Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:27:26 -0700
MARTIN E. GOTTHARD wrote:
|
| > | ObSR2: (I've asked this before, but with all the newbies, what the hell!
| > | ;) Has anyone changed/altered the Bow rules (any of them) for Shadowrun?
| > | I've never liked them, but can't reason out a better alternative.
| >
| > What don't you like about the bow rules?
| >
| Umm, at a guess i'd say the problem with the bow rules is that there's no
| upper limit on the pwoer you can put behind an arrow..... You get better
| range and speed out of a bow than out of a gun.

Well you could make the cost of the bow dependant on the strength of
the bow. And ditto for the availability. Sure, a troll with a 24
strength and a bow designed to take advantage that can kick ass, but
where are you going to find a strength 24 bow? I'd make a price
multiplier of 2(Strength-4). So if said troll wants to buy a custom
bow he'd have a cost multiplier of [2(24-4)] x40. And add to the
availability a modifier equal to the bow's strength-4. And use your
judgement to increase the base time to find it.

And if the power is way to high for you try dividing the user's
strength by 2 before adding it to the power.

Does that work? :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 2
From: Malcolm Shaw <malhms@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:32:02 +1100
In setting up a new character for Shadowrun I was reminded of a weapon
that I feel has been dealt with unfairly in all RPG's that I have tried
- the bow and arrow - to explain:

Some years ago I was watching a documentary on TV about an historian who
was also a specialist on armour and weapons explaining why the English
army was so successful against the French at Agincourt. To demonstrate
his theory he had a breast plate and back plate of mediaeval armour
mounted and stuffed with some material to simulate a human body and then
fired a .45 pistol a high powered rifle, a heavy crossbow and finally
an English longbow from a fixed distance from the target. (distance does
not come to mind) When he showed the results of each weapon it was :
a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour
b) the high powered rifle made a small dent
c) the heavy crossbow punctured the breast plate but no to far to make
a killing wound
d) the long bow arrow pierced the armour totally - the head sticking out
the rear plate.

He also mentioned that the longbow in the hands of an expert was equally
devastating at long range.

In Shadowrun the damage of a longbow or a more modern equivalent does
not seem to take into account the damage as demonstrated - the armour
rules show no real difference for an arrow impacting upon any form of
armour

To further illustrate my point I heard a whisper of read some where that
the modern Kevlar armour vest is very poor protection against an arrow

Has any one any thoughts on this and is so what changes of any to rules
would they suggest.

Malcolm
Message no. 3
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:00:32 -0800
> He also mentioned that the longbow in the hands of an expert was equally
> devastating at long range.
>
> In Shadowrun the damage of a longbow or a more modern equivalent does
> not seem to take into account the damage as demonstrated - the armour
> rules show no real difference for an arrow impacting upon any form of
> armour
>
> To further illustrate my point I heard a whisper of read some where that
> the modern Kevlar armour vest is very poor protection against an arrow
>
> Has any one any thoughts on this and is so what changes of any to rules
> would they suggest.
>
> Malcolm

I agree with you on this, but bows aren't a huge part of any SR game I've
been in. Steel plate armor is different than kevlar, but the arrows and
bows in SR are cutting/piercing weapons, and they should be used against
impact armor (if they're not already. I think they are.), so an average
person with strength 3 and a Ranger-X bow can do 7M impact resisted damage.
Average rating for impact is fairly low, normally ranging from 2 to 5.
Average runners have higher strength than that.
Heck, picture that Troll with 14 body, 14 strength. 18M damage. 0-14 short
range, 15-140(!?!) medium. Extreme is out to 840. (Is that right? 14
strength x 60?) God, if that is, I think I'm going to start carrying a bow.
Well, if you want to make them _more_ deadly, give them a bonus against
armor, because impact normally reduces cutting and bashing weapons, but an
arrow has a very small piercing point. Maybe just -1 or -2 to impact.
Research is ongoing on making armor that is far better against edged and
piercing weapons. Don't know how well it's going, but I've seen photos of a
guy getting stabbed with a icepick while wearing it, and the pick bends and
breaks.
Message no. 4
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:05:17 -0600
> Research is ongoing on making armor that is far better against edged and
> piercing weapons. Don't know how well it's going, but I've seen
> photos of a
> guy getting stabbed with a icepick while wearing it, and the pick
> bends and
> breaks.

There is also the story that I recently heard of a police trainee (sorry,
any more specific, and I'd be guessing) who stabbed a fellow trainee that
was wearing a traditional police flak jacket...he was trying to prove to the
'victim' that the jacket would protect him from the knife. (The victim
died).

Admittedly, this is armor that is designed against bullets, but...



-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 5
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:20:20 EST
In a message dated 11/1/98 7:04:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
hatchet@*********.BC.CA writes:

> Well, if you want to make them _more_ deadly, give them a bonus against
> armor, because impact normally reduces cutting and bashing weapons, but an
> arrow has a very small piercing point. Maybe just -1 or -2 to impact.
why not just make Armor Piercing arrows available that follow the same rules
as APDS. I also do not rememer the effects of dikoting offhand, but they will
help. Assume that the normal arrows are cheaper arrows, while the true folding
broadheads are AP style.
(On a bow note, a customer that does hunt with a bow <they get their own
season before the regular rifle guys do> was telling of the effect on a small
deer with some of the arrow heads on the market. A hit through the lungs
<actually passes through the body entirely> that is barely noticed by the
deer. The deer do not usually run or anything, they do not register it as
anything. The lungs fill with blood, the deer drops dead. Note, this story is
from a trusted source, but I do not hunt, and do not have direct knowledge
here. so ka?)
enjoy
Message no. 6
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:27:25 -0800
> There is also the story that I recently heard of a police trainee (sorry,
> any more specific, and I'd be guessing) who stabbed a fellow trainee that
> was wearing a traditional police flak jacket...he was trying to prove to
the
> 'victim' that the jacket would protect him from the knife. (The victim
> died).
>
> Admittedly, this is armor that is designed against bullets, but...
>
>
>
> -XaOs-
> xaos@*****.net
> -David Goth-

Yeah. Most armor is designed for bullets. Flak jackets especially. Gunners
armor from the old wars. Odds of an arrow or a knife were low. Same as SR
armor, take the ubiquitous armor jacket. 5/3, right, so a light pistol is
only 1 point higher than it, but an average human with a sword is 2 points
higher. It's actually for the most part a lot easier to damage people with
a weapon that attacks impact than with a small gun.
Message no. 7
From: One Ronin <ronin@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:30:19 PST
Let's see if I can help ya out a little be here.....

>In setting up a new character for Shadowrun I was reminded of a >weapon
that I feel has been dealt with unfairly in all RPG's that I >have tried
- the bow and arrow - to explain:

Wise observation.

