Rethinking Archery

[TheYell]

Going with a setting 4000 years in the past and revamping the arsenal.

There will be one option for a bow. It will have a range increment of 60 yards. It will not have a damage rating.

The damage is determined by what kind of arrow you use.

A stone arrow does 1d4 damage and is cheapest.
A bronze arrow does 1d6 damage .
A steel arrow does 1d8 damage .
A mithral arrow does 1d10 damage and costs 11 times what a stone arrow does, if you can find them.

[Deepbluediver]

I have to ask... why? Like, what benefit does this bring to the table or what goal are you trying to reach?

Personally when I was redesigning weapons I eventually decided to just not make players track ammunition, unless it was special ammunition like explosive-shots. So that way a bow is just like any other weapon, and not like a sword that eats GP every time you swing it.
Also, what is the point of condensing all ranged weapons into a single weapon? No difference between longbows, crossbows, slings, etc; and what about things like javelins? Are you also reducing all melee weapons to a single category, so players basically just choose between "melee or ranged"?

I don't really get it, is what I'm saying.

[TheYell]

Every chapter will begin with a paragraph that says the following rules may be tweaked or discarded; they are presented to convey the primitive, hostile and impoverished setting.

The base unit of currency is a jal.
One jal buys a heaping bowl of boiled grain; a well paid laborer earns 4 jal a day.
10 jal = 1 copper coin, and so on as normal.
A stone arrow costs 4 jal. You can probably buy bronze arrows from equipped tribes; steel arrows are for sale in undisclosed cities; mithral is a kings reward.

It's about exploring and haggling and making do with less, at least to start with.

It's 4000 years ago, crossbows are unknown and there's just a bow.

Ranged weapons are the bow, blowgun, sling, and chakram.

Clubs daggers hatchets and assegai are melee weapons that can be thrown.

More usual melee weapons are the bo staff, flail, mace, axe, jian sword, and da dao sword.

Most weapons have special properties. Shields offer bashing and parrying options when raised.

But like I say you could run with the usual weapons chart at the usual prices.

[Notafish]

If a single arrow costs a day's labor, I'd want it to be masterwork quality, at the very least, and to be a substantial upgrade with regard to range, accuracy, and/or killing power over a reusable weapon like a throwing spear (Is that what an asegai is?).

Even in a hardscrabble tracking resources scenario, I think it makes sense to sell nonspecial ammunition in bulk, particularly if most creatures and characters have the HP to survive more than one attack.

[LibraryOgre]

FWIW, bronze and steel aren't that much different at the level of an arrow. Steel will hold an edge longer, but bronze will still have that edge, and is easier to cast. You might run into a difference if the opponent is wearing steel armor, but they'll both handle leather about the same.

[TheYell]

Assegai is meant for Zulu ilkwa, can be thrown but also a thrusting weapon.

You could buy in bulk but I'm figuring costs per unit

Will think on steel vs bronze, the difference in casting them will be one thing. Also stone arrows will have a Clovis point, bronze arrows a leaf point, steel arrows a delta point and mithral a spike point, which allows for increasing penetration and let's you tell them apart in the dark.

[Deepbluediver]

Every chapter will begin with a paragraph that says the following rules may be tweaked or discarded; they are presented to convey the primitive, hostile and impoverished setting.

The base unit of currency is a jal.
One jal buys a heaping bowl of boiled grain; a well paid laborer earns 4 jal a day.
10 jal = 1 copper coin, and so on as normal.
A stone arrow costs 4 jal. You can probably buy bronze arrows from equipped tribes; steel arrows are for sale in undisclosed cities; mithral is a kings reward.

It's about exploring and haggling and making do with less, at least to start with.
That's fine, but it doesn't really address the question, I think, over why make this penalty for ranged weapons but not melee? What's the point in getting a bow that eats into my limited supply of gold with every attack, when I can get a melee weapon that doesn't? The damage doesn't seem so spectacular to be worth the cost.


