Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: DV of Bows
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Grinder
A bow has a DV of (STR+2), while throwing and melee weapons are based on STR/2. Thus, the bow becomes very powerful, especially above a STR of 6 (like sammies and one trick ponies have). The drawback is that a bow can be fired only once per IP, due to needing a complex action. But duing the game, we found a bow to be very strong, mabe a little too much and the question arose: was it intenional to give bows the high DV or is this a need a for an errata?
cristomeyers
I can't see why bows would be overpowered. The more pull on the bow, the stronger you have to be to use it and also it's going to launch a more powerful projectile. Hence, STR Min +2

It's melee weapons being based off of Str/2 that I think is a little wierd, as it's based entirely off of your strength (as opposed to the pull of the bow).
Demerzel
Didn't Rambo take out a heliopter with a compound bow in one of those movies? I can't say I saw it, but I remember the trailer.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Demerzel)
Didn't Rambo take out a heliopter with a compound bow in one of those movies? I can't say I saw it, but I remember the trailer.

He had some souped up Ex-Ex arrows with huge exploding tips.
Demerzel
Ah yes, then the movie poster of Hot Shots had Charlie Sheen with a Ex-Ex Chicken in his bow...
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Demerzel)
Didn't Rambo . . .

So is this an argument for, or against, uber-bows. wink.gif
As in: "Rambo did it, so it must be okay!" vs "Rambo did it, so it's obviously crap!"

Guiltily I will admit that I enjoyed Rambo 3 (the one with the explodie arrows)
Demerzel
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
So is this an argument . . .

It was less an argument and more just supplying mostly irrelevent information, that may be used in an argument either for or against.
Grinder
My thoughts were not Rambo-related, but more like: all damage codes have been divided by 2 when you compare SR3 and SR4, only the bow still has its old damage value ((STR+2)M at SR3 and STR+2 at SR4). That seems odd to me.
Eryk the Red
I use Str. min.+2 DV for bows in my game. It works well. A troll-bow still hits hard (very hard, in fact), but it's not likely to stop a Citymaster. Which seems fair.
Grinder
But it leaves a big scar in the Citymaster, when it is hit by an arrow with what? 15P plus net hits?
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (Eryk the Red)
I use Str. min.+2 DV for bows in my game. It works well. A troll-bow still hits hard (very hard, in fact), but it's not likely to stop a Citymaster. Which seems fair.

Unless you Dikote your arrow heads.
Eryk the Red
Um, I totally screwed up what I was actually trying to say. I meant that I do Str. Min./2 +2 DV for bows.

It should make more sense when read that way.
X-Kalibur
Compare what a sword vs an arrow can do to your average suit of platemail. There is a reason the Longbow changed combat so radically. With the case of compound bows you are getting far more energy out than you are putting in to it. I know its hard to imagine an arrow doing more damage to a person than a giant axe, but it will have a much higher penetration value. Perhaps the bow needs to be changed to have an AP value instead of a huge damage value?
ShadowDragon
I houserule a cap of rating 6 bows, and I divide the ranges in half. It just seems ridiculous that a bow can be more powerful than a panther cannon.
cristomeyers
The damage for bows is fully realistic. Honestly I see your average compound bow doing more penetration against body armor than the bullets (then again, aren't arrows resisted with Impact?)

An arrow shot from a longbow WILL penetrate armor at least somewhat, our compound bows can put out about that much power with pulleys and the pull of the bow.

Str min +2 without any AP is conservative.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (X-Kalibur)
Compare what a sword vs an arrow can do to your average suit of platemail.

The exact same thing?

At close range a direct shot that impacts a plate at a straight angle with an armor piercing arrowhead, a longbow could penetrate plate armor of the 14th and 15th centuries. Similarly a powerful thrust with a good armor piercing sword at a straight angle could penetrate the same plate.

QUOTE (X-Kalibur)
I know its hard to imagine an arrow doing more damage to a person than a giant axe, but it will have a much higher penetration value.

Does not compute. A large axe with a narrow head swung full force will penetrate body armor much better than any personal bow every built.

