Compound Bow in game?

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Is there any official or even unofficial stats for compound bows? Has anyone here seen it done? Was it to overpowered when used? I'm thinking its definitely a non-magical high level weapon.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Compound bows require a level of engineering not technically extant in DnD. If you wanted to hombre one I recommend increasing the damage a step and giving it auto adjusting to Str and maybe boosting the range slightly.

[Doc_Maynot]

Is there any official or even unofficial stats for compound bows? Has anyone here seen it done? Was it to overpowered when used? I'm thinking its definitely a non-magical high level weapon.

What you could do to try and do it is make it similar to Hank's Energy Bow. Just get rid of the Force/Infinite arrow aspect of it to make it mundane.
So it's act as a Composite Bow that accommodates a user of any strength, and the bow based Power Attack. Maybe the 2d6 die as well. (Again, just an idea.)

[Th3N3xtGuy]

I was thinking of giving it either 8 or 10 penetration of the crossbows, reasoning due to power gained through leverage and what not. Because it is made out of metal it can block strikes from weapons but will damage the bow eventually.

Downside including maintenance every other days. Needing Engineering 8 and Bowmaking 15 to repair/make it (needing parts both times).

[FocusWolf413]

There really isn't a significant difference between regular bows and compound bows. The only difference is that they pull with a set force, not a force that increases over distance pulled back. In physics terms, normal bows ise (1/2)kx^2 as the kinetic energy of the arrow, and compound bows use Fd. For all intents and purposes, those two are the same.

Compound bows are technically a little more accurate, but in a combat situation, there isn't a noticeable difference.

Just stat it like a longbow or shortbow.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

On another note what would be a good range weapon against a dragon?

[Ashtagon]

There really isn't a significant difference between regular bows and compound bows. The only difference is that they pull with a set force, not a force that increases over distance pulled back. In physics terms, normal bows ise (1/2)kx^2 as the kinetic energy of the arrow, and compound bows use Fd. For all intents and purposes, those two are the same.

Compound bows are technically a little more accurate, but in a combat situation, there isn't a noticeable difference.

Just stat it like a longbow or shortbow.

The Dragonstar SRD (http://dragonstarsrd.freehostia.com/) includes compound bow stats (under simple ranged weapons).

A "compound longbow" (which straight-away demonstrates they know squat about bow terminology) deals 1d12+4 damage with a range increment of 150 feet. iirc, the book states that it is effectively a +4 Strength bonus bow, but without any of the Strength requirements of a standard RAW "composite" bow.

The actual draw force that a compound bow has depends on the exact layout of the cams and pulleys. They can be designed for many different pull weights. The most usual configuration results in a noticeable level of resistance at first, and a very light weight once fully drawn.

Taken to extremes, the fully drawn pull weight can be so light that it can remain "loaded" even when hanging by the string without any muscle pressure applied to hold it drawn. For a variety of reasons, such extreme compound bows are not usually considered safe (they are also very prone to damage due to accidental discharge or dry firing).

iirc, I stated up compound bows as follows:


+1 damage die step
+20 feet range increment
Because the character can hold such a bow drawn with minimal effort, certain feats intended for a crossbow can be applied to this bow. (GM decides on a case by case basis).
Compound bows cannot apply a Strength bonus to damage rolls, even if you have a feat that would allow this.



On another note what would be a good range weapon against a dragon?

lightning bolt :smallbiggrin:

[ZamielVanWeber]

On another note what would be a good range weapon against a dragon?

Energy bow. It does the most damage, has no ammo issues, and has a solid range.

[Mr Adventurer]

Reach shivering touch, naturally ;)

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Reach shivering touch, naturally ;)

Not if its a white dragon

[paranoidbox]

On another note what would be a good range weapon against a dragon?

Any bow that can fire the Black Arrow.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Any bow that can fire the Black Arrow.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/204/CaptainAmerica1_zps8c295f96.JPG

[BowStreetRunner]

There really isn't a significant difference between regular bows and compound bows. The only difference is that they pull with a set force, not a force that increases over distance pulled back. In physics terms, normal bows ise (1/2)kx^2 as the kinetic energy of the arrow, and compound bows use Fd. For all intents and purposes, those two are the same.

