PDA

View Full Version : Buffed archers or skinny archers?



S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-03, 07:51 PM
How do you guys describe the appearance of archers to your players?

Strong and muscular or skinny and agile?

They need some muscle to pull that long bow string. But they also need to be fast to fire as many arrows as they can.

vasharanpaladin
2014-09-03, 07:54 PM
I just say they're elves. *shrug*

LibraryOgre
2014-09-03, 07:56 PM
"Wiry" is a good word. It implies strength, but slenderness.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-03, 08:13 PM
I usually describe my archers as carrying a bow and quiver, and possibly wearing some kind of armor/uniform.

Slipperychicken
2014-09-03, 09:35 PM
I like to think of them as big guys with long arms, chosen for draw-strength and distance.

Mastikator
2014-09-03, 09:49 PM
Depends on the individual archer. An ogre archer is going to be beefier than an elven archer.

SgtCarnage92
2014-09-04, 12:08 AM
Honestly, it depends on the archer. I mean, the ripcord-muscle style archer is classic because that's what makes sense for someone who's equipped to use a bow. Then you look at Stephen Amell on Arrow (CW series based off of DC's Green Arrow) and the dude is ripped to no end but it still works with the character. Honestly it depends on the build. If it's a character that relies on precision to get the job done the skinnier and more dexterous look might be better off, if they rely more on the force of the bow and being able to handle themselves up close too then a more "buffed" archer may be more appropriate.

Knaight
2014-09-04, 12:25 AM
It depends on the archer in question. The real commonality is bow use, along with the muscles needed for that. Sometimes that means a thin, wiry type. Sometimes it's a big buff guy. Sometimes it's an overweight person who doesn't even look particularly muscular until they do something and demonstrate that it's not just fat they're hauling around. Sometimes it's not someone who looks strong at all, as you're not seeing the physique under the clothing. Etc. I do think that a given archer is more likely to be wiry, if any particular description is given, but there's variation.

TheIronGolem
2014-09-04, 12:33 AM
I don't consider weapon of choice as a factor in determining a character's physical appearance. Rather, both of those are things that I consider separate expressions of the character's concept and personality.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-04, 06:02 AM
I would describe them as having an arm that is more muscular than the other. And really callous fingers and wrists.

Anyway, the image of the nimble archer is just somethign popularized by Tolkien's elves, in reality to be an archer you had to be very strong but as far as speed and agility was concerned you could have been lame and it wouldn't have made a difference. You won't be moving around that much anyway. As long as you can pull the bow string and make the arrow go where you want it to go, you're good. At most, it's hand-eye coordination that was important.

Ettina
2014-09-04, 06:46 AM
One arm would be much more muscular than the other (the drawing arm) but I'm not sure if it would be readily noticeable. (It can be seen on their bones by a trained person.) Arms would generally be stronger than legs, too.

Incidentally, mounted knights would typically have much stronger arms than legs, while foot soldiers are strong all over.

Berenger
2014-09-04, 10:04 AM
The "weak, but agile archer" cliché is really annoying. The proper primary stats for an archer on a battlefield should be strength and constitution, not dexterity. In fact, even wisdom would be a more appropriate stat than dexterity. Also, an above-average strength should be a prerequisite for using anything but a basic hunting bow. This is reflected poorly by many game systems.

Brother Oni
2014-09-04, 10:35 AM
It depends on the archer in question. The real commonality is bow use, along with the muscles needed for that. Sometimes that means a thin, wiry type. Sometimes it's a big buff guy. Sometimes it's an overweight person who doesn't even look particularly muscular until they do something and demonstrate that it's not just fat they're hauling around. Sometimes it's not someone who looks strong at all, as you're not seeing the physique under the clothing. Etc. I do think that a given archer is more likely to be wiry, if any particular description is given, but there's variation.

Depending on the archer's form and the type of bow though. An overweight person may have issues unless they have a chest guard to hold their flesh out of the path of their bowstring, whereas a woman may be perfectly fine without a chestguard as due to the way she she shoots, her bosom doesn't get in the way.

While a minimum physical ability is required, it's not until you start getting into the big draw weight bows (>100lb) that archers would be more and more physically powerful. For anything up to about 75lbs, thin and wiry would be perfectly acceptable.


One arm would be much more muscular than the other (the drawing arm) but I'm not sure if it would be readily noticeable. (It can be seen on their bones by a trained person.) Arms would generally be stronger than legs, too.



I would describe them as having an arm that is more muscular than the other. And really callous fingers and wrists.


While the spine, drawing arm and its shoulder joint would be slightly overdeveloped, it wouldn't be overtly visible (the Mary Rose had a number of skeletons with these adaptations and since there were the remains of bows nearby, it was assumed they were archers). The holding arm would also be fairly strong though - while the drawing arm is pulling the string back, the other arm is still holding the bow in place.

However the main way to spot a high draw weight archer is the size of their back as that's where the strength to draw comes from. Fingers possibly, but that's why archers have tabs and I'm not seeing why the wrist would be affected.

LibraryOgre
2014-09-04, 11:25 AM
The "weak, but agile archer" cliché is really annoying. The proper primary stats for an archer on a battlefield should be strength and constitution, not dexterity. In fact, even wisdom would be a more appropriate stat than dexterity. Also, an above-average strength should be a prerequisite for using anything but a basic hunting bow. This is reflected poorly by many game systems.

Hackmaster, my friend, Hackmaster.

Dex is HELLA useful to an archer, since it adds to Attack and Defense rolls, but you need a minimum strength to handle any weapon. But Int and Wisdom also add to Attack and Defense (respectively), and the archery rules are fun and pretty fast.

Berenger
2014-09-04, 11:37 AM
Hackmaster, my friend, Hackmaster.

HackMaster and The Dark Eye, my group uses both. :)

Yora
2014-09-04, 11:44 AM
From what I understand about muscle development, even lots of archery practice doesn't get you bulgy arms or chests. Probably more well shaped than flabby, but invisible under a shirt.
I believe in fact strength doesn't lead to muscles growing in size at all. If you want big muscles, you have to do other work on them than increasing strength.

BRC
2014-09-04, 11:51 AM
Googling up some images of olympic archers, they seem to be in good shape but they're hardly bulky.

Spiryt
2014-09-04, 11:57 AM
I believe in fact strength doesn't lead to muscles growing in size at all. If you want big muscles, you have to do other work on them than increasing strength.

Muscles growing in size become stronger, but they also can increase their strength without increase in size.

Of course there are limits on how much stronger muscle can be without becoming heavier/bigger.

Different activities and diet will lead to different development.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-04, 12:03 PM
The "weak, but agile archer" cliché is really annoying. The proper primary stats for an archer on a battlefield should be strength and constitution, not dexterity. In fact, even wisdom would be a more appropriate stat than dexterity. Also, an above-average strength should be a prerequisite for using anything but a basic hunting bow. This is reflected poorly by many game systems.

The dex requirement (in some games, and stereotypes) is probably more related to hand eye coordination and ability to aim well.

Berenger
2014-09-04, 12:09 PM
@BRC: I'd rather rather google up some marines. An archer in the context of role playing games is more often than not some type of soldier or ranger. "Shooting a bow at orcs" isn't a nine to five job, just as "shooting a rifle at insurgents" isn't nine to five job - the lion's share of soldiering / adventuring will be comprised marching while carrying heavy equipment, setting up camp, keeping watch etc.

@cobaltstarfire: I know, but it isn't really hard to hold a bow of appropriate pull - good depth perception, patience and the ability to correct your aim during a sequence of shots are more important in my experience.

Knaight
2014-09-04, 02:24 PM
@BRC: I'd rather rather google up some marines. An archer in the context of role playing games is more often than not some type of soldier or ranger. "Shooting a bow at orcs" isn't a nine to five job, just as "shooting a rifle at insurgents" isn't nine to five job - the lion's share of soldiering / adventuring will be comprised marching while carrying heavy equipment, setting up camp, keeping watch etc.

Sure, but then you also have things like city guards, retired military living in a city, so on and so forth. Which makes it entirely possible for an archer who shows up to be an overweight ex-military official with a limp, who's still a crack shot and poses a very, very nasty surprise for anyone taking an action against them who assumed they were just some soft, injured civilian.

TheThan
2014-09-04, 02:27 PM
Weren’t British archers supposed to be big brawny guys?
Like 6’4” or better and well fed (beefy, not fat or scrawny).

That to me suggests strength.

BRC
2014-09-04, 02:37 PM
Weren’t British archers supposed to be big brawny guys?
Like 6’4” or better and well fed (beefy, not fat or scrawny).

That to me suggests strength.
Wikipedia says the estimated draw weights of english longbows as being anywhere between 80 and 200 pounds, with a modern longbow's draw weight at around 60. I'm not sure how those numbers work out, but It sounds like in order to use that effectively in combat you would need to be pretty strong.

Tengu_temp
2014-09-04, 02:48 PM
From what I understand about muscle development, even lots of archery practice doesn't get you bulgy arms or chests. Probably more well shaped than flabby, but invisible under a shirt.
I believe in fact strength doesn't lead to muscles growing in size at all. If you want big muscles, you have to do other work on them than increasing strength.

Indeed. Look at real life athletes and people doing hard, physical labour for a living. They range from wiry, not very big but with steely limbs, to large, somewhat shapeless guys who might be mistaken for fat at a first glance. But sculpted, Schwarzenegger-like physiques are very rare. They are a result of bodybuilding, which is very different from strength- and endurance-building exercise.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-04, 03:46 PM
@BRC: I'd rather rather google up some marines. An archer in the context of role playing games is more often than not some type of soldier or ranger. "Shooting a bow at orcs" isn't a nine to five job, just as "shooting a rifle at insurgents" isn't nine to five job - the lion's share of soldiering / adventuring will be comprised marching while carrying heavy equipment, setting up camp, keeping watch etc.

@cobaltstarfire: I know, but it isn't really hard to hold a bow of appropriate pull - good depth perception, patience and the ability to correct your aim during a sequence of shots are more important in my experience.

