PDA

View Full Version : English/Welsh Longbow



Averem
2006-08-14, 05:26 PM
If someone starts telling me there already is a longbow, I believe there are some corrections to be made. Allow me a passage:

"...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))"

The bows typically recovered that are considered English Longbows were generally 6'6", and their arrows were 31" long, long enough that archers typically thrust them into the ground upright because it was faster to reload this way. The skeletons of archers who used this longbow had deformed skeletons, including enlarged left arms and bone spurs on the left wrist, shoulder, and finger. The pull was around 160-180 pounds. And these were always regular longbows, never composite.

Now, to the game statistics

The English Longbow requires exotic weapon proficiency (English Longbow) to use.

It also requires at least 16 str to draw the bow. You suffer no penalties for less than 16 str, instead, you simply cannot provide the power necessary to pull the string, so you can't use it. Special cases might be made for DMs using warriors, but keep in mind this led to bone structure deformities.

The damage is 1d12, with a critical of x3

You also add your Dex bonus to your damage. This does not stack with any other item, class, feat, or other ability that adds dexterity to damage. At each range increment after the first, you reduce the bonus by 1. You never reduce the amount of bonus given by Dex below 0, nor does this reduce bonus damage from other sources.

The range increment of this weapon is 200ft. The longbow had great accuracy and great range, but never both at the same time.

The cost for this weapon is 100gp.

Edit: I forgot to mention that these bows require special arrows, due to the length involved. I'll put the stats for those in a bit...

The arrows for this weapon are 3 GP a quiver, and weigh 4 lbs rather than 3.

Edit: Finally, due to the size of this weapon, it is impossible to move in the same round while attacking with this weapon, unless using some unnatural means such as flying or floating, where the bow can be drawn without touching the ground.

I_Got_This_Name
2006-08-14, 05:34 PM
I think this is what the regular, martial longbow stats were for. Maybe not the superweapon it was, but neither is the crossbow.

Also, the English/Welsh longbows were made out of natural composites; the wood formed layers similar to an artificial composite bow. The differentiation that D&D makes between a composite and non-composite bow is arbitrary and silly.

Averem
2006-08-14, 05:51 PM
I was going for the truely high end of the scale, where the bow was usually taller then you were, which doesn't really cover the regular longbow.

And yes, I did think the way they said which bows were composite and which weren't was silly. I guess I should just say that there is no such thing as a "mighty English longbow".

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2006-08-14, 07:03 PM
You can't draw a bow taller than you.

Averem
2006-08-14, 07:06 PM
Okay...

But where did these bows come from, then?

endoperez
2006-08-14, 07:08 PM
I was going for the truely high end of the scale, where the bow was usually taller then you were, which doesn't really cover the regular longbow.

And yes, I did think the way they said which bows were composite and which weren't was silly. I guess I should just say that there is no such thing as a "mighty English longbow".

If you compare longbows (or composite longbows, depending on how you want to inrepret composite regarding to longbows) to other ranged weapons, you'll notice that they are as only worse than they were when compared to melee weapons. When compared to other ranged weapons, they are (comparatively) as powerful as they were in real life. As an example as a weapon that has REALLY gotten the short end of the balancing stick, see Sling:

move action to load, d4+ Str damage, simple weapon
vs
"And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth."

Matthew
2006-08-14, 08:35 PM
You might want to see the Great Bow in the Complete Warrior or indeed my own humble version (which I posted before I knew such a thing existed):

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=homebrew;action=display;num=11551740 75

The effectiveness of the Long Bow is typically exagerated, even in Primary Sources, and in this it is no different to sources that recount men being cut from head to toe, through their double mail, through their horses and several feet into the ground by a single blow of a sword.

I would like to know where your second passage originates.

Considering that the power of the Bow originates with the user and is transferred to the Bow, it seems pointless to use Dexterity to modify Damage.

A Mighty +3 Composite Great Bow would be perfectly passable as the weapon you are describing, the damage being entirely comparable to a character with 16 Strength wielding a Great Axe / Bastard Sword, depending on the Damage Dice 1D10 / 1D12 (and there's food for thought, because the English Long Bow should in no way be considered more effective than being hit with a good Sword or Axe blow or, indeed, a good thrust with a Spear).

And Slings have been ripped off, but they probably ought to be Exotic Weapons...

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2006-08-14, 10:46 PM
Okay...

But where did these bows come from, then?

What? No one is doubting that this bow came from anywhere other than English/Welsh-land (although a few imply your imagination).

Plus you say they were never compound. Duh. Real compound bows were pretty much only used in Turkey, Asia and a few surrounding areas. And before you say "Yew sap and heart wood!!!1!" that is a naturaly occuring composite.