Compound bows are technically a little more accurate, but in a combat situation, there isn't a noticeable difference.

Just stat it like a longbow or shortbow.

I had a real life opportunity to compare the effectiveness of an English Longbow, a Composite Recurve Bow, and a Compound Bow. In each case the strength of the bow was the highest draw weight that could be comfortably used with maximum accuracy. Comparing the results of the three at the point at which the archer could achieve 90% accuracy at 50 yards the arrows from the Composite Recurve Bow stuck in the target (paper on hay-bale) about three inches, the arrows from the longbow stuck in the target all the way up to the fletching, and the arrows from the Compound Bow passed through three hay-bales and stuck in the ground about 10 feet further on.

Note that the draw weights of the three bows were by no means comparable. Nor was the method of aiming. The point was to achieve maximum accuracy and compare the effectiveness. The Compound Bow had the greatest advantage because the archer could draw back and use the sights to aim carefully before letting fly. Doing the same with either of the other bows resulted in shaking arms and the bowstring digging into the fingers and sticking on release. The reason the longbow probably had such an advantage over the composite in this case was likely because the archer was an SCA instinctive shooter who used a shoot-on-the-move style (no aiming) that gave him the chance to use a heavier draw-weight than with the recurve. Had he been trained to use the recurve the same way he would likely have been pulling a similar draw weight and would have probably matched the results of the longbow.

Ultimately the advantage of a compound bow is that a more powerful bow can be used without requiring a stronger archer and the hardest part of drawing the bow is not also the point at which you are aiming and releasing, in contrast with traditional bows.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Anyone know if longbows dnd and pathfinder are the same as english longbows? I know irl english longbows are special onto themselves with the draw weight 90-110 pounds-force.

[Milo v3]

Anyone know if longbows dnd and pathfinder are the same as english longbows? I know irl english longbows are special onto themselves with the draw weight 90-110 pounds-force.
Longbows in D&D and Pathfinder are generic longbows.

[Elxir_Breauer]

As far as I can tell, the Greatbow from Complete Warrior is likely closest to the English Longbow, as far as in-game stats are concerned. I could be wrong though.

[Zombulian]

Compound bows require a level of engineering not technically extant in DnD. If you wanted to hombre one I recommend increasing the damage a step and giving it auto adjusting to Str and maybe boosting the range slightly.

Ehehehe autocorrect strikes again.

[Sir Chuckles]

Not if its a white dragon

Energy Substitution.

[Fizban]

So compound bows are harder to start drawing but easy to hold back and ignore the wielder's strength, just like a crossbow. Sounds like compound bows need a reload action then.

[Ashtagon]

So compound bows are harder to start drawing but easy to hold back and ignore the wielder's strength, just like a crossbow. Sounds like compound bows need a reload action then.

Not really. If longbows are easy to start drawing and harder to draw to their final draw position, then compound bows are easy to start drawing and trivial to draw to their final position. There is no more justification for requiring a compound bow to have a reload action than there is for a regular longbow.

tbqh, the interaction between Strength and bows is kinda screwy when you consider the physics of a bow. There is only one draw position at which a bow can be fired with good accuracy. You can't make use of greater Strength to draw it back farther. What you can do is use a greater Strength to hold it in a draw position more comfortably while taking a moment to aim. The idea that only a "composite bow" benefits from such strength ignores the subtle fact that the medieval English archers had incredible arm strength (as shown by skeletal deformities caused by repeated exertion of specific muscles), yet their bows were self bows (i.e., the opposite of composite bows). While D&D uses actual bow terminology, it gets the game effects of those wrong when compared to what those did in real life.

Technically correct houserule for bows: Use the lower of Strength or Dexterity to determine attack and damage modifiers. Remove the normal/composite distinction for bows (i.e., delete the rule for only composite bows gaining Strength bonuses).

[zergling.exe]

Technically correct houserule for bows: Use the lower of Strength or Dexterity to determine attack and damage modifiers. Remove the normal/composite distinction for bows (i.e., delete the rule for only composite bows gaining Strength bonuses).

I'd have to side with Wizards on this one. While 100 gp per point is probably too much, they definately have the right idea. The more expensive "composite" bows have a higher draw-weight as you pay more, allowing you to to get more oomph into your shots. They aren't drawn back farther, but are harder to pull back at all.

