It is ranged heavy because it uses 2 hands

Yeah, but regular explosive and stun arrows use Ranged light...

I think the Ranged Heavy/Ranged Light is one of the spots where the developers let game balance override the narrative feel of the weapon. It doesn't really make sense to me that the normal arrows use Heavy and the special arrows use Light. The different heads answer, doesn't really hold water for me, because you change heads on arrows all the time in the real world, but it doesn't really change how you fire the bow.

I would be loath to introduce a skill that does one thing. I'd have to have it cover more. Do you have it cover bows, crossbows (which aree in SW) and thrown weapon (throwing knives and bolas)? Do you include grenades?

A crossbow is basically a rifle, so that doesn't need a special skill.

Thrown weapons are a completely different technique, but I think they fall under heavy?

Anyway, it doesn't just do "one thing", since there are tons of different primitive versions of bows out there.

You could include atlatl 's and cesta 's in there, if you wanted. They do require a different technique than just plain old trowing.

Basically, you could have it cover all primitive muscle powered projectile weapons.

I would additionally base it on Brawn, after some thinking.

Making it a decent ranged alternative for thosw more focused on melee combat.

Thrown weapons are a completely different technique, but I think they fall under heavy?

A majority of thrown weapons fall under Ranged (Light). Javelin, throwing knives, bolas and nets.

I would additionally base it on Brawn, after some thinking.

Making it a decent ranged alternative for thosw more focused on melee combat.

I could see the argument for this, but I'd say that overall, especially if you're counting in grenades, it's more about the accuracy of your hits than the force behind it, and this gets accounted for in things like throwing knives where the damage is based on your Brawn rating, much like with typical melee/brawl attacks. Otherwise if you change it to Brawn, it becomes something where a big Brawn person can just start carrying bags of pointy rocks for throwing, and gives them more incentive to sit at Short Range in cover.

Sam Stewart also said it straight out in the Order 66 podcast that the bow was a really good place to introduce a custom skill called Archery. Just make it a career skill regardless of who takes it, and you're good to go.

Actually, I'd keep it a non-career skill just because of the rarity of those weapons.

(with the possible exception of the Big Game Hunter profession)

I would absolutely make it a career skill for everyone. It applies to a fairly narrow range of weapons, and the one example of said weapons that is listed in a book doesn't have stats so awesome that it warrants further nerfing. Whoever picks up the bow is guaranteed to do it more for reasons of flavour than because it's such an awesome weapon, so powergaming isn't really an issue here.

Thrown weapons are a completely different technique, but I think they fall under heavy?

A majority of thrown weapons fall under Ranged (Light). Javelin, throwing knives, bolas and nets.

I would additionally base it on Brawn, after some thinking.

Making it a decent ranged alternative for thosw more focused on melee combat.

I could see the argument for this, but I'd say that overall, especially if you're counting in grenades, it's more about the accuracy of your hits than the force behind it, and this gets accounted for in things like throwing knives where the damage is based on your Brawn rating, much like with typical melee/brawl attacks. Otherwise if you change it to Brawn, it becomes something where a big Brawn person can just start carrying bags of pointy rocks for throwing, and gives them more incentive to sit at Short Range in cover.

Yeah, using agility for the skill and bonus damage from brawn would make more sense.

Also, I know alot of weapons fall under Ranged (light), but I'd still lump them into this because of their completely different mechanics compared to blasters and slugthrowers.

As someone who's fairly good at shooting a pistol (used to compete a bit in my youth), i can tell you that using a spear or throwing knife is so different that it really shouldn't be under the same skill.

I tend to assume that Ranged (Light) is mostly one handed weapons and Ranged (Heavy) is two handed, so would dump Archery in the second category if you're going to go with existing skills. Obviously Archery is very different to firing a gun, so one can easily argue it deserves a different skill, but fighting with sword and nun-chucks are very different but still get lumped together under Melee, so ultimately it comes down to game balance. Given that bows are going to be inferior to blasters on basically every level I'd try hard not to penalise players for doing something characterful.

