[D&D] Bow and arrow, broken?

[Xaden]

Now is it just me, or does anyone else think that the bow is by far the most powerful ranged weapon? Now don't get me wrong, I expect the bow to be good, and it is, and I'm okay with most of that except for one thing, the fact that the bow is the only ranged weapon that allows you to take advantage of all your attacks in a round without a feat, for whatever unknown reason, the bow is a faster weapon to use than say throwing knives.

Now while I admit to being no bow expert, it seems like to me, that firing one arrow would take more time than throwing somthing like a throwing dagger. Let me try to explain why by going through the steps involved in each (as far as I can tell). With a bow you must:
1) retrieve an arrow
2) nock the arrow to the bowstring
3) draw the bowstring back
4) aim
5) fire

with a thrown weapon:
1) retrieve the weapon
2) ready your throw
3) aim
4) throw

Now as far as I can see, both require almost the same amount of steps and those steps they have in common are very similar (pretty much exactly the same in some cases), the biggest difference is that using a bow and arrow has an extra step, nocking the arrow to the bowstring. Now I again admit to being no bow expert, but those times I have tried firing a bow nocking the arrow did require some (but not much) attention, as in it wasn't just an automatic thing, and I would assume that even for experts, it does require at least a moments attention (trying to line up a quarter-inch diameter wooden dowel with something slightly less fine than a hair seems like it would need a little attention). But even assuming one can nock an arrow with the speed and reliability of Legolas, it is still an extra step in the firing process in comparison to throwing a weapon.

Now, because I feel it's in slightly bad taste to present a problem without some sort of possible solution or resolution, I will post two different ideas for solutions.
1) Make it so that retrieving an arrow takes just as long as any other weapon (since it is basically the same thing) therefore making bows just as quick to fire as throwing weapons, as in you can retrieve an arrow as a move action instead of as a free action, without the Quick Draw feat.
2) Eliminate the Quick Draw feat and instead say that drawing any weapon is a free action instead of as a move action. This way a character can throw as many weapons in a round as their BAB allows or do the same with a bow and arrow.

I personally feel that the second option is a good one that doesn't unbalance the game in any significant way since you can already use a longbow in that way (1d8 damage, 100 ft. range increment, 20/x3 crit, it is already arguably the best ranged weapon (made even better with the composite versions allowing you to add your strength bonus to damage)), and just allowing you to throw any thrown weapon at the same rate as a bow and arrow just brings them slightly closer in power to the bow (which would still greatly exceed the power of any other thrown weapon (at least in the PHB)).

[Mercutio]

I thought you were joking at first. Now, I'm not so sure.

Having used a bow with a quiver, and having trained with throwing knives, I can assure you it is much easier and quicker to grab an arrow, nock it, draw, aim, and fire than it is to grab a knife, balance it in your hand properly, aim and throw it. It just really is easier. It's all one motion with a bow.

If you're talking shurikens or throwing stars, it's a different game all together, but throwing knives are balanced in such a way that you need to be holding them correctly to develop the right spin. Even so, pacing is an even bigger point with throwing knives, because you determine the speed of the spin based on your distance so that you can hit with the blade end every time. Try it sometime. Once you get the knives to start hitting target consistently, move back just a few feet and try again. You'll find that your technique needs adjusting.

Arrows don't have that problem. Point, pull, release. The grabbing of the arrow, nocking, and drawing are all one smooth action.

[AbusePuppy]

Speaking from my experiences with archery a half-decent archer can nock and fire a bow MUCH quicker than I think you can throw most any weapon. Some things to keep in mind:

-Assuming your archer stands still his quiver should be easily reachable in a fraction of a second. For someone with much archery practice it's quite reasonable to be nocking two or three arrows in six seconds.

-Aiming and firing a bow, like aiming and firing a gun, is faster than doing likewise with a thrown weapon because you can sight your target effectively using the arrow itself. (Okay, I'm assuming you're trying to hit something here; if you're throwing blindly you could probably get a similar RoF.)

-Firing a bow is a "still" motion; you remain in basically the same position the entire time, as there's no need or method to put any extreme force into the act. Firing itself simply involves releasing your draw. Contrawise, throwing an object, if you are trying to get a lot of speed/power into it involves a full-body movement, in particular using the hips and shoulders for extra rotational energy. After finishing you have to reset the position of your entire body rather than just your arms.