I agree, you need both to be effective. :)

Brother Oni
2014-09-04, 04:41 PM
Googling up some images of olympic archers, they seem to be in good shape but they're hardly bulky.

Olympic archery rules cap the draw weight at 48lbs for men and 37lbs for women, so there's very little reason for them to train at drawing a heavier weight than that.

Looking up the laws for bowhunting in the US, the minimum weight depends on what you're hunting and what state you're in, but it says a minimum of 30-40lbs for deer.


@cobaltstarfire: I know, but it isn't really hard to hold a bow of appropriate pull - good depth perception, patience and the ability to correct your aim during a sequence of shots are more important in my experience.

Bear in mind that target archery is a very different technique to hunting and for combat. The main one is that with combat, you don't hold the draw unlike in target and hunting, so while it is a heavier weight to pull, you don't hold it at maximum draw (the most tiring part) for long.


Wikipedia says the estimated draw weights of english longbows as being anywhere between 80 and 200 pounds, with a modern longbow's draw weight at around 60. I'm not sure how those numbers work out, but It sounds like in order to use that effectively in combat you would need to be pretty strong.

The wiki article is somewhat misleading as a bow's draw weight is whatever the bow is made to, even with modern self bows (bows carved out of a single piece of wood, typically a longbow). The exact draw weight of an English warbow during Medieval times is under heavy debate but the English Warbow Society have records of 170lbs so the more ridiculous weights are possible (example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY)).

The Ming dynasty also had very heavy draw weight bows, although they were used for military examinations and there's minimal evidence that these bows were actually used in combat.

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-04, 05:12 PM
If you take one of the middle weight classes in most sports (of the top of my head come weightlifting, boxing and wrestling) you'll see a wide variety of physiques amongst people of the same mass, doing the same stuff. So you could probably take from that to have your archer look however you feel like, or start some ridiculous debate over what stats contribute to looking sexy... I mean, looking like someone who could do arrow stuff.


Also: arms typically stronger than legs and mounted knights having much stronger arms than legs... Could you be more precise in your meaning, I don't want to misinterpret you or owt, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

KillianHawkeye
2014-09-04, 05:20 PM
Just look at Jeremy Renner AKA Hawkeye in The Avengers. He's relatively thin and compact, but dense and muscular.

Blackhawk748
2014-09-04, 06:05 PM
As a guy who shoots bow i can tell you a medieval archer would be fairly developed. I mean i only pull 45-50 pounds they were pulling at minimum 60 pounds all the way up to 120 or more. As has been pointed out before this would be most prominent in the back muscles, and i honestly think that the new Hawkeye is a great example of what an archer would look like, or at the very least your average ranger

Brother Oni
2014-09-04, 06:19 PM
As a guy who shoots bow i can tell you a medieval archer would be fairly developed. I mean i only pull 45-50 pounds they were pulling at minimum 60 pounds all the way up to 120 or more.

I'd think 60lbs for a longbow would be a bit light (depending on the draw length), as during the Tudor era, the minimum target distance for anybody over 19 was 220 yards by law.

How well that law was enforced is unclear, but it gives an idea as to the expected standard.

Blackhawk748
2014-09-04, 06:26 PM
If thats the minimum range we're talking about 90lbs or more to pull that off, which means even more muscle

Knaight
2014-09-04, 07:42 PM
Also: arms typically stronger than legs and mounted knights having much stronger arms than legs... Could you be more precise in your meaning, I don't want to misinterpret you or owt, but that doesn't make much sense to me.
I think it's supposed to be in terms of strength relative to the population, and not something like straight force output - legs are going to be doing more straight force output than arms for almost everyone, and basically all of the exceptions have legs that are either severely damaged or severely deformed. So it's not that an archer or a knight can exert more force with their arms, but that they might be in the 90th percentile for arm strength, and only the 50th percentile for leg strength, particularly among people who do a lot more riding than marching.

Spiryt
2014-09-05, 03:37 AM
But sculpted, Schwarzenegger-like physiques are very rare. They are a result of bodybuilding, which is very different from strength- and endurance-building exercise.

This is not uncommon, but rather weird view.

Bodybuilding is not very different at all from most 'strength building exercises'.

It's mostly lifting, just like lifting for powerflifting, olympic-style weightlifting, Strongman, climbing or whatever.

Difference is of course in diet, methods, regeneration, steroids used and whatever, cause ultimate goal is very different, but all those people do essentially the same thing.

Ahnold was extremely strong compared to most gym rats, nevermind

Main goal of body building, save getting huge muscles, is of course getting into extremely low body fat levels.

It is very hard on it's own, while maintaining muscle mass, and majority of people starts feeling and performing crappy with they fat levels that low.

It also serves not much purpose for athletic purposes.

So that's why people don't look like Arnold, even with similar amount of muscle mass.


Indeed. Look at real life athletes and people doing hard, physical labour for a living. They range from wiry, not very big but with steely limbs, to large, somewhat shapeless guys who might be mistaken for fat at a first glance.

They don't have to be 'mistaken' some of them are fat. Having large, visible amount of excess fat tissue is being fat by definition.

It's not required by any means of course, some have very low body fat, all depends on genes, and probably most importantly, if one cares and watches their diet etc.

Real life athletes will vary tremendously in shape of course.

Some of them will be thin, some large, some 'bulgy' some not.

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-05, 05:09 AM
Sorry, no, bodybuilding is different from all the strength sports, because of all the reasons you listed. It just shares some of the same tools. Like how an F1 driver, a delivery man, a mum driving her kids to school and a banger racer all have an engine and some wheels to do their task, by no means would you expect one vehicle to be suitable for the others' needs.
Different goals = different training methods = different results = different period.

Regarding a relatively overdeveloped back, how far out of place would this be in a world full of manual labourers swinging wood axes and working the fields be? Obviously there would be position and movement specific strength differences, but a strong back looks like a strong back by and large, discounting individuality (ie. The variance between different participants performing the same tasks covering a similar 'bell curve of physiques' as people performing different tasks using the same muscle groups)

Brother Oni
2014-09-05, 06:30 AM
Regarding a relatively overdeveloped back, how far out of place would this be in a world full of manual labourers swinging wood axes and working the fields be? Obviously there would be position and movement specific strength differences, but a strong back looks like a strong back by and large, discounting individuality (ie. The variance between different participants performing the same tasks covering a similar 'bell curve of physiques' as people performing different tasks using the same muscle groups)

About the only thing I can find is that many archers would have suffered from Os Acromiale and the chances are is that one half of the back would have been more overdeveloped compared to the other.

Speaking of big beefy archers, I found this reconstruction of one of the archers from the Mary Rose:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67757000/jpg/_67757352_skeletoncomp.jpg

He was 5'10" so fairly tall in comparison to the general populace. I remember seeing a reverse shot of the skeleton showing the spine (unfortunately, my google-fu is failing me at the moment) and there was a definite 'kink' in it, although whether it would be visible normally is debatable.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-05, 06:33 AM
Sorry, no, bodybuilding is different from all the strength sports, because of all the reasons you listed. It just shares some of the same tools. Like how an F1 driver, a delivery man, a mum driving her kids to school and a banger racer all have an engine and some wheels to do their task, by no means would you expect one vehicle to be suitable for the others' needs.
Different goals = different training methods = different results = different period.

Regarding a relatively overdeveloped back, how far out of place would this be in a world full of manual labourers swinging wood axes and working the fields be? Obviously there would be position and movement specific strength differences, but a strong back looks like a strong back by and large, discounting individuality (ie. The variance between different participants performing the same tasks covering a similar 'bell curve of physiques' as people performing different tasks using the same muscle groups)

Most rpg games don't take that into account, or at least D&D doesn't. If it did, many commoners and some experts would have strengths in the upper reaches of human ability, rather than just a 10.

I'd probably just give my archer a build that somehow fits their character/personality/concept. I made one recently that's meant to be extra sneaky and a dead eye shot. He's a lanky sort of fellow with a high amount of poise, so very compact and powerful muscles and highly dexterous.

Incanur
2014-09-05, 10:09 AM
The Ming dynasty also had very heavy draw weight bows, although they were used for military examinations and there's minimal evidence that these bows were actually used in combat.

One source from near the end of the Ming period, Sung Ying-hsing (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24380), wrote that strong archers drew about 160lbs, average archers 125-140lbs, and weak archers about 80lbs. That was presumably on foot and aligns quite closely to the 150-160lb range most of the English bows from the Mary Rose fell into. Tang- and Song-era military infantry archery examinations could involve shooting a 160+lb bow thirty or so times. It's possible these examination weights were a bit exaggerated, but the weight of the evidence indicates that good military archers drew 120-180lbs on foot and 80-120lbs when mounted. Qing authorities considered 70-80lbs the minimum military draw in the 18th century, that was probably for mounted archery. Earlier Manchu cavalry bows were supposedly around 106lbs on average, which is almost the same as the estimated average for extant Turkish bows. Etc.

There's what a few archers who draw very heavy bows look like today:

Mark Stretton
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/stevesjem/P9090003.jpg

Joe Gibbs
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-2KLuAH4GY/maxresdefault.jpg

Simon Stanley
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01546/king2_1546355c.jpg

S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-05, 01:44 PM
One source from near the end of the Ming period, Sung Ying-hsing (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24380), wrote that strong archers drew about 160lbs, average archers 125-140lbs, and weak archers about 80lbs. That was presumably on foot and aligns quite closely to the 150-160lb range most of the English bows from the Mary Rose fell into. Tang- and Song-era military infantry archery examinations could involve shooting a 160+lb bow thirty or so times. It's possible these examination weights were a bit exaggerated, but the weight of the evidence indicates that good military archers drew 120-180lbs on foot and 80-120lbs when mounted. Qing authorities considered 70-80lbs the minimum military draw in the 18th century, that was probably for mounted archery. Earlier Manchu cavalry bows were supposedly around 106lbs on average, which is almost the same as the estimated average for extant Turkish bows. Etc.