As to bonus damage from greater Brawn, well that's not true at all. Being stronger doesn't let you draw a bow further or impart more power, it's simply a question of are you strong enough to be able to make effective use of a given bow. If you really want to get into this level of detail then the Cumbersome quality is perfect for this, more powerful bows have higher cumbersome ratings.

I tend to assume that Ranged (Light) is mostly one handed weapons and Ranged (Heavy) is two handed, so would dump Archery in the second category if you're going to go with existing skills. Obviously Archery is very different to firing a gun, so one can easily argue it deserves a different skill, but fighting with sword and nun-chucks are very different but still get lumped together under Melee, so ultimately it comes down to game balance. Given that bows are going to be inferior to blasters on basically every level I'd try hard not to penalise players for doing something characterful.

As to bonus damage from greater Brawn, well that's not true at all. Being stronger doesn't let you draw a bow further or impart more power, it's simply a question of are you strong enough to be able to make effective use of a given bow. If you really want to get into this level of detail then the Cumbersome quality is perfect for this, more powerful bows have higher cumbersome ratings.

I don't know where all this "bows are inferior" malarkey is coming from.

Firstly, bows are nigh-silent.

They're definately more silent than most silenced slugthrowers and deeefinately more silent than blasters.

Secondly, they can take a variety of ammo that makes them alot more versetile than blasters.

Sure, the range will be worse and the rate of fire too, but they're far from automatically inferior in my mind.

I tend to assume that Ranged (Light) is mostly one handed weapons and Ranged (Heavy) is two handed, so would dump Archery in the second category if you're going to go with existing skills. Obviously Archery is very different to firing a gun, so one can easily argue it deserves a different skill, but fighting with sword and nun-chucks are very different but still get lumped together under Melee, so ultimately it comes down to game balance. Given that bows are going to be inferior to blasters on basically every level I'd try hard not to penalise players for doing something characterful.

As to bonus damage from greater Brawn, well that's not true at all. Being stronger doesn't let you draw a bow further or impart more power, it's simply a question of are you strong enough to be able to make effective use of a given bow. If you really want to get into this level of detail then the Cumbersome quality is perfect for this, more powerful bows have higher cumbersome ratings.

A bow exists in Suns of Fortune. It uses Ranged (Heavy) to fire normally, and Ranged (Light) to fire stun or explosive tipped arrows.

I tend to assume that Ranged (Light) is mostly one handed weapons and Ranged (Heavy) is two handed, so would dump Archery in the second category if you're going to go with existing skills. Obviously Archery is very different to firing a gun, so one can easily argue it deserves a different skill, but fighting with sword and nun-chucks are very different but still get lumped together under Melee, so ultimately it comes down to game balance. Given that bows are going to be inferior to blasters on basically every level I'd try hard not to penalise players for doing something characterful.

As to bonus damage from greater Brawn, well that's not true at all. Being stronger doesn't let you draw a bow further or impart more power, it's simply a question of are you strong enough to be able to make effective use of a given bow. If you really want to get into this level of detail then the Cumbersome quality is perfect for this, more powerful bows have higher cumbersome ratings.

I don't know where all this "bows are inferior" malarkey is coming from.

Firstly, bows are nigh-silent.

They're definately more silent than most silenced slugthrowers and deeefinately more silent than blasters.

Secondly, they can take a variety of ammo that makes them alot more versetile than blasters.

Sure, the range will be worse and the rate of fire too, but they're far from automatically inferior in my mind.

Bows are grossly inferior. Don't get me wrong, I like bows, I own a few, even one I made myself. I used to shoot rifles but I switched to bows because they're far more fun. And that's mostly because they're not very good.

A bow is not silent, it's not as loud as a gun, but it's not silent. The string makes a loud snap noise when you shoot.

You have to stand upright to shoot a bow, very vulnerable.

Arrows are much slower than a bullet and far more susceptible to windage and gravity.

A bow is far less accurate than a gun. With 7.62mm rifle using iron sights (i.e. no scope) I used to be able to fairly consistently hit a 1 foot circle at 500 meters, and that's not particularly special. Olympic level archers shoot at 70m for a similar degree of accuracy. I could go into a lot of detail but basically it's all about how much consistency you can get and there's soooo much more to get wrong with a bow, even with modern advances.