Last, your 6'6" is irrelevant. Sizes have been described as wide a spread of 4' to 7'. Sounds like you're taking youu average out of the top.

MetalKelt
2006-08-14, 11:03 PM
I would like to know where your second passage originates.



Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to draw the bow was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 36 kgf (360 N, 80 lbf) and possibly more than 65 kgf (650 N, 143 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat fire required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.

Next time, please credit your source, in this case, wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow)

I am somewhat of an amateur historian myself, though I tend to focus more on the US Civil War and WWII. I do know however, that the skeletal deformation was indeed caused by use of the bow due to the repetitive stress cause by using it. Also, it was instrumental is rendering heavy armor obsolete because it was capable easily piercing plate armor.

However, as for game rule mechanics, I feel the great bow is sufficent enough. Yes, it may seem weaker than you may imagine, but as was mentioned, the same scaling applies to melee weapons as well. Remeber, the combat system used is willing to sacrifice a bit of realism for ease of understanding and for fun.

Fhaolan
2006-08-15, 02:08 AM
*wanders into the thread* You probably don't want me here, but I'll post nevertheless. :)

I have a 80lb-pull English longbow. It's the heaviest poundage I can handle, and was made in England by a bowyer who truely knows his stuff, historically. It is 6'2" long unstrung.

80lb-pull theoretically matches the weakest of the bows recovered from the Mary Rose. I say theoretically, as those bows had deteriorated enough that actually stringing them and drawing them is impossible, but the shape and size of them is easily matched and tested. Some of them are estimated as to being upwards of 160lbs-pull.

At full draw, I am capable of putting an armor piercing pointed arrow through a pine 2x4. The arrow will be still in the board, but the point will be sticking out the other side of it.

Oh, and the first quote posted by the OP? That's 12th century. In the 12th century they didn't have plate amour. The iron cuirasses mentioned were of maille. Plate cuirasses didn't come about in Europe until the beginning of the 14th century, and even then only the nobles/knights had plate. Men-at-arms were still maille and leather. :)

Matthew
2006-08-15, 07:06 AM
Why wouldn't you be wanted here Fhaolan?

Anyway, it looks like the original poster drew all his information from Wikipedia, but with little in the way of objectivity (not a criticism, just an observation).

The article itself indicates that the draw weight of the typical English / Welsh Long Bow is disputed, putting the range at 80-180 lbs (the upper limit being derived from the upper range of draw weights for reconstructions of Long Bows recovered from the Mary Rose, a Sixteenth Century wreck).

The penetrating power of Arrows (in general), and the protection afforded by armour against them (and also in general) is a matter of debate and little definitive can be said, aside from Bows were used and Armour was worn by those who could afford it.

As I said before, the Itinerarium Kambriae is not necessarily the greatest source from which to discern the average penetrating power of the Twelfth Century Long Bow. The fact that Giraldus bothers to relate the above reelated event at all may indicate that it was exceptional rather than the norm, but I would have to read the passage in context to be sure (maybe I will find the time yet!).

Fhaolan is no doubt correct when he points out that the leg armour worn was most likely Mail, rather than plate. I would dispute that this was the only type of limb armour in use at that time, but that is another story, and it was certainly the most common.

Guns were what rendered heavy armour obsolete, not Long Bows. Long Bows may have even conceivably encouraged the development of heavier plate armour.

The skeletal deformation is often exaggerated, though some illustrations could be interpreted as representing deformed archers.

Remember, the Long Bow was not the Machine Gun of the Middle Ages, it was the Long Bow of the Middle Ages!

Sergeantbrother
2006-08-15, 07:24 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Matthew, that the English/Welsh longbow of history (and legend) can be represented as a mighty composite longbow. A mighty composite longbow is still by far the superior missile weapon of D&D, I don't if a more powerful version needs to be made.

Though, I can definately see the point in making it an exotic weapon. With how much the medieval longbowmen had to train to master the longbow, it seems as though exotic status might be appropriate.

What I have a bigger objection to isn't rules for bows in D&D but rules for non-bow missile weapons such as slings and crossbows. As it is, no self respecting warrior would use a crossbow when he could use a bow, the crossbow has been relegated to a weapon for mages who have run out of spells. Slings such as well.


This does, however, bring up the myth that the longbow made plate armor obsolete. I think that in actuality, the opposite may be closer to the truth - that it made plate armor more popular and heavier of the years and perhaps even that plate may have made longbows obsolete. Longbows existed when plate was first starting to be worn, in the early 1200's and late 1300's and yet plate armor took off after that point and was used more and more frequently. The golden age of plate armor was probably in the 1500's when long bows were on the way out as a major weapon of war. In fact, plate was frequently used well into the 1600's when virtually nobody used longbows anymore.