Ranged weapons are the bow, blowgun, sling, and chakram.
And what's the difference between them, then? Particularly the first 3.


It's 4000 years ago, crossbows are unknown and there's just a bow.
It's a fantasy-setting, you can literally make it whatever you want. If you're basing it on real world history, then iron-smithing didn't become common and widespread until sometimes around 3500-3000 years ago, either. Forging steel (which is usually a relatively low-carbon mix of iron and carbon, vs. something like "cast iron" which has more carbon and other impurities) wasn't truly reliable until the industrial age.
And IRL we never got a mithral-equivalent, so what is that based off of?


More usual melee weapons are the bo staff, flail, mace, axe, jian sword, and da dao sword.
Since it sounds like you're going for a far-east Asian theme; I feel it's important to point out that the oldest known crossbows originated from China.


Will think on steel vs bronze, the difference in casting them will be one thing. Also stone arrows will have a Clovis point, bronze arrows a leaf point, steel arrows a delta point and mithral a spike point, which allows for increasing penetration and let's you tell them apart in the dark.
You could stamp a mark on the arrowhead to tell them apart by touch, and then make them in whatever shape you needed for being most effective. An arrow designed for hunting will likely have a different shape than one that needs to penetrate armor.
https://archeryhistorian.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/%E0%AE%85%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81%E0%A E%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B3% E0%AF%8D.jpg

Also, consider that iron/steel didn't just outcompete bronze because it was "better" [as an aside, poor-quality iron and bronze are about the same IMO, with different tradeoffs in their properties] but because it was so much more common and easier to get, once you had the smelting and forging technology figured out. Based on what I've read about geology, copper and tin are not usually found in close proximity which means you need an advanced trade-network to bring them together, and it's still expensive. One of the theories behind the bronze-age collapse (which is still wide open for debate I admit) was that with the advance of early iron-working, leaders were suddenly able to equip much larger armies than those outfitted only with Bronze, which was a metal affordable only to a few. And the ensuing period of social/military upheaval and political strife was a contributing factor to the fall of several power bronze-age cultures.

[TheYell]

Ok how about this

blowgun does 1P and conveys an injury poison

chakram does 1d8 slashing damage, and 1d4 persistent bleed damage

a hit with the bow gives a slowed 1 level. The arrow can be removed with a full-round DC 25 Medicine check.

critical hit with a sling gives a stunned 1 level.

[Deepbluediver]

Ok how about this

blowgun does 1P and conveys an injury poison

chakram does 1d8 slashing damage, and 1d4 persistent bleed damage

a hit with the bow gives a slowed 1 level. The arrow can be removed with a full-round DC 25 Medicine check.

critical hit with a sling gives a stunned 1 level.
Look, you can make the game run however you want. What I'm trying to get at is: why do you want every ranged weapon to be the same, but the damage to be determined by the ammunition used?

I will admit up front- I don't like tracking ammunition. So the idea of having to track MULTIPLE TYPES of ammunition clearly would not appeal to me. To me it's a half-hearted nod to "realism" that's both unnecessary and that makes archers operate significantly differently from melee-weapon users, and not in a good way.
But before I get overly critical, I'm trying to explore WHY it is you want to do this. What are you hoping to gain in the game by employing this rule? If I can understand your motivations, then maybe I can help you figure about a better solution, one that (IMO), won't make the game flow "like a river of bricks". [i.e. poorly]

Also, just FYI- it's not ONLY archery; I don't track spell-reagents either. (just to give you some additional background in case you're wondering where I'm coming from)

[TheYell]

I can see your points. I've been aggrieved by standard archery rules since the Orcish Hornbow did more damage than a longbow, with a shorter range increment.

I was thinking damage depending on arrow density was more legit, but you have been eloquent against it.

Having thought of bows slowing targets I will keep that.

Have stone arrows then each 4 jal apiece doing 1d6 piercing damage.

