I totally agree with JaronK If on 12th century it was possible to create such a bow, why would it all the sudden be impossible on 2070? Maybe it should instead of capping it, increase even more on bows that require str more than 10? If there needs to be some kind of restriction, make bow's availability 4+STR. Such a huge device (or a nasty piston as Jaron suggested) would be fairly rare and far from superior vs. assault cannons. Yes, damage-wise it deals equal amount, but as someone else already suggested, how many arrows can you really carry around? 20 such "arrows" for a troll-bow would most likely be quite a sight and not too easy to conceal while a clip full of hurt fits into pocket.

As discussed earlier, there are two ways to deal massive damage: light & fast projectile or heavy & not so fast. If you think the troll-bow slings an arrow with speeds equal to a rifle, then you are way off. I couldn't find with short searching a weight to such an arrow, but it was suggested it was far less than 100kg So if the arrow weights "only" 3kg and has "normal" arrow speed, it's about twice the energy compared to .338. Assault cannon's damage is based more on the explosive than kinetic, I think. But who wants to carry 100kg of arrows?

So if the troll-bows are a problem, how about explaining the drawbacks to the players but if they still are willing to go with it, go right ahead.

Bow itself made from something like this:
http://images.google.de/images?q=laminated...l=de&tab=wi
Maybe with Recurve to add more pounds.
It was enough to keep Muscle Cars away from the street for several years, i think that's enough for a bow right?
Now factor in Carbon Nano tubes, Titan/Aluminium Alloys and Shape Remembering Metals and Handwavium.
Presto, Troll-Bow. Now for the String. Just make a Wire out of the SAME Material? O.o
As for the Arrows. Make them out of the same material again? Everything has now been outfitted with the ultimate blend of light and flexible and sturdy.
Even if the Arrows weight in at 3 kilo each. If you need more than 10 shots with one of those things, you are doing something wrong to begin with ^^
and 30 kilo is nothing to a Troll O.o

As DuctShuiTengu said, some simply do not want that kind of stuff in the game.

Perhaps you might find more success making a bow out of Unobtainium.

True but some of us do and SR4A has stopped that if you play by RAW the new RAW in SR4A should have been a optional rule. Not that its a hard fix but its the princeable.

No it shouldn't have Dumori...

An abuse is an abuse of the system. If the point of an errata is to improve the system and fix abuses. Then it should NOT have been an optional.


I'm all for people house ruling things they don't like, just make sure the house rules are known, and know the reasons for your deviation from the norm.

It not an abuse if its obviously in the game form the start. Its not like bloodzilla or agent smith whee your are abusing the system for an advantage its right there in the rules plane as day.

Sorry for the stupid question: which action is used when firing a bow?

Fire weapon? That's only for weapons with a fire rate.
Throw weapons? It could work, but it's called Throw weapon.
Use device?
Use skill?

No it's an abuse. And people have been complaining about it as such for a LONG time. I'm not going to recap the entire history of the arguments (everything from legality to availability to raw damage capability to usability to stealth).

Every other STR based weapon got hit w/ a STR/2 in the change to SR4... except bows. So your argument that it's always been thus loses steam there.

People have been pointing out for a LONG time that it's brokenly powerful, and there's almost no reason ever to take an assault cannon when a bow will do it. They finally decided to keep the STR, but limit it's upper range... all for it! (I preferred changing it to STR/2 like everything else). W/ the other change to SR4a for example... you'd be better off packing a str 15 collapsible bow for anti-tank weaponry than a LAW w/o this.. bows don't 'scatter' and net hits add to damage.

By your logic... nothing is an abuse if it was in the original printing. And nothing can be errataed. Either that or it's only an abuse if you don't think it's an abuse (and ignoring those who put up reasonable arguments to the contrary).

Traul:
IIRC there was a thread on this... fire weapon... simple action. (but it takes another simple action to 'ready weapon' to knock and draw it before the second simple action to 'draw and fire'.

It's a simple action so I'd go with Throw weapon.

