Aside from the rulebook, composite bows would be better for adventurers than self bows (longbows).
1 Narrow spaces Composite bows are better in confined spaces. The adventurers are often fight in tunnels, caves or buildings. Low ceilings and doorways can limit the use of the longbows. The upper bow arm bumps into everything. Sometimes the bow can be rotated in a more horizontal direction, at other times this would interfere with adjacent fighters.
2 Mounted combat Composite bows are easy to use on horseback. Although longbows can somehow be used that way, especially on a standing horse, the difficulty of doing so leads to the third reason.
3 Portability Composite bows can be kept in bow cases, thus both hands are free. Longbows must always be held in the hand. Wearing it would be extremely complicated. In videogames we can see people wearing it on their back, but they don't need to worry about the physical realities. The bows just float close to their backs. Other times they wear it over their chest. The pressure of a heavy bow is quite uncomfortable in real life, and switching to a sword and back would be very slow.
Fortunately, these circumstances are ignored in games.
Composite bows are made of sinew, wood, horn and bone, hence the name 'composite'. Self bows are made from a single piece of wood. There is no such thing as which of these is stronger. Both can be made with a lower or higher draw weight, according to the customer's preference.
Self bows are vastly cheaper and quicker to make, and it is much easier to maintain too since you just need to oil up the wood. For composite bows, not only do you need more variety of materials, you also need much more skill and time to manufacture too, so it is vastly more expensive. And the glue used to hold the materials together is also more vulnerable to moisture and climate. You will probably be fine swimming across a river with either bow if they are both well maintained, but I think self bows are probably a bit better for the average adventurer who are going to be in more rough and tumble situations than the average soldier.
If you are going to race on a track, then sure, bring out your top of the line Bugatti Chirons, Koenigsegg Jesko Absolutes, and SSC Tuataras. But if you are going to drive across the country like the United States filled with potholes and be in traffic a lot with a lot of plebs, I think it is better to drive a more practical car like the base models of Mercedes AMG GTs or Chevrolet Corvettes, you know, shittier mass production cars that would not break your heart if someone accidentally bumps or scratches it.
I think the same analogy applies to what bow you want to take with you. If you are in a more controlled environment like a battlefield, with all the resources of the state and logistical support behind your back, a composite bow would be nice to have on hand. If you are going to go spelunking or swim in sewage a lot, trying to help some broke ass villagers exterminate a few goblins here and there, it is probably best to just take a cheap self bow with you.
Self bows are vastly cheaper and quicker to make, and it is much easier to maintain too since you just need to oil up the wood. For composite bows, not only do you need more variety of materials, you also need much more skill and time to manufacture too, so it is vastly more expensive. And the glue used to hold the materials together is also more vulnerable to moisture and climate. You will probably be fine swimming across a river with either bow if they are both well maintained, but I think self bows are probably a bit better for the average adventurer who are going to be in more rough and tumble situations than the average soldier.
Longbows would be definitely cheaper. Not 50 gold but 5. Or less. :D
Whole armies crossed rivers in real life, so they managed to keep their bows dry. Also your saber and many other objects should be protected from water.
IIRC the mongols conquered most of China and everrything from there to Hungary using composite bows, so doubt water was much of a problem for a proficient user
Self bows are vastly cheaper and quicker to make, and it is much easier to maintain too since you just need to oil up the wood. For composite bows, not only do you need more variety of materials, you also need much more skill and time to manufacture too, so it is vastly more expensive. And the glue used to hold the materials together is also more vulnerable to moisture and climate. You will probably be fine swimming across a river with either bow if they are both well maintained, but I think self bows are probably a bit better for the average adventurer who are going to be in more rough and tumble situations than the average soldier.
If you are going to race on a track, then sure, bring out your top of the line Bugatti Chirons, Koenigsegg Jesko Absolutes, and SSC Tuataras. But if you are going to drive across the country like the United States filled with potholes and be in traffic a lot with a lot of plebs, I think it is better to drive a more practical car like the base models of Mercedes AMG GTs or Chevrolet Corvettes, you know, shittier mass production cars that would not break your heart if someone accidentally bumps or scratches it.
