I am creating some NPCs who are expert fighters riding horses and wanted to see if they could use longbows.
I have read that using longbows while riding a horse could imply a restriction to attack only one flank (the one the bow is aimed at during the turn).
This is in line with the existence of Japanese longbows, long but asymmetrical.
I wanted to hear opinions on this.
Regards
Rafael

Yes,many types of soldiers through history used longbows while on horses,they made very good skirmishers,weaving through combat at high speed while shooting from afar.Though there accuracy was compromised with this tactic,which can be simulated by giving them disadvantage on attack rolls,or by reducing there range thresholds.

Or you can ignore that last part and let them be awesome.

There are no restrictions on weapons for Mounted Combat according to RAW. However, there are a few obvious conflicts as already mentioned.

Longbows used on horseback often had a lighter draw weight than a standard longbow, so I think for your purposes, you would be well served by treating them as shortbows regardless of their actual length and design.

Quote from Memnosyne >>

There are no restrictions on weapons for Mounted Combat according to RAW. However, there are a few obvious conflicts as already mentioned.

Longbows used on horseback often had a lighter draw weight than a standard longbow, so I think for your purposes, you would be well served by treating them as shortbows regardless of their actual length and design.

While I think that's technically accurate, "reclassing" the long bow runs afoul of the RAW lack of restrictions on mounted combat weapons.  By that logic, really, every weapon would have some adjustments when fighting on horseback instead of two feet planted on the ground (ironically only the lance I believe actually differentiates between mounted and dismounted use).  As I always say, D&D combat is painted in broad strokes.  Individuals seem to quibble a lot about the long bow RAW trying to mire it or contest the RAW implications with "historical fact".  In game terms, the long bow doesn't necessarily have that historical lineage the quibblers insist upon.  It's just a bigger bow than the short bow with greater range and damage capacity.

So you could make some sort of mounted long bow use distinction, but I think most DMs would just let your mobile archery unit ride and rain death per RAW because it's cool and keeps the factors under consideration a low number. 

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Memnosyne >>

There are no restrictions on weapons for Mounted Combat according to RAW. However, there are a few obvious conflicts as already mentioned.

Longbows used on horseback often had a lighter draw weight than a standard longbow, so I think for your purposes, you would be well served by treating them as shortbows regardless of their actual length and design.

 

While I think that's technically accurate, "reclassing" the long bow runs afoul of the RAW lack of restrictions on mounted combat weapons.  By that logic, really, every weapon would have some adjustments when fighting on horseback instead of two feet planted on the ground (ironically only the lance I believe actually differentiates between mounted and dismounted use).  As I always say, D&D combat is painted in broad strokes.  Individuals seem to quibble a lot about the long bow RAW trying to mire it or contest the RAW implications with "historical fact".  In game terms, the long bow doesn't necessarily have that historical lineage the quibblers insist upon.  It's just a bigger bow than the short bow with greater range and damage capacity.

So you could make some sort of mounted long bow use distinction, but I think most DMs would just let your mobile archery unit ride and rain death per RAW because it's cool and keeps the factors under consideration a low number. 

I should have been more clear. I meant that the OP could literally use shortbows instead of longbows, but reskin it as a "Calvalry Longbow" for flavor. I wouldn't suggest messing with the mechanics of existing arms/armor/rules.

Bypass potential issues by simply not using Longbows, and call it good.

If the players want to use longbows while mounted, then whatever, they're Heroes.

Using a real longbow wile riding would be cumbersome. Most horse bows are made to be shorter and lighter weight in order to allow for faster shooting speed. A longbow would be really hard to switch sides, restricting the archer to shooting off only one side of the horse. Of course, if these are expert horsemen on highly trained destriers, they might not need to shoot off both sides. Instead, they could weave and spin around in battle via cues to their steeds. 

