Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Michael Orion Jackson <moj0001@****.ACS.UNT.EDU>
Subject: crossbows
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 09:09:15 -0500
I think a cross bow would legitimately have an underbarrel mount space.

Smartgun adapters, laser sights, etc. could fit here...so could grenade
launchers :-).

__________________________________________________________________________
|Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
|moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
|>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
__________________________________________________________________________
Message no. 2
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: crossbows
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 15:17:24 BST
MOJ :-
> I think a cross bow would legitimately have an underbarrel mount space.
>
> Smartgun adapters, laser sights, etc. could fit here...so could grenade
> launchers :-).

Yup, no problem, though the weight might make it a bit hard to aim
the XBow for those really hard 1-mile away sniper shots ;-)

Ps. one of my players has a sniper rifle with an undermounted GL, for
thopse tricky shots where the first round doesn;t kill the target ;-)

I dread to think what the recoil form a GL does to his delicate sights
every time he uses it ;-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 3
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: crossbows
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:57:15 -0400
>>>>> "P" == P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK> writes:

P> I dread to think what the recoil form a GL does to his delicate
P> sights every time he uses it ;-)

Iron sights!!!

:)

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 4
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: crossbows
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:20:17 -0500
If your into using bows, check CP2020, I think it lots of arrow types and
stuff like that (haven't read it myself).
Of course, arrows are easy to poison, and have better pentration than a
narcoject and better range than a squirt. Also tazer dart arrows should be
feasable. And for a truely nasty touch, fill the shaft with plastique and put
on a conductivity based trigger- shaft goes into body, switch is closed by
body fluid conductivity, OUCH. I'd say this is good for a 9d at least, no
armor (well, maybe bone lacing). Just don't drop your quiver in a puddle. Or
instal a safety. Maybe even a HEAT type would be possible.
Some of these are probably somwhere in the cp2020 stuff, but making your own
rules would be just as easy.
Message no. 5
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:05:44 +1100
-----Original Message-----
From: Nimster <nimster@*********.net.il>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Monday, August 28, 2000 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: Crossbows


>Oh right, I forgot most D&D GM's still run diablo-style games. Well, if you
>having your whole world collapse at some state from lack of supports after
>90% of the world has been digged to contain more adventurers in different
>dungeons, have it your way. As I said before, I prefer realism (Don't wag
>the "There's magic" sign either, magic can still be handled realistically)
>and I won't send my group after engineers crazy enough to actually dig
>through stone 4-level dungeons, before the bulldozer was invented.
>Adventurers also don't train inside dungeons, unless they have really,
>really twisted lives.
>(>) Nimster


If the game is called Dungeons and Dragons, two of the most important things
in your game would have to be dungeons and dragons, surely. Anyone who
really prefers realism has no business playing D&D :?)
Message no. 6
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:11:15 +0200
(>) naughty@********.com.au Left this message on the BBS at 01:39 AM 8/24/2000


>Funny that - it's just as deadly as a gun, but silent, and
>the bolts wouldn't have quite the same forensic fingerprint
>as a bullet. No wonder they are illegal.
>
>Jon.

Emm, man I'd hate to dissapoint you, but It's *not* shadowrun we're talking
about here, but a fantasy (medieval) world. No guns, chummer.


(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 7
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> >Time consuming? Yes. Strenuous? Yes. Difficult to learn? I don't think so.
>
> Might not be but sniping is. It takes years of practice. You know how hard
> is hitting a target 50 meters away, moving, through a forest, carrying a
> crossbow?

That's not the point. The point is that on the medieval
battlefield (you know, a more or less flat, wide-open area that allowed
horses to get up a full charge), a crossbow proved to be an ideal weapon.
Why? Because it was frightfully easy to use. It is the middle-ages
equivalent of a point-and-click weapon. No one is saying that any child
could use it, but the fact remains that it took very little training to be
able to use it effectively under normal battlefield conditions.
When you consider that an English longbowman began his training at
age 12, and practiced with the bow his entire life to be able to properly
aim and fire it, not to mention building up the strength to even be able
to draw the thing, the two to three weeks it took to train someone to be
effective with a crossbow was a mere pittance in comparison.
Is it easier than just walking up to someone and bashing them on
the head? Not really. But you can't bash someone on the head from 200
yards, now can you? There is a reason that the Church banned the crossbow
for so long - it gave a relatively unskilled commoner the power to cripple
or kill an armored knight before said knight ever had a chance of striking
back. It threatened the "social order" of the time, namely that the
whole reason for a "noble" class in the first place was to provide
military protection in exchange for servitude. If anyone could use such a
devastating weapon, military protection was no longer necessary. And if
protection was no longer necessary, then the nobility was no longer
necessary. Heavens! There goes the neighborhood!

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 8
From: Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:07:11 -0400
>>>Jon wrote:
Funny that - it's just as deadly as a gun, but silent, and the bolts
wouldn't have quite the same forensic fingerprint as a bullet. No wonder
they are illegal.

>>>Nimster replied:
Emm, man I'd hate to dissapoint you, but It's *not* shadowrun we're
talking about here, but a fantasy (medieval) world. No guns, chummer.

I've learned in my time here that every discussion eventually leads back
to Shadowrun. Which is sort of funy as every discussion eventually goes
off topic. *shrug*

$0.02,
-- Travis Heldibridle
Message no. 9
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 00 14:11:51 -0500
On 8/24/00 10:47 am, naughty@********.com.au said:

>Curtis wrote:
>
>>Actually, the church did not -try- to ban the weapon,
>>they DID ban the weapon. They were succesful.
>
>Funny that - it's just as deadly as a gun, but silent, and
>the bolts wouldn't have quite the same forensic fingerprint
>as a bullet. No wonder they are illegal.
>
>Jon.
>

Actually in most states here they are not illegal and are in fact less
well regulated than guns. I could walk into any of dozens of stores here
and buy a nice balanced hunting Crossbow with about a 200lb draw no
questions asked or paperwork to fill out that would be at least as deadly
as a .45 calibre Pistol which would require a background check at the
very least. I'm really suprised that none of the wacko's we've had go on
killing sprees over here in The States have gone that route. Sure you
can't kill em as fact with a crossbow but there's a lot better chance you
won't get caught.

Steve
Message no. 10
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:15:13 +0200
(>) Marc Renouf Left this message on the BBS at 11:29 AM 8/24/2000


>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:
>
> > >Time consuming? Yes. Strenuous? Yes. Difficult to learn? I don't think so.
> >
> > Might not be but sniping is. It takes years of practice. You know how hard
> > is hitting a target 50 meters away, moving, through a forest, carrying a
> > crossbow?
>
> That's not the point. The point is that on the medieval
>battlefield (you know, a more or less flat, wide-open area that allowed
>horses to get up a full charge), a crossbow proved to be an ideal weapon.
>Why? Because it was frightfully easy to use. It is the middle-ages
>equivalent of a point-and-click weapon. No one is saying that any child
>could use it, but the fact remains that it took very little training to be
>able to use it effectively under normal battlefield conditions.

AD&D Is not played on Battlefields, and most AD&D characters want to do
better then then average villager who just picked up a crossbow, and most
AD&D characters do not recieve military training. Not to speak of the fact
that most AD&D campaigns are totally, completely non-medieval. Sure, they
use the same weapons. But that's about where the similiarity ends. It's
more like SR actually, having all the funny races and magic.

> It threatened the "social order" of the time, namely that the
>whole reason for a "noble" class in the first place was to provide
>military protection in exchange for servitude. If anyone could use such a
>devastating weapon, military protection was no longer necessary. And if
>protection was no longer necessary, then the nobility was no longer
>necessary. Heavens! There goes the neighborhood!

Bull. No villager could ever put his hand on such a tool. At a certain
point the nobles ceased to only serve as means of protection, but their
power allowed them to simply rule the villagers, nothing due back. The
only reason they'd protect their lands is their own income. And in cases
when the king would give them alternative lands somewhere else because
their lands need be evacuated they wouldn't bother escorting the villagers
to their new homes.
The point: A villager would never have such a "complicated" tool unless the
noble gave it to him in the first place, which he did only for soldiers.
And in the medieval ages, as opposed to the dark ages, most armies were
owned by the king, with the nobles sometimes acting as captains of
regiments that stayed on their lands.

>Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)
>
>Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
>Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
>Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
>DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
>Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
>David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
>ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;

(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 11
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:24:10 -0400
From: "Steve Collins" <einan@*********.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:11 PM
> Actually in most states here they are not illegal and are in fact less
> well regulated than guns. I could walk into any of dozens of stores here
> and buy a nice balanced hunting Crossbow with about a 200lb draw no
> questions asked or paperwork to fill out that would be at least as deadly
> as a .45 calibre Pistol which would require a background check at the
> very least. I'm really suprised that none of the wacko's we've had go on
> killing sprees over here in The States have gone that route. Sure you
> can't kill em as fact with a crossbow but there's a lot better chance you
> won't get caught.
>
> Steve
>

Have you ever tried to fire a crossbow with any type of speed? ;) A killing
"spree" would be nigh impossible if you are just one guy with a crossbow. =P
Possibly a murder(in the singular), but a killing spree? Doubtful. :)

Maybe a squad of crossbow armed killers.. or something..

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 12
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 00 14:44:29 -0500
On 8/24/00 1:24 pm, kawaii said:

>From: "Steve Collins" <einan@*********.net>
>Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:11 PM
>> Actually in most states here they are not illegal and are in fact less
>> well regulated than guns. I could walk into any of dozens of stores here
>> and buy a nice balanced hunting Crossbow with about a 200lb draw no
>> questions asked or paperwork to fill out that would be at least as deadly
>> as a .45 calibre Pistol which would require a background check at the
>> very least. I'm really suprised that none of the wacko's we've had go on
>> killing sprees over here in The States have gone that route. Sure you
>> can't kill em as fact with a crossbow but there's a lot better chance you
>> won't get caught.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>Have you ever tried to fire a crossbow with any type of speed? ;) A killing
>"spree" would be nigh impossible if you are just one guy with a crossbow. =P
>Possibly a murder(in the singular), but a killing spree? Doubtful. :)
>
>Maybe a squad of crossbow armed killers.. or something..
>
>Ever lovable and always scrappy,
>kawaii
>
>


Well I wasn't thinking of something like Columbine. More along the lines
of selective assasinations of random strangers, just killing one or 2 at
a time. As was pointed out There is little to no forensics evidence to
trace you to, especially if you made your own bolts.

Steve
Message no. 13
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:04:25 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> > That's not the point. The point is that on the medieval
> >battlefield (you know, a more or less flat, wide-open area that allowed
> >horses to get up a full charge), a crossbow proved to be an ideal weapon.
>
> AD&D Is not played on Battlefields, and most AD&D characters want to do
> better then then average villager who just picked up a crossbow, and most
> AD&D characters do not recieve military training. Not to speak of the fact
> that most AD&D campaigns are totally, completely non-medieval. Sure, they
> use the same weapons. But that's about where the similiarity ends. It's
> more like SR actually, having all the funny races and magic.

Then why worry about realism at all? What use is verisimilitude
if you've gone to those lengths to distance yourself from reality? If
this is an argument about why things are the way they are in AD&D, I
respectfully withdraw my earlier comment. I do not presume to know the
(collective) mind of TSR, nor do I really want to.
But if you're talking about history and why the crossbow was as
reviled as it was in our own middle ages, then my above comments stand.

> > It threatened the "social order" of the time, namely that the
> >whole reason for a "noble" class in the first place was to provide
> >military protection in exchange for servitude. If anyone could use such a
> >devastating weapon, military protection was no longer necessary. And if
> >protection was no longer necessary, then the nobility was no longer
> >necessary. Heavens! There goes the neighborhood!
>
> Bull. No villager could ever put his hand on such a tool.

Bull (not the Ork decker). The argument is not whether or not a
peasant *did* get his hands on such a weapon, but rather that he *could*.
I think you overestimate the complexity of a crossbow. They really are
rather simple to manufacture, which is yet another reason they were so
popular over the longbow (which required a very specific type, shape, and
age of wood, which then had to be carefully treated by an experienced
bowyer).

> At a certain point the nobles ceased to only serve as means of
> protection, but their power allowed them to simply rule the villagers,
> nothing due back.

I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that the original
reason behind feudalism in the first place was as a social contract
between the agrarian peasant and the warrior elite. Protection in return
for service. Subinfeudation was another adaptation on this, which was
land (and thus labor and thus income) in return for military aid.

> The only reason they'd protect their lands is their own income.

What better reason is there? What better incentive to make sure
that the system worked? "Enlightened self-interest" is a powerful
motivator. And what better reason to protect your peasants than knowing
that they grow your food and tend to your animals?

> And in cases when the king would give them alternative lands somewhere
> else because their lands need be evacuated they wouldn't bother
> escorting the villagers to their new homes.

What good is land without someone to work it for you. It's not
like fields till themselves. Without a pool of labor (i.e. serfs) there
is no feudalism. So yes, while nobles were known to relocate and leave
their vassal serfs swinging in the wind, this was really only an option
when being given lands that were already settled (and had no previous
noble tenant - which didn't really happen unless the grantor was giving up
lands of nobility who were in exile or giving up lands held for them
personally by bailiffs or constables).

> The point: A villager would never have such a "complicated" tool unless the

> noble gave it to him in the first place, which he did only for soldiers.

Again, you overestimate the difficulty involved in manufacturing a
crossbow. They are quite a simple weapon, all things considered.
Certainly more simple to manufacture than a longbow, a suit of armor, or a
well-crafted mace.

> And in the medieval ages, as opposed to the dark ages, most armies were
> owned by the king, with the nobles sometimes acting as captains of
> regiments that stayed on their lands.

"Dark Ages" is a misnomer, and is a term that historians are by
and large avoiding (preferring instead "medieval period" or "middle
ages"). The medieval period extends pretty much from the fall
of the Roman empire to the Renaissance. Yes, there's early middle ages
and late middle ages, but the point remains. As far as most armies being
owned by the king, large, nationally organized standing armies were quite
rare until well into the Renaissance. Nobles acted as captains of the
forces they provided in service to the king, regardless of whose lands
they were on at the time. The loyalty of the nobility was one of the
chief variables in how strong a royal regime was, as well as how able that
regime was to project power abroad. It was fractious and disloyal nobles
that eventually led many nation-states to adopt royally-funded, royally
commanded standing armies.
I will fully grant that most AD&D settings are a far cry from
feudalism. Unfortunately, they take inspiration from our own world's
feudal histories without any regard for the reasons (be they political,
economic, or social) that those histories ran the course they did. In
other words, they lack verisimilitude, and make suspension of disbelief
much more difficult. If you want to say, "Yes, but it's fantasy," then
why quibble about how difficult or easy it is to make or use a crossbow?
Nothing else makes logical sense, so why should that? Conversely, if you
want things to make sense, scrap AD&D and get a better game (like Columbia
Games' "Harn").

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 14
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:38:05 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: naughty@********.com.au <naughty@********.com.au>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:27 AM
Subject: Crossbows


>Curtis wrote:
>
>>Actually, the church did not -try- to ban the weapon,
>>they DID ban the weapon. They were succesful.
>
>Funny that - it's just as deadly as a gun, but silent, and
>the bolts wouldn't have quite the same forensic fingerprint
>as a bullet. No wonder they are illegal.
>
>Jon.
Of course, what they do have is actual fingerprints, or at least genetic
prints. You don't know what it was fired from, but you do know who fired it.
Message no. 15
From: NexVoid@***.com NexVoid@***.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:08:46 EDT
In a message dated 8/24/00 9:07:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sfuller@******.com.au writes:

> Of course, what they do have is actual fingerprints, or at least genetic
> prints. You don't know what it was fired from, but you do know who fired
it.

Unfortunately, they didn't use forensics like that in the medevil era. Or in
D&D if i recall correctly.
Message no. 16
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:43:04 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Renouf <renouf@********.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Crossbows





>> The only reason they'd protect their lands is their own income.
>
> What better reason is there? What better incentive to make sure
>that the system worked? "Enlightened self-interest" is a powerful
>motivator. And what better reason to protect your peasants than knowing
>that they grow your food and tend to your animals?
>

Aslo, the nobles actually _owned_ the peasants that lived on their lands and
got their protection. It wasn't living up to a bargain or protecting a
source of income to many, it was protecting an asset. In fact peasants were
sometimes traded or given away to other nobles with no respect for the
person's home or family.
Message no. 17
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:44:38 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: NexVoid@***.com <NexVoid@***.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Crossbows


>In a message dated 8/24/00 9:07:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>sfuller@******.com.au writes:
>
>> Of course, what they do have is actual fingerprints, or at least genetic
>> prints. You don't know what it was fired from, but you do know who fired
>it.
>
>Unfortunately, they didn't use forensics like that in the medevil era. Or
in
>D&D if i recall correctly.
>
I'm talking Shadowrun. They didn't have any forensics in medieval times, let
alone bullets :?)
Message no. 18
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
> > That's not the point. The point is that
on the medieval battlefield (you know, a more or less
flat, wide-open area that allowed horses to get up a
full charge), a crossbow proved to be an ideal weapon.
Why? Because it was frightfully easy to use. It is
the middle-ages equivalent of a point-and-click
weapon. No one is saying that any child could use it,
but the fact remains that it took very little training
to be able to use it effectively under normal
battlefield conditions.
>
> AD&D Is not played on Battlefields, and most AD&D
characters want to do better then then average
villager who just picked up a crossbow, and most AD&D
characters do not recieve military training. Not to
speak of the fact that most AD&D campaigns are
totally, completely non-medieval. Sure, they use the
same weapons. But that's about where the similiarity
ends. It's more like SR actually, having all the funny
races and magic.

Sure...but using a crossbow effectively and with skill
(as opposed to mass battle volley tactics) is still
easier than achieving the same effect with bows and
longbows. It's RELATIVE, Nimster.

As Mark said, the really good archers (English (and
Welsh) longbowmen) were trained for years and years.
Actually, they LEARNT for years and years. They
weren't necessarily trained in a military fashion.

Hmm...damn, I'm going to have to go all wishy-washy. I
stated before that it'd be quicker to train an archer
in the basics than a crossbowman. I still think it
would be (in the BASIC basics), but I'm not sure how
long it took back then - because I'm not sure how well
they were trained.

However, I can state emphatically (as I already have)
it's tougher to become a MARKSMAN (which is what
you're becoming in D&D) with a bow than with a
crossbow.

> > It threatened the "social order" of the time,
namely that the whole reason for a "noble" class in
the first place was to provide military protection in
exchange for servitude. If anyone could use such a
devastating weapon, military protection was no longer
necessary. And if protection was no longer necessary,
then the nobility was no longer necessary. Heavens!
There goes the neighborhood!
>
> Bull. No villager could ever put his hand on such a
tool. At a certain point the nobles ceased to only
serve as means of protection, but their power allowed
them to simply rule the villagers, nothing due back.
The only reason they'd protect their lands is their
own income. And in cases when the king would give them
alternative lands somewhere else because their lands
need be evacuated they wouldn't bother escorting the
villagers to their new homes. The point: A villager
would never have such a "complicated" tool unless the
noble gave it to him in the first place, which he did
only for soldiers. And in the medieval ages, as
opposed to the dark ages, most armies were owned by
the king, with the nobles sometimes acting as captains
of regiments that stayed on their lands.
> (>) Nimster
> There is no spoon.