Moving targets are a whole extra level of difficult, because the flight trajectory on an arrow is so much more curved than a gun.

The range on a bow is tiny, the strongest warbows might shoot out to 500m but you're talking a 120-200lb draw, and training your body to do that means permanent physical damage, plus your accuracy is more about guesswork than aiming and your enemy has a leisurely 5 seconds to casually walk behind cover after shooting you several times before the arrow lands.

I know there's been a bit of a trend recently for video games to push bows as superior to guns, but it's nonsense. Bows are great fun and I love them and I love the idea of a Star wars character running around with a bow (after all Lightsabers are basically swords) but there's a reason no army in the world would ever even consider a bow and that's because it's inferior in every way as a weapon. We don't ride horses into battle, march into combat in big squares or wear bright red anymore either. Technology moved on.

I tend to assume that Ranged (Light) is mostly one handed weapons and Ranged (Heavy) is two handed, so would dump Archery in the second category if you're going to go with existing skills. Obviously Archery is very different to firing a gun, so one can easily argue it deserves a different skill, but fighting with sword and nun-chucks are very different but still get lumped together under Melee, so ultimately it comes down to game balance. Given that bows are going to be inferior to blasters on basically every level I'd try hard not to penalise players for doing something characterful.

As to bonus damage from greater Brawn, well that's not true at all. Being stronger doesn't let you draw a bow further or impart more power, it's simply a question of are you strong enough to be able to make effective use of a given bow. If you really want to get into this level of detail then the Cumbersome quality is perfect for this, more powerful bows have higher cumbersome ratings.

I don't know where all this "bows are inferior" malarkey is coming from.

Firstly, bows are nigh-silent.

They're definately more silent than most silenced slugthrowers and deeefinately more silent than blasters.

Secondly, they can take a variety of ammo that makes them alot more versetile than blasters.

Sure, the range will be worse and the rate of fire too, but they're far from automatically inferior in my mind.

Bows are grossly inferior. Don't get me wrong, I like bows, I own a few, even one I made myself. I used to shoot rifles but I switched to bows because they're far more fun. And that's mostly because they're not very good.

A bow is not silent, it's not as loud as a gun, but it's not silent. The string makes a loud snap noise when you shoot.

You have to stand upright to shoot a bow, very vulnerable.

Arrows are much slower than a bullet and far more susceptible to windage and gravity.

A bow is far less accurate than a gun. With 7.62mm rifle using iron sights (i.e. no scope) I used to be able to fairly consistently hit a 1 foot circle at 500 meters, and that's not particularly special. Olympic level archers shoot at 70m for a similar degree of accuracy. I could go into a lot of detail but basically it's all about how much consistency you can get and there's soooo much more to get wrong with a bow, even with modern advances.

Moving targets are a whole extra level of difficult, because the flight trajectory on an arrow is so much more curved than a gun.

The range on a bow is tiny, the strongest warbows might shoot out to 500m but you're talking a 120-200lb draw, and training your body to do that means permanent physical damage, plus your accuracy is more about guesswork than aiming and your enemy has a leisurely 5 seconds to casually walk behind cover after shooting you several times before the arrow lands.

I know there's been a bit of a trend recently for video games to push bows as superior to guns, but it's nonsense. Bows are great fun and I love them and I love the idea of a Star wars character running around with a bow (after all Lightsabers are basically swords) but there's a reason no army in the world would ever even consider a bow and that's because it's inferior in every way as a weapon. We don't ride horses into battle, march into combat in big squares or wear bright red anymore either. Technology moved on.

We're not talking about modern rifles here.

We're talking about in comparison to blasters.

And to be honest, blasters don't seem all that accurate. And they also aren't that fast moving.

So yeah, there's definately a niche for bows.

Also, bows are not silent (I never said so, I said they were nigh-silent.) but they are definately more silent than most silenced/supressed firearms.

And definately more silent than blasters.

And we're also not talking about our bows. We're talking about Star Wars technology bows.

With Star Wars technology arrows using a wide variety of munition-heads.

I am in no way saying that a bow is superior to a blaster or even a slugthrower when it comes to conventional use.

But for specialised use (and why else would anyone use one?), they definately have several advantages.

