Why short bow instead of long bow?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Apparently terminology varies wildly in English speaking countries. In Canada "an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person without their consent"

Of course, right there is the key to the legality of sporting events. To participate in such an event is to give implied, if not explicit, consent for many things that might happen to you that would qualify as assault, battery, or other criminal charges outside of that event.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by chris1982

Coming back to the original question - Has anybody had a char that was using a Shortbow? Successfullly? Against a foe?

For my case I must say not really - They barely hit and inflict a ridiculous small amount of damage. I'd rather settle for the sling...

Yes. One was a rogue type, the other a merchant type for mounted nomads.
I don't know why you say they barely hit, that is primarily a function of skill. Both of the characters were skilled. The damage was fine as well. They both were using ST 10 short bows. They both generally attacked the vitals.

I just don't see such a huge difference between long and short bow that one is great and the other unusable.

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Yes. One was a rogue type, the other a merchant type for mounted nomads.
I don't know why you say they barely hit, that is primarily a function of skill. Both of the characters were skilled. The damage was fine as well. They both were using ST 10 short bows. They both generally attacked the vitals.

Well: They do 1d-2 damage then. Against a DR 1 foe that means even when they hit and the enemy doesn't block or dodge there is a 50% (!) chance of doing zero damage. - If we say chance to hit is 60% and change to dodge/block is 50% there is a total chance of 15% to do any damage (and you need 3 rounds to set this up). I find that a bit weak...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by chris1982

Well: They do 1d-2 damage then. Against a DR 1 foe that means even when they hit and the enemy doesn't block or dodge there is a 50% (!) chance of doing zero damage. - If we say chance to hit is 60% and change to dodge/block is 50% there is a total chance of 15% to do any damage (and you need 3 rounds to set this up). I find that a bit weak...

If you shoot targets that don't have body armor and shields it looks rather better.

[Kromm]

The "short bow" in the Basic Set isn't a weapon of war, so why would you use it against people in armor? It's a hunting weapon for shooting rabbits, birds, etc., pressed into service as an improvised weapon in human-on-human conflicts; as p. 73 of Low-Tech says, its staff might be nothing but a bough off a tree. The "short bows" used by horse archers, etc. would be most logically represented as composite bows in game terms; see Low-Tech, p. 72.

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you shoot targets that don't have body armor and shields it looks rather better.

Yeah, and vs foes that are bound to a chair and gagged it is even easier!

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by chris1982

Yeah, and vs foes that are bound to a chair and gagged it is even easier!

A guy (or animal) with no body armor and no shield can still kill you pretty well.

If the things you need to shoot at have DR and shields, a shortbow is a very poor option (unless you've got ridiculously high Bow and Targeted Attack (Bow shot/Eye) at least), but that's not every situation or every game.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by chris1982

Yeah, and vs foes that are bound to a chair and gagged it is even easier!

bound in many light ropes, otherwise they can provide DR1, and you don't want that.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

bound in many light ropes, otherwise they can provide DR1, and you don't want that.

You're either using way too much rope, or you haven't updated your mental picture to adult proportions since the days of playing Cowboys and Indians when you were little.

ropes don't cover much of the body at all, to the text it take a pretty good trick shot to even hit them.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The "short bow" in the Basic Set isn't a weapon of war, so why would you use it against people in armor? It's a hunting weapon for shooting rabbits, birds, etc., pressed into service as an improvised weapon in human-on-human conflicts; as p. 73 of Low-Tech says, its staff might be nothing but a bough off a tree. The "short bows" used by horse archers, etc. would be most logically represented as composite bows in game terms; see Low-Tech, p. 72.

I guess my initial question would be better restated as, "If you also have a man sized long bow, would there ever be a reason to also have a short bow?"

It seems to me that there should be rules making it kind of difficult to run around with something that huge vs. the short bow even though it is only one Bulk point difference.