[Ashtagon]

I'd have to side with Wizards on this one. While 100 gp per point is probably too much, they definately have the right idea. The more expensive "composite" bows have a higher draw-weight as you pay more, allowing you to to get more oomph into your shots. They aren't drawn back farther, but are harder to pull back at all.

This to me sounds like a subset of what "masterwork" should be doing (although masterwork doesn't increase the strength required to be useful, so then again, not quite). Perhaps something related to "special materials" might also be appropriate.

To be sure, there are radically different draw weights possible depending on construction techniques, but I've yet to find a way to model them in D&D that I am truly happy with.

the compound bow gets discussed in gurps terms here (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=24772) for those interested. They are really into the physics of the thing. And Pyramid magazine 3-33 (http://www.warehouse23.com/products/pyramid-number-3-slash-33-low-tech) includes a set of formula for calculating any conceivable bow in gurps terms. Again, not for the faint of heart.

[Fizban]

(One of my pet solutions for fixing the "crossbows suck" problem is giving bows a reload action, as various threads have said that longbowmen max out at dnd's absolute minimum 1 shot/6 seconds. Now they both suck!)

[Ashtagon]

(One of my pet solutions for fixing the "crossbows suck" problem is giving bows a reload action, as various threads have said that longbowmen max out at dnd's absolute minimum 1 shot/6 seconds. Now they both suck!)

I've got 200 hours of archery practice under my belt, max. I know from experience that I can hit an effective rate of fire of 20 rpm, given a large enough supply of arrows. That's 2 shots per (3e) D&D round. And I'm not even a particularly good archer.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've got 200 hours of archery practice under my belt, max. I know from experience that I can hit an effective rate of fire of 20 rpm, given a large enough supply of arrows. That's 2 shots per (3e) D&D round. And I'm not even a particularly good archer.
I'm also pretty sure that they intended fantasy archery to be more like Legolas and his bow (rapid shooting, knocking 3 arrows at once, etc., etc.) than like real life shooting. Just like they intended melee combat to be more fantasy than real historical martial arts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmTi-NGQNh8&feature=youtu.be).

[Necroticplague]

Energy Substitution.

Doesn't help. The Spell Shivering Touch specifically says creatures with the Cold subtype are immune. This wouldn't change, even if the descriptor changed (Even a Substitution (Fire) Shivering Touch would still have the text that makes it not effect [Cold] Creatures.).

[Bronk]

I had a real life opportunity to compare the effectiveness of an English Longbow, a Composite Recurve Bow, and a Compound Bow. In each case the strength of the bow was the highest draw weight that could be comfortably used with maximum accuracy. Comparing the results of the three at the point at which the archer could achieve 90% accuracy at 50 yards the arrows from the Composite Recurve Bow stuck in the target (paper on hay-bale) about three inches, the arrows from the longbow stuck in the target all the way up to the fletching, and the arrows from the Compound Bow passed through three hay-bales and stuck in the ground about 10 feet further on.

Note that the draw weights of the three bows were by no means comparable. Nor was the method of aiming. The point was to achieve maximum accuracy and compare the effectiveness. The Compound Bow had the greatest advantage because the archer could draw back and use the sights to aim carefully before letting fly. Doing the same with either of the other bows resulted in shaking arms and the bowstring digging into the fingers and sticking on release. The reason the longbow probably had such an advantage over the composite in this case was likely because the archer was an SCA instinctive shooter who used a shoot-on-the-move style (no aiming) that gave him the chance to use a heavier draw-weight than with the recurve. Had he been trained to use the recurve the same way he would likely have been pulling a similar draw weight and would have probably matched the results of the longbow.

Ultimately the advantage of a compound bow is that a more powerful bow can be used without requiring a stronger archer and the hardest part of drawing the bow is not also the point at which you are aiming and releasing, in contrast with traditional bows.

I agree with this, and in general, if I were adding rules for compound bows, they would involve some sort of advantage to taking extra time aiming, maybe a point or two two attack and/or damage.

I would also make the bow more expensive, and make its origins be more clockwork style.