Usually, it's "Troll Adept" so assume "Quick Draw" and "Nimble Fingers" for powers. That would take reloading down to a free action for all intents and purposes with a skill check... or arguably even make it a part of the firing action. *shudders at THAT idea*

Isn't that kind of the reason why bows were so powerful and possible the reason why they were invented? If a bow would have been just a cool way to throw an object, why would have people invented such a device that allows them with much less strength to toss an object over long distances? People come up with new ways to kill people on almost daily basis. Yet if an old invention is good, why not just upgrade it to fit the current situation, like making the bow lighter and more powerful?

I can understand people crying about that a troll can use a big bow and deal equal amount (just without AP) of damage than an assault cannon-> It's more powerful than AC but cheaper! But I fail to see the logic where the problem really is. So buy a bigger gun if the one you got isn't enough. Is it the "my cannon is bigger than yours!"-complex? You can make a troll adept that can PUNCH harder than an AC, but that's not a problem? So could someone explain: What is the actual problem with powerful bows? The reason it was changed is because of so many crying about it, yes. But do explain what is the problem...

Karenshara:
you don't use a reload action w/ a bow... you use ready weapon.

And I catch a slight error in my post... ready loads and draws. fire, aims and releases.

There's some threads which go back on this. Especially in relation to the Krav Maga martial arts style. (ready weapon as free action IIRC... allowing them to fire a little faster like you're saying... the old 3/2 fire rate from DnD almost... 2 shots this pass, 1 shot next pass).

Bullzeye:
Try as much damage as a missile... assault cannons are so SR2 SR3....
15+2... 17... explosive 18P. Now bows don't scatter *4d6 - hits - sensor* meters w/ -4 damage per meter scattered...

Starting to see the issue here.

Now lets put out other bits...
Bow legality... not even regulated
Stealth... it's a bow damned quiet
Range... wow it's up longer than most guns!! and always hits in the same pass it's fired (see time of flight comment earlier... about how at that range a bow would take multiple combat TURNS to reach the target w/ earth gravity)
Scatter... none
Availability... no issues
Damage... more than pretty much any heavy weapon... even greater than some vehicular heavy turret mounts

Yeah, that's about what I said; It's just translated into Stahlseelish.
*impudent grin*




Funny you two bring this one up, because ammusingly enough, they BUILT such an animal on Weapon Masters (The Military Channel, weekly). The thing you have to understand is the FUNDAMENTAL diference between a standard/recurve/compound bow and an arbelast/ballista is that the first one relies on the flexing of the the arm material itself while the second has static arms that use twisted bundles of material at the center to contain the potential kinnetic energy. Given the trouble the guys on the show had making this work and accounting for material advancements (the liquid metal/carbon nanotube laminate might just really work and it's even on the horizon of possibility now), it's inherently more efficient to go with the basic bow. Consider also, that because of the basic nature of the beast, the arbelast/balista HAS to be much larger, because you need ENOUGH of the twisting material to get up to the rediculous energy levels we're discussing here; It's not going to be hand-portable, even by a troll, due to size alone. The reason the Ancients used these weapons was becasue they had not yet discovered the concept of a compound bow, using cams to boost the effective strength of the archer, and because they were restricted to natural materials, and huge bundles of sinew and hemp could store much more potential energy than a single shaft of bent wood. And the pull on the arbelast/ballista is based on the STR of the material in then bundles, not the person cocking it - the high strength troll MIGHT be able to pull it off, but given everything else, including my reservations about the practicality of even building such a thing, I have to say the bow is actually more practical.

As to arrow design, I am a LOT less concerned there. First, you're comparing weight carried to that of a 20mm assault cannon round, which is measured in the pounds. Easy enough. Even conventional modern composites would work because you're accelerating the round down its center of mass with the long axis in your facor, so you are minimizing the shearing force on the composites while maximizing the tensile strength which is where composites do best. The last factor for the shaft is really "flex" on firing, and if the composites were in a helical pattern up the shaft, it could absorb an awful lot of flex within the material. And that's just modern composites, not even carbon nanotube. The big problem is warhead-er, the tip. To KEEP from shattering on IMPACT with any hard object (and thus losing all the benefits of the kinetic energy stored in the mass of the shaft - see my post about vehicular armor systems in the "I hate FFBA" thread) leaving only a tip with little lateral resistance, so even a simple sloped hardened face would deflect it. I can see it having all kinds of disgusting effect against soft (worn) armors and flesh, but would have to say (I guess a house rule) that it was ineffective against tanks and properly armored vehicles. That way, the excess damage is mostly over-kill against humans and doesn't come into game-breaking effect against vehicles, keeping proper normal artillery in the game where they belong.

