I have a few questions compound bows from the BKL

Page 118 lists compounds as being available from the Romance period onward.
Do Zazamancs, Byzantines, and Huns have them before this? Is this when they become available to everyone or just members of those 3 cultures?

If they are only available to Zazamancs, Byzantines and Huns from the Romance onward, do members of those cultures get short bows before the Romance period?

I seem to recall seeing a table for honor loss that said knights attacking with ranged weapons suffer an honor loss. However, I cannot find the entry in KAP5, so I could be remembering wrong or it could be in another product. Does anyone recall where this rule is, or am I simply remembering wrong(it wouldn't be the first time)?
If such penalties to honor exist, should members of these 3 cultures suffer any honor penalties for using bows in combat if they are not knights? What if they are used by a Zazamanc, Byzantine, or Hun after they become a night? Would use of these weapons be considered enough to prevent one from being knighted?

I have a few questions compound bows from the BKL

Page 118 lists compounds as being available from the Romance period onward.
Do Zazamancs, Byzantines, and Huns have them before this? Is this when they become available to everyone or just members of those 3 cultures?



That means available generally, although there's really no need since knights don't want to use them anyway.




If they are only available to Zazamancs, Byzantines and Huns from the Romance onward, do members of those cultures get short bows before the Romance period?



They ought to have 'em the whole time.




I seem to recall seeing a table for honor loss that said knights attacking with ranged weapons suffer an honor loss. However, I cannot find the entry in KAP5, so I could be remembering wrong or it could be in another product. Does anyone recall where this rule is, or am I simply remembering wrong(it wouldn't be the first time)?



Yes, please help us find it in print!




If such penalties to honor exist, should members of these 3 cultures suffer any honor penalties for using bows in combat if they are not knights?



No.
Are they even qualified for Glory if they are not knights? Maybe, using the warrior tradition congruence. But even if so, their tradition does not limit the use of bows. Because, well, they are not really knights.




What if they are used by a Zazamanc, Byzantine, or Hun after they become a night? Would use of these weapons be considered enough to prevent one from being knighted?



I think using one might cost them some chivalrous Honor, but a couple of uses probably out not cost them their hard-earned knighthood.

--Greg

I am not sure on the bow time period but I would be nearly certain ::) that the Huns and the others had the bows before the romance period. Maybe not.
On honor loss: I believe that a knight is just fine to use a ranged weapon on a non-knight without honor loss. All non-nobles are fair game because they have no honor. So as long as your knight is not shootimg other knights.. have fun!! :D Actually I think if u go to Gregs page on CynFyn, knight of the medlar he describes how he carries a crossbow and regularly uses it on peasants. :o

Thanks!
The answer did make me think.


Page 118 lists compounds as being available from the Romance period onward.
Do Zazamancs, Byzantines, and Huns have them before this? Is this when they become available to everyone or just members of those 3 cultures?



That means available generally, although there's really no need since knights don't want to use them anyway.


Would hunting be an exception to this?





What if they are used by a Zazamanc, Byzantine, or Hun after they become a night? Would use of these weapons be considered enough to prevent one from being knighted?



I think using one might cost them some chivalrous Honor, but a couple of uses probably out not cost them their hard-earned knighthood.

--Greg



Would using bows against certain types of opponents be more acceptable than others? Would supernatural or unnatural creatures be more acceptable? For example dragons or giants? If so would it be different for different creatures. What about "dishonorable foes" like other Huns, Zazamancs, or Saxons? Would it matter than the user was a Hun or Zazamanc as opposed to a French character?


Oh, this may be a nit to pick, but the table on 118 lists Moors, not Zazamancs. I think it's pretty obvious that they're the same thing, but all the same it might confuse some.

Would hunting be an exception to this?



Yes.




Would using bows against certain types of opponents be more acceptable than others? Would supernatural or unnatural creatures be more acceptable? For example dragons or giants? If so would it be different for different creatures. What about "dishonorable foes" like other Huns, Zazamancs, or Saxons? Would it matter than the user was a Hun or Zazamanc as opposed to a French character?



Now you are entering into interpretation.
My own sir Cynfyn (see my site for details) believes that he can use his crossbow against commoners and other non-knights.
e will see whee that leads him. :)



Oh, this may be a nit to pick, but the table on 118 lists Moors, not Zazamancs. I think it's pretty obvious that they're the same thing, but all the same it might confuse some.


Dang. I'll list the correction somewhere.