Stone arrows you can craft without tools or forge. You just need two hours downtime and a single DC 15 craft roll to make 12 arrows.

I just believe tracking ammo alters tactical thinking.

[Dienekes]

Going with a setting 4000 years in the past and revamping the arsenal.

There will be one option for a bow. It will have a range increment of 60 yards. It will not have a damage rating.

The damage is determined by what kind of arrow you use.

A stone arrow does 1d4 damage and is cheapest.
A bronze arrow does 1d6 damage .
A steel arrow does 1d8 damage .
A mithral arrow does 1d10 damage and costs 11 times what a stone arrow does, if you can find them.

Conceptually fine. But this kind of mechanic works best when the actual gameplay revolves around finding, crafting, holding, and losing supplies. Which is something D&D has been stepping away from for awhile now. 5e especially.

If you are trying to create a game where resource management is a core pillar of the game. Cool, seems fine. If you're trying to tweak 5e, I'd avoid this.

[Deepbluediver]

I can see your points. I've been aggrieved by standard archery rules since the Orcish Hornbow did more damage than a longbow, with a shorter range increment.
First, let me say that I am 100% on board with scrapping all the racial variants of weapons. While IRL does have plenty of examples of wealthier and more technologically-advanced cultures crashing into poorer/more-primitive ones, nothing in D&D benefits (IMO) from trying to wall off super-secret-exclusive knowledge about something as common as weapons behind a racial barrier. And it also kinda defies logic (unless your races are REALLY separate) that someone didn't reverse-engineer it or just trade for it (and/or that you can't use it because your a different flavor of humanoid); that's how historical upgrades to weaponry and amor spread across the globe.

So just having shortbows, longbows, (light and heavy crossbows if applicable), slings, javelins, and then whatever else you want to add (like the atlatl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower)) is fine by me. [and the dwarven urgosh can get right-******]
If you want to balance a shortbow like a 1-handed weapon and a longbow like a 2-handed weapon but requiring additional proficiencies or something, I think that works well.


I was thinking damage depending on arrow density was more legit, but you have been eloquent against it.
Eh... yes and no, kind of.
As far as I know hardness in regards to premodern weaponry was more about keeping an edge and not breaking in combat than about how far into your body it gets. Especially with something like an arrow where the whole point of the barbs is that it STAYS IN, meaning you can't bandage up the wound without first ripping out the arrow and dealing even more damage to yourself (and even crude-surgery is not usually an option on the battlefield).
Penetrating armor was sometimes a thing, yes, but with regards to flesh, does it really matter if a weapon is only 10 times as hard as your muscles instead of 25 times as hard? Probably not.

And when it DOES come to armor usually the preferred method was aiming for a gap anyway, instead of trying to cleave right through the thickest part of a breastplate. In D&D 3.5 there was an item-hardness rule which kinda worked by applying damage-reduction to items based on their relative hardness(es?), but most groups didn't like it, didn't understand it, and barely used it.
But you could look into that if you are really stuck on this.


Having thought of bows slowing targets I will keep that.
If you want. Just be prepared for questions like "why does a piddling little bow slow it's target when my mighty greataxe doesn't?" Which you could possibly justify by the arrow still being stuck in the target, maybe. I'm kinda on the fence there but it's your game and if you like this rules then by all means go for it. Let us know how it turns out.


Have stone arrows then each 4 jal apiece doing 1d6 piercing damage.

Stone arrows you can craft without tools or forge. You just need two hours downtime and a single DC 15 craft roll to make 12 arrows.
That's about 10 minutes per arrow, and I personally have no idea if it's realistic or not but a quick Google search makes it seems like it could be accurate, with the major caveat that that is the time for an EXPERIENCED CRAFTSMEN. From what I've read about flint and obsidian arrowheads, particularly the style that produced clovis points, there was a particular technique which took knowledge and practice to master. Just because a weapon doesn't use metal doesn't mean it was "easy" to craft, or can't be quite involved (https://www.arthurbeaupalmer.com/images/maori/MaoriClubR1.JPG) or even artistic (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Ball-headed_Club_MET_DT258525.jpg/1200px-Ball-headed_Club_MET_DT258525.jpg).