At least in SR3 you needed a Ranger-X bow with a strength minimum far out of the reach of 99,999% of humans firing EX-Ex to equal a Sniper Rifle, and an absolutely ridiculous troll bow rig with Dikoted arrows to get into Assault Cannon territory. Seems bows are even better in SR4. But then I guess those who see this as a problem will simply house rule it away in an instant, so no worries.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (cristomeyers)
Honestly I see your average compound bow doing more penetration against body armor than the bullets (then again, aren't arrows resisted with Impact?)

You can get a rifle and ammunition for it capable of penetrating around 10mm of rolled homogenous armor steel at a few hundred meters from any serious gun shop anywhere in the world -- and that's a long way from the best you can manage with heavy sporting rifles or sniper rifles with the right ammo. I would love to see someone get anywhere near the same kind of penetration with a bow weighing less than 50kg. Hell, I'd love to see someone manage 3mm of armor steel with any personal bow and any arrow -- that's the minimum to equal assault rifle FMJs, and I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

The issue of broadhead arrows vs. current flexible body armor (which you didn't mention, but I just feel coming up any moment now...) is moot here since: 1) every single dedicated armor piercing round in the world, along with just about every rifle round in the world, will penetrate clean through any flexible body armor; 2) stab protection and advances in rigid-on-impact armor and other technologies are quickly removing this threat altogether.
Demerzel
I think like much of Physics, this may be an equation that breaks down for large values. The issue at hand isn't the ability of an arrow to really mess someone up, it's the ability of an arrow to really mess an armored vehicle up.

Consider a Strength 13 Troll fires an arrow from a rating 13 bow. 15P is the base damage. Assume they get at least one net hit against an Armor 15 Body 15 vehicle. They defeat the hardened armor and so they do damage (15 + Net hits). The vehicle resists, on average the vehicle would get around 10 hits on the resistance test. Or the GM could say 30 dice sell them off at ¼ and that’s 7 hits. Lets give them the higher number for arguments sake (as a GM I wouldn’t buy off a roll that wouldn’t be a complete success, or near it). So the 15/15 armor/body vehicle takes 5 +Net hits damage.

Okay consider a HMG, 7p base damage –3 AP, give the man some Ex-Ex for fun, and that’s what, now 8p –4AP. If the shooter fires a narrow burst he has to get 4 net hits to achieve any damage at all. Then if he manages 4 net hits, he does 21 damage before resistance, give them the same average reduction of 10 and it does 11 boxes. This requires much more skill since it needs to bridge a larger gap to penetrate the vehicle armor.

Then what about an Assault Cannon? At 10P –5AP a Panther has the same armor penetration as a Rating 13 bow.

The question is should a single arrow be nearly as good, with less skill, against a vehicle as 9 rounds out of an HMG, or a shot from a Panther?

I don’t really have an answer to that, but if it were realistic wouldn’t the army use some sort of hydraulic ballista as an anti-tank weapon?
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Demerzel)
The question is should a single arrow be nearly as good, with less skill, against a vehicle as 9 rounds out of an HMG, or a shot from a Panther?

Realistically, NO. Not even fucking close. I doubt even the most massive siege ballista ever built firing 50lb steel shafts would get close to what a 25x59mm HEAT or 12.7x99mm SLAP (dedicated armor piercing small arms rounds in the "Assault Cannon" range) can do to armor steel. No personal bow ever built can even match an assault rifle firing NATO standard FMJ.
Grinder
QUOTE (Demerzel)
The question is should a single arrow be nearly as good, with less skill, against a vehicle as 9 rounds out of an HMG, or a shot from a Panther?

A two-meters long arrow, fired from a steam-driven (sorry, too much Iron Kingdoms) siege ballista should be able to do so. But an ordinary composite longbow, even when fired by a troll?

No.
ornot
I don't know a great deal about guns, but ancient siege weaponry is more potent than it's given credit for. A trebuchet, for example, can make a huge dent in something remarkably accurately, over a very long range. Very long reload times though, compared to a howitzer.