I think the same analogy applies to what bow you want to take with you. If you are in a more controlled environment like a battlefield, with all the resources of the state and logistical support behind your back, a composite bow would be nice to have on hand. If you are going to go spelunking or swim in sewage a lot, trying to help some broke ass villagers exterminate a few goblins here and there, it is probably best to just take a cheap self bow with you.
Silly question, but assuming you can afford it, why, exactly, would you not want the better bow? Even if there is no danger to you, the better bow is the better bow, however if you are defending a town against something dangerous, that something is dangerous and you are at real risk.
As an adventurer, you likely have more available resources than then state. If the state had enough resources, you would not be needed. The head of the village is the local representative of the state.
For spelunking or swimming (in sewage or not) neither is better. Spend your money on climbing gear or some sort of protective swim wear or lesser restoration potions (to counter the disease risk)
If you can afford it, sure, use the better bow. However, the better bow has a higher cost and is more difficult to maintain. Unlike a self bow that you can just carry on your back, you do not want to leave a composite exposed to the elements like that and you want a proper container to store it when not in use. Unlike an army with much greater state backing and logistical support and fighting in a relatively more controlled environment, adventurers do not always have that level of state support and often get into situations that armies do not. And if you are just fighting a few goblins here and there, I do not think you need to bring out the best equipment to deal with them.
Adventurers usually do not start out with lots of resources. I am pretty sure most states in D&D have enough resources to hire adventures with the proper level and experience. While most adventure campaigns start you off at level 1, there are quite a few shorter adventures in anthologies that start out at much higher levels. And for adventurers who do have more resources than the state and they can get themselves portable holes and bags of holding to store whatever they want properly, they also probably have a few magic weapons by then, so whether a magical bow is a self bow or composite bow really does not matter by that point.
If time is of the essense or if the situation offers no other alternative, I do not think adventurers are going to quit their quest because they have to go into caves or get their clothes dirty.
There is no such thing as which of these is stronger. Both can be made with a lower or higher draw weight, according to the customer's preference.
Though true that you can make both with higher or lower draw weights, it is worth noting that a longbow could generally fire a larger, more penetrative arrow. Why? For one of the same reasons that a compound bow was superior in terms of its flexibility--you have to draw the longbow much further. A further draw means an arrow with more mass, a larger head for balancing, and generally more stability when it hits something like chainmail (or even plate with the right arrowhead).
I think the same analogy applies to what bow you want to take with you. If you are in a more controlled environment like a battlefield, with all the resources of the state and logistical support behind your back, a composite bow would be nice to have on hand. If you are going to go spelunking or swim in sewage a lot, trying to help some broke ass villagers exterminate a few goblins here and there, it is probably best to just take a cheap self bow with you.
For spelunking or swimming (in sewage or not) neither is better. Spend your money on climbing gear or some sort of protective swim wear or lesser restoration potions (to counter the disease risk)
IIRC the mongols conquered most of China and everrything from there to Hungary using composite bows, so doubt water was much of a problem for a proficient user
It is worth noting that one need not go spelunking and swimming to ruin a composite bow--generally existing would bet the job done. Because they use glue to hold things together, instead of being formed from a singular piece, they are much more susceptible to weather and particularly humidity. There is a reason the Mongols used them, but the Europeans did not (even though they had been known since antiquity)--weather. Mongolia is situated in the Gobi desert, which afforded them the ability to produce a composite bow tradition in the way wetter climates did not generally have (though there are some wetter climates where they used composite bows, it required a huge degree of effort to keep the bows in serviceable condition for any extended period of time). The Mongols also benefitted greatly by what stands between them and Hungary in their bow perseverance--Siberia is a particularly dry climate, so most of the land they had to cross on their journey was likewise conductive to a composite bow.
-----
In the composite bow's defense, there is another point that OP missed--you can keep a composite bow strung for longer, making it great if you are on the move and might need to quickly pull your weapon from where it is stored on the side of your horse. Keeping a self bow strung for extended periods of time, like you see in movies and games, is really bad for the bow--self bows do not proportion out the tension as well as a composite bow, so you will start to lose out on elasticity if you always have it at the ready.