>Some years ago I was watching a documentary on TV about an historian
>who was also a specialist on armour and weapons explaining why the
>English army was so successful against the French at Agincourt. To
>demonstrate his theory he had a breast plate and back plate of
>mediaeval armour mounted and stuffed with some material to simulate >a
human body and then fired a .45 pistol a high powered rifle, a >heavy
crossbow and finally an English longbow from a fixed distance >from the
target. (distance does not come to mind) When he showed >the results of
each weapon it was :
>a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour

I'd have to see this to believe it. I've seen ballistics reports on
.45's and their penetration capability, and unless the armor was several
inches thick or the round was fired at more than 50 meters, the .45
should have penetrated the breast plate. Besides, if this were the
case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle field.
Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows for
every shot from a muzzle-loader.

>b) the high powered rifle made a small dent

Again, I'd have to see for myself. A true high powered rifle would be
shooting a 7.62 by 51mm round, travelling at about 840 meters/second.
That could easily penetrate several pieces of plate armor. Besides, the
4.7mm caseless round from HK, less powerful than the aforementioned
7.62, performs as follows: "....a steel helmet is penetrated with a
soft-core bullet at up to 600 yeards." This is quoted from the book
Militry Small Arms of the 20th Century, 6th ed., by Ian V. Hogg and John
Weeks. If this round can penetrate a steel helmet at 600 yards, what do
you think it can do at 50 yards? Also, what can an arrow penetrate at
600 yards?


>c) the heavy crossbow punctured the breast plate but no to far to
>make a killing wound
>d) the long bow arrow pierced the armour totally - the head sticking
>out the rear plate.

Something isn't right here. A standard Welsh longbow historically
possessed about a 40-60 pound draw. A heavy "Crusade's Era" crossbow
would have a 150+ pound draw. Even if your crossbow bolt is 1/2 the
mass of the longbow arrow, it still has 200%+ more force behind it. The
longbow arrow might be better at wounding, but the crossbow IS better at
penetration.


>He also mentioned that the longbow in the hands of an expert was
>equally devastating at long range.

Maybe so.....I won't dispute this one.

>In Shadowrun the damage of a longbow or a more modern equivalent does
>not seem to take into account the damage as demonstrated - the armour
>rules show no real difference for an arrow impacting upon any form of
>armour

Okay, the rules do need to take some things into account, but so do you.
If PC with a 4 str would fire an arrow from the bow on pg 14 of the SSC,
the effective power would be 8....the same as an assault rifle.
However, that arrow will penetrate BETTER than an assault rifle, because
it is resisted by IMPACT armor, not ballistic. For example, a street
samurai is the target of a merc with an assault rifle, and our
aformentioned hero with an anachronistic view on weapons. The sammy,
who's wearing an armored jacket, only has to resist a 3M wound from the
assault rifle, but has to resist a 5M from the arrow. Gee, better
penetration than an assault rifle.....

>To further illustrate my point I heard a whisper of read some where
>that the modern Kevlar armour vest is very poor protection against >an
arrow.
This is absolutely true. Kevlar does almost nothing against high-mass,
slow-moving objects like arrows or knives. Keep in mind that kevlar is
a fabric, and can easily be penetrated by any sharp or pointed high mass
object. Again, this is why arrows use impact armor, not ballistic
armor. Kevlar does work rather well against fast-moving, very low mass
projectiles like bullets.

>Has any one any thoughts on this and is so what changes of any to
>rules would they suggest.

If you are not happy with the way things are, try upping the power on
bows (ie: [Str + 5] or [Str + 6], although, this will probably make them
way too powerful. Can you imagine a Troll with an 10 Str shooting a bow
at you? 16M vs impact armor? I don't like those odds at all.)
All things considered, I think that bows are pretty well done in this
game. You might even want to alter the power/damage code based on the
type of arrow-head used. Can you imagine an AP arrow head?
(Str + 4)M vs 1/2 impact? Like a fraggin laser!

Hope this helps.




Mai mentsu konna mai kikyo.

-ICQ #:11373195


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 8
From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:26:40 +1000
>Heck, picture that Troll with 14 body, 14 strength. 18M damage. 0-14 short
>range, 15-140(!?!) medium. Extreme is out to 840. (Is that right? 14
>strength x 60?) God, if that is, I think I'm going to start carrying a bow.


A few points to note...

1. A friend of mine who was GMing our early games put us against vampires
with these things. When a vampire can get +12 strength from essence
sucking, that makes an average of 15 strength, maximum of 18 (or more).
They REALLY hurt.

2. When you take a strength as high as that, and calculate the range to
which it can fire, and knowing the length of a combat round, you can
calculate the velocity of the arrow... And it ends up faster than mach 1!
Don't know about you, but in my opinion that does nasty things to the arrow.

3. Consider just how tough it must be to draw a strength 18 bow. What's it
made of, a steel beam? That's a LOT of force to put behind an arrow.

4. Consider just how hard it would be to get your hands on a bow of the
really high strength levels. I can't see them being mass produced...

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. So
there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Message no. 9
From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:41:39 +1000
[snip]

>should have penetrated the breast plate. Besides, if this were the
>case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle field.


The major reason for firearms replacing bows was not because they did more
damage. Anyone, no matter their strength, can load a firearm, aim it, and
fire. The smallest injury to either arm, or almost anywhere on the torso
could stop someone drawing a bow, however, effectively taking that person
from combat.

Also, I can tell you from experience that it's MUCH easier to hit a target
with a firearm than with a bow. At least, it doesn't take months or years
of practice to get a bullet moving where I wanted it to. (accurate enough to
kill a rabbit with a .22 rifle at about 50m range)
On the other hand, hitting that same rabbit with an arrow is an extremely
problematic thing to someone not experienced with a bow.

Finally, hitting is not the same as killing. To fire an arrow accurately is
one thing, but to be able to use a strong enough bow to actually kill the
target or penetrate armour is another. Archeologists can tell if a certain
skeleton from the end of the archer's era is an archer, because their spine
is twisted from using so much force to draw the bow.

>Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows for
>every shot from a muzzle-loader.


See above...

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. So
there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:22:02 +0100
According to Hatchetman, at 19:27 on 1 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Yeah. Most armor is designed for bullets. Flak jackets especially. Gunners
> armor from the old wars. Odds of an arrow or a knife were low.

I take it you mean gunners in an aircraft? In that case, I'll have to
correct you: most armor for flying crews, from WWII to Vietnam, contained
hard plates (metal in WWII, metals and/or ceramics in Vietnam). These
would be effective against knives and arrows, even though that was not
likely to have been high on the designers' list :) The trouble with
wearing this type of armor on the ground, though, is that it's rather
heavy to move in (late 1960s "Body Armor, Small Arms Protective,
Aircrewman" weighed between 9.5 kg and 13 kg for just a vest with ceramic
front and back plates, depending on the materials used in the armor;
perhaps surprisingly, the lighter models gave the better protection).