There's what a few archers who draw very heavy bows look like today:

Mark Stretton
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m163/stevesjem/P9090003.jpg

Joe Gibbs
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-2KLuAH4GY/maxresdefault.jpg

Simon Stanley
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01546/king2_1546355c.jpg

I don't think these guys use bows all that time that is why they look mundane.

I asked this question cause I'm about to introduce a group of NPCs and I used to take archery classes but with modern bows. http://www.huntersfriend.com/bowselectionart/bowillustration.jpg

Last week I tried to use a historical accurate medieval bow... And it was really hard to use... So I just pictured that the back and arm muscles of an medieval archer who did that with a high frequency should be huge to actually be able to pull that string. The bow was quite heavy too.

Spiryt
2014-09-05, 02:38 PM
Sorry, no, bodybuilding is different from all the strength sports, because of all the reasons you listed. It just shares some of the same tools. Like how an F1 driver, a delivery man, a mum driving her kids to school and a banger racer all have an engine and some wheels to do their task, by no means would you expect one vehicle to be suitable for the others' needs.
Different goals = different training methods = different results = different period.
)

Eh, that's more like F1 driver, NASCAR driver, and V8 driver if we have to use that comparison.

BB like Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman has some ridiculous lifting numbers, and plenty of powerlifter have pretty 'bodybuilding' silhouette if they're putting any effort into it.

One could perform at some amateur competitions of the other sport if they've felt like it etc.

TheThan
2014-09-05, 02:45 PM
I want to know why “they” always make the girl shoot the bow in movies. I mean bows require far more strength and training than guns do (not that guns don’t require training). It’s weird, like they don’t think women can shoot guns, or maybe the women are against the idea so they come up with an alternative. It’s just weird.

S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-05, 02:48 PM
I want to know why “they” always make the girl shoot the bow in movies. I mean bows require far more strength and training than guns do (not that guns don’t require training). It’s weird, like they don’t think women can shoot guns, or maybe the women are against the idea so they come up with an alternative. It’s just weird.

I also hate that. It makes no sense. I blame legolas.

They also most of the time make the girl use magic and the guy use weapons.

Or they just make the girl use healing magic... Hate that.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rsz_zelda_link_6202.jpg

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/painting_of_jonathon_and_charlotte_8639.png

Brother Oni
2014-09-05, 03:12 PM
I asked this question cause I'm about to introduce a group of NPCs and I used to take archery classes but with modern bows. http://www.huntersfriend.com/bowselectionart/bowillustration.jpg


That's not a bow, it's a mess of gears, cables and pulleys masquerading as a bow. :smalltongue:



Last week I tried to use a historical accurate medieval bow... And it was really hard to use... So I just pictured that the back and arm muscles of an medieval archer who did that with a high frequency should be huge to actually be able to pull that string. The bow was quite heavy too.

If you're used to compound bows, I'm not surprised as the draw weight/distance ratio is completely different. I assume you were target shooting and trying to hold the self bow at full draw like you would with your compound? As mentioned earlier, that's not how such heavy draw bows were used (they loosed almost immediately after reaching full draw).

Most heavy draw self bows tend to cap out at about 8lbs in weight, which is indeed fairly heavy.


I want to know why “they” always make the girl shoot the bow in movies.

It's because Hollywood doesn't realise that war bows intended to kill people and to defeat armour have such heavy draws. The writers maybe take an archery lesson with light bows (sub 30lb) shooting at straw/foam targets and assume they're equivalent to war bows.

Spiryt
2014-09-05, 03:42 PM
Most heavy draw self bows tend to cap out at about 8lbs in weight, which is indeed fairly heavy.



That does not seem realistic.... Bow that heavy wouldn't be able to propel anything other than his limbs to move, most likely.

Even clunky examples of heaviest self bows wouldn't likely weight over 4 pounds or 64 ounces.

36 ounces 120 pound bow (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/37706)

41 ounces 130 pounds bow (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,43522.0.html)

Blackhawk748
2014-09-05, 04:20 PM
That does not seem realistic.... Bow that heavy wouldn't be able to propel anything other than his limbs to move, most likely.

Even clunky examples of heaviest self bows wouldn't likely weight over 4 pounds or 64 ounces.

36 ounces 120 pound bow (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/37706)

41 ounces 130 pounds bow (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,43522.0.html)

That weight doesnt seem to crazy, i have my grandfather's recurve and id say it weighs 5 lbs and its got an 80lb draw, IIRC.

Also the women using bow thing, ya idk, just give them a shotgun with some 00 buckshot in it, i really cant think of a more simplistic weapon to use.

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-05, 06:27 PM
Eh, that's more like F1 driver, NASCAR driver, and V8 driver if we have to use that comparison.

BB like Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman has some ridiculous lifting numbers, and plenty of powerlifter have pretty 'bodybuilding' silhouette if they're putting any effort into it.

One could perform at some amateur competitions of the other sport if they've felt like it etc.

on reflection, I think I would use a max power type of show car to represent bodybuilding

Brother Oni
2014-09-05, 08:06 PM
That does not seem realistic.... Bow that heavy wouldn't be able to propel anything other than his limbs to move, most likely.

Even clunky examples of heaviest self bows wouldn't likely weight over 4 pounds or 64 ounces.



That weight doesnt seem to crazy, i have my grandfather's recurve and id say it weighs 5 lbs and its got an 80lb draw, IIRC.


Actually Spiryt is right - I was looking at the wrong set of info. I thought the site I was looking at was talking about self bows, but I'd accidentally wandered into a hunting bow section and they were talking about a modern compound/recurve with all the bells and whistles (1lb optical sights, stabiliser weights, etc).

The density of American yew is ~670 kg/m3 and back of envelope calculations for a 5cm diameter cylinder that is 2m tall (ie completely overgenerous dimensions for a self bow) gives me a weight of 2.6kg or 5.8lbs/92.6oz. The string, serving, nocks, etc aren't going to add that much more on to that, so 4lbs looks to be about right for big self self bow.

Edit: Looking at the weights of compound bows, it leaves me wondering why S@tanicoaldo thought the self bow was heavy - if she's used to shooting compound bows then a self bow would be really light in comparison. About the only things I can think of, is that the dimensions of the self bow were a bit odd, or that she was tired from drawing it which gave a misleading impression of the weight.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-05, 08:06 PM
That does not seem realistic.... Bow that heavy wouldn't be able to propel anything other than his limbs to move, most likely.

Even clunky examples of heaviest self bows wouldn't likely weight over 4 pounds or 64 ounces.

36 ounces 120 pound bow (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/37706)

41 ounces 130 pounds bow (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,43522.0.html)

They're talking about compound bows (the sorts with lots of extra bits) They give you a lot of mechanical advantage so that you personally don't have as high of a draw weight.

Incanur
2014-09-05, 08:54 PM
I don't think these guys use bows all that time that is why they look mundane.

I don't know what this means. The three folks pictures are probably among the absolute strongest archers in the world today. Joe Gibbs is drawing 170lbs in the picture. Mark Stretton can draw 200lbs. Simon Stanley can draw 190+lbs. They're all pretty big. Stretton is 5'10" and 250lbs.

AMFV
2014-09-05, 09:19 PM
From what I understand about muscle development, even lots of archery practice doesn't get you bulgy arms or chests. Probably more well shaped than flabby, but invisible under a shirt.
I believe in fact strength doesn't lead to muscles growing in size at all. If you want big muscles, you have to do other work on them than increasing strength.

Well that's not strictly true. Hypertrophy results more from diet than anything else. If you're getting stronger and eating enough calories you'll develop larger muscles, if you aren't eating enough for it you'll get stronger (albeit only to a point, because at a certain point you won't have enough fuel to develop more efficient muscles).

spineyrequiem
2014-09-06, 05:52 AM
One thing that might affect it: I remember going down to a castle where they had archery demonstrations, years ago, and one thing they said was that rather than 'drawing' bows (holding the stave in front of you and pulling the string back), they might have been 'pushing' bows (holding the string next to your ear and pushing the stave to its full extent with the other arm, while standing in a slightly crouched position). This was demonstrably easier, though likely no less difficult to hold at full draw. That said, I doubt they were using full medieval-weight bow, since they tried to use my dad for the demonstration of how difficult it was to draw and he managed it (with extreme difficulty, though they still seemed surprised) despite never having done archery and being fifty-odd (though still fairly fit). This might reduce the muscle mass needed.

Brother Oni
2014-09-06, 07:16 AM
If thats the minimum range we're talking about 90lbs or more to pull that off, which means even more muscle

I managed to speak to a couple of longbow guys at the range today about it and with clout shooting, they can hit the range required (~190yds) with only a 60lb bow. There's a guy who shoots a ~38lb longbow and he struggles a bit though.

I forgot to ask about the furthest range they could manage with target shooting though.


One thing that might affect it: I remember going down to a castle where they had archery demonstrations, years ago, and one thing they said was that rather than 'drawing' bows (holding the stave in front of you and pulling the string back), they might have been 'pushing' bows (holding the string next to your ear and pushing the stave to its full extent with the other arm, while standing in a slightly crouched position). This was demonstrably easier, though likely no less difficult to hold at full draw. That said, I doubt they were using full medieval-weight bow, since they tried to use my dad for the demonstration of how difficult it was to draw and he managed it (with extreme difficulty, though they still seemed surprised) despite never having done archery and being fifty-odd (though still fairly fit). This might reduce the muscle mass needed.

There's a variety of historical techniques to draw high poundage bows (see the video I linked to earlier) and most of them involve using the whole body and shifting weight from foot to foot.

The other thing I mentioned earlier - not holding at full draw. Most heavy longbow guys draw back until they touch their anchor points, then immediately loose.

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-06, 12:31 PM
Well that's not strictly true. Hypertrophy results more from diet than anything else.

Excluding training methology, genetics and ped use and maybe on a par with recovery, although nutrition overlaps with that anyway.