OR, you could have them use shortbows, allowing for maneuverability with both the bow and the horse—though this would lower the amount of damage they could give. 
However, I would say that you could re-skin a longbow if you wanted to go for something with more power. Mongolian or Tatar horse bows can be pretty powerful due to their difference in shape. Compared to a traditional recurve bow (long or short) a Mongolian or Tatar bow has more of a curve to the arms, making it smaller and more maneuverable while on horseback. 
Since dnd allows for characters to be stronger than average humans, I think it would be reasonable to simply use a longbow, but call it a heavy poundage horsebow—allowing yourself to pick what style of bow it actually is. A stronger character wouldn’t have a problem drawing and shooting fast with a heavier than normal horsebow, hence justifying the use of a “longbow” in game. 

Overall, since this is dnd and not real life, you can do whatever you want. Personally, I am a bit biased and nitpicky about this topic since I appreciate historical accuracy and realism, as well as practice mounted archery myself. That said, if I were running the game, I would probably use whichever bow seems to fit best with the race of these horsemen, and re-skin the bows just for spice. 

Quote from Aroc_of_Eaf >>

Overall, since this is dnd and not real life, you can do whatever you want. Personally, I am a bit biased and nitpicky about this topic since I appreciate historical accuracy and realism, as well as practice mounted archery myself. That said, if I were running the game, I would probably use whichever bow seems to fit best with the race of these horsemen, and re-skin the bows just for spice. 

 One of the best quotes ever. If you fancy a thing, run with it. It's your game and your table. Do whatever you want. You don't need and shouldn't ever ask for anyone's permission, outside of your play group.

The second part however, about bias and historical accuracy, also holds weight. If it's something that you and/or players appreciate and value the nuance of detail of, it behooves you to at least attempt to "get it right."

At the end of the day, use the rule of cool. When accuracy on a given thing begins to rear its head, then lean in that direction and find a balance between, "kinda how it should work" combined with a bit of "sort of cool."

So in all your historically accurate mounted combat against centaurs and worg riders ... when all the missile volleys are done do you impose flank attack arc restrictions when the combatants close to melee range?  Yeah, I'm being funny, but am also genuinely curious.

My experience has been that any time someone brings up historical accuracy in a D&D game, it means that a weapon is either going to get boosted to game breaking status or nerfed into pointlessness.

Consider that more than two types of bows exist and longbow and short bow are just catch-all categories for "bow" and "bow that shoots farther and does more damage."

If a culture is built around combat on horseback, it would make sense that they get to use the better class of bow. That doesn't mean they're using an exact replica of a 13th century English longbow.

Thanks for sharing your knowlidge 

I'm amazed that nobody has commented on what the actual difference between a longbow and shortbow are.  It's a war bow versus a hunting bow, but beyond that, a short bow is only intended to shoot something nearby, while a longbow is meant to shoot targets much farther away.  Competitions with stable shooters is far more popular, with far more satisfying results than competitions with moving competitors.  Horses increase the difficulty either way, but the jostling doesn't mean much at 30ft, but it means A LOT at 150ft.

There isn't a single problem with using a longbow on a horse at close range.  Look up anybody comparing the rate of fire between an archer and an arquebaseer.  A trained yoeman (archer) could easily fire 6 arrows in a minute.  If they were having a competition, most could load, aim, and fire at a rate of 12 per minute (this doesn't get faster with a shortbow).  There are even records of people doubling this.  Compare that to the loading rate of an arquebus at one shot per minute, maybe two.  Longbows weren't cumbersome to use, they just took training, and if you have that training, you can use it on a horse... just aiming on a living thing is hard, and using it on a running animal is waaaaaay harder... so you lose the main selling point of a longbow, the accuracy over a long-range it gives you... but this is a game! There's nothing against it in the rules, and a character could realistically do it, so let 'em!

As far as I'm aware there are no rules restricting the use of the Longbow while on horseback.

Realistically, it was either a Shortbow or a Composite Bow/Recurve Bow that was used by cavalry, not the Longbow (ie. the English Long Bow), but this question was about rules and not real life so consider this the long answer: Yes, the Longbow can be used whilst riding.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

So in all your historically accurate mounted combat against centaurs and worg riders ... when all the missile volleys are done do you impose flank attack arc restrictions when the combatants close to melee range?  Yeah, I'm being funny, but am also genuinely curious.