> Same as SR armor, take the ubiquitous armor jacket. 5/3, right, so a
> light pistol is only 1 point higher than it, but an average human with a
> sword is 2 points higher. It's actually for the most part a lot easier
> to damage people with a weapon that attacks impact than with a small
> gun.

Agreed with this.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hope I learn what makes me look at things so wrong.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:40:54 +0000
and thus did Malcolm Shaw speak on 2 Nov 98 at 13:32:

> Some years ago I was watching a documentary on TV about an historian who
> was also a specialist on armour and weapons explaining why the English
> army was so successful against the French at Agincourt.
[snip guns vs arrows]

Hmm, strange story. I saw a similar show once where they displayed
the effect of musket balls vs a breastplate. They wouldn't always
penetrate (main reason why soldiers were still wearing them).
Most crossbows should have a better penetration factor than longbows.
Archaeological diggings on battle fields have found skeletons of fully
armoured knights completely holed through by a crossbow bolt. Granted
in battles where the crossbow actually was pitted against the
longbow, the latter would usually prevail because of it's higher rate
of fire combined with a pretty decent penetration.

> He also mentioned that the longbow in the hands of an expert was equally
> devastating at long range.

Note the word expert. I'm a good shot with a bow, but hitting
something at longer ranges is far easier with a crossbow. Plus
hitting something with a bow at those ranges would take lots of
practise. And finally you can't compare battle field situations with
small skirmishes. On the battle field firing in the general direction
of an advancing group of enemies would give you a decent chance of
hitting something just because of the numbers involved.

> In Shadowrun the damage of a longbow or a more modern equivalent does
> not seem to take into account the damage as demonstrated - the armour
> rules show no real difference for an arrow impacting upon any form of
> armour
> To further illustrate my point I heard a whisper of read some where that
> the modern Kevlar armour vest is very poor protection against an arrow

Correct, what might be quite effective are those mailshirts those
divers use when they want to film or dive around sharks.

> Has any one any thoughts on this and is so what changes of any to rules
> would they suggest.

Well quite honestly, I would leave them as they are. The thing is I'm
actually considering putting a maximum on the strength of a bow. I
don't remember who wrote it, but there aren't going to be many
manufacturers out there that could commercially justify making a
strength 14 bow.
Finally consider this, for maybe a lesser penetration for bows and
crossbows you do get an insane rate of fire in return. If you want to
go for realism, you have to do something about that too.



Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 12
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:24:52 +0100
And so it came to happen that Malcolm Shaw:
>
> In setting up a new character for Shadowrun I was reminded of a weapon
> that I feel has been dealt with unfairly in all RPG's that I have tried
> - the bow and arrow - to explain:
>
> Some years ago I was watching a documentary on TV about an historian who
> was also a specialist on armour and weapons explaining why the English
> army was so successful against the French at Agincourt. To demonstrate
> his theory he had a breast plate and back plate of mediaeval armour
> mounted and stuffed with some material to simulate a human body and then
> fired a .45 pistol a high powered rifle, a heavy crossbow and finally
> an English longbow from a fixed distance from the target. (distance does
> not come to mind) When he showed the results of each weapon it was :
> a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour
> b) the high powered rifle made a small dent
> c) the heavy crossbow punctured the breast plate but no to far to make
> a killing wound
> d) the long bow arrow pierced the armour totally - the head sticking out
> the rear plate.

I haven't seen that documentary (pretty clear ot me as this is probably
a differnt country where you have seen this;o)). Problem with the above
is than, why have humans dropped the design of a bow as an instrument of
war with the invention of powderweapons? Because it was nice to do so,
hey, look, a new weapon, let's take this and made our Fletchers looking
for their jobs? It was because it was simply because everyone could use
a Powderweapon or a crossbow. Knights where pretty shocked when they
found out that their shining armor does not protect them from those
common folk that uses Crossbows. In fact Knights changed their armor in
exchange for lighter gear as the crossbow came on the battlefield, their
armor simply didn't protected them anymore. After that the powderweapon
came in and thus could smash the bones, rip the muscles etc. that
couldn't have happend if the Knights had still their Armor as than the
bullets would bounce of or just smash the armor to hinder the knight in
fighting. A fact that should not be underestimated, if the powderweapon
was introduced earlier than the crossbow it may have taken a l lot more
time until powdered weapon where used regularly on the battlefield. But
that is speculation.
> He also mentioned that the longbow in the hands of an expert was equally
> devastating at long range.

Thats the problem, a trained soldier was able to "magic" with bow and
arrow. But actually hitting a target with a bow was a problem. That is
why the Longbow was not a sniper weapon to pinpoint enemy leaders, the
tactic was to get as many arrows into the area of the target(s) in the
shortest time possible. The hail of arrows than was so dense that the
possibility of hitting "a" target was high. That was why many
Arrowcompanies where situated not in the Frontlines but in the more
backward areas of the battlefield, they simply shot over the heads of
their comrades.

> In Shadowrun the damage of a longbow or a more modern equivalent does
> not seem to take into account the damage as demonstrated - the armour
> rules show no real difference for an arrow impacting upon any form of
> armour

As someone mentioned earlier that is why you use Impact Armor to resist
Arrows. If you wan't to get more "realistic" you have to take into
account that an arrow is slower traveling than a bullet, it is
balisticaly more unstable than a bullet and such things. But as you use
the same Ramgemodifiers as the ones presented for Powderweapons I say it
is fine than.

> To further illustrate my point I heard a whisper of read some where that
> the modern Kevlar armour vest is very poor protection against an arrow

Kevlar armor is designed to absorb high kinetic energy levels and to
transfer that energy over a larger area to stop the object (in most
cases the bullet). Therefor you have to look at the energy levels of the
projectiles, be it arrow or bullet. Common sense (IMO) brings me to the
conclusion that the energy that the firer transfers to the arrow when he
shoots is not high enough to generate more kinetic energy when a bullet
fired from a powderweapon. That is why Kevlar does not protect very well
against arrows and other impact damage weapons. Kevlar is very good
protection for specific energy levelranges, if those are topped or the
energy is too low, than Kevlar helps you little.

> Has any one any thoughts on this and is so what changes of any to rules
> would they suggest.
>
> Malcolm

--
---> Steadfast...Selfproclaimed Protector of Gerber BABY's
Surfin' through the 'trix is
not like dustin crops boy!
Uh, 089 of 200 it states in Gerber BABY...
Message no. 13
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:31:52 -0600
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:40:54 +0000 Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
writes:
<SNIP>
>Well quite honestly, I would leave them as they are. The thing is I'm
>actually considering putting a maximum on the strength of a bow. I
>don't remember who wrote it, but there aren't going to be many
>manufacturers out there that could commercially justify making a
>strength 14 bow.
<SNIP>

What about this: Chanage the price for Bows to 15 x Str Min x Str Min?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 14
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:24:52 -0800
> 1. A friend of mine who was GMing our early games put us against
vampires
> with these things. When a vampire can get +12 strength from essence
> sucking, that makes an average of 15 strength, maximum of 18 (or more).
> They REALLY hurt.