You aren't getting huge running marathons, however much you eat. And even within lifting, it is a combination of the volume, intensity and frequency that determine hypertrophy. Which is why athletes' training plans vary greatly depending on their goals and sport.

AMFV
2014-09-06, 01:47 PM
Excluding training methology, genetics and ped use and maybe on a par with recovery, although nutrition overlaps with that anyway.

You aren't getting huge running marathons, however much you eat. And even within lifting, it is a combination of the volume, intensity and frequency that determine hypertrophy. Which is why athletes' training plans vary greatly depending on their goals and sport.

You aren't getting huge running Marathons because running Marathons consumes significantly more calories than you can replenish. Generally as a rule though you'll develop larger muscles if you have a calorie surplus and are tearing muscle. There's a lot more to it if you want specific results, but if you have a caloric surplus and you are tearing at muscle you'll develop larger muscles.

There's a large tendency in certain sections of the lifting community to mytholigize and mysticize weight loss and gain, when really calories are always the determinate factor, and that includes PED usage. It's actually a myth that PEDs really make you larger, what they do is allow you to heal faster and recover faster (generally depending on the PED in question) so that you can then become significantly larger.

Now this isn't to say that certain exercises are not more efficient. But generally that has to do with working a larger number of muscles and having a higher degree of muscle but again, if you are damaging muscles and have a caloric surplus you'll develop larger muscles, that's how that works, on the simplest levels. It's why I've gotten bigger doing body-weight pushup exercises (not as much growth as with focused lifting mind you), but with body weight pushups I've had muscle growth, and that's a pretty relaxed exercise. With daily walking I've had calf growth and development, not so much as with heavy lifting but certainly present.

I'm not saying that you can't train more efficiently for hypertrophy just that muscles will grow with a caloric surplus, if you are tearing and damaging them.

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-06, 05:19 PM
You aren't getting huge running Marathons because running Marathons consumes significantly more calories than you can replenish. Generally as a rule though you'll develop larger muscles if you have a calorie surplus and are tearing muscle. There's a lot more to it if you want specific results, but if you have a caloric surplus and you are tearing at muscle you'll develop larger muscles.

There's a large tendency in certain sections of the lifting community to mytholigize and mysticize weight loss and gain, when really calories are always the determinate factor, and that includes PED usage. It's actually a myth that PEDs really make you larger, what they do is allow you to heal faster and recover faster (generally depending on the PED in question) so that you can then become significantly larger.

Now this isn't to say that certain exercises are not more efficient. But generally that has to do with working a larger number of muscles and having a higher degree of muscle but again, if you are damaging muscles and have a caloric surplus you'll develop larger muscles, that's how that works, on the simplest levels. It's why I've gotten bigger doing body-weight pushup exercises (not as much growth as with focused lifting mind you), but with body weight pushups I've had muscle growth, and that's a pretty relaxed exercise. With daily walking I've had calf growth and development, not so much as with heavy lifting but certainly present.

I'm not saying that you can't train more efficiently for hypertrophy just that muscles will grow with a caloric surplus, if you are tearing and damaging them.




Sorry but literally everything you're saying is suspect. I can't get into a full quote, dispel and reference war right now, but just off the top of my head:

1. Gebrselassie has an estimated daily calorific req. of under 4000 on race day, arguably the toughest in his programming

Pudzianowski has an estimated daily req. of around 7500. So firstly many, many people can eat enough to cover a marathon (3000 oval is often bandied about as a rough marathon's needs), and lifters can massively exceed the daily energy requirements of runners yet still grow - gebrselassie is estimated at a somewhere over 1800kcal req to run a marathon, whereas pudz uses somewhere I'm the region of 3500kcal for a typical training session, 4h split over the day)

2. PED's: most are trying to mimic testosterone (except obviously for actual testosterone, obviously!) although other anabolic hormones are popular too. Are you aware of what these do and how they get their classification as anabolic hormones? Why do they get prescribed to those suffering from muscle wasting diseases? Most ex phys textbooks will cover these to some degree (along with an overview of everything else too), katch-mcardle, brooks and fahey, and wilmore, costill & kenney are all good texts

3. What you experienced is something called the novice effect (pretty sure you can read about it free on T-nation, if you can deal with the site, or Rippetoe himself who popularized the term if you want more book stuff), whereby pretty much anything will improve everything if the alternative/start point is doing nothing.

4. Muscle damage, repair and adaptation: this is pretty much why lifters lift differently, to get specific adaptations according to their goals, which is why they all look, perform and train differently. Zatsiorsky and kraemer have really great writing explaining this in particular.


This isn't a personal dig or anything by the way, just clearing up bad information for other readers and yourself.

S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-08, 12:11 PM
It is kind of hard for me to conceive a skinny archer because in my childhood my favorite fantasy archer was Heracles from classical mythology.

And the dude is like a bodybuilder.

Knaight
2014-09-08, 04:32 PM
It is kind of hard for me to conceive a skinny archer because in my childhood my favorite fantasy archer was Heracles from classical mythology.

And the dude is like a bodybuilder.

Statues of heracles from Greece and Rome usually don't go anywhere near bodybuilder levels. He'll be muscular, but the physical ideal that was depicted was a leaner musculature, the sort that would be useful for a wide variety of things (whereas the body builder musculature is really not all that helpful for something like running).

S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-08, 04:43 PM
Statues of heracles from Greece and Rome usually don't go anywhere near bodybuilder levels. He'll be muscular, but the physical ideal that was depicted was a leaner musculature, the sort that would be useful for a wide variety of things (whereas the body builder musculature is really not all that helpful for something like running).

I know.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Herakles_the_Archer_-_MET_-_24.232.jpg/280px-Herakles_the_Archer_-_MET_-_24.232.jpg

But as a kid that is not how I used to picture him.

Aedilred
2014-09-08, 10:16 PM
However the main way to spot a high draw weight archer is the size of their back as that's where the strength to draw comes from. Fingers possibly, but that's why archers have tabs and I'm not seeing why the wrist would be affected.

The bowstring has a tendency to slap into the wrist of the holding arm after release. I presume that's what he's referring to. That can be mitigated by padding, though, and from what I gather usually was (and is). Finger-tabs are now the norm, although they do seem to slow down rate of fire slightly, so a combat archer might well have just sucked it up and taken the callouses.

Brother Oni
2014-09-09, 03:01 AM
The bowstring has a tendency to slap into the wrist of the holding arm after release. I presume that's what he's referring to. That can be mitigated by padding, though, and from what I gather usually was (and is). Finger-tabs are now the norm, although they do seem to slow down rate of fire slightly, so a combat archer might well have just sucked it up and taken the callouses.

Most archers (at least those with a inner forearm left) wear a bracer to protect against string slap and it tends to be something they forget only once (my left arm is tingling at the memory even now...).
Bracers (or at least the surviving decorative part of them) date back to the Bronze Age, so they've been around for a while.

I can't find a historical reference to finger tabs at the moment, but thumb rings have been around since at least the 15th/16th Century (and probably earlier).
I would think whether it's slower to shoot would depends on the style of tab. One which is essentially a three fingered glove wouldn't be slower, but doesn't give as much protection (hence the bone ridges on the drawing hand), while the more thicker tab can be a bit clumsy at times, especially ones which have metal components on.

http://www.cbarchery.co.uk/WebRoot/StoreLGB/Shops/62059681/4C38/8514/3AA3/47FA/BF45/C0A8/28BC/4DB4/sf_carbon_tab.jpg

Anonymouswizard
2014-09-09, 08:58 AM
It is kind of hard for me to conceive a skinny archer because in my childhood my favorite fantasy archer was Heracles from classical mythology.

And the dude is like a bodybuilder.

You see, I've always had trouble with imaginging beefy archers as my favourite was Robin Hood, who despite having a good sword arm and lots of skill with a bow, but very rarely heavily muscled.

I do have problems with skinny archers only when they get to "no meat on their arms", as size does not directly equal power, but a lack of anything means almost no power.

DCraw
2014-09-09, 09:52 AM
It's also worth noting that unlike most archer characters, real life martial archers tended not to aim at individual people, but rather tried to hit a specific area. This makes sense for a number of reasons, which generally boil down to variations on two key elements:
- Although there may be (rare) instances where a high value target would present themselves, by and large there was little difference between hitting any given enemy and the guy to their right. The archers' job was to thin out the enemy ranks before the infantry engaged, not to pick off specific people.
- In order to punch through even minimal armour a heavy draw weight and correspondingly thick arrow are required. As has been noted, war bows are very different from hunting bows, and tend to be impractical to aim precisely. Aiming at an enemy formation is much more practical.

AMFV
2014-09-09, 12:02 PM
Sorry but literally everything you're saying is suspect. I can't get into a full quote, dispel and reference war right now, but just off the top of my head:

1. Gebrselassie has an estimated daily calorific req. of under 4000 on race day, arguably the toughest in his programming

Pudzianowski has an estimated daily req. of around 7500. So firstly many, many people can eat enough to cover a marathon (3000 oval is often bandied about as a rough marathon's needs), and lifters can massively exceed the daily energy requirements of runners yet still grow - gebrselassie is estimated at a somewhere over 1800kcal req to run a marathon, whereas pudz uses somewhere I'm the region of 3500kcal for a typical training session, 4h split over the day)


What you're missing is that Caloric surplus still results in the building of muscle it doesn't matter if I need to eat 7k kilocals to have a surplus or 1.5 kilocals to havea surplus that's not relevant, it does affect how easily one gains, but it's hardly the end-all be-all factor, well it is, but it's the surplus over your needs that is. If the Marathon runner ate deliberately to surpass his surplus, he'd gain weight, and probably some degree of muscle mass, although how much that is will depend on a variety of factors.