[Vogie]

Because that specific variation of the weapon doesn't show in any of the material that I know of (nor any of the above posters), I would then want to ask what precisely were you looking for a compound bow vs a regular longbow.

The initial thought is that whatever benefits a compound bow may have would have to be offset with some sort of downside or faux-downsided. The previous suggestion of needing regular maitenance would work, an increased possibility that the bowstring is cut by suprise or ranged attacks (because there's 3 of them), a Misfire chance similar to guns (as arrows in 3.P are typically wood), or specialized arrows that won't misfire, but be more expensive to purchase/produce than normal arrows.

The main benefits about compound bows is they allow for the inclusion of stabilizers, which would allow greater accuracy, and also perhaps increased usefulness when you're mounted/moving?

If you're thinking of the impact amounts, I would expect that a compound bow would act as though it is under the effect of "Gravity Bow" at all times. This could be a permanent enchantment, or just baked into the design when you're statting it out based on a longbow.

When you asked this question, my mind immediately went to the newer seasons of the Arrow, where he has a Kestrel compound bow that can shrink/fold down to the size of a hand. That could be accomplished with permanent shrinking, but it'd be more fun if it was some sort of clockwork amalgamation...

[Curmudgeon]

In terms of balance relative to other items in the game, look at the Bow of the Wintermoon (Magic Item Compendium, page 48). It costs extra gp, and only works for people with 3 out of the 9 alignments. So adding in similar price increases and restriction (Exotic Weapon Proficiency (compound bow) requirement, probably) would be commensurate.

[Ashtagon]

A compound bow is not meaningfully different from a regular bow in terms of how to use Creating a separate EWP for it makes no logical sense, except as a feat tax, in which my disbelief suspenders suffer too much strain.

[Curmudgeon]

A compound bow is not meaningfully different from a regular bow in terms of how to use
It's not so much how to use; the relatively large numbers of moving parts require additional maintenance and create more points of failure, which is problematic with Medieval technology. Useful (non-binding) pulleys were exotic gizmos by that standard, and the eccentric pulleys required for a compound bow would be quite special. If a string or cable breaks when the bow has been drawn this will often damage the limbs. And replacing a broken string with a modern bow often requires a bow press or a trip to an archery pro shop that has one. However, you're not quite right about use. Composite bows have 3x the strings of a regular bow, and D&D rightly penalizes regular bows used in wet conditions. Different degrees of stretching as the strings get wet will really mess with your shooting.

I don't advocate Exotic Weapon Proficiency as a feat tax; I advocate it as a reflection of the reality.

[Ashtagon]

It's not so much how to use; the relatively large numbers of moving parts require additional maintenance and create more points of failure, which is problematic with Medieval technology. Useful (non-binding) pulleys were exotic gizmos by that standard, and the eccentric pulleys required for a compound bow would be quite special. If a string or cable breaks when the bow has been drawn this will often damage the limbs. And replacing a broken string with a modern bow often requires a bow press or a trip to an archery pro shop that has one. However, you're not quite right about use. Composite bows have 3x the strings of a regular bow, and D&D rightly penalizes regular bows used in wet conditions. Different degrees of stretching as the strings get wet will really mess with your shooting.

I don't advocate Exotic Weapon Proficiency as a feat tax; I advocate it as a reflection of the reality.

There's a couple of aspects that have entered the discussion.

In terms of use, it is no different from a regular bow. The result of not having a weapon proficiency feat is a -4 penalty to attack rolls; that game effect doesn't reflect the reality of actual usage.

In terms of construction or repair, even with modern equipment, nothing is happening outside of a well-equipped workshop. Historically, they weren't built until the 1960s. In D&D terms, that is a function of a Craft skill, not a feat. Conceptually, there isn't much involved in compound bow construction that couldn't have been done in da Vinci's day, had the idea occurred to them. That's higher tech than D&D is used to, but not by much.

There isn't even any "routine maintenance" that can be meaningfully done with a compound bow. Regular bows are strung and unstrung often; compound bows are supposed to be kept strung permanently (their design ensures the string is not under serious tension when the bow is at rest).

I suppose we could have a feat to unlock crafting/repairing of clock-punk technology, but that seems a little petty.