Anyway, that's my two centi-nuyen.

My argument exactly. However the STR/2+4 maybe +5 works quite well. My point his that now the troll bow has been nerfed too much. A STR 8+ bow should cost a lot maybe even getting close to an AC in cost and even more at the higher ends. I fell yes the SR4 bow was too powerful but I see it not cos it was STR+2 but how cheap they where.

Edit:
In my eyes wouldn't it be easier to one take into account that a bow being used against a barrier hits for a MASSIVE 1DV and aply similar logic against heavily armored vehiclesby giving it a plus to AP when fired against them.

Yet I've seen only one character over the years to have a bow and he's not even a troll. Why is that, well... it's not that easily concealable, you can't carry lot of ammo for it, if someone sees you do it, you might get cought the day after as your arrows can be tracked back at you to name just a few downsides. Yes, it's effective as hell and has all those nice features you mention, but so what? If it's such an yber item, why not all runners have one? Because it's not practical and most runners aren't str 15 trolls either. You can always compensate and build even bigger gun and tadaaa! you got more damage than any of those mentioned before. Last time the guy wanted to use his bow... the fight was over before he managed to get it out from the car.

@Kerenshara
SR got 60 years to solve the issues We made it to space and make bridges that were not possible 60 years ago, so why not make a bow that is all that?

Look at the collapsible bow in Arsenal.

Anyhow ork/trollbow work great for melee types (they already have the str).

And at 10P'ish for str8... that's 10P give or take for ammo. Which is pretty good putting it on par w/ shotgun slugs and the hunting rifle easy. Which is about right.

Just remember that it's your back, not your arms which actually draw the weight of a bow. So if someone tries to pull twinkery and go w/ 2 arms... make them get the torso too! (or average their str/ with the 2 arms strength).

Quite frankly... I don't care to get into the MatSci problem... did that a while ago talking about how arrows needed to flex and still be rigid and such.. and how much ludicrous str arrows should cost. I have no issues w/ the bows themselves as there's a lot ways to get mechanical advantage and pull and materials. Biggest problem there is high tensile str lightweight string which can still handle the sheer forces at the knock point.

NO, Still not seeing the issue here...

Neither are any of the weapons that can compete with it for damage.

• Let's start with the baseline unaugmented Ork/Dwarf max damage for the bow, 10P before extra successes to hit (For comparison, the Vibroblade Sword, the biggest melee weapon that exists in 2070 comes up just short of 9P). Given that it takes a 3-die difference in armor to, on average, equal a +1 difference in damage, the weapons that can match this: Long bursts from a SMG or a Machine Pistol using Explosive rounds, the Barrett Model 121, Short bursts from a MMG (if it's using Ex-Ex rounds), short bursts from a HMG if it's using normal rounds, Assault Cannons. That's at Strength 8 (which anyone can hit). Range meanwhile beats everything smaller than an assault rifle.
• Unaugmented Troll: 12P (For comparison, in melee this guy almost reaches 10P). A Assault Rifle or LMG firing a long burst with Explosive rounds manages this. Assault Cannons and Sniper Rifles are now coming up short. Short bursts from shotguns almost keep up -if- you're using Ex-Ex rounds. On the range front, the Assault Rifle and Grenade launcher have now been surpassed.
• Augmented Ork/Dwarf: 14P (not quite 11 in melee): LAWs - when used against vehicles - manage to keep up. Long bursts from a HMG using Explosive Rounds. Full bursts from SMGs and Machine Pistols with Explosive Rounds. Full bursts from LMGs and Assault Rifles with regular ammo. Long bursts from the light autocannon. Fragmentation Rockets are slightly ahead if you hit dead-center on the target.
• Augmented Troll: 17P (melee is capping out at almost 13): Full bursts from Assault Rifles and LMGs using explosive rounds. The Light vehicle canon is now coming up short. Sniper rifles, Medium and Heavy Machine Guns, Rocket Launchers, and Assault Cannons can still match the range.
• Augmented Minotaur with Exceptional Strength & Genetic Optimization: 21P (not quite 15 in melee). Narrow full bursts from the Vindicator minigun are now dealing less damage, as is the heavy cannon. The Range is still short of the weapons mentioned in the last one.
• You made it a Ghoul too? Are you insane?: 26P (melee almost makes it to 17). This is just short of the narrow full burst from the heavy autocannon. Maximum range is now 60 meters short of the maximum for sniper rifles.