--g

I seem to recall seeing a table for honor loss that said knights attacking with ranged weapons suffer an honor loss. However, I cannot find the entry in KAP5, so I could be remembering wrong or it could be in another product. Does anyone recall where this rule is, or am I simply remembering wrong(it wouldn't be the first time)?



Yes, please help us find it in print!


This is not 5th edition KAP, but in Green Knight, Book of Knights, pg 45 under Honor & Dishonor Table, it says:

Honor Honor or Dishonorable Act
-1 Craven Acts (attack an unarmed knight, refuse to fight, or use a bow)

So, I do not have 4th edition with me at the moment so cannot verify if it was there, but there was a loss of honor for using a bow at one point in Pendragon's Past.

Edited to clean up quotes

...snip... Actually I think if u go to Gregs page on CynFyn, knight of the medlar he describes how he carries a crossbow and regularly uses it on peasants. :o


Well Sir Lionel was churlish but I don't think he quite counts as a peasant - perhaps a piss-ant is what you meant, ;) ;D.
Skal,
Sven

Just being technical here, but nobody during the Pendragon era should have compound bows (with the wheels and pulleys). They are a 20th century invention.

Composite bows (made by joining different materials such as bone, horn and sinew), on the other hand go back into antiquity, and probably would be available throughout the era to those cultures who had them.

Just being technical here, but nobody during the Pendragon era should have compound bows (with the wheels and pulleys). They are a 20th century invention.

Composite bows (made by joining different materials such as bone, horn and sinew), on the other hand go back into antiquity, and probably would be available throughout the era to those cultures who had them.



You are right of course. How embarrassing none of us caught that!

Actually, if you really want to give these other cultures bows that are more powerful and (more or less) correct for their time frame, you should give them composite recurve bows. These were actually quite powerful bows usually used by horsed archers to achieve distance and penetration. The recurve at the end of the bow greatly added to the tension and strength. It was composite because the builders would put something (like bone) in between laminates of wood, thus making a composite of material.

The long bows that the English (Welsh) were famous for (and also were very powerful even by today's standards) tended to be too bulky for the horsed archers of the times.

Taken from one of my favorite recurve designers: What it does do – and this is the genius of it – is pure physics. Any time tension in a stressed member rounds a corner; energy is either lost or gained. By building the limbs pre-curved at rest (hence, "pre-stressed"), the energy is gained rather than lost. This enables a bow to be built compact with very great power and a full draw, while a straight bow of equal length and strength would have a very short draw before it would break. Recurve bows typically give greater arrow speed than longbows of equal strength.

Actually, if you really want to give these other cultures bows that are more powerful and (more or less) correct for their time frame, you should give them composite recurve bows. These were actually quite powerful bows usually used by horsed archers to achieve distance and penetration. The recurve at the end of the bow greatly added to the tension and strength. It was composite because the builders would put something (like bone) in between laminates of wood, thus making a composite of material.


That is what I meant, and I thank you and query.
Are not ALL composite bows recurve?



The long bows that the English (Welsh) were famous for (and also were very powerful even by today's standards) tended to be too bulky for the horsed archers of the times.

Taken from one of my favorite recurve designers: What it does do – and this is the genius of it – is pure physics. Any time tension in a stressed member rounds a corner; energy is either lost or gained. By building the limbs pre-curved at rest (hence, "pre-stressed"), the energy is gained rather than lost. This enables a bow to be built compact with very great power and a full draw, while a straight bow of equal length and strength would have a very short draw before it would break. Recurve bows typically give greater arrow speed than longbows of equal strength.

i.e., more velocity = more damage (momentum=mass x velocity)

This kind of technology is really sophisticated. I am always in a bit of wonder at how such a fantastic device might have been invented, developed, dreamed up or given by the gods.

Actually, if you really want to give these other cultures bows that are more powerful and (more or less) correct for their time frame, you should give them composite recurve bows. These were actually quite powerful bows usually used by horsed archers to achieve distance and penetration. The recurve at the end of the bow greatly added to the tension and strength. It was composite because the builders would put something (like bone) in between laminates of wood, thus making a composite of material.


That is what I meant, and I thank you and query.
Are not ALL composite bows recurve?



Most, not all. composite shortbows date back to antiquity, and some were straightbows; easier to make and store.

Are not ALL composite bows recurve?

Most, not all. composite shortbows date back to antiquity, and some were straightbows; easier to make and store.

Do you recall where?

Greg,

Actually, I think it was the Hungarians or maybe the Mongols, that used a composite bow called a reflex bow. It wasn't really a recurve, although its limbs stored an incredible amount of energy. If I'm not mistaken, there were also a few cultures in Asia that used non-recurve composite bows. You are now truly taxing my knowledge of history.

