Drawing from a couple of other threads in different forums if you have questions about bows feel free to ask and discuss here. Some of the questions and discussions I’ve come across:
1) why is the longbow, with a listed weight of 2 pounds, listed as a heavy weapon? 2) does the longbow actually include things like the composite short recurve bow? 3) what was/is the “real” normal range and long range of different bows?
Here are my starting answers to open the discussion:
1) longbows are listed as “heavy” not because of their weight ( typically 1.5 to 3 pounds) but because of their size and unwieldyness in tight conditions. 2) yes the keys here are the range and damage, anything with roughly the same range and power/damage as the English/Welsh long bow is included under the longbow since we only have 2 types of bow available. 3) I’m happy with the listed ranges. I have personally seen a modern longbowman put 18 arrows into a chest sized target at 100m in one timed minute, with enough room that if it were extended to 120 to 150 m they would all have still hit. The same bowman then took time to really aim and hit a 6” tall thumb thick stick 3 times in a row at the same range. He was not a small man ( I suspect he was exSAS) and said his bow had a 100 pound pull. Modern hunting bows typically have 80 to 120 pound pulls and my suspicion is that was the norm back then too. Light crossbows ( those able to be cocked by hand) would have had roughly the same damage but possibly less range since the draw weights are about the same but the trajectories are typically flatter. That 120 pound pull probably represents the normal max pull for most humans/Demi humans. I could see those with 16+ strengths being able do strength bonus extra damage with bows designed for their strength (costly).
After reviewing the actual stated weights of PHB weapons I think you're right about number 1. A greatclub is far heavier than a longbow there but not listed as heavy. The heavy on longbow could relate to its size...or potentially the draw weight on the bow, but the heavy rule mentions size and bulk specifically, so if the longbow isn't heavy in therms of weight it may be too large for a small creature to effectively use.
If the heavy property was based on weight the weapons table wouldn't bother listing it separately from weight. It's never been about the actual weight of the weapon, just as light has never been about the weight of the weapon.
1) "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." Seems reasonably clear to me?
2) Just visualize it however you want. A "composite short recurve bow" might have longbow stats or it might have shortbow stats. The draw strength of the bow is what in real life has the biggest impact on what would be the qualities of the bow corresponding to in-game stats, and bows in all shapes and sizes come in a wide range of draw strengths.
3) That really depends on how the bow is built, not (just) on the size and general shape.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) As pangurjan has quoted the relevant section, the definition of Heavy is self-evident. These weapons are just too big to be wielded by Small characters.
2) I don't think so. The terms "short bow" and "long bow" are used fairly colloquially, as are all the weapons. (And armor, for that matter.) We're given tremendous leeway to flavor each piece of equipment as we see fit. Whether the bow is composite or not is, IMO, irrelevant. Both performed similarly; with the biggest difference between them being how they responded to moisture. And general weapon maintenance such as that, or keeping bowstrings, or even keeping a blade sharp with a whetstone, is just something the rules don't concern itself with.
3) I don't know, and I don't really care. The fiction of the world, and how the rules support that fiction, is what matters. A well-placed fireball will absolutely wreck a marching formation of infantry; killing upwards of 28 soldiers in one go. And if they have black powder weapons, the casualty list will likely be even higher. That's why the heavy and light crossbows are basically the bolt-action rifles of whatever setting you're playing in. Historically, they couldn't fire once every six seconds. The average military crossbow could fire once per minute. The average longbow was six times per minute. And that works well enough when the turns were 10 seconds long, but they're not anymore. And as soon as Extra Attack becomes a factor, you've moved into superhuman territory. Or else the technology and nomenclature no longer match our historical understanding.
Thank you Pangurjan and Jounichi for the game definition of heavy I keep skipping over it for some reason.
As (at least some of) you know I like a little realism ( not sure I’d call it gritty) in my game so I was looking for more real world info and came across this: A history and field testing of self and composite bows from history. No, I don’t expect anyone else to actually read it - it’s a 289 page PhD thesis - I’ll report back on it after I finish wading through it but it looks interesting.
yes in 5e they have stopped trying to stat out each and every weapon and armor and generally I agree that a generic version you can skin how you like is simpler, easier and better for the game. That said there are a few places where I feel they may have gone overboard.
