Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject: Bows and arrows, and knoking the things aside. (kinda)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:47:41 -0800
Gurth wrote:
>
> Dvixen said on 23:56/30 Mar 97...
>
> > How do you shoot an arrow slower? <g>
>
> Put less power behind your shot? You're the archer here, but it seems to
> me that from any given bow, an arrow will travel faster the further you
> pull back the string. Or, of course, use a weaker (is that the right
> word?) bow so there's less force behind the shot anyway.

You can put less power behind your shot by not pulling to full draw. My
bow increases /decreases 2 pounds for every inch of draw variation. I
think. It's been a while since I wanted to know that math.

As for using a weaker bow, that = using a bow of lower poundage. I
should have said poundage rating per 28" draw. Poundage is measured by
taking a weight measuring thingy (what *are* they called? -
Calibrators?) at the draw point, and then pulling the string to 28"
draw. The weight indicated is the poundage/rating of the bow @ 28". Mine
is 42lbs @ 28", if that means anything to you maths types.

Here's something interesting. I thought the writer of Green Arrow had
taken a leave of his senses a few years back when I saw a reference to a
long bow of 250 pound rating. I did a bit of reasearch, and there's
indication that the British longbowmen used bows with rating this high.
I've never seen any longbows with a rating higher than 130.

> Knocking an arrow aside is done by applying a force to the side. There
> already are two forces working on it: resistance and gravity, and a third
> one could be used to push it off its normal trajectory. In simple terms:
> you hit it with something :)

Yeah yeah. ;) Three sounds much better than two. I realised after my
dull-wit of a post what I had done. *sigh* Shame on me.

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.

--

Dvixen Code-word : Weevil-chuck. dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
I have no sense of decency. That way, all my other senses are enhanced
Message no. 2
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Bows and arrows, and knoking the things aside. (kinda)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:01:40 -0700
Dvixen 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.

How long ago did you ask? (I don't think I've ever seen it, and I've been
here for over a year and a half.)

What don't you like about the bow rules?

-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. 3
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Bows and arrows, and knoking the things aside. (kinda)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:35:17 +1000
> | 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.
>
> How long ago did you ask? (I don't think I've ever seen it, and I've been
> here for over a year and a half.)
>
> 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.

etc, etc, etc,

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Bows and arrows, and knoking the things aside. (kinda), 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.