Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bows and Adepts
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Moonstone Spider
Should an adept with quick-draw be able to grab an arrow and fire it as a single simply actions? Normally a bow requires a ready weapon, then a fire weapon for each shot. But quick draw lets you ready and fire a weapon as the same action. Interesting thought.

Combined with Improved Bows and a Troll with way too high a strength Min you could have a scary weapon though.
mfb
yes. the quick-draw action makes readying and firing a weapon the same action; the quickdraw power allows you to use the quick-draw action on anything.
Krieger
Throw Attribute Boost Strength into that mix with the Troll, then we'll talk scary. We had someone - as a human, mind you - buy a Ranger-X Compound with STRMin 18. It was pretty disgusting.
Ecclesiastes
Yeah, its a very cool combo that I like to use with Native American Adepts. I could fire off 3 arrows every two rounds.

Round 1: Quick Draw Arrow (free), Shot (simple), Draw Arrow (simple).
Round 2: Shot (simple), Quick Draw Arrow (free), Shot (simple)
mfb
you're, uh, doing it wrong. the quick-draw action does not make readying a weapon a free action. it makes readying a weapon part of the same action as using the weapon. you should have been firing 2 arrows per round:

draw and fire (simple action), draw and fire (simple action).
Herald of Verjigorm
All that, and you still get to yell at the gun bunnies for not killing anything.
Ecclesiastes
QUOTE (mfb)
you're, uh, doing it wrong. the quick-draw action does not make readying a weapon a free action. it makes readying a weapon part of the same action as using the weapon. you should have been firing 2 arrows per round:

draw and fire (simple action), draw and fire (simple action).

eek.gif

Even better. smile.gif
Tanka
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
All that, and you still get to yell at the gun bunnies for not killing anything.

rotfl.gif
Wutasumi
I always thought bows were WAY overpowered. It's not hard to get them to shoot farther then a gun...
Herald of Verjigorm
Depends on the gun. 17 strength outranges a sniper rifle, but you need 40 to match an assault cannon.
Tanka
Range isn't an issue. It's being reduced by Impact instead of Ballistic. Since Impact tends to be lower (due to guns being more proliferant), then anybody other than people in Sec/Mil Armor, a vehicle, or an Adept with multiple levels of Mystic Armor is going to go splat real quick.
toturi
Any Joe on the Street is more likely to wear leather than armour.
Wutasumi
The fact you have to go to sniper rifles to find something hard to get proves my point.

Yes, I didn't even think of the impact armor thing.
Zolhex
I liked my guy.

Human Str 6
Increase Str. 6 (3 power points)

Projectile Weapons 6
Bows 7
Improved skill Projectile Weapons 6 (3 power points)
Bows 7 (yes adept powers carry over to specializations)

Thus giving me
Str 12
Projectile Weapons 14

And that is only 6 power points if I take a Geas on my powers I can go to 8 and get quick strike or what ever. I once rolled a 46 on a skill test for my bows the gm said "ok your arrow goes through the glass door (I was in a building) goes through the armored limo through the guy (in through his side out through his head) out the limo's other side and you loose track of it. ( I was told I would not be able to find the arrow DANG IT!)

but yeah a physad like this is leathal and fun to play
TheScamp
Should I be the one to point out that EOTLF's adept was working with a couple extra power points?
Clyde
He might not have read the errata on Improved Physical Attribute. . .
mfb
i might point out that i don't believe specialization is possible with the Improved Ability power. also, specialization gives you 5 in the base skill and 7 in the the specialization, not 6 (7). also, as clyde pointed out, Improved Attribute costs double above the starting max, and it can't bring you above the attribute max (ergo, Str 7, 8, and 9 would have cost 1 point each, and 10, 11, and 12 would not be achievable with this power).
Thistledown
judging by the way archery works, I would probably say quickdraw does not work on bows, and definatly not on crossbows. However, re-reading the rules just now, it does say 'missle weapons', which would include archery. So, bring on the bowmen. I would still say it requires a few things:

1. The bow is already strung. For crossbows or a compound bow, this is never a problem, but for recurves, even a light bow still takes about 30 seconds to get the string on. Granted, if somebody's taking a bow with them on the run, they'll have it strung already, but you normally keep it unstrung when you're not using it.

2. They'd have to be using a shoulder-quiver. Hunting archers will often use a hip/leg mounted quiver to carry their arrows because it doesn't stick out to catch on things, and is generally stealthier, and designed so the arrow can be drawn silently. Because of the design and placement though, it takes longer to draw and ready the arrow.

3. If there are multible types of arrows in the same quiver, they won't have time to check which type they're firing. So roll to see which arrow just got shot.