Yup. I'm glad I don't have the same GM for AD&D and SR, or I'd be having ot
kill stuff like that too. That'd be no fun.

> 2. When you take a strength as high as that, and calculate the range to
> which it can fire, and knowing the length of a combat round, you can
> calculate the velocity of the arrow... And it ends up faster than mach
1!
> Don't know about you, but in my opinion that does nasty things to the
arrow.
>
> 3. Consider just how tough it must be to draw a strength 18 bow. What's
it
> made of, a steel beam? That's a LOT of force to put behind an arrow.
>
> 4. Consider just how hard it would be to get your hands on a bow of the
> really high strength levels. I can't see them being mass produced...

Yeah, ok. Maybe there should be a _maximum_ amount of force you can put
into a bow, because I have seen an old longbow broken by someone who was
trying to put too much force into it. A compound bow could take a lot more,
but still not enough for a pumped up troll to put his full strength behind.
Message no. 15
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:28:12 -0800
> Also, I can tell you from experience that it's MUCH easier to hit a
target
> with a firearm than with a bow. At least, it doesn't take months or
years
> of practice to get a bullet moving where I wanted it to. (accurate enough
to
> kill a rabbit with a .22 rifle at about 50m range)
> On the other hand, hitting that same rabbit with an arrow is an extremely
> problematic thing to someone not experienced with a bow.

Yup, first time I picked up a gun I was 11. Old worn bolt action .22 single
shot, I was doing shots out to 100 yards at the end of the day. Now with my
10/22 (the only gun I own and can afford ammo for) I can get it out to
about a half klick if the wind is low.

> Finally, hitting is not the same as killing. To fire an arrow accurately
is
> one thing, but to be able to use a strong enough bow to actually kill the
> target or penetrate armour is another. Archeologists can tell if a
certain
> skeleton from the end of the archer's era is an archer, because their
spine
> is twisted from using so much force to draw the bow.

Same sort of goes for guns too, you need good shot placement to kill. Of
course, if you don't, you can always shoot again and again and again and
again.
Message no. 16
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:38:34 -0800
snip
> Note the word expert. I'm a good shot with a bow, but hitting
> something at longer ranges is far easier with a crossbow. Plus
> hitting something with a bow at those ranges would take lots of
> practise. And finally you can't compare battle field situations with
> small skirmishes. On the battle field firing in the general direction
> of an advancing group of enemies would give you a decent chance of
> hitting something just because of the numbers involved.
snip

Yeah, expert is the important word. I've had a longbow for years, and at 30
yards, I have about 50% chance of just _hitting_ it. Actually sticking in
is another thing entirely. With my dad's crossbow, I can hit almost as good
as with a gun. I just like guns a lot better. I'm a gun person.
We'll need a bigger gun for this.
Message no. 17
From: Zebulin Magby <zebulingod@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:29:51 -0800
> In setting up a new character for Shadowrun I was reminded of a weapon
> that I feel has been dealt with unfairly in all RPG's that I have
tried
> - the bow and arrow - to explain:

I don't know...I have seen my runners Deuce and a half reduced to
nothing by some well placed bow and crossbow fire. (Admittedly it was
rather funny to watch! 8)

Based on that...I don't really think that those weapons have been
treated all that bad. I mean, geez, they took out a duece and a half
with no more than a dozen or so bolts and arrows!

Zebulin
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 18
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:53:20 -0600
:> 4. Consider just how hard it would be to get your hands on a bow of
the
:> really high strength levels. I can't see them being mass produced...
:
:Yeah, ok. Maybe there should be a _maximum_ amount of force you can put
:into a bow, because I have seen an old longbow broken by someone who was
:trying to put too much force into it. A compound bow could take a lot
more,
:but still not enough for a pumped up troll to put his full strength
behind.


What breaks the bow is drawing the string back to far (or maybe to the
side)- the strain increases to the same level at full draw, regardless of
user strength.
As for Uber-draw bows, they would not be hard to make (custom, yes,
but not unobtainable). A very powerful bow is like a Ballista, and should
probably have quite different stats (a higher weight, for one thing, and
thicker arrows, and maybe Str+1 S damage). Making one would not be so
hard; it would just take basic engineering on the level used in vehicular
suspensions, which handle as much weight rather easily. They did it in
the middle ages, all you're looking for is a portable version... I could
just see a troll weaponsmith scrounging military junkyards for tank and
airplane suspension components for his "bow".

Mongoose
Message no. 19
From: Richard Swen <rswen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:24:24 -0800
At 11:53 AM 11/2/98, you wrote:
> What breaks the bow is drawing the string back to far (or maybe to the
>side)- the strain increases to the same level at full draw, regardless of
>user strength.
> As for Uber-draw bows, they would not be hard to make (custom, yes,
>but not unobtainable). A very powerful bow is like a Ballista, and should
>probably have quite different stats (a higher weight, for one thing, and
>thicker arrows, and maybe Str+1 S damage). Making one would not be so
>hard; it would just take basic engineering on the level used in vehicular
>suspensions, which handle as much weight rather easily. They did it in
>the middle ages, all you're looking for is a portable version... I could
>just see a troll weaponsmith scrounging military junkyards for tank and
>airplane suspension components for his "bow".
>
Has any one come up with rules for a Warsaw crossbow. i.e., a crossbow
made with rear suspension springs from a truck. The cocking mechanism
is a hydraulic jack and the ammo was a car axle. The primary use of
these items was as anti-tank weapons in the Warsaw ghetto during WW2.

Thank you,
Richard Swen
Message no. 20
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:25:29 -0800
> What breaks the bow is drawing the string back to far (or maybe to
the
> side)- the strain increases to the same level at full draw, regardless of
> user strength.
> As for Uber-draw bows, they would not be hard to make (custom, yes,
> but not unobtainable). A very powerful bow is like a Ballista, and
should
> probably have quite different stats (a higher weight, for one thing, and
> thicker arrows, and maybe Str+1 S damage). Making one would not be so
> hard; it would just take basic engineering on the level used in vehicular
> suspensions, which handle as much weight rather easily. They did it in
> the middle ages, all you're looking for is a portable version... I could
> just see a troll weaponsmith scrounging military junkyards for tank and
> airplane suspension components for his "bow".
>
> Mongoose