I just believe tracking ammo alters tactical thinking.
Yes- in my experience it makes people decide not to bother with ranged weapons.

If you are aiming to make your game "realistic", it helps to consider why ranged weapons were so powerful IRL. It's because you can attack the enemy who, if they only have melee weapons can't attack you back of course, but when considering massed armies on the field it operates very differently than small-group adventurers in D&D. When armies engaged at a distance of several hundred feet you could reliably get off several volleys (and you didn't exactly have to aim since you were firing hundreds of arrows at hundreds of targets which essentially made up 1 large target) before they get close enough to force you into melee.
Combat in D&D most often takes place at distances of 1-range increment or less, and setting up an ambush so you can get even 1 round of attacks off before the enemy gets to swing is often quite the effort. The reason I keep comparing ranged weapons to melee weapons is because, effectively, that's how they are going to be used much of the time, whatever their actual range-increment is. So stacking a whole bunch of penalties on them "for balance" just makes them worse in many ways, and not "fair", if that's the goal.

[Deepbluediver]

As one final comment, part of the reason I dislike tracking ammunition so much is NOT because it's insurmountable, but because it's kind of a long-running yet relatively minor annoyance. If it were truly terrible, then people would have already agreed on a major fix, but instead it's just frustrating; like a younger sibling who keeps asking simple questions that you rapidly get tired of answering. It's the little mosquito buzzing in my ear that I just can't swat and makes whatever I'm doing ever-so slightly less enjoyable.
Yes I CAN restock on arrows at every town and once you're past 4th or 5th level it takes a relatively trivial amount of gold (in a normal game) to do so, but it's always there and I can't just take an "eschew ammunition" feat so I can stop thinking about.

It's like this: imagine your GM gives you a melee weapon that isn't special or fantastic in any way, just a normal longsword. But it has a quality called "durability" and every time you swung it (not even hit, just attacked) the durability decreases by 1; if Durability reaches zero you can't make attacks any more. You could repair it of course for 1 sp every time you were in town, but the max durability is 30 so you'd constantly need to track it made to sure your weapon didn't become useless at an inopportune moment and you'd ALWAYS have to be reminding the GM that you're taking it to be fixed. Most players would probably think this was a terrible weapon and try to replace it ASAP. But if you replace "sword" with "bow" and "durability" with "ammunition" then everyone just nods and goes along with it and thinks that's fine. Which bothers me.

I admit, whenever you first tell a group of players that you won't be tracking ammunition most people think it's a bit odd and look at you funny, as if they are wondering what other weird rules you are going to introduce. But once the game actually STARTS? No one cares. I've never heard a player express any kind of sentiment along the lines of "gee gosh this is fun but the game would be SOOOOOO much better if the GM were constantly reminding our Ranger that his awesome bow-of-smiting, and by extension 80% of his class features, was about to become useless" etc etc etc.

[TheYell]

I'm thinking you hire an archer who doesn't play a role in tactical combat but is traveling with you, carrying five dozen arrows and expertly crafting two dozen in eight hours.

I would gladly divide the gameplay between a green party of newbies without servants, and a more experienced party who has befriended tribes and earned the chance to hire expert help.

So at first you count arrows, but then you get assistance and stop bothering about it. Same thing with animals and carrying things. And at some point you recruit a headman for a silver a day and he takes care of wages and supplies out of his pay.

I see from Wikipedia that composite bows came in before my era so I should have two types of bow, a simple bow and a composite bow that adds Str modifier to damage.