Fhaolan
2006-08-15, 11:55 AM
Why wouldn't you be wanted here Fhaolan?


English/Welsh longbow fanatics have a very similar outlook to katana fanatics. Their weapon is just so UBER, they get annoyed when someone comes along and disagrees. :)


Fhaolan is no doubt correct when he points out that the leg armour worn was most likely Mail, rather than plate. I would dispute that this was the only type of limb armour in use at that time, but that is another story, and it was certainly the most common.


Oh, there were others. Splint, scale, etc. Just not the full articulated plate that most people envision. :)

The English didn't embrace the Welsh longbow until the end of the 13th century. Before that, the ranged weapon of choice was the crossbow, which had been upgraded with Saracen composite bow technology to be pretty impressive. Because of the huge amount of training and conditioning needed to use a Welsh longbow, it took quite a while for the English to put together enough people with those skills and abilities to be able to field an effective force of longbowmen.


Guns were what rendered heavy armour obsolete, not Long Bows. Long Bows may have even conceivably encouraged the development of heavier plate armour.


To my understanding, the longbow was one of the major influences in armor design from the 13th century onwards. That, and better quality/less expensive steel becoming available. At the end of the 15th century full Gothic and Itallian harnesses were being billed as 'arrow-proof', just in time for guns to start taking over from longbowmen. At the same time that longbowmen were dominating the battlefeild, crossbows were being upgraded again with steel prods to produce arbalests and 'siege crossbows'.

Matthew
2006-08-15, 02:12 PM
English/Welsh longbow fanatics have a very similar outlook to katana fanatics. Their weapon is just so UBER, they get annoyed when someone comes along and disagrees. :)

I see, well I'm sure Averem isn't a fanatic, just eager to correct a perceived wrong.

Here's another way of thinking about it mechanically:

Composite Long Bow, Strength +0 1D8+0 Damage(Average: 4.5)
Composite Long Bow, Strength +1 1D8+1 Damage(Average: 5.5)
Composite Long Bow, Strength +2 1D8+2 Damage(Average: 6.5)
Composite Long Bow, Strength +3 1D8+3 Damage(Average: 7.5)
Composite Long Bow, Strength +4, 1D8+4 Damage (Average 8.5)

Assuming the Draw Weight of the Normal Long Bow is 80-90 lbs, each increase in Strength represents an addition of 20-30 lb in Draw Weight or 1 Point of Damage. The Mighty Composite Long Bow +4 having around twice the Draw Weight and doing around twice the average damage. Works out pretty well, surprisingly.

Ambrogino
2006-08-16, 05:50 AM
You can't draw a bow taller than you.

Why? There were many Japanese bows larger than their wielder, though generally asymetrically shaped and drawn on horseback.

chaosbrand
2006-08-16, 06:26 AM
It shouldn't deal that powerful a damage, even if they can pierce human flesh easily.

Assuming a normal foot-soldier is a level 1 warrior, who has 10 hp. A good shot can deal 6-8 damage, bringing him down in two shots. A shot to the head or something like that would count as a critical, dealing x3 damage. It's believable enough as it is now.

Diz
2006-08-16, 07:43 AM
The original poster's quote from the Itinerarium Cambriae would probably have been a rare critical hit. One can just imagine the Welshman responsible jumping around shouting "Ergyd peryglus! Ergyd peryglus!"*,

*that's "Critical Hit" in Welsh for you non-Celts. Translates literally as "Dangerous Blow"

The greatbow from Complete Warrior is a perfect mechanical example of the strongest longbows wielded by English and Welsh soldiers. Over 6 feet in length, with the strength to punch through the strongest armour and extra damage caused by its sheer power.

Modern longbows are often made from composite woods (and by gods they shoot nicely), but back in the day yew wood was just as effective. Yew is quite a rare wood nowadays, and my sources in the archery community up here in coldest Cambria tell me there's a 4-5 year waiting list for a yew longbow if you want one.

The sheer strength required to pull the things would make the proposed English Longbow (or Welsh, if you really feel like sticking one in the eye of St. George) a composite greatbow, probably +2 or +3. Bear in mind that Strength 16 in the real world would probably qualify you for international weightlifting competition, and you get the idea of how strong one would have to be to pull them!

Platemail and longbows didn't send each other into obsolescence. Gunpowder did that. Agincourt, that over-hyped victory of English and Welsh longbowmen over tactically foolish French knights, was probably the last great hurrah for archery in European warfare. It took fifteen years to train a longbowman. It took as many weeks to train someone to use a gun.

Anyway, nice to see this debate pop up. Have fun!