Hey, there's an interesting picture. A troll drawing back a bow made out of
a heavy truck suspension.
Well, trying to use your full strength to draw a bow back is what will
break it for the most part. You have to know what the maximum force you can
put on your bow is, so that you know where to stop. That'd be where the
maximum rating would come in. It'd vary from bow to bow depending on
quality and cost and such. A truly heavy bow would definitely be heavy and
have truly devastating damage, but it'd be hard to make.
Message no. 21
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:27:13 -0800
> Has any one come up with rules for a Warsaw crossbow. i.e., a crossbow
> made with rear suspension springs from a truck. The cocking mechanism
> is a hydraulic jack and the ammo was a car axle. The primary use of
> these items was as anti-tank weapons in the Warsaw ghetto during WW2.
>
> Thank you,
> Richard Swen

An axle? From what type of drivetrain? I think a driveshaft would work
better, just because they're a lot straighter. Axles tend to have things on
them that'd mess up the way they worked. Differentials and such.
Message no. 22
From: Richard Swen <rswen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:43:29 -0800
At 01:27 PM 11/2/98, you wrote:
>> Has any one come up with rules for a Warsaw crossbow. i.e., a crossbow
>> made with rear suspension springs from a truck. The cocking mechanism
>> is a hydraulic jack and the ammo was a car axle. The primary use of
>> these items was as anti-tank weapons in the Warsaw ghetto during WW2.
>>
[Snip]
>
>An axle? From what type of drivetrain? I think a driveshaft would work
>better, just because they're a lot straighter. Axles tend to have things on
>them that'd mess up the way they worked. Differentials and such.
>
Most of what I said is only hear say information. The drive shaft would not
work because it is not a solid piece of metal. The type of ammo the crossbow
would work best with would be a rod of solid metal sparpened at on end and
some fins added to the aft end for stabilization. Similar to to fin
stabilized
titanium darts used by the US Army in their tanks.

Thanks,
Richard Swen
Message no. 23
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:08:24 +0000
and thus did D. Ghost speak on 2 Nov 98 at 6:31:

> What about this: Chanage the price for Bows to 15 x Str Min x Str Min?

Let see, so a strength 3 bow would be Y 135, strength 6 Y 540 and mr
14 strength troll would have to pay Y 2,940.
Still a bit on the cheap side IMHO. maybe 25 * Str^2?
That would yield a price of 225, 900, and 3,920. That sound about
right for getting a standard bow for each class (although there isn't
a strength 14 bow available nowadays, your bow's price can get up to
that amount in dollars if you want to shoot in serious competition
and need stabilizers and sights).


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 24
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:32:43 -0800
> Most of what I said is only hear say information. The drive shaft would
not
> work because it is not a solid piece of metal. The type of ammo the
crossbow
> would work best with would be a rod of solid metal sparpened at on end
and
> some fins added to the aft end for stabilization. Similar to to fin
> stabilized
> titanium darts used by the US Army in their tanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard Swen

Well, under ideal conditions of course, but in war, the bow was probably
used within the city streets, aff? So pretty much any long steel piece
would have worked.
Message no. 25
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:05:35 -0500
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Slipspeed wrote:

->>Heck, picture that Troll with 14 body, 14 strength. 18M damage. 0-14 short
->>range, 15-140(!?!) medium. Extreme is out to 840. (Is that right? 14
->>strength x 60?) God, if that is, I think I'm going to start carrying a bow.
->
->A few points to note...
->
->1. A friend of mine who was GMing our early games put us against vampires
->with these things. When a vampire can get +12 strength from essence
->sucking, that makes an average of 15 strength, maximum of 18 (or more).
->They REALLY hurt.
->
->2. When you take a strength as high as that, and calculate the range to
->which it can fire, and knowing the length of a combat round, you can
->calculate the velocity of the arrow... And it ends up faster than mach 1!
->Don't know about you, but in my opinion that does nasty things to the arrow.
->
->3. Consider just how tough it must be to draw a strength 18 bow. What's it
->made of, a steel beam? That's a LOT of force to put behind an arrow.
->
->4. Consider just how hard it would be to get your hands on a bow of the
->really high strength levels. I can't see them being mass produced...

I tend to have players purchase bows by strength (This is a
Strength 7 Ranger-X Bow). If they have at least the required strength,
they can use it without difficulty. If they are less strong than the bow,
they must make a strength test to 'ready weapon' with a TN equal to the
strength of the bow and suffer a TN penalty equal to half the amount of
strength they were lacking (round up). It's worked very well in my
campaign, perhaps you all may enjoy using it as well.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 26
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:27:37 -0500
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Hatchetman wrote:

->snip
->> Note the word expert. I'm a good shot with a bow, but hitting
->> something at longer ranges is far easier with a crossbow. Plus
->> hitting something with a bow at those ranges would take lots of
->> practise. And finally you can't compare battle field situations with
->> small skirmishes. On the battle field firing in the general direction
->> of an advancing group of enemies would give you a decent chance of
->> hitting something just because of the numbers involved.
->snip
->
->Yeah, expert is the important word. I've had a longbow for years, and at 30
->yards, I have about 50% chance of just _hitting_ it. Actually sticking in
->is another thing entirely. With my dad's crossbow, I can hit almost as good
->as with a gun. I just like guns a lot better. I'm a gun person.
->We'll need a bigger gun for this.

I'm a bowman myself (I've used guns before but not a crossbow) and
will say hitting a 1m diameter target at 50 yards isn't incredibly
difficult (of course, I've practiced on and off for the past 17 years).
Hitting the same target with a pistol or rifle is incredibly easier. I'm
about 2m tall (slightly shorter than ARKHAM) with a helluva reach and a
reasonable strength (3, probably in SR) so hitting a target at 31 meters
to 90 meters is equally difficult (yeah, right!). I might could shoot 90
meters, but I seriously doubt I'd be hitting what I was aiming at at that
range. The target would move. The ranges on the bows should definitely
be dropped, maybe half of their current ranges in SR3. All IMNSHO.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 27
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:02:13 EST
In a message dated 98-11-01 22:31:36 EST, you write:

<< >a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour

I'd have to see this to believe it. I've seen ballistics reports on
.45's and their penetration capability, and unless the armor was several
inches thick or the round was fired at more than 50 meters, the .45
should have penetrated the breast plate. Besides, if this were the
case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle field.
Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows for
every shot from a muzzle-loader.

>b) the high powered rifle made a small dent

Again, I'd have to see for myself. A true high powered rifle would be
shooting a 7.62 by 51mm round, travelling at about 840 meters/second.
That could easily penetrate several pieces of plate armor. Besides, the
4.7mm caseless round from HK, less powerful than the aforementioned
7.62, performs as follows: "....a steel helmet is penetrated with a
soft-core bullet at up to 600 yeards." This is quoted from the book
Militry Small Arms of the 20th Century, 6th ed., by Ian V. Hogg and John
Weeks. If this round can penetrate a steel helmet at 600 yards, what do
you think it can do at 50 yards? Also, what can an arrow penetrate at
600 yards? >>

It may be able to penetrate a FLAT steel plater at 600yards, or however far,
but traditional breast plates were curved, that is why, in most cases, the
bullet will ricochet off but the arrow, or bolt, will penetrate.