-----
Overall, if I were an adventurer in D&D I would likely favour a composite bow--it is easier to keep "at the ready" for when the evil god of the world throws a random encounter at you and it can be more easily fired in the Dungeons portion of Dungeons and dragons. I would also want some other kind of weapon at my side, for when my bow inevitably breaks during one of those forays into a deep, damp dungeon.
From a gameplay perspective, it is worth noting that the description for "longbow" and "shortbow" do not specify whether the bows are composite bows or self bows. Though most commonly seen as a shortbow, one can build a composite longbow, so in the magical land of D&D's theatre of the mind, a player can imagine their bow is whatever they want it to be. The base weapon system in this game is already an abject mess--adding more complexity such as differentiating between composite and self bows would not add anything mechanical to the game, and is best left as a flavour decision made by the user themselves.
Despite all the Robinhood imagery of toting strung bows on your back, reality is you don’t actually do that. Bows are kept in a bow case unless you expect to use them momentarily. - whether long or short. Similarly, wetting bowstrings allowed them to stretch making them useless so they were kept in waterproof ( or at least rainproof) containers until you were ready to string the bow. A bow ( of any type) is a spring and if you keep the spring under constant pressure it will warp to accommodate that constant pressure rendering it at least weaker and more likely useless. 5e has longbows because they are the iconic European bow and the game is centered around that European Medieval motif. A single longbow is somewhat cheaper to make than a composite - as long as you can readily find @6’ long limbs with roughly equal amounts of heart and sap wood to make it with. They can be fired from horseback (albeit not as easily as composite - see the samurai bow). This cheapness makes them somewhat better for militaries as you can get more made for the same price. This also tends to mean that they are more likely to appear on the “surplus” market at prices beginning adventurers can afford. In addition the open battlefield doesn’t create maneuvering problems for longbows the way building/dungeon/cavern locations can as the OP was noting. The best analogy is not cars but guns - which would you rather carry into a house clearing urban fight in WWII a “grease gun” or a Thompson? Basically the same rates of fire, range and accuracy but the Thompson is about twice as long and so much harder to get around corners, get on target etc. same reaso special forces prefer carbines and SMGs to full sized assault rifles in those situations. For the general adventurer the composite bow is a better weapon of choice given the range of combat environments they typically get into. However, given the standard settings (FR, Mystara,etc) which are all set in a European motif world the composite bow could well be either unknown or so rare that it is culturally inappropriate for the campaign. If you want to use a composite bow there is a publicly available homebrew magic one.
This seems like exactly the kind of debate adventurers probably have all over the multiverse.
Sometime, somewhere in the Multiverse, a composite bow user thought he won a tavern argument after quickly shooting the longbow user and declaring "See! I told you they were better in close quarters like this inn!" The longbow user's friends swiftly stepped in proved, once and for all, you really want a sword, club, or axe when you are fighting in the close knit environment of a tavern.
From a gameplay perspective, it is worth noting that the description for "longbow" and "shortbow" do not specify whether the bows are composite bows or self bows. Though most commonly seen as a shortbow, one can build a composite longbow, so in the magical land of D&D's theatre of the mind, a player can imagine their bow is whatever they want it to be.
This is the start and the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned. OP starts with the assumption that longbows = self bows and composite bows are either represented by short bows or don't exist in D&D (I can't tell which they believe).
In reality all weapon types are vague categories that can include any number of weapons. Bows that are stronger with longer range are "longbows", smaller, shorter range bows are "shortbows." In the same way that a longsword can represent a katana, a longbow can represent more than just the historical longbow.
That plus the fact that weapons in general are abstracted for simplicity provide you the whole answer. I'd love feats that expanded on weapon types and/or a few other general weapon types added, but I don't need 12 types of bows listed in the PHB.
