One thing that you can do to bring down the longbow a bit is to bring the prices of arrows to a more realistic level.

In the High Middle Ages (1340s), a non-painted longbow (white bow) cost around 12 pence, but a sheaf of arrows (24 arrows) cost around 14 pence for steeled arrows and 12 pence for non-steeled arrows.

To translate to gaming terms:

In BFRPG a longbow costs 60gp, so a sheaf of arrows would cost 70gp for steeled and 60gp for non-steeled.
In B/X (Rules Cyclopedia) a longbow costs 40gp, so a sheaf of arrows would cost around 47gp for steeled and 40gp for non-steeled.

Hackmaster handles this rather well.

The Player's book warns players not to carry their bow around unstrung, though it leaves the reason why up to the GM. Stringing your bow requires so much time (fifteen seconds) that by the time you're ready to use it, the fight has already gone into melee and now you run the risk of hitting a friendly. Thusly, people being ambushed almost never use mechanical ranged weapons to defend themselves. Also the bow string can snap if you fumble, not only necessitating you to restring the bow, but requiring you to have a spare bowstring in the first place.

Longbows are described as being so large that you probably need to carry them in both hands when not in use. The way combat works, being armed with a ranged weapon puts you at a terrible disadvantage if someone initiates melee with you (it's all but assured you will be struck).

Quote from: oggsmash on January 30, 2023, 05:39:51 AM
  youtube Lars Andersen.  Once you see what a guy can do with a bow, it might make those assumptions change a bit regarding how bows are treated in combat in some RPGs.  I think one issue is we treat how a weapon like that can be handled through the lens of hobbyists and not trained professionals who trained for decades to constantly improve.   Granted Lars uses a 50-55 pound bow for his demos, but that is not so far from a war bow and Lars is probably not even a buck fifty and over 50 years old.

Is one guy that hyper trains.  I don't have any issue with a gaming style where the PCs are superheros bouncing around like bad movie elves on speed.  In fact, if I'm going to edge into that, I'm as likely to go all the way in.  Sometimes.  Other times I enjoy something a little more grounded.  The training needed to do what Andersen does--even for a professional at the time--is not consistent with that.  As for age, he didn't start doing this when he was 50.  There's lots of people who do all kinds of physical activities from youth into their 50's or later, where age, guile, and experience go a long way towards making up for declining peak physical condition.

Quote from: JeremyR on January 29, 2023, 10:48:48 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 29, 2023, 12:23:20 PM
It's a game and doing it more accurately would make swords not that cool on a battlefield when there's distance. Our rpg culture, like many, worship swords. We must be careful not to burst that bubble.

I dunno, for as long as the internet has existed (which is a long time) people have always insisted swords are actually bad, spears or pikes are better and there's some sort of conspiracy that promotes sword (the sword lobby?).

And yet, the Romans conquered most their world with swords. Short swords. Beating great phalanxes who used spears.

True. It's....I misphrased. Spears are a better weapon by far, but our pop culture is all into swords. Many new players buy into this (see the bazillion fights online about katanas for an example). Not to sound unfair to D&D, but why are most magic weapons swords? Yes, staves and daggers and axes are seen, but most are swords.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 30, 2023, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 29, 2023, 10:48:48 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 29, 2023, 12:23:20 PM
It's a game and doing it more accurately would make swords not that cool on a battlefield when there's distance. Our rpg culture, like many, worship swords. We must be careful not to burst that bubble.

I dunno, for as long as the internet has existed (which is a long time) people have always insisted swords are actually bad, spears or pikes are better and there's some sort of conspiracy that promotes sword (the sword lobby?).

And yet, the Romans conquered most their world with swords. Short swords. Beating great phalanxes who used spears.

True. It's....I misphrased. Spears are a better weapon by far, but our pop culture is all into swords. Many new players buy into this (see the bazillion fights online about katanas for an example). Not to sound unfair to D&D, but why are most magic weapons swords? Yes, staves and daggers and axes are seen, but most are swords.

I think a lot of it is not realizing that armor changes the equation and the fascination of duels by samurai.

Versus non-armored opponents, the sword may be better than the spear assuming you can get past the point of it.

If you watch some of the current armored fighting league stuff, then most of what you see are two handed weapons (axes, maces, polearms, swords).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3QQwohEY48

Quote from: LordBP on January 30, 2023, 10:49:57 AM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 30, 2023, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 29, 2023, 10:48:48 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 29, 2023, 12:23:20 PM
It's a game and doing it more accurately would make swords not that cool on a battlefield when there's distance. Our rpg culture, like many, worship swords. We must be careful not to burst that bubble.