Draw weights in the 80-120 pound range are not physically damaging we see that range today in modern hunting bows with no body structure deformation. the little I’ve read in that dissertation seems to say it’s more than just draw weight but more on that after I’ve read further. I can see where the average rate of fire in a long engagement would be 6-10 arrows (1 every 6-10 seconds) so about 1/round . I’ve also witnessed a skilled modern longbowman put 18 arrows into a chest sized target in a timed minute (1/3.3 sec or roughly 2/round). How long he could keep that up is a question. But given that few DnD fights last over a minute that pretty well covers the rates of fire of L1-10 fighters and rangers. Once you get the third attack or a special ability ( ranger’s volley, etc)you go into the realm of superhuman.
I do have a bit of a beef with the sharpshooter feat’s -5 to hit for +10 damage on the realism scale (it does work game mechanic wise I grant - perhaps too well). Throwing off your aim shouldn’t increase your damage I would have been happier with something like “ you use your bonus action along with your action(s) to give yourself a single shot this round at +3 to hit and doing max critical damage” that is what I actually saw the archer do - 3 carefully aimed shots hitting a 6” tall thumb thick stick at 100m. Had he been firing at a man in armor at least 1 of those shots would have gone right through the helmet’s eye slit/opening resulting in a kill shot. To work for game mechanics you might have to finagle the damage a bit I haven’t calculated it out as average DPR yet.
1) Draw weights in the 80-120 pound range are not physically damaging we see that range today in modern hunting bows with no body structure deformation.
2) I do have a bit of a beef with the sharpshooter feat’s -5 to hit for +10 damage on the realism scale (it does work game mechanic wise I grant - perhaps too well). Throwing off your aim shouldn’t increase your damage I would have been happier with something like “ you use your bonus action along with your action(s) to give yourself a single shot this round at +3 to hit and doing max critical damage” that is what I actually saw the archer do - 3 carefully aimed shots hitting a 6” tall thumb thick stick at 100m.
1) Not sure where this comes up, either in the rules or in this thread?
2) You're not throwing off your aim, you're aiming for something that's more difficult to hit. It's a simplified called shot mechanic. Your alternative is, no offense, horrifically overpowered. Imagine a rogue sneak attacking with this mechanic - as long as the sneak requirement is met, they'd have guaranteed max sneak damage on a hit, with a bonus to their attack roll to boot. I'd give up my bonus action, my move action and my left big toe for that as a rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Crossbows real life vs game are a whole different story. I do take some exception to comparing them to bolt action rifles, these were capable of tremendous output in bursts from a skilled marksmen. The world record for the “mad minute” is 44 shots fired with 39 hitting inside the 2 mil (400mm dia) circle at 200 m. This was with a modern magazine fed bolt action, the Lee enfield record was 38 shots inside the 24” ring at 300yds so not much difference. If I’m looking for a legitimate comparison it’s not bolt action magazine fed rifles it’s something like the Springfield 1876 “trapdoor” rifle. It’s trials showed 8 rounds/min for a trainee and 15 rds/min for a trained marksmen.That corresponds to the firing rates for longbows which the game gives to crossbows ( if you have CBE). For realism the heavy crossbow shouldn’t even be listed anything that needs a windlass to draw the string back because the draw weight is greater than a man’s strength is a siege weapon not an open combat weapon. The records from the 100 years war show (light) crossbowman getting off 3-5 volleys a minute or 1 shot every 1-3 rounds which for the game is way to slow so I can accept moving them up regular bow speeds if you have CBE. You also had things like the Chinese repeating crossbow that used a lower draw weight to allow true rapid fire . However the low draw weight of hand operated ones typically required poison to make them lethal. The earliest one seems to have had a pistol grip so think of it as a repeating Drow hand crossbow with poison tipped bolts - now there is a device for your CBE archer builds 😳😁 have fun homebrewing
I do have a bit of a beef with the sharpshooter feat’s -5 to hit for +10 damage on the realism scale (it does work game mechanic wise I grant - perhaps too well). Throwing off your aim shouldn’t increase your damage I would have been happier with something like “ you use your bonus action along with your action(s) to give yourself a single shot this round at +3 to hit and doing max critical damage” that is what I actually saw the archer do - 3 carefully aimed shots hitting a 6” tall thumb thick stick at 100m. Had he been firing at a man in armor at least 1 of those shots would have gone right through the helmet’s eye slit/opening resulting in a kill shot. To work for game mechanics you might have to finagle the damage a bit I haven’t calculated it out as average DPR yet.