Hey, Nim - you're both right. So take it easy. Sure,
it would have been practically impossible for your
average peasant to lay his hands on a crossbow, but
Marc's right - that was the thinking of the times.
What Marc said - that's essentially why the church
outlawed the crossbow. It made knights obsolete, which
was not something they wanted. Now, that doesn't mean
that NOT outlawing the crossbow would have resulted in
the downfall of the nobility, because, as you said,
most people who could have gotten them were soldiers,
not peasants. But that doesn't change the fact that
the church outlawed the crossbow for the reasons Marc
stated. Preventative measures, I guess.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 19
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
> >> The only reason they'd protect their lands is
their own income.
> >
> > What better reason is there? What better
incentive to make sure that the system worked?
"Enlightened self-interest" is a powerful motivator.
And what better reason to protect your peasants than
knowing that they grow your food and tend to your
animals?
>
> Aslo, the nobles actually _owned_ the peasants that
lived on their lands and got their protection. It
wasn't living up to a bargain or protecting a source
of income to many, it was protecting an asset. In fact
peasants were sometimes traded or given away to other
nobles with no respect for the person's home or
family.

Uh, Simon, let's just be precise here. The "peasantry"
in general consisted of two classes. The serfs were
the ones owned by the nobles. They were property. They
had no rights. They were given the PRIVILEGE of living
on their owners lands and working his fields (or
whatever it was any particular serf did) and in return
he protected them and let them keep a bit of what they
grew to live on. The freemen didn't have much better
conditions, unless they were actually valuable
tradesmen (like smiths and millers), but they WERE
free, they did have rights and they couldn't be sold
or traded to another team...uh, noble. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 20
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:16:16 -0500
On Thursday, August 24, 2000 2:44:29 PM, Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
wrote:

> Well I wasn't thinking of something like Columbine. More along the lines
> of selective assasinations of random strangers, just killing one or 2 at
> a time. As was pointed out There is little to no forensics evidence to
> trace you to, especially if you made your own bolts.

There are such things as hand crossbows. In fact, a friend only has one
hand. During bow-hunting season (Deer), he hunts with a crossbow since he
can't draw a compound bow. I think only handicapped can do so, but not sure.

And Columbine had a lot of reloading while everyone just sat there. Odd....

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 21
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:16:19 -0500
> Conversely, if you
> want things to make sense, scrap AD&D and get a better game (like Columbia
> Games' "Harn").

If you're into "realism", Härn is great. *Very* complicated, though. Not
for
RPG newbies, but not too bad for a veteran.

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 22
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:54:03 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Crossbows


>Uh, Simon, let's just be precise here. The "peasantry"
>in general consisted of two classes. The serfs were
>the ones owned by the nobles. They were property. They
>had no rights. They were given the PRIVILEGE of living
>on their owners lands and working his fields (or
>whatever it was any particular serf did) and in return
>he protected them and let them keep a bit of what they
>grew to live on. The freemen didn't have much better
>conditions, unless they were actually valuable
>tradesmen (like smiths and millers), but they WERE
>free, they did have rights and they couldn't be sold
>or traded to another team...uh, noble. :)
>
But were the freemen called peasants? I'm not sure to tell the truth, I just
assumed they were seperate.
Message no. 23
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Uh, Simon, let's just be precise here. The
"peasantry" in general consisted of two classes. The
serfs were the ones owned by the nobles. They were
property. They had no rights. They were given the
PRIVILEGE of living on their owners lands and working
his fields (or whatever it was any particular serf
did) and in return he protected them and let them keep
a bit of what they grew to live on. The freemen didn't
have much better conditions, unless they were actually
valuable tradesmen (like smiths and millers), but they
WERE free, they did have rights and they couldn't be
sold or traded to another team...uh, noble. :)

Damn, forgot to add the appropriate conclusion...

*Doc' hurriedly gets changed into his Pedantic (Wo)Man
tights in the phone booth, but has to be rushed to
hospital when he gets his privates caught in the zipper...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 24
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 00 00:45:34 -0500
On 8/25/00 12:11 am, naughty@********.com.au said:

>
>From a Shadowrun POV, a crossbow is pretty much a very useful
>tool of an assassin. I was just bringing it back on topic <g>.
>
>I *am* surprised that they are that legal in the States. True
>they are not really something that a madman could get a whole
>bunch of people with, but from a single murder POV could be
>very nice as a long(ish) range untraceable weapon - how does
>one trace a bolt back to the original weapon?
>
>Jon.
>


You could not trace it back to the weapon that fired it but I'd bet that
Comercially made Bolt's would have lot numbers on them which could then
be used as the begining of a trace to find who purchcsed that Bolt. Not
as easy as tracing Balistics on a bullet but it gives them somewhere to
start and there are other kinds of bullets that avoid this problem as
well (Glasers, Shotgun Rounds, Gel Rounds, etc.). Now if you milled your
own bolts then the police would be SOL as far as evidence unless you were
dumb enough to leave Prints/genetic residue on them.

Steve
Message no. 25
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 22:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
<snipt(TM)!>
> But were the freemen called peasants? I'm not sure
to tell the truth, I just assumed they were seperate.

Ummm...not sure, but I THINK if they were commoners
they were considered peasants, whether they were free,
or chattel...villeins...serfs...they had such cool
names for slavery back then. :) Okay, not exactly
slavery, but whatever. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 26
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:53:32 +0200
According to Nimster, at 21:15 on 24 Aug 00, the word on the street was...

> Bull. No villager could ever put his hand on such a tool.

Not from themselves, but when you're some kind of noble and you want to
build an army for whatever war you're going to fight, you need to equip
it.

> At a certain point the nobles ceased to only serve as means of
> protection, but their power allowed them to simply rule the villagers,
> nothing due back. The only reason they'd protect their lands is their
> own income. And in cases when the king would give them alternative
> lands somewhere else because their lands need be evacuated they
> wouldn't bother escorting the villagers to their new homes.

Which might be because, IIRC, peasants belonged to the land they farmed,
not to the noble who happened to own that land.

> The point: A villager would never have such a "complicated" tool unless the

> noble gave it to him in the first place, which he did only for soldiers.
> And in the medieval ages, as opposed to the dark ages, most armies were
> owned by the king, with the nobles sometimes acting as captains of
> regiments that stayed on their lands.

Medieval society isn't my strong point, but I have a feeling it wasn't
quite like that. I know there was the fairly big question at some point
during the Middle Ages of who was actually allowed to start a war, which
implies that not only kings did -- and if lower nobility started wars,
they would have needed armies to fight them, at least in the late Middle
Ages.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Imagine doing just what the Big Bang did
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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. 27
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Gurth wrote:

> > The point: A villager would never have such a "complicated" tool
unless the
> > noble gave it to him in the first place, which he did only for soldiers.
> > And in the medieval ages, as opposed to the dark ages, most armies were
> > owned by the king, with the nobles sometimes acting as captains of
> > regiments that stayed on their lands.
>
> Medieval society isn't my strong point, but I have a feeling it wasn't
> quite like that. I know there was the fairly big question at some point
> during the Middle Ages of who was actually allowed to start a war, which
> implies that not only kings did -- and if lower nobility started wars,
> they would have needed armies to fight them, at least in the late Middle
> Ages.

As I understood it, nobles were expected to have thier own armies. Then,
if a big war came, the king would ask all of his vassals for portions/all
of thier armies, building a huge army. Those that refused would them be
considered traitors, as it was part of the agreement, for the king
granting them land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 28
From: M.Decker deckerm@**.netcom.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:20:21 -0400
> There is a reason that the Church banned the crossbow
> for so long -

<grin> The interesting thing was it was banned as 'inhumane'... but the
church did okay their use in the Holy Lands against the infidel. <sigh>


> THEN Travis wrote:

> I *am* surprised that they are that legal in the States. True
> they are not really something that a madman could get a whole
> bunch of people with, but from a single murder POV could be
> very nice as a long(ish) range untraceable weapon - how does
> one trace a bolt back to the original weapon?

Actually they are legal in SOME states. They're illegal (or at least were)
in Maryland (but its one of those old laws still on the books) and I think
they're illegal Virginia.

I'm betting that you can't trace so much the crossbow firing it, but the
bolt itself would probably have some clues... manufacturer... probably find
bolts from the same run... (I mean, if they can do it with trash bags now,
imagine what they can do in 60 years.

Then Doc Added -

> Uh, Simon, let's just be precise here. The "peasantry"
> in general consisted of two classes. The serfs were
> the ones owned by the nobles. They were property. They
> had no rights. They were given the PRIVILEGE of living
> on their owners lands and working his fields (or
> whatever it was any particular serf did) and in return
> he protected them and let them keep a bit of what they
> grew to live on. The freemen didn't have much better
> conditions, unless they were actually valuable
> tradesmen (like smiths and millers), but they WERE
> free, they did have rights and they couldn't be sold
> or traded to another team...uh, noble. :)

THANK YOU!

Then Simon asked:

> But were the freemen called peasants? I'm not sure to tell the truth, I
just
> assumed they were seperate.

All freemen were peasants, but not all peasants were freemen.

and then Steve Collins wrote

> You could not trace it back to the weapon that fired it but I'd bet that
> Comercially made Bolt's would have lot numbers on them which could then
> be used as the begining of a trace to find who purchcsed that Bolt. Not
> as easy as tracing Balistics on a bullet but it gives them somewhere to
> start and there are other kinds of bullets that avoid this problem as
> well (Glasers, Shotgun Rounds, Gel Rounds, etc.). Now if you milled your
> own bolts then the police would be SOL as far as evidence unless you were
> dumb enough to leave Prints/genetic residue on them.

There'd still be the source material on the bolts and fletchings - harder,
but again, you'd be amazed at what they can trace these days.

Then Doc replied:

> <snipt(TM)!>
> > But were the freemen called peasants? I'm not sure
> to tell the truth, I just assumed they were seperate.
>
> Ummm...not sure, but I THINK if they were commoners
> they were considered peasants, whether they were free,
> or chattel...villeins...serfs...they had such cool
> names for slavery back then. :) Okay, not exactly
> slavery, but whatever. :)

<nods> Chivalry and Chivalours acts only applied to the nobility everybody
else was... peasants...

Serfdom Rules!

Man... maybe I should switch to decaff... or to the non-digest form.

peace!
deckerM
Message no. 29
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:55:17 +0200
(>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 08:53 PM 8/24/2000

>Sure...but using a crossbow effectively and with skill
>(as opposed to mass battle volley tactics) is still
>easier than achieving the same effect with bows and
>longbows. It's RELATIVE, Nimster.

Yes, but it's not easier then swords! that's my point ->.
The whole AD&D system is based on balancing players because the crowd of
that system is mostly power hungry munchkins, so balance must be there so
GMs will have a tool to struggle with the players. It's simpler, but takes
longer time to reload, has less damage, or whatever. IMHO, a system should
be realistic, not balanced, because if my player(s) exploit it malicely (?)
they'd get kicked.

(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 30
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> IMHO, a system should be realistic, not balanced, because if my
> player(s) exploit it malicely (?) they'd get kicked.

"Maliciously".

And like I said, if you want realism, ditch AD&D entirely.

Marc
Message no. 31
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:40:21 -0600
Marc Renouf wrote:


>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:
>
> > IMHO, a system should be realistic, not balanced, because if my
> > player(s) exploit it malicely (?) they'd get kicked.
>
> "Maliciously".
>
> And like I said, if you want realism, ditch AD&D entirely.

Remember, D&D is primarily a system for first time, young, RPGers. New
players rarely understand the concept of balance (I sure know I didn't ;)
and a game like D&D is good for cutting your teeth on. And even as an
experienced gamer, D&D has value (I still play it :). Balanced systems
have their place and purpose too.



To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 32
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:54:14 +0200
(>) Marc Renouf Left this message on the BBS at 02:21 PM 8/25/2000

> "Maliciously".
>
> And like I said, if you want realism, ditch AD&D entirely.

I did. I play SR. :)

(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 33
From: necron necron@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:01:48 -0700
>Remember, D&D is primarily a system for first time, young, RPGers. New
>players rarely understand the concept of balance (I sure know I didn't ;)
>and a game like D&D is good for cutting your teeth on. And even as an
>experienced gamer, D&D has value (I still play it :). Balanced systems
>have their place and purpose too.

D&D is balanced??? No one told me, when did I miss it?! 3rd simplifies the
game
Immensely and makes it IMO a hell of a lot more fun to play but it sure
doesn't
Seem balanced to me. That 20th level cleric will still whip up on almost
every other class at level 20
Of course maybe its just me, also, ive always wondered this, how would you
all incorporate a spell weapon into SR
Like a weapon that had the frost effect from D&D or a hammer that caused a
localized earthquake type spell when struck against the ground??

-Necron "Always trying to do it better, faster and cheaper!"
Message no. 34
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 00 20:35:48 -0500
On 8/25/00 1:55 pm, Nimster said:

>(>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 08:53 PM 8/24/2000
>
>>Sure...but using a crossbow effectively and with skill
>>(as opposed to mass battle volley tactics) is still
>>easier than achieving the same effect with bows and
>>longbows. It's RELATIVE, Nimster.
>
>Yes, but it's not easier then swords! that's my point ->.


Snip the rest, I don't have AD&D 3E and am not likely to ever buy it. I
really don't care what their rules are or why they were made that way
either.


YES IT IS EASIER. As has been pointed out many times before it takes a
few days at most to train a competant crossbowman. It takes a few months
at least to train a competant Swordsman. By competant i mean someone who
will not break the weapon or hurt themselves attempting to use it and can
accomplish the most basic tasks with it. No a crossbowman with a few days
training is not going to win any marksmanship contests but he will be
able to hit a moving man sized target at 50 yards 50% of the time and be
able to reload and shoot again before that man sized target could close
to sword distance. A swordsman with that little training would be lucky
to beat an unarmed man who knew how to fight but at least he would swing
the sword the correct way so as not to break it or hurt himself. To train
a Marksman crossbowman takes less than a year, to train an expert
Swordsman takes 3 to 5 years.

This is not made up fantasy stuff, these are real historical timeframes.
They also come somewhat from personal experience as I fight in the SCA
and trust me If we used real steel I'd be luck not to hurt myself right
now.

Steve
Message no. 35
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 00 20:39:09 -0500
On 8/25/00 9:01 pm, necron said:

>
>
>>Remember, D&D is primarily a system for first time, young, RPGers. New
>>players rarely understand the concept of balance (I sure know I didn't ;)
>>and a game like D&D is good for cutting your teeth on. And even as an
>>experienced gamer, D&D has value (I still play it :). Balanced systems
>>have their place and purpose too.
>
>D&D is balanced??? No one told me, when did I miss it?! 3rd simplifies the
>game
> Immensely and makes it IMO a hell of a lot more fun to play but it sure
>doesn't
> Seem balanced to me. That 20th level cleric will still whip up on almost
>every other class at level 20
> Of course maybe its just me, also, ive always wondered this, how would you
>all incorporate a spell weapon into SR
> Like a weapon that had the frost effect from D&D or a hammer that caused a
>localized earthquake type spell when struck against the ground??
>
> -Necron "Always trying to do it better, faster and cheaper!"
>
>
>
>


That's easy, make the weapon an anchor for a spell with the apropriate
elemental effect. It gets nasty because the casting mage takes drain
everytime the effect is activated but the effect stays.

Steve
Message no. 36
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:31:29 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Crossbows


><snipt(TM)!>
>> But were the freemen called peasants? I'm not sure
>to tell the truth, I just assumed they were seperate.
>
>Ummm...not sure, but I THINK if they were commoners
>they were considered peasants, whether they were free,
>or chattel...villeins...serfs...they had such cool
>names for slavery back then. :) Okay, not exactly
>slavery, but whatever. :)
>
Free to leave the protection and overbearing demands of the noble at any
time, and then free to be eaten by wolves and dragons, murdered by bandits
or some lord on a hunting spree, driven out of every village for being an
outsider, going to hell because there's no church to go to, and so on. Kind
of like "Give me liberty and give me death!"
My ancestors were all city bred guildsmen or wild clan savages as far as I
know :?)
Message no. 37
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:36:48 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: M.Decker <deckerm@**.netcom.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Saturday, August 26, 2000 3:25 AM
Subject: Re:Crossbows


>> There is a reason that the Church banned the crossbow
>> for so long -
>
><grin> The interesting thing was it was banned as 'inhumane'... but the
>church did okay their use in the Holy Lands against the infidel. <sigh>
>

Considering most people thought the infidels had dog heads at the time
(strangely none of the people who actually met them on their pilgimages or
crusades ever corrected that idea) humane didn't really apply to them.


>> Ummm...not sure, but I THINK if they were commoners
>> they were considered peasants, whether they were free,
>> or chattel...villeins...serfs...they had such cool
>> names for slavery back then. :) Okay, not exactly
>> slavery, but whatever. :)
>
><nods> Chivalry and Chivalours acts only applied to the nobility everybody
>else was... peasants...
>
A big part of the Code of Chivalry was protecting those of lower standing,
and especially those under your or your lord's care. Of course, that part of
the Code wasn't nearly as popular as chasing your friend's wife or going to
war so it wasn't always practiced.
Message no. 38
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:27:06 +0200
(>) Steve Collins Left this message on the BBS at 08:35 PM 8/25/2000
>On 8/25/00 1:55 pm, Nimster said:
>
> >(>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 08:53 PM 8/24/2000
> >
> >>Sure...but using a crossbow effectively and with skill
> >>(as opposed to mass battle volley tactics) is still
> >>easier than achieving the same effect with bows and
> >>longbows. It's RELATIVE, Nimster.
> >
> >Yes, but it's not easier then swords! that's my point ->.
>
>
>Snip the rest, I don't have AD&D 3E and am not likely to ever buy it. I
>really don't care what their rules are or why they were made that way
>either.
>
>
>YES IT IS EASIER. As has been pointed out many times before it takes a
>few days at most to train a competant crossbowman. It takes a few months
>at least to train a competant Swordsman.
> By competant i mean someone who
>will not break the weapon or hurt themselves attempting to use it and can
>accomplish the most basic tasks with it. No a crossbowman with a few days
>training is not going to win any marksmanship contests but he will be
>able to hit a moving man sized target at 50 yards 50% of the time and be
>able to reload and shoot again before that man sized target could close
>to sword distance. A swordsman with that little training would be lucky
>to beat an unarmed man who knew how to fight but at least he would swing
>the sword the correct way so as not to break it or hurt himself. To train
>a Marksman crossbowman takes less than a year, to train an expert
>Swordsman takes 3 to 5 years.

It does not take a few months to train someone just not to hurt himself
with a sword damnit! It takes much less then a day. Believe me I know. In
"a few months" I was already participating in sabre contests, and even won
some (some due to me being a bit larger then other men)
It does take 3-5 years to be an expert. But the basic training is as basic
as, when shooting a crossbow, knowing how not to break it, how to aim, etc.
And someone that practiced a few days will be able to hit a moving target
at 50 yards, but not a moving man (one that can dodge, feint, etc.)
And a few days training with a sword and you'd still beat an unarmed man,
even if he knew to fight. You truly underestimate the power of reach. Btw,
that's why I still play with reach 2nd Ed. SR rules. Having just 10 cm.
hand/sword size over another man is quite a bonus. Having a whole sword
over another man, means that (if you've been trained for a few days), he
wont be able to reach you, and you might even deal him some.
But to hit a target from more then 50 yards, moving in a dense forest with
bad weather conditions (i.e almost every shot taken in medieval England
while not in the military) even a man who practiced for a year on the
crossbow hasn't got a lot of chance. Another year or two of practice will
barely aid that chance. You simply reach a certain point where it's up to
your personal perception and eye-hand coordination. With a sword, every
extra day of practice matters.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 39
From: Paul Collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:43:22 +1000
<Snip>

> And a few days training with a sword and you'd still beat an unarmed man,
> even if he knew to fight. You truly underestimate the power of reach. Btw,
> that's why I still play with reach 2nd Ed. SR rules.

I've seen swordsmen who would be considered expert re-enactors beaten by an
unarmed man. Both where wearing mail armor at the time. True, Chris had
studied martial arts in Japan.

Even not having done it for years, I would still back myself to beat a
swordsman with only a few days training.


