The things we miss when we are not looking for them...

OK, my versions of SR4A have the following table:

bows damage ap Availability Cost
Bow (STR Min +2)P — 2 Rating x 100¥
Arrow — — 2 5¥

All I saw in Arsenal was the additional arrowheads and Collapsible Bow stats

That would explain it. Last time I needed to look in the book for Arrows, was my hardcopy, not the PDF copy.

Well the table not making any mention of ratings on arrows in both of my versions was one of my main reasons for assuming they were gone

Guess I'll just continue to build him out w/ the R8 Arrows as listed in Chummer.

Just noticed the availability you listed, yikes

Guess I'll need to make room for Armorer:Fletching if I'm going to stick w/ the bow on this character. Any suggestions on build material costs/thresholds for a rating 8 arrow?

If you are making it yourself, I would go with half cost. Difficulty about 4-8 *shrug*

Wait, over the course of three pages here the consensus is that arrows DO have ratings? Oh please...

Yup. And while arrows have ratings in the latest printing, bolts don't (at least in my copy). If you've got the extra 250¥ to spend, and your Strength is 5 or less, you might be better off going with a heavy crossbow. The damage is the same, you'll actually gain -1 to AP, short range is way better, and medium range is comparable or better between the two, the ammo will be way cheaper, and no taking a standard action to reload the crossbow.

The current character I'm working on is a sasquatch Warrior's Way adept w/ 9 STR (his primary focus is unarmed) so the bow seemed like it was probably better as his ranged option. I did consider the crossbow long and hard though both for the karma/quality/PP efficiency and bonus wookiee-cred...

Of course, then rises the question: what effect does the rating of an arrow have? Can you fire an R2 arrow from an R7 bow? If you do ... what happens?

The arrow hits the target in a rating 2 way, rather than a rating 7 way! Duh!

You can. With the those stats the range is based on the lesser of the user's strength or the bow's rating, and the damage based on the lower of the bow's rating or the arrow's. At least, that's how I understand the wording of the entry on bows in the later print, which happens to contradict itself within its own entry.

Unless they changed this rule too it would hit as if the bow was Rating 2 rather than 7 (eg: Archer has STR 7 using an R7 standard bow w/ an R2 arrow would hit for 4P + net hits. If the same archer was using an R7 arrow w/ the R7 bow, he'd hit for 9P + net hits) or that's my reading of it anyways...

There's also a rider rule in my printing that an arrow can only hit for a max DV of Bow STR rating x 1.5.

SR4A (older printing apparently...) p.316
"The maximum Damage Value an arrow fired from the bow can inflict is equal to the bow’s rating x1.5."

The only way I could see that this rule could ever come into play (edit: aside from an R1/2 bow) is if they are meaning to limit the total DV to be resisted (eg: Archer w/ 4 STR, R4 bow, and R4 arrow scores 8 net hits. DV to resist is still capped @ 6P despite having scored enough hits for a potential 14P)

If this interpretation is correct (and current) they can go ahead and get rid of that rider TYVM... In almost every situation I can think of at the moment it would make the Damage value in the stat block completely irrelevant in addition to gimping bows pretty hard IMO.

.... which makes zero sense to me.

Regular Ammunition costs 20¥ for a box of ten, whether you're buying it for a 4P holdout, or a 9P antimateriel rifle.

Why should arrows be any different?

... yeah. New houserule: Arrows do not have Ratings. F*ck that noise.


... which is even more ridiculous IMO. someone writing for Catalysthas a hate-on for Trollbow builds, that's all there is to it. Capping bows at R8 is fine for limiting those characters, IMO. The rest is just overkill, and/or makes zero sense.

Well, a Bow/Arrow is NEVER going to approach the damage of an Assault Cannon in real life. And yet, in game, an Arrow can penetrate a Tank. SOund a little off to you? It does to me. *shrug*

"Penetration" and "Damage" shouldn't necessarily be the same thing.

SR3 and prior had that right, with each weapon having a two-part damage code. 20L was not the same as 10S.

The logic behind it that I've heard proposed elsewhere is that the arrows need to be stronger and heftier in order to have/survive the potential energy necessary to cause the higher levels of damage. It makes some sense but also feels like a balancing mechanic to me.


From the stories I hear on here, it's possible for a power throwing munchkin to toss a dwarf through a tank, I think an arrow is slightly more believable personally... Longbows had a pretty good history of penetrating plate mail when hitting the right spots from the right angles after all.

In all seriousness however, I would agree that arrow vs. tank seems more than a bit comic book/bad action movie and that the lack of penetration ratings is mostly the issue. I'm no expert and am not going to attempt to do the physics required to back up my position w/ empirical data, but it makes logical sense to me that a harpoon sized advanced materials arrow fired from a future tech bow of appropriate pull strength for a character strong enough to carry ~200lbs w/o fatigue should be able to do roughly equivalent damage as most man deployable firearms to a "soft" target on a shot by shot basis.

The bow rating x 1.5 damage cap bit seems particularly misguided as it seems to be working exclusively against the character's skill and accuracy w/ the bow which would be a major determining factor in being able to effectively damage targets as the armoring increases IMO (ie:being able to hit the vulnerable spots/chinks in the armor). I understand the wish to streamline the combat rules in general and agree that penetration of an arrow should be inferior to a ~20mm high velocity artillery round, but this seems like an overly selective and not very well thought out attempt.

I'm still kind of hazy on vehicle damage rules at this point but when dealing w/ personal armor I think the existing rules for ballistic armor converting all DV that doesn't exceed its rating to stun does a relatively decent if simplistic job of modeling penetration resistance in many cases (if they felt they really had to get rid of penetration values on damage). Penetration ratings for all damage seems like a better solution overall, but maybe a simple blanket rule for small arms/projectile weapon vs. vehicular armor could fix the arrow/dwarf projectile vs. tank issue in a more equitable manner if they wanted to simplify?