My biggest problem with the 15DV bow is the cost and availability. As a GM I would rule that it needed to be custom made (at great expense due to the materials involved. They have to be strong enough not to snap, and yet flexible enough to bend, and as we're talking about a compound bow with all its attendent pulleys... well, you see my point. Then there is the ammunition. This would be cheaper in terms of materials, but would still not be the kind of thing you could pick up off-the-shelf. And the size and bulk would mean that carrying a bunch of them would be impractible.

Hopefully this arguement would discourage hopeful troll archers, but if they don't fancy a Whiteknight with 100 eXeX rounds, they're welcome to the troll portable seige weapon and 6 or 8 arrows.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (ornot)
Very long reload times though, compared to a howitzer.

Loses out pretty badly in every aspect compared to a howitzer. smile.gif
Jack Kain
Ok A Strength of 13 is fairly massive. The Troll with a combat axe would be dealing 11P damage with an AP of -1. Thats just short of the bow's damage.
Just with his fists he'd deal 7S and with proper bioware 10P.

You could also just cap the bow at x strength at some point you reach diminishing returns or they simply can't construct a bow that can stand up that repeated stress.


Some times you have to throw in common sense. And say you can't damage a city master with an arrow. It can rend flesh like butter but an armored vehicle stops it cold.
cristomeyers
I'd say that any bow that requires a strength of 8 or more to pull isn't really going to be able to stand up to repeated use. Just the stress that amount of pull is going to cause is going to wear the bow out really quick.

Sorry, Troll Archers, you can't all be Odysseus.
Thane36425
QUOTE (ornot)

My biggest problem with the 15DV bow is the cost and availability. As a GM I would rule that it needed to be custom made (at great expense due to the materials involved. They have to be strong enough not to snap, and yet flexible enough to bend, and as we're talking about a compound bow with all its attendent pulleys... well, you see my point. Then there is the ammunition. This would be cheaper in terms of materials, but would still not be the kind of thing you could pick up off-the-shelf. And the size and bulk would mean that carrying a bunch of them would be impractible.

Hopefully this arguement would discourage hopeful troll archers, but if they don't fancy a Whiteknight with 100 eXeX rounds, they're welcome to the troll portable seige weapon and 6 or 8 arrows.

I agree and that is also how I would handle high STR bows. Anything above 6 saw its cost go up sharply for each extra point due to its increased size and greater use of expensive, component materials. Arrows would also have to be tougher. Shooting a too weak arrow in a bow can easily result in it splintering. A standard arrow from a STR 12 bow wouldn't stand a chance. The expense of the bow and its arrows would quickly make guns and bullets much cheaper, and easier to carry and conceal.
ornot
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (ornot)
Very long reload times though, compared to a howitzer.

Loses out pretty badly in every aspect compared to a howitzer. smile.gif

I wouldn't say every aspect.

Trebuchets are cool.

They're quieter, don't require specialist ammunition and can be put together entirely without nails.

I've yet to see a flat pack howitzer!
grinbig.gif
cristomeyers
And try shooting a dead, rotting cow out of a howlitzer, or better yet, bodies full of the Plague.

Biological warfare on the cheap.
Moon-Hawk
Man, I just remembered I have a trebuchet kit at home waiting to be assembled! (scale model)
I've got to get on that.
Spike
Given that the ammunition for rebuchets is measured in ton weights, I rather suspect modern tanks would not stand up to direct hits any better than they would to howitzers. Probably less. Several tons of falling rock is hard to engineer against, you know.
Demerzel
Putting that on target against a moving opponent who can shoot back at you while traveling 35 MPH, over rough terrain, in the dark, with one eye tied behind their back is another issue.
hobgoblin
control fins and laser guidance should help nyahnyah.gif

i was thinking, how insane would it be for the bow to be firing solid tungsten rods or something similar? silly.gif
Demerzel
Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium Trebuchet Rocks?
ornot
I'm not convinced that trebuchets throw ton weights. More in the region of 100kg, or less for improved range. Of course this is largely dependent on the size of the trebuchet. Their big advantage over other seige weaponry of the time was their endurance and their accuracy. A skilled engineer firing a trebuchet could be remarkably accurate, although their use against moving targets is debatable. This matters not, for they are seige weapons, and fortifications typically don't move.