Though true that you can make both with higher or lower draw weights, it is worth noting that a longbow could generally fire a larger, more penetrative arrow. Why? For one of the same reasons that a compound bow was superior in terms of its flexibility--you have to draw the longbow much further. A further draw means an arrow with more mass, a larger head for balancing, and generally more stability when it hits something like chainmail (or even plate with the right arrowhead).
Composite bows have a slight mechanical advantage, they can release more energy than self bows. And higher speed gives more kinetic energy than mass increase.
It is worth noting that one need not go spelunking and swimming to ruin a composite bow--generally existing would bet the job done. Because they use glue to hold things together, instead of being formed from a singular piece, they are much more susceptible to weather and particularly humidity. There is a reason the Mongols used them, but the Europeans did not (even though they had been known since antiquity)--weather.
So the Polish, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Italians, Spanish, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, and all other nations on the Balkans are not Europeans in your eyes. Is this meant to be an insult?
As far as “theater of the mind” goes this the rules piece that is problematic for composite bows Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively As long as the longbow is a heavy weapon and the Short bow is not this is a problem. the composite bow ( always short historically) solves this problem by providing a means of getting the same power in a smaller, less bulky package. This also allows it to be more useful in tight places or from horseback but, strictly according to RAW either can be used without penalty. Further it is a misconception that the self bow has a longer pull than the composite bow - the both stretch from the outreaching arm to about the ear. similarly they can be be made in the same pull weights, have the same range (some evidence shows that in matching pull weights the composite actually has a slightly greater range) and damage. No, we don’t need 12 different bow types but we could probably use 1 more type. The composite bow was invented somewhere on the steppes of Asia early in the second millennium BCE. From there it spread throughout southwest Asia, the Middle East, Persia, India, and North Africa fairly quickly.
self bows have to be long as they have a single curve and to get enough flex without breaking the bow you have to have long limbs/arms. This means finding saplings or tree limbs that are long enough, straight enough, thick enough and generally made of equal parts heart and sap woods with which to make the bow. Composites are made from much smaller pieces of wood along with horn/bone, sinews, etc to give matching strength with a far greater curvature allowing the limbs to be much shorter. In addition they are always recurved - something easy to do with composites but very hard to do with a single piece of wood. They are harder to make, somewhat more subject to weather problems, roughly half the length, but - because of the composites- about the same weight, easier to maneuver in tight places, able to ( more easily) be fired from horseback, with about the same pull lengths and weights and therefore arrow masses and speeds and damage.
So, unless you are drawing on world lore for racial preferences or live in a very high humidity area ( Great Britain, Pacific Northwest America, etc) the ( nonexistent in 5e) composite short bow is actually superior to the longbow for adventurer use - especially above tier 1.
one of the key things bows had going for them was rate of fire - typically 12+ shots per minute ( I have personally seen a long bow expert shoot 18 arrows into a chest sized target at 100m) this corresponds well to the 1attack/ 6 sec of a tier 1 character. The 18/min corresponds to 2 shots/ round and anything more runs into fantasy speeds. With the allowance of firearms in 5e I would expect that, barring cultural recalcitrance firearms should quickly replace bows in most campaigns. In real life it took guns several hundred years to effectively replace bows as it took time to actually develop effective firing and reloading technologies. The only 2 (militarily) effective firing systems before modern weapons ( ie before the colt/Henry/Sharps) were the matchlocks and the flintlocks. These (with one exception) had firing rates of 3-4 shots a minute or 1 shot every 3 rounds. 5e has sped that up to match the rate for arrows and other weapons. The only flintlock weapon that actually match the fire rate was the Ferguson rifle which, in trained hands, could hit 12+shots a minute - at least nail the barrel got too fouled to shoot.
I love how people think Longbows are a single piece of wood instead of two. By the way, they are two, glued together. They are War Bows, which have a very different use than Composite Bows, which hunters use.
War bows are meant to shoot something heavy over a far distance without the user moving much... this also means they don't have much around them (which the OP alluded to). Atop a castle? You're in the open. In a field? You're in the open. On a hill? You're in the open.
Composite bows on the other hand are meant for hunting. In the fields, in the bush, and in the forest. They're smaller so you can maneuver them, and they aren't made from glass, so they can take some abuse. They were popular through all of history, world wide before the modern compound bow came along for a reason.