Unless you want to count in the full bursts, nothing smaller than an assault rifle is keeping up at even the lowest of these numbers. None of those weapons are easy to hide either, so this is hardly a unique disadvantage of the bow. What's more, at the upper end, you start surpassing even vehicle-mounted weapons.



Granted. Of course, this is also true for the rocket launchers which are what you need to keep up with the high-end augmented orks and trolls. And the bow doesn't have the problem of scatter.



If someone sees you do it, you're in trouble no matter what weapon you do it with. And bullets can be tracked easier than arrows - assuming the gun was made by a reputable dealer, at least; if not, they're about equal.



If you're going to assume that there's no upper limit on how large a weapon someone can tote around and use, sure. But as I pointed out above, once you start getting to the upper end of what trolls can manage, it takes full-auto fire (and the associated -9 recoil penalty) to keep up with the damage from one arrow.



A bow isn't really that much harder to carry/conceal/get out than the large firearms. This should be no more of an issue for him than the guy with an assault rifle, unless special circumstances arose where waving a gun around is fine but a bow isn't.

This one? I didn't find an explicit answer in there. But anyway, everybody seems to agree that firing a bow is a simple action and can be done twice per turn, no matter how it works exactly. I can live with that.

Why not? To be fair, compare a munchkin with another munchkin: STR 10, an anchor in each foot, a gyro stabilizer in the arm, and we haven't even talked about the gun yet. Compensating all the recoil of a full burst is not more difficult than building a tree-throwing bow.

Has anybody thought about how arrows are a very distinctive killing method in the modern world? I mean think about it, you hit a guy with an assault cannon, he is probably scattered in several locations, and quite likely unrecognizable without DNA evidence. However, with bows, you can rip up a guy, but you probably won't turn him into chunky salsa or red mist. Plus, a corpse with an arrow hanging out of it really is somewhat noticeable. I mean, unless your player is wearing gloves of some sort, he absolutely has to retrieve those arrows because they will have fingerprints on the shaft. Assault cannon rounds don't really tend to leave fingerprints, not even on the target. That arrow also makes for a sort of distinctive style. I mean, you better believe that there aren't many people in any metropolis out buying arrows that are built like spears. To top it all off, the people who are capable of using a bow like that usually stand out in a crowd.

Looking at it from another perspective, what do you get with the Heavy Weapon skill? Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Missile Launchers and Assault Cannons. With Archery? Bows and Crossbows. Lets see, one skill for combo suppressive/support fire, explosions, anti-tank missiles (btw, AP -6 really is great against vehicles), and the ultra boomstick, or sniper/single target elimination. You tell me.

Also, what do you need to be an effective shooter? High agility and skill. Rather than high natural agility, there is the option of one cyberarm pumped up to 9 AGI for 20,250:nuyen: or with a gyromount for 26,250:nuyen:. What does it take to be an effective bowman? High agility, strength and skill. To get both strength and agility up to 9, we are talking 25,500 for one arm, but bows have to have both arms, so that drives the cost up to 51,000:nuyen:. Where you can get by with one or two strength as a shooter, you need a really high strength to make bows worth your time.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter how powerful bows are, what matters is how many points you need to make a powerful bow user vs. how many points you need to make a powerful shooter. All those points subtract from other places, so it really does affect how well rounded the overall character is.

Also, those points spent on high strength limit the other attributes, which tends to either dull the character's mind (i.e. dump stat mental abilities), or cut down on the durability/survivability of the character.