BTY: While it is rather difficult, some types of pistol crossbows can be reloaded one-handed. Although with the hit system shadowrun has, it'll probably never come up, but it can be done. It does require good balance, and probably can't be done if the crossbow is right at the str limit, but take a complex action (or 2) and you'll be ready.
DrJest
QUOTE
2. They'd have to be using a shoulder-quiver. Hunting archers will often use a hip/leg mounted quiver to carry their arrows because it doesn't stick out to catch on things, and is generally stealthier, and designed so the arrow can be drawn silently. Because of the design and placement though, it takes longer to draw and ready the arrow.


A backward-facing on-side quiver can be nearly as quick to draw and load. Not my choice of quiver styles, I admit. Also bear in mind that some bucket-style quivers can be capped to stop the arrows from falling out. If an adept has one of those, he has to disengage the cap first; if he doesn't, he risks losing arrows in any major athletics test or fall.

Incidentally, I gather the rules for Dikote have changed since 2nd Ed - can you no longer shoot vehicles with dikoted arrows? (I always used to find a couple of dikoted arrows into the engine block did wonders for discouraging pursuit wink.gif )
TheScamp
QUOTE
Attribute costs double above the starting max, and it can't bring you above the attribute max (ergo, Str 7, 8, and 9 would have cost 1 point each, and 10, 11, and 12 would not be achievable with this power).

No, it costs 1 point per increase once you go beyond 9. Humans can hit 12 and beyond with this power. The wording specifically states that the power allows you to exceed the Racial Modified Limit (9 for humans). EOTLF's adept should be paying 4.5 points for his Strength of 12.

Further, that adept can only have 6 points of Improved Ability in Projectile Peapons, as that is rating of the general skill. The "carries over to specializations" wording just means that you get to use the dice you paid for (6, in this case) with any specializations you have in that particular skill. You don't get an extra Improved Ability die just because you're using it with a specialization.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (TheScamp)
No, it costs 1 point per increase once you go beyond 9. Humans can hit 12 and beyond with this power. The wording specifically states that the power allows you to exceed the Racial Modified Limit (9 for humans).

The Racial Modified Limit for any attribute for any race is 6 + Racial Modifier. In the case of humans, that's 6 for all attributes. The Racial Maximum for any attribute for any race is (6 + Racial Modifier) x 1.5, rounded up, or 9 for all attributes for humans. mfb is correct. If you don't believe us, read pp. 244-245, Improving the Character of SR3.
TheScamp
Goddammit, you're right.

Man, that's the second rules thing I've f'ed up in as many days. I'm slipping!
spotlite
QUOTE (Thistledown)
3. If there are multible types of arrows in the same quiver, they won't have time to check which type they're firing. So roll to see which arrow just got shot.

Why not just use different coloured flights? If its on a hip quiver, you'd be able to see the colours and draw exactly which type of arrow you want. And just like people with different types of ammo might put different coloured tape around the different clips so they can keep track, different coloured flights would work the same.

I'm also not sure about it taking as long as 30 seconds to string a bow. I've strung a longbow quite a few times because of a historical thing I do in the summer (a modern bow, true, not a real Tudor one which were TRES difficult to string as they had a phenomenal pull strength. It seems a bit off to be using the wrong prop at a historical thing, but its for kids, and you don't shoot or anything. Its just difficult enough that the 12 year old you pick to demonstrate has difficulties in pulling it, so you can stop the kids being so cocky in the face of an angry Tudor soldier by impressing on them how tough we're supposed to be), and though I've never actually timed myself I'm sure I can manage it in less than 15 seconds or so, and I'm hardly strong. Having said that, I don't claim to be an archery expert, the bow in question is for demonstration purposes and I've never shot with it (they don't like people randomly shooting longbows when there's aparty of school kids in front of you. Not that some of them don't deserve to know what it felt like to be French at Agincourt, mind you...). So I could be wrong. But from my experiences I beleive stringing a bow is more about technique than it is strength, and certainly a combat trained bow-user would be quite considerably faster than 30 secs. Doubt they could do it in a combat turn though, and you wouldn't be able to crouch behind cover whilst you did it - you really do have to be standing, at least for a longbow.

As for how fast they can fire, a trained (that's trained since the age of 8 years old until they were 16 or so and already with a deformed spine from the abuse that training inflicts on the body) english or welsh longbowman in Tudor times could shoot off about a dozen rounds a minute, so that's once every five seconds, a little under two combat turns. For an unaugmented human averaging one action a round, even including the ready weapon each time you fire, that means the rules are off by quite a bit if they allow you to fire the thing even once per combat turn and hope to hit your target. Based on that (which is based on what I've been taught about the history of the longbow - its quite possible a shortbow is faster to draw or slower to draw, I've no idea personally) I think with something like a bow (not a crossbow), each ready weapon should be a full complex action, if you want to go for realism. But realism has never been a driving force behind many of the shadowrun rules, as I've heard many on here testify to, so I'm not going to worry about it too much.