Greg,

Actually, I think it was the Hungarians or maybe the Mongols, that used a composite bow called a reflex bow. It wasn't really a recurve, although its limbs stored an incredible amount of energy. If I'm not mistaken, there were also a few cultures in Asia that used non-recurve composite bows. You are now truly taxing my knowledge of history.


Mine too. Don't fret. :)

You are right of course. How embarrassing none of us caught that!


It's a common slip. I've been kind of sensitive to that since I played the computer RPG Lionheart and spotted the wheels on the tips of the bows.



Are not ALL composite bows recurve?




No. Some composite bows were "straight" bows, some were recurve, and some were "reflex" bows. Composite just means the bows were made from more than one piece of wood (or bone). Typically most cultures that developed the composite bow lacked the wood to make self bows.


Reflex bows were built so that they were "bent backwards" like a letter C when unstrung. This mean that the bow was under tension when strung into it's D shape, making it even more powerful than a recurve bow. The bows that the Mongols used were usually reflex bows.

Because of the greater power required to string them, there was usually a trick involved in stringing such a bow. Some historians think that the bow of the mythical hero Odysseus was a reflex bow. The line that "only he could string it" meaning that only he knew the trick rather than his having herculean strength.

I got something I did up for another RPG that rates bows by STR/pull and gives damages. I could convert it, but don't know how useful it would be for Pendragon, seeing as how the longbow is the weapon that ended the knight's dominance of the battlefield.

I got something I did up for another RPG that rates bows by STR/pull and gives damages. I could convert it, but don't know how useful it would be for Pendragon, seeing as how the longbow is the weapon that ended the knight's dominance of the battlefield.


Oh please good knight, do not end our dominance on the goodly field of battle. Next, I fear some kind of magical substance from China will be introduced and someone will learn to propel things out of metal tubes with great effect. Thus, rendering armor obsolete. No, such a thing would never come to pass. Knights and the knightly creed will last forever...

[quote author=Atgxtg link=topic=112.msg3793#msg3793 date=1263240689]
Oh please good knight, do not end our dominance on the goodly field of battle. Next, I fear some kind of magical substance from China will be introduced and someone will learn to propel things out of metal tubes with great effect. Thus, rendering armor obsolete. No, such a thing would never come to pass. Knights and the knightly creed will last forever...


Actually, despite the popular conception, it was the bow rather than firearms that really made heavy metal armor obsolete. By the Battle of Agincourt (1415) it was noticeable to the west. It was just that not everybody could train and field enough yeomanry to be effective. The Japanese got around this by having their archers be "Knights" (Samurai).

What made the crossbow and musket attractive was that anybody could pick one up and use them effectively with little training.

Since the longbow, crossbow and musket are already introduced in the game the damage has already been done. If GMs choose to use them in sufficient quantity to have an impact. Most probably won't. Although...

..it would kind of add to the feeling of a "lost age" if by the Twilight phase musket are common and the PCs get to see a few of their comrades with high weapon skills taken down by some peasants armed with the loathsome contraptions. Suddenly that peasant levy isn't so laughable.

The pikemen of Flanders and Switzerland are, of course, a mere myth, and the notion that perhaps it is the social and governmental structures behind the soldiers rather than some fancy new superweapon is so much stuff and nonsense.

Actually, despite the popular conception, it was the bow rather than firearms that really made heavy metal armor obsolete. By the Battle of Agincourt (1415) it was noticeable to the west. It was just that not everybody could train and field enough yeomanry to be effective. The Japanese got around this by having their archers be "Knights" (Samurai).

What made the crossbow and musket attractive was that anybody could pick one up and use them effectively with little training.



I absolutely agree with you here. It was ridiculously easy to train a peasant in the use of a crossbow, and easier still a firearm. As firearms became more advanced they became even easier to us, and mass fire was Hell to a massed cavalry charge. The New Model Army is the perfect example of this. Would that make Oliver Cromwell Mordred - leading a bunch of wheel-lock armed peasants in the destruction of the high king?



Since the longbow, crossbow and musket are already introduced in the game the damage has already been done. If GMs choose to use them in sufficient quantity to have an impact. Most probably won't. Although...

..it would kind of add to the feeling of a "lost age" if by the Twilight phase musket are common and the PCs get to see a few of their comrades with high weapon skills taken down by some peasants armed with the loathsome contraptions. Suddenly that peasant levy isn't so laughable.


I think the laughing would happen....once.