Bit of a weird rant here, but what the hell....

Doing a little preliminary prep work for a Helveczia campaign I want to run, and it got me thinking about bows in D&D and related games. I find that bows, particularly longbows, are wildly over-represented and frequently overpowered in almost every fantasy or historical game I've ever played. Usually the ranged weapon alternatives in a game are bows (long, short, recurve, etc.) versus crossbows, and occasionally black-powder firearms. Relative to a bow, the disadvantages of crossbows and muskets are that they are slower to load, and in the case of a musket possibly less reliable. Games virtually always have rules to model those disadvantages. On the other hand, the relative disadvantages of a proper high-poundage war bow are that it is:

-Tiring to use
-Harder to aim
-Awkward to carry
-Unwieldy in tight spaces

Games almost never have rules for that sort of thing. They usually try to compensate by giving the crossbow or gun slightly more damage or armor penetration, but it's rarely enough to compensate for the longbow having 2-5 times the rate of fire. (The rate of fire gets particularly absurd in some games, with bows sometimes having a higher attack-rate than melee weapons. I'm happy to concede that you can shoot a bow faster than you can shoot a musket, but I don't buy that you can do it faster than you can stab with a dagger.) So you often get a world in which no one uses any ranged weapon other than a longbow, and anyone who is not using one is making an objectively sub-optimal choice. This has always annoyed me. Partially, because if longbows were that objectively superior, nobody would have bothered with other ranged weapons. Mostly, because I think a well-designed game is all about different options having pros and cons, such that you might choose differently for different situations or purposes.

In fantasy/medieval settings, this is a minor breach of verisimilitude, but once you add in firearms, I think it becomes a major problem. If I'm going to run a game in the black powder era, I want my players to have good reasons to use black powder weapons, outside of just the cool factor. To it's credit, Helveczia is already putting in some work on this front. It has unusually generous reload times for black powder guns, with the ability for trained soldiers to reduce the time further, as well as exploding dice for firearm damage. But it got me thinking about possible homebrew rules to counteract the supremacy of the longbow in future games. Possibilities would include:

-Bows are not carried around already strung. Choosing to do so damages your bow.
-If attacked in melee while using a bow, make a saving throw or have it broken.
-Longbows cannot be sheathed, OR while carrying one you cannot also carry a large shield or polearm.
-Longbows cannot be shot from horseback. Short/Composite bows require special training to do so.

Really just spit-balling on it at the moment, but I wondered if this phenomenon bothers anyone else, or if others have placed homebrewed limitations on bows to balance them a bit better.

That's something Conan The Barbarian got right in part - Subotai carried the bow in his off hand, it wasn't over his back. We didn't see him stringing the bow though.

Requiring at least a round to string the bow and get it ready, and have some penalty for keeping it strung too long would make sense.

What's probably hard to model is that the crossbow is easier to use. GURPS could model it by having some weapons as a very easy skill, and others as a very hard skill, and it would make the crossbow much more preferable depending on where you want to put your points, but most systems don't have a provision like that.

There's also the problem of if you start making all the drawbacks of particular weapons realistic, the system starts getting bogged down and either someone doesn't want to play it at all, or they just avoid using those weapons (like how people avoid grappling because the rules are a mess).

Quote from: migo on January 28, 2023, 05:17:00 PM
There's also the problem of if you start making all the drawbacks of particular weapons realistic, the system starts getting bogged down and either someone doesn't want to play it at all, or they just avoid using those weapons (like how people avoid grappling because the rules are a mess).

Funny you should mention grappling, actually. One of the things I'm working on today is critical miss tables. For the melee table, one of the items I'm putting on it is "accidentally get caught up in a grapple with your opponent".  In my experience, that's one of the most common things that happens when a hand-to-hand attack goes wrong.

Here is a short article that I read today about the longbow's rate of fire among other things.

https://neutralhistory.com/longbow-effectiveness-reach-use-and-rate-of-fire/

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 28, 2023, 04:50:18 PM
-Bows are not carried around already strung. Choosing to do so damages your bow.
-If attacked in melee while using a bow, make a saving throw or have it broken.
-Longbows cannot be sheathed, OR while carrying one you cannot also carry a large shield or polearm.
-Longbows cannot be shot from horseback. Short/Composite bows require special training to do so.

For point 3, I would say you can carry both, but can't use either.
For point 4, look at the Japanese longbows that are shot from horses.

To address the relative power of bows the way you want, you really have to build it into the combat system from the beginning.  In particular, you have to leave room at the bottom for edge cases.  It's not something that can be easily tacked onto an existing system built with a different mindset. 