And I've noticed a lot of people think bows and crossbows are overpowered in SR, and I have to disagree with you. A heavy crossbow (of the type my neighbour has) hits with the same punch as a shotgun, and its not even a particularly heavy one. I can't draw it, but then I'm not very strong. He can nock it quite easily, though not speedily. A long bow with the right arrow head is quite capable of penetrating thick sheet steel of the like that armoured knights wore at 100 yards or more, and closer than that it can go straight out the other side and cause serious injury to whoever was behind the ex-Knight. Scary weapons. They just can't match the fire rate of a firearm is all, and of course a firearm has no problem penetrating steel armour. From what I've seen though, a crossbow doesn't have a lot of trouble penetrating armour designed to stop bullets either, so on that score I think they even out. Bows/crossbows lose out on their size, the size of their 'ammunition', and the speed (or lack of) at which they fire. But in terms of power they're definately on a par with many modern weapons. You can also retreive the evidence...
Kremlin KOA
uh once every five seconds I can do better than that and hit throat on a man sized target 4 times in 5
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (toturi)
Any Joe on the Street is more likely to wear leather than armour.

Any Joe on the street is more likely to wear serious ballistic armor than serious impact armor. Impact 2 isn't particularly protecting, and more people would have synthleather for a point less.

~J
Wutasumi
Maybe they're a bit large but...

-Already Silienced
-Goes ungodly distance
-Pretty good damage code
-Different arrows can have devastating effects
Krieger
To add to spotlite's comment about bows/crossbows not being overpowered, I'll just throw out Missile Parry. Especially useful when you run out of arrows yourself. biggrin.gif Granted, our group hasn't seen a lot of Adepts take it, which is a reflection of how widely used missile weapons are in our campaigns, but it's there on top of dodging and whatnot.
Siege
Swords and melee weapons can do hideous amounts of damage - but they aren't common nowadays for the same reasons bows aren't.

Guns are better. It's easier to produce grunts capable of the basic components of marksmanship, they don't present as large a target profile and can throw a lot more ammo downrange without tiring out the shooter.

To become proficient with archery takes a good deal longer, using a bow takes a fair amount of standing and open space and how many shots can you nock and loose before your arm gets tired?

And as Indiana Jones demonstrated, melee weapons require a fairly close distance to work - whereas a gun can kill you before you get close enough, although that's not always a guarantee.

-Siege
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (spotlite)
A heavy crossbow (of the type my neighbour has) hits with the same punch as a shotgun, and its not even a particularly heavy one.

No, it doesn't. A shotgun firing shot at close ranges can utterly devastate an unarmored human torso -- basketball-sized hole (or bloody mess, at least) in the center, that sort of thing. A heavy crossbow will punch a small hole based on the size of the arrowhead.

QUOTE (spotlite)
A long bow with the right arrow head is quite capable of penetrating thick sheet steel of the like that armoured knights wore at 100 yards or more, and closer than that it can go straight out the other side and cause serious injury to whoever was behind the ex-Knight. [...] They just can't match the fire rate of a firearm is all, and of course a firearm has no problem penetrating steel armour.

Medieval plate armor doesn't do a fucking thing to even slow down bullets. Your basic Beretta M9 firing M882 FMJ rounds will tear through 4 suits of plate mail at close range and cause serious injury to the guy behind. Bows don't match the accuracy, penetration, rate of fire, damage-causing potential, ability to engage moving targets, ease of use, versatility, etc etc of firearms.

QUOTE (spotlite)
From what I've seen though, a crossbow doesn't have a lot of trouble penetrating armour designed to stop bullets either, so on that score I think they even out.

You have personally witnessed tests where crossbows were fired at modern body armor? How powerful were the crossbows, velocity and weight of arrow, type of arrowhead used, what type of body armor was it? I've heard the stories, but they're all old and they never spread with numbers to go along with them.
Shockwave_IIc
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (toturi @ Oct 16 2004, 09:18 PM)
Any Joe on the Street is more likely to wear leather than armour.

Any Joe on the street is more likely to wear serious ballistic armor than serious impact armor. Impact 2 isn't particularly protecting, and more people would have synthleather for a point less.

~J

Yeah but the knife fights and punch up's that Joe is going to get into, that 1 or 2 points, makes it ALOT easier to soak. (Unless it's a troll swing at you)
DrJest
QUOTE
You have personally witnessed tests where crossbows were fired at modern body armor? How powerful were the crossbows, velocity and weight of arrow, type of arrowhead used, what type of body armor was it? I've heard the stories, but they're all old and they never spread with numbers to go along with them.