The original point has been lost somewhere I think, which was the banning of
the crossbow by the church, which was for military reasons, and had nothing
to do with hunting or assassanation or small scale combat, which is the
prime use in D&D or SR

The other point forgotten is the power behind or speed of the arriving
bolt/shaft.
The higher the power of the bow, the faster it arrives, at shorter ranges.
A charging fighter has a chance of dodging in incomming arrow from a low
poundage bow, and a high poundage bow takes great strength to use. But a
crossbow, on the other hand, doesn't care how strong the weilder is, and can
propel the bolt with much more force, than even a bow can manage.

Annachie
Message no. 40
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, necron wrote:

>
>
> >Remember, D&D is primarily a system for first time, young, RPGers. New
> >players rarely understand the concept of balance (I sure know I didn't ;)
> >and a game like D&D is good for cutting your teeth on. And even as an
> >experienced gamer, D&D has value (I still play it :). Balanced systems
> >have their place and purpose too.
>
> D&D is balanced??? No one told me, when did I miss it?! 3rd simplifies the
> game
> Immensely and makes it IMO a hell of a lot more fun to play but it sure
> doesn't
> Seem balanced to me. That 20th level cleric will still whip up on almost
> every other class at level 20

I didn't notice that at all. Seemed to me all the 20th level people could,
well, beat any other 20th leveler up. It's all about going first. :)

However, I'm of the opinion that _all_ systems should be balanced. You can
roleplay in a balanced system as well as an unbalanced system, but games
can be broken by min-maxing in an unbalanced system, so...

> Of course maybe its just me, also, ive always wondered this, how would you
> all incorporate a spell weapon into SR
> Like a weapon that had the frost effect from D&D or a hammer that caused a
> localized earthquake type spell when struck against the ground??

Anchoring Foci, basically. You could have a 'frost aura' spell on the
sword, or an 'earthquake' spell, in the hammer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 41
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 08:53 PM 8/24/2000
>
> >Sure...but using a crossbow effectively and with skill
> >(as opposed to mass battle volley tactics) is still
> >easier than achieving the same effect with bows and
> >longbows. It's RELATIVE, Nimster.
>
> Yes, but it's not easier then swords! that's my point ->.

I think we're comapring in correctly. The real question is, is a crossbow
easier to use than a bow. Hopefully, we all say yes. Now, is a bow easier
to use than... nunchaku? Again, hopefully, we all say yes. Since there's 3
groups of weapons, simple, martial, and exotic, things can easily fall
into place.

> The whole AD&D system is based on balancing players because the crowd of
> that system is mostly power hungry munchkins, so balance must be there so
> GMs will have a tool to struggle with the players. It's simpler, but takes
> longer time to reload, has less damage, or whatever. IMHO, a system should
> be realistic, not balanced, because if my player(s) exploit it malicely (?)
> they'd get kicked.

You can exploit as system non-maliciously, too. If one weapon is better in
all respects than another, why even have the worse one take up space in
the book?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 42
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:23:27 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:53 AM 8/26/2000

>However, I'm of the opinion that _all_ systems should be balanced. You can
>roleplay in a balanced system as well as an unbalanced system, but games
>can be broken by min-maxing in an unbalanced system, so...

Yes, but if the balancing comes before realness (?) , it hurts the game
IMHO. And I've made an example with D&D Having crossbow's simpler then
swords because they deal less damage, take more time to reload etc.
Many-a-people then claimed that they are indeed simpler then swords, for
basic training, something which I disagreed too, saying that hitting a man
in the woods from fifty yards in bad conditions is nearly impossible, while
swordplay is as hard, for other reasons. Someone then claimed that they
were used in military conditions - an open field. I replied saying AD&D is
not played in such, etc. I think that's about how it went. I understand now
their point, but still think that the training as in AD&D skills also
includes sniping in different conditions for the crossbow trained, and
feinting, defending and parrying for the swordsman. And thus they should
both be as hard.


(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 43
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:39:13 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 06:51 AM 8/26/2000

>You can exploit as system non-maliciously, too. If one weapon is better in
>all respects than another, why even have the worse one take up space in
>the book?

Style. Background. History. Origin.
I have no examples to show you as I haven't got and will never, ever get
AD&D 3E, and I can't think of an example in AD&D 2E... but how about SR.
Sallavette guardian for example. seems like an ultimate. can do 1 BF
action, 9M like all the rest, 5 conceal IIRC. Why bother take Ruger Super
Warhawk for example? for the 10M ? Just put explosive rounds in the
guardian instead. Come to think of it even the guardian is not such a good
example, short clip, but I'm sure there *are* examples to be found... The
point is, the Warhawk has a distinctive Cowboy style unavailable in any
other weapon. If I would've made a "Chrome/urban cowboy"" sort of
character, which came for whatever reason to Seattle from formerly owned
cow farms (or however you call it in english) in NAN lands, I would've
picked this weapon for it. Plenty of examples are to be found, I only need
to look for two similiar weapons with one being ten times better then the
other, however the last thing I have the energy to do now is go look for it
in the books.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 44
From: necron necron@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 11:40:12 -0700
>Anchoring Foci, basically. You could have a 'frost aura' spell on the
>sword, or an 'earthquake' spell, in the hammer.

My issue is that I would prefer not to take drain every time, anyone have
any ideas about how they would create a true spell weapon??

-Necron "Always doing it better, faster and cheaper"
Message no. 45
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 00 12:52:16 -0500
On 8/26/00 1:40 pm, necron said:

>
>>Anchoring Foci, basically. You could have a 'frost aura' spell on the
>>sword, or an 'earthquake' spell, in the hammer.
>
>My issue is that I would prefer not to take drain every time, anyone have
>any ideas about how they would create a true spell weapon??
>

Hmmm, here's a go at it that may be somewhat within the rules.

You bind a spirit of some type (an elemental maybe) within the weapon to
resist the drain for you. This would also somewhat account for the
limited uses per day that such weapons typically had in D&D. It would not
be within the normal game mechanic rules of Sr but I suppose it could be
explained with a special ritual. Other than that it cannot be done.

Steve
Message no. 46
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:55:23 GMT
>From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
> >My issue is that I would prefer not to take drain every time, anyone have
> >any ideas about how they would create a true spell weapon??
> >
>
>Hmmm, here's a go at it that may be somewhat within the rules.
>
>You bind a spirit of some type (an elemental maybe) within the weapon to
>resist the drain for you. This would also somewhat account for the
>limited uses per day that such weapons typically had in D&D. It would not
>be within the normal game mechanic rules of Sr but I suppose it could be
>explained with a special ritual. Other than that it cannot be done.

You could have an ally spirit which knows the spells inhabiting the blade of
the weapon. That way you could have multiple spells in a weapon, with a
socery skill at the same level as yours, of course, it would always have to
roll a higher initiative than you and delay until you asked it to cast a
spell.

Phil

Let us assume we have a can opener.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 47
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:53 AM 8/26/2000
>
> >However, I'm of the opinion that _all_ systems should be balanced. You can
> >roleplay in a balanced system as well as an unbalanced system, but games
> >can be broken by min-maxing in an unbalanced system, so...
>
> Yes, but if the balancing comes before realness (?) , it hurts the game
> IMHO.

Depends on the game, really. Shadowrun? Definately. AD&D? Much less so,
since it's already at least 2 steps removed from reality. Toon? :)

> And I've made an example with D&D Having crossbow's simpler then
> swords because they deal less damage, take more time to reload etc.
> Many-a-people then claimed that they are indeed simpler then swords, for
> basic training, something which I disagreed too, saying that hitting a man
> in the woods from fifty yards in bad conditions is nearly impossible, while
> swordplay is as hard, for other reasons. Someone then claimed that they
> were used in military conditions - an open field. I replied saying AD&D is
> not played in such, etc. I think that's about how it went. I understand now
> their point, but still think that the training as in AD&D skills also
> includes sniping in different conditions for the crossbow trained, and
> feinting, defending and parrying for the swordsman. And thus they should
> both be as hard.

Also, keep in mine, there are ranges, and all but short range applies an
increased penalty. Don't compare swinging the sword to sniping the guy 50
ft away, through the trees. Compare shooting the guy 10 feet ahead of you,
in a clear room, with stepping forward, and using a sword. Crossbows are
easier, in that case.

Snipping through the forest at a range adds on a stack of additional
penalties, which makes the 'average guy' having just learned a crossbow
extremely likely to miss.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 48
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 06:51 AM 8/26/2000
>
> >You can exploit as system non-maliciously, too. If one weapon is better in
> >all respects than another, why even have the worse one take up space in
> >the book?
>
> Style. Background. History. Origin.

Sure, but would you fault the players for not wanting to use inferior
gear? You can't have everything in the book, because there's not enough
room. I'd rather assume that there are inferior weapons, than have them
fully detailed.

> I have no examples to show you as I haven't got and will never, ever get
> AD&D 3E, and I can't think of an example in AD&D 2E... but how about SR.
> Sallavette guardian for example. seems like an ultimate. can do 1 BF
> action, 9M like all the rest, 5 conceal IIRC. Why bother take Ruger Super
> Warhawk for example? for the 10M ? Just put explosive rounds in the
> guardian instead. Come to think of it even the guardian is not such a good
> example, short clip, but I'm sure there *are* examples to be found... The
> point is, the Warhawk has a distinctive Cowboy style unavailable in any
> other weapon. If I would've made a "Chrome/urban cowboy"" sort of
> character, which came for whatever reason to Seattle from formerly owned
> cow farms (or however you call it in english) in NAN lands, I would've
> picked this weapon for it. Plenty of examples are to be found, I only need
> to look for two similiar weapons with one being ten times better then the
> other, however the last thing I have the energy to do now is go look for it
> in the books.

Actually, sticking to the base books, there aren't so much 'inferior'
weapons as different weapons. All the Heavy Pistols, taken as a whole, are
roughly equal. They vary in Conceal., Clip, Weight (for those who use it),
Cost, and (slightly) damage. But there isn't one that's really all around
better. It's possible, in expansion books, that some weapons are made
completely inferior, in all respects, but that's a continuity issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 49
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Phil Smith wrote:

> >From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
> > >My issue is that I would prefer not to take drain every time, anyone have
> > >any ideas about how they would create a true spell weapon??
> > >
> >
> >Hmmm, here's a go at it that may be somewhat within the rules.
> >
> >You bind a spirit of some type (an elemental maybe) within the weapon to
> >resist the drain for you. This would also somewhat account for the
> >limited uses per day that such weapons typically had in D&D. It would not
> >be within the normal game mechanic rules of Sr but I suppose it could be
> >explained with a special ritual. Other than that it cannot be done.

In a theoretical sense, it could work, though you'd be making up your own
rules, at that point. (Not that that's bad)

> You could have an ally spirit which knows the spells inhabiting the blade of
> the weapon. That way you could have multiple spells in a weapon, with a
> socery skill at the same level as yours, of course, it would always have to
> roll a higher initiative than you and delay until you asked it to cast a
> spell.

Within the existing rules, this could work.

All in all, SR seems to be designed to not have AD&D style items. Thus, it
becomes rather difficult to do. The Anchoring Foci are a karma-intensive
way to partially duplicate them. That Ally Spirit idea works better for
the mage who wants the items to avoid drain, though it then costs a point
of Magic, along with the Allies Karma cost. SR Magic definately implies a
significant cost for such items, in Karma, Drain, and/or Magic Points.

It does lend to the theory of the 'item' mage. Probably for a specific
team, he could hand out Anchoring Foci, and sit at home, with a collection
of Elementals, and just soak the Drain for all the foci, in the comfort of
his own home (with the Elementals to help). He's just have to make sure
the team didn't fire all the foci at once. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 50
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
<snipt!(TM)>
> Remember, D&D is primarily a system for first time,
young, RPGers. New players rarely understand the
concept of balance (I sure know I didn't ;) and a game
like D&D is good for cutting your teeth on. And even
as an experienced gamer, D&D has value (I still play
it :). Balanced systems have their place and purpose
too.
> -Graht

Just FYI...

D&D3 replaces AD&D, not D&D. Like I said, it's not as
complex as Alternity, but it's moreso than old AD&D.
TSR has also released a smaller, "practise" version,
which is more like the old D&D.

It's a good, if not great, game. Could be a LOT worse.
And it's fun to play after years of Shadowrun, just to
escape the intensive thought for a while. Sometimes I
just need to kill things. ;) If that's you, you might
want to give it a try. :) And you can always make it
more complex and realistic in gameplay.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 51
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:46:33 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:17 AM 8/27/2000


>Also, keep in mine, there are ranges, and all but short range applies an
>increased penalty. Don't compare swinging the sword to sniping the guy 50
>ft away, through the trees. Compare shooting the guy 10 feet ahead of you,
>in a clear room, with stepping forward, and using a sword. Crossbows are
>easier, in that case.

Yes, but that's not how you use a crossbow. One of he point in a ranged
weapon is that your "average" situation will be from far away, and if you
play in medieval times, most likely in different grounds, at least some
cover (wether in cities or forests) and maybe in bad weather, walking or
running, etc. That's my whole point from the start of this discussion -
using a crossbow is not just cocking, reloading, and releasing the trigger.
It's sniping, too. And that's the hard part of it. Same as swordfighting is
not just holding the sword, or knowing to unsheath and sheath it fast. It's
fighting with it, and that's the hard part.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 52
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 00 01:06:34 -0500
On 8/28/00 12:46 am, Nimster said:

>(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:17 AM 8/27/2000
>
>
>>Also, keep in mine, there are ranges, and all but short range applies an
>>increased penalty. Don't compare swinging the sword to sniping the guy 50
>>ft away, through the trees. Compare shooting the guy 10 feet ahead of you,
>>in a clear room, with stepping forward, and using a sword. Crossbows are
>>easier, in that case.
>
>Yes, but that's not how you use a crossbow. One of he point in a ranged
>weapon is that your "average" situation will be from far away, and if you
>play in medieval times, most likely in different grounds, at least some
>cover (wether in cities or forests) and maybe in bad weather, walking or
>running, etc. That's my whole point from the start of this discussion -
>using a crossbow is not just cocking, reloading, and releasing the trigger.
>It's sniping, too. And that's the hard part of it. Same as swordfighting is
>not just holding the sword, or knowing to unsheath and sheath it fast. It's
>fighting with it, and that's the hard part.
>(>) Nimster
>There is no spoon.
>

Yes, but what you are forgetting is that those actions offer their own
penalties and therefore cannot be considered in how difficult it is to
use a weapon.

Steve
Message no. 53
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:14:47 +0200
(>) Steve Collins Left this message on the BBS at 01:06 AM 8/28/2000


>Yes, but what you are forgetting is that those actions offer their own
>penalties and therefore cannot be considered in how difficult it is to
>use a weapon.

Ponder what you say before sending... :)
The comparison is done in the real world, not in the game world. you
compare how hard both are *realistically*, then pass it in the game world.
How can you compare it in the game world, when they already said: xbows are
simpler by putting them in the "simple" class. And in the real world, the
average case such an "D&D Adventurer" had to face, was, as I said for the
100th time, something along the lines of a target running in the woods, 50
yards away, with bad weather and a below-craftsman quality xbow.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 54
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:27:09 -0500
on 8/27/00 3:55 AM, Phil Smith at phil_urbanhell@*******.com e-scribed:

> You could have an ally spirit which knows the spells inhabiting the blade of
> the weapon. That way you could have multiple spells in a weapon, with a
> socery skill at the same level as yours, of course, it would always have to
> roll a higher initiative than you and delay until you asked it to cast a
> spell.

I designed a character once which is a free spirit bound to a sword.
Campaign ended before I got to really try it out much, but it'd be a great
NPC!

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 55
From: Andrew Gryphon webmaster@*********.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:27:09 -0500
on 8/27/00 4:17 AM, Damian Sharp at zadoc@***.neu.edu e-scribed:

>> Yes, but if the balancing comes before realness (?) , it hurts the game
>> IMHO.
>
> Depends on the game, really. Shadowrun? Definately. AD&D? Much less so,
> since it's already at least 2 steps removed from reality. Toon? :)

Clay-o-rama! Awesome game, and totally realistic, since hits are determined
by actually hitting the target.

--
Andrew Gryphon
http://www.Wyrmworks.com
Taking Role-Playing to the next level
Message no. 56
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Steve Collins Left this message on the BBS at 01:06 AM 8/28/2000
>
> >Yes, but what you are forgetting is that those actions offer their own
> >penalties and therefore cannot be considered in how difficult it is to
> >use a weapon.
>
> Ponder what you say before sending... :)
> The comparison is done in the real world, not in the game world. you
> compare how hard both are *realistically*, then pass it in the game world.
> How can you compare it in the game world, when they already said: xbows are
> simpler by putting them in the "simple" class. And in the real world, the
> average case such an "D&D Adventurer" had to face, was, as I said for
the
> 100th time, something along the lines of a target running in the woods, 50
> yards away, with bad weather and a below-craftsman quality xbow.

That is definately _not_ the 'average' case. Taking it apart:

In the woods - Provides cover, at least 50%, roughly 50% chance of a miss,
regardless of archer's ability. (hit something else)

50 yards away - Middle range, penalty to hit

Bad weather - Poor conditions, penalties to hit.

Poor Cross bow - Penalties to hit.

To compare base sword swinging to base crossbow (no penalties) you need to
compare using a good crossbow, in an open plain, on a clear day, with no
wind, at about 20 yards, with a stationary man.

To compare to your case, it would be a swordsman, using his off hand, in
the dark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 57
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Andrew Gryphon wrote:

> on 8/27/00 4:17 AM, Damian Sharp at zadoc@***.neu.edu e-scribed:
>
> >> Yes, but if the balancing comes before realness (?) , it hurts the game
> >> IMHO.
> >
> > Depends on the game, really. Shadowrun? Definately. AD&D? Much less so,
> > since it's already at least 2 steps removed from reality. Toon? :)
>
> Clay-o-rama! Awesome game, and totally realistic, since hits are determined
> by actually hitting the target.

Well, totally realistic, assuming you're a clay guy, being hit by giants
:) Definately a fun, silly game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 58
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:14:52 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 01:32 AM 8/28/2000

>That is definately _not_ the 'average' case. Taking it apart:
>
>In the woods - Provides cover, at least 50%, roughly 50% chance of a miss,
>regardless of archer's ability. (hit something else)
>
>50 yards away - Middle range, penalty to hit
>
>Bad weather - Poor conditions, penalties to hit.
>
>Poor Cross bow - Penalties to hit.
>
>To compare base sword swinging to base crossbow (no penalties) you need to
>compare using a good crossbow, in an open plain, on a clear day, with no
>wind, at about 20 yards, with a stationary man.
>
>To compare to your case, it would be a swordsman, using his off hand, in
>the dark.

No it won't. You don't get it. That's how you use a crossbow.
You aren't using a crossbow against stationary men in open fields unless
your GM is a total oblivious ignorant. We're talking medieval ages. England
was mostly forests, (at least where adventurers would "hang out"), England
is known for its bad weather, crossbows cost too much and are too hard to
get to be of good quality and someone from 20 yards will see you as well,
not to mention your enemies shouldn't be as stupid as to simply "stand" in
the forest. That's the practical use for crossbows, and that's why I say
they're *not* simple - because it's not using the crossbow it's sniping
that's hard. With swords, you don't have all that, you do, however, have
the fact that the swords themselves are harder to use! Therefor, both
weapons are just as hard. That was my case all along. You don't get it,
we're talking Real world, not game penalties!
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 59
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
<snipt!(TM)>
> >Yes, but that's not how you use a crossbow. One of
he point in a ranged weapon is that your "average"
situation will be from far away, and if you play in
medieval times, most likely in different grounds, at
least some cover (wether in cities or forests) and
maybe in bad weather, walking or running, etc. That's
my whole point from the start of this discussion -
using a crossbow is not just cocking, reloading, and
releasing the trigger. It's sniping, too. And that's
the hard part of it. Same as swordfighting is not just
holding the sword, or knowing to unsheath and sheath
it fast. It's fighting with it, and that's the hard
part.
> >(>) Nimster
>
> Yes, but what you are forgetting is that those
actions offer their own penalties and therefore cannot
be considered in how difficult it is to use a weapon.
> Steve

Point 1.