[Curmudgeon]

There isn't even any "routine maintenance" that can be meaningfully done with a compound bow.
D&D doesn't have carbon fiber or aluminum alloys or stainless steel. Compound bow pulleys would likely be made of weapon-grade steel, as the best available material. These would need to be cleaned of rust, and their axles cleaned and re-oiled.

[Ashtagon]

D&D doesn't have carbon fiber or aluminum alloys or stainless steel. Compound bow pulleys would likely be made of weapon-grade steel, as the best available material. These would need to be cleaned of rust, and their axles cleaned and re-oiled.

And that much maintenance is a little too trivial to demand a feat. It's a couple of ranks in Craft to know how to oil an axle, not a feat.

[ZamielVanWeber]

And that much maintenance is a little too trivial to demand a feat. It's a couple of ranks in Craft to know how to oil an axle, not a feat.

I agree it should be under craft. The thing is to keep it rust free you would need to disassemble it daily and oil it or find someone who knows how to make a patina properly; this is going to make these cost prohibitive, which may make them impossible to find.

The disassemble route almost feels like it belongs under EWP because that is a lot of highly specific knowledge. The patina version feels like it just needs a fairly high craft check.

[Ashtagon]

I agree it should be under craft. The thing is to keep it rust free you would need to disassemble it daily and oil it or find someone who knows how to make a patina properly; this is going to make these cost prohibitive, which may make them impossible to find.

The disassemble route almost feels like it belongs under EWP because that is a lot of highly specific knowledge. The patina version feels like it just needs a fairly high craft check.

Disassembling a compound bow is quite literally something an end user is not expected to do, even an expert end user. I totally get that this is something that competent *gun* users are supposed to be able to do, but a compound bow is not a gun. An end user probably could strip one down, but doing so would ruin any fine-tuning of the aim of the bow, so it isn't normally done unless there is a known mechanical fault or the bow is being re-strung due to worn out strings.

Typical maintenance includes waxing the bow string (fortnightly). This applies to regular bows too. String and cables should be replaced every two years (this time scale is beyond the scope of a typical D&D campaign). Axles and the eccentric (a technical term) should be lubed every 1000 shots (assuming typical D&D levelling up rates, that's about every 5 character levels).

Keeping it free of corrosion is a matter of a dry cloth to wipe away excess water, a brush to clear dust and grit from cams, and a little oil applied infrequently. Under normal usage conditions, you wouldn't normally expect to disassemble it more than once a year or two.

[BowStreetRunner]

Use of a compound bow (particularly one that employs stabilizers, sights, cable guards and slides, string stops, draw stops, and so forth) would definitely be different enough from a self bow (short bow or long bow) or a recurve bow (composite short bow or composite long bow) to justify a separate proficiency. However, whether it is different enough to qualify as an exotic weapon versus a martial weapon would depend a great deal on the martial culture of the campaign world.

In the Arms & Equipment Guide it is suggested that the daikyū from Japan is equivalent to a longbow. However in reality the long daikyū and the shorter hankyū are both yumi, or asymmetrical bows. (The Guide actually gets this last part wrong, calling the shortbow a yumi instead of a hankyū.) Using either would reasonably require an exotic weapon proficiency for a European archer. The Guide converts these Japanese bows without using the exotic weapon proficiency option though. The reason is simple. In an Asian campaign, the daikyū and hankyū would be the standard bows and the European style symmetrical bows would be exotic. The Guide is simply providing appropriate equivalencies for different campaign settings.

In a campaign setting where compound bows are commonplace, martial training would generally include such bows. Where they are truly exotic, I believe the use of a bow with three strings (umm...which one do I pull?) that doesn't need to be unstrung when not in use and which includes various other oddities would probably be sufficiently different to qualify for an exotic weapon proficiency. Again, the 'feat tax' in this case has more to do with the culture and availability of the weapon than it does how different the weapon is from other bows. That simply determines whether a separate feat is needed (which I believe it does) and not whether that feat is simple, martial, or exotic.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Disassembling a compound bow is quite literally something an end user is not expected to do, even an expert end user. I totally get that this is something that competent *gun* users are supposed to be able to do, but a compound bow is not a gun. An end user probably could strip one down, but doing so would ruin any fine-tuning of the aim of the bow, so it isn't normally done unless there is a known mechanical fault or the bow is being re-strung due to worn out strings.
You realize this bow would need to be made carbon steel, right? That stuff rusts quite aggressively and needs constant supervision to keep it in good condition. Aluminum is not referenced under the rules and carbon fibers are right out.