For the record, Austere, an arrow or bolt will penetrate standard Kevlar armour far easier than a bullet. The reason for this is the edge on the arrowhead; Kevlar doesn't resist slashing damage anywhere near as well as it does the blunt trauma of a bullet (yes, bullets are blunt trauma, not piercing - they smash their way into the body). This is the reason SR uses Ballistic and Impact Armour Ratings.

Edward
I did archery for a semester at school. I would say 30 seconds is an appropriate base time to string a bow but reduce it based on a quickness (4) test. I could usually string my bow in les than 30 seconds but my fellow students where not necessarily as efficient. These where target bows.

As to rate of fire I would have been firing one every 3-6 seconds in SR terms depending on the number of take aim actions I felt like making. The stated rate of fire for longbow men sounds slow. Was it perhaps based on having them fire in volley rather than individually?

Edward
Ombre
I don't think bows are so overpowered in SR...although it's true they can be quite devastating (especially in the right hands, i.e. adepts) because they ignore ballistic armor, they also have their drawbacks. As someone said before, they are not very concealable to begin with, whereas a big fragging gun such as a Manhunter or Predator can (according to SR rules, at least) be hidden under a jacket or coat. Which means in case of a surprise assault on your runner team, while they are walking down the street, your shwarzeneggeresque zen archer adept won't be able to pin people to the walls with arrows.
Then there is the rate of fire/ammo capacity issue. I've recently run an adventure pitting the players against a ghoul community. At the end of the run the situation devolved into an Alamo-style combat with waves of ravening ghouls crashing on the runners to get into melee combat. One of the players was a bow adept (and yes she has the quick draw power with a RangerX), the other a fairly classic street sam with Wired Reflexes and a nasty SMG. Although arrows were quite lethal against those unarmored enemies, the full-autofire capacity of the SMG proved to be far more effective to prevent the ghouls from reaching melee range...
Bows are very lethal, but under the right circumstances, which is as a sniper weapon...
But as I told my adept player, bows are not a stupid choice even in the 2060s. Plus there is some style in plugging people with arrows, not to mention the psychological intimidation aspect...
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (DrJest)
For the record, Austere, an arrow or bolt will penetrate standard Kevlar armour far easier than a bullet.

First thing: non-rigid kevlar armor without rifle plate inserts only stops certain types of bullets fired out of certain firearms. Expanding/fragmenting (any designs with exposed lead, hollow points, polymer tipped, etc) ammunition fired out of a handgun is generally stopped, except for certain very powerful weapons, as is non-expanding ammunition from less powerful weapons (up to around .357 magnum-level).

Flexible body armor does not protect you against rifles, it absolutely will not stop any FMJ rifle rounds -- such as 99% of all small arms ammunition in use by modern armies -- and it doesn't even slow down armor piercing designs.

Flexible body armor is useful for civilians and police officers because powerful handguns and rifles in general are rare in firefights in the civilian world, and because most ammunition in circulation outside of the armed forces is some sort of expanding design. In any military conflict, 99.9% of all rounds fired would penetrate any soft body armor. Probably somewhere around 90-95% of all rounds fired in all combat situations anywhere will readily penetrate any existing soft body armor.

Now back to arrows. Like I said, I've heard the stories. I've heard of a few demonstrations, too. Straight facts and numbers are sadly lacking. I have no doubt that several more powerful bows, especially with rather heavy arrows and sharp, edged arrowheads can penetrate many forms of body armor in use today that have not been designed to stop such threats.

But stab resistant body armor is a big selling item. A significant portion of body armor sold today is stab resistant, often also rated to protect against bullets. According to a few numbers that were thrown around in an earlier thread, stab resistant body armor is basically guaranteed to stop anything you can fire out of a 55-60lbs draw bow, even if you use the tiniest, extremely sharp arrowhead.

You can read up on stab-resistant body armor here, or just Google for it. It did not exist, or at least was not very common, when SR came out, so the poor "Impact" protection soft body armor provides is sort of understandable. On the other hand, soft body armor is proven to be very effective in protecting against clubs and other non-projectile blunt trauma, which also falls under the Impact rating in SR.

QUOTE (DrJest)
(yes, bullets are blunt trauma, not piercing - they smash their way into the body)

True enough. I like to call it crushing instead, but that's just personal preference.
Thistledown
QUOTE (spotlite)
QUOTE (Thistledown @ Oct 17 2004, 07:43 AM)
3.  If there are multible types of arrows in the same quiver, they won't have time to check which type they're firing.  So roll to see which arrow just got shot.