Also the Gun replaced the arrow because:

A) most soldiers didn't have armor, they only had a leather vest, or in some
cases chain mail. The knights were the only ones with true armor when the gun
was invented.

B) When the longbow was developed it got rid of steel armor because it could
punch through it, it was then that the gun was invented so Traditional Armor
was no longer in circulation, that is why the arrow was replaced.

C) In most cases the gun had a greater intimidation on the oposing side, so
they were more likely to jump, do something stupid, or run away when the guns
went off.

Dragon Claw
Message no. 28
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:09:00 EST
In a message dated 98-11-02 00:38:28 EST, you write:

<<
> >should have penetrated the breast plate. Besides, if this were the
> >case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle field.


>The major reason for firearms replacing bows was not because they did more
>damage. Anyone, no matter their strength, can load a firearm, aim it, and
>fire. The smallest injury to either arm, or almost anywhere on the torso
>could stop someone drawing a bow, however, effectively taking that person
>from combat.

True

> Also, I can tell you from experience that it's MUCH easier to hit a target
> with a firearm than with a bow. At least, it doesn't take months or years
> of practice to get a bullet moving where I wanted it to. (accurate enough to
> kill a rabbit with a .22 rifle at about 50m range)
> On the other hand, hitting that same rabbit with an arrow is an extremely
> problematic thing to someone not experienced with a bow.

Yes but back when the gun was invented it was harder to hit a target with a
rifle than with a gun because the guns weren't very accurate. You had to
shoot lots of rounds to find out where the gun shot in relation to it's sights
(If they had any, I don't know), so it would be about the same as learning to
shoot a bow now. Also without scopes hitting things long range was a pain.

> Finally, hitting is not the same as killing. To fire an arrow accurately is
> one thing, but to be able to use a strong enough bow to actually kill the
>target or penetrate armour is another. Archeologists can tell if a certain
> skeleton from the end of the archer's era is an archer, because their spine
> is twisted from using so much force to draw the bow.

Yes, that is true. But guns like the M-16 and most modern military weapons
are not designed to kill all the time. They are designed to wound, or put the
enemy out of commition. That way it takes two or three soldiers out of the
battle instead of 1, also it is more effective at demoralizing people.

>Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows for
>every shot from a muzzle-loader.

If what you said above is true then it is a lot easier to kill someone with 5
arrows than with one bullet. Or you at least have a better chance of killing
them.


Dragon Claw
Message no. 29
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:18:27 -0800
> I tend to have players purchase bows by strength (This is a
> Strength 7 Ranger-X Bow). If they have at least the required strength,
> they can use it without difficulty. If they are less strong than the
bow,
> they must make a strength test to 'ready weapon' with a TN equal to the
> strength of the bow and suffer a TN penalty equal to half the amount of
> strength they were lacking (round up). It's worked very well in my
> campaign, perhaps you all may enjoy using it as well.

Wow, you actually have PCs who use bows? Hmm, I really am gonna have to try
one. Not really great to walk around with though.
Message no. 30
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:27:04 -0800
> Yes but back when the gun was invented it was harder to hit a target with
a
> rifle than with a gun because the guns weren't very accurate. You had to
> shoot lots of rounds to find out where the gun shot in relation to it's
sights
> (If they had any, I don't know), so it would be about the same as
learning to
> shoot a bow now. Also without scopes hitting things long range was a
pain.

Gotta do that when you get a new gun now too. It's normal. And any time any
scope you have on it gets jarred or removed.
Not really true without a scope. You just need to know how to compensate
for drop. I can do it easy with my 10/22, and dad has used my grandfather's
Mauser to shoot out to 1200 yards and it has no scope. Of course, he's a
good shot, but the Mauser is a good gun too.
I wander off now.
Message no. 31
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:23:07 -0800
> I'm a bowman myself (I've used guns before but not a crossbow)
and
> will say hitting a 1m diameter target at 50 yards isn't incredibly
> difficult (of course, I've practiced on and off for the past 17 years).
> Hitting the same target with a pistol or rifle is incredibly easier. I'm
> about 2m tall (slightly shorter than ARKHAM) with a helluva reach and a
> reasonable strength (3, probably in SR) so hitting a target at 31 meters
> to 90 meters is equally difficult (yeah, right!). I might could shoot 90
> meters, but I seriously doubt I'd be hitting what I was aiming at at that
> range. The target would move. The ranges on the bows should definitely
> be dropped, maybe half of their current ranges in SR3. All IMNSHO.

Crossbows are fun. Should try one. I was going to get one, but I frequently
find myself spending all my money to fix my cars, computer, buy shells, and
my many, many RPG books. I need less expensive hobbies. Or a better job.
Which is why I'm always using a .22, 500 rounds of good .22LR ammo cost 20
bucks, but 100 rounds of even .223 costs around 50 or 60.
The good thing about bows and crossbows is you recover your ammo.
Maybe the TN modifiers for movement should just be cranked up, plus some
way to compensate for flight time.
Message no. 32
From: Andrew Spurgeon <DragonC147@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:25:43 EST
In a message dated 98-11-02 21:24:15 EST, you write:

<< Gotta do that when you get a new gun now too. It's normal. And any time any
scope you have on it gets jarred or removed.
Not really true without a scope. You just need to know how to compensate
for drop. I can do it easy with my 10/22, and dad has used my grandfather's
Mauser to shoot out to 1200 yards and it has no scope. Of course, he's a
good shot, but the Mauser is a good gun too.
I wander off now.
>>

Yes that is true, but in most cases it is between 1/2 and 1 MOA difference.
When guns first came out i beleive the difference was about 7 to 15 MOA, that
is a big difference.

DC
Message no. 33
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:37:20 -0800
> Yes that is true, but in most cases it is between 1/2 and 1 MOA
difference.
> When guns first came out i beleive the difference was about 7 to 15 MOA,
that
> is a big difference.
>
> DC

Yeah, thanks to the modern wonders of rifled barrels accuracy now compared
to them would be pretty much magical to their standards. Though I think one
of the most accurate rifles I've seen are the old Sharps .45-90 and .45-110
black powder guns. Giant, ancient, heavy things, but they shoot straight as
an arrow for further than you can see. I have seen a lot of guns that are
new and can't shoot worth a damn though, quality guns are always solid
performers though.
Message no. 34
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:00:32 +0100
According to Martin Steffens, at 23:08 on 2 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Let see, so a strength 3 bow would be Y 135, strength 6 Y 540 and mr
> 14 strength troll would have to pay Y 2,940.
> Still a bit on the cheap side IMHO. maybe 25 * Str^2?

IMO that still won't stop characters from buying such bows. Shadowrunners
tend to have the money for toys like this, usually at least during
character generation. I think a better option is to put a huge
Availability on these things, like (Str.Min.)/(Str.Min. x2) days instead
of a flat 3/36 hrs.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:00:32 +0100
According to Richard Swen, at 13:43 on 2 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Similar to to fin stabilized titanium darts used by the US Army in their
> tanks.