Typical maintenance includes waxing the bow string (fortnightly). This applies to regular bows too. String and cables should be replaced every two years (this time scale is beyond the scope of a typical D&D campaign). Axles and the eccentric (a technical term) should be lubed every 1000 shots (assuming typical D&D levelling up rates, that's about every 5 character levels).
Again, this assumed rust resistant metals. Those don't exist except as costly materials. You could just make the entire thing out of mithril but that would be expensive.


Keeping it free of corrosion is a matter of a dry cloth to wipe away excess water, a brush to clear dust and grit from cams, and a little oil applied infrequently. Under normal usage conditions, you wouldn't normally expect to disassemble it more than once a year or two.
From my experience with carbon steel that's not true. Then again I am going out on a limb and assuming a metal like steel will work, which seems highly unlikely.

The materials to create a compound bow post-date the normal DnD setting significantly, as does the technology to assemble it. Properly they should not exist short of magic of special materials.

[Ashtagon]

Use of a compound bow (particularly one that employs stabilizers, sights, cable guards and slides, string stops, draw stops, and so forth) would definitely be different enough from a self bow (short bow or long bow) or a recurve bow (composite short bow or composite long bow) to justify a separate proficiency. However, whether it is different enough to qualify as an exotic weapon versus a martial weapon would depend a great deal on the martial culture of the campaign world.

There's no conceivable reason why a recurve bow couldn't use stabilisers and advanced optic sights. Indeed, some people in my old archery club had recurve bows with such add-ons. They're optional and unusual for a bow, but not impossible,a nd not specific to compound bows.


In the Arms & Equipment Guide it is suggested that the daikyū from Japan is equivalent to a longbow. However in reality the long daikyū and the shorter hankyū are both yumi, or asymmetrical bows. (The Guide actually gets this last part wrong, calling the shortbow a yumi instead of a hankyū.) Using either would reasonably require an exotic weapon proficiency for a European archer. The Guide converts these Japanese bows without using the exotic weapon proficiency option though. The reason is simple. In an Asian campaign, the daikyū and hankyū would be the standard bows and the European style symmetrical bows would be exotic. The Guide is simply providing appropriate equivalencies for different campaign settings.

Regarding the Japanese asymmetrical bows compared to conventional Western recurve bows, I can say from personal experience that the difference in terms of usage is trivial. Half an hour of familiarity practice is plenty to get a feel for the difference in shooting technique.

Yes, there is a certain amount of traditionalism regarding training techniques used in Japan. But really, it's just another bow with a slightly different design. I understand the design gives advantages in shooting from horseback, but I didn't have any opportunity to see this in practice.


In a campaign setting where compound bows are commonplace, martial training would generally include such bows. Where they are truly exotic, I believe the use of a bow with three strings (umm...which one do I pull?) that doesn't need to be unstrung when not in use and which includes various other oddities would probably be sufficiently different to qualify for an exotic weapon proficiency. Again, the 'feat tax' in this case has more to do with the culture and availability of the weapon than it does how different the weapon is from other bows. That simply determines whether a separate feat is needed (which I believe it does) and not whether that feat is simple, martial, or exotic.

http://www.bowhuntingbasics.com/images/Compound%20Bow.jpg

There's only one string (plus two cables). Figuring out which string to nock the arrow to and pull is about as difficult as figuring out that the pointy end of the stick goes in the enemy. If you get it wrong, you'll break the bow in under a minute. But if you get it right (which really isn't that hard, assuming you are at all familiar with bows and that you understand that this is just a weird kind of bow), it's no harder to use than a regular bow. An important clue is that the cable guard actually prevents you from drawing the cables back; only the string itself can be drawn back far enough to put any meaningful force behind an arrow.

[BowStreetRunner]

Half an hour of familiarity practice is plenty to get a feel for the difference in shooting technique.
The same could be said about most of the martial weapons in the game, and each has its own distinct weapon proficiency. I believe that if you can't pick it up and use it without that half hour of familiarity practice, then it gets its own weapon proficiency.