Why not just use different coloured flights? If its on a hip quiver, you'd be able to see the colours and draw exactly which type of arrow you want. And just like people with different types of ammo might put different coloured tape around the different clips so they can keep track, different coloured flights would work the same.

In general, yes, marking them is great. But if you're quick-drawing, you're just reaching for an arrow and not really looking at the quiver, so I don't think they'd help until they were on the bow and being pulled back where you see your mark and you think, 'Oh, drek, not the screamer arrow."
Edward
I don’t see how this debate on arrows and armour is a problem in SR.

We have varying opinions and demonstrations saying that an arrow will slice threw soft body armour and that soft body armour is not the only armour that is around. And Austere Emancipator reminding u that stab resistant body armour is now in moderately common use.

The SR mechanics would seem to model this very nicely. Armour has 2 ratings impact and ballistic. A stab resistant vest will have high impact armour and thus work against arrows. Soft Kevlar will be represented by a few points of ballistic armour.

As to what the average man on the street is wearing. If he decided he anted armour he likely has something along the lines of a bullet/stab resistant vest. The listed armours give these slightly higher ballistic ratings. Anybody that isn’t worried about being attacked is wearing impact armour based on eth danger posed by there activities. Motorcycle leathers (even if fake) industrial coveralls and clothing on that line will range in effectives up to that of rapid transit armour. Those that wear it don’t likely consider it armour, they consider it protective clothing but if they get into a fight without guns it will still help them.

Edward
SirKodiak
The way I'd handle the quickdraw issue is to simply have two quivers, side by side: a larger main one, and a small specialty one. Generally if you're doing quickdraw, you're going to want to pull a standard arrow for killing people. If you want something stranger (screamer, etc...), you don't get the quickdraw bonus, because you're having to look into the smaller quiver to find that exact arrow.

IE, I'd only allow the quickdraw bonus if they don't look at what they're pulling out of that quiver, but that seems like a situation which can be handled.
Fortune
That's basically how I've always worked it as well. Quickdraw only works correctly if the quiver used only contains one type of arrow (unless a random effect is wanted wink.gif). Of course, if the archer only ever uses two types of arrows, and he has a quiver for each, he should have no problems.

I have, in the past, ruled that the Quickdraw was a Free Action in and of itself. This still allows for 2 attacks per phase however, for an aware player's character. Assuming an arrow is nocked at the beginning of Combat, it should go as follows...

Simple Action - Shoot, Free Action - Quickdraw, Simple Action - Shoot

then

Free Action on any other PC or NPC phase between your last shot and the beginning of your next phase (no book reference at the moment, but this is allowable in canon IIRC) - Quickdraw

Rinse and repeat! smile.gif
Thistledown
QUOTE (SirKodiak)
The way I'd handle the quickdraw issue is to simply have two quivers, side by side: a larger main one, and a small specialty one. Generally if you're doing quickdraw, you're going to want to pull a standard arrow for killing people. If you want something stranger (screamer, etc...), you don't get the quickdraw bonus, because you're having to look into the smaller quiver to find that exact arrow.

Cool, I'll go with that.
spotlite
QUOTE
QUOTE (spotlite)
A heavy crossbow (of the type my neighbour has) hits with the same punch as a shotgun, and its not even a particularly heavy one.

No, it doesn't. A shotgun firing shot at close ranges can utterly devastate an unarmored human torso -- basketball-sized hole (or bloody mess, at least) in the center, that sort of thing. A heavy crossbow will punch a small hole based on the size of the arrowhead.


Perhaps my terminology is lacking. We're using punch to describe different things. I'm not saying a bolt will take out the large part of a torso, but in terms of how far it would knock you back, or if you were to aim at a target designed to measure force of impact, I think you'd find they were on a par.

QUOTE
QUOTE (spotlite)
A long bow with the right arrow head is quite capable of penetrating thick sheet steel of the like that armoured knights wore at 100 yards or more, and closer than that it can go straight out the other side and cause serious injury to whoever was behind the ex-Knight. [...] They just can't match the fire rate of a firearm is all, and of course a firearm has no problem penetrating steel armour.

Medieval plate armor doesn't do a fucking thing to even slow down bullets. Your basic Beretta M9 firing M882 FMJ rounds will tear through 4 suits of plate mail at close range and cause serious injury to the guy behind. Bows don't match the accuracy, penetration, rate of fire, damage-causing potential, ability to engage moving targets, ease of use, versatility, etc etc of firearms.


