Question about Muscle-powered Range Weapons...

[Praxian]

Playing a character that is learning the Bow... If they progress from x-st to x-st+1, is this reflected in the bow right away or do I have to go shopping for a new bow that can handle the new st?

[Nereidalbel]

You have to get a new bow if you want to take advantage of your increased ST.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

You have to get a new bow if you want to take advantage of your increased ST.

Exactly so.

It's a little different with crossbows, because they can be cocked and left that way, at least for a little while. Cocking them takes much longer if your ST is less than theirs, but is possible. This makes it possible to cock your crossbow when a fight seems likely to happen, fire it once, drop it, and switch to a melee weapon.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

You have to get a new bow if you want to take advantage of your increased ST.

Most bows will work over a (small) range of draw weights by altering the length of the arrows, and modern compound bows can have even more adjustable features, so plus or minus 1 ST doesn't necessarily require a new bow. Though buying new arrows or pulleys still isn't instant. But anything more than that is at least a major rebuild if not complete replacement.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Most bows will work over a (small) range of draw weights by altering the length of the arrows, and modern compound bows can have even more adjustable features, so plus or minus 1 ST doesn't necessarily require a new bow. Though buying new arrows or pulleys still isn't instant. But anything more than that is at least a major rebuild if not complete replacement.

My compound bow is adjustable from a 40 pound to a 60 pound draw weight, all by adjusted the the risers and limbs and pulley arrangement, without ever having to deal with new parts.

The only 'new' part I would need at this point is a new string length, as I no longer have the one set for 40-50 pounds, having had it strung for 60 pounds for the last 20+ years.

[AlexanderHowl]

Draw weight is probably equal to twice the basic lift of the equivalent ST of the bow or crossbow, meaning that a ST 10 bow has a draw weight of 40 pounds while a ST 20 bow has a draw weight of 160 pounds. Honestly, I think that the weight and cost of a bow or crossbow should be proportional to draw weight, so a ST 20 composite bow should weigh and cost four times as much as a ST 10 composite bow and a ST 20 crossbow should probably weigh and cost eight times as much as a ST 7 crossbow.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Praxian

Playing a character that is learning the Bow... If they progress from x-st to x-st+1, is this reflected in the bow right away or do I have to go shopping for a new bow that can handle the new st?

It depends on the bow.

As others have written, modern compound bows can be adjusted to a variety of draw weights, with no need to alter the arrows.

Traditional stick or recurve bows can be adapted to slightly higher ST by overdrawing to get a higher draw weight, but that requires new arrows - both longer and "spined" to handle the higher draw weight. Additionally, some varieties of bow might not take kindly to being overdrawn and might eventually break due to the abuse.

I guess you could make a crossbow have a higher draw weight by shortening the string slightly. That would require a new string and possibly new quarrels/bolts strengthened to handle the higher draw weight. And, like a traditional bow, the crossbow might fail over time since the bow is kept under excessive tension.

ST required to draw a bow is going to be a bit higher than just a multiple of BL. A bow with a 40 lb. draw is basically a toy, suitable for beginners, children or others without much upper body ST. Traditional hunting bows from around the world all come in at about 60-80 lbs. of draw. A typical male in OK shape can quickly learn to draw a 60 lb. bow, so I'd peg that at ST 10.

Historical war bows are mostly in the 80-120 lb. range. Since historical archers were in good shape for their time (albeit short as compared to a modern person, and beset with bad teeth and internal parasites) they're likely to have ST 11-12, maybe higher for certain types of archers (e.g., English Longbowmen). With skill of 15-16 and the Strongbow perk (which allows you to substitute ST for DX to determine how strong a bow you can draw), ST 12 for an archer capable of pulling a 120 lb. bow doesn't seem unreasonable.

A heroic archer, a giant for his time at 6 feet or taller, and well-muscled might have ST 14-15. Give him skill 17-18 and Strongbow and he could easily pull a bow of 180 lbs. or more. That would be suitable for an Odysseus or Little John character.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A heroic archer, a giant for his time at 6 feet or taller, and well-muscled might have ST 14-15. Give him skill 17-18 and Strongbow and he could easily pull a bow of 180 lbs. or more. That would be suitable for an Odysseus or Little John character.

There were plenty of people in Medieval Europe who were over six-feet tall. While the average peasant was pretty short, particularly in the late middle ages (as the population of Europe grew, the amount of meat in the commoner's diet shrank, and with it their stature), the wealthy had better diets (in this respect, at least) and tended to be noticeably taller. Oh, and misidentifying female remains as male because they were armed or otherwise associated with 'male' gear, which was a common error until recently, also brings the average height reported for previous periods down.

A 'giant' man then would still be a pretty big man today.

[Tomsdad]

Basic Strength (or Arm ST & Lifting ST) is obviously important. But I think skill, technique and practice is important too. Of course I'd happily allow someone who spent points in bow skill using that as justification for spending some points in Arm ST and Lifting ST not to mention strong bow perks, it's all pretty synergistic.

There has been a few thread on this, this one had some good suggestions for house rules in it

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Rupert

There were plenty of people in Medieval Europe who were over six-feet tall.

Agreed, especially for nobles, gentry, and folks who grew up in less disease-prone areas and had access to a high-protein diet.

I was trying to back-scale likely ST from height, based on vague memories of the bodies of the Mary Rose archers and the likely draw weights of longbows associated with the wreck.

Foot archers, especially elite longbowmen, tended to be taller and stronger than average. Horse archers could be smaller and more wiry in build. Either way, maximum draw weight topped out at ~200 lbs.

I'm of the opinion that an archer with an effective ST of 14-15 (or maybe, 16-17 due to skill + Strongbow) could probably handle such a bow, although he'd need to be much stronger to keep the bow drawn for long periods of time and he might want to go to a lower draw weight if he was going to be shooting all day.