2. PED's: most are trying to mimic testosterone (except obviously for actual testosterone, obviously!) although other anabolic hormones are popular too. Are you aware of what these do and how they get their classification as anabolic hormones? Why do they get prescribed to those suffering from muscle wasting diseases? Most ex phys textbooks will cover these to some degree (along with an overview of everything else too), katch-mcardle, brooks and fahey, and wilmore, costill & kenney are all good texts

Which are generally intended to reduce recovery time or increase the effect of muscle gain, but it still doesn't change the fact that you need a caloric surplus to build muscle, because that's you know, the law of conservation of energy, you can't have something from nothing.



3. What you experienced is something called the novice effect (pretty sure you can read about it free on T-nation, if you can deal with the site, or Rippetoe himself who popularized the term if you want more book stuff), whereby pretty much anything will improve everything if the alternative/start point is doing nothing.

I've been lifting for years bud, I've had a lot of different methods I've tried, and a lot of them have resulted in pretty heavy improvement. But generally my experience has been Calories in to calories burned is the end-all be-all for gaining weight, literally it is the most important factor, and if somebody is telling you different, they're full of it, see law of conservation of energy.



4. Muscle damage, repair and adaptation: this is pretty much why lifters lift differently, to get specific adaptations according to their goals, which is why they all look, perform and train differently. Zatsiorsky and kraemer have really great writing explaining this in particular.

Well I'm not saying that there are not ways to more efficiently lift. Even for an individual lifter things may vary, I'm saying if you are damaging muscle and have a caloric surplus you'll build more muscle, that's how that works, now you may run out of surplus quickly (muscle has a much caloric maintenance requirement and therefore ups your base caloric requirement and if you don't change your eating habits will drop the amount of surplus until you stop developing). But again calories is the most important defining factor, of course the content of calories comes into play, but generally assuming a fairly balanced diet that avoids malnutrition if you don't care about how you gain, or how much or how you develop. But if you eat more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight, some of it muscle, if you're damaging muscle.

Bulhakov
2014-09-09, 05:41 PM
Definitely buff/ripped archers. Many of the best archers I know (from medieval reconstruction groups) are actually overweight.

Skinny/agile archers in RPGs are the fault of a few things:
- assigning the dexterity stat to archery
- Tolkien's elves
- balancing range attacks with fragility

Kalmageddon
2014-09-09, 06:52 PM
Definitely buff/ripped archers. Many of the best archers I know (from medieval reconstruction groups) are actually overweight.

Skinny/agile archers in RPGs are the fault of a few things:
- assigning the dexterity stat to archery
- Tolkien's elves
- balancing range attacks with fragility

I think the bolded part is ok, actually. At least if we consider what is needed to make the arrow go where you want it to. The problem mostly arises from the fact that D&D and other systems also link the same stat to defensive capabilities, thus instead of having archers with just good hand-eye coordination we have archers that are also quick on their feet and hard to hit.
And of course very few systems keep into consideration the massive stregth requirements that a bow should have.

Incanur
2014-09-09, 08:17 PM
It's also worth noting that unlike most archer characters, real life martial archers tended not to aim at individual people, but rather tried to hit a specific area. This makes sense for a number of reasons, which generally boil down to variations on two key elements:
- Although there may be (rare) instances where a high value target would present themselves, by and large there was little difference between hitting any given enemy and the guy to their right. The archers' job was to thin out the enemy ranks before the infantry engaged, not to pick off specific people.
- In order to punch through even minimal armour a heavy draw weight and correspondingly thick arrow are required. As has been noted, war bows are very different from hunting bows, and tend to be impractical to aim precisely. Aiming at an enemy formation is much more practical.

While volleys at opposing formations indeed constituted a key part of historical English archery as well as other martial archery system, military archers certainly could and did aim a specific individuals and specific parts of the body. Warbows are hard to aim, yes, but in general - especially in various Chinese styles of martial archery - good archers only used bows they fulled mastered in the field. Well-aimed close-range shot appear to have been a key technique in Manchu archery, and Machu bows were 70-133+lbs mounted. Etc.

Knaight
2014-09-09, 11:21 PM
I think the bolded part is ok, actually. At least if we consider what is needed to make the arrow go where you want it to. The problem mostly arises from the fact that D&D and other systems also link the same stat to defensive capabilities, thus instead of having archers with just good hand-eye coordination we have archers that are also quick on their feet and hard to hit.
And of course very few systems keep into consideration the massive stregth requirements that a bow should have.

It's less a matter of defensive capabilities and more a matter of fine and gross motor skills using the same stat. Being really good at precision needlepoint doesn't mean you're any better than average at being an acrobat, but some consolidation is necessary, and fine and gross motor skills frequently have that happen.

Bulhakov
2014-09-10, 01:10 AM
Yup. Throwing acrobatic movement into one stat with small precision movements is at fault here.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-10, 04:37 AM
It's less a matter of defensive capabilities and more a matter of fine and gross motor skills using the same stat. Being really good at precision needlepoint doesn't mean you're any better than average at being an acrobat, but some consolidation is necessary, and fine and gross motor skills frequently have that happen.

...Which is exactly what I was saying. :smallsmile:

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-10, 06:57 AM
Caloric surplus


Now you're talking my language - Powerbulk!

Incanur
2014-09-10, 10:27 AM
I don't think dodging projectiles or avoiding blows in combat is so much about acrobatics but more about judgement, reflexes, and coordination. I mean, I'm sure acrobatics can help, but what you really need is knowing where to be and in some cases the speed to get there. I don't how correlated the ability to aim a bow is with the ability to dodge a projectile, but many/most/all real-world military archers practiced not getting hit, sometimes via swift motion. Amerindian archers did particular apparently dodged arrows a lot - which is actually not all that hard to do at a decent distance. And at least one Chinese source refers to dodging, Sir John Smythe noted the continual motion of skirmishing archers, etc. So while the stat conflation is a bit sketchy, the result - an archer good at dodging - isn't unreasonable.

Aotrs Commander
2014-09-10, 02:34 PM
I have been known to observe that if we take what we know of, say, English longbowmen, and apply that to Elves as a society... They would still be a tree-hugging society... but only the only time they'd be hugging trees is when they are about to hit you over the head with one...

Kiero
2014-09-13, 07:32 AM
The "weak, but agile archer" cliché is really annoying. The proper primary stats for an archer on a battlefield should be strength and constitution, not dexterity. In fact, even wisdom would be a more appropriate stat than dexterity. Also, an above-average strength should be a prerequisite for using anything but a basic hunting bow. This is reflected poorly by many game systems.

Never mind that, the "weak, but agile" cliche is just plain stupid. The vast majority of agile people (ie those with full-body nimble-ness) are strong and fit as well as agile. Because full-body agility requires muscular control that you don't get from being weak.

Look at gymnasts, dancers, tumblers, martial artists, circus performers and so on - they're all strong, toned and lean, but not weak.

Xuc Xac
2014-09-13, 09:44 AM
I think there are three main contributing factors to the "weak, but agile" cliche. It's a holdover from the outdated concept of becoming "muscle bound". People used to think that if your muscles got too big, they would restrict your movement. Secondly, games unlinked the two stats so you could have either strength or agility at a high level without having matching ability in the other. Games like D&D with random stat rolls simply removed the correlation but point buy games actually exacerbated the problem by making Strength plus Agility into a zero sum relationship. And lastly, the unathletic nerds who made up the bulk of fantasy and sf fandom were really invested in the idea that there was an equalizer that balanced the advantages of the athletes. Being strong or fast doesn't mean you're dumb, but smart people who were weak really wanted that to be true.

Knaight
2014-09-13, 12:26 PM
I think there are three main contributing factors to the "weak, but agile" cliche. It's a holdover from the outdated concept of becoming "muscle bound". People used to think that if your muscles got too big, they would restrict your movement. Secondly, games unlinked the two stats so you could have either strength or agility at a high level without having matching ability in the other. Games like D&D with random stat rolls simply removed the correlation but point buy games actually exacerbated the problem by making Strength plus Agility into a zero sum relationship.

There's also the matter of size, which has a tendency to not be directly modeled or to be modeled only with very, very imprecise stats in RPGs. Take D&D, where strength is positively fine grained compared to size, where every jump is several times as massive. A lot of gymnasts and such are pretty small, and while they are athletic, toned, etc. they often have less sheer lifting force and similar to people who aren't necessarily particularly athletic, but who are upwards of a foot taller than them.

This gets particularly true when the comparison point is not unathletic nerds, but other strong people (albeit those who aren't particularly agile). An agile 5 foot tall gymnast is generally not going to be as strong as a buff 6'6" person. Even if they are, there's leverage and similar.

Xuc Xac
2014-09-13, 02:09 PM
Not all gymnasts are little girls. Check out men's gymnastics sometime. It features more feats of strength.

Raimun
2014-09-14, 02:27 AM
Dexterity. Hitting a single target is a matter of hand-eye coordination.

Even if we assume mass battles, strength shouldn't be the primary stat for archers. Sure, drawing a regular bow requires some force but not so much an average soldier is not able to do it. Archers in fantasy games don't have terrible wizard-level strength-scores but they just don't have exceptional ones either. If they had, they would be much more effective in a close combat unit, carrying a heavy armor, fighting with heavy weapons and perhaps thinking about a career in Barbarianism.

Now, Odysseus and The Composite Longbow Club are different because they use special bows that are way above the pay grade of regular archers. Still, even they require dexterity above strength because they are most likely trying to hit specific, evading targets and not a hundred man infantry formations.

I guess some strength requirments for bows might make sense even in D&D but I wouldn't put it above 8.

TheThan
2014-09-14, 02:43 AM
You know, the composite bow stats in DnD 3.5 makes quite a bit of sense. Dexterity provides a bonus to hit while strength provides a bonus to damage. Very much like real life, powerful bows have further range (requiring strength) and penetrate deeper, but still need a skilled eye/hand (requiring dexterity) to hit anything. why this isn't standard and you have to buy a more expensive bow to get that str bonus is beyond me though.

So I guess I don’t have much to complain about, save for the whole “archer chick” cliché, that still bugs me.

Brother Oni
2014-09-14, 05:11 AM
I guess some strength requirments for bows might make sense even in D&D but I wouldn't put it above 8.