I didn't say medieval armour DID do anything to slow down bullets did I? Its the main reason they stopped wearing metal armour in the first place! I was just pointing out that a real bow is vastly more powerful than a lot of people think it is, or has any right to be! Perhaps I should've included the word 'either' at the end of the sentence. Would that have been enough to pacify you? You do seem awfully sensitive about this.

QUOTE
QUOTE (spotlite)
From what I've seen though, a crossbow doesn't have a lot of trouble penetrating armour designed to stop bullets either, so on that score I think they even out.

You have personally witnessed tests where crossbows were fired at modern body armor? How powerful were the crossbows, velocity and weight of arrow, type of arrowhead used, what type of body armor was it? I've heard the stories, but they're all old and they never spread with numbers to go along with them.


Not personally, no. I've seen documentaries and heard anecdotal evidence from my father the police officer. Its pretty much illegal in the UK to own body armour, so it woudl be practically impossible for me to witness it personally. And the reason I don't have numbers to back it up is because I'm not anally obsessive about the maths. The visual evidence is good enough for me! Of course, depending on your paranoia and gun fetish level you could always argue that the documentaries were faked... nyahnyah.gif
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (spotlite)
I'm not saying a bolt will take out the large part of a torso, but in terms of how far it would knock you back, or if you were to aim at a target designed to measure force of impact, I think you'd find they were on a par.

They might come close in terms of momentum, yes, so they might knock you back equally much. However, how far something knocks you back has nothing to do with how much damage it does to humans.

QUOTE (spotlite)
You do seem awfully sensitive about this.

Sorry about that. The "bows are almost as good as firearms" thing is a pet peeve of mine. I just wanted to make sure everybody realized firearms penetrate most things orders of magnitude better than bows.

QUOTE (spotlite)
Of course, depending on your paranoia and gun fetish level you could always argue that the documentaries were faked...

Not faked, but they might well have been shot using the weakest possible types of body armor available. What I'd like to see is tests using a wide range of currently available flexible body armor types and different kinds of arrows fired from bows of varying power. Without that, all we really know is that there are some kind(s) of arrowhead(s) that can penetrate some type(s) of body armor when fired with enough mass and velocity.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (spotlite)
I'm not saying a bolt will take out the large part of a torso, but in terms of how far it would knock you back, or if you were to aim at a target designed to measure force of impact, I think you'd find they were on a par.

They might come close in terms of momentum, yes, so they might knock you back equally much. However, how far something knocks you back has nothing to do with how much damage it does to humans.

QUOTE (spotlite)
You do seem awfully sensitive about this.

Sorry about that. The "bows are almost as good as firearms" thing is a pet peeve of mine. I just wanted to make sure everybody realized firearms penetrate most things orders of magnitude better than bows.

QUOTE (spotlite)
Of course, depending on your paranoia and gun fetish level you could always argue that the documentaries were faked...

Not faked, but they might well have been shot using the weakest possible types of body armor available. What I'd like to see is tests using a wide range of currently available flexible body armor types and different kinds of arrows fired from bows of varying power. Without that, all we really know is that there are some kind(s) of arrowhead(s) that can penetrate some type(s) of body armor when fired with enough mass and velocity.

Depending on the firearm & ammo, just like with the bow. Regardless, neither will knock a person back very far, and an arrow from a bow is more likely to (more mass with it), but contrary to movies, getting hit with a shotgun doesn't knock you back 10 feet.

I agree that firearms are superior to bows is almost every aspect, on a 1 shot comparison, most typical firearms that someone can legally carry now are about on par with a high-quality bow. Of course, theres the guns you aren't allowed to legally carry, many of which (with the right ammo) will penetrate better than the bow.

Also, don't forget penetration isn't always a good thing. I don't remember which conflict it was, but it was US vs someplace, and the opposing soldiers were on drugs (cocaine I think) and thusly felt little to no pain. The bullets the soldiers were fireing penetrating the non-armored targets, and went out the other side, leaving a nice hole, but not doing much damage in terms of stopping power. This is why the m-16 is so powerful, is the round tumbles, making it rip up your internal organs, rather than making a neat hole through only one.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just saying that different bullets/rounds/guns can have vastly different effects compared to the smaller (only force really) changes depending on bows.
Moon-Hawk
And bear in mind the unfair comparison inherent to Shadowrun. You should be comparing firearms to a standard bow with a strength min of about 4 or 5. It works out about realistic. Strength min 6 bows for a very powerful bow, and are roughly comparable to a pistol. I can handle that, so far. I'm not sure how futuristic the Ranger-X bow is supposed to be; if it uses special materials (ooooh) so maybe more comparable with a heavy pistol for a very powerful bow. Eehhhhh, allright, I guess. Maybe we're pushing it, but I'm with you. Now compare that to the cyber-troll's strength min 15 or more bow that makes Ulysses' bow look like it fires bits of plastic tipped with suction cups! It's considerably more like firing an arrow OUT OF a gun, and comparing that to a gun, and I don't know how to begin to wrap my mind around that.
Considering that if it were possible to get an arrow up to near-bullet velocities, how would arrow damage compare to bullet damage? I don't know, but I bet it would suck to be on the recieving end! I'd like to see myth-busters do that little experiment, though.
But I think if we compare SR arrows fired from a standard bow with strength 5 to an SR firearm, we can all sleep a bit easier.
Nikoli
Could always call for an errata on Bows, with a "logical limit" to the strength min.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Nikoli)
Could always call for an errata on Bows, with a "logical limit" to the strength min.