Damn it, I swore I wouldn't say anything else. Ah
well...

Point 2, Nimster, is that the proficiency system, as
someone pointed out, describes LEARNING how to use the
weapons, not actual use. As Steve said, use is covered
in the combat system and that's where the high
difficulties for tricky shots come into it.

Learning to use a crossbow, except in the worst
situations, would have involved shooting at nice,
stable, unmoving targets from 50-100 feet or so away
(getting longer as you got better), on a nice, sunny
day. After all, if you're practising in the rain, that
stuffs up the bowstring, and your bosses aren't going
to like having to replace lots of bowstrings. E-Z.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 60
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> the forest. That's the practical use for crossbows, and that's why I say
> they're *not* simple - because it's not using the crossbow it's sniping
> that's hard. With swords, you don't have all that, you do, however, have
> the fact that the swords themselves are harder to use! Therefor, both
> weapons are just as hard. That was my case all along. You don't get it,
> we're talking Real world, not game penalties!

So you agree learning to use a sword is harder than learning to use a
crossbow? 'cause that's all the prof. system is set up to handle.

As for 'standard use', the 'average' adventurer spends a lot of time in
dungeons. No trees, no rain, no wind. In fact, quite often, just you,
shooting down a hallway, or across the room. There, you can easily use a
crossbow. In some situations, crossbows are easier to hit with. In others,
it's easier to hit with a sword. However, learning to use a crossbow in
ideal situations is easier than learning to use a sword in ideal
situations. Anything beyond that is extra.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 61
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:36:16 +0200
(>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 12:36 AM 8/28/2000

>Point 2, Nimster, is that the proficiency system, as
>someone pointed out, describes LEARNING how to use the
>weapons, not actual use. As Steve said, use is covered
>in the combat system and that's where the high
>difficulties for tricky shots come into it.

Hitting a dummy with a sword is just as easy. *anyone* can do it. Voila,
both are simple? It doesn't matter that there are combat penalties for
hitting such and so. Imagine having a combat penalty for swords in the form of:
Opponent is better: -1
Opponent is really better: -3
Opponent is really, really better!: -5
Opponent digs your feint ideas: -1 (cumulative)
Opponent is on a lucky day: -1
That would be silly, wouldn't it? The combat penalties on a crossbow come
to describe situation in which it is harder to hit. If you are a proficient
sniper, those modifiers should not apply, or apply only half, or you get a
bonus for being proficient, etc.
And now, I say again. I'm first referring to the *real world* then
transferring the difficulty of the *real* world to the game. The fact that
the game has modifiers to better explain the difficulty of the situation
does not make it easy! What you are basically saying, is that if there was
a modifier
Using a sword: -4
Then the skill sword should become simple instead of martial.
Again, a proficient crossbow man does not only know how to use a crossbow
(simple in all opinions) but how to hit something other then a dummy from
20 yards on a sunny clear day! That's no adventurer that's a common
villager. You're forgetting that our "user" here is a hero.

And with that, now in full seriousness (after I waved it in the air twice)
I'm *not* gonna continue this thread. It has gone too far, and then
farther. As far as I see, all agree that xbow using is simple. I said it
should be martial due to the sniping incurred. If I'dve ran a D&D 3E
campaign, which I wouldn't ever, I'd either let it be simple and make such
an xbowman have half the penalties, make a separate "sniping" skill giving
him +1 on each shot, or something similar, or just let him take another
"simple" slot or however it works for xbow as many times as he wants to,
each giving a +1 modifier.
And dont wag the "unbalanced" sign in front of me, not only do I have no
idea, completely, about D&D 3E whatsoever, except for the 3 weapon classes,
which I picked up from the list, but I also don't care. As I've said
before, realism takes balance anytime, and I've players good enough to not
exploit that.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 62
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:41:37 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 03:40 AM 8/28/2000



>As for 'standard use', the 'average' adventurer spends a lot of time in
>dungeons. No trees, no rain, no wind. In fact, quite often, just you,
>shooting down a hallway, or across the room. There, you can easily use a
>crossbow. In some situations, crossbows are easier to hit with. In others,
>it's easier to hit with a sword. However, learning to use a crossbow in
>ideal situations is easier than learning to use a sword in ideal
>situations. Anything beyond that is extra.

Oh right, I forgot most D&D GM's still run diablo-style games. Well, if you
having your whole world collapse at some state from lack of supports after
90% of the world has been digged to contain more adventurers in different
dungeons, have it your way. As I said before, I prefer realism (Don't wag
the "There's magic" sign either, magic can still be handled realistically)
and I won't send my group after engineers crazy enough to actually dig
through stone 4-level dungeons, before the bulldozer was invented.
Adventurers also don't train inside dungeons, unless they have really,
really twisted lives.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 63
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:47:34 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Rand Ratinac Left this message on the BBS at 12:36 AM 8/28/2000
>
> >Point 2, Nimster, is that the proficiency system, as
> >someone pointed out, describes LEARNING how to use the
> >weapons, not actual use. As Steve said, use is covered
> >in the combat system and that's where the high
> >difficulties for tricky shots come into it.
>
> Again, a proficient crossbow man does not only know how to use a crossbow
> (simple in all opinions) but how to hit something other then a dummy from
> 20 yards on a sunny clear day! That's no adventurer that's a common
> villager. You're forgetting that our "user" here is a hero.

I think that's the catch. The D&D prof system is for everyone. The user
_could_ be a common villager. 'Heros' get extra bonuses for being
heros. Normal people only get profs.

> And with that, now in full seriousness (after I waved it in the air twice)
> I'm *not* gonna continue this thread. It has gone too far, and then
> farther. As far as I see, all agree that xbow using is simple. I said it
> should be martial due to the sniping incurred. If I'dve ran a D&D 3E
> campaign, which I wouldn't ever, I'd either let it be simple and make such
> an xbowman have half the penalties, make a separate "sniping" skill giving
> him +1 on each shot, or something similar, or just let him take another
> "simple" slot or however it works for xbow as many times as he wants to,
> each giving a +1 modifier.

It's all a matter of perspective. If the crossbow skill included the
ability to ignore all the penalties you get for sniping, then it would be
as tough as a sword. However, they chose to compare a crossbow in an ideal
situation to a sword in a combat situation. That makes the crossbow
easier, in that situation. Is it a fair comparison? Not really, but it's
what they did.

> And dont wag the "unbalanced" sign in front of me, not only do I have no
> idea, completely, about D&D 3E whatsoever, except for the 3 weapon classes,
> which I picked up from the list, but I also don't care. As I've said
> before, realism takes balance anytime, and I've players good enough to not
> exploit that.

And I still wouldn't call it exploiting the system to use the best
equipment available to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 64
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:50:36 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 03:40 AM 8/28/2000
>
> Oh right, I forgot most D&D GM's still run diablo-style games.

Some settings are set up that way. Greyhawk is built on the ruins of two
old civilazations, that destroyed each other.

> Well, if you
> having your whole world collapse at some state from lack of supports after
> 90% of the world has been digged to contain more adventurers in different
> dungeons, have it your way. As I said before, I prefer realism (Don't wag
> the "There's magic" sign either, magic can still be handled realistically)
> and I won't send my group after engineers crazy enough to actually dig
> through stone 4-level dungeons, before the bulldozer was invented.

Maybe, but you can't just ignore magic, either. Magic can do anything a
bulldozer can, and more.

> Adventurers also don't train inside dungeons, unless they have really,
> really twisted lives.

Maybe, but they don't train by hunting people, in the woods, in the rain,
either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 65
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:40:45 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 04:47 AM 8/28/2000

>And I still wouldn't call it exploiting the system to use the best
>equipment available to you.

To use a Hebrew proverb, Ein Kesher. There is no connection. I was talking
about the alternatives I offered. Taking the best equipment available or
not is a totally different question.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 66
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:46:08 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 04:50 AM 8/28/2000

>Maybe, but you can't just ignore magic, either. Magic can do anything a
>bulldozer can, and more.

I knew you'd bring the second D&D GM's tool in. Magic being as common as
sheep. Mages don't just walk around offering their service in building
dungeons for goblins. Not to mention even the first spell that somehow aids
in building a dungeon, Stone to mud, requires the mage to be of the 7th
level, and to be useful he has to be of an even higher one. Those levels
are *not* easily reached. Over using magic is what made D&D seem such an
annoying game by so many. The motives (not as in driving-motives but as in
plot/setting-motives) became so cheap and overused. Making them practically
a cliche`. Don't misunderstand me - I love fantasy, and play it a lot. Just
not AD&D. Yuck.


>Maybe, but they don't train by hunting people, in the woods, in the rain,
>either.

Ever heard of Deer, hawks, other animals? I don't find the idea of a mentor
of sorts sending his annoying, braggart student to hunt in the rain too
awkward.
(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 67
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:53:55 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 04:50 AM 8/28/2000
>
> >Maybe, but you can't just ignore magic, either. Magic can do anything a
> >bulldozer can, and more.
>
> I knew you'd bring the second D&D GM's tool in. Magic being as common as
> sheep. Mages don't just walk around offering their service in building
> dungeons for goblins. Not to mention even the first spell that somehow aids
> in building a dungeon, Stone to mud, requires the mage to be of the 7th
> level, and to be useful he has to be of an even higher one. Those levels
> are *not* easily reached. Over using magic is what made D&D seem such an
> annoying game by so many. The motives (not as in driving-motives but as in
> plot/setting-motives) became so cheap and overused. Making them practically
> a cliche`. Don't misunderstand me - I love fantasy, and play it a lot. Just
> not AD&D. Yuck.

Again, depends on the campaign. Both Greyhawk and (shudder) the Realms
have plenty of high level wiards around. Hell, Greyhawk has insane
high level wizards that like to make deathtrap dungeons.

And there _are_ natural caverns, too.

> >Maybe, but they don't train by hunting people, in the woods, in the rain,
> >either.
>
> Ever heard of Deer, hawks, other animals? I don't find the idea of a mentor
> of sorts sending his annoying, braggart student to hunt in the rain too
> awkward.

Maybe, but that's not the base-line of comparison between
'crossbow-simple, sword-martial'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 68
From: Nimster nimster@*********.net.il
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:19:31 +0200
(>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:53 AM 8/28/2000

>Again, depends on the campaign. Both Greyhawk and (shudder) the Realms
>have plenty of high level wiards around. Hell, Greyhawk has insane
>high level wizards that like to make deathtrap dungeons.

Neh. Most GMs play it as if there are 10% mages or so. More likely, even in
greyhawk (the realms do not have a higher then average quantity of mages,
they're just so fricking Hugh, but the percentage is the same) there are
less then 1 per 10,000 people, at least, and even less powerful ones.
Again, mages are not tools. They have no reason to just run around making
dungeons. The fact that Deathtrap dungeon exists doesn't mean that every
other (that's in the good case, for most GMs it's every (period) )
adventure should take place in one dungeon or another. It's just silly
having so many dungeons, I don't see why you keep the argument alive.

>And there _are_ natural caverns, too.

Natural caverns are not only not that complex as dungeons are, they're also
large (I mean the wall-ceiling hight-width), uninhabited except by stupid
animals (no big villain will take place in such a filthy cave) and are
very, very rare.

/me wonders if other denizens of the list are simply computer programs
which say the opposite of everything he does.


(>) Nimster
There is no spoon.
Message no. 69
From: Sean Edwards edwars2@*******.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:46:00 EDT
>It's just silly having so many dungeons, I don't see why you keep the
>argument alive.

Keep in mind that while all the thousands of characters being used in the
world are theoretically co-existing in the same game world, it doesn't mean
that there needs to be enough dungeons for ALL of them to use. There only
needs to be enough for the one group in that one campaign. Even if you play
dungeons every other game you're still only going to have several dozen at
most in the entire game world.

Also, and I realize I'm being a little hypocritical here, in this case YOU
are the one keeping the argument alive.

>/me wonders if other denizens of the list are simply computer programs
which say the opposite of everything he does.

I know I'm not a program, and I'm not intentionally trying to counter every
thing you say. That being said, though, I find your logic to be foreign,
your use of the language strange (though I believe you're implied at least
that english is not your first language), and most of your ideas to be
contrary to what I consider common sense :). I know that your comment was
made at least partially in jest, as is this response, so no offense, ok? :)




_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 70
From: acjpenn@******.com acjpenn@******.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:44:39 -0500
> Natural caverns are not only not that complex as dungeons are, they're
also
> large (I mean the wall-ceiling hight-width), uninhabited except by stupid

> animals (no big villain will take place in such a filthy cave) and are
> very, very rare.
>

As a resident caver (spelunker!!) I think I should add a little imput here.

Natural caves and cavern complexes (the only difference between the two
words is the -rn) can be very simple, or very, very, very complex. Some of
them span miles and miles. Mammoth Cave in the USA, in Kentucky, is over
350 miles long. They send teams back every year, and it keeps getting
bigger. It's like the Underdark (TM) Minus the drow and other nastys.
It's a whole other world down there. While some caves have very large
passages, some are very tiny. Crawl spaces can require the removing of
gear to worm through. Not all caves are massive. I've been passages where
you have to make a choice between holding your breath and hoping to find
room down the line to breathe or going back. And Caves aren't inhabited by
"stupid" animals. Just misunderstood. There's an entire ecology down
there, under the earth, with some very intelligent (for animals) creatures
taking up residence. In a fantasy campaign, I can see strange twisted
things in there. It's Dark... I mean DARK! One of the primal fears of
man.. to think of a nasty beholder roaming around down there can give me
the shakes. ;) As for caves being filthy, no more so than your average
forest. Sure, there's muddy spots, and caves with large bat populations
have spots you'll want to avoid, but it's just dirt and rock. Even above
ground there's muddy spots.

As for villians.. heh.

Check out Meramec Caverns and the Jesse James Mythology. That's a villian
who took refuge in a cave. Get the right cave, and it would server as an
excellent base of ops. Defendable entrances, secret passages.. the whole
nine yards. It'd be great.

Just my input. It's free, and you get what you pay for. ;)

LT
Message no. 71
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
<snipt!(TM)>
> You don't get it, we're talking Real world, not game
penalties!
> (>) Nimster

Oh, fer cryin' out...

Nimster, real world and game issues have nothing to do
with it. You're talking use (and getting MUCH too
excited about it). We're talking LEARNING. Learning to
use a crossbow is NOT done by firing at moving men, in
bad weather, in the middle of forests. That's USE. The
D&D3 system is talking LEARNING, too. So when it comes
down to that, we're right and you're wrong.

I won't dispute that it's tough to use a crossbow in
the conditions you mention and it might even be
tougher to hit someone with a crossbow in those
conditions than with a sword. But that's not the
point.

Now just shut up already, would you? I'm getting sick
of this and I helped start it! This is going to be my
last post on the matter. Period. Reply if you want,
but don't expect a response.

And I'm sorry if my tone is abrasive. That would be
because you're pissing me off. And believe me, that's
a hard thing to do...

:)

Damn. Pissed-offness is over already. I was having fun
there. :)

*Doc' goes to anger management counselling, to learn
how to actually stay angry for longer than five seconds...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 72
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Hitting a dummy with a sword is just as easy.
*anyone* can do it. Voila, both are simple
<snipt!(TM)>
> (>) Nimster

*shudder*

You're right, Nimster, this has gone on too long. And
I've said I'm not going to talk about it anymore. So
I'm not. This is to address something else. Forget
D&D. Forget how hard or easy it is to use the
different weapons.

When training with swords, yes, they DID use dummies.
They then went on to sparring with live opponents.

When training with crossbows, you shot at targets.
Maybe you tried smaller, or more difficult targets
later on, but do you really think that shooting at
live people was ever part of standard training
practises?

Okay, that's it. No more for me. I mean it this time.

*Doc' pulls out nail gun and nails his mouth to the desk...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 73
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 00 22:49:07 -0500
On 8/28/00 9:29 pm, Rand Ratinac said:

>
>When training with swords, yes, they DID use dummies.
>They then went on to sparring with live opponents.
>
>When training with crossbows, you shot at targets.
>Maybe you tried smaller, or more difficult targets
>later on, but do you really think that shooting at
>live people was ever part of standard training
>practises?
>


Actually it was a fairly common practice for Roman soldiers to train on
captured slaves and criminals and such. I do not know of any specific
instances of crossbow training that involved live targets but given how
Barbaric the times were (by our standards) I wouldn't rule out it's ever
happening. There are also certain Japanese customs that come to mind here.

Steve
Message no. 74
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
> >When training with swords, yes, they DID use
dummies. They then went on to sparring with live
opponents.
> >
> >When training with crossbows, you shot at targets.
Maybe you tried smaller, or more difficult targets
later on, but do you really think that shooting at
live people was ever part of standard training
practises?
>
> Actually it was a fairly common practice for Roman
soldiers to train on captured slaves and criminals and
such. I do not know of any specific instances of
crossbow training that involved live targets but given
how Barbaric the times were (by our standards) I
wouldn't rule out it's ever happening. There are also
certain Japanese customs that come to mind here.
> Steve

*shudder*

Lovely.

Okay, with that exception (and that was the exception
rather than the rule), it didn't happen very often at
all.

Oh, never mind. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 75
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Nimster wrote:

> (>) Damian Sharp Left this message on the BBS at 05:53 AM 8/28/2000
>
> >Again, depends on the campaign. Both Greyhawk and (shudder) the Realms
> >have plenty of high level wiards around. Hell, Greyhawk has insane
> >high level wizards that like to make deathtrap dungeons.
>
> Neh. Most GMs play it as if there are 10% mages or so. More likely, even in
> greyhawk (the realms do not have a higher then average quantity of mages,
> they're just so fricking Hugh, but the percentage is the same) there are
> less then 1 per 10,000 people, at least, and even less powerful ones.
> Again, mages are not tools. They have no reason to just run around making
> dungeons. The fact that Deathtrap dungeon exists doesn't mean that every
> other (that's in the good case, for most GMs it's every (period) )
> adventure should take place in one dungeon or another. It's just silly
> having so many dungeons, I don't see why you keep the argument alive.

This is obviously where we conflict, so I'll give it up. D&D games I tend
to play in have quite a few mages, and a fair number of magic items. You
play differently.

> >And there _are_ natural caverns, too.
>
> Natural caverns are not only not that complex as dungeons are, they're also
> large (I mean the wall-ceiling hight-width), uninhabited except by stupid
> animals (no big villain will take place in such a filthy cave) and are
> very, very rare.

Sure, but it's good enough for orcs & goblins.

> /me wonders if other denizens of the list are simply computer programs
> which say the opposite of everything he does.

Nah, though I'm starting to be amazed they've let us go on this long.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 76
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Geoff Haacke)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Tue Apr 16 15:55:03 2002
I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
would need a special attachment?

====Geoff Haacke
"The difference between genius and stupidity
is that genius has its limits."
-Albert Einstein

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Message no. 77
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Thanatos)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Tue Apr 16 16:00:01 2002
> I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
> smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
> would need a special attachment?
>

The Bow Accessory Mount is designed to address this, and allows you to
attach a single device such as a laser sight or smartgun link to a bow or
crossbow. It's worth mentioning, though, that since most modern crossbows
already incorporate a pistol style handgrip you might just want to use the
rules for installing smartgunlinks in normal weapons.

ACP

-------------------------------------------------------------

The essence of life is struggle and its goal
is domination. There are higher goals and
deeper meanings, but they exist only within
the mind of man. The reality of life is war.