I'm sceptical as to how easy it would be to hit a tank with a howitzer, but also as to how a tank commander can direct his vehicle with "one eye tied behind their back" (ouch).
Kyoto Kid
...I believe bovines are somewheres in the 300 - 350kg class.
laughingowl
QUOTE (ornot)
I'm not convinced that trebuchets throw ton weights. More in the region of 100kg, or less for improved range. Of course this is largely dependent on the size of the trebuchet. Their big advantage over other seige weaponry of the time was their endurance and their accuracy. A skilled engineer firing a trebuchet could be remarkably accurate, although their use against moving targets is debatable. This matters not, for they are seige weapons, and fortifications typically don't move.

I'm sceptical as to how easy it would be to hit a tank with a howitzer, but also as to how a tank commander can direct his vehicle with "one eye tied behind their back" (ouch).

Agree on hitting a moving tank with a howitzer or a siege engine (well maybe a ballista at short range).

However when it happens it would be impressive (and painful for the tank crew).

As to several tons, references please....

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

Wikipedia references 140kg (300lbs) which is much more inline with number I have always heard. now counterweights in the tons to get the speed yes, ammunition loads of tons I would like to see the evidence backing this.

ornot
That wikipedia article does reference a trebuchet capable of throwing close to a ton (800kg), and modern day recreations have been used to throw cars.

I think the limit on the amount it can throw is the length of the arm and the mass of the counterweight. Obviously you reach a point where it's going to collapse under its own weight, and heavier ones are going to take longer to reload and re-aim.
Ed_209a
I believe the damage from an arrow would be capped at the point at which it goes completely through you and out the other side. Whether it leaves you traveling at 20 FPS or 200 FPS is not important at that point. I think a stronger bow would just let you shoot through more things (like armor) before completely penetrating your torso.

For this reason, I would cap DV from bows at something like ST 4-5, then start adding AP mods from there.

Incidentally, talking to bowhunters, total penetration like I described above is almost universal. Cause of death is almost always blood loss. (unless you are my badass redneck cousin who can clip spines with his 100lb bow. smile.gif )

Please note that I have not talked to anyone who has shot a deer that was wearing kevlar so I cannot relate RL experiences there.

In SR4 turns, lets call it a ST 3/skill 3 hunter vs a bod 4 deer with 1-2 points of impact armor due to their hide.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Spike)
Given that the ammunition for rebuchets is measured in ton weights, I rather suspect modern tanks would not stand up to direct hits any better than they would to howitzers.

With a more probable (and sane) projectile weight of ~150kg, I expect what you'd get is a mangled gun barrel, crushed optics and crew MGs, and crumpled storage bays, depending on where exactly it hits. The impact of a 150kg stone at 50m/s would have less momentum, nevermind kinetic energy, than a 45kg projectile at coming down at 200+m/s, and it would concentrate that on a much larger area. 10kg of TNT going off on contact rattles the crew rather more as well.

The probability of a trebuchet projectile actually getting penetration through an MBT hull or turret obviously rounds down to zero, unless getting small bits of stone through an engine grid counts.

QUOTE (ornot)
I'm sceptical as to how easy it would be to hit a tank with a howitzer [...]

At 30km with unguided shells? Pretty damn hard. Current smart projectiles should give you something like a 30% change of hitting a static MBT at 15km (CEP ~5m). If you've got Copperheads and a spotter, that ought to go up to ~80%. Direct fire should allow a very high hit probability even against a moving target within a kilometer, with accuracy in the 1mil range and muzzle velocity of over 800m/s.
Tomothy
QUOTE
Putting that on target against a moving opponent who can shoot back at you while traveling 35 MPH, over rough terrain, in the dark, with one eye tied behind their back is another issue.

That sure would be a neat trick.
Adept_Damo
QUOTE (Demerzel)

I don’t really have an answer to that, but if it were realistic wouldn’t the army use some sort of hydraulic ballista as an anti-tank weapon?

QUOTE


They did invent this. It's called a rail gun. And it's the Navy, not the army that has this. It shoots metal rods, that do damage similar to missles.
DigitEyez
QUOTE (Adept_Damo)
They did invent this.  It's called a rail gun.  And it's the Navy, not the army that has this.  It shoots metal rods, that do damage similar to missles.