Depends on very much the poundage of the bow. Making the assumption that a person can draw equal to their maximum load, STR 8 would let them draw a 54-80lb bow.

Given that 80lb is about typical for a hunting longbow, that sounds about right. It's too light for a military longbow though - you're looking between STR 11-14 to draw one of those (110+lb).



So I guess I don’t have much to complain about, save for the whole “archer chick” cliché, that still bugs me.

Interestingly, good technique can significantly help with drawing. There's a lady at my range who's a much better archer than me, with a heavier draw bow than mine, yet I can overhead press nearly twice her bodyweight.

That said, once you start getting into silly draw territory , strength becomes far more important - looking at the English Warbow Society records, ladies cap out at 80lb draws while the comparable men records are at least 130lb draws, with the same approximate proportional differences in distances.

TheThan
2014-09-14, 04:22 PM
Interestingly, good technique can significantly help with drawing. There's a lady at my range who's a much better archer than me, with a heavier draw bow than mine, yet I can overhead press nearly twice her bodyweight.

That said, once you start getting into silly draw territory , strength becomes far more important - looking at the English Warbow Society records, ladies cap out at 80lb draws while the comparable men records are at least 130lb draws, with the same approximate proportional differences in distances.

My biggest beef is they never get actresses that have any muscle to them, they're all these tiny women with spaghetti thin arms. They don't look like they can lift a gallon of milk much less pull back a 80lb bow. I'm not saying that they should always look like Chyna but they should have some definition to them and look like the sort of athletic person they're supposed to be. But usually they don't look the part.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-14, 05:38 PM
I think part of the "Archer Chick" cliche is because women are often thought of as good at precision things?

Like, just about every single person I've talked to in the welding profession will state that women are better at TIG welding than men, "because women are steadier". I don't know if that's a true assertion or not, "Archer Chick" may have similar roots.

Xuc Xac
2014-09-14, 06:57 PM
I think part of the "Archer Chick" cliche is because women are often thought of as good at precision things?

Like, just about every single person I've talked to in the welding profession will state that women are better at TIG welding than men, "because women are steadier". I don't know if that's a true assertion or not, "Archer Chick" may have similar roots.

I'm pretty sure it's more like "chicks are too weak for front line combat so the action girls have to shoot from the back to be involved". This also allows filmmakers to avoid having to provide a bunch of conveniently female opponents for melee combat. Because only a villainess can fight hand to hand with the heroine.

Knaight
2014-09-15, 10:09 PM
Not all gymnasts are little girls. Check out men's gymnastics sometime. It features more feats of strength.

Most of the gymnasts I know are men. They still tend towards the smaller side, as being particularly tall gets in the way of the more acrobatic end of things.

S1AL
2014-09-16, 05:30 AM
I almost never comment here (hi), but this topic caught my eye. Archery has been an on-again, off-again hobby of mine for about 8 years now. From my personal experience and talking to guys who've been involved in it much longer, I don't see any reason that you would describe archers as "buff" relative to the general population. You simply don't develop those kinds of muscles for a variety of reasons:

1) You're not doing continuous work with your muscles, as opposed to using weights (continuous stress)

2) Much of the work is done in the back and shoulders, which are areas of the body that don't show a lot of development, even without a shirt.

3) I'm in fairly good shape due to a largely physical occupation, and I can draw an 80-lb longbow with relative ease (I could do the same in high school); that said, the vast majority of historical archers did not use longbows, so it's largely irrelevant

4) If anything, you're more likely to develop lean/whipcord muscle that won't be obvious if you're just standing around; think of the guys who look lean/toned but suddenly show really good muscle definition when engaged in physical activity.

Regarding the "shooty/archer chick" cliche, it's largely because women (barring rare exceptions) can't really go toe-to-toe with men in any sort of hand-to-hand combat barring a massive disparity in fitness and training, and the human brain instinctively sees this on television, so this got them into the action in a way that makes more sense; modern tv/cinema has largely done away with this, however. Additionally, sharpshooting is the only modern sport to my knowledge wherein women compete evenly with men. Some of the greatest sharpshooters in history have been women.

As for Tolkien... I really wish people would get over the "skinny Elves" thing. That's not Tolkien's fault; he actually wrote up Elves as being lean and tall, but still comparable to men. Interestingly enough, he also wrote female Elves as being more physically in line with male Elves relative to humans.

Rion
2014-09-16, 05:43 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ) seems highly appropriate for this this discussion.

Brother Oni
2014-09-16, 07:02 AM
From my personal experience and talking to guys who've been involved in it much longer, I don't see any reason that you would describe archers as "buff" relative to the general population.

I think we're using different interpretations of 'buff' - the interpretation I'd use would be solidly built and strong, which doesn't mean visible rippling muscles (which mainly results from having a low body fat percentage).
This is especially with high draw weight bows (100+lbs) where strength and training is more important than with lower weight draws, unless you're proposing that a member of the general population could shoot such a powerful bow with no training.
I believe someone posted a video of Joeseph Gibbs earlier in the thread and he is not a small lad.


...that said, the vast majority of historical archers did not use longbows, so it's largely irrelevant

While I agree with you on purely numerical terms, in terms of cultural impact (pun not intended) the longbow is more important. Even modern depictions of bows (The Hunger Games, Robin Hood, etc) goes for the longbow over recurves or compounds.



Regarding the "shooty/archer chick" cliche, it's largely because women (barring rare exceptions) can't really go toe-to-toe with men in any sort of hand-to-hand combat barring a massive disparity in fitness and training, and the human brain instinctively sees this on television, so this got them into the action in a way that makes more sense; modern tv/cinema has largely done away with this, however.

Only in unarmed combat. As soon as weapons are introduced, things are massively evened up.

You shouldn't confuse cultural sensibilities with physical limitations - in western culture, watching women getting smacked about was uncomfortable and makes for poor viewing numbers, hence why it's typically not seen in older visual mediums. Modern TV/cinema has gone a little too far in the other direction in my opinon though, especially with the rise of waifu.
It's really not helped by proponents of it messing up how women would fight heavier and stronger opponents though (the one that annoys me the most is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Spike killed the Chinese Slayer - she was using a freaking operatic sword form).

Spiryt
2014-09-16, 08:02 AM
That said, once you start getting into silly draw territory , strength becomes far more important - looking at the English Warbow Society records, ladies cap out at 80lb draws while the comparable men records are at least 130lb draws, with the same approximate proportional differences in distances.

The problem is that there's really no proportional increase in distance with increase of draw weight.

Range depends on many things, but chiefly on velocity and it's preserving. Heavy bows aren't faster per se, they just can shoot the same arrow a bit faster (or not) and heavier arrow at the same speed.

theenglishwarbowsociety.com/Donnington Park 2014 Flight Shoot Results.html

But anyway we don't have to compare different draw weights, there are ladies shooting 80 pound bows here, we can compare them to men shooting similar bows (~80 lbs 32 inches).


Much of the work is done in the back and shoulders, which are areas of the body that don't show a lot of development, even without a shirt.

Back is generally doing most of the work in most activities though, and bigger, stronger back is absolutely noticeable.

Archery just probably indeed doesn't spur muscles to hypertrophy, compared to many other exercises. I don't feel I can answer why.


Only in unarmed combat. As soon as weapons are introduced, things are massively evened up.

Well, 'evened up' in deadliness of hits etc. certainly, but in general, swinging weapons is still a lot about being fast, strong, coordinated etc. so athletic advantage doesn't really go away.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-16, 08:15 AM
Well, 'evened up' in deadliness of hits etc. certainly, but in general, swinging weapons is still a lot about being fast, strong, coordinated etc. so athletic advantage doesn't really go away.

Um, at a high level the difference in atheletisism between men and women is so small as to not even matter. Men are not innately superior over women in combat if they are both trained in combat to fight with their strengths, and whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

S1AL
2014-09-16, 08:30 AM
Um, at a high level the difference in atheletisism between men and women is so small as to not even matter. Men are not innately superior over women in combat if they are both trained in combat to fight with their strengths, and whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

My collegiate lacrosse playing brother and kinesiology major/athletic trainer sister would strongly disagree with this, as would all competitive statistics and analytical studies done on the subject. Men are both stronger and quicker (in terms of dexterity), in addition to having better spatial senses. I will provide sources if you'd like.

Xelbiuj
2014-09-16, 08:36 AM
Describe them as built like an oak board.

After 30 shots with my compound bow (65lb), I'm pretty beat.
That said, the weight of most weapons and draw weights are an afterthought in fantasy.

Spiryt
2014-09-16, 08:57 AM
Um, at a high level the difference in atheletisism between men and women is so small as to not even matter. Men are not innately superior over women in combat if they are both trained in combat to fight with their strengths, and whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

At high level especially it actually becomes absolutely huge - see also completely different records between men and women in about every sport.

That's why men and women don't compete against each other, particularly in combat.

See vastly smaller ranges with bows attained by ladies in links provided above.


It's offtopic here, so no point in dwelling further.

S1AL
2014-09-16, 09:24 AM
Re: Spiryt - I'm not saying that the development doesn't show, just that it's less noticeable. When I was still lifting, I remember showing significantly more development from a 25% increase in curls than I did from a 50% increase in lat pulls. That's just due to the percentage of the arm that is muscle versus bone relative to the back/chest/shoulders.

As far as this relating to the description, my overall point is that the muscular development for an archer isn't going to be all that visible because it's mostly lean muscle and fine motor control.

That said, of you want a relaxing hobby that also tones your upper body, archery is great. It's also fairly inexpensive.

Brother Oni
2014-09-16, 10:28 AM
The problem is that there's really no proportional increase in distance with increase of draw weight.


I agree, especially looking at some of those records, but the fact remains that warbows have always been of higher poundage, thus require more strength to use effectively. Distance is just an incidental measure of this.



Well, 'evened up' in deadliness of hits etc. certainly, but in general, swinging weapons is still a lot about being fast, strong, coordinated etc. so athletic advantage doesn't really go away.