-- The Way and The Power
Lovret
Message no. 78
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Tue Apr 16 18:20:01 2002
In a message dated 4/16/2002 4:03:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
grendel@*****.veldt.org writes:

> It's worth mentioning, though, that since most modern crossbows
> already incorporate a pistol style handgrip you might just want to use the
> rules for installing smartgunlinks in normal weapons.

I'd say that would be the way to interpret that. I think the primary reason
it might not've been addressed in the books (was it?) would be that it was
intended primarily for regular bows and then when they did up the stats for
crossbows it might not've crossed their minds. Another explanation might be
in that whereas gun mechanics tend to be internal aren't most crossbow
mechanics external? I could be wrong on that, it's been known to happen
infrequently.

Just my .02¥
Message no. 79
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 04:20:01 2002
From: Geoff Haacke <knight_errant30@*****.com>
>I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
>smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
>would need a special attachment?

A laser sight would be no problem, there were crossbows available (past
tense because they're hugely restricted here now) with mounts for telescopic
sights, the laser sight I have is designed in such a way that it can be
piggybacked on such a scope. In the Cannon companion there is an accessory
mount in the bows...etc section, which I think gives a ruling on whether
smartguns can be fitted to bows, I'd be inclined to say not though.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 80
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 05:25:19 2002
According to Geoff Haacke, on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
> smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
> would need a special attachment?

I'd say you can mount them on a crossbow easily enough. If the GM objects,
just buy a bow accessory mount (from Cannon Companion, it'll cost a hundred
nuyen or so, IIRC) and be done with it :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 81
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 05:35:01 2002
>From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
>>I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
>>smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
>>would need a special attachment?
>mount in the bows...etc section, which I think gives a ruling on whether
>smartguns can be fitted to bows, I'd be inclined to say not though.

Just to clarify this posting I think (although how it's supported by the
rules I can't remember) that a smartgun would have to be heavily
reprogrammed before it would function in conjunction with a crossbow, the
aerodynamics and ballistic characteristics are too different, a bullet fired
at 45 degrees to the horizontal (upwards) will describe a near perfect
parabollic curve, a crossbow quarrel won't. as to smartguns mounted on bows
they just couldn't work, you'd need to mount strain guages all over the bow
and the bowstring, all of them wired in to the smartgun, you'd need to make
sure each arrow was exactly the same weight... (bullets at somewhere between
the 150 and 200 grain mark (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)
for a 7.62 (.303) calibre slug are easy to standardise to within one grain
either way; an arrow (which if you're talking serious people killers) will
wiegh in at somewhere closer to one pound, try getting a single grain
tolerance on those!
Basically it is all a vast amount of hassle to get a little crosshair
projected onto the back of your retina and no corp is going to make them,
there's no profit in it, who uses bows these days? the amerinds big whoop!

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 82
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 06:30:01 2002
Chummers,

> Just to clarify this posting I think (although how it's supported by the
> rules I can't remember) that a smartgun would have to be heavily
> reprogrammed before it would function in conjunction with a crossbow, the
> aerodynamics and ballistic characteristics are too different, a bullet fired
> at 45 degrees to the horizontal (upwards) will describe a near perfect
> parabollic curve

Does it?


> , a crossbow quarrel won't. as to smartguns mounted on bows
> they just couldn't work, you'd need to mount strain guages all over the bow
> and the bowstring, all of them wired in to the smartgun, you'd need to make
> sure each arrow was exactly the same weight... (bullets at somewhere between
> the 150 and 200 grain mark (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)
> for a 7.62 (.303) calibre slug are easy to standardise to within one grain
> either way; an arrow (which if you're talking serious people killers) will
> wiegh in at somewhere closer to one pound, try getting a single grain
> tolerance on those!

There are also alot of variables to consider on a smartgun link as well, not
just bullet weight. Dfferent types of slugs of the same calibre , ie. APDS,
Gel, etc, can also be loaded into a pistol which would affect projectile
profiles. How does the smartlink know? My answer is that it doesn't matter.
It's 2060 and technology is sufficiently advanced it's magic! I don't need to
understand how a smartgun link detects ammo loads, bullet weights, type of
propellants used, etc and then projects a reticle on your eye where the bullet
will hit.. It just does.

I'm also sure 2060 engineering technology could easily make arrows/quarrels all
with the same characteristics.

The over-riding factor in my mind as to why smartgun links may or may not be
used in bows/crossbows is that you place a bullet in a barrel which effectively
channels the direction of the bullet in a certain direction.

Since a crossbow quarrel is essentially at rest in the track, I would argue that
a smartgun link can be used on a crossbow, as long as an approriate B/R
technician fits and calibrates the device.


> Basically it is all a vast amount of hassle to get a little crosshair
> projected onto the back of your retina and no corp is going to make them,
> there's no profit in it, who uses bows these days? the amerinds big whoop!

I've always been of the opinion that if something can be done, someone has done
it, and a little money can usually be made doing it. I'm sure it is possible
there is still sport hunting/safaris hunting critters, paranormal or otherwise,
in exclusive resorts around the globe. Some of these hunters may even use
crossbows.

(Although I agree with Lone Eagle. Who the frag would want to use a crossbow/bow
anyway?)

Xian.
Message no. 83
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 06:55:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Christian Casavant wrote:

> (Although I agree with Lone Eagle. Who the frag would want to use a
> crossbow/bow anyway?)

A troll assassin with 15+ strength and teflon coated bolts/arrows. You
have to remember that crossbows/bows are essentially silent. They're
also not as suspicious to most people. I drive by with a high powered
rifle with smartlink, laser sight, silencer, and scope in the back of
my car, people will notice. If I drive by with a compound bow and
some arrows, people will most likely ask me what I'm going to be
hunting this weekend.

I also know of modern crossbows that are wrist mountable. Sure they're
little more than toys right now, but imagine the 2060's version that
can toss a bolt that has the power of most light/medium pistols. Now
imagine using them in "unarmed combat". Point blank bolt
to the head would make life miserable.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 84
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 07:30:01 2002
>From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
>A troll assassin with 15+ strength and teflon coated bolts/arrows. You
>have to remember that crossbows/bows are essentially silent. They're
>also not as suspicious to most people. I drive by with a high powered
>rifle with smartlink, laser sight, silencer, and scope in the back of
>my car, people will notice. If I drive by with a compound bow and
>some arrows, people will most likely ask me what I'm going to be
>hunting this weekend.

Two points, if you have arrows with field points on them people might ask
what you're hunting but then unless you're dead accurate (very difficult)
you'd probably need six or seven arrows to kill a human, if you're using
decent man killers like those made for the samurai in medievil Japan you're
likely to get more questions than with a simple rifle (assuming you're
sensible enough to keep the silencer out of sight and get rid of the
pointless stuff (laser sight for example))
Secondly, bows/crossbows are nowhere near silent, you're better off with a
dodgy sound suppressor on your gun noisewise. If you shoot an arrow from a
90+ pound pull bow (the sort of weight you're looking at if you actually
want to kill things) the string makes a loud cracking noise and the arrow
itself hums noisily all of the way in, a sort of dopplering low pitched
scream.

Oh and teflon coating is pointless, an arrow is not designed to be frangible
or to mushroom in the wound, teflon coating is designed to minimise those
effects to maximise the possibility that a projectile will pass though
padded kevlar and similar, an arrow will cut through kevlar like it was any
other cloth, that's why you reduce their power with impact armour.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 85
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:10:00 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Lone Eagle wrote:

> Two points, if you have arrows with field points on them people might ask
> what you're hunting but then unless you're dead accurate (very difficult)
> you'd probably need six or seven arrows to kill a human,

I think the assumption of the whole damage system of Shadowrun is
based around accuracy and likely fatality of a well placed shot
combined with the damage that shot makes.

For example, a 6L weapon may not look too frightening, until the guy
shooting you gets a large number of successes. That's when it suddenly
becomes a lot more dangerous.

> Secondly, bows/crossbows are nowhere near silent, you're better off with a
> dodgy sound suppressor on your gun noisewise. If you shoot an arrow from a
> 90+ pound pull bow (the sort of weight you're looking at if you actually
> want to kill things) the string makes a loud cracking noise and the arrow
> itself hums noisily all of the way in, a sort of dopplering low pitched
> scream.

This is true. However, in the woods, the sound of that crack is barely
audible outside of a fairly small range and in the city that sound
would almost certainly be swallowed by the background noise of
traffic/people talking/etc. That cracking noise is, afterall, the
sound of the sound barrier being shattered. However, it ends up being
fair quieter than the sound of an exposed gun shot from any weapon.

As to the sound the arrow makes, unless your an adept, it might as
well be the sonic whistle that is created by a bullet being fired.

> Oh and teflon coating is pointless, an arrow is not designed to be frangible
> or to mushroom in the wound, teflon coating is designed to minimise those
> effects to maximise the possibility that a projectile will pass though
> padded kevlar and similar, an arrow will cut through kevlar like it was any
> other cloth, that's why you reduce their power with impact armour.

I just like saying "teflon coated" cause it sounds cool. ;-)
Seriously though, my point in the "teflon coating" was to point out
that arrows give the shooter a hug advantage in that their projectiles
are naturally armor piercing. Seeing as how most runners/security/etc.
will tend to wear at least twice the rating in ballistic that they do
in impact, it's not unfair to state that an indvidual firing an arrow
with a strength of 9M will, on average, do more damage than an
individual firing a gun with a strength of 9M (Forgoing armor piercing
rounds. Of course, armor piercing rounds end up soaking up 50 nuyen a
pop and aren't something you load regularly unless you're running
around with Fairlight Excaliburs falling out of the back of your
truck).

Finally, as a bonus to bows, if I remember correctly, they're fairly
easy to acquire and are permittable in almost every country. So if you
can't always lug around that 12S sniper rifle, why not get the ork
with a 12 strength to load up on a bow?

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 86
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 08:45:01 2002
> I think the assumption of the whole damage system of Shadowrun is
> based around accuracy and likely fatality of a well placed shot
> combined with the damage that shot makes.
>
> For example, a 6L weapon may not look too frightening, until the guy
> shooting you gets a large number of successes. That's when it suddenly
> becomes a lot more dangerous.

I once read a study that only 1 in 7 gun shots is fatal. As a result, it doesn't
really matter whether you're using an arrow or a bullet. On the average neither
of them will kill you.

> Finally, as a bonus to bows, if I remember correctly, they're fairly
> easy to acquire and are permittable in almost every country. So if you
> can't always lug around that 12S sniper rifle, why not get the ork
> with a 12 strength to load up on a bow?

I would be tempted to see what happened if you walked around town with a bow in
your hands.

Owning is legal, but intent is still a crime. Although, looking over the legality
codes again, the police officer is *more* likely to arrest you carrying the bow
(5-P/D), which carries a lesser prison sentence then a light pistol (8-P/E) which
the copper is more likely to overlook.

Let's be realistic for a moment. Whether bow or rifle, if you're concealing them,
you'll get nicked, and the police will ask questions. If you're a troll walking
around with a bow, you'll be shot as a public service and your killer given a
medal. No one's gonna risk talking to you regardless if that's a STR4 bow or a
STR 15 bow.

I'm not going to deny that a single bowshot is equally as effective as a single
rifle bullet. As I've always maintained a Light PIstol will kill you as just as
dead as a high powered rifle, or crossbow.

If you want to compare (cross)bows to firearms, go ahead. If you think that
crossbows are more effective, then you were born 600 years too late. Let's not be
pedantic trying to illustrate how great bows and crossbows are against modern
firearms. It's really cool to have pistol crossbows in D&D, but in SR3, it would
be more effective to have a firearm version of the wrist crossbow in every case I
can imagine; you can turn your wrist upside down, you can run with it, it's more
concealable, etc.

Your argument is the modern day equivalent of saying that you should carry a sword
around instead of a dagger because the knife is a concealed weapon, therefore
illegal, whereas the sword is not a concealed weapon so you can openly wear it on
your belt.
Message no. 87
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 09:30:01 2002
>From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
>I think the assumption of the whole damage system of Shadowrun is
>based around accuracy and likely fatality of a well placed shot
>combined with the damage that shot makes.
>
>For example, a 6L weapon may not look too frightening, until the guy
>shooting you gets a large number of successes. That's when it suddenly
>becomes a lot more dangerous.

True but unless you can pierce the heart or another vital organ an arrow is
highly unlikely to kill, most of a bullet's damage is caused in the exit
wound which is larger than the entry wound and as the bullet leaves the air
occupying the hole is at a much lower pressure than the surounding
atmosphere which tries to equal everything out and drags all manner of sh*t
into the wound. a bullet passing through the shoulder will damage bones and
muscles to the point that the arm will be virtually unusable even under the
best of circumstances, the rules allow for greater cinema and survivability
but... an arrow shot through your shoulder with the same energy is likely to
punch clean through the clavicle and cut and bruise some muscle; the damage
is significantly reduced.

> > Secondly, bows/crossbows are nowhere near silent, you're better off > >
>with a
> > dodgy sound suppressor on your gun noisewise. If you shoot an arrow > >
>from a
> > 90+ pound pull bow (the sort of weight you're looking at if you > >
>actually
> > want to kill things) the string makes a loud cracking noise and the > >
>arrow
> > itself hums noisily all of the way in, a sort of dopplering low > >
>pitched
> > scream.
>
>This is true. However, in the woods, the sound of that crack is barely
>audible outside of a fairly small range and in the city that sound
>would almost certainly be swallowed by the background noise of
>traffic/people talking/etc. That cracking noise is, afterall, the
>sound of the sound barrier being shattered. However, it ends up being
>fair quieter than the sound of an exposed gun shot from any weapon.

I'd put it at louder than something like a .22 glock with a light powder
load. not as loud as an unsilenced beretta or whatever but what assassin is
going to use an unsileced anything.

>As to the sound the arrow makes, unless your an adept, it might as
>well be the sonic whistle that is created by a bullet being fired.

Not by a long way, the noise a bullet makes is barely audible, totally
unaudible if you're on the recieving end. The noise the arrow makes is far
louder and will reach you a little before the arrow. it's made partly by the
flights but mostly by the fact that the arrow isn't straight, it bends
around the bow as you loose it and retains a bow until long after it reaches
its target, hence the vibrating foot when the arrow has otherwise stopped.

>Seriously though, my point in the "teflon coating" was to point out
>that arrows give the shooter a hug advantage in that their projectiles
>are naturally armor piercing. Seeing as how most runners/security/etc.
>will tend to wear at least twice the rating in ballistic that they do
>in impact,<snip>

Not always true, security armour/military armour are both equal Impact and
Ballistic when the helmet is worn, my own character has more impact than
ballistic, he's a biker so stopping a bullet is of secondary concern
compared to stopping a road.

>unless you're running
>around with Fairlight Excaliburs falling out of the back of your
>truck).

If you are one of these people please tell me where you regularly run
around, I could do with a decent deck!

>Finally, as a bonus to bows, if I remember correctly, they're fairly
>easy to acquire and are permittable in almost every country. So if you
>can't always lug around that 12S sniper rifle, why not get the ork
>with a 12 strength to load up on a bow?

On the other hand they're slower, you leave far more evidence, (you can't
draw a bow with gloved fingers and expect it to do what you want it to so
you leave partial prints on the arrow as you load it,) they're bulkier,
especially in the ammo department they're more tiring to use and you more or
less have to skyline yourself to use them. (you can't fire a bow prone and
using it from behind cover is very limited) finally and probably most
importantly you cannot carry a bow loaded and ready to go, if you're
remotely surprised you have real problems while with your rifle you simply
raise it to your shoulder and pull the trigger.
A rifle in a case on your back seat is not going to raise any more attention
than a cased bow and a quiver; an assembled and strung bow is probably going
to raise almost as much as a naked rifle.
Your troll is probably not going to use a bow because even if he knows he
has strength 15 he doesn't know that the SM-3 he's considering only has
strength 14 (effectively). Even if he spends hours testing the two one
against the other the bullet will appear to be better in almost every
respect because it makes a bigger mess, shoot a watermelon with the bow and
the arrow might pass straight through but the bullet doesn't leave much
watermelon behind.

I ask again, who uses bows these days?

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 88
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:00:05 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Christian Casavant wrote:

> I once read a study that only 1 in 7 gun shots is fatal. As a result, it doesn't
> really matter whether you're using an arrow or a bullet. On the average neither
> of them will kill you.

I find that less than 1 in 30 gun shots is fatal in Shadowrun. Mostly
because I haven't found an armor degradation system that "works"
without leaving my players in threads at the end of every combat. X_x

> I would be tempted to see what happened if you walked around town with a
> bow in your hands.

The same thing that happens if you carry a sniper rifle out in the
open. People stare. People call Lone Star. And then there's that whole
running firefight thing that ensues. It's just never pretty.

The moral of the story: Pack all guns in briefcases. =)

> Owning is legal, but intent is still a crime. Although, looking over the
> legality codes again, the police officer is *more* likely to arrest
> you carrying the bow (5-P/D), which carries a lesser prison sentence
> then a light pistol (8-P/E) which the copper is more likely to
> overlook.

Not really a fair comparison as I'm really doing sniper rifles versus
bows at the moment. They both seem to have the same required amount of
set up and use. You can't really whip a bow out on a ganger in the
street. My assumption would be that, like a sniper rifle, you keep the
bow nice and broken down or in a nice safe place until needed.

> Let's be realistic for a moment. Whether bow or rifle, if you're
> concealing them, you'll get nicked, and the police will ask
> questions. If you're a troll walking around with a bow, you'll be
> shot as a public service and your killer given a
> medal.

I love the Japanese. They'll shoot you if you're a troll no matter
what. =)

> No one's gonna risk talking to you regardless if that's a STR4 bow
> or a STR 15 bow.

My point being that, and this is coming from the viewpoint of someone
that has lived in a town where the phrase "A gun in every pickup" must
be some unwritten law, given either a sniper rifle or a bow in the
your rack, the cops are most likely to nail you for the rifle. (Most
rifles just look vicious)

> I'm not going to deny that a single bowshot is equally as effective as a
> single rifle bullet. As I've always maintained a Light PIstol will
> kill you as just as dead as a high powered rifle, or crossbow.

> If you want to compare (cross)bows to firearms, go ahead. If you think that
> crossbows are more effective, then you were born 600 years too late.
> Let's not be pedantic trying to illustrate how great bows and
> crossbows are against modern firearms.

Whoa whoa whoa. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "more
effective". I was just pointing out where crossbows and bows have
their uses in SR. The challenge was initially that some people
couldn't see why anyone would ever use a bow and I simply pointed out
a few instances when it would be good to have one compared to a
firearm. Don't get me wrong here, absolutely nothing beats a sniper
rifle when you absolutely positively have to put a 1/2 meter hole in
bullet proof glass in order to geek the guy in the driver seat. I was
just pointing out that every tool has its use.

> It's really cool to have pistol crossbows in D&D, but in SR3, it
> would be more effective to have a firearm version of the wrist
> crossbow in every case I can imagine; you can turn your wrist
> upside down, you can run with it, it's more concealable, etc.

My only problem with a wrist mounted gun like that is that it would be
totally limited in caliber. As I don't have my books with me at the
moment, I can't peruse to see what the canon examples of wrist mounted
weaponry are, but I would be extremely wary of anyone that said,
"Yeah, I want a wrist mounted pistol..." unless they had a cyber
hand/arm. You really couldn't, realistically, mount anything larger
than a 9mm (If even that. I'd have to talk to my gun nut
friends to figure out the actual physics of it and then be convinced
that you could probably put something the size of a 12 gauge slug
thrower on your wrist. ;-) ) in my honest opinion. I don't think the
metahuman wrist could really handle the impact of such a device.

> Your argument is the modern day equivalent of saying that you should carry
> a sword around instead of a dagger because the knife is a concealed
> weapon, therefore illegal, whereas the sword is not a concealed
> weapon so you can openly wear it on your belt.