Yeah but it's hardly portable (I hope) and doesn't use meta-human strength for leverage.
It seems as if someone in the SR4 team really liked bows. Maybe the same person that invented the katana-spurs?

In my opinion bows can only shoot further than short range before you need to have a nice arc to reach the target making it really hard to use if there are obstructions overhead. For instance, you can't shoot someone at medium or long range in a forest without getting a hefty DP modifier.

Also I would change the damage to be STR/2 +2 as was suggested before in this tread but also the range:
Short: 0 - STR x 2
Medium: STR x 2 - STR x 10
Long: STR x 10 - STR x 30
Extreme: STR x 30 - STR x 60
snowRaven
QUOTE (Ed_209a)
Incidentally, talking to bowhunters, total penetration like I described above is almost universal. Cause of death is almost always blood loss. (unless you are my badass redneck cousin who can clip spines with his 100lb bow. smile.gif )

Please note that I have not talked to anyone who has shot a deer that was wearing kevlar so I cannot relate RL experiences there.

In SR4 turns, lets call it a ST 3/skill 3 hunter vs a bod 4 deer with 1-2 points of impact armor due to their hide.

Neat cousin you have there!

A friend of my father's hunt with traditional longbows that he build himself - he's successfully hunted bear up in Canada with those, but of course those arrowheads are the nastiest I've seen.

Same deal there though - blood loss.

In his case, I'd say it's a Str 4, maaaaybe 5, bow. Unfortunately there's no bear entry in the critters section, so let's use a Body of 8 (same as a horse or Sasquatch). Seems fair.

Skill + Agility = 7. Take Aim -2 and Called Shot +3 to increase damage (aiming for the heart) - final dice pool of 6. Should net 2 successes.

Base damage: 6 + 3 for called shot, +2 successes = DV of 11.

Resistance test using 8 dice (we'll assume that the potential armor of the bear is negated by the potential AP of the giant hunting arrowtips, since neither are in the rules). 3 Successes on average, reduce the damage taken to 8 boxes.

Same shot using a sporting rifle:

Skill + Agility etc - again, 2 successes.

Base damage: 7+3+2 = DV of 12.

Resistance test, 3 successes - bear takes 9 boxes.


Seems fairly balanced, but it does require special arrowheads so I'd say a base bow is slightly overpowered.

Change the DV to (Str Min+1). Cap it around 7 or 8. But we need better rules for arrows in either case.

Oh, and I disagree with giving impact armor for the hide of a deer - even though the rules give a leather jacket an armor of 2/2, almost no animals have any form of armor beyond their body.
Ed_209a
QUOTE (snowRaven)
Oh, and I disagree with giving impact armor for the hide of a deer - even though the rules give a leather jacket an armor of 2/2, almost no animals have any form of armor beyond their body.

I'd certainly agree that most animal hide on the hoof/paw is far less protective than most cured leather, especially the stuff in motorcycle jackets.
pestulens
QUOTE (DigitEyez)

Yeah but it's hardly portable (I hope) and doesn't use meta-human strength for leverage.

Of corse it's portable, there the freken navy. anyway I believe it uses a traditinal chemical esplosive and then the round passes through a rifled barrel witch acts as a magnetic acelorator. (a true railgun would be just a magnetic acelerator but I ges they decided the hibrid was more efficient.) I hadn't herd that it was out of the experimental stages though.
Jack Kain
As I've said before a Troll with a really high strength can deal a crap load of physical damage just with his combat axe or his fists. Why should a bow be able to deal less damage? Recall these are single shot weapons because you have to take a ready action.

Capping bows at strength 5 or 6 makes them totally useless, they could make bows with greater pull strengths then are humanity possible now. They just don't because there's no reason to build a bow that no human would be strong enough to pull back on the string.

The problem is with vehicle armor not bows. The armored vehicle should be immune to pistols as well as bows but they aren't. If you get enouth


Hey guys guess what death from a bullet is no different then death from an arrow.
Its either vital spot is pierced or blood loss. Well there's also shock and trauma but the rules don't cover that.