In my case, I wanted bows, crossbows, and slings to be closer to what you are talking about, but not necessarily realistic.  Not even really verisimilitude, but instead a mere nod to realism. But yeah, mainly I wanted the players to make choices, and for the choices to matter.  When I made the combat system, that was part of what was driving these choices:

- By default, it takes a round to draw and nock an arrow or get a sling bullet placed and whirling, 2 rounds to pull a bolt and load a light crossbow, and 3 rounds for the heavy crossbow.
- A character can use one of their weapon proficiency slots to lower that time by 1 round.
- It takes multiple proficiency slots to max out al the abilities of a weapon, and some give more than others.  In particular, there's a proficiency for maces and crossbows that is very nice.
- Not every weapon maxes out the same way or with the same number of proficiency slots.
- Ranged fired weapons get bigger damage dice (relative to similar melee weapons) but it is very hard to get damage bonuses compared to melee or thrown weapons. 
- In most cases, spells also take a 1 round to prepare and another round to cast.
- Damage relative to your ability to take it is skewed a little towards offense.  Shields are beefed up.

There's some other nuances slipped in, but that's the heart of it.  The upshot is that, yeah, a fully trained warbow user is a killer at range.  It takes them more proficiency to get to that than almost any other weapon, though.  And his damage is highly variable. Meanwhile, his equivalent opponent has picked up a cheap heavy crossbow proficiency, some throwing and melee axe options, and specialized in the battle axe.  The opponent takes one shot with the crossbow, drops it, runs forwards, tosses a smaller axe, and then charges with the bigger axe.  It could go either way.  Getting hit with that warbow may hurt.  Getting hit with that axe will hurt.

More to the point, those are the combat specialists in their niches.  Joe Schmoe has picked up a composite bow or a sling or a light crossbow, not fully trained in it, and maybe can't even afford to get the rate of fire down.  His main thing is some kind of spells or sneaking or a less in your face melee role. 

I've had a lot of characters working as a team to keep the archers (and spell casters) out of melee, regretting it severely when they can't, and often switching preemptively to a melee weapon when being charged. You simply cannot hang around in melee combat with a ranged fired weapon and get away with it, unless your luck is running really strong.

Greetings!

I would add the note that the Mongolian Composite Bow was shorter in length and overall encumbrance than a western Longbow, and had a superior rate of fire, and an equal or even superior range than Longbows.

In medieval form, the Mongols pioneered groundbreaking tactics, leadership and organization, as well as training, to create a nearly-invincible war machine. In many ways, the Mongols exemplified the concepts of modern warfare and combined arms--routinely using large units of fast-moving, fast-firing mobile horse archers, backed up by heavily-armoured heavy cavalry using heavy lances, axes, and swords. The Mongol Heavy Cavalry would typically deliver a devastating coup de grace to an enemy army.

Like with the Romans, there are huge reasons why the modern military--especially here in the United States--why our military studies the ancient Romans and the Medieval Mongols. In demonstrating an absolute mastery of warfare, the Mongols and the Romans are at the top in most every regard.

Also interesting--Mongol warriors began riding in the saddle and learning to use bows in the saddle by the age of 5. That's right. 5 Years old. Not 12, or 18, or 20, but 5!

By the time a typical Mongol warrior was 18--he was a highly-skilled rider, scout, and mounted archer--and also highly-trained in using the Mongolian hunting tactics adapted to warfare. The Mongols were well-accustomed to the harsh struggle for survival on the great Steppes, and so therefore, the march to war was absolutely an entirely easy process for the Mongols to make.

Again and again, the Mongols demonstrated mastery in how a relatively small force of Mongol warriors--15,000, 25,000, or 50,000--could as a general rule always be expected to take on foreign enemies that outnumbered them three or four to one--and emerge victorious. The Mongols usually slaughtered all of their foreign enemies--whether they were Chinese, Muslims, Russians, or Western Europeans--like easy sheep led to the slaughter.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

War bows took a lot of training, so one way to cut down on their use is to limit them to people with the right background. Other bows would be more easily used, but wouldn't have the range or power of a war bow. When you look at why firearms replaced war bows and crossbows, a lot of it was how easy it was to train people to use them. So while your PCs might be well-trained longbowmen, perhaps most of their opponents could be trained with firearms. And war bows weren't the tool of the nobility, so noble characters shouldn't be trained in them. For that matter, perhaps they're only available to people of one nationality. After all, only English and Welsh armies seemed to deploy them en masse historically.

If you are adventuring in cramped caverns underground, bows should have severely limited range. To shoot long distances, you have to aim upwards, something that would result in hitting the ceiling in a dungeon.

And as to rate of fire, I wonder whether that melee attack rate is for getting in a decent strike amongst the various feints and parries. I suspect that bows could exceed that rate, though whether you want that in your game is up to you.

