Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Composite Longbows

I was just wondering if the fact that 14 or 15 (unsure) STR characters can use composite longbows in Icewind Dale is going to carry over into the EE, or not.

I think it was the same deal in vanilla Baldur's Gate, but it changed for BGII.

«1

Comments

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,732
    It was 15 in the original IWD and 18 in BG2. I'm not certain about the original BG1 and I can't say what it is in IWDEE :)

    jackjackCrevsDaak
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    I for one, prefer the realism of the 18str restriction.

    Elrandir
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,732
    edited September 2014
    Honestly I never really understood why a composite longbow required more strength than a longbow. I mean from a functional standpoint.

    CrevsDaak
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,732
    Yea I guess the description for it just threw me off, since it says "These were developed after the normal longbow." I haven't read up on it in pnp but it could just be one of those things that probably got lost during the original games implementation.

    jackjack
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    My guess would be whoever wrote the description confused it with the more modern compound long bow? But that's 20th century tech and has no place in a fantasy setting!

    Its possible I'm missing something, I'm not exactly an expert on this. But I've just always assumed the "composite" bow was ancient, while the long bow is medieval.

    elminsterjackjackJuliusBorisovStarflower2525
  • AlexisisinneedAlexisisinneed Member Posts: 470
    I guess I should make sure Lance has at least 16 Strength then...

    NimranCrevsDaak
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    Lance uses a bow? Do you have a Paladin named Bo?

    AlexisisinneedjackjackNimranSwordsNotWords
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,370
    elminster said:

    Honestly I never really understood why a composite longbow required more strength than a longbow. I mean from a functional standpoint.

    The stiffer the bow, the harder it is to draw, but the more powerful the arrows. (The to hit bonus represents improved armour penetration).

    meaglothjackjackNimran
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,697
    Pretty sure comp bows are not supposed to be more ancient weapons, they are more advanced versions of the long bow that can impart more kinetic energy to the arrow, by being stiffer, without breaking. Accomplished by using a composite of different materials, instead of just one piece of wood.

    Both values are a little off imho. You shouldn't have to be a bodybuilder to draw a composite bow, but you should have to have above-average STR. I would set min STR at 12 for long bows and 16 for comp bows.

    elminsterJarrakulNimranSwordsNotWords
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806

    Pretty sure comp bows are not supposed to be more ancient weapons, they are more advanced versions of the long bow that can impart more kinetic energy to the arrow, by being stiffer, without breaking. Accomplished by using a composite of different materials, instead of just one piece of wood.

    Both values are a little off imho. You shouldn't have to be a bodybuilder to draw a composite bow, but you should have to have above-average STR. I would set min STR at 12 for long bows and 16 for comp bows.

    Age old argument this. I would be open to make it 17, but no lower. I think of it as an English longbow equivalent, so upwards of. 200 lb draw weight. English longbow,en had to be trained from children to have the strength to use to bow properly, and where enormously strong. When bones are dug up they can actually tell the archers apart because the bones in their right arms are actually thicker and stronger from using such a hard bow so much.

    Elrandirjackjack
  • DazzuDazzu Member Posts: 923
    Whether they are or not, there are only 3-4 Comp Longbows in total, and all the many regular Longbows are easily comparable or better.

    elminster
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,028
    atcDave clearly has more precise knowledge of historical bows than I do, and therefore you should listen to him. Specifically, I had thought that there were composite bows comparable in draw-weight to longbows. Apparently too much gaming has influenced my historical knowledge.

    atcDavejackjackJuliusBorisov
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,171
    meagloth said:

    Age old argument this. I would be open to make it 17, but no lower. I think of it as an English longbow equivalent, so upwards of. 200 lb draw weight. English longbow,en had to be trained from children to have the strength to use to bow properly, and where enormously strong. When bones are dug up they can actually tell the archers apart because the bones in their right arms are actually thicker and stronger from using such a hard bow so much.

    Except Strength 17 is really, incredibly strong. The English wouldn't have entire squads of longbowmen if a Strength of 17 was required, as only one in every 54 individuals would qualify, and that is if you assume that every individual rolls for heroic stats, which is debate-able.

    The important stats hovering around 15-18 for practically all characters in BG/BG2/IWD seems to screw up people's senses about regular stats.

    In 3e, the average peasant has 13/12/11/10/9/8 for his stats, while the average elite has 15/14/13/12/10/8. Not exactly fitting as that's 3e, and 3e handles ability scores slightly different, but it should be a giveaway that 17 is an absurd requirement if you want it to be anywhere realistic.

    jackjackthespace
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,370
    Thels said:

    meagloth said:



    Except Strength 17 is really, incredibly strong. The English wouldn't have entire squads of longbowmen if a Strength of 17 was required, as only one in every 54 individuals would qualify, and that is if you assume that every individual rolls for heroic stats, which is debate-able.

    You could identify English/Welsh longbowmen by the extremely overdeveloped muscles in their right arms. DnD random rolls don't really take environmental factors (e.g. training from a very young age) into account.

    meaglothjackjack
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,171
    Yeah, so in addition to the natural strength that you've been born with, you also need to specialize training in a class that supports bows and choose bows as a weapon you're proficient in.

    A natural strength of, say, 14, should be plenty, if you then spend a good amount of your youth in training with such weapons, which would reflect the training that those longbowmen underwent.

    Technically, it should be even lower, but you can't specialize your character as much as those longbowmen did.