Crossbows deal up to 7P damage with an AP of -1. A Human usable longbow should have comparable damage to a heavy crossbow. These weapons are supposed to have comparable damage aren't they. The crossbow's favor was simpler to use, a farmer could kill a highly trained armored knight at a great distance with little training.

A Troll however is not only far stronger then humans. (allows for a much greater pull strength on the bow) but are taller and have comparably longer arms. These factors make for a deadlier bow.

Remember in the dark ages they could get a wooden arrow through a steal plate and into a man chest. Is it that hard to believe that in 2074 a Nine foot Troll with near double the human limit on strength with space age materials availble for the weapon can't do something more?

*PIST, how many pistols can shoot through a steal plate?*

I feel the bow damage to living targets works fine. Its how these weapons interact with vehicles and such.

How about just limiting a bows damage to vehicles and objects. Don't monowhips only deal 1P damage if you attack a wall or something?
ornot
I imagine the USian gun nut... I mean... gun enthusiasts will be able to give significant examples of pistols that can shoot through a steel plate.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should be addressing the issue of the barrier rules and hardened armour.

My main objection to bows is not the fact that they can inflict 15P, but the fact that they can do so for so little. There needs to be a balancing factor; be it cost, legality... something anyway.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Jack Kain)
*PIST, how many pistols can shoot through a steal plate?*

The kind of steel plate 14th-15th century bows would be shooting through? From 9x19mm upwards, every last one of them.

How many bows can shoot through the kind of steel plates assault rifles shoot through routinely? Not a single one.

I do not hail from the continent of North America, BTW.

[Edit]Oh, and armor made of steel plates wasn't used in the Dark Ages (usually meaning a period ending around 1000 CE in Europe). Mail was the standard armor of the period and provided excellent protection against most forms of bow around at the time.[/Edit]
Gamble
Just an observation after reading through the posts about bows dealing uber damage versus guns/howitzers/atom bombs...

Considering I am a gun nut and also dabbled in hunting with bows, you have to take in consideration how each incapacitates the target.

Depending on the firearm you have: penetration, the permanent cavity, temporary cavity, and fragmentation, neurogenic shock etc. Essentially, you make things go boom, it makes a hole, transfers the energy which ripples through the liquid part of your body causing a shock of sorts etc and so forth.

Arrows on the other hand are designed to penetrate and mangle as much as you can but aren't made for one shot kills. A broadhead is designed to open you up as much as possible so you bleed out quicker.

Whether guns are underpowered compared to a troll wielding a huge ass compound bow with arrows the thickness of highlighters all depends on how you want to kill people. Maybe a troll can punch a hole in the armor of a vehicle but is he going to kill the people in the vehicle with that arrow? Possibly. Is it the best method? I'd have to say not.
Jack Kain
QUOTE (ornot)
My main objection to bows is not the fact that they can inflict 15P, but the fact that they can do so for so little. There needs to be a balancing factor; be it cost, legality... something anyway.

Aries Alpha
6P+EXEX+ Narrow Long Burst=12P and you can fire twice in that During that IP.
Now of course you take a penalty to hit but with a few extras you can greatly reduce the recoil penalty even at that level.
If you account for the fact that you can't smartlink a bow that reduces the penalty even more.


Cap the one shot per IP Bow at something like 10 STR so high strength characters can actually make use of them. Orcs and Especially Trolls can deal a massive amount of damage with a melee weapon. So don't gut the bow down to capping at a human level of strength.

Lets look at the legality of a bow, while it may be legal to say own a longbow. Walking around a city with it clearly visible on your back. I think that may be illegal. Or at least if Lone Star sees you they are going to stop and talk with you.

Moon-Hawk
Yes, Orks and Trolls can deal massive amounts of damage with melee weapons, but not nearly what they can do with a bow, because melee weapons are all Str/2 and Bows are the only thing that goes off Str. Wasn't that the point of this thread?
It's not a question of whether Troll bows should be cool. It's a question of why should the damage of bows be more dependent on strength than hitting someone with a club?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012