Also, keep in mind that while they may not have a very long range, neither do most blasters or slugthrowers in the game.

After all, medium range is quite common amongst the weapons and that's described as "a few dozen meters" in the Core book and "across the cantina" in the beginners adventure.

And that's definately within direct-fire range of a bow.

So range isn't really that much of an issue.

The downsides (in my mind) are as follows:

Size; It's definately cumbersome. But you can actually fire from other than standing positions, unlike what you claimed. You can fire from kneeling with many modern bows and even older bows.

Rate of fire; It's definately slow, if you want any accuracy and punch behind it. But then, if you're using explosive tipped arrows, that might not matter as much.

Range; Sure, you won't be making any sniper shots with this, but then most weapons in the game has medium-long range, and that's certainly within a modern bows range, albeit that long range might be a stretch (pardon the pun).

Damage; This is the real kicker. With conventional, modern arrows, you are definately outmatched. But the fact that you can use many custom types of arrows (ion, fire, explosive, corrosive, makeupyourown) somewhat makes up for that.

Training/skill; Bows are definately not easy to master. And in Star Wars, they're hardly common. So in my mind it should be a separate skill. So if you want to master the bow, you'd have to sacrifice some other skill.

Availability: This is also a major downside. While you might be able to recover some of the regular arrows you use, you'll still run out of them after a while, and they're hardly common to get in most places. Sure, most civilized planets will have special sports shops with arrows, but those will be for target practice and the like, not actual combat. You'd have to find a specialised hunting shop for that.

Advantages:

Nearly silent.

Pretty much undetectable by weapon scanners.

Widely adaptable ammunition.

Unconventional. (can definately freak a few opponents out)

Pretty damned cool

EDIT: and as you so kindly pointed out, there's a reason armies don't use them any more. And yet, here we are, with jedis using lightsabers, Soldiers using vibro swords and Thugs using shock shields and stun batons. This is Star Wars, old tech combines with new to get a second life.

That includes the bow (in my canon, anyway)

Ok, look, as much as I want to start talking about grenade launchers and terrible accuracy and... everything, I could do without "getting into an argument about real physics in a Star Wars forum" on my resume, so I shall just say I maintain my position but I'm happy for you to feel differently.

But yeah, as I said, I think a bow in Star Wars is a great idea because, well it's Star Wars. We're in it for swashbuckling sword-wielding heroes swinging across chasms and rescuing princesses. Take a look at the energy bow .

Ok, look, as much as I want to start talking about grenade launchers and terrible accuracy and... everything, I could do without "getting into an argument about real physics in a Star Wars forum" on my resume, so I shall just say I maintain my position but I'm happy for you to feel differently.

But yeah, as I said, I think a bow in Star Wars is a great idea because, well it's Star Wars. We're in it for swashbuckling sword-wielding heroes swinging across chasms and rescuing princesses. Take a look at the energy bow .

There is a bow. It is in Suns of Fortune sourcebook with 3 different types of arrows.

So, somebody wants to make the Dukes of Tralus? They'll use those big Corellian bows and drive an orange landspeeder with the CIS flag on it?

Also, bows are not silent (I never said so, I said they were nigh-silent.) but they are definately more silent than most silenced/supressed firearms.

No they aren't. The action on a suppressed SMG or pistol makes more noise than the round discharge.

Also, bows are not silent (I never said so, I said they were nigh-silent.) but they are definately more silent than most silenced/supressed firearms.

No they aren't. The action on a suppressed SMG or pistol makes more noise than the round discharge.

And your point is?

Firstly, you'll have to use subsonic ammo for that (unless it's something like a .45 where most of the ammo is subsonic anyway), and secondly, that action is still pretty loud if you're next to it.

At least as loud as a bow.

(and when I said "most", I was counting supersonic ammo being fired from a supressed weapon. Most don't use subsonic ammo when they're firing with supressors, as most who use supressors are only doing it to keep the noise down on the range)

My point is fairly obvious I thought. A suppressed/silent weapon is not as loud as a bow. If we are talking combat that's why suppressed pistols used by SF have slide locks. People who use suppressors professionally are doing it for being quiet, not destroying their hearing inside structures, and suppressors also are fantastic at muzzle depression and keeping a weapon on target for follow up shots.