I've seen a variety of homebrew takes on alternatives to called shot mechanics in 5E, but you might really like the ones from Spheres of Power and Might. What you're after here is the opposite of a to-hit penalty, since 5E armor provides a to-hit penalty, and you're trying to let someone aim around armor. Instead, you want a rule that hits you in the action economy. Here's an example mechanic from Spheres which does this. I'll modify it to minimize the extra rules you need to know to understand it, which will mean it won't exactly match the actual rules from Spheres, but it'll give you the right idea. "Head Shot" is a martial talent, which costs approximately half a feat - Spheres lets you buy 2 talents as a feat which you can take multiple times, or a talent and +1 to an ability score.
Head Shot
You take careful aim for a weak spot on the target and exploit it. You can make no more than one Head Shot per round.
When making a head shot, you cannot make additional attacks from the Extra Attack class feature. Instead, increase the damage of this attack by +1d8 for each additional attack you otherwise would have been able to make through the Extra Attack class feature. Multiattack counts as Extra Attack for the purpose of head shot; only ranged attacks after the first are calculated when determining additional damage. If this attack deals at least 50% of the target creature’s current hit points, you may force the target to make a successful Constitution saving throw or immediately drop to 0 hit points. You can't force this saving throw again until you get a minute of rest or you take the Dodge action.
Head Shot is action economy being traded for potentially extreme damage. If you just want to try to shoot "around" armor, Steady Aim from Rogue + Elven Accuracy is what you want. That's also achievable from Spheres. Here are two more martial talents.
Deadly Aim
When making a ranged attack, including spell attacks, that has advantage, you may reroll one of the two attack roll dice once. This cannot stack with other similar benefits from feats or abilities.
Perfect Shot
As a bonus action you may grant yourself advantage on your next ranged weapon attack before the end of your turn. You can't do this again until you get a minute of rest or you take the Dodge action.
Note on rules: I modified the talents to make them easier to understand. They actually use some new rules from Spheres I'm trying to avoid explaining, but suffice to say you can't combine Perfect Shot with the Con save from Head Shot - you have to choose one or the other, never both.
Drawing from a couple of other threads in different forums if you have questions about bows feel free to ask and discuss here. Some of the questions and discussions I’ve come across:
1) why is the longbow, with a listed weight of 2 pounds, listed as a heavy weapon? 2) does the longbow actually include things like the composite short recurve bow? 3) what was/is the “real” normal range and long range of different bows?
Here are my starting answers to open the discussion:
1) longbows are listed as “heavy” not because of their weight ( typically 1.5 to 3 pounds) but because of their size and unwieldyness in tight conditions. 2) yes the keys here are the range and damage, anything with roughly the same range and power/damage as the English/Welsh long bow is included under the longbow since we only have 2 types of bow available. 3) I’m happy with the listed ranges. I have personally seen a modern longbowman put 18 arrows into a chest sized target at 100m in one timed minute, with enough room that if it were extended to 120 to 150 m they would all have still hit. The same bowman then took time to really aim and hit a 6” tall thumb thick stick 3 times in a row at the same range. He was not a small man ( I suspect he was exSAS) and said his bow had a 100 pound pull. Modern hunting bows typically have 80 to 120 pound pulls and my suspicion is that was the norm back then too. Light crossbows ( those able to be cocked by hand) would have had roughly the same damage but possibly less range since the draw weights are about the same but the trajectories are typically flatter. That 120 pound pull probably represents the normal max pull for most humans/Demi humans. I could see those with 16+ strengths being able do strength bonus extra damage with bows designed for their strength (costly).