[KyleG]

As one final comment, part of the reason I dislike tracking ammunition so is NOT because it's insurmountable, but because it's kind of a long-running yet relatively minor annoyance. If it were terrible people would have already agreed on a major fix, but instead it's just frustrating, like a younger sibling who keeps asking simple questions that you rapidly get tired of answering.
Yes I CAN restock on arrows at every town and once you're past 4th or 5th level it takes a relatively trivial amount of gold (in a normal game), but it's always there and I can't just take an "eschew ammunition" feat so I can stop thinking about.

It's like this: imagine your GM gives you a melee weapon that isn't special or fantastic in any way, just a normal longsword. But it has a quality called "durability" and every time you swung it (not even hit, just attacked) the durability decreased by 1. You could repair it of course for 1 sp every time you were in town, but the max durability was 30 so you'd constantly need to track it made to sure your weapon didn't become useless at an inopportune moment and you'd ALWAYS have to be reminding the GM that you're taking it to be fixed. Most players would probably think this was a terrible weapon and try to replace it ASAP. But if you replace "sword" with "bow" and "durability" with "ammunition" then everyone just nods and goes along with it and thinks that's fine. Which bothers me.

I admit, whenever you first tell a group of players that you won't be tracking ammunition most people think it's a bit odd and look at you funny, as if they are wondering what other weird rules you are going to introduce. But once the game actually STARTS? No one cares. I've never heard a player express any kind of sentiment along the lines of "gee gosh this is fun but the game would be so much better if the GM were constantly reminding our Ranger that his awesome bow of smiting, and by extension 80% of his class features, was about to become useless".

This is a great explanation. I was considering looking at a durability system based on crits but it's just a tracking system like arrows. Back to the drawing board on ideas for mundane weapon quality.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm thinking you hire an archer who doesn't play a role in tactical combat but is traveling with you, carrying five dozen arrows and expertly crafting two dozen in eight hours.

I would gladly divide the gameplay between a green party of newbies without servants, and a more experienced party who has befriended tribes and earned the chance to hire expert help.

So at first you count arrows, but then you get assistance and stop bothering about it. Same thing with animals and carrying things. And at some point you recruit a headman for a silver a day and he takes care of wages and supplies out of his pay.
OK, that's a reasonable progression as far as storytelling goes, but I'm not entirely sold on how players will approach it. Are you saying that people will be archers early on and then swap to being melee later because Archery doesn't scale, so they can pawn it off on someone else? Or to ask it another way, why would a player EVER want to be an archer, especially early on when every copper is precious and every shot entails a monetary cost?

Again, not trying to be super-critical here but I feel like I'm missing some important piece of information. Like, for example, how does archery compare to melee combat? Do you expect players to start out with stone daggers, then upgrade to bronze, steel, mithral, etc, as they go along?


I see from Wikipedia that composite bows came in before my era so I should have two types of bow, a simple bow and a composite bow that adds Str modifier to damage.
My understanding of a "compound" bow is that it's constructed from different layers of different materials, but that it functions basically the same as a regular bow. To me that just sounds like Masterwork craftsmanship for what is otherwise a normal weapon. So if, for example, melee players upgrade their weapons with better metal, you can do the same thing with archers just with not-metal. They go through basic bow-wood, to compound items, to super-special-secret ironwood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironwood) bows that are only grown by the dryads of Fangorn forest, or whatever.


This is a great explanation. I was considering looking at a durability system based on crits but it's just a tracking system like arrows. Back to the drawing board on ideas for mundane weapon quality.
I'm not exactly sure I get what you're asking for, and I don't want to derail OP's thread, but if you just want a system for upgrading mundane weapons (without slapping a raver's dream of enchantments on them) might I suggest THIS (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?534853-Weapons-amp-Upgrades-Fix-(for-use-with-3-5-amp-Pathfinder)).
I've tweaked it a bit since posting that eons ago, such as downgrading the different levels of quality from 7 to 6, but it's a method that, IMO, works pretty well for scaling damage around weapon dice instead of just maxing strength, so you don't end up with high-level players making damage roles like 1d8+37 :smallbiggrin:

[TheYell]

It would be interesting to see archery scale. I'll think about it.