My point is fairly obvious I thought. A suppressed/silent weapon is not as loud as a bow. If we are talking combat that's why suppressed pistols used by SF have slide locks. People who use suppressors professionally are doing it for being quiet, not destroying their hearing inside structures, and suppressors also are fantastic at muzzle depression and keeping a weapon on target for follow up shots.

Did you miss where I said "most"?

Because "most" people who use supressed/silenced weapons are not using it with slide locks and subsonic ammo.

And a bow is definately not much louder than a supressed weapon firing subsonic ammo out of a weapon without a slide lock.

Sure, they might be a tiny bit louder if you happen to be right next to the shooter, but that's hardly where it's important.

You won't be hearing many modern compound bows from 50 meters away.

So yes, they are nigh-silent.

This really turned into a pissing contest for some reason.

I never said they were more silent than the most silent firearms you could possibly use.

I said they were more silent than most supressed/silent firearms. (and of course I'm counting supressed firearms firing supersonic rounds in that statement. Otherwise I would have phrased it completely differently.)

Or are you seriously going to claim that bows are loud ?

And for comparison, two supressed, subsonic weapons being fired downrange at an even further distance than the compound bow in the above videos.

I'm not posting videos because I have fired suppressed weapons and bows. A suppressed weapon discharge is quieter than a bow. I'm not talking about the rounds as they do down range, and honestly in regards to the target it's irrelevant, the bullet hits you before you hear it.

I'm not posting videos because I have fired suppressed weapons and bows. A suppressed weapon discharge is quieter than a bow. I'm not talking about the rounds as they do down range, and honestly in regards to the target it's irrelevant, the bullet hits you before you hear it.

I'm not talking about the rounds as they go downrange either, but if you're going to judge how silent a weapons discharge is, you have to be downrange.

And that means you'll be hearing the impacts too, but that's something you'll have to ignore (hence the firearms video being at a longer range than the bow, since it takes a shorter time for the round to impact, so at 110 yards, you won't hear the discharge... but at 225, you certainly could. And that didn't sound quieter than the bow at 110 yards, despite subsonic ammo and supressors.)

I haven't fired supressed weapons, but I've been standing next to them while being fired.

And I have fired a bow. Both a compound bow and a more "basic" practice bow.

Neither were exactly loud.

So again, I ask, are you claiming that bows are loud?

Are you claiming that they are louder than a weapon firing supersonic rounds with a supressor?

Are you claiming that they are louder than a weapon firing subsonic rounds with a supressor?

Or are you just saying they are louder than a weapon firing subsonic rounds with a supressor and a slide lock?

Because that last video included a .45 weapon firing subsonic ammo with a supressor and it also included a .300 220 grain (which is subsonic) fired from a supressed weapon.

Both sounded about as loud (discharge, not impact) as the bow in the other video.

(and of course it won't matter to the target... it wouldn't matter to the target if it was unsilenced either, because it will most likely be dead or dying by the time it hears you anyway)

Take a look at the character linked in my signature. I am going for a double-focused Ranged (Heavy) and Ranged (Light), but he only uses normal compound bow and those cool little ascian throwing knives. I could have made him much more focused on Ranged (Heavy) and just been killer with the bow, but I really liked the idea of the throwing knives.

I'm not posting videos because I have fired suppressed weapons and bows. A suppressed weapon discharge is quieter than a bow. I'm not talking about the rounds as they do down range, and honestly in regards to the target it's irrelevant, the bullet hits you before you hear it.

I'm not talking about the rounds as they go downrange either, but if you're going to judge how silent a weapons discharge is, you have to be downrange.

And that means you'll be hearing the impacts too, but that's something you'll have to ignore (hence the firearms video being at a longer range than the bow, since it takes a shorter time for the round to impact, so at 110 yards, you won't hear the discharge... but at 225, you certainly could. And that didn't sound quieter than the bow at 110 yards, despite subsonic ammo and supressors.)

I haven't fired supressed weapons, but I've been standing next to them while being fired.

And I have fired a bow. Both a compound bow and a more "basic" practice bow.

Neither were exactly loud.