Firearms became more widespread than bows because they require a lot less training to be effective at massed fire, and even aimed fire. That's it. Plus they make a big noise which scares the fuck out of people even if you don't hit them.

In the earlier centuries firearms were unreliable and super-expensive. Once the industrial revolution started waking up in its crib in the 17th century on, this changed.

You probably want GURPS.  People always complain about the one round to draw an arrow, one round to draw the bow, one round to aim, one round to fire.  Crossbows are even worse since, while they do more damage, they can still be dodged and after 4 - 6 rounds of prep, you really need to hit something.

AD&D 1 and 2 give bows six times the rate of fire of crossbows while having them do less damage 1d4+1 but are marginally more acurate and better at penetrating armour.  In first edition Daggers actually have two attacks in melee if their weapon speed is twice that of the foe's.  Second edition "cleaned up" combat by which I mean made it worse in every aspect.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2023, 06:21:22 PM
To address the relative power of bows the way you want, you really have to build it into the combat system from the beginning.  In particular, you have to leave room at the bottom for edge cases.  It's not something that can be easily tacked onto an existing system built with a different mindset. 

In my case, I wanted bows, crossbows, and slings to be closer to what you are talking about, but not necessarily realistic.  Not even really verisimilitude, but instead a mere nod to realism. But yeah, mainly I wanted the players to make choices, and for the choices to matter.  When I made the combat system, that was part of what was driving these choices:

- By default, it takes a round to draw and nock an arrow or get a sling bullet placed and whirling, 2 rounds to pull a bolt and load a light crossbow, and 3 rounds for the heavy crossbow.
- A character can use one of their weapon proficiency slots to lower that time by 1 round.
- It takes multiple proficiency slots to max out al the abilities of a weapon, and some give more than others.  In particular, there's a proficiency for maces and crossbows that is very nice.
- Not every weapon maxes out the same way or with the same number of proficiency slots.
- Ranged fired weapons get bigger damage dice (relative to similar melee weapons) but it is very hard to get damage bonuses compared to melee or thrown weapons. 
- In most cases, spells also take a 1 round to prepare and another round to cast.
- Damage relative to your ability to take it is skewed a little towards offense.  Shields are beefed up.

There's some other nuances slipped in, but that's the heart of it.  The upshot is that, yeah, a fully trained warbow user is a killer at range.  It takes them more proficiency to get to that than almost any other weapon, though.  And his damage is highly variable. Meanwhile, his equivalent opponent has picked up a cheap heavy crossbow proficiency, some throwing and melee axe options, and specialized in the battle axe.  The opponent takes one shot with the crossbow, drops it, runs forwards, tosses a smaller axe, and then charges with the bigger axe.  It could go either way.  Getting hit with that warbow may hurt.  Getting hit with that axe will hurt.

More to the point, those are the combat specialists in their niches.  Joe Schmoe has picked up a composite bow or a sling or a light crossbow, not fully trained in it, and maybe can't even afford to get the rate of fire down.  His main thing is some kind of spells or sneaking or a less in your face melee role. 

I've had a lot of characters working as a team to keep the archers (and spell casters) out of melee, regretting it severely when they can't, and often switching preemptively to a melee weapon when being charged. You simply cannot hang around in melee combat with a ranged fired weapon and get away with it, unless your luck is running really strong.

That sounds like an extremely interesting system. The issue, as always, is how to produce the intended player behavior without overdoing the rules load. I wouldn't have thought to use weapon specializations that way. Would love to see how it works in more detail.

Quote from: SHARK on January 28, 2023, 06:31:45 PM

In medieval form, the Mongols pioneered groundbreaking tactics, leadership and organization, as well as training, to create a nearly-invincible war machine. In many ways, the Mongols exemplified the concepts of modern warfare and combined arms--routinely using large units of fast-moving, fast-firing mobile horse archers, backed up by heavily-armoured heavy cavalry using heavy lances, axes, and swords. The Mongol Heavy Cavalry would typically deliver a devastating coup de grace to an enemy army.
SHARK

That's probably the key point. Weapons-nerds (which include a lot of role-players, myself amongst them) tend to overstate the role of specific weapons in the success of historical armies. As is so often the case, the success of the Mongols was probably more down to superior strategy, tactics and logistics, rather than any particular weapons system. The armies of Napoleon and Gustavus Adolphus are probably the best examples of this. Phenomenally successful, despite being equipped almost identically to their opponents. I suspect the same is true of the Romans as well. For all the efficiency of the pilum-gladius-&-scutum system, it's not like big shields, short swords, and spears were unusual in the period. They won because of better discipline, command systems, and unit tactics. 