A Composite Bow would be great with Heavy Crossbow range and without the Heavy property. Still deal Shortbow damage, just over a much farther range, and still a martial weapon. The longbow meanwhile should also have an armor like strength minimum of 13.
The fundamental difference between a composite bow and a self bow is that a composite bow is made up of layers of different materials attached together, and a self bow is made from a single material (though it may not have completely consistent properties through its volume). The benefit of the composite bow is that it lets you better optimize the bow for its intended purpose, the disadvantage is that the layers are prone to separating.
Composite bows tend to be shorter than self bows at the same draw weight, because wood doesn't normally grow in a form that's suited to short strong bows, but it's not required.
None of this has a lot to do with D&D, which barely even pretends at realism.
The fundamental difference between a composite bow and a self bow is that a composite bow is made up of layers of different materials attached together, and a self bow is made from a single material (though it may not have completely consistent properties through its volume). The benefit of the composite bow is that it lets you better optimize the bow for its intended purpose, the disadvantage is that the layers are prone to separating.
Composite bows tend to be shorter than self bows at the same draw weight, because wood doesn't normally grow in a form that's suited to short strong bows, but it's not required.
None of this has a lot to do with 5e D&D, which barely even pretends at realism.
Corrected. Earlier editions had composite short bows and composite long bows as well as short bows and long bows (which are the self bows)
No edition of D&D has done more than barely pretend at realism.
In 5e that is very problematical as they already get the dexterity bonus and shouldn’t be getting 2 bonuses where all other weapons only get one. I can see speaking to your DM about allowing you switch bonuses but I can’t see getting 2. I do understand the desire - getting something like Odeseus’s bow that had such a strong pull no one could even string it let alone pull it back. Part of the problem there is similar to the problem with modern military bullets - the actual damage to a single body between a low velocity pistol bullet and a high velocity is fairly minimal the big difference is that the low velocity bullet probably only penetrates 1 body, while the high velocity bullet is capable of penetrating multiple bodies. But this sort of multiple attacks from a single attack is not allowed in 5e either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aside from the rulebook, composite bows would be better for adventurers than self bows (longbows).
1 Narrow spaces
Composite bows are better in confined spaces. The adventurers are often fight in tunnels, caves or buildings. Low ceilings and doorways can limit the use of the longbows. The upper bow arm bumps into everything. Sometimes the bow can be rotated in a more horizontal direction, at other times this would interfere with adjacent fighters.
2 Mounted combat
Composite bows are easy to use on horseback. Although longbows can somehow be used that way, especially on a standing horse, the difficulty of doing so leads to the third reason.
3 Portability
Composite bows can be kept in bow cases, thus both hands are free. Longbows must always be held in the hand. Wearing it would be extremely complicated. In videogames we can see people wearing it on their back, but they don't need to worry about the physical realities. The bows just float close to their backs. Other times they wear it over their chest. The pressure of a heavy bow is quite uncomfortable in real life, and switching to a sword and back would be very slow.
Fortunately, these circumstances are ignored in games.
Composite bows are made of sinew, wood, horn and bone, hence the name 'composite'. Self bows are made from a single piece of wood.
There is no such thing as which of these is stronger. Both can be made with a lower or higher draw weight, according to the customer's preference.
Self bows are vastly cheaper and quicker to make, and it is much easier to maintain too since you just need to oil up the wood. For composite bows, not only do you need more variety of materials, you also need much more skill and time to manufacture too, so it is vastly more expensive. And the glue used to hold the materials together is also more vulnerable to moisture and climate. You will probably be fine swimming across a river with either bow if they are both well maintained, but I think self bows are probably a bit better for the average adventurer who are going to be in more rough and tumble situations than the average soldier.
If you are going to race on a track, then sure, bring out your top of the line Bugatti Chirons, Koenigsegg Jesko Absolutes, and SSC Tuataras. But if you are going to drive across the country like the United States filled with potholes and be in traffic a lot with a lot of plebs, I think it is better to drive a more practical car like the base models of Mercedes AMG GTs or Chevrolet Corvettes, you know, shittier mass production cars that would not break your heart if someone accidentally bumps or scratches it.