I dunno, for as long as the internet has existed (which is a long time) people have always insisted swords are actually bad, spears or pikes are better and there's some sort of conspiracy that promotes sword (the sword lobby?).

And yet, the Romans conquered most their world with swords. Short swords. Beating great phalanxes who used spears.

True. It's....I misphrased. Spears are a better weapon by far, but our pop culture is all into swords. Many new players buy into this (see the bazillion fights online about katanas for an example). Not to sound unfair to D&D, but why are most magic weapons swords? Yes, staves and daggers and axes are seen, but most are swords.

I think a lot of it is not realizing that armor changes the equation and the fascination of duels by samurai.

Versus non-armored opponents, the sword may be better than the spear assuming you can get past the point of it.

If you watch some of the current armored fighting league stuff, then most of what you see are two handed weapons (axes, maces, polearms, swords).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3QQwohEY48

Mass combat in armor videos!? Why did I never hear of this? Wow!

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 30, 2023, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 29, 2023, 10:48:48 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 29, 2023, 12:23:20 PM
It's a game and doing it more accurately would make swords not that cool on a battlefield when there's distance. Our rpg culture, like many, worship swords. We must be careful not to burst that bubble.

I dunno, for as long as the internet has existed (which is a long time) people have always insisted swords are actually bad, spears or pikes are better and there's some sort of conspiracy that promotes sword (the sword lobby?).

And yet, the Romans conquered most their world with swords. Short swords. Beating great phalanxes who used spears.

True. It's....I misphrased. Spears are a better weapon by far, but our pop culture is all into swords. Many new players buy into this (see the bazillion fights online about katanas for an example). Not to sound unfair to D&D, but why are most magic weapons swords? Yes, staves and daggers and axes are seen, but most are swords.

Spears are better weapons of war. Swords are much easier to carry around all day and are "good enough" for self-defense in most situations outside of war. Similarly, even knights didn't go around in their full plate all day long. That was armor for war. Gambesons, Brigandines or Mail would be much more common among those who had to actually wear armor all day long.

Basically, swords are the equivalent of modern day pistols/sidearms while spears and polearms are the equivalent of the M-16, AK-47 and similar battle rifles. Similarly, brigs/mail is more like the protective vests wore day to day by police while full plate is the equivalent of full SWAT tactical gear.

If you really wanted to make things more realistic for a lot of this stuff, the real issue is in the handling of encumbrance and fatigue as relates to traveling adventurers. The decision of what items are really worth carrying around relative to the advantage they impart is something most games sorely lack and lead things like a traveling fighter walking around in full plate with a longbow, polearm, sword, shield, backpack w. bedroll and who knows what else all day long because Strength is all that really matters for carrying capacity in the system.

Is a spear better than a sword in many situations? Probably. Is it enough of an advantage to give up one your free hands to carry it around at all times? Very situational. A similar evaluation can be made about longbows vs. a lighter and more transportable ranged weapon (ex. a hunting bow would be something of sufficient value for a traveling adventurer to carry vs. a longbow which is overkill for game).

In terms of realism, a wandering adventurer defaulting to some type of light-to-medium armor with a sword (or similar weapon that can be fully stowed and quickly drawn), mid-sized shield (to make up for lack of full armor coverage), a hunting bow and pack for most situations and assessing meaningful penalties to carrying excessively bulky items on their person (ex. wearing heavy armor doesn't so much slow someone down as it causes them to fatigue more quickly, carrying a longbow or spear means you can't perform actions requiring two hands without putting it down) would do more to curb many of the issues about various weapons and their use by soldiers and adventurers.

ETA: one of the more interesting aspects of a more bulk-based encumbrance system that I've witnessed was the use of quick release backpacks as most warriors gained significant advantage by dropping the excess bulk before entering a fight (and created a fairly meaningful loss condition if they were then forced to retreat).

If you really want to simulate the English longbow, and the English longbowman, I would make Longbowman a class, and a class only available to commoners at that. And you are not allowed to multi-class for the first X levels.

Only longbowmen can use the longbow. Because historically, you had to raise up a generation of longbowmen, you didn't just train adults in it. (The same is probably true of Mongol archers.) You wind up with physiological adaptations that archaeologists can detect, even on a skeleton.