Whether a weapon proficiency is martial, or exotic has more to do with cultural familiarity that with difficulty. Which is why there are races that get certain weapon proficiencies automatically and treat certain exotic weapon proficiencies as martial weapon proficiencies.

[Ashtagon]

Yes, it's not identical, no one ever said that. But it's below the level of granularity allowed for within the d20 system. Not even GURPS, with its incredible level of detail/finicketiness, requires you to spend character-building resources on two different things to be able to use both a recurve bow, a compound bow, and/or a Japanese daikyu with the same level of proficiency. In gurps terms, they all use the same skill ("Bow"), with a note that if you are unfamiliar with a specific type, you suffer an attack penalty until you spend a half hour practicing. But no character points are spent to get them to the same level.

tbh, the simple/martial/exotic weapon proficiency is a bit hokey, but it is what it is. If you are proficient with a conventional bow (ignoring the simple/martial/exotic side-issue), you are certainly proficient (within the granularity level provided by the d20 system) with other bow types.

[BowStreetRunner]

...But it's below the level of granularity allowed for within the d20 system....If you are proficient with a conventional bow (ignoring the simple/martial/exotic side-issue), you are certainly proficient (within the granularity level provided by the d20 system) with other bow types.
Actually, under 3.5 rules Longbow, Composite Longbow, Shortbow, and Composite Shortbow ARE separate and distinct proficiencies. If you do not have proficiency in 'All Martial Weapons' as a class feature, then you can use the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat to pick up any one of the four, but it does not translate to the other three. My argument is that Compound Bow would be at least a fifth martial weapon proficiency in most cultures. A fighter or member of another class with proficiency in 'All Martial Weapons' would not need to take it as a separate feat.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, under 3.5 rules Longbow, Composite Longbow, Shortbow, and Composite Shortbow ARE separate and distinct proficiencies.
That was the case for 3.0 rules, but it's not correct in 3.5 D&D.

For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow.

For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite shortbow is treated as if it were a shortbow.

[Vogie]

If we're going to be reductionist, you can certainly turn it into Weapon Proficiency (Stick them with pointy end) and Weapon Proficiency (Applied Physics)

If a Crossbow is a simple Weapon, and a Bow is a martial Weapon, whether or not the compound bow is an exotic or martial weapon is based on that complication. What makes a falcata exotic over a longsword or a bastard sword? It just is.

Since we're building it from scratch, we can make that complication as part of the creation.

If we build it as with a base of a +1 longbow with no other changes, then no, it shouldn't be a exotic weapon.

If we build it as a bow with strange ammunition (trick arrows, made similar to alchemist bombs), a different style of play (lower base damage but +2 towards penalty on called shots), then yes, I could see that being an exotic weapon.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's also worth pointing out that spells like hardening, enhancements like everbright, and materials like darkwood and mithril can be used to craft a compound bow. Yes, it's expensive, but rust and maintenance are not going to be an issue at higher levels. If you expect the bow to require a DC 25 craft check, you're aiming for a PC crafter around level 7 (10 ranks, +2 tools, 16 int) making these bows, which means there's enough WBL going about to use some exotic stuff, especially if it's just for the pulleys.

If you want a simple homebrew compound bow, just stat it like an expensive greatbow, without the EWP requirement. EWP is generally a weak feat anyway, so making it available for about 500 or 1000 gp is not a big deal.

[BowStreetRunner]

When Wilbur Allen (http://www.archeryhalloffame.com/Allen.html) made his first compound bow "the eccentrics were of wood, the truss handle made of pine boards, limb cores of oak flooring that he laminated with fiberglass roving, all held together with epoxy, nails, a few bolts and a little Elmer's glue." I honestly believe that a fantasy setting could produce all of the materials necessary to make a functional, non-magical compound bow that would require no more maintenance than a crossbow.

[Sir Chuckles]

Doesn't help. The Spell Shivering Touch specifically says creatures with the Cold subtype are immune. This wouldn't change, even if the descriptor changed (Even a Substitution (Fire) Shivering Touch would still have the text that makes it not effect [Cold] Creatures.).

Ah, darn it. I missed that. Well, I tried.