When you have to bring out the big guns, that bow isn't that effective anymore. Full auto APDS is far more deadly than that bow and add some stick and shocks, you can also just stun the folks instead of killing. If you look at the numbers only, bow is possibly cheapest way to do a lot of damage if you happen to be a hulking troll. For anyone else, it's not as good. Versatility is the key in many cases. A bow can do some stuff, but it's far from a multi-tool compared to an assault rifle.

I'm too lazy to do the math, but how many BP would it cost in comparison to deal that 18 with a bow or with alternate means. So a Troll with 15 strength with a bow vs. anyone with an assault cannon/missile/dynamite/any other means to deal equal or close to equal damage. On a quick math, you can do 150P with 1BP on explosives

I'm also still waiting for the reason what makes bows such game breaking item. If the reasoning is: Cheap and effective... that's dynamite and gasoline

Edit: looks like I'm too slow on typing, others beat me on saying the same stuff already

I don't think anyone's arguing "game breaking," nor have they been for quite some time. Rather, they've been saying "I think it's silly, and I'd rather not have it in my campaigns." All the arguing in the world isn't going to change that, and all the arguing in the world is pointless anyways because it's just their opinion, which has absolutely no effect on you and your game.

Only starting from the first post, Critias

There is a difference between broken and game breaking. I find it to be a broken rule since it steps away from the norms for all other muscle powered weapons. It isn't breaking any of my games though.

Vibro sword's almost 10P when using both hands and 12P with couple of martial arts

13P

14P

16P

18P

20P

So that bow gets better damge then melee only at Augmented to max Troll level.
Or if we make her a physical adept(magic 6) with couple of martial arts wearing hardliner gloves those numbers become
19P,20P,21P,23P,25P and 27P so better even at that super Ghoul Minotour level.

That was seventy some-odd posts ago. Conversations, even arguments, evolve over time. Right now it really reads like most people are just saying "I like them because ________________," or "I don't like them because ____________," over and over again. To me, it seems as though game balance itself hasn't really been the issue for quite a while, so much as just the concept of a bow, in particular, doing ________________.

What if the same exact stats -- same exact stats -- were applied to a slingshot? So that you had Trolls firing a slingshot for damage exceeding, and range near, the most top of the line ranged firearms in the game? Ignoring notions of concealability and ammo capacity and blah blah blah, looking only at the logic of a slingshot doing about the same damage as a burst of autofire from an assault cannon, at about the same range?

Would that seem a bit "off"' to you? Perhaps not imbalancing a game, perhaps not necessarily an auto-win in combat, perhaps still with some downsides, etc, etc...but just the idea of a slingshot doing more damage than an assault cannon round?

That's what bugs me about bows. Not that I think my game will break because of them, but just that I dislike the feel of an archaic, muscle-powered, weapon having the range and damage of a top-of-the-line heavy weapon.

Yes that's the one!

Anyhow it's not quite 2 per turn. W/o the martial art you can only load and fire once per IP.
1 free, 2 simple per pass... nothing to do w/ the free.
Simple Ready action, Simple Fire... that's 1 arrow per pass...

Once you add Krav Maga, it gets funky as now you can use that free action to ready the weapon
So free - ready, simple -fire, simple - ready. NEXT PASS... Simple - Fire, Free - Ready, Simple - Fire... rinse and repeat.

That was pretty much the consensus. If the bow is 'loaded' and ready to fire at the start of the pass... yes 2 shots. If it's not you get 1 shot and the bow can end the pass loaded and readied for the next pass.


On your second point... not quite... there's some huge drawbacks to burst fire rules. In some cases, you can't compensate all the recoil. And heavy weapons have a double dice penalty for uncompensated recoil. Also the biggest problem w/ burst fire is that additional damage only goes toward damage soak... it doesn't raise the damage of the test against the armor rating (important against vehicles and spirits), if your basic weapon damage (w/o burst) isn't high enough to get it up over the threshold value you do no damage... no matter how fast you can splatter spitwads at it.

Also most of those weapons are hard as hell to get (and to buy ammo for!). And also very expensive to boot. So it's not quite that cut & dried.