I complete agree with you there, but the advantage isn't as insurmountable as in boxing say. Getting smacked about by a sabreuse would probably hurt as much as going up against a sabreur, probably more so since in my experience, women tend to be more violent. :smalltongue:


My collegiate lacrosse playing brother and kinesiology major/athletic trainer sister would strongly disagree with this, as would all competitive statistics and analytical studies done on the subject. Men are both stronger and quicker (in terms of dexterity), in addition to having better spatial senses. I will provide sources if you'd like.

I'm not disupting the fact that men are physically more capable than women, I'm disputing your earlier comment that women can't go toe to toe with men in any sort of hand to hand combat. It doesn't matter if she can only stick a blade 2 inches into your neck instead of nearly decapitating you, it's still fatal.

Even the media have cottoned onto this recently - there's a good scene demonstrating this minimal amount of strength required to kill in Game of Thrones where Arya Stark, a young teen girl, simply leans forward and pushes her sword through a prone opponent's neck with little to no effort.


That said, of you want a relaxing hobby that also tones your upper body, archery is great. It's also fairly inexpensive.

Really? Kit where you are must be a lot cheaper than over here - getting everything I needed when I started cost me in the region of 600 GBP and that was for a recurve. A good compound starts at that price for the bow alone. :smallfrown:

JustSomeGuy
2014-09-17, 04:47 AM
Archery not spurring muscles to hypertrophy - spiryt's point explained:

This post, I have been mostly referencing zatsiorsky and kraemer /fastshow


Archery is not an effective muscle building exercise for multiple reasons.

-lack of progressive overload- once you have adapted to pulling your bow, it doesn't get any harder, so your body is not forced to adapt any further (unless you get a heavier bow, but as I understand it isn't q situation of bows incrementing every couple of lbs and the archer always trying to move up, unlike lifting)

Lack of eccentric contraction- it is widely believed (but not yet understood, although multiple studies have proved it) that eccentric contractions promote greater muscle damage>adaptation>hypertrophy than concentric and isometric contractions. Archers, as I understand it, release the bow not slowly reverse the pull, hence no eccentric contraction.

-limited use of muscle groups - the more muscle mass you use, the greater the 'systemic' response (ie. hormonal), as well as the obvious increase in muscles being trained. As an example, the biceps' brachii primarily supinate the forearm, something not done in archery. Therefore, limited use, limited growth. And that is a muscle in the arm used to flex the elbow - think how many other muscles aren't involved to the degree requiring adaptation!

-progressive recruitment and you (why using a muscle for a short duration during technical movements isn't great for hypertrophy) - imagine a row of balls, increasing in size from left to right. The smallest balls represent one type of muscle fibre (type 1), which are capable of limited contractile force production but have great endurance capacity, ie. they can fire repeatedly for a long time without fatiguing. On the other end of the row, the largest balls represent type 2 fibres and they create a large force but fatigue quickly.

During any task, your body likes to recruit the smallest fibres, and avoids using the largest unless it has to (they are metabolically expensive, like a big v8). To attain a decent amount of microtrauma (the damage that results in adaptation), a muscle fibre must be recruited and fatigued. Each exercise fills up from the left, leaving two markers - the first is 'recruited but not fatigued'; these fibres were used, but did not fatigue so won't experience much adaptation. The next mark is 'recruited and fatigued'; these fibres were used and experienced fatigue, they will experience the majority or supercompensation. To the right of these, the final group were 'not recruited, not fatigued'; they didn't do anything.

Only the middle group will undergo any significant change, and by only using one movement with one rough time frame, consisting of one repetition, you will not have a very wide grouping of 'recruited and fatigued' fibres. You would need to pull a heavier bow, hold it for longer or pull multiple times to change this. None of which are very good ideas if the main aim is to shoot, not cause muscle growth.

Kaeso
2014-09-17, 06:46 AM
The "weak, but agile archer" cliché is really annoying. The proper primary stats for an archer on a battlefield should be strength and constitution, not dexterity. In fact, even wisdom would be a more appropriate stat than dexterity. Also, an above-average strength should be a prerequisite for using anything but a basic hunting bow. This is reflected poorly by many game systems.

Do you think the "weak but agile archer" cliché could work out if said archer used a crossbow? These weapons are notorious for being effective while also being less demanding than handbows.

Brother Oni
2014-09-17, 08:02 AM
Do you think the "weak but agile archer" cliché could work out if said archer used a crossbow? These weapons are notorious for being effective while also being less demanding than handbows.

For shooting, yes, however spanning (reloading) the crossbow would require some physical ability, plus crossbows are heavier than bows, especially when you start getting into 500+lb draw ones (heaviest I heard that was still man portable was 18lb for a 1,200lb arbalest). Generally, military crossbows start at about 250lb draw (this minimum increased the later on you were in the medieval era), so you need some sort of mechanical aid to span them, especially with western crossbows and their short draw length.

While a stirrup or belthook system would need less overall strength, it would take more effort as these are pretty much a full body workout, especially if you're trying to span and shoot quickly. These systems cap out at about ~200-300lb draw though, depending on the physical ability of the crossbowman.
A goats foot lever would require more upper body strength than the above (but less than an archer), but is requires less effort. This also caps out at about the same range.

Heavier draw crossbows need a cranequin or windlass (think of a big cog with a handle) and these would still require some grunt. A 1,200lb siege crossbow would probably require about the same sort of strength as an archer.
Mounted crossbowmen tended to use German style cranequin crossbows of 500-700lb as one shot weapons before retreating to reload again, so if they passed their spent weapons to their squire or another ally to reload, they could probably not need the same physical ability.

Chinese crossbows tended to have much longer draw lengths, so while they didn't need as high draw weights as western crossbows. That also meant they needed a fair amount of physical ability to span as it used the whole full body - they generally were used like artillery to bombard an area, with the crossbowman spanning while on his back, holding the bow with his feet.

Spiryt
2014-09-17, 08:11 AM
Do you think the "weak but agile archer" cliché could work out if said archer used a crossbow? These weapons are notorious for being effective while also being less demanding than handbows.

The problem here is that no matter how one spins it the meaning of 'agile' is 'nimble, fast, mobile, quick with his limbs" etc.

While bowshooting could still require some of that, crossbow would be pretty much all about precision, steadiness, manual dexterity perhaps.

I guess the catch is that in most systems like D&D "Dexterity" covers hella lot of things.

In some systems 'agility' and 'dexterity' are split, for better or worse.


-limited use of muscle groups - the more muscle mass you use, the greater the 'systemic' response (ie. hormonal), as well as the obvious increase in muscles being trained. As an example, the biceps' brachii primarily supinate the forearm, something not done in archery. Therefore, limited use, limited growth. And that is a muscle in the arm used to flex the elbow - think how many other muscles aren't involved to the degree requiring adaptation!

That would be my guess.

Small amount of large muscle groups and joints involved.

And mostly in quite 'static' way too, hard to get real 'pump' out of archery.

S1AL
2014-09-17, 10:27 AM
Re: JustSomeGuy - No, Archer is not likely to build much muscle, though it promote the "endurance" fibers if you're shooting for an extended length of time... My typical session involved hundreds of shots in an hour or two, which is not dissimilar to light rowing machine work. That said, the major muscle benefit will be toning of the upper arm and shoulder area. Additional physical benefits would be enhancement of concentration and steadiness.

S@tanicoaldo
2014-09-17, 01:50 PM
Well we are not talking about hobby archers who only shoot as an extra activity we are talking about full time archer's who use the bow all the time. I bet that would make a difference.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-17, 01:57 PM
Well we are not talking about hobby archers who only shoot as an extra activity we are talking about full time archer's who use the bow all the time. I bet that would make a difference.

Well if they're hunters, or soldiers they're probably going to be as fit in general because it's a general requirement (of soldiers anyway). Seems from what most people are saying is that they won't have any super obvious differences in appearance from being an archer compared to being a melee fighter.

Which actually makes sense, I haven't done much archery, but I used to fence, and even with a light weight little epee or foil, sword work and stuff is definitely taxing to basically the whole body.

I think it's also worth noting again that different people have different body shapes. It's likely you're going to have both types of archers, and then a couple of other body shapes on top of that. So if you still haven't decided how to make this character look, just go for a look that best matches the character and the sorts of things he pursues.

Spiryt
2014-09-17, 02:49 PM
Well we are not talking about hobby archers who only shoot as an extra activity we are talking about full time archer's who use the bow all the time. I bet that would make a difference.

But what 'difference' exactly?

Generally, if we're thinking about really visible muscle hypertrophy and big volume it's not likely, as several people had mentioned.

Most famous, memetic people who were using bow 'all the time' - where using it badly hungry, diseased and likely literally sh***** themselves due to malnutrition and dysentery.

And walked like 500 km in few weeks.

Such conditions alone could quickly burn any more developed muscles out there.



The more I think about it:

At the end of the day, huge physique is likely simply not required to pull 150 pounds across your extended other arm and chest.

If you took some of actual muscle freaks with scary numbers on different rows and pulls, they could likely 'draw' a 300 pound bow, or do something close enough.

But that doesn't have much to do with shooting actual ~ 150 pound bow with any, even low effectiveness.

See some serious bodybuilder, not even strength athlete per se, pounding a lot of 200 pounds rows rather quickly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DduvLRIgpYI

I guess such rows are close enough to drawing a bow though of course not in any way perfect representation.

Berenger
2014-09-17, 06:26 PM
Do you think the "weak but agile archer" cliché could work out if said archer used a crossbow? These weapons are notorious for being effective while also being less demanding than handbows.

I think that no professional fighter should be weak, but a crossbowman could at least do well enough without exceptional strength.

The crossbow is, however, the most static and non-agile personal weapon I can imagine. It's slow, can't be easily reloaded while on the move, makes the shooter vulnerable during the process of reloading and should thus be used from the safety of (static) cover, such as a pavise or battlements.

Psyren
2014-09-19, 09:28 AM
"Wiry" is a good word. It implies strength, but slenderness.