 It really depends on who I’m playing with. To be honest, I have been into medieval weapons a lot longer than dnd, so I haven’t had a lot of experience combining the two as of yet. That said, I’m not as strict while running a game just for simplicity’s sake. 
But, for the sake of the question, I would say that yes, I would impose such restrictions if my party cared about realism. Historically, mounted archers did not get into melee combat with their bows. They did not charge straight into battle, rather, they road around the fighting and fired inwards into the enemy. In game, what they do after melee is inevitable would depend on what else those characters have for weapons. 

Overall, it depends on whether or not my players would like the element of restrictions, or if they just want to play. I am aware that some people find such things unnecessary and annoying. All in all, I just want the game to be fun for everyone. 

Quote from Erokow32 >>

I'm amazed that nobody has commented on what the actual difference between a longbow and shortbow are.  It's a war bow versus a hunting bow, but beyond that, a short bow is only intended to shoot something nearby, while a longbow is meant to shoot targets much farther away.  Competitions with stable shooters is far more popular, with far more satisfying results than competitions with moving competitors.  Horses increase the difficulty either way, but the jostling doesn't mean much at 30ft, but it means A LOT at 150ft.

There isn't a single problem with using a longbow on a horse at close range.  Look up anybody comparing the rate of fire between an archer and an arquebaseer.  A trained yoeman (archer) could easily fire 6 arrows in a minute.  If they were having a competition, most could load, aim, and fire at a rate of 12 per minute (this doesn't get faster with a shortbow).  There are even records of people doubling this.  Compare that to the loading rate of an arquebus at one shot per minute, maybe two.  Longbows weren't cumbersome to use, they just took training, and if you have that training, you can use it on a horse... just aiming on a living thing is hard, and using it on a running animal is waaaaaay harder... so you lose the main selling point of a longbow, the accuracy over a long-range it gives you... but this is a game! There's nothing against it in the rules, and a character could realistically do it, so let 'em!

I just want to point out that a medieval war bows draw weight was about 200 to 300 pounds—way heavier than what most people today shoot. Horse bows are usually around 50lbs or under. That said, modern tests might not be all that accurate considering that it’s takes a lot more time to draw a 200-300lb bow than one with lighter poundage. It’s not the difference between the size of the bow that lets you shoot faster, it’s the draw weight. So, a heavy short bow would take longer to draw than a light longbow. 
Also, if you know how to ride, jostling isn’t much of an issue. Training a yeoman on the ground is completely different from being in the saddle. You have to change your ‘anchor points’ and you overall position to compensate for being on an animal and moving. 

Another thing I would like to say is that, I wasn’t saying longbows are cumbersome. I’m just saying that they were not made to be used on horseback. Due to the length of the arms, you can’t really cross over the horses neck to fire off the other side. That is why horse bows are smaller, so that the lower arm does not get caught on the horses neck when you need to change sides. 

like you said, it’s just a game. I’m really just writing this for anyone who is interested in the information. 

Quote from Aroc_of_Eaf >>

Quote from Erokow32 >>

I'm amazed that nobody has commented on what the actual difference between a longbow and shortbow are.  It's a war bow versus a hunting bow, but beyond that, a short bow is only intended to shoot something nearby, while a longbow is meant to shoot targets much farther away.  Competitions with stable shooters is far more popular, with far more satisfying results than competitions with moving competitors.  Horses increase the difficulty either way, but the jostling doesn't mean much at 30ft, but it means A LOT at 150ft.