Out of curiosity. What makes you think you have to be ex-SAS to be a good longbowman? Or that being SAS in any way gives you the skills to be a good longbowman? Statistically, the vast majority of longbowmen are not SAS (former or current).
Some of the things he said about his history he was ex military and special forces in my (limited) experience are the most likely to take up ancient and unusual weapons for special purposes. It has also been my experience that they never admit to special services until they get to know you at least a little. That is why I said I suspected. You don’t have to be anything to have an interest in bows or to become a skilled archer but in this case things he said and my own experiences having met several other special forces members at different times made me think he might have been. Just like in the US where we have several different special forces I am aware that the British also have more than the SAS buts by far the best known.
Some of the things he said about his history he was ex military and special forces in my (limited) experience are the most likely to take up ancient and unusual weapons for special purposes. It has also been my experience that they never admit to special services until they get to know you at least a little. That is why I said I suspected. You don’t have to be anything to have an interest in bows or to become a skilled archer but in this case things he said and my own experiences having met several other special forces members at different times made me think he might have been. Just like in the US where we have several different special forces I am aware that the British also have more than the SAS buts by far the best known.
Right. There is literally nothing preventing you from telling people you have been in the SAS. There are reality shows about them and people have made careers out of just that, telling people about their experience in the special forces.
And the longbow isn't neither a very unusual or ancient weapon (at least not "ancient" in the way that it's not around any more). The local archery club where I live have a section for kids, for example.
Your right there is nothing (legal) preventing you from telling but most combat veterans I’ve run into are very reticent about telling civvies much about their combat experiences. Certainly some are more open about it than others and some earn their living or a part of it being talking heads based on that service. I’ve been lucky enough to have several vets in my family - dad was WWII navy and lucky enough to miss combat, my father in law was WWII army and served in combat from Sicily to VE Day and never spoke much about it except in general terms. One of my nephews was an army artillery forward observer and got stuck in the Korean DMV under fire for 24 hrs. Another cousin was in Vietnam and spent years dealing with PTSD afterwards. Consistently the combat vets don’t talk much about the experience.
OK, having read through at least the relevant chapters of that disertation here goes an attempt at a (relatively) short summary. 1. crossbows were not considered only what I'm going to call (for here) long, short and composite bows (definitions below)
Long Bow: a bow made from a single piece of wood and standing roughly the height of an adult human.
Short bow: a bow made from a single piece of wood and standing about half the height of an adult human.
Composite bow: a bow made from a combination of wood, horn/bone/baleen, etc, and sinew standing about half the height of an adult human.
When you make a long or short bow several things matter in determining its effectiveness and draw weight. A) the length of the arms of the bow - as the length increases the draw weight decreases B) the width of the arms - a doubling of the width roughly doubles the draw weight C) the thickness of the arms - a doubling of the thickness roughly has an 8X increase on the draw weight D) the mass of the arms of the bow - the more massive the arms are - especially the more mass in the outer 2/3 of the arms the less energy the bow transfers to the arrow. E) the length of the draw - the longer the draw the more energy stored in the bow and the more energy potentially transferred to the arrow . F) the mechanical strength of the wood under compression and tension - this is the amount of bending the wood can take before it fails by setting (compression caused permanent shape change in the bow profile) or Failure - breaking of the bow by shattering under excess tension. simply put how far the wood can be bent before it stops working properly.