A slingshot can reach to same speeds as an arrow but the weight of the bullet is typically a lot lower. So sure, if you manage to get a stone or iron ball to fly the same speed with a slingshot than an arrow, then why not would it make heck of a dent. Though it's AP would be +something. It would possibly knock a person down but it would not be able to penetrate a modern armor. And you are talking about hand catapult or trebuchet That's how you break down big walls, too. But if staying on the "normal scale", the slingshot isn't as powerful as a bow.

Hence, to compare a slingshot and bow you have to take into account that those two are quite a different effectiveness. Both would be deadly in the hands of a hulking troll, though But one would come again to the "distinct style"-problem.

Yes, it's a matter of liking and not liking, but saying something is broken is bit different. The argument has gone more on the like/dislike but the main point was it broken or not A huge & strong troll can throw/sling objects with terrifying power, far greater than a normal human ever could. With the adept powers, you can even toss playing cards doing more damage with it than an assault cannon. Does that break a game? No, not really. That guy will be a one trick pony, though with a kick of a mule^4 I myself would pick for such a troll as weapon of choice: ice cubes. Good luck tracking water Slingshotting ice cubes... a character idea for someone?

A Minotaur Ghoul Adept with a Bow . .
There's THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF MAGIC IN THERE!

You also forget to mention that weapons fired in FA (which includes Long Bursts) cannot take advantage of a Called Shot.



The original SR4 bows are overpowered (yes, I know from in-game experience).
The SR4A 'fix' is poorly done, but effective (to a point).

The only man-portable weapons capable of matching the damage capability of a 14STR archer are Full-Auto HMG's. The HMG must deal with Recoil (double uncompensated), takes a Complex Action to fire (the bow can be staged down to Simple + Free), cannot increase damage through a Called Shot, & is usually much louder.

At the more extreme ranges, only expensive high-end vehicle main guns can match the portable, silent bow.

9P / 11P

12P

Using another overpowering option in comparison does not support your interpretation that the bow is not overpowered.

I have a hard time comprehending such damage capabilities... The closest I have ever gotten to such extremes was with a Bow (admittedly) Strength 10 (Base 12p Damage)... other than that, Guns are the way to go... I am not questioning the math per se, but the reasoning for obtaining that level of damage... Why?

Killing great dragons.

No, DuctShuiTengu was converting AP to DV at 3 to 1 ratio.
so those are 9 2/3P and 10 2/3P so almost 10P/12P as i said, same for the rest.

Wasn't really trying to say that, I was just correcting his highest vibrosword damages and pointing out that using unarmed instead you can actually have better damage in melee then a bow has.
I know their both overpowering options.

So..... How many have you run into in your games?

I have yet to actively oppose ANY Great Dragon, at least knowingly... now, I have encountered one or two in my years as a Shaodwrunner, but never once did I have the feeling, or inclination, to actually try and kill one... And in fact, had I attempted such a suicidal task, I would have been dead long before I could have done anything meaningful to the target in question...

So I sent an email to my player that I was planning to switch to a house rule of bow dmg = Str/2+2.

Here was his reply:

Your rule would reduce the damage, though it would reduce it so much that the disadvantages would completely outweigh the advantages. A bow isn't concealable, requires a ready weapon action for every shot and, if the shooter isn't careful, leaves behind shafts and arrowheads with serial numbers and possibly fingerprints/DNA on them.

In today's world bows kill things at close range with about the same efficiency as a hunting rifle, so the (STR MIN)+2 gives realistic results for your average human. So instead of changing the equation, how about we say that standard arrowheads function as flechette ammo? Armored targets would have a lot more protection that way. Bodkins points would be the APDS equivalent for bows, but subject to the same legal problems as APDS ammo for guns and harder to get due to rarity (exotic materials and a very niche market would really drive production down).

This seems problematic to me and I'm still trying to rework it to make my player happy but also to reign things in to the point i'd be happy with.

Thoughts?

If your only Problem with Bows is their ability to function as anti tank missles, that is good.
Not THAT good, but good. If you have a Problem with the sheer DV, then that won't work at all.