I think the same analogy applies to what bow you want to take with you. If you are in a more controlled environment like a battlefield, with all the resources of the state and logistical support behind your back, a composite bow would be nice to have on hand. If you are going to go spelunking or swim in sewage a lot, trying to help some broke ass villagers exterminate a few goblins here and there, it is probably best to just take a cheap self bow with you.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Longbows would be definitely cheaper. Not 50 gold but 5. Or less. :D
Whole armies crossed rivers in real life, so they managed to keep their bows dry. Also your saber and many other objects should be protected from water.
IIRC the mongols conquered most of China and everrything from there to Hungary using composite bows, so doubt water was much of a problem for a proficient user
It really doesn’t matter. They don’t exist in 5e unless you homebrew something
If you can afford it, sure, use the better bow. However, the better bow has a higher cost and is more difficult to maintain. Unlike a self bow that you can just carry on your back, you do not want to leave a composite exposed to the elements like that and you want a proper container to store it when not in use. Unlike an army with much greater state backing and logistical support and fighting in a relatively more controlled environment, adventurers do not always have that level of state support and often get into situations that armies do not. And if you are just fighting a few goblins here and there, I do not think you need to bring out the best equipment to deal with them.
Adventurers usually do not start out with lots of resources. I am pretty sure most states in D&D have enough resources to hire adventures with the proper level and experience. While most adventure campaigns start you off at level 1, there are quite a few shorter adventures in anthologies that start out at much higher levels. And for adventurers who do have more resources than the state and they can get themselves portable holes and bags of holding to store whatever they want properly, they also probably have a few magic weapons by then, so whether a magical bow is a self bow or composite bow really does not matter by that point.
If time is of the essense or if the situation offers no other alternative, I do not think adventurers are going to quit their quest because they have to go into caves or get their clothes dirty.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Though true that you can make both with higher or lower draw weights, it is worth noting that a longbow could generally fire a larger, more penetrative arrow. Why? For one of the same reasons that a compound bow was superior in terms of its flexibility--you have to draw the longbow much further. A further draw means an arrow with more mass, a larger head for balancing, and generally more stability when it hits something like chainmail (or even plate with the right arrowhead).
It is worth noting that one need not go spelunking and swimming to ruin a composite bow--generally existing would bet the job done. Because they use glue to hold things together, instead of being formed from a singular piece, they are much more susceptible to weather and particularly humidity. There is a reason the Mongols used them, but the Europeans did not (even though they had been known since antiquity)--weather. Mongolia is situated in the Gobi desert, which afforded them the ability to produce a composite bow tradition in the way wetter climates did not generally have (though there are some wetter climates where they used composite bows, it required a huge degree of effort to keep the bows in serviceable condition for any extended period of time). The Mongols also benefitted greatly by what stands between them and Hungary in their bow perseverance--Siberia is a particularly dry climate, so most of the land they had to cross on their journey was likewise conductive to a composite bow.
-----
In the composite bow's defense, there is another point that OP missed--you can keep a composite bow strung for longer, making it great if you are on the move and might need to quickly pull your weapon from where it is stored on the side of your horse. Keeping a self bow strung for extended periods of time, like you see in movies and games, is really bad for the bow--self bows do not proportion out the tension as well as a composite bow, so you will start to lose out on elasticity if you always have it at the ready.
-----
Overall, if I were an adventurer in D&D I would likely favour a composite bow--it is easier to keep "at the ready" for when the evil god of the world throws a random encounter at you and it can be more easily fired in the Dungeons portion of Dungeons and dragons. I would also want some other kind of weapon at my side, for when my bow inevitably breaks during one of those forays into a deep, damp dungeon.
From a gameplay perspective, it is worth noting that the description for "longbow" and "shortbow" do not specify whether the bows are composite bows or self bows. Though most commonly seen as a shortbow, one can build a composite longbow, so in the magical land of D&D's theatre of the mind, a player can imagine their bow is whatever they want it to be. The base weapon system in this game is already an abject mess--adding more complexity such as differentiating between composite and self bows would not add anything mechanical to the game, and is best left as a flavour decision made by the user themselves.