Historically, the evidence supports the superiority of bows; in virtually all cultures bows replaced hand-propelled weapons once they became available, even when mechanical aids (such as the atl-atl) existed to improve spears, javelins, etc.

In game terms thrown weapons are your emergency backup, not your primary. You carry a throwing dagger because you don't want to dedicate the space to a longbow, not because it's a superior weapon. If you really want to go to town with flashing avalanches of steely death raining ffrom the skies, play Exalted or BESM or another system that blatantly ignores realism.

(Also for reference: swords are the best weapons in the game. Compare even Simple swords to their non-sword counterparts and it's clear which is better. I want to use maces on guys in plate, damnit.)
__________________
"Adventurer-poser bar."
"That would explain the two hundred pound elf maiden."

[Xaden]

Well, even assuming that is so, what about other throwing weapons such as shuriken, darts, a rock, a stick (club), certainly most of these things are in-fact grab and throw, yet they still take more time than a bow and arrow, and I also find it a little hard to believe that if one has basic training in both a bow and say throwing a rock or knife, that the bow will still be quicker. One doesn't even need proficiency in a bow to fire multiple shots off in a round, yet even if one has proficiency in throwing darts, weapon focus in throwing darts, and greater weapon focus in throwing darts, you can still only throw one a round. No skill with a bow, multiple shots, lots of skill with some thrown weapon, still only one? It still seems weird to me. I also wouldn't mind trying to throw a knife next to someone shooting a bow and see who couldn't go faster (I'm not saying one way or the other, which would be faster, but just saying that it would be interesting).

[Mercutio]

Okay - next point you fail to realize. Arrows are loose in a quiver in a bundle on your back. They are not strapped in or in some sort of scabbard or sheath or pocket. Throwing knives are kept in sheathes, generally on your forearms. This means you have to actively loosen the sheathing mechanism (in today's world, velcro make this a lot easier) such as a button or a buckle. That action takes time. Rocks would be in a pocket, but they are all weighted differently and you need to put your whole body behind them to do damage.

For a point of reference - look at a major league pitcher. How long does it take for the ball to leave the pitcher's glove until it hits the catcher's? And how fast does the ball move? 85mph is a pretty solid pitch.

Now, how fast does an arrow move? Would you say that there was more effort on the part of the pitcher to get the ball up to that speed than there was on the part of the archer to get the arrow up that its speed?

[Xaden]

Okay, it's true that the quiver should be easily reachable so that you can retrieve an arrow quickly, but shouldn't someone throwing knives keep them handy as well? It should be about as quick to retrieve any thrown weapon as it is to retrieve an arrow (both would be nearby and neither would be running around or anything).

Now nocking the arrow and drawing the bowstring does take time, does it not? Now I'd be surprised if that took any less time than setting your arm back for a throw (they're not exaclty the same motion, bringing your arm back for the throw probably means your arm travels slightly further than drawing the bowstring, but the bowstring obviously puts up greater resistance, that's why the arrow flies). So even ignoring the fact that you have to nock the arrow (which maybe you can do fairly quickly, I've no doubt), I still see no appreciable extra time there.

While aiming would be different for the two things (sighting down the arrow, and just knowing how to move your arm to get it to go where you want are definetly different things, but I don't think eaither one really takes any more time than the other).

Now the still motion thing, okay I got much less of an argument for that, but do you really think it takes that much time to step back for your next throw? And even if it does take some time (though not much, try stepping back once and see how long it takes), certainly one can start to pull your next thrown weapon while stepping back, is the loss of time really so great that one can make three or even four shots with a bow and arrow before one can throw even two weapons? I'm not really sure I buy that.

Now undoubtly, when the bow picked up in use, it made many, if not almost all throwing almost obsolete, but that's probably more for the range than anything else. If I can shoot an arrow 1,000 feet, that's significantly farther than anyone (as far as I know) can throw just about anything. This means that if you have an army armed with bows it will wipe the floor of an army armed with javelins or something simply because by the time the javelin throwing are within range of hitting thier opponents they've already eaten several vollies of arrows. That in and of itself would make bows more desirable than any thrown weapon.