Having bows break automatically in melee is dumb. I have seen children's practice bows break in the hands of a strong adult, but hunting bows and longbows are an entirely different matter. Bows are strong, and the more powerful they are, the tougher they are. If they break, it should be at the same rate as other weapons like swords and staves.

But with all that said, frankly, don't bury your game under minutiae. A certain amount of historical inaccuracy is perfectly acceptable in a game. It is OK to consider bows and crossbows to be strung at all times. Just like black powder guns are considered to be loaded and primed at all times. Because ultimately, the goal is to have that moment of "I waste him with my crossbow!"

Quote from: Lurkndog on January 30, 2023, 11:28:35 AM
If you really want to simulate the English longbow, and the English longbowman, I would make Longbowman a class, and a class only available to commoners at that. And you are not allowed to multi-class for the first X levels.

Only longbowmen can use the longbow. Because historically, you had to raise up a generation of longbowmen, you didn't just train adults in it. (The same is probably true of Mongol archers.) You wind up with physiological adaptations that archaeologists can detect, even on a skeleton.

Interestingly, that's exactly the route Palladium Fantasy took. The Longbowman OCC was the only class that had proficiency in the longbow. No other class could even take it. I don't have the books in front of me, but I think it also had a minimum Strength prerequisite to be able to take it.

Also, with regard to black powder replacing bows and arrows and crossbows, what really happened is that black powder cannons and mortars appeared on the scene in the middle ages, and made all other siege engines instantly obsolete, along with a number of defensive fortifications. Cannon and mortars were just that much better.

And from there, black powder slowly worked its way down to the individual soldier, having established utter dominance in the field of artillery. There wasn't a question of "if" it was better, they'd seen the cannons.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 30, 2023, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on January 29, 2023, 10:48:48 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on January 29, 2023, 12:23:20 PM
It's a game and doing it more accurately would make swords not that cool on a battlefield when there's distance. Our rpg culture, like many, worship swords. We must be careful not to burst that bubble.

I dunno, for as long as the internet has existed (which is a long time) people have always insisted swords are actually bad, spears or pikes are better and there's some sort of conspiracy that promotes sword (the sword lobby?).

And yet, the Romans conquered most their world with swords. Short swords. Beating great phalanxes who used spears.

True. It's....I misphrased. Spears are a better weapon by far, but our pop culture is all into swords. Many new players buy into this (see the bazillion fights online about katanas for an example). Not to sound unfair to D&D, but why are most magic weapons swords? Yes, staves and daggers and axes are seen, but most are swords.

Ahh, this again.

Swords vs polearms is almost always a slanted conversation for two very important reasons.

• When you use a pole-arm, you can't use a shield.
• When you use a pole-arm, you can't use a shield.

Now, I realize that's technically only one reason, but it's such an important reason I thought it was worth mentioning twice. And to be fair this is a slight exaggeration; some lighter spears can be used one-handed. I don't think that's a fair comparison because a one-handed spear lacks the leverage and power to be anywhere near as dangerous against a sword as a two-handed spear is.

By and large, if you're going into combat against archers (especially longbow archers), a two-handed pole arm is probably not the best choice, even though they work very well in melees against swords. This is also why actual Men at Arms would carry every weapon they thought was reasonable into the battlefield. Spear, shield, sword, dagger, mace, it's probably all going with you and once you get into melee, you pick the ones you actually think you'll need and likely drop the rest or leave them with your squire/ on your horse, with the supply caravan, etc. And the sword was far more used in self-defense than pole arms.

The sword is the iconic weapon because in Europe the Catholic Church liked the cruciform sword for symbolic reasons. However it's not like it was unused on the battlefield. As with many things, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than the simple Spear > Sword because of triangle advantage.

Completely agree with OP - ranged weapons and thrown weapons are not really comparable to melee.

I'd bet someone with a dagger beats someone with a bow nine times out of ten, even if they start 100 feet apart (provided they received the same amount of training and similar physiques, of course).

In most D&D games, the dagger is a weak 1d4 weapon, while bows to 1d6 or even more.

Bows only work in specific circumstances, e.g., scores of bowmen against a marching army, or shoot and run tactics. These are NOT the types of combat you see in dungeons (bows would be terrible in dungeons BTW).

But... rule of cool. People want Legolas in their D&D games.

Quote from: Fheredin on January 30, 2023, 12:08:19 PM
The sword is the iconic weapon because in Europe the Catholic Church liked the cruciform sword for symbolic reasons. However it's not like it was unused on the battlefield. As with many things, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than the simple Spear > Sword because of triangle advantage.