This seems like exactly the kind of debate adventurers probably have all over the multiverse.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Despite all the Robinhood imagery of toting strung bows on your back, reality is you don’t actually do that. Bows are kept in a bow case unless you expect to use them momentarily. - whether long or short. Similarly, wetting bowstrings allowed them to stretch making them useless so they were kept in waterproof ( or at least rainproof) containers until you were ready to string the bow. A bow ( of any type) is a spring and if you keep the spring under constant pressure it will warp to accommodate that constant pressure rendering it at least weaker and more likely useless. 5e has longbows because they are the iconic European bow and the game is centered around that European Medieval motif. A single longbow is somewhat cheaper to make than a composite - as long as you can readily find @6’ long limbs with roughly equal amounts of heart and sap wood to make it with. They can be fired from horseback (albeit not as easily as composite - see the samurai bow). This cheapness makes them somewhat better for militaries as you can get more made for the same price. This also tends to mean that they are more likely to appear on the “surplus” market at prices beginning adventurers can afford. In addition the open battlefield doesn’t create maneuvering problems for longbows the way building/dungeon/cavern locations can as the OP was noting. The best analogy is not cars but guns - which would you rather carry into a house clearing urban fight in WWII a “grease gun” or a Thompson? Basically the same rates of fire, range and accuracy but the Thompson is about twice as long and so much harder to get around corners, get on target etc. same reaso special forces prefer carbines and SMGs to full sized assault rifles in those situations. For the general adventurer the composite bow is a better weapon of choice given the range of combat environments they typically get into. However, given the standard settings (FR, Mystara,etc) which are all set in a European motif world the composite bow could well be either unknown or so rare that it is culturally inappropriate for the campaign. If you want to use a composite bow there is a publicly available homebrew magic one.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sometime, somewhere in the Multiverse, a composite bow user thought he won a tavern argument after quickly shooting the longbow user and declaring "See! I told you they were better in close quarters like this inn!" The longbow user's friends swiftly stepped in proved, once and for all, you really want a sword, club, or axe when you are fighting in the close knit environment of a tavern.
I’m honestly surprised that Yumi bows haven’t been mentioned yet in this debate.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is the start and the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned. OP starts with the assumption that longbows = self bows and composite bows are either represented by short bows or don't exist in D&D (I can't tell which they believe).
In reality all weapon types are vague categories that can include any number of weapons. Bows that are stronger with longer range are "longbows", smaller, shorter range bows are "shortbows." In the same way that a longsword can represent a katana, a longbow can represent more than just the historical longbow.
That plus the fact that weapons in general are abstracted for simplicity provide you the whole answer. I'd love feats that expanded on weapon types and/or a few other general weapon types added, but I don't need 12 types of bows listed in the PHB.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Composite bows have a slight mechanical advantage, they can release more energy than self bows. And higher speed gives more kinetic energy than mass increase.
So the Polish, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Italians, Spanish, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, and all other nations on the Balkans are not Europeans in your eyes. Is this meant to be an insult?
As far as “theater of the mind” goes this the rules piece that is problematic for composite bows
Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively
As long as the longbow is a heavy weapon and the Short bow is not this is a problem.
the composite bow ( always short historically) solves this problem by providing a means of getting the same power in a smaller, less bulky package. This also allows it to be more useful in tight places or from horseback but, strictly according to RAW either can be used without penalty.
Further it is a misconception that the self bow has a longer pull than the composite bow - the both stretch from the outreaching arm to about the ear. similarly they can be be made in the same pull weights, have the same range (some evidence shows that in matching pull weights the composite actually has a slightly greater range) and damage.
No, we don’t need 12 different bow types but we could probably use 1 more type.