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    Very informative post Bengoshi, thanks!

    It sounds like the Yumi would not be a good fit for the Composite Long Bow of AD&D either! Although in an Eastern setting it might be fun to work with, maybe giving it innate plusses to hit instead of damage.

    One detail you bring up that often gets left out of the discussion, in part because BG ignores it. But in PNP 2E arrows come in light or heavy varieties. The light arrows have longer range and do 1d6, while the heavy, armor piercing arrows are shorter range but do 1d8.

    elminsterjackjackThe_New_RomanceJuliusBorisov
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,028
    Indeed. I kind of wish IE used the d8 damage arrows (sheaf arrows, if I remember correctly), as the ranges in the game are well below the ranges where the difference mattered in PnP. On the other hand, the IE games also conjured the longbow's +1 to hit out of nowhere because of range constriction issues, and BG1 at least had strong enough bows as it is, so probably it's not worth getting worked up about.

    atcDavejackjackJuliusBorisov
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    Thels said:

    meagloth said:

    Age old argument this. I would be open to make it 17, but no lower. I think of it as an English longbow equivalent, so upwards of. 200 lb draw weight. English longbow,en had to be trained from children to have the strength to use to bow properly, and where enormously strong. When bones are dug up they can actually tell the archers apart because the bones in their right arms are actually thicker and stronger from using such a hard bow so much.

    Except Strength 17 is really, incredibly strong. The English wouldn't have entire squads of longbowmen if a Strength of 17 was required, as only one in every 54 individuals would qualify, and that is if you assume that every individual rolls for heroic stats, which is debate-able.
    That's kinda my point.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,561
    Fardragon said:

    Thels said:

    meagloth said:



    Except Strength 17 is really, incredibly strong. The English wouldn't have entire squads of longbowmen if a Strength of 17 was required, as only one in every 54 individuals would qualify, and that is if you assume that every individual rolls for heroic stats, which is debate-able.

    You could identify English/Welsh longbowmen by the extremely overdeveloped muscles in their right arms. DnD random rolls don't really take environmental factors (e.g. training from a very young age) into account.
    Kinda like how we identify lonely men in the Internet Age? ;)

    jackjackThe_New_Romance
  • AnduinAnduin Member Posts: 5,737
    Haha! Love these threads.

    *wrings hands with joy before beginning lecture*

    Ok. I believe the naming is accurate in the game, but we are viewing the weapons with knowledge of the medieval world developing into our present industrial age.

    Faerun has been stuck at a level of medieval technology for millennia. Only Gnomes have developed further with guns and smokepowder but lets not derail the thread with more moaning about the Gnomes being overpowered again.

    Now wiki is awful on this. I believe the most useful wiki entry is actually under bow and arrow.

    Anyway my insights:

    Shortbows do not exist as a weapon. The smallest bows used for war are composite bows. The composite bow, as already mentioned, was used from horseback as it was small, but due to its design gave considerable more power than a small bow of similar size. Small bows would also suffer from snapping as the materials available at the time simply would not be able to flex far enough.

    So.

    DnD Shortbows = Real World Composite Bows.

    Longbows. England still has the ol' tourney in the rural villages where the hay bales are still pulled out, and fire a few arra's. The King would pay the prizes, but it didn't need anymore promotion for the peasants to play, who got so addicted they took to throwing broken arra's at targets painted on the pub wall, thus creating the game of darts. @meagloth DnD strength does not equate well to real world, when most of the yeomen in Britain had to row boats up and down rivers or the coast. Pulling a longbow is easy in comparison... Anyway easy.

    DnD Longbows = Real World longbows.

    So... DnD Composite Longbows, how do they fit in? This is my thinking. They equate to modern compound bows. Compound Bows are made out of metal, have weights and other enhancements to reduce draw weight and increase power delivery. Now apply medieval thinking. Reduce draw weight? Nah! Increase the powa! Or perhaps medieval materials cannot reduce the draw weight... Whatever. DnD Composite bows I believe are what bows would have become if industrialisation, or gunpowder, did not occur.

    DnD Composite Bow = Real World Compound bow.

    jackjackNimranJuliusBorisov
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,561
    Physics-wise, a larger composite bow (which would be incredibly demanding to use strengthwise) could certainly work, and be substantially more effective. Mind you, they wouldnt be relevant for warfare, as so few could string or draw such a bow.

    @Anduin‌ strength 10 in dnd is supposed to be medieval average, which today would be well above average. I would hazard a guesd that drawing a bow would use muscles differently from rowing, or use additional ones. But then, weapons are all like this. Swinging an axe to split wood or fell trees is different from fighting. Unless you're facing Treants, then its very similar to felling a tree. Except the tree hits back, and screams ehen chopped. :s

    The official technologically advanced bow is the gnome steam bow! Yes, its a thing. Slower than a crosdbow to fire though.

    JuliusBorisov
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,697
    I'm with Anduin. I figure AD&D just kinda got the terms wrong.
    DreadKhan said:

    strength 10 in dnd is supposed to be medieval average, which today would be well above average.

    Wait, what? Are you saying that medieval people (plague-ridden, perpetually half-starved) were on average, stronger than modern people (generally well-fed and with access to personal trainers - at least, the population that plays D&D and BG... when talking about 'average' here it definitely matters what your poulation sample is)...?

    The_New_RomanceatcDaveJuliusBorisov
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.