No. My argument is more of the modern day equivalent of saying that
if you can carry something around inconspicuously and you plan on
using it for malicious purposes, then you're probably best doing it
that way. I generally state that anyone that carries a weapon strapped
to their body out in the open is just waiting to get jumped by the
cops.

What makes a bow more inconspicuous than a rifle? Well, out in the
open (As in on a gun rack of sitting in the trunk of your car), your
average bow can usually be argued away as a tool for hunting whereas
an AWP is something that turns more than a few heads and raises the
question of what elephants you intend on hunting.

If you break the weapons down, then, yes, both a rifle and a bow would
have the same rough concealability (You can stick them in a brief case
or something).

Of course, any idiot runner that would jander down the street with a
bow and quiver strapped to his back deserves the same pimp slapping
that you would give to that same idiot runner if he went walking down
the street carrying a rifle in hand.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 89
From: shadowrn@*********.com (M.S. "Herc" Bobroff)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:15:01 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>


> From: Geoff Haacke <knight_errant30@*****.com>
> >I was wondering if you would be able to attach a
> >smartgun link or laser sight to a crossbow or if you
> >would need a special attachment?
>
> A laser sight would be no problem, there were crossbows available
(past
> tense because they're hugely restricted here now) with mounts for
telescopic
> sights, the laser sight I have is designed in such a way that it can
be
> piggybacked on such a scope. In the Cannon companion there is an
accessory
> mount in the bows...etc section, which I think gives a ruling on
whether
> smartguns can be fitted to bows, I'd be inclined to say not though.

I would have to disagree with you there, it is a projectile weapon,
the smartlink system would understand the type of crossbow that is
being used, and has it's characteristics and firing arc algorithms
stored in memory. If the character uses different types of bolts,
depending on the occassion, then the character would need to 'select'
the type of bolt being fired (a free action through a smartlink
system) and then the smartlink system would make the appropriate
adjustments (I do not mean physical adjustments, I am referring to
adjusting the view in the smartlink display so the character knows
when the crosshairs are on the target) for the proper firing arc.

With regards to bows, your GM could restrict the usage of a smartlink
system, saying that once the arrow has travelled 'X' distance that the
arrow has begun to stray from it's intended course (due to wind, other
variables). But by no means should the bow be denied a smartlink
system.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Michael "Herc" Bobroff
Hoosier Hacker House
Message no. 90
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:25:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Lone Eagle wrote:

> True but unless you can pierce the heart or another vital organ an arrow is
> highly unlikely to kill, most of a bullet's damage is caused in the exit
> wound which is larger than the entry wound and as the bullet leaves the air
> occupying the hole is at a much lower pressure than the surounding
> atmosphere which tries to equal everything out and drags all manner of sh*t
> into the wound. a bullet passing through the shoulder will damage bones and
> muscles to the point that the arm will be virtually unusable even under the
> best of circumstances, the rules allow for greater cinema and survivability
> but... an arrow shot through your shoulder with the same energy is likely to
> punch clean through the clavicle and cut and bruise some muscle; the damage
> is significantly reduced.

Realistically, true. To achieve the exact same result with an arrow as
a bullet you would have to use some sort of barbed tips or something
that would rend meat as they passed through. Of course, the way the
combat system in SR is designed, an arrow can be just as deadly as a
bullet without such modifications.

> I'd put it at louder than something like a .22 glock with a light powder
> load. not as loud as an unsilenced beretta or whatever but what assassin is
> going to use an unsileced anything.

Good question. Of course, sometimes you really have to improvise with
whatever you can use or have available. I've had players use
everything from their fists to plastique to get the job down on an
assassination job. There's more than one instance of a player grabbing
the nearest blunt object in order to make sure the job was finished
before bolting.

Lacking professionality? Sure. But sometimes the job's gotta get done
today and the target refuses to make it easy on you.

> Not by a long way, the noise a bullet makes is barely audible, totally
> unaudible if you're on the recieving end. The noise the arrow makes is far
> louder and will reach you a little before the arrow. it's made partly by the
> flights but mostly by the fact that the arrow isn't straight, it bends
> around the bow as you loose it and retains a bow until long after it reaches
> its target, hence the vibrating foot when the arrow has otherwise stopped.

I'd still wager that most people aren't going to leap up and go into
instant dodge mode if they heard the whine of an arrow (Of course,
given this, I'll have to start considering a perception test to hear
the sound so that unsuspecting victims can dodge. After all, my only
experience with being on the wrong end of a bow comes from watching
movies. =)). Now, their body guards might freak and leap in the way,
but body guards are a totally different type of beast altogether.

> Not always true, security armour/military armour are both equal Impact and
> Ballistic when the helmet is worn, my own character has more impact than
> ballistic, he's a biker so stopping a bullet is of secondary concern
> compared to stopping a road.

When you get into the security/military armor areas of Shadowrun, then
you can expect everyone to be tossing around RPG's, Armor piercing
rounds, and miniguns. That's usually about when I break out the
miniatures and start kicking it Battletech style.

As to your character being a biker, after nearly 4 years GM'ing
Shadowrun, I have honestly never seen one of my players focus on
impact armor as something of major importance for any reason. Even
after a few bad encounters with those mystical "Killing Hands D"
adepts, they still prefer the safety of ballistic armor versus impact
armor.

> If you are one of these people please tell me where you regularly run
> around, I could do with a decent deck!

Why buy one when you can build one for 1/3 the cost? =)

> On the other hand they're slower, you leave far more evidence, (you can't
> draw a bow with gloved fingers and expect it to do what you want it to so
> you leave partial prints on the arrow as you load it,) they're bulkier,
> especially in the ammo department they're more tiring to use and you more or
> less have to skyline yourself to use them. (you can't fire a bow prone and
> using it from behind cover is very limited) finally and probably most
> importantly you cannot carry a bow loaded and ready to go, if you're
> remotely surprised you have real problems while with your rifle you simply
> raise it to your shoulder and pull the trigger.

Which are exactly the faults of going with a bow. Hey, I never said
it's a sure fire automagic way to get your target. I've always been of
the opinion that hitting the mark with a car and then shooting him
repeatedly fits into my "Good Enough" zone...

One neat thing that came to mind while I was getting my coffee this
morning was that you can coat arrow tips with some nasty
poison/biological material that will make the target's life a lot
shorter.

<offtopic>
As to the rifle thing, I now force players to spend a simple action to
aim before firing any weapon designated a Rifle. The reason behind
this is simply that firing a rifle without aiming will most likely
result in the bullet not going where you want it to. I could never
imagine someone accurately firing a rifle without taking at least a
millisecond (Which is what 1 simple action should be to your average
sammie) to aim.
</offtopic>

> A rifle in a case on your back seat is not going to raise any more attention
> than a cased bow and a quiver; an assembled and strung bow is probably going
> to raise almost as much as a naked rifle.

I've always had this theory:

Always shoot the guy carrying a sword/knife/bow/etc. first. Because
either they are true bad asses or they are idiots. Either way, best to
get rid of them first.

> Your troll is probably not going to use a bow because even if he knows he
> has strength 15 he doesn't know that the SM-3 he's considering only has
> strength 14 (effectively).

I knew it was something in the mid-teens. Being that I'm in a computer
cluster at my college, looking up references is a bit of a pain right
now. ;-)

> Even if he spends hours testing the two one against the other the
> bullet will appear to be better in almost every respect because it
> makes a bigger mess, shoot a watermelon with the bow and the arrow
> might pass straight through but the bullet doesn't leave much
> watermelon behind.

Reality wise, this is very true. Game wise, both the bullet and the
arrow will deal a deadly wound to Mr. Watermelon. And getting the 'D'
is enough to drop your target.

> I ask again, who uses bows these days?

And I'll tell you, the people that use them. I've had bows be used in
my games because they're easier to get across boarders, they're easier
to explain away as legitimate sports paraphernalia (sp?), and, in
general, the targets usually go light on the ballistic armor compared
to the impact armor.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 91
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:40:01 2002
>From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
>My only problem with a wrist mounted gun like that is that it would be
>totally limited in caliber. As I don't have my books with me at the
>moment, I can't peruse to see what the canon examples of wrist mounted
>weaponry are, but I would be extremely wary of anyone that said,
>"Yeah, I want a wrist mounted pistol..." unless they had a cyber
>hand/arm. You really couldn't, realistically, mount anything larger
>than a 9mm (If even that. I'd have to talk to my gun nut
>friends to figure out the actual physics of it and then be convinced
>that you could probably put something the size of a 12 gauge slug
>thrower on your wrist. ;-) ) in my honest opinion. I don't think the
>metahuman wrist could really handle the impact of such a device.

The metahuman wrist goes through that impact every time you fire a handgun.
;-)
Glove guns are not unheard of, a light pistol attached to the back of a
leather glove. Their biggest limitation though is their range, the ones in
armouries museums I've seen have had an effective range of zero, because
triggering the weapon is accomplished by means of a plunger set next to the
barrel, you push the plunger into the target and the gun goes of, silenced
by the target's own clothes and body.
wrist mounted guns designed for accurate (or at least relatively accurate)
ranged fire are about as practicle as crosbows designed for that purpose,
i.e. not very. sighting is the biggest problem, along with "why am I
strapping this thing to my wrist when I need to use my hand to trigger the
thing anyway so I may as well just carry a pistol."

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 92
From: shadowrn@*********.com (-Â¥-Zeb-Â¥-)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:45:01 2002
"Christian Casavant" wrote:

>
> If you want to compare (cross)bows to firearms, go ahead. If you think
that
> crossbows are more effective, then you were born 600 years too late.
Let's not be
> pedantic trying to illustrate how great bows and crossbows are against
modern
> firearms. It's really cool to have pistol crossbows in D&D, but in SR3,
it would
> be more effective to have a firearm version of the wrist crossbow in every
case I
> can imagine; you can turn your wrist upside down, you can run with it,
it's more
> concealable, etc.
>

Actually, they do have their uses. *egmg* AS someone previously mentioned,
players tend to stock up more on ballistic armor than impact armor and since
none of them, in my game at least, have been able to snatch a suit of
military armor (one guy did and was smacked down a block later by some heavy
ordinance *eg*), it makes sense to shoot something at them which goes
against that weakness. Matter of fact, my players are beginning to forget
about the Amerind Trolls and Orks armed with max strength bows and
crossbows.... Maybe it's time for another lesson...

The point is that the players usually expect a gunfight. They also
reasonably expect that if bullets hit them, they'll be able to knock the
forsce of the impact down enough to roll it away. (Until heavy weapons come
out, but they've not been that stupid yet.) Unless you use flechette weapons
or shotguns (which double the impact rating, IIRC) bows and x-bows are ideal
because the runners are going to have half the ballistic (usually) against
those types of weapons. They just don't seem to think about that kind of
thing at character creation.

As for whether they can be useful in a surprise situation? Yes, if the
surprisers are the ones using them! *eg*

Now, since the original question was whether a smartlink could be mounted to
them, I always figured that the x2 cost of the smartlink was the cost of
wiring the gun to the computer so it could make its automagical calculations
as to where the bullet was going. In that respect, if a player wants to
smartlink a bow, I'll let him. Hell, it's such a novel idea in my game that
I'd probably even give him a point of karma for it!

Oh, and someone else mentioned that you shoot the guy with the sword first.
Well, duh, if everyone else has brought guns to the fight except him, then
there's a good chance he knows how to use that thing (or he's an idiot) and
you're not going to want him to get close enough to show you either way.
(Although I do give extra karma if you maintain his and your honor and pull
your own sword out to engage. *eg*)

My .02¥

Z
*who's runners are currently running all over Australia looking for
orichalcum and avoiding those godforsaken storm wraiths*
Message no. 93
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 10:50:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Lone Eagle wrote:

> The metahuman wrist goes through that impact every time you fire a handgun.
> ;-)

I would think that the stresses of actually attaching it to your wrist
versus holding it would be different. Of course, short of drawing a
force diagram, I wouldn't be able to prove this. hehe ^_^

> i.e. not very. sighting is the biggest problem, along with "why am I
> strapping this thing to my wrist when I need to use my hand to trigger the
> thing anyway so I may as well just carry a pistol."

2 words: "Eye Pistols".

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 94
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 11:00:01 2002
>From: "M.S. \"Herc\" Bobroff"
<airwisp@******************.com>
>With regards to bows, your GM could restrict the usage of a smartlink
>system, saying that once the arrow has travelled 'X' distance that the
>arrow has begun to stray from it's intended course (due to wind, other
>variables). But by no means should the bow be denied a smartlink
>system.

If you pull a bow 2 inches you get drastically different spring
characteristics than if you pull it right back to your ear, you fling a
longbow forward just before you release. two reasons why your bow would have
to be totally laden down with sensors if the smartgun was to have any hope
of giving an even vaguely accurate indication.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 95
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 11:30:01 2002
>Basically it is all a vast amount of hassle to get a little crosshair
>projected onto the back of your retina and no corp is going to make them,
>there's no profit in it, who uses bows these days? the amerinds big whoop!

Take a look at the damage characteristics of a bow, now realize that
since the arrowheads on a hunting arrow are composed of, essentially,
razor blades. Since the arrowhead is edged, dikoted arrowheads gain +1
to power and damage level. Now take a Ranger-X bow and a street-sammy
or troll with high strength and you get a weapon that will rival any
sniper rifle in damage characteristics, will go right through a
"bullet barrier" and is inherantly silenced.

I'm not saying that a lot of people use bows, just that there is
plenty of reason for some people to want to use bows.

-George Waksman
Message no. 96
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 11:40:01 2002
>From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
> > If you are one of these people please tell me where you regularly run
> > around, I could do with a decent deck!
>
>Why buy one when you can build one for 1/3 the cost? =)

I don't even have half a million, and if they're falling off the back of
these guys trucks because they have too many why bother building one when
you can pick one up off the pavement for nothing, of course I'd have to put
some work in anyway, hitcher jack, hardened case...etc

>One neat thing that came to mind while I was getting my coffee this
>morning was that you can coat arrow tips with some nasty
>poison/biological material that will make the target's life a lot
>shorter.

One of the major advantages, doing the same with a bullet takes a lot more
work and is a lot more dangerous, see Jaws for an example, imagine carrying
those round in your pocket.

><offtopic>
>As to the rifle thing, I now force players to spend a simple action to
>aim before firing any weapon designated a Rifle. The reason behind
>this is simply that firing a rifle without aiming will most likely
>result in the bullet not going where you want it to. I could never
>imagine someone accurately firing a rifle without taking at least a
>millisecond (Which is what 1 simple action should be to your average
>sammie) to aim.
></offtopic>

You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you can't
hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching fire
with a full auto weapon or luck.

> > Even if he spends hours testing the two one against the other the
> > bullet will appear to be better in almost every respect because it
> > makes a bigger mess, shoot a watermelon with the bow and the arrow
> > might pass straight through but the bullet doesn't leave much
> > watermelon behind.
>
>Reality wise, this is very true. Game wise, both the bullet and the
>arrow will deal a deadly wound to Mr. Watermelon. And getting the 'D'
>is enough to drop your target.

But as Mr Troll doesn't think in terms of D wounds and "power" he's going to
assume that blowing Mr Watermelon into juice is more effective than putting
a small hole through him.
The player might say "this SM-3 has a damage code of 14S while this bow used
by my troll has a damage code of 15M, I'll use the bow because I can
normally stage damage up two levels."

> > I ask again, who uses bows these days?
>
>And I'll tell you, the people that use them. I've had bows be used in
>my games because they're easier to get across boarders, they're easier
>to explain away as legitimate sports paraphernalia (sp?), and, in
>general, the targets usually go light on the ballistic armor compared
>to the impact armor.

Permission to rephrase,
Who uses a bow as a de rigeur part of their arsenal, who sees a bow as part
of their idiom, who given the oppertunity would not prefer a firearm?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 97
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Daniel Powell)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 11:55:01 2002
>You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you can't
>hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching fire
>with a full auto weapon or luck.

with a smartlink you no longer have to put a rifle up to your shoulder to
shoulder to "aim". You can shoot from the hip all day and have as much
accuracy as a pistol because you know exactly where the bullet will hit.
Eat that Clint Eastwood!

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 98
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:00:02 2002
>From: George S Waksman <waksman@***.EDU>
<Snip> and is inherantly silenced.

A previous posting debunked that theory.

>I'm not saying that a lot of people use bows, just that there is
>plenty of reason for some people to want to use bows.

The reasons you've stated however are all reasons for a PLAYER to want their
character to use a bow, none of them are reasons for a CHARACTER to want to
use a bow.


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 99
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:00:06 2002
>If you pull a bow 2 inches you get drastically different spring
>characteristics than if you pull it right back to your ear, you fling a
>longbow forward just before you release. two reasons why your bow would have
>to be totally laden down with sensors if the smartgun was to have any hope
>of giving an even vaguely accurate indication.

Sure, but you'd have to load any firearm with almost as many sensors
to get the functionality a smartlink provides. The case is even more
true with grenade launchers, which are explicitly allowed to have
smartlinks.

I mean seriously, consider what a smartlink lets you do and how it
works. Now consider how much it costs. A smartlink has to be a pretty
darned complex system and considering all that, it shouldn't be that
much harder to make it work with bows also.

-George Waksman
Message no. 100
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:05:01 2002
At 10:55 17.04.2002 -0500, Daniel Powell wrote:

>>You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you can't
>>hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching fire
>>with a full auto weapon or luck.
>
>with a smartlink you no longer have to put a rifle up to your shoulder to
>shoulder to "aim". You can shoot from the hip all day and have as much
>accuracy as a pistol because you know exactly where the bullet will hit.
>Eat that Clint Eastwood!

IMO you won't be able to hold the rifle steady while hipfiring. So you only
have a dancing smartgun-dot in your field of vision ...


--
Arclight
eMail : arclight @*********.de
"If you develop rules, never have more than ten."
From Rumsfelds Rules
Message no. 101
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:05:20 2002
> >You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you
can't
> >hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching
fire
> >with a full auto weapon or luck.

Daaaah Bullshit! (sorry) if you hunt you get good at it cause practice
makes perfect, if you're rabbit hunting with a .22 rifle in the amount
of time it takes you to get that up to your shoulder and aim the rabbit
is quite likely to be gone you shoot from the hip and you get good at
it. There's no luck involved, it's all practice and skill.
Message no. 102
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:10:01 2002
> The reasons you've stated however are all reasons for a PLAYER to want
> their
> character to use a bow, none of them are reasons for a CHARACTER to
want
> to
> use a bow.

Ok....I've got two characters in my group at the moment that the bow is
their main weapon, one is an assassin that values stealth above all else
and the other is a physad that rejects technology all together, while
the assassin does have gun skills and does carry a couple pistols and a
shotgun, the physad has no gun skills at all and infact took the
incompetency flaw for guns.
Message no. 103
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:15:01 2002
If a hunter can take down a deer with 1 arrow today, I can't see a problem
with taking down a human in 2060...From past experience I can tell you that
it takes about 2 months of practice shooting for about an hour a day 3 times
a week to get good enough to hit a heart sized target at 20 yrds with no
modifications or sights on the bow. This would be equivilant to a skill of
2 in shadowrun. A skill around 5 or 6 would put you with the ranks of
olympic archers or english longbowmen who can hit a small target at
considerable range.
In todays society you get a lot less strange looks from the authorities
carrying a bow case than you would with a rifle case or pistol.