[Mercutio]

Now undoubtly, when the bow picked up in use, it made many, if not almost all throwing almost obsolete, but that's probably more for the range than anything else. If I can shoot an arrow 1,000 feet, that's significantly farther than anyone (as far as I know) can throw just about anything. This means that if you have an army armed with bows it will wipe the floor of an army armed with javelins or something simply because by the time the javelin throwing are within range of hitting thier opponents they've already eaten several vollies of arrows. That in and of itself would make bows more desirable than any thrown weapon.It was power, not range. The javelin with the atl-atl could be thrown very far by a trained javelin thrower. It was simply to do with the force exerted by an arrow. Interestingly, the arrow was more lethal than the sword, especially to those wearing armor, which is why metal armor died out when crossbows became common.

Again - if you haven't tried to do both, and you're arguing with me (who has done both) and AP (who knows archery too), then you're arguing from a point where you are not informed.

Once again, a sheath with throwing knives is a wholly different concept than a quiver. Next time you go to an Army-Navy surplus store, look at their throwing knives. I have a set of two and a sheath for strapping to my wrist. Drawing one of those is quite a bit slower than drawing an arrow from a quiver. IN fact, drawing a throwing knife takes about as long as it does for me to draw one of my katanas, simply because the katana isn't strapped in. And my throwing knives use Velcro, which is infinitely easier than a button or a buckle

[AbusePuppy]

Nocking and firing an arrow does take less time than throwing most things, that was my point. If you want to get any real momentum into a thrown weapon (i.e. have it deal damage) you have to wind up and huck it; it's not just the proverbial "flick of the wrist." Drawing a bow is literally just spreading your arms, albeit with a lot of resistance. It's a much faster movement and more easily repeatable (when you finish firing your arm is nearly in position for pulling another arrow from the quiver).

Aiming by sights (as in an arrow, bolt or gun) is much, MUCH easier than aiming by guessing. I'm not really sure how you can dispute this. It just is. It simply is not possible for a human being to produce the same static, repeatable motions that a bow inherently produces. That is to say, a bow does not change each time you fire it but a human is likely to position his/her body slightly differently, throwing the aim off. And that's not even getting into the mechanics of the projectile itself.

is the loss of time really so great that one can make three or even four shots with a bow and arrow before one can throw even two weapons? I'm not really sure I buy that.
Certainly D&D exaggerates this a bit because of the rules but yes, the difference really is that significant. I take from your statements that you've never practiced archery; it is entirely within reason for a good archer to fire six arrows in ten seconds. Saw guys do it all the time. Admittedly, this was with compound bows and shooting at short-range targets but the point stands: archers can fire with frightening speed.

I think Merc's example of the baseball pitcher is a good one- look at how much effort he has to put into a single throw. Certainly, this is more than you would normally put into such an action ("Power Attack +15 up the center line!") but the basic motion is the same as a simpler attack would be and, I think, quite telling. It's not simply a matter of taking a step back, it requires halting the forward momentum of your entire body, stepping back and taking your original position (while drawing another weapon, one assumes) and repeating the process. Compared to the extremely simple actions of firing a bow it's practically a Herculean effort and a real waste of time and energy.
__________________
"He'll spell his suicide note out with those huge cookies. It will be the most delicious mortal sin since I f****d my neighbor with a Toblerone."

[Linklegacy77]

I've won my fair share of archery contests, and I'll tell you, that it is much quicker to grap, knock, aim, and fire an arrow, especially with a familiar bow, than it is to grab a knife, weigh and balance it, and throw it. Using arrows from a quiver is one quick, smooth action. An expert archer doesn't need to spend much time aiming, in fact, the longer you spend aiming, often the harder it is to hit the target, because full draw wears down on your arms after a while, and the bow won't remain perfectly straight.

[LeadPal]

I occasionally do archery for my amusement (though I'm not very good), and I agree with the majority; indeed, it's a rather swift motion. I wouldn't say that it's considerably swifter than throwing something (in a general sense--I've never thrown knives), but it *is* swift.

I've felt the same concerns as you, however, from a balance perspective. Unrealistic though it may be, I think that thrown weapons need a small boost overall. Master thrower ain't enough, as I see it. (But Hulking Hurler is too much. I seem to bring that up quite a bit nowadays.)

[Linklegacy77]

Well, if you have quick draw, you can attack with thrown weapons at the same rate, and don't forget, you can make thrown weapons returning, so you never have to pay for more arrows again. Not to mention thrown weapons can be used in melee for the most part (not counting shuriken or darts, I'm thinking throwing knives and hand-axes.)