What this means is that as you shrink the length of the bow the draw weight increases until you reach the point of failure trying to draw the arrow back the same distance as the longer bows - so shorter bows generally have shorter draws and lower braw weights giving them less energy and so less range, penetrating power and damage (just as we see in the DnD stats)
Composite bows are always short bows with the horn and sinew additions (as well as much of the recurving of the profiles) acting to support the wood base, absorb the excess energy and prevent the wood form failing so you can draw the arrow back to full length and get matching draw weights from the shorter bow. The short length of the arms has a second impact as well - it lowers the mass of the arms returning to base position allowing more of the stored energy to go into the arrow and not the arms of the bow. This effect holds steady at returning roughly 80% of the draw energy to the arrow for all draw weights from 40 pounds to 200 pounds that were tested. while a roughly 200 pound pull long bow only returns about 55% of the energy to the arrow. because of this the composite bow is both shorter and easier to wield and it has up to about twice the range , penetration, etc of a longbow.
In addition he was pointing out that , with the exception of the English longbow of the 1300-1600s most bows of history had draw weights of 40-80 pounds which is quite sufficient for hunting and military use against unarmored or poorly armored troops. the English longbow seems to have been an adaptation to deal with heavily armored foes where extra penetrating power was needed. There are historic examples of composite bows with similar draw weights (80 to 200 pounds)
What this actually means for homebrew (I doubt WotC will use this at all) is up to you folks I'm just reporting results here.
Your right there is nothing (legal) preventing you from telling but most combat veterans I’ve run into are very reticent about telling civvies much about their combat experiences. Certainly some are more open about it than others and some earn their living or a part of it being talking heads based on that service. I’ve been lucky enough to have several vets in my family - dad was WWII navy and lucky enough to miss combat, my father in law was WWII army and served in combat from Sicily to VE Day and never spoke much about it except in general terms. One of my nephews was an army artillery forward observer and got stuck in the Korean DMV under fire for 24 hrs. Another cousin was in Vietnam and spent years dealing with PTSD afterwards. Consistently the combat vets don’t talk much about the experience.
Is it that difficult to get a driver's license in Korea that their DMV deploys artillery? ;)
All jokes aside, you said that "they never admit to special services" which isn't the same thing as "talking about combat experience". I was commenting on the "never admit" part and nothing else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Drawing from a couple of other threads in different forums if you have questions about bows feel free to ask and discuss here.
Some of the questions and discussions I’ve come across:
1) why is the longbow, with a listed weight of 2 pounds, listed as a heavy weapon?
2) does the longbow actually include things like the composite short recurve bow?
3) what was/is the “real” normal range and long range of different bows?
Here are my starting answers to open the discussion:
1) longbows are listed as “heavy” not because of their weight ( typically 1.5 to 3 pounds) but because of their size and unwieldyness in tight conditions.
2) yes the keys here are the range and damage, anything with roughly the same range and power/damage as the English/Welsh long bow is included under the longbow since we only have 2 types of bow available.
3) I’m happy with the listed ranges. I have personally seen a modern longbowman put 18 arrows into a chest sized target at 100m in one timed minute, with enough room that if it were extended to 120 to 150 m they would all have still hit. The same bowman then took time to really aim and hit a 6” tall thumb thick stick 3 times in a row at the same range. He was not a small man ( I suspect he was exSAS) and said his bow had a 100 pound pull. Modern hunting bows typically have 80 to 120 pound pulls and my suspicion is that was the norm back then too. Light crossbows ( those able to be cocked by hand) would have had roughly the same damage but possibly less range since the draw weights are about the same but the trajectories are typically flatter. That 120 pound pull probably represents the normal max pull for most humans/Demi humans. I could see those with 16+ strengths being able do strength bonus extra damage with bows designed for their strength (costly).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
After reviewing the actual stated weights of PHB weapons I think you're right about number 1. A greatclub is far heavier than a longbow there but not listed as heavy. The heavy on longbow could relate to its size...or potentially the draw weight on the bow, but the heavy rule mentions size and bulk specifically, so if the longbow isn't heavy in therms of weight it may be too large for a small creature to effectively use.
As far as 2 and 3 go I really have no idea.
If the heavy property was based on weight the weapons table wouldn't bother listing it separately from weight. It's never been about the actual weight of the weapon, just as light has never been about the weight of the weapon.
1) "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."
Seems reasonably clear to me?