The composite bow was invented somewhere on the steppes of Asia early in the second millennium BCE. From there it spread throughout southwest Asia, the Middle East, Persia, India, and North Africa fairly quickly.
self bows have to be long as they have a single curve and to get enough flex without breaking the bow you have to have long limbs/arms. This means finding saplings or tree limbs that are long enough, straight enough, thick enough and generally made of equal parts heart and sap woods with which to make the bow. Composites are made from much smaller pieces of wood along with horn/bone, sinews, etc to give matching strength with a far greater curvature allowing the limbs to be much shorter. In addition they are always recurved - something easy to do with composites but very hard to do with a single piece of wood. They are harder to make, somewhat more subject to weather problems, roughly half the length, but - because of the composites- about the same weight, easier to maneuver in tight places, able to ( more easily) be fired from horseback, with about the same pull lengths and weights and therefore arrow masses and speeds and damage.
So, unless you are drawing on world lore for racial preferences or live in a very high humidity area ( Great Britain, Pacific Northwest America, etc) the ( nonexistent in 5e) composite short bow is actually superior to the longbow for adventurer use - especially above tier 1.
one of the key things bows had going for them was rate of fire - typically 12+ shots per minute ( I have personally seen a long bow expert shoot 18 arrows into a chest sized target at 100m) this corresponds well to the 1attack/ 6 sec of a tier 1 character. The 18/min corresponds to 2 shots/ round and anything more runs into fantasy speeds. With the allowance of firearms in 5e I would expect that, barring cultural recalcitrance firearms should quickly replace bows in most campaigns. In real life it took guns several hundred years to effectively replace bows as it took time to actually develop effective firing and reloading technologies. The only 2 (militarily) effective firing systems before modern weapons ( ie before the colt/Henry/Sharps) were the matchlocks and the flintlocks. These (with one exception) had firing rates of 3-4 shots a minute or 1 shot every 3 rounds. 5e has sped that up to match the rate for arrows and other weapons. The only flintlock weapon that actually match the fire rate was the Ferguson rifle which, in trained hands, could hit 12+shots a minute - at least nail the barrel got too fouled to shoot.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A shortbow +2 then. :)
I love how people think Longbows are a single piece of wood instead of two. By the way, they are two, glued together. They are War Bows, which have a very different use than Composite Bows, which hunters use.
War bows are meant to shoot something heavy over a far distance without the user moving much... this also means they don't have much around them (which the OP alluded to). Atop a castle? You're in the open. In a field? You're in the open. On a hill? You're in the open.
Composite bows on the other hand are meant for hunting. In the fields, in the bush, and in the forest. They're smaller so you can maneuver them, and they aren't made from glass, so they can take some abuse. They were popular through all of history, world wide before the modern compound bow came along for a reason.
A Composite Bow would be great with Heavy Crossbow range and without the Heavy property. Still deal Shortbow damage, just over a much farther range, and still a martial weapon. The longbow meanwhile should also have an armor like strength minimum of 13.
The fundamental difference between a composite bow and a self bow is that a composite bow is made up of layers of different materials attached together, and a self bow is made from a single material (though it may not have completely consistent properties through its volume). The benefit of the composite bow is that it lets you better optimize the bow for its intended purpose, the disadvantage is that the layers are prone to separating.
Composite bows tend to be shorter than self bows at the same draw weight, because wood doesn't normally grow in a form that's suited to short strong bows, but it's not required.
None of this has a lot to do with D&D, which barely even pretends at realism.
No edition of D&D has done more than barely pretend at realism.
It would be nice to have a bow that takes into account the characters strength bonus for damage.
In 5e that is very problematical as they already get the dexterity bonus and shouldn’t be getting 2 bonuses where all other weapons only get one. I can see speaking to your DM about allowing you switch bonuses but I can’t see getting 2. I do understand the desire - getting something like Odeseus’s bow that had such a strong pull no one could even string it let alone pull it back. Part of the problem there is similar to the problem with modern military bullets - the actual damage to a single body between a low velocity pistol bullet and a high velocity is fairly minimal the big difference is that the low velocity bullet probably only penetrates 1 body, while the high velocity bullet is capable of penetrating multiple bodies. But this sort of multiple attacks from a single attack is not allowed in 5e either.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.