My problem is with both.

My solution (STR/2)+2 would also apply to range because I find the bow range as listen in the rulebook to be a bit broken as well.

I had a similar experience a while back, a troll archer. His exact stats escape me at the moment, but i recall his strength was around 14, agi of 5-ish and he had maxed archery skill w/spec in bows, so essentially.....14 dice to shoot, then base dv of 16.
We were doing a space setting, and we were being followed by a space adaptation of the GMC banshee, and our troll threw on a spacesuit and hopped onto the outside of our craft.(he had magnetic boots by the way. ) He then fired one explosive tipped arrow, which proceeded to fly through the cockpit of the other craft and land in the chest of the pilot. Our troll took down a spaceship. Oi.

Now that is Awesome.

-paws

Yes, in Space, as long as you Brace, Power is Might

If the troll had gone outside with something like an assault cannon or sniper rifle, the result would have been quite different... No oxygen, no explosion, no bullet/projectile launched Smart troll

Actually, you should (in my opinion, since they can) double or tripple the armor for things that were made for space. Because well, who wants to die from a stray micro meteor? Any hull puncture is disastrous. don't belon

Honestly, a pointed tip object of similar size to a troll arrow moving at very high velocity hitting a spacecraft today would blow a hole through it anyway, so I don't see the problem. That actually makes perfect sense.

JaronK

Only MicroMeteorites are stopped by Space-Ship stuff as of today. Sandparticle size, and not much bigger.
Any meteor the size/weight of an arrow will punch straight through most things manmade up there.

Shooting in space is actually kinda nuts when you think about it. Whether it's an arrow or a gun, anything you fire in space will continue on its trajectory at the same velocity forever, unless it hits something or gets pulled by gravity. In theory, if I'm in space, I can literally shoot the moon with an ordinary gun (provided it's got an oxygen supply, anyway). Might take a long time to get there, but it will...

It would pay to actually learn your science before posting.

Smokeless powders carry their own oxidizers. They can function in space. The vast majority of propellants contain their own oxidizers because in the confined area of a breach you have no ventilation to get a significant airflow to oxidize the reaction. lThe bigger problem is the recoil and ballistic trajectories (orbital mechanics can seem a little wierd at first). Frankly, I'd expect laser weapons to be the norm in space. (ammo is heavy and it takes fuel to lift it up, and to propel it around).


Frankly, while cool... I would have slammed the troll w/ one hell of a situational mod to actually fire the arrow accurately. (the -6 for extended range, and another -6 or so, because gravity and orbital mechanics... go ahead and do it... and spend edge.


As far as my issues w/ bows in game... same as the other guy. It's the anti-tank levels of damage which bother me pre-eratta.
I think they should be in the same regime as a combat axe, and I'd have zero issues if they had the same damage code as an axe or sword and half the range they currently do. (dam code is made up for by the fact that w/ krav maga the bow can fire 50% faster than a sword or axe).

I stand corrected, though there seems to be a lot of different opinions what would actually happen. Guess this haven't been tested too often. No ventilation and no oxygen is two quite different things. Yes, the bullet has enough oxygen to ignite, but what would then happen? I don't know and it's been way too long since I studied physics... and it's not really that important. The guy shot with a bow and the whatever it hit was destroyed, end of story

edit: I did some more reading about the subject and it's actually far more complicated than that. One has to take into account the temperature which is far from easy in space. It was said somewhere that a operating temp in space equipment was from -160C to +200C, which guns might not enjoy. The materials used in the gun and ammo play a huge role there and could cause all kinds of effects. Another major role is the operation of the gun, bolt action rifle and a revolver would most likely be most "reliable" choices in space (my guess). I would not allow a player to shoot a normal gun in space without casing the weapon in some kind of "normal" atmosphere. Stick the gun in a box or something would help already. I don't think there's too many experiments made on this subject and I don't think it's such an important matter in science that it would be tested.

Temperature in Space can, if i don't misremember again, vary from -200° celsius to +200° Celsius, depending on where the sun shines.
Yes, there can be a Temperature Difference of about 400° Celsius in just some centimeters of distance from each other.