Coyote
Message no. 104
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:15:05 2002
>From: "Derek Hyde" <dhyde@*********.net>
> > >You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you
> > >can't
> > >hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching
> > >fire
> > >with a full auto weapon or luck.
>
>Daaaah Bullshit! (sorry) if you hunt you get good at it cause practice
>makes perfect, if you're rabbit hunting with a .22 rifle in the amount
>of time it takes you to get that up to your shoulder and aim the rabbit
>is quite likely to be gone you shoot from the hip and you get good at
>it. There's no luck involved, it's all practice and skill.
>

Drek! I think you mean bullDREK! ;-)
I'd disagree, I can bring a .177 air rifle to my shoulder, aim and shoot
before a rabbit knows I'm there. Plus learning to hipshoot like that is
breaking one of the cardinal rules of hunting, i.e. if you can't hit it with
an instant kill shot 95% of the time, don't go hunting.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 105
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:20:01 2002
> > The reasons you've stated however are all reasons for a PLAYER to
want
> > their
> > character to use a bow, none of them are reasons for a CHARACTER to
> want
> > to
> > use a bow.
>
> Ok....I've got two characters in my group at the moment that the bow
is
> their main weapon, one is an assassin that values stealth above all
else
> and the other is a physad that rejects technology all together, while
> the assassin does have gun skills and does carry a couple pistols and
a
> shotgun, the physad has no gun skills at all and infact took the
> incompetency flaw for guns.

(oops sent it before I was ready to)
(continuation)

With the idea that a bow will offer equal penetration for less noise and
can do more damage if the character gets stronger I'd say that it's not
really the characters or even the players that roleplay the characters
that wouldn't want them but rather the players that ROLL play and
min/max and all of that detestable stuff, I've gotten most of my players
to the point of playing creative characters and part of that is not
always going for the Predator cause it's got the most punch or "killing
hands at deadly" cause it'll kill them in one hit, one of my players is
actually playing a pacifist
They've got a lot of martial arts skill but wont' hurt anyone, so
instead he carries around a little pouch filled with level 10 tranq slap
patches and rather than getting in a fight with you he'll just fake you
around and then slap one of these on your jugular and then you hit the
ground sleeping like a baby and wake up zip tied to a pole
Message no. 106
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:20:06 2002
>The reasons you've stated however are all reasons for a PLAYER to want their
>character to use a bow, none of them are reasons for a CHARACTER to want to
>use a bow.

Ok, how about this then, I, personally, would rather use a bow than a
firearm because:

I have used high powered bows before and they are pretty darned quiet,
especially compared to the guns I have fired.

In a non-elastic collision (most collisions) momentum is conserved but
kinetic energy is not and arrows have more momentum but less energy
than bullets.

Arrows have much better penetrating power than bullets (see momentum
argument above). Kevlar will do a pretty good job of stopping bullets
but arrows will pass through it like a thick winter jacket. Try to
shoot a bow or crossbow and a bullet at a car trying to damage the
engine and the results will be something like this: the bullet either
bounces off or lodges itself in the car's structure while the arrow or
bolt will end up halfway through the engine block.

Now, since my characters sometimes think the way that I think, I
suspect that if I consider a bow to be a pretty good alternative to a
gun (better in some situations), some of my characters might think
bows are a possible alternative too.

-George Waksman
Message no. 107
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:20:13 2002
>From: "Derek Hyde" <dhyde@*********.net>
>Ok....I've got two characters in my group at the moment that the bow is
>their main weapon, one is an assassin that values stealth above all else

Physad hates guns fair enough, but as I've said in previous posts if you're
looking for stealth don't look at a bow. You can't use them from hiding and
they're noisy, much more noisy than a silenced subsonic round and much more
usefully noisy (for your target) that any high powered rifle from range.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 108
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:20:24 2002
> Drek! I think you mean bullDREK! ;-)
> I'd disagree, I can bring a .177 air rifle to my shoulder, aim and
shoot
> before a rabbit knows I'm there. Plus learning to hipshoot like that
is
> breaking one of the cardinal rules of hunting, i.e. if you can't hit
it
> with
> an instant kill shot 95% of the time, don't go hunting.
Ahh yes yes.....drek...LOL....anyway the theory of doing it before he
knows you're there only works when you're hunting solo and being vewwy
qwiet (I'm hunting wabbits..huhhuhuhuhuh)
If you've got more than one person with you there's too much noise and
then they spook easily....I would go the route of pheasant and quail
hunting but that is done with a shotgun and is almost always done from
the hip cause they're so damned fast you're not getting them
otherwise...LOL
Message no. 109
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:20:30 2002
>From: Christian Casavant

> > Just to clarify this posting I think (although how it's supported > >
>by the rules I can't remember) that a smartgun would have to be > >
>heavily reprogrammed before it would function in conjunction with a > >
>crossbow, the aerodynamics and ballistic characteristics are too > >
>different, a bullet fired at 45 degrees to the horizontal (upwards) > >
>will describe a near perfect parabollic curve

>Does it?

I believe so, yes.

> > , a crossbow quarrel won't. as to smartguns mounted on bows
> > they just couldn't work, you'd need to mount strain guages all over > >
>the bow and the bowstring, all of them wired in to the smartgun, > >
>you'd need to make sure each arrow was exactly the same weight... > >
>(bullets at somewhere between the 150 and 200 grain mark (I'm sure > >
>someone will correct me if I'm wrong) for a 7.62 (.303) calibre > > slug
>are easy to standardise to within one grain either way; an > > arrow
>(which if you're talking serious people killers) will weigh > > in at
>somewhere closer to one pound, try getting a single grain
> > tolerance on those!

>There are also alot of variables to consider on a smartgun link as >well,
>not just bullet weight. Dfferent types of slugs of the same >calibre , ie.
>APDS, Gel, etc, can also be loaded into a pistol which >would affect
>projectile profiles. How does the smartlink know? My >answer is that it
>doesn't matter. It's 2060 and technology is >sufficiently advanced it's
>magic! I don't need to understand how a >smartgun link detects ammo loads,
>bullet weights, type of
>propellants used, etc and then projects a reticle on your eye where >the
>bullet will hit.. It just does.

>I'm also sure 2060 engineering technology could easily make
> >arrows/quarrels all with the same characteristics.

>The over-riding factor in my mind as to why smartgun links may or may >not
>be used in bows/crossbows is that you place a bullet in a barrel >which
>effectively channels the direction of the bullet in a certain >direction.

>Since a crossbow quarrel is essentially at rest in the track, I would
> >argue that a smartgun link can be used on a crossbow, as long as an
> >approriate B/R technician fits and calibrates the device.

Actually, given that a quality compount bow has arrow guides, and only a
very clueless person would put the tip of the arrow against the string, I
think even a compound bow fits this qualification.

I see no reason why a properly calibrated smartlink could not work on a bow
or crossbow. The Smartlink II claims to track trajectories and such,
allowing a smartlink to work with non-direct fire weapons (grenade
launchers). Bows and crossbows could definately have tension gauges and
even limited crosswind sensors. Coupled with an autorelease on a bow, or
the regular trigger on a crossbow, you could even rely on the weapon not to
fire if the crosshairs changed color because a non-target stepped in front
of you.

> > Basically it is all a vast amount of hassle to get a little > >
>crosshair projected onto the back of your retina and no corp is > >
>going to make them, there's no profit in it, who uses bows these > >
>days? the amerinds big whoop!

Umm, who said corporations are the only people capable of calibrating a
smartlink or tinkering with a bow?

And the Amerinds own corporations too.

>I've always been of the opinion that if something can be done, someone >has
>done it, and a little money can usually be made doing it. I'm >sure it is
>possible there is still sport hunting/safaris hunting >critters, paranormal
>or otherwise, in exclusive resorts around the >globe. Some of these
>hunters may even use crossbows.

>(Although I agree with Lone Eagle. Who the frag would want to use a
> >crossbow/bow anyway?)

>Xian.

Let me break it down for you:
You have spent the last hour sneaking into some compound your GM designed
during a slow day at work. Chem-sniffers on the perimeter meant you had to
leave the guns home...the propellent would trigger alarms. Not to mention
the roving drones programmed to listen for the crack of objects reaching
ballistic speeds. You are armed with dartguns that use compressed air
(Narcojets), and bows. Just ahead is your objective. The sammie brings up
his Narcojet rifle and realizes the guy is wearing chemsealed medium
security armor. Drek! The dart will never penetrate. The shaman smiles
and steps forward. His quickened strength boosting spell will help here.
He draws an arrow back on his Ranger X bow. The arrow lays across its
guide, letting the tiny computer mounted on the other side of the grip know
the bow is armed. The shaman draws the bow back until the it is fully
tense. The quick-release is just under his fingers. The goggles he is
wearing suddenly blossom with a comforting crosshair. The smartlink sensor
has recognized the guard as the shaman's intended target. The shaman stares
down the shaft his arrow, waiting for the smartlink to agree that he is
trained on guard's throat. There! The crosshairs turn red and the shaman
brushes the quick release. The string hums, quickly silenced by the dampers
clipped onto it for that purpose. The arrow flies, its passage marked by
the slightest hiss of air over the fletching. The guard clutches his
throat, suddenly pierced by the lightweight composite broadhead. He drops
quietly to the ground, his neck spouting blood. As the shock fades and the
badly wounded guard reaches for his PanicButton, a troll materializes out of
the darkness and drives a large knife through his armor, stopping his
attempt. The troll grins over at the shaman. That arrow bought the perfect
amount of time. The guard would surely have detected his approach
otherwise.

Simple, nearly silent, even a little elegant. I occasionally design runs
for which guns are simply not an option, just to see what the players come
up with.

Korishinzo

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 110
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:30:01 2002
Oh, I forgot to mention, bows have no muzzle flash (you know the big
bright burst of flame that will give your position away like a road
flare [hyperbole used for emphasis]).

-George Waksman
Message no. 111
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 12:55:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Lone Eagle wrote:

> You can shoot a rifle from the hip, but then outside the movies you can't
> hit anything with anything but a shotgun without; aiming, searching fire
> with a full auto weapon or luck.

It was much more of a reaction to players wanting to use sniper rifles
in what was essentially pistol combat. The idea of someone hefting a
rifle at less than 10 meters to shoot a target struck me as a big of
overkill/munchkinism.

> But as Mr Troll doesn't think in terms of D wounds and "power" he's going
to
> assume that blowing Mr Watermelon into juice is more effective than putting
> a small hole through him.

If you're going to get into the mind of a troll and say that all
decisions are based on the big bang theory, I'm going to start saying
that there's no reason a troll shouldn't ever leave home without his
trusty panther assault cannon. ;-)

Watermelon vs. Panther: What juice?

> The player might say "this SM-3 has a damage code of 14S while this bow used
> by my troll has a damage code of 15M, I'll use the bow because I can
> normally stage damage up two levels."

Truthfully, that's exactly what happens. Of course I demand a bit of
back story as to why their character would go meandering around with a
bow rather than a more convential approach to murder, but the players
are quick, and sometimes happy, to provide a back story about how
their character is a master archerer, brought up to respect the simple
mechanisms and the elegancy of the bow. Blah, blah, blah (5 pages
later...)

Compared to some of the wackier things that have happened in
Gm'ing Shadowrun, a troll with a bow is pretty much on the low end.

> Permission to rephrase,
> Who uses a bow as a de rigeur part of their arsenal, who sees a bow as part
> of their idiom, who given the oppertunity would not prefer a firearm?

1 year ago I ran a campaign which was decently low powered (Kept all
the characters in long coats/ares predators and low-medium
lifestyles). I wanted to make this a lot more street level than usual
with lots of ganger encounters and runs that would always be easier if
the team just had the money to get the equipment. ;-) (So I'm a cruel
bastard)

During this time, one of the players made a Physad ork. As part of his
equipment, the ork had a bow. Of course this made me raise an eyebrow
and I asked him why a bow. The player explained to me that he just had
it as part of the character's back story and he didn't really intend
to use it (The character was an ex-olympics athlete that went shadows
after he went awakened and got booted from the olympics).

Then came the faithful day when they had to take out a distance target
(Couple of mages where lining up to do some serious nuking). The
players were basically screwed and I expected them to start hot
footing it. The ork turned to the open trunk of the car, pulled his
bow and quiver out and hot footed it onto the roof, telling the team
to get cover so that the mages had to move in.

The team bolts, using line of sight against the mages, and start
trying to hide. During the ensuing fight, the mages slowly moved into
position, using their elementals to harras the team, and were ready to
start brain frying people when the ork put an arrow *through* the
one of the mages.

Strength 11 ork with an M damage weapon vs. body 6 mage with 4 points
impact armor. We're talking arrow through the front of the skull, body
twitching as it falls backwards from the force of the impact.

The second mage commanded his elementals to take out the ork and went
for cover. Unfortunately, he couldn't move far enough and was the
victim of the ork on the ork's next action.

>From that moment on, that player carried and swore by his bow to the
point that even when they acquired a sports rifle he preferred
using the bow. (Forthwith known as, "That goddamn bow")

I remember that because it was one of the few times that I awarded
roleplaying karma based on the use of a weapon. I also have to say
that when it came down to the distance shots, he was pretty good with
the bow and given the powerlevel of the campaign it fit in really
well.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 112
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:00:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Lone Eagle wrote:

> The reasons you've stated however are all reasons for a PLAYER to want their
> character to use a bow, none of them are reasons for a CHARACTER to want to
> use a bow.

I've had people write excellent backstories about why their character
would want to use everything from a Ruger to a wear multi-colored
bracelets to why their Matrix persona is a giant flaming fist. Give
the players a reason and they will invent the story for why a
character would do it.

Hey, ask me why my D&D character still continues to use a longsword
when a greatsword just does so much more damage?

Because it's what his grandfather trained him on. =)
It's really not that hard to justify an awful lot of stuff down in
character if you're half intelligent and inventive.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 113
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:05:01 2002
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Daniel Powell wrote:

> with a smartlink you no longer have to put a rifle up to your shoulder to
> shoulder to "aim". You can shoot from the hip all day and have as much
> accuracy as a pistol because you know exactly where the bullet will hit.
> Eat that Clint Eastwood!

Yeah, firing a rifle from the hip is usually followed by me saying,
"What's your strength and how are you bracing that puppy? Got any
recoil comp on there?"

Let me put it this way, is there any valid reason I should let people
use a 14S or 15D weapon in what is essentially close range combat?

Would you, as a GM, allow your players to gear up with nothing but
Ranger Arms and start going house?

Cause I've seen what happens when an entire team takes Firearms, grabs
rifles, and just starts killing everything that moves. It's gross,
unrealistic, and just godforsaken munchie. You might as well start
passing out the panther assault cannons and the miniguns.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills
Message no. 114
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:20:01 2002
>True but unless you can pierce the heart or another vital organ an >arrow
>is highly unlikely to kill, most of a bullet's damage is caused >in the
>exit wound which is larger than the entry wound and as the >bullet leaves
>the air occupying the hole is at a much lower pressure >than the surounding
>atmosphere which tries to equal everything out and >drags all manner of
>sh*t into the wound. a bullet passing through the >shoulder will damage
>bones and muscles to the point that the arm will >be virtually unusable
>even under the best of circumstances, the rules >allow for greater cinema
>and survivability but... an arrow shot >through your shoulder with the same
>energy is likely to punch clean >through the clavicle and cut and bruise
>some muscle; the damage
>is significantly reduced.

Ummm...the cause of massive damage from a bullet is the transfer of kinetic
energy (lots of it) into your body from the small lead object. All the rest
of what you described is a side effect of this simple application of
physics.

So: you need to calculate the velocity AND the mass of an object to know how
much damage it will do...because the damage is based on the kinetic energy
of the moving object and how much of that energy it tranfers into the target
while the two are occupying the same space.

a crossbow bolt, or an arrow from a sufficiently hefty bow, would know a man
completely out of his saddle, becasue the bolt or arrow stopped in him, none
of that energy went anywhere else

a particularly nasty form of firearm round called the glaiser (sp?) operates
on the same principle...it almost never has an exit wound at all, but it
does have something like a 95% kill rate...all the energy of the moving
round ends up in the body of the target

an bullet, striking an unarmored person, will often go right through, taking
most of its energy with it...long range snipers actually try to make their
bullets tumble in the air to avoid this...they want the round to stay in the
body, transfering all its energy to the target

> > > Secondly, bows/crossbows are nowhere near silent, you're better > >
>
>off with a dodgy sound suppressor on your gun noisewise. If you > > >
>shoot an arrow from a 90+ pound pull bow (the sort of weight > > >
>you're looking at if you actually want to kill things) the string > > >
>makes a loud cracking noise and the arrow itself hums noisily all > > > of
>the way in, a sort of dopplering low pitched scream.

> >This is true. However, in the woods, the sound of that crack is >
> >barely audible outside of a fairly small range and in the city that >
> >sound would almost certainly be swallowed by the background noise of
> >traffic/people talking/etc. That cracking noise is, afterall, the
> >sound of the sound barrier being shattered. However, it ends up being
> >fair quieter than the sound of an exposed gun shot from any weapon.

Or try this: stand about 5 feet from a guy firing a 90+ pound compound bow,
and then stand about 5 feet from a guy firing any gun bigger than a .22
rifle...then tell me which one the security guards would respond to more
quickly...if you are still not sure, try the same test standing a hundred
yards away...try it standing where you cannot see the shooter...the gun is
more distinctive, and its sound carries a lot further. Even a .22 rife has a
louder crack. Go to a shooting range sometime, and listen to how much noise
reflects back to you off the burm. The bow: none or next to none. The gun:
extremely noticable amounts.

>On the other hand they're slower, you leave far more evidence, (you >can't
>draw a bow with gloved fingers and expect it to do what you want >it to so
>you leave partial prints on the arrow as you load it,)

They have these things now, called surgical gloves, and I'd bet money they
still exist in 2060.

>they're bulkier, especially in the ammo department they're more tiring >to
>use and you more or less have to skyline yourself to use them. (you >can't
>fire a bow prone and using it from behind cover is very limited)

Since we are including crossbows in most of the rest of this list, this is
not entirely true.

>finally and probably most importantly you cannot carry a bow loaded >and
>ready to go, if you're remotely surprised you have real problems >while
>with your rifle you simply raise it to your shoulder and pull >the trigger.

You ever fire a gun on the fly? You hit next to nothing. Trust me. I
tried shooting skeet from the hip, and my percentages drops rather horribly.
:)

>the arrow might pass straight through but the bullet doesn't leave much
>watermelon behind.

Any damage in the SR system that surpasses a Body roll is considered to have
hit something you would rather it had not. If the bow does a Deadly
wound...it hit something vital...if it does an L wound...owwie, but you'll
survive...kind of like bullets, knives, and grenades, neh?

>I ask again, who uses bows these days?

Anyone who has a bow and not a gun.

Here's a test. Take two street sam archtypes that are in all ways
identical. Give one a bow and a relevant skill at 6. Give the other a
sword and a relevant skill at 6. Give them both an unarmed combat skill of
6. Start them two hundred meters apart, with the understanding the only one
may leave alive. Roll initiative and start combat. Play it out and see who
fares better. A bow should do about Str M (Stun) as a melee weapon I would
think.

Korishinzo

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 115
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:45:01 2002
<<SNIPPERAGE>>

> Or try this: stand about 5 feet from a guy firing a 90+ pound compound
> bow,
> and then stand about 5 feet from a guy firing any gun bigger than a
.22
> rifle...then tell me which one the security guards would respond to
more
> quickly...if you are still not sure, try the same test standing a
hundred
> yards away...try it standing where you cannot see the shooter...the
gun is
> more distinctive, and its sound carries a lot further. Even a .22 rife
has
> a
> louder crack. Go to a shooting range sometime, and listen to how much
> noise
> reflects back to you off the burm. The bow: none or next to none.
The
> gun:
> extremely noticable amounts.
>

Umm.....as much as I agree with what you're saying I've gotta say this,
being a bowhunter finding a 90+lb bow is next to impossible and if you
do find one you're going to have to be strong as hell cause it's not
going to have much for a letoff. The best bows in my opinion are the
Oneida eagle bows because rather than going for the standard cams at the
tips of the limbs they're set up on a "compound recurve" design, the
limb breaks in the middle with the cam and things in there and has a 90%
letoff, the best ones you'll find from them max at 90lbs.