Uranium. Or tungsten for countries who can't afford/don't
manufacture/don't like/whatever depleted uranium.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 36
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:35:04 +1000
>There is also the story that I recently heard of a police trainee (sorry,
>any more specific, and I'd be guessing) who stabbed a fellow trainee that
>was wearing a traditional police flak jacket...he was trying to prove to the
>'victim' that the jacket would protect him from the knife. (The victim
>died).

This is probably likely to turn into an urban myth.

The original story can be found at the Darwin Awards website
(www.darwinawards.com, oddly enough) since either the stabber or the
stabbee received an Honorable Mention this year...

Lady Jestyr

- In the force if Yoda's so strong, then construct a sentence -
- with words in the proper order why can't he? -
- jestyr@*******.com.au URL: http://www.geocities.com/~jestyr -
Message no. 37
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:52:22 -0600
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:00:32 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>According to Martin Steffens, at 23:08 on 2 Nov 98, the word on the
>street was...
>> Let see, so a strength 3 bow would be Y 135, strength 6 Y 540 and mr
>> 14 strength troll would have to pay Y 2,940.
>> Still a bit on the cheap side IMHO. maybe 25 * Str^2?

>IMO that still won't stop characters from buying such bows.
Shadowrunners
>tend to have the money for toys like this, usually at least during
>character generation. I think a better option is to put a huge
>Availability on these things, like (Str.Min.)/(Str.Min. x2) days instead
>of a flat 3/36 hrs.

The Str Min x2 may be a bit much, Str Min sounds good to me. Also,
raising the Street Index for the higher Str Mins might also be good. How
about:
Str Min St. Ind.
1-4 1
5-6 1.5
7-8 2
9-10 2.5
10+ 3

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 38
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:00:44 +0000
and thus did Gurth speak on 3 Nov 98 at 11:00:

> According to Martin Steffens, at 23:08 on 2 Nov 98, the word on the street was...
>
> > Let see, so a strength 3 bow would be Y 135, strength 6 Y 540 and mr
> > 14 strength troll would have to pay Y 2,940.
> > Still a bit on the cheap side IMHO. maybe 25 * Str^2?
>
> IMO that still won't stop characters from buying such bows. Shadowrunners
> tend to have the money for toys like this, usually at least during
> character generation. I think a better option is to put a huge
> Availability on these things, like (Str.Min.)/(Str.Min. x2) days instead
> of a flat 3/36 hrs.

I don't think the idea was to make them harder to get, or to stop
characters from buying them. In real they're a lot easier to buy than
guns. Anything standard (up to strength 5?) would be simple to pick
up, above that you probably look at custom made which could take up
to weeks for a good bow. In those cases your availability
numbers would be okay.



Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 39
From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:59:17 -0800
At 16:27 11/2/98 , you wrote:
> I'm a bowman myself (I've used guns before but not a crossbow) and
>will say hitting a 1m diameter target at 50 yards isn't incredibly
>difficult (of course, I've practiced on and off for the past 17 years).
>Hitting the same target with a pistol or rifle is incredibly easier. I'm
>about 2m tall (slightly shorter than ARKHAM) with a helluva reach and a
>reasonable strength (3, probably in SR) so hitting a target at 31 meters
>to 90 meters is equally difficult (yeah, right!). I might could shoot 90
>meters, but I seriously doubt I'd be hitting what I was aiming at at that
>range. The target would move. The ranges on the bows should definitely
>be dropped, maybe half of their current ranges in SR3. All IMNSHO.

Actually, I think they should be reliant on the strength rating fo the bow.

When I was shooting a York round (100 yards) I had little trouble hitting
the target with my 42 lb draw bow, 28 inch draw recurve. But my friend who
was a better skill level (about three years practice above me) couldn't hit
it with his 28 lb draw bow. (Bow was same make as mine, and our arrows were
both rated for our bows draw&weight)

I'd also have to rule that an increased target number could increase
ranges, because there was an archer shooting with us with a 25 lb draw bow,
shorter arrows, and about 20 years experience more than both of us
combined, he could hit the target. ;) With his bow, and my arrows (using my
friends arrows, since their spine was rated closer to the master archers
bow) I couldn't even get close to the target.

--
Dvixen - dvixen@********.com
Herkimer's Lair - http://coastnet.com/~dvixen
"What's your sign?" - "Trespassers will be shot."
Comments/Questions accepted, flames dropped into tha abyss.
Message no. 40
From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:59:05 -0800
At 18:32 11/1/98 , you wrote:
>a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour
>b) the high powered rifle made a small dent
>c) the heavy crossbow punctured the breast plate but no to far to make
>a killing wound
>d) the long bow arrow pierced the armour totally - the head sticking out
>the rear plate.

Okay. I'm working on one assumption. The arrows used for both the longbow
and the crossbow were broadheads. (Unlike the field points which are more
bullet shaped)

iirc, the SR3 rules use ballistic armour ratings for damage. (Paolo agrees,
but then I had to explain to him the difference between broadheads and
fieldpoints. ;)

Given the incidents of a knife being able to get through Kevlar armour, a
broadhead on an arrow IMO, would count against armour the same as a knife
or sword (in SR terms, impact armour)

As for damage...

The damage of a bow (SR3) is (Str Min +2)M
Str Min (strength minimum) is the strength rating of the bow, which is
determined at the purchasing of the bow. (I don't like it being called
strength minimum, but that's me. ;) What follows is my interpretation of
the bit not really explained about bows.

A character with under the strength rating cannot do that damage, or
according to the rules of SR3, use that bow.

(I'll use SR terms rather than mix in RL draw weights. ;)
"Celt cannot use Caber's bow because his bow is rated at a 5 strength and
Celt's strength is 3. She could try, but she's probably do more damage to
herself and the bow than to the target.

A character with over that strength rating does NOT do his strength +2 M
damage. The damage is determined by the rating of the bow. (This is why I
think they introduced the Str Min as part of the damage code, because in
SR2 it was Str)





--
Dvixen - dvixen@********.com
Herkimer's Lair - http://coastnet.com/~dvixen
"What's your sign?" - "Trespassers will be shot."
Comments/Questions accepted, flames dropped into tha abyss.
Message no. 41
From: Eric Josue <ejlists@****************.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:52:19 -0700
At 16:59 11/3/98 -0800, Dvixen wrote:

>At 18:32 11/1/98 , you wrote:
>>a) the .45 slug bounced off the armour
>>b) the high powered rifle made a small dent
>>c) the heavy crossbow punctured the breast plate but no to far to make
>>a killing wound
>>d) the long bow arrow pierced the armour totally - the head sticking out
>>the rear plate.
>
>Okay. I'm working on one assumption. The arrows used for both the longbow
>and the crossbow were broadheads. (Unlike the field points which are more
>bullet shaped)
>
>iirc, the SR3 rules use ballistic armour ratings for damage. (Paolo agrees,
>but then I had to explain to him the difference between broadheads and
>fieldpoints. ;)
>
>Given the incidents of a knife being able to get through Kevlar armour, a
>broadhead on an arrow IMO, would count against armour the same as a knife
>or sword (in SR terms, impact armour)


I've been following this thread for a while. Modern body armor (vests or
what not) uses kevlar as just a component. Kevlar alone will slow a bullet
down, but will absolutely not stop a piercing arrow or knife. That's why
ceramics are used. These ceramics are *much* harder than diamond and is the
real line of defense against a bullet, arrow, or knife. This will stop all
of those cold. You'll definitely feel it, though.

