets. It makes the other side keep their head down, and sometimes injures them (the ratio of shots fired to hits in modern military conflicts is simply staggering.) Carrying anything like that many arrows would be just impractical.

And I suspect that there are many other reasons.
Even for vehicle-mounted weaponry, rate of fire, size and weight of ammunition, and reliability are all going to be issues.

(I presume, but I don't know, that getting arrows / bolts/giant ballista bolts that fly really accurately is much harder and more expensive than getting bullets / tank shells that go where you want.)

Yours,
Joel

Its already been pointed out that one reason that's not an accurate presumption is because of training. A normal person whose never fired a rifle before can pick one up and have a reasonable chance of hitting something the size of an apple at 50 feet, with little or no instruction. Just point and shoot. That same person, if they picked up a bow and arrow for the first time, would be hard pressed to hit something the size of a watermelon or a pumpkin even 1 out of 10 shots after several hours of practice. At least that was my experience when I was in the boy scouts and on the rifle team in high school.

If it were a matter of doing the most damage, everyone would be carrying 50 cal machine guns instead of M16s. There's just no comparison for firing 300-600 rounds a minute compared to 6-12(?) per minute.

The aforementioned troll bow would be more powerful than a heavy tank cannon (check Arsenal). Please try to imagine how much energy that takes. Consider the recoil a 120 mm tank cannon has today.

Er ... heavy tank cannon fires on something with a Barrier rating, does at least 18P damage. Super-augmented troll with all the Strength buffs in the game fires a tricked-out super-Strength bow at the same target, does 1P damage.

I see no problem here.

Area denial, for one. It's kinda hard to do area denial with a bow, unless you get the accessory, "a bunch of other guys with bows."

Comparing damage codes and armor ratings to real life weapon and armor capabilities, human-powered SR4 arrows can reliably pierce NIJIII body armor. No arow could do that in reality. Apparently, sometime in the future bow and arrow technology advanced to the point when arrows really were better than bullets.

Some special operations units do use bows because they have the advantage of being relatively silent and many are instructed in methods of crafting makeshift bows and arrows in the wilderness because it is a fast way to make a projectile weapon when low on supplies. Rambo wasn't unrealistic in that regard. But Rambo never killed armored vehicles with broadheads.

This is a really sad statement, because I remember you claimed to know about military, or that you are in the military, some time ago. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

How do you figure this? Shooting through a barrier rules don't mention that (SR4 p. 157).

The rules for attacking barriers work just as Aaron describes. One arrow equals 1 DV, always. Shooting THROUGH the barrier is a separate rule. It adds the barrier's Armor to the defender's, usually blocks LOS (blind fire), and deals no meaningful damage to the barrier.

Yes, but where's the DV for cannon rounds against barriers?

In Arsenal, on page 124.

On the other hand, if you're actually talking about the rules for cannon rounds against barriers, you should open your hymnal to page 158.

i don't know if anybody ever tried this, but a modern harpoon would probably punch through a car from front to rear without much trouble . .
granted, harpoons are generally fired utilizing compressed air, but once the "Arrow" is flying, it does not matter where the power came from . .

Weapon DV Modifier
Melee or Unarmed No change
Whip/Monofi lament whip DV of 1
Projectile DV of 1 per projectile
Bullet DV of 2 per bullet
Explosive base DV x 2
AV rocket/missile base DV x 3
Combat spell No change

And where is the cannon round? Is it a bullet? Or a rocket?

It was said that a heavy tank cannon would do 18P against a barrier. Where is that rule?

Please, no snark comments. Just tell me where that rule is.