That. Archery implies dexterity which implies being lithe.

If I have stocky archers (e.g. dwarves) I lean more towards crossbows or firearms.

Spiryt
2014-09-19, 11:17 AM
That. Archery implies dexterity which implies being lithe.

If I have stocky archers (e.g. dwarves) I lean more towards crossbows or firearms.

The thing is dexterity doesn't imply being lithe at all.

As mentioned, archers are not gymnasts.

To be really agile, perform acrobatics and whatever one should preferably be of slighter build indeed, from variety of reason, starting from gravity.

Archery requires no such thing, and one of good modern longbowmen actually pretty much like tall dwarf.

http://binaryapi.ap.org/b5f0ac8d3dc942cdb6e6204704b0768a/512x.jpg

Latest olympic golden medalist in archery doesn't look particularly lithe either. More like a random plump guy.

Brother Oni
2014-09-19, 02:17 PM
That. Archery implies dexterity which implies being lithe.

As Spiryt said, it's due to most RPGs shoehorning hand-eye co-ordination into dexterity when it really doesn't belong there.

I'm a better archer and marksman than I'm a gymnast (about the most gymnastic thing I can do is ukemi) and I've definitely not got the physical shape for parkour.

Psyren
2014-09-19, 02:53 PM
To which I say, so what? The trope of the elven/amazonian archer is too ingrained into the public consciousness now. It's good to subvert tropes from time to time, but iconic images are iconic for a reason.

Brother Oni
2014-09-19, 08:25 PM
To which I say, so what? The trope of the elven/amazonian archer is too ingrained into the public consciousness now. It's good to subvert tropes from time to time, but iconic images are iconic for a reason.

Stereotypes born from inexperience (putting it politely) are bad regardless of how iconic they are, in my opinion. There's a very popular TV show (QI) built around the reality behind these incorrect ionic and popular culture viewpoints.

I'd also say it depends on what media you've been watching - Robin Hood has always been of moderate athletic build, no matter the depiction (even the Men in Tights version). Even Tolkien knew something about combat archery - I believe it's mentioned somewhere in the source materials that Legolas' bow is 150lb draw and he's pretty much the poster child for the thin elven archer (although he's certainly not the weak but agile stereotype).

cucchulainnn
2014-09-19, 10:15 PM
Regarding a relatively overdeveloped back, how far out of place would this be in a world full of manual labourers swinging wood axes and working the fields be? Obviously there would be position and movement specific strength differences, but a strong back looks like a strong back by and large, discounting individuality (ie. The variance between different participants performing the same tasks covering a similar 'bell curve of physiques' as people performing different tasks using the same muscle groups)

different enough for archaeologist to be able to tell which skeletons where archers while alive by the shape of the bones. or at least with english archers who used the heavy war bows. not sure if this is true with people of the steps.

Psyren
2014-09-20, 12:15 AM
Stereotypes born from inexperience (putting it politely) are bad regardless of how iconic they are, in my opinion.

And that's a valid perspective, but good luck changing it now with your fat archers. (I'm actually being sincere - good luck, because I'd pay to see it.)



I'd also say it depends on what media you've been watching - Robin Hood has always been of moderate athletic build, no matter the depiction (even the Men in Tights version).

1) Not always moderate. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ocQd9NhqHDU/Ut4nxg0RElI/AAAAAAAANGM/6o7ar-qHILQ/s1600/robin-hood.png)
2) Right, but has he ever been fat?

Brother Oni
2014-09-20, 04:54 AM
And that's a valid perspective, but good luck changing it now with your fat archers. (I'm actually being sincere - good luck, because I'd pay to see it.)

I'm not sure where you got this idea that I thought archers should be fat. I'm saying that archers should be physically fit and strong, not the rail thin lightweights who look like they can barely lift a warbow, let alone shoot one.

Good archers certainly shouldn't also be olympic level gymnasts due to the way D&D mechanics work though.



1) Not always moderate. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ocQd9NhqHDU/Ut4nxg0RElI/AAAAAAAANGM/6o7ar-qHILQ/s1600/robin-hood.png)
2) Right, but has he ever been fat?

1) Crap, forgot about the evil mouse version. :smalltongue:

2) See above.

Psyren
2014-09-20, 09:26 AM
I'm not at all against "physically fit and strong." Indeed, D&D rewards that mechanically with composite bows and it is well-represented in art.

http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1118-Paladin.jpg

A physically fit and strong elf happens to look thin, that's all. This is even called out in various sourcebooks. Mark Hall's term "wiry" represents this phenomenon well. Being lithe doesn't mean you have no muscles, it just means you're not a bodybuilder either.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-20, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure where you got this idea that I thought archers should be fat. I'm saying that archers should be physically fit and strong, not the rail thin lightweights who look like they can barely lift a warbow, let alone shoot one.




Just because someone is a "rail-thin light weight" doesn't mean they are weak, muscles don't have to be large for someone to be strong. Certain body types come with compact muscles and they will never be bulky or have very visible musculature. My mom and I are both "rail thin light weights" but my mom at least isn't weak at all.

Now me yeah I probably couldn't string and draw a war bow because I'm not especially physically active like my mom (she runs her own dojo)...but it's a real folly to equate size and mass with physical ability.

Brother Oni
2014-09-20, 07:21 PM
I'm not at all against "physically fit and strong." Indeed, D&D rewards that mechanically with composite bows and it is well-represented in art.

http://paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderRPG/PZO1118-Paladin.jpg

Well-represented I'll give you, technically correct, certainly not. In that picture, the guy can't draw his bow as the bow string would catch on his upper arm in that position and rotating it vertically wouldn't work either as he would have to draw to it back to his right ear with his left hand (he'd have to flip the bow so that the string is on the inside of his arm).

Edit: Huh, he's a leftie.


Just because someone is a "rail-thin light weight" doesn't mean they are weak, muscles don't have to be large for someone to be strong.

When I say 'rail thin lightweight', I mean people with no visible muscle mass and no definition like the popular image of weak agile archers. A couple of quick google searches show up a bunch of figures who look like they barely scrape 100lbs (and most of that is in their bosom) and they're certainly not drawing warbows.

I'm perfectly aware that muscles don't have to be large to have strength, but they still need to be present. Bruce Lee didn't have big muscles, just very well defined and he weighed between 130 to 160lbs at 5'7" and could hit as hard at whatever weight he was (he had to lose weight as he felt the muscle was affecting his speed).
http://www.isometric-training.com/images/200px-The.Way.Of.The.Dragon.1972.Bruce.Lee.flex.front.jp g He's about 135 in this picture.



Now me yeah I probably couldn't string and draw a war bow because I'm not especially physically active like my mom (she runs her own dojo)...but it's a real folly to equate size and mass with physical ability.

Except that the stronger you are, the more/bigger muscle fibres you have, thus the more actual muscle mass you have, even if the size and definition is not visible. Weightlifting in the Olympics is separated by gender and weight, so size and mass has a clear effect on muscle strength and the records reflect that: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting).
Sports like boxing and martial arts are also segregated by weight and gender, so even in terms other than raw power generation, physical capability is tied into weight and hence muscle mass.

I'm not saying that people can't be strong without visible muscle, I'm saying that people can't be warbow archers without good physical capabilities.

On a separate note, may I ask what style your mother teaches?

Psyren
2014-09-20, 07:47 PM
I'm perfectly aware that muscles don't have to be large to have strength, but they still need to be present.

Can I ask which archer art you're looking at where they have no muscles?

Brother Oni
2014-09-20, 08:20 PM
Can I ask which archer art you're looking at where they have no muscles?

I typed in 'female archer' in Google then hit 'Images'. Scan through them and a couple will flash up where they're either got really light draw bows (less than 30lbs) or it's just plain fantasy art.

I would link the search, but some of them are definitely not PG13 for this forum.

Edit: This is for *Cough* research purposes, right? :smalltongue:

Wardog
2014-09-21, 08:01 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ) seems highly appropriate for this this discussion.

I was just watching that, and about to post a link too.

The other interesting thing that I was unaware of (also discussed on one of his other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wDjjLnKRcI&list=UUt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA)videos) is that apparently single-handed swords, including rapiers, need more strength and stamina to use effectively that hand-and-a-half or two-handed swords. (Because they're not much lighter, and you only have one hand on them).

Psyren
2014-09-21, 08:59 AM
I typed in 'female archer' in Google then hit 'Images'. Scan through them and a couple will flash up where they're either got really light draw bows (less than 30lbs) or it's just plain fantasy art.

I would link the search, but some of them are definitely not PG13 for this forum.

Edit: This is for *Cough* research purposes, right? :smalltongue:

Anything from sourcebooks? Image search by its nature is going to get you a wide variety of images, including in terms of quality.

Brother Oni
2014-09-21, 11:53 AM
Anything from sourcebooks? Image search by its nature is going to get you a wide variety of images, including in terms of quality.

When you say source books, do you mean academic/historical sources, RPG source books, or some other kind of source book?

Incanur
2014-09-21, 02:23 PM
Many military crossbows required lots of strength. As late as the early fifteenth century in Europe, Pero Niño (http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf) displayed his prodigious might by bending even the strongest crossbows that nobody else could span. The spanning method isn't clear except that he bent them from the belt, so perhaps a belt hook or some such. There's no question that it took tremendous strength. You likewise see reference to equipping crossbowers with crossbows according to their strength in at least one 14th-century French source. And numerous Chinese sources note the strength needed to bend good military crossbows.

While exceptions probably exists, from what I've seen martial cultures across time and space exalted strength and thought bending bows and crossbow an excellent demonstration. While malnutrition and whatnot could indeed weaken soldiers, soldiers were (and are) supposed to be strong and good commanders did whatever they could to keep their troops in top condition, archers and others.

Psyren
2014-09-22, 08:05 AM
When you say source books, do you mean academic/historical sources, RPG source books, or some other kind of source book?

The second one. The OP wrote this thread specifically from a gaming context.