2) Just visualize it however you want. A "composite short recurve bow" might have longbow stats or it might have shortbow stats. The draw strength of the bow is what in real life has the biggest impact on what would be the qualities of the bow corresponding to in-game stats, and bows in all shapes and sizes come in a wide range of draw strengths.
3) That really depends on how the bow is built, not (just) on the size and general shape.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) As pangurjan has quoted the relevant section, the definition of Heavy is self-evident. These weapons are just too big to be wielded by Small characters.
2) I don't think so. The terms "short bow" and "long bow" are used fairly colloquially, as are all the weapons. (And armor, for that matter.) We're given tremendous leeway to flavor each piece of equipment as we see fit. Whether the bow is composite or not is, IMO, irrelevant. Both performed similarly; with the biggest difference between them being how they responded to moisture. And general weapon maintenance such as that, or keeping bowstrings, or even keeping a blade sharp with a whetstone, is just something the rules don't concern itself with.
3) I don't know, and I don't really care. The fiction of the world, and how the rules support that fiction, is what matters. A well-placed fireball will absolutely wreck a marching formation of infantry; killing upwards of 28 soldiers in one go. And if they have black powder weapons, the casualty list will likely be even higher. That's why the heavy and light crossbows are basically the bolt-action rifles of whatever setting you're playing in. Historically, they couldn't fire once every six seconds. The average military crossbow could fire once per minute. The average longbow was six times per minute. And that works well enough when the turns were 10 seconds long, but they're not anymore. And as soon as Extra Attack becomes a factor, you've moved into superhuman territory. Or else the technology and nomenclature no longer match our historical understanding.
Thank you Pangurjan and Jounichi for the game definition of heavy I keep skipping over it for some reason.
As (at least some of) you know I like a little realism ( not sure I’d call it gritty) in my game so I was looking for more real world info and came across this: A history and field testing of self and composite bows from history. No, I don’t expect anyone else to actually read it - it’s a 289 page PhD thesis - I’ll report back on it after I finish wading through it but it looks interesting.
yes in 5e they have stopped trying to stat out each and every weapon and armor and generally I agree that a generic version you can skin how you like is simpler, easier and better for the game. That said there are a few places where I feel they may have gone overboard.
Draw weights in the 80-120 pound range are not physically damaging we see that range today in modern hunting bows with no body structure deformation.
the little I’ve read in that dissertation seems to say it’s more than just draw weight but more on that after I’ve read further. I can see where the average rate of fire in a long engagement would be 6-10 arrows (1 every 6-10 seconds) so about 1/round . I’ve also witnessed a skilled modern longbowman put 18 arrows into a chest sized target in a timed minute (1/3.3 sec or roughly 2/round). How long he could keep that up is a question. But given that few DnD fights last over a minute that pretty well covers the rates of fire of L1-10 fighters and rangers. Once you get the third attack or a special ability ( ranger’s volley, etc)you go into the realm of superhuman.
I do have a bit of a beef with the sharpshooter feat’s -5 to hit for +10 damage on the realism scale (it does work game mechanic wise I grant - perhaps too well). Throwing off your aim shouldn’t increase your damage I would have been happier with something like “ you use your bonus action along with your action(s) to give yourself a single shot this round at +3 to hit and doing max critical damage” that is what I actually saw the archer do - 3 carefully aimed shots hitting a 6” tall thumb thick stick at 100m. Had he been firing at a man in armor at least 1 of those shots would have gone right through the helmet’s eye slit/opening resulting in a kill shot. To work for game mechanics you might have to finagle the damage a bit I haven’t calculated it out as average DPR yet.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
1) Not sure where this comes up, either in the rules or in this thread?