There isn't a single problem with using a longbow on a horse at close range.  Look up anybody comparing the rate of fire between an archer and an arquebaseer.  A trained yoeman (archer) could easily fire 6 arrows in a minute.  If they were having a competition, most could load, aim, and fire at a rate of 12 per minute (this doesn't get faster with a shortbow).  There are even records of people doubling this.  Compare that to the loading rate of an arquebus at one shot per minute, maybe two.  Longbows weren't cumbersome to use, they just took training, and if you have that training, you can use it on a horse... just aiming on a living thing is hard, and using it on a running animal is waaaaaay harder... so you lose the main selling point of a longbow, the accuracy over a long-range it gives you... but this is a game! There's nothing against it in the rules, and a character could realistically do it, so let 'em!

I just want to point out that a medieval war bows draw weight was about 200 to 300 pounds—way heavier than what most people today shoot. Horse bows are usually around 50lbs or under. That said, modern tests might not be all that accurate considering that it’s takes a lot more time to draw a 200-300lb bow than one with lighter poundage. It’s not the difference between the size of the bow that lets you shoot faster, it’s the draw weight. So, a heavy short bow would take longer to draw than a light longbow. 
Also, if you know how to ride, jostling isn’t much of an issue. Training a yeoman on the ground is completely different from being in the saddle. You have to change your ‘anchor points’ and you overall position to compensate for being on an animal and moving. 

Another thing I would like to say is that, I wasn’t saying longbows are cumbersome. I’m just saying that they were not made to be used on horseback. Due to the length of the arms, you can’t really cross over the horses neck to fire off the other side. That is why horse bows are smaller, so that the lower arm does not get caught on the horses neck when you need to change sides. 

like you said, it’s just a game. I’m really just writing this for anyone who is interested in the information. 

 The 200+lbs draw weight is known, but that wasn't your normal soldier's draw weight.  Those were the elites who's job was to draw a bow for a lord and nothing else... and generally, they're doing that from behind their defensive lines, or on a tower/wall.  People on horseback aren't being defensive, but rather offensive.  It's their goal to get in close.  My main point was that a longbow's purpose is antithetical to that of a horseman.  It isn't that it can't be done, but rather, you have a weapon that wants to do something else.

I think you were the one who brought up the Tartars who were known to be the best archers in the world... like Annie Oakley, but with a bow.  They mostly used their bows to hunt, and sometimes in competitions / games, while mostly on a horse... but as a primarily nomadic people, they didn't have towers or walls to shoot from, and couldn't actually get that much use out of a long bow.  Their tactics involved getting in close, harassing, and escaping, to hopefully ambush some angry soldiers who broke ranks or were looking for glory.  That isn't a longbow strategy.  The longbow (or really long range weaponry) only shows up as a favoured weapon among people who have powerful walls and castles... like the English, French, Italians, Germans, Turks, Arabs, Chinese, and Japanese.  Everyone else who didn't regularly have that set up didn't want to waste the effort on something just as good as their hunting bows.

That’s fair. I think we both were just trying to say that: Yes, using a longbow is possible, but using a bow that is built for the job would be the better option. 

There are no rules restricting you from using a longbow while mounted. Just like there are no rules restricting you from using two-handed swords while mounted.

The Longbow is a Martial weapon, which keeps it out of the hands of some.  Not much of a problem really, but it should be kept in mind.  It is Heavy, Two-Handed and has the Ammunition property.  You will need to use both hands, one to hold the bow, the other to hold the arrow to the string and launch it.  This requires a horse that you can guide without your hands, a War Horse, not a Riding Horse, and they are more expensive.  You will need skill in Animal Handling and may be required to make checks to control the horse, or whatever mount you get.  None of these problems are insurmountable, but they do add up.  If ammunition is tracked, you get only the number of shots that you have arrows for.

Terrain is rarely ideal for mounts and mounted combat.  Firing into melee requires dealing with the fact that other people lightly obscure your vision, giving your targets a higher effective armor class, and if anyone gets close, you suffer disadvantage in your attacks.  The people who used bows of any kind in warfare kept well out of range and usually only were effective in large groups.

Obviously the Cavalier sub-class of Fighter is ideal for this, and the Sharpshooter feat is a perfect match for what you want to do.

Except that few GMs actually set up battlefields that big in the first place.