> >On the other hand they're slower, you leave far more evidence, (you
> >can't
> >draw a bow with gloved fingers and expect it to do what you want >it
to
> so
> >you leave partial prints on the arrow as you load it,)
>
> They have these things now, called surgical gloves, and I'd bet money
they
> still exist in 2060.
>


they also have these things called trigger releases where your fingers
aren't on the string, however if you're worried about leaving your BOW
there you're an idiot, the problem is the fact that you're leaving your
arrow there and with the use of a trigger release you can wear gloves if
you want.

<<<SNIPPAGES>>>
>
> >finally and probably most importantly you cannot carry a bow loaded
>and
> >ready to go, if you're remotely surprised you have real problems
>while
> >with your rifle you simply raise it to your shoulder and pull >the
> trigger.
>
> You ever fire a gun on the fly? You hit next to nothing. Trust me.
I
> tried shooting skeet from the hip, and my percentages drops rather
> horribly.
> :)
>

Once again....practice makes perfect however a bow is a one shot at a
time thing, you miss you've got a slower cycling rate than that of a
semi auto pistol

<<<Look it's a SNIPPLE>>>

> >I ask again, who uses bows these days?
>
> Anyone who has a bow and not a gun.
>
> Here's a test. Take two street sam archtypes that are in all ways
> identical. Give one a bow and a relevant skill at 6. Give the other
a
> sword and a relevant skill at 6. Give them both an unarmed combat
skill
> of
> 6. Start them two hundred meters apart, with the understanding the
only
> one
> may leave alive. Roll initiative and start combat. Play it out and
see
> who
> fares better. A bow should do about Str M (Stun) as a melee weapon I
> would
> think.

Umm....not to do this against ya Kori but you're doing the apples to
oranges thing, I know where you're going but you need to go more on line
with bow+knife and rifle+sword that way they've each got a close range
weapon and a long range weapon, regardless you're right....the one with
the bow will win hands down because he can drop that one shot in that'll
rock his world

Derek
Message no. 116
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 13:55:01 2002
>From: "Lone Eagle"

> >One neat thing that came to mind while I was getting my coffee this
> >morning was that you can coat arrow tips with some nasty
> >poison/biological material that will make the target's life a lot
> >shorter.

>One of the major advantages, doing the same with a bullet takes a lot >more
>work and is a lot more dangerous, see Jaws for an example, >imagine
>carrying those round in your pocket.

Not to mention the difficulties of keeping the poison on the bullet, keeping
the bullet in the target long enough to transfer the poison, keeping the
poison from cooking off at firing or on impact, etc.

I had a player use a light crossbow, careful shooting, and gamma scopoline
to very good effect in a gmae I ran. Granted, he got about two shots per
combat, but hey, they were ususally pretty darn effective. And dikoting
crossbow quarrels makes them cut into armor real pretty like.

> > > Even if he spends hours testing the two one against the other the
> > > bullet will appear to be better in almost every respect because it
> > > makes a bigger mess, shoot a watermelon with the bow and the arrow
> > > might pass straight through but the bullet doesn't leave much
> > > watermelon behind.

Yep...but the quiet second story professional who turned shadowrunner very
recently might be looking at that exploded watermelon and thinking she'd
rather avoid that kind of mess unless faced with no alternative...she might
decide that the efficient little hole in the watermelon was more her speed.

>But as Mr Troll doesn't think in terms of D wounds and "power" he's
>going
>to assume that blowing Mr Watermelon into juice is more >effective than
>putting a small hole through him. The player might >say "this SM-3 has a
>damage code of 14S while this bow used by my >troll has a damage code of
>15M, I'll use the bow because I can normally stage damage up two levels."

All very true, but trolls aren't the only ones shopping...and big bang is
not the only consideration on a runner's list.

> > > I ask again, who uses bows these days?

> >And I'll tell you, the people that use them. I've had bows be used in
> >my games because they're easier to get across boarders, they're >
> >easier to explain away as legitimate sports paraphernalia (sp?), >
> >and, in general, the targets usually go light on the ballistic armor >
> >compared to the impact armor.

>Permission to rephrase,
>Who uses a bow as a de rigeur part of their arsenal, who sees a bow as
> >part of their idiom, who given the oppertunity would not prefer a
> >firearm?

Better (or at least more precise) question, and thus it deserves a more
precise answer.

In my games? Roughly 10% of the PCs. And maybe 10 or 15% of the NPCs.
Does that answer your question?

I am a little confused by the vehemence with which some people are attacking
bows and crossbows. They. like guns, kives, tazers, monowhips, and the
*shudder* monowire bola, all have their place. No one ever contended (IIRC)
that bows were superior to guns. The contention was that sometimes, a bow
is the right tool for the job. A good combatant despises no weapon, but
weighs each as useful.

I actually had an enterprising player make a bow be the reusable fetish
required for most of his spell casting. He made an Amerind shaman with a
bunch of very nasty combat spells that were all exclusive and fetish
required. He would draw the bow, and ghostly arrows would fly instead,
manifesting the spell. He turned his Force 4 spells into deadly Force 7
spells with low drain codes, and had a cool image to boot.

Besides, how else are you going to bring the glory of Legolas to the streets
of Shadowrun? ;P

Korishinzo
--once had a PC in my game turn bar darts and billiard balls into the
weapons that saved the day

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 117
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 22:05:01 2002
>From: "Derek Hyde"

>Umm.....as much as I agree with what you're saying I've gotta say this,
>being a bowhunter finding a 90+lb bow is next to impossible and if you
>do find one you're going to have to be strong as hell cause it's not
>going to have much for a letoff. The best bows in my opinion are the
>Oneida eagle bows because rather than going for the standard cams at >the
>tips of the limbs they're set up on a "compound recurve" design, >the
limb
>breaks in the middle with the cam and things in there and has >a 90%
>letoff, the best ones you'll find from them max at 90lbs.

Well there you go...90 lbs. :) *teasing*

> > >I ask again, who uses bows these days?

> > Anyone who has a bow and not a gun.

> > Here's a test. Take two street sam archtypes that are in all ways
> > identical. Give one a bow and a relevant skill at 6. Give the > >
>other a sword and a relevant skill at 6. Give them both an unarmed > >
>combat skill of 6. Start them two hundred meters apart, with the > >
>understanding the only one may leave alive. Roll initiative and > >
>start combat. Play it out and see who fares better. A bow should > > do
>about Str M (Stun) as a melee weapon I would think.

>Umm....not to do this against ya Kori but you're doing the apples to
>oranges thing, I know where you're going but you need to go more on >line
>with bow+knife and rifle+sword that way they've each got a close >range
>weapon and a long range weapon, regardless you're right....the >one with
>the bow will win hands down because he can drop that one shot >in that'll
>rock his world

No, not apples and oranges. His question was "who uses a bow" and my answer
was "anyone who does not have a gun, but has a bow". Range advantage = good
in any fight, and sometimes guns are not an option. If guns are not an
option or not available...the bow suddenly looks really attractive. :)

BTW, completely OT here, but you never told me if you got my Sensor Rules.
Want to send me an update? :)

Korishinzo

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 118
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Wed Apr 17 22:45:01 2002
> BTW, completely OT here, but you never told me if you got my Sensor
Rules.
> Want to send me an update? :)
>
> Korishinzo

yup, I got em, loved em, incorporated them into my game, and submitted
em to the NERPS list for addition to the mag

Derek
Message no. 119
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 04:15:01 2002
>From: York.GA@******.ca
>If a hunter can take down a deer with 1 arrow today, I can't see a >problem
>with taking down a human in 2060...

I've seen footage of a hunter with a compound bow developing probably
120-150 lb put seven arrows into a sheep at a range of little over 10 feet
before the cameraman was so sickened that they had to turn away. The sheep I
was told was later shot (with a gun) having been hit by a total of eleven
arrows.

>From past experience I can tell you that
>it takes about 2 months of practice shooting for about an hour a day 3
> >times
>a week to get good enough to hit a heart sized target at 20 yrds with >no
>modifications or sights on the bow. This would be equivilant to a >skill
>of
>2 in shadowrun. A skill around 5 or 6 would put you with the ranks of
>olympic archers or english longbowmen who can hit a small target at
>considerable range.

Hitting a 3 inch diameter target at 20 yrds every time is better than skill
2, olympic archers are by definition going to have a skill of 8, the skill
levels explanation in the sr3 rulebook puts that at "world class"
Much as I hate to say it (being English and all) English longbowmen weren't
that good, their abilities and effectiveness on the field were down to
tactics, discipline and equipment. The english longbow is shot from the ear,
it is raised to 60 degrees or so from the horizontal then lowered and thrown
forward just before release, it is virtually impossible to aim at ranges
greater than those at the butts. But then when there are a couple of hundred
of you all shooting together and at a target which is the massed ranks of
the flower of French chivalry you don't need to be accurate, you just need
to be able to drive a peice of wood through a total ao about a quarter of an
inch of steel, various padding, a person, his saddle and into his horse, a
feat they were quite good at.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 120
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:00:01 2002
>From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
>Yeah, firing a rifle from the hip is usually followed by me saying,
>"What's your strength and how are you bracing that puppy? Got any
>recoil comp on there?"
>
>Let me put it this way, is there any valid reason I should let people
>use a 14S or 15D weapon in what is essentially close range combat?

Yes, They're carrying it away from the position they just sniped from when
they're jumped by gangers, see the example in SR3 about the SM-3's
"fragility".

>Would you, as a GM, allow your players to gear up with nothing but
>Ranger Arms and start going house?

If that's what they wanted to do then yes (assuming they could get hold of
such equipment), but I would keep reminding them that their target numbers
have gone up because they've knock the rifle out of whack and I would make a
huge stink of it among the Star.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 121
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:15:01 2002
According to Lone Eagle, on Wed, 17 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Just to clarify this posting I think (although how it's supported by the
> rules I can't remember) that a smartgun would have to be heavily
> reprogrammed before it would function in conjunction with a crossbow, the
> aerodynamics and ballistic characteristics are too different, a bullet
> fired at 45 degrees to the horizontal (upwards) will describe a near
> perfect parabollic curve

Are you sure? Bullets experience lift as they fly through the air, which is
why you can shoot _over_ the target even if you point the weapon straight
at it.

> as to smartguns
> mounted on bows they just couldn't work, you'd need to mount strain
> guages all over the bow and the bowstring, all of them wired in to the
> smartgun

Wouldn't it be enough to fit a gauge at the point where the string connects
to the bow?

> you'd need to make sure each arrow was exactly the same
> weight... (bullets at somewhere between the 150 and 200 grain mark (I'm
> sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) for a 7.62 (.303) calibre slug
> are easy to standardise to within one grain either way; an arrow (which
> if you're talking serious people killers) will wiegh in at somewhere
> closer to one pound, try getting a single grain tolerance on those!

But small differences are less important if the projectile is heavier. If
you have a bullet supposed to mass 10 grams, then half a gram of difference
is going to matter a lot to ballistics. But with a 500-gram arrow, that
same half a gram of tolerance won't matter much.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 122
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:15:21 2002
According to Christian Casavant, on Wed, 17 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> (Although I agree with Lone Eagle. Who the frag would want to use a
> crossbow/bow anyway?)

I think the answer can best be summed up as, "Gamers." No one uses a bow IRL if
they can have a firearm instead, except for special purposes (like target
shooting, or to shoot a line across a river or something) but to players creating
RPG characters, bows seem to have some kind of attraction that I can't
understand, either.

OK, so in SR you can, with a little bit of forethought, have a character that
shoots arrows doing in the order of 15M damage. So? In nearly all cases, I'd go
for 30x8M instead of 1x15M...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 123
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:15:38 2002
According to Derek Hyde, on Wed, 17 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> the other is a physad that rejects technology all together

So in that case, why does he use anything other than his bare hands? A bow,
certainly a modern one, is just as technologically-advanced as most
firearms...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 124
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:25:02 2002
At 11:24 18.04.2002 +0200, Gurth wrote:

> > (Although I agree with Lone Eagle. Who the frag would want to use a
> > crossbow/bow anyway?)
>
>I think the answer can best be summed up as, "Gamers." No one uses a bow
>IRL if
>they can have a firearm instead, except for special purposes (like target
>shooting, or to shoot a line across a river or something) but to players
>creating
>RPG characters, bows seem to have some kind of attraction that I can't
>understand, either.

Yup, like going into CQB with a bow ...

Anyway, I think I heard something about cross-bows used in the balkans
during "croatia vs. serbia" ;)


--
Arclight
eMail : arclight @*********.de
"First law of holes: If you get in one, stop digging."
From Rumsfelds Rules
Message no. 125
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Dylan Mckinley)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 06:40:01 2002
My character uses a crossbow. Actually that needs rephrasing. My character
HAS a crossbow.
Only used it once, and that was with Hammerheads on a strictly "no-kill"
mission, I did arm
my crossbow with wooden steaks when we had a Vampire specific adventure,
didn't get to use
it though.

Even though I've got a specialization with crossbow, i've foung my self
resorting to shotgun.
Force of habit I guess.
Message no. 126
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 08:20:00 2002
>Umm.....as much as I agree with what you're saying I've gotta say this,
>being a bowhunter finding a 90+lb bow is next to impossible and if you
>do find one you're going to have to be strong as hell cause it's not
>going to have much for a letoff.

Hunting weights today start at 40 lb which is more than capable of killing a
soft skinned human.

> >On the other hand they're slower

Yes they are much slower than a rifle or pistol

>>, you leave far more evidence, (you
> >can't
> >draw a bow with gloved fingers and expect it to do what you want
>it to
> so
> >you leave partial prints on the arrow as you load it,)

If you don't use a trigger for your bow then you will probably be wearing a
three finger glove. Either way gloves will not effect the ability to shoot
the bow...

Coyote
Message no. 127
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 08:40:01 2002
>From: York.GA@******.ca
>Hunting weights today start at 40 lb which is more than capable of >killing
>a
>soft skinned human.

If you hit them in a major vital organ.

>If you don't use a trigger for your bow then you will probably be >wearing
>a
>three finger glove. Either way gloves will not effect the ability to
> >shoot
>the bow...

I dislike triggers and always shoot bare handed, I lose a degree of control
with gloves, the gloves move slightly meaning my release point is generally
before I would expect it. But then I'm unusual i shooting wooden "D" bows
without balancing, sighting or anything else between about 30lb and 95lb
pulls.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 128
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 13:35:19 2002
According to Arclight, on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> Yup, like going into CQB with a bow ...

Good to hear the people in my group aren't the only ones who do stupid
stuff like that... :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 129
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 13:45:08 2002
At 19:29 18.04.2002 +0200, Gurth wrote:

>According to Arclight, on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...
>
> > Yup, like going into CQB with a bow ...
>
>Good to hear the people in my group aren't the only ones who do stupid
>stuff like that... :)

Conventions here are full of them ;)


--
Arclight
eMail : arclight @*********.de
"If it's not true, it's still well founded."
From Rumsfelds Rules
Message no. 130
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Aethelwulf)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Thu Apr 18 19:45:00 2002
-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
[mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.com]On Behalf Of Dylan Mckinley
Sent: April 18, 2002 4:37 AM
To: shadowrn@*********.com
Subject: Re: Crossbows


My character uses a crossbow. Actually that needs rephrasing. My character
HAS a crossbow.
Only used it once, and that was with Hammerheads on a strictly "no-kill"
mission, I did arm
my crossbow with wooden steaks when we had a Vampire specific adventure,
didn't get to use
it though.

Even though I've got a specialization with crossbow, i've foung my self
resorting to shotgun.
Force of habit I guess.

what kind of sauce did you use when you served those wooden steaks to the
vampires?
Message no. 131
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri Apr 19 05:30:05 2002
According to Arclight, on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> >Good to hear the people in my group aren't the only ones who do stupid
> >stuff like that... :)
>
> Conventions here are full of them ;)

Maybe this October I should play in an SR demo game and see if I encounter
a few of them :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 132
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Fri Apr 19 05:40:01 2002
At 11:07 19.04.2002 +0200, Gurth wrote:
>According to Arclight, on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...
>
> > >Good to hear the people in my group aren't the only ones who do stupid
> > >stuff like that... :)
> >
> > Conventions here are full of them ;)
>
>Maybe this October I should play in an SR demo game and see if I encounter
>a few of them :)

AFAIK they use pre-made characters for those games - and I would be
surprised if you'll spot a bowman just because of this :)


--
Arclight
eMail : arclight @*********.de
"If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much."
From Rumsfelds Rules
Message no. 133
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat Apr 20 05:45:01 2002
According to Arclight, on Fri, 19 Apr 2002 the word on the street was...

> >Maybe this October I should play in an SR demo game and see if I
> > encounter a few of them :)
>
> AFAIK they use pre-made characters for those games - and I would be
> surprised if you'll spot a bowman just because of this :)

Well, you could always try to buy a bow during the game...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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. 134
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Alex Case)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat Apr 20 20:15:07 2002
I understand completely. I ran a game with newbies to Shadowrun, and a
player wanted his character to fire his shotgun as Arnie fired the shotgun
in T2 (One hand on the pistol grip, holding it out in front of him the
other hand down by his side). I let him, he hit and killed the target. My
next words were, "The recoil from the shotgun has shattered your wrist, you
can no longer use the shotgun, and all your rolls are -2." They learned
their lesson fast. It's not that I'm a killer GM, it's just I like to put
some common sense in my gaming.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Downtym wrote:
> with a smartlink you no longer have to put a rifle up to your shoulder to
> shoulder to "aim". You can shoot from the hip all day and have as much
> accuracy as a pistol because you know exactly where the bullet will hit.
> Eat that Clint Eastwood!

Yeah, firing a rifle from the hip is usually followed by me saying,
"What's your strength and how are you bracing that puppy? Got any
recoil comp on there?"

"It is written that it is better to burn a single city than to curse the
darkness"
-From "The Furies" By Roger Zelazny
Message no. 135
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Daniel Powell)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sat Apr 20 20:25:01 2002
>I understand completely. I ran a game with newbies to Shadowrun, and a
>player wanted his character to fire his shotgun as Arnie fired the shotgun
>in T2 (One hand on the pistol grip, holding it out in front of him the
>other hand down by his side). I let him, he hit and killed the target. My
>next words were, "The recoil from the shotgun has shattered your wrist, you
>can no longer use the shotgun, and all your rolls are -2." They learned
>their lesson fast.

Um, you can fire a 12 gauge shotgun with a pistol grip one handed. It hurts
but it won't break your wrist... I've done it. But hey, you definitely need
to reign the little munchkins in from time to time so I don't blame you.

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 136
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Crossbows
Date: Sun Apr 21 15:10:01 2002
In a message dated Sat, 20 Apr 2002  8:26:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Daniel
Powell" <l0_jak@*******.com> writes:

>>I understand completely. I ran a game with newbies to Shadowrun, and a
>>player wanted his character to fire his shotgun as Arnie fired the shotgun
>>in T2 (One hand on the pistol grip, holding it out in front of him the
>>other hand down by his side). I let him, he hit and killed the target. My
>>next words were, "The recoil from the shotgun has shattered your wrist, you
>>can no longer use the shotgun, and all your rolls are  -2." They learned
>>their lesson fast.
>
>Um, you can fire a 12 gauge shotgun with a pistol grip one handed.  It hurts
>but it won't break your wrist... I've done it.  But hey, you definitely need
>to reign the little munchkins in from time to time so I don't blame you.
>
>Daniel
>


I would have to agree I can fire my 12 ga using 3 inch magnum 000 buck rounds. one handed,
however I can only fire it once or twice a month like that couse my wrist, elbow and
sholder are all sore for several weeks. and acuracy sucks that way.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Crossbows, 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!