2) You're not throwing off your aim, you're aiming for something that's more difficult to hit. It's a simplified called shot mechanic. Your alternative is, no offense, horrifically overpowered. Imagine a rogue sneak attacking with this mechanic - as long as the sneak requirement is met, they'd have guaranteed max sneak damage on a hit, with a bonus to their attack roll to boot. I'd give up my bonus action, my move action and my left big toe for that as a rogue.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Crossbows real life vs game are a whole different story. I do take some exception to comparing them to bolt action rifles, these were capable of tremendous output in bursts from a skilled marksmen. The world record for the “mad minute” is 44 shots fired with 39 hitting inside the 2 mil (400mm dia) circle at 200 m. This was with a modern magazine fed bolt action, the Lee enfield record was 38 shots inside the 24” ring at 300yds so not much difference. If I’m looking for a legitimate comparison it’s not bolt action magazine fed rifles it’s something like the Springfield 1876 “trapdoor” rifle. It’s trials showed 8 rounds/min for a trainee and 15 rds/min for a trained marksmen.That corresponds to the firing rates for longbows which the game gives to crossbows ( if you have CBE). For realism the heavy crossbow shouldn’t even be listed anything that needs a windlass to draw the string back because the draw weight is greater than a man’s strength is a siege weapon not an open combat weapon. The records from the 100 years war show (light) crossbowman getting off 3-5 volleys a minute or 1 shot every 1-3 rounds which for the game is way to slow so I can accept moving them up regular bow speeds if you have CBE.
You also had things like the Chinese repeating crossbow that used a lower draw weight to allow true rapid fire . However the low draw weight of hand operated ones typically required poison to make them lethal. The earliest one seems to have had a pistol grip so think of it as a repeating Drow hand crossbow with poison tipped bolts - now there is a device for your CBE archer builds 😳😁 have fun homebrewing
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I've seen a variety of homebrew takes on alternatives to called shot mechanics in 5E, but you might really like the ones from Spheres of Power and Might. What you're after here is the opposite of a to-hit penalty, since 5E armor provides a to-hit penalty, and you're trying to let someone aim around armor. Instead, you want a rule that hits you in the action economy. Here's an example mechanic from Spheres which does this. I'll modify it to minimize the extra rules you need to know to understand it, which will mean it won't exactly match the actual rules from Spheres, but it'll give you the right idea. "Head Shot" is a martial talent, which costs approximately half a feat - Spheres lets you buy 2 talents as a feat which you can take multiple times, or a talent and +1 to an ability score.
Head Shot
You take careful aim for a weak spot on the target and exploit it. You can make no more than one Head Shot per round.
When making a head shot, you cannot make additional attacks from the Extra Attack class feature. Instead, increase the damage of this attack by +1d8 for each additional attack you otherwise would have been able to make through the Extra Attack class feature. Multiattack counts as Extra Attack for the purpose of head shot; only ranged attacks after the first are calculated when determining additional damage. If this attack deals at least 50% of the target creature’s current hit points, you may force the target to make a successful Constitution saving throw or immediately drop to 0 hit points. You can't force this saving throw again until you get a minute of rest or you take the Dodge action.
Head Shot is action economy being traded for potentially extreme damage. If you just want to try to shoot "around" armor, Steady Aim from Rogue + Elven Accuracy is what you want. That's also achievable from Spheres. Here are two more martial talents.
Deadly Aim
When making a ranged attack, including spell attacks, that has advantage, you may reroll one of the two attack roll dice once. This cannot stack with other similar benefits from feats or abilities.
Perfect Shot
As a bonus action you may grant yourself advantage on your next ranged weapon attack before the end of your turn. You can't do this again until you get a minute of rest or you take the Dodge action.
Note on rules: I modified the talents to make them easier to understand. They actually use some new rules from Spheres I'm trying to avoid explaining, but suffice to say you can't combine Perfect Shot with the Con save from Head Shot - you have to choose one or the other, never both.
Out of curiosity. What makes you think you have to be ex-SAS to be a good longbowman? Or that being SAS in any way gives you the skills to be a good longbowman? Statistically, the vast majority of longbowmen are not SAS (former or current).
Some of the things he said about his history he was ex military and special forces in my (limited) experience are the most likely to take up ancient and unusual weapons for special purposes. It has also been my experience that they never admit to special services until they get to know you at least a little. That is why I said I suspected. You don’t have to be anything to have an interest in bows or to become a skilled archer but in this case things he said and my own experiences having met several other special forces members at different times made me think he might have been. Just like in the US where we have several different special forces I am aware that the British also have more than the SAS buts by far the best known.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Right. There is literally nothing preventing you from telling people you have been in the SAS. There are reality shows about them and people have made careers out of just that, telling people about their experience in the special forces.