Yes, I imagine they'll be in a world of bronze and stone until they earn access to steel and mithral.

[rel]

Resource management only makes sense if resources are genuinely scarce and there are systems in place to force interesting decisions from that scarcity.

This was true in original D&D, where the decision to discard some spare lamp oil or your holy water to fit a bit more treasure into your pack was a serious one that could get you to the next level but could just as easily get you killed.

In later versions of D&D, 5e included, none of these underlying systems exist and the scarcity has been effectively removed. Thus, resource tracking is a largely pointless process that exists only because it always has.

This problem applies to all forms of resource tracking in 5e; arrows, rations lamp oil, you name it. Whatever resource you're being asked to track, you can trivially stock up on an arbitrary amount of it and then effectively stop worrying about it.
There's no interesting decision to make, no trade offs, no gamble on whether or not you will need the thing you're discarding.

If you want resource management to be a significant part of your game then you need to bring back actual limited resources and the systems to make them matter.

As it stands, I can see the PC's simply buying or stealing enough ammo to never need to worry about running out and then ignoring the entire subsystem.
Or pilfering the quivers of their enemies and retiring on the profits.

[Yakk]

I mean you can introduce resource tracking into 5e.

Start by making a multi-tier exploration game. Overland and in a dungeon.

Find some way to discourage huge overland caravans. It could just be cost and the rocket equation.

In a dungeon, have most kinds of helpers simply say "no". You can't hire people or train animals to go into dungeons to help you, unless it is a PC or on the PC's character sheet.

Have exploring the dungeon be a slow and careful process, bringing back old D&D "turn based movement". The places are trapped _everywhere_, you have to search for traps constantly or you take too much damage to keep it up, and other environmental hazards. The dungeons have to be large enough that inventory management for just you (and not your overland helpers) is a problem.

Do this, and counting arrows becomes part of the game. It ain't very heroic tho.

[rel]

I mean you can introduce resource tracking into 5e.

Start by making a multi-tier exploration game. Overland and in a dungeon.

Find some way to discourage huge overland caravans. It could just be cost and the rocket equation.

In a dungeon, have most kinds of helpers simply say "no". You can't hire people or train animals to go into dungeons to help you, unless it is a PC or on the PC's character sheet.

Have exploring the dungeon be a slow and careful process, bringing back old D&D "turn based movement". The places are trapped _everywhere_, you have to search for traps constantly or you take too much damage to keep it up, and other environmental hazards. The dungeons have to be large enough that inventory management for just you (and not your overland helpers) is a problem.

Do this, and counting arrows becomes part of the game. It ain't very heroic tho.

Well yeah. The OP has explicitly said that they want a gritty and non-heroic game focused on exploration.
that's the entire goal of the proposed house rules.

Anyway, first thing to re-iterate is that 5e already has resource tracking. Everything from spells slots and hit points recovering by the day to characters needing ammunition, food and so forth all of which have meticulously listed prices and weights are resource tracking mechanics.
The trouble is there isn't anything linking them together and they have all individually been rendered largely irrelevant in terms of their impact on gameplay.

As such, adding meaningful resource tracking into 5e isn't actually that simple. You have to correct the underlying mechanics before you can implement a system to connect them together.

Take arrow tracking as an example:
You need a good reason for the PC's to want to use bows; they do more damage than swords, they have a nasty rider, getting up close is dangerous so it's better to stay in the back line behind the hirelings with spears, whatever.
You need a good reason for the PC's to not use bows all the time; arrows are crazy expensive, inventory space is really limited, ranged attacks are seriously taboo, again, specifics don't matter.

The result of this if done right is that the player has an interesting decision to make: Do I spend resources on getting to use my bow and get a benefit, or do I spend resources on something else for a different but ideally equally valuable benefit.
That decision point is the difference between a resource management minigame and largely meaningless busywork of tracking arrows and gold pieces.