If it were merely because of its cruciform shape we wouldn't have seen non-cruciform versions arise. The actual reason for the sword's iconic status is for the same reason the handgun (pistol or revolver) is an iconic weapon today; it was easy to wear around as a sidearm (in a scabbard at your side it didn't interfere with normal activities) and quick to draw if needed.

It was also relatively expensive due to the level of craftsmanship required and needing many times more metal to construct than a spear or axe head (and before the advent of the blast furnace steel was far more expensive than it became). Thus, owning a sword was an indication of your wealth and standing in society.

One of the stories about the Messer-style blade is that, as the cost of manufacturing blades dropped, the nobility passed laws outlawing swords for non-nobility (so wearing a sword remained a status symbol). The Messer was as long as a sword, but because it had a full tang handle instead of a hidden tang hilt it was legally a knife and not a sword and thus could be carried by anyone.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 30, 2023, 12:25:54 PM
Completely agree with OP - ranged weapons and thrown weapons are not really comparable to melee.

I'd bet someone with a dagger beats someone with a bow nine times out of ten, even if they start 100 feet apart (provided they received the same amount of training and similar physiques, of course).

In most D&D games, the dagger is a weak 1d4 weapon, while bows to 1d6 or even more.

Bows only work in specific circumstances, e.g., scores of bowmen against a marching army, or shoot and run tactics. These are NOT the types of combat you see in dungeons (bows would be terrible in dungeons BTW).

But... rule of cool. People want Legolas in their D&D games.

Curious as to your reasoning here...  My RL skill with a bow is on the lower end of the intermediate range and I'm pretty sure I could get in at least one hit in this situation.  And in RL one hit is all it takes to end the fight if it's in the right spot.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on January 30, 2023, 12:25:54 PM
Bows only work in specific circumstances, e.g., scores of bowmen against a marching army, or shoot and run tactics. These are NOT the types of combat you see in dungeons (bows would be terrible in dungeons BTW).

For what it's worth, this is generally my experience in game. You've got twists, turns, and even in a straight corridor, limits due to vision. The ranges involved are so short, I don't even need to give any thought as to whether or not the ceiling is high enough for the trajectory of the missile. At best, other than surprise, you've got one shot before the enemy can close the distance.

QuoteBut... rule of cool. People want Legolas in their D&D games.

I usually find this lies at the heart of the matter of the vast majority of RPG rules gripes. Different people have different opinions on what the outcome should be or what is reasonable. But when it comes to certain things, and I think this topic may be a candidate, you frequently find contrary wants even within the same gamer. You can't solve the problem until this conflict is unpacked and you get some clarity.

Probably most often it comes down to, "*I* want to be Legolas in a world of dirt farmers."

QuoteCompletely agree with OP - ranged weapons and thrown weapons are not really comparable to melee.

I'd bet someone with a dagger beats someone with a bow nine times out of ten, even if they start 100 feet apart (provided they received the same amount of training and similar physiques, of course).

In most D&D games, the dagger is a weak 1d4 weapon, while bows to 1d6 or even more.

I quoted your post out of order because to address this point, it's important to recognize the conflict I just mentioned. Because one of the things I think is really cool about 1E is that if you play BtB, and if you approach it with a min-max mindset, the "optimal" weapons do vary depending on what you're doing.

If you're talking about large scale battles, where most fighting men are 0th level, where one-hit-kills are most common, he who goes first has a massive advantage. It doesn't matter that a two-hander does d10 while a bow only d6. Even though you can close 100 feet within a single round, the bow has a decent chance of killing before you even get into melee. Even in the case of spears, when weapon length determines first strike during charging, hasty closing into melee, and when the "mass of pikes" rule is in effect, overall the spear is going to be mightier than the sword.

However, once you start to accumulate enough hit points that it takes multiple hits to kill, turn order starts to matter less, and luck and first strike are overtaken by long-term expected averages. And that's when higher damage becomes king.

So at higher levels of play, where PCs are more heroic in scale, the optimal weapons more or less resemble what you tend to see in the heroes of myth and legend, while at low levels, where PCs are more realistic, optimal weapons tend to more or less resemble what you'd expect from a realistic/historical setting. The genre shifts with level of play. But more importantly, it opens the field for you to get to be Legolas in a world of dirt farmers. It's one way of resolving the above conflict. And I really think this is what the plurality of gamers see as their ideal.