And the longbow isn't neither a very unusual or ancient weapon (at least not "ancient" in the way that it's not around any more). The local archery club where I live have a section for kids, for example.
But thanks for answering.
Your right there is nothing (legal) preventing you from telling but most combat veterans I’ve run into are very reticent about telling civvies much about their combat experiences. Certainly some are more open about it than others and some earn their living or a part of it being talking heads based on that service. I’ve been lucky enough to have several vets in my family - dad was WWII navy and lucky enough to miss combat, my father in law was WWII army and served in combat from Sicily to VE Day and never spoke much about it except in general terms. One of my nephews was an army artillery forward observer and got stuck in the Korean DMV under fire for 24 hrs. Another cousin was in Vietnam and spent years dealing with PTSD afterwards. Consistently the combat vets don’t talk much about the experience.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
OK, having read through at least the relevant chapters of that disertation here goes an attempt at a (relatively) short summary.
1. crossbows were not considered only what I'm going to call (for here) long, short and composite bows (definitions below)
Long Bow: a bow made from a single piece of wood and standing roughly the height of an adult human.
Short bow: a bow made from a single piece of wood and standing about half the height of an adult human.
Composite bow: a bow made from a combination of wood, horn/bone/baleen, etc, and sinew standing about half the height of an adult human.
When you make a long or short bow several things matter in determining its effectiveness and draw weight.
A) the length of the arms of the bow - as the length increases the draw weight decreases
B) the width of the arms - a doubling of the width roughly doubles the draw weight
C) the thickness of the arms - a doubling of the thickness roughly has an 8X increase on the draw weight
D) the mass of the arms of the bow - the more massive the arms are - especially the more mass in the outer 2/3 of the arms the less energy the bow transfers to the arrow.
E) the length of the draw - the longer the draw the more energy stored in the bow and the more energy potentially transferred to the arrow .
F) the mechanical strength of the wood under compression and tension - this is the amount of bending the wood can take before it fails by setting (compression caused permanent shape change in the bow profile) or Failure - breaking of the bow by shattering under excess tension. simply put how far the wood can be bent before it stops working properly.
What this means is that as you shrink the length of the bow the draw weight increases until you reach the point of failure trying to draw the arrow back the same distance as the longer bows - so shorter bows generally have shorter draws and lower braw weights giving them less energy and so less range, penetrating power and damage (just as we see in the DnD stats)
Composite bows are always short bows with the horn and sinew additions (as well as much of the recurving of the profiles) acting to support the wood base, absorb the excess energy and prevent the wood form failing so you can draw the arrow back to full length and get matching draw weights from the shorter bow.
The short length of the arms has a second impact as well - it lowers the mass of the arms returning to base position allowing more of the stored energy to go into the arrow and not the arms of the bow. This effect holds steady at returning roughly 80% of the draw energy to the arrow for all draw weights from 40 pounds to 200 pounds that were tested. while a roughly 200 pound pull long bow only returns about 55% of the energy to the arrow.
because of this the composite bow is both shorter and easier to wield and it has up to about twice the range , penetration, etc of a longbow.
In addition he was pointing out that , with the exception of the English longbow of the 1300-1600s most bows of history had draw weights of 40-80 pounds which is quite sufficient for hunting and military use against unarmored or poorly armored troops. the English longbow seems to have been an adaptation to deal with heavily armored foes where extra penetrating power was needed. There are historic examples of composite bows with similar draw weights (80 to 200 pounds)
What this actually means for homebrew (I doubt WotC will use this at all) is up to you folks I'm just reporting results here.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Is it that difficult to get a driver's license in Korea that their DMV deploys artillery? ;)
All jokes aside, you said that "they never admit to special services" which isn't the same thing as "talking about combat experience". I was commenting on the "never admit" part and nothing else.