As for roleplaying games, the Tartar or Mongol-style recurve bow may in some cases have been higher poundage than the average English longbow, but I would guess that on average it probably wasn't. I'd base that on the fact that the longbow was designed for men standing still and firing in volleys, while the Mongol bow was largely a skirmishing weapon. Ironically, that's why it would make more sense for a fantasy adventurer, since the type of combat they get into is more akin to skirmishing. Interestingly, I was watching a video today on the bows used by Powhatan Indians in the 17th century, which suggested they were quite powerful as well.

Quote from: Krazz on January 28, 2023, 06:35:55 PM
War bows took a lot of training, so one way to cut down on their use is to limit them to people with the right background. Other bows would be more easily used, but wouldn't have the range or power of a war bow. When you look at why firearms replaced war bows and crossbows, a lot of it was how easy it was to train people to use them. So while your PCs might be well-trained longbowmen, perhaps most of their opponents could be trained with firearms. And war bows weren't the tool of the nobility, so noble characters shouldn't be trained in them. For that matter, perhaps they're only available to people of one nationality. After all, only English and Welsh armies seemed to deploy them en masse historically.

That might be a rules-light way of dealing with the issue. Part of what got me thinking about this is that the Sorcerer and the Mystic in my Dragon Warriors campaign are both using longbows, frequently racking up higher kill counts with them than my knight or assassin with their melee weapons, and there's nothing in the rules to say they can't.

An obvious solution which slipped my mind earlier is just putting a strength requirement on the use of more powerful bows. That would at least force people to make a stat investment if they want that kind of ranged firepower.

Quote from: Krazz on January 28, 2023, 06:35:55 PM
If you are adventuring in cramped caverns underground, bows should have severely limited range. To shoot long distances, you have to aim upwards, something that would result in hitting the ceiling in a dungeon.

True, but the flip side is that almost all underground encounters happen at such short range that you could probably shoot a bow at a flat trajectory with minimal issue.

Quote from: Krazz on January 28, 2023, 06:35:55 PM
And as to rate of fire, I wonder whether that melee attack rate is for getting in a decent strike amongst the various feints and parries. I suspect that bows could exceed that rate, though whether you want that in your game is up to you.

That's my usual argument for why you only get one melee attack per round. An "attack" represents 6 seconds worth of fencing, rather than one swing of the sword. However, I would argue that the same should apply to bows. If you are shooting at targets moving around in the heat of battle, you still need to take a few seconds to pick your shot, especially if you want any hope of wounding an armored opponent. 

Quote from: David Johansen on January 28, 2023, 08:19:22 PM
You probably want GURPS.  People always complain about the one round to draw an arrow, one round to draw the bow, one round to aim, one round to fire.  Crossbows are even worse since, while they do more damage, they can still be dodged and after 4 - 6 rounds of prep, you really need to hit something.

That seems like overkill 

I have considered making it so that knocking and drawing an arrow is a separate action. That way you'd still be able to shoot every round, but you'd have to stand still to do so. 

Another technique I've tried is giving crossbows priority in initiative over other bows, since they are easier to aim, but it doesn't make enough difference.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 28, 2023, 09:14:56 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on January 28, 2023, 08:19:22 PM
You probably want GURPS.  People always complain about the one round to draw an arrow, one round to draw the bow, one round to aim, one round to fire.  Crossbows are even worse since, while they do more damage, they can still be dodged and after 4 - 6 rounds of prep, you really need to hit something.

That seems like overkill 

I have considered making it so that knocking and drawing an arrow is a separate action. That way you'd still be able to shoot every round, but you'd have to stand still to do so.

If you've got Fast Draw (Arrow) and Heroic Archer you can get it down to one shot a round at the cost of having to make two extra rolls per round and not aiming.  GURPS fourth edition did away with the -4 Snap Shot penalty for not aiming but the range modifiers are still pretty high.  I personally think Crossbows would work with the Gunslinger advantage which lets you skip the aim maneuver and still get the weapon's accuracy bonus.  But really, if the other guy just dodges it, that's just wasted points.

Rolemaster Standard System has percentage activity for attacks.  Missile attacks take 40 - 60% activivy where it takes 40% activity to load a bow and 60% activity to load a long bow.  Heavy crossbows are out there at 220% to load but this is Rolemaster and YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET SHOT WITH A HEAVY CROSSBOW!!!  This basically means you can fire a short bow once per round with no penalty but a long bow will be taking a -20.

You make some good points about how bows would actually work in a realistic sense, although mostly that's not what TTRPGs are trying to emulate. Still, from a purely mechanical perspective I'd be curious to see how things would shake out in a combat system that's modeling more of this in detail. I suspect it's one of the reasons that the forefathers of fantasy tended to envision melee-combatants as much more important and effective -- Because in small-scale engagements, they generally are.