So again, I ask, are you claiming that bows are loud?

Are you claiming that they are louder than a weapon firing supersonic rounds with a supressor?

Are you claiming that they are louder than a weapon firing subsonic rounds with a supressor?

Or are you just saying they are louder than a weapon firing subsonic rounds with a supressor and a slide lock?

Because that last video included a .45 weapon firing subsonic ammo with a supressor and it also included a .300 220 grain (which is subsonic) fired from a supressed weapon.

Both sounded about as loud (discharge, not impact) as the bow in the other video.

(and of course it won't matter to the target... it wouldn't matter to the target if it was unsilenced either, because it will most likely be dead or dying by the time it hears you anyway)

Yeah. I've shot archery, and firearms, and there's *absolutely* no way, you can seriously claim that the ~115+ decibels of a suppressed firearm being discharged is anywhere *near* as quiet as the ~80-85 decibels of a bow being fired. The bow is in the same volume range as a telephone dial tone. The *silenced* firearm is in the same neighborhood as a loud rock concert.

The volume difference between 85db and 115db is about 8x.

Seriously, guys. You can look this **** up.

'Silencers' take a firearm down in loudness from "immediate, permanent hearing damage" to "permanent hearing damage is possible if this sound level is sustained".

Bows, with or without string or limb silencers, stay *well* below the 'possible hearing damage' threshold.

Note: The *apparent* loudness of a bow and a small-caliber, suppressed firearm may be somewhat similar, if you're comparing the raw volume of the bow to the suppressed firearm as heard through good hearing protection (~25+ NRR). But you're talking about a grand total noise reduction on the order of 55 decibels for the firearm at that point, compared to absolutely *no* noise reduction for the bow.

Yeah, when I introduce bows, I'm definately going to houserule it.

I'll just introduce a special skill for them (since they are VASTLY different from firing a rifle or pistol type weapon) and using the base stat of Agility as the skill for the players (since they won't have the skill).

Unless you're also going to create a special skill for throwing grenades, knives, etc., there's no real call for creating a 'Bows' skill. Throwing something vs. shooting a pistol is a *vastly* greater difference than that between shooting a rifle and shooting even a primitive longbow. If you can throw with Ranged (light), you can certainly shoot a bow with Ranged (heavy).

Yeah. I've shot archery, and firearms, and there's *absolutely* no way, you can seriously claim that the ~115+ decibels of a suppressed firearm being discharged is anywhere *near* as quiet as the ~80-85 decibels of a bow being fired. The bow is in the same volume range as a telephone dial tone. The *silenced* firearm is in the same neighborhood as a loud rock concert.

The volume difference between 85db and 115db is about 8x.

Seriously, guys. You can look this **** up.

Indeed, there’s a nice chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure

Note that a Non-electric chainsaw at one meter is rated at 110db and a Vuvuzela horn at one meter is rated at 120db, and 120db is also the defined level of risk of instantaneous noise-induced hearing loss.

Note that 80db is the official OSHA limit where hearing protection is required if you are going to be exposed to that sound level or higher in a working environment, and the EPA-identified maximum to protect against hearing loss and other disruptive effects from noise, such as sleep disturbance, stress, learning detriment, etc… is 70db.

So, yeah — you can look this stuff up.

Yeah, when I introduce bows, I'm definately going to houserule it.

I'll just introduce a special skill for them (since they are VASTLY different from firing a rifle or pistol type weapon) and using the base stat of Agility as the skill for the players (since they won't have the skill).

Unless you're also going to create a special skill for throwing grenades, knives, etc., there's no real call for creating a 'Bows' skill. Throwing something vs. shooting a pistol is a *vastly* greater difference than that between shooting a rifle and shooting even a primitive longbow. If you can throw with Ranged (light), you can certainly shoot a bow with Ranged (heavy).

I'm actually going to introduce a skill for "primitive ranged weapons" which includes bows, throwing knives, spears and whatnot.

Grenades will still be kept at the ranged (light) because you're not throwing to kill with the impact, you're just throwing to hit nearby.

There's a massive difference between throwing a throwing knife and throwing a grenade.

Similarly, I'll keep just throwing a rock at ranged (light) as well.