I dunno, I figure a strength 15 bow probably looks something like a steel pole with a crane cable for the bow. As long as the "bow" part flexes and snaps back, and the "string" part is similar in property to string, but they could support so much tension etc, its possible, we just haven't tried it yet since we don't have people that strong. nyahnyah.gif
Moon-Hawk
It's more like a manual-pull ballista, but why not?
I think the ammunition should get more expensive, though, not just the bow. It would help limit the craziness pretty well, I think.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Tarantula)
This is why the m-16 is so powerful, is the round tumbles, making it rip up your internal organs, rather than making a neat hole through only one.

Nearly all FMJ rifle rounds tumble when they hit a human, assault rifle rounds quicker than most because the bullets tend to be long and pointy. If they didn't, the wound cavity would be pitifully small. The reason the ammunition the M16 fires is particularly nasty is that it also tends to fragment when it tumbles at high enough velocities.

Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets
5.56x45mm Ammo Oracle

QUOTE (Tarantula)
I agree that firearms are superior to bows is almost every aspect, on a 1 shot comparison, most typical firearms that someone can legally carry now are about on par with a high-quality bow. Of course, theres the guns you aren't allowed to legally carry, many of which (with the right ammo) will penetrate better than the bow.

What kind of penetration are you talking about here? Flesh, steel, body armor? Any decent firearm (ie not a .22, .25, .32 firing JHP or fragmenting ammunition) will penetrate more steel than any man-portable bow you can get IRL. Depending on the bullet, arrows might penetrate a lot more flesh, since most ammunition is designed to only penetrate somewhere between 12" and 20", except for big-game hunting rounds and solid (e.g. FMJ) ammunition. This is because the bullet won't need to penetrate any more than that, so you might as well increase the wound cavity and not the penetration.

I already went through armor penetration of bullets vs bows.

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
Considering that if it were possible to get an arrow up to near-bullet velocities, how would arrow damage compare to bullet damage?

You might see much heavier arrows traveling at pretty high speeds, but seeing as how current bows fire arrows in the 300fps-range and the slowest you'll see a bullet come out of a handgun in common use is around 900fps (and ~2000-2500fps for most rifles), I really doubt they'd actually get into the same velocities. Could be you can't even make a bowstring move that fast. Plus there's no point, since the arrow penetrates enough flesh already.

The only thing that would make arrows do more actual damage to humans would be to use much larger arrowheads, and then use heavier/faster arrows to make sure they still penetrate far enough. The wound cavity caused by an arrow similar to the ones we have now with a normal broadhead moving at 900fps would be pretty much the same as one caused by the same arrow moving at 300fps, as long as there's complete penetration of the human.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
It's more like a manual-pull ballista, but why not?
I think the ammunition should get more expensive, though, not just the bow. It would help limit the craziness pretty well, I think.

What reason for the ammo getting more expensive? The only difference might be the size of the gap in the nocking of the arrow to fit around the larger string. Which wouldn't cause a noticable increase in price.
DrJest
I had cause to visit Wales Archery Specialists today (my recurve is as old as I am, and the lower limb is starting to twist again - time for a honourable retirement and a new bow for me), and I was looking at the compounds with all their toys (and giggling, I admit - old men and posers, dontcha know wink.gif ). Friendly rivalry between the Bare Bow and Freestyle divisions aside, it hit me that the expensive ones (and here I'm talking from about £600 upwards) would be ideal for a bow adept. They're surprisingly short - a little under my torso length - and also surprisingly shallow in brace height -that's from the centre of the riser to the string at rest - assuming you don't put all that crap on it. They'd actually be quite concealable, more so than a rifle or even a crossbow, and for urban sniping just as effective.

I then went out on the Net looking for data on compounds. I found some interesting stuff on a site dedicated to game hunting with bows:

"like the coveted 300 yard drive in golf, the 300 fps mark seems to be the benchmark. In the current market, a bow that shoots 296 fps (202 mph) is generally considered slow, while a bow that shoots 305 fps (208 mph) is considered fast - in spite of the fact that only 3% separates the two. So manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to produce bows that pump out big 300+ fps IBO speeds."