Kevlar is a synthetic material used in body armor technology to spread the
kinetic force of a bullet over a wider area, therefore reducing its ability
to penetrate. And like I said before, the ceramic plating is what really
stops it. Just my two cents.

Eric J
Message no. 42
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:45:42 -0800
>I've been following this thread for a while. Modern body armor (vests or
>what not) uses kevlar as just a component. Kevlar alone will slow a bullet
>down, but will absolutely not stop a piercing arrow or knife. That's why
>ceramics are used. These ceramics are *much* harder than diamond and is the

Incorrect.

The only material with a published Young's modulus higher than diamond (1
Terapascal) is buckminsterfullerene. Diamond also rates at the top of both
the strength scale (at 10 gigapascals) and the specific strength scale (
2000 - 4000 megapascals per megagram/meter^3).

There are materials with higher fracture toughness than diamond, but that
is not an indicator of strength, but rather, of brittleness.

>Eric J

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 43
From: Eric Josue <ejlists@****************.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:24:02 -0700
At 18:45 11/3/98 -0800, Adam Getchell wrote:

>>I've been following this thread for a while. Modern body armor (vests or
>>what not) uses kevlar as just a component. Kevlar alone will slow a bullet
>>down, but will absolutely not stop a piercing arrow or knife. That's why
>>ceramics are used. These ceramics are *much* harder than diamond and is the
>
>Incorrect.

Actually, it's correct. I worked for a company that makes body armor for
the military as well as law enforcement and the process of making ceramics
and mixture of materials can make substances stronger than diamond.

This brings up another thing...Body armor is not light. I can't imagine a
character with a strength of 1 being able to wear body armor heavier than
armor clothing. This is because modern body armor (coupled with ceramic
plating), would be too heavy or cumbersome for them to wear properly. Thoughts?

Eric J
Message no. 44
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:39:08 +1000
Eric Josue writes:
> >>down, but will absolutely not stop a piercing arrow or knife. That's why
> >>ceramics are used. These ceramics are *much* harder than
> diamond and is the
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Actually, it's correct. I worked for a company that makes body armor for
> the military as well as law enforcement and the process of making ceramics
> and mixture of materials can make substances stronger than diamond.

No, it's not correct... it's just a question of terminology.

What you're referring to is how hard it is to shatter or penetrate. That's
not the property referred to by hardness or strength. Adam's answer was full
of the technical terms.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 45
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:39:42 +0100
According to Martin Steffens, at 0:00 on 4 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> I don't think the idea was to make them harder to get, or to stop
> characters from buying them. In real they're a lot easier to buy than
> guns. Anything standard (up to strength 5?) would be simple to pick
> up, above that you probably look at custom made which could take up
> to weeks for a good bow. In those cases your availability
> numbers would be okay.

That's mostly what I was thinking of. So perhaps it should be modified
slightly, and say that bows up to Strength Minimum 5 have Availability
3/36 hrs, and the rest have Availability (Str.Min)/whatever due to having
to be custom made?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 46
From: Cernunnos Morrigu <cmorrigu@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:46:07 -0500
On 11/1/98, at 7:00 PM, Hatchetman wrote:

>arrow has a very small piercing point. Maybe just -1 or -2 to impact.

Depends upon your choice of heads, of course.

>Research is ongoing on making armor that is far better against edged and
>piercing weapons. Don't know how well it's going, but I've seen photos of
a
>guy getting stabbed with a icepick while wearing it, and the pick bends
and
>breaks.

Wired magazine November, 1998 issue page 136 "Hardware for Hard Time"
gives info about "Second Chance Body Armor" it says icepick type weapons
don't penetrate....


Back to biz,
-CM
---
Cernunnos Morrigu | "Summer, check that door!"
cmorrigu@********.net | **BOOM**
http://members.xoom.com/cmorrigu/sr/ | "Ok, check the next one, too."
Message no. 47
From: Cernunnos Morrigu <cmorrigu@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:53:56 -0500
On 11/1/98, at 7:30 PM, One Ronin wrote:

>should have penetrated the breast plate. Besides, if this were the
>case, muzzle-loaders never would have replaced bows on the battle field.
>Remember, a trained soldier with a long bow can fire about 5 arrows for
>every shot from a muzzle-loader.

You answer your own question. Any idiot can be deadly with a gun at any
range (speaking in mass combat terms), but to hit a target with a bow
requires more training both physically and mentally.

I think I did see the program mentioned here, but I do not remember the
details. I also saw a program more recently that revealed the English
Longbow to be a very formidable weapon for many reasons. The use of the
Yew tree to make them, especially using the heartwood to best effect, made
them very powerful. Another reason is that the English pesants were
trained to use the bow from a very young age.


Back to biz,
-CM
---
Cernunnos Morrigu | "Summer, check that door!"
cmorrigu@********.net | **BOOM**
http://members.xoom.com/cmorrigu/sr/ | "Ok, check the next one, too."
Message no. 48
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:14:05 -0600
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:24:02 -0700 Eric Josue
<ejlists@****************.COM> writes:
>At 18:45 11/3/98 -0800, Adam Getchell wrote:
<SNIP>
>This brings up another thing...Body armor is not light. I can't imagine
a
>character with a strength of 1 being able to wear body armor heavier
than
>armor clothing. This is because modern body armor (coupled with ceramic
>plating), would be too heavy or cumbersome for them to wear properly.
Thoughts?

Well, you could use the encumberance rules ...

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 49
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:30:05 -0800
> >arrow has a very small piercing point. Maybe just -1 or -2 to impact.
>
> Depends upon your choice of heads, of course.
>

Field heads or razors. No broadheads.
Message no. 50
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bows and Arrows
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:41:46 -0800
>>Incorrect.
>
>Actually, it's correct. I worked for a company that makes body armor for
>the military as well as law enforcement and the process of making ceramics
>and mixture of materials can make substances stronger than diamond.

Do you have some Young's moduli to back up this assertion? How are you
defining strength?

>Eric J

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Bows and Arrows, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!