200+ mph? Jesus, I've been an archer for years, I never knew they went that fast.

The site I got this from also notes that heavy arrows are not necessarily an advantage, and that the tradeoff between lighter, faster arrows and heavier ones is actually relatively minor. There are whole reams of data on the site, so I'll just throw you the link:

http://www.huntersfriend.com/bowselection.htm

Most of the hard data on weights and kinetic energy is about 3/4 of the way down. I do want to show this point though:

"while some archers stubbornly stick by their hefty "big-game" log style arrows, an increasing number of archers are discovering that lightweight arrows can be just as effective for hunting large game - perhaps even more effective. And it should be noted that a properly placed arrow - impacting with 49.66 ft-lbs of KE would easily generate a clean pass-thru on a Whitetail Deer or Elk. So with respect to kinetic energy and big-game hunting, the practical difference between an arrow generating 49.66 ft-lbs and another generating 54.16 ft-lbs - would really be how far the arrow sticks in the dirt after passing through the animal. "


Lastly, an argument in favour of capping the str min of bows:

"Draw Weight - Super Human Strength

The truth is, many guys just canít resist their "He-Man" impulses to try to shoot heavyweight bows. If youíve ever visited a busy archery shop, youíve certainly noticed guys who seem determined to prove their super-human strength by yanking and jerking these 70+ pound bows until they're on the verge of a hemorrhage. In spite of the strain, most guys will still choose bows which have too much draw weight. Some compound bows are available up to a 100# draw weight. While these bows will produce remarkable penetration on a target, they will not necessary produce faster arrows speeds or flatter trajectory. Since these bows must shoot arrows which are very stiff and heavy, they rarely outperform their lower weight counterparts. A 100# bow will need to shoot at least a 500 grain arrow and will require very high quality accessories to help dampen and withstand the heavy shock and vibration the bow is likely to produce. This type of bow should only be used for special purposes where huge amounts of kinetic energy is necessary. Think carefully before ordering this type of bow. These heavyweights are available by special order only. And since high draw weight bows are easily dry fired, we do not accept returns on bows which have draw weights in excess of 70#."
DrJest
Oh, some more data - weight and size, this time:

"In response to the demand for lighter and lighter compound bow designs, the average new compound bow now weighs only 3.7 lbs (without accessories). Considerably lighter than their recent predecessors, these lightweight designs are the result of careful machining and high-tech lightweight materials. Modern bow risers, which account for most of a bow's mass weight, are typically made from aluminum or magnesium. But in order to save weight, many manufacturers machine away excess metal from the risers and cams, giving them a Swiss-cheese like appearance while still maintaining the structural integrity of the parts. A few bows, like the Carbon Series by High Country Archery, take a different approach, utilizing carbon fiber composites instead of metal to construct their risers. Unfortunately, lightweight bows come with a few drawbacks as well. To begin, most lightweight bow designs are quite expensive, averaging $400 or more."

"You've probably noticed that bows are becoming increasingly compact, with an average length just over 36". Some short axle designs are even pushing below 30". Often marketed as "more maneuverable", these stubby designs have become quite popular, particularly for treestand hunters. Short axle bows have a few distinct advantages beyond the obvious. Most of the short-axle bows are quite fast, shooting at least as quickly as their longer length counterparts. They also have noticeably less hand shock, since most short-axle bows use a high limb deflection angle, or pre-bend. And since their risers are generally smaller too, most shorty-bows are lighter as well. Most importantly, you'll find that short-axle bows often have fairly generous brace heights - allowing them to regain some of the forgiveness lost to the short-axle design. Many shooters report that short-axle bows shoot just as accurately as longer bows. Admittedly this might be a stretch, but it's a close race nonetheless. Properly tuned, short-axle bows can shoot quite well. However, most tournament archers, who need ultimate pin-point accuracy, stick with the longer - more stable designs. Before you choose a short-axle design, you might want to consider a few small drawbacks though. Short-axle bows are generally intended to be shot with a mechanical release. If you are a finger shooter, the acute finger-pinching string angle at full-draw will make holding back your shorty quite uncomfortable. Most finger shooters look for bows with at least a 38-40" axle-to-axle length to avoid this problem. You may find that not all accessories will work with the short-axle bows either, since the risers don't offer enough room for large sight-mounting plates and some quiver systems. You may also have to shop around for a peep-sight that can accommodate the acute string angle at full draw. Some standard peeps, particularly the tube-aligned type, get over-rotated on short-axle bows and must be modified or replaced in order to get a clear viewing angle through the hole."
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