The traditional English longbow should be as tall as the archer is, unstrung. So, yes, a *wee* bit large for horseback. However, technically anything that is not a recurve is called a longbow in modern terms, and modern folk wrote the D&D manual, so I'm still not sure which definition they were thinking of - does the description in the manual specify, since I don't have it here at work?
Also, the traditional English longbow was anywhere from 70-150 pounds - which is why it could punch through plate armor. That much force is more than enough, forget the strength bonus that D&D tries to add ;) They would start out in front and soften up the enenmy, until they got too close for volleys to be safe - once the sides mixed, archers were pretty useless. Then again, by then they'd probably used all their arrows, so the ended up the cleanup crew - coup d'etat'ing any downed enemy soldiers they could get their hands on.
You could always have three weapons - d6, d8 and d10, and just keep the last one as some sort of rifle-equivalent. Longer distance, more damage, harder to handle while running around, if not nigh-impossible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-06-08 01:20 pm (UTC)Also, the traditional English longbow was anywhere from 70-150 pounds - which is why it could punch through plate armor. That much force is more than enough, forget the strength bonus that D&D tries to add ;) They would start out in front and soften up the enenmy, until they got too close for volleys to be safe - once the sides mixed, archers were pretty useless. Then again, by then they'd probably used all their arrows, so the ended up the cleanup crew - coup d'etat'ing any downed enemy soldiers they could get their hands on.
You could always have three weapons - d6, d8 and d10, and just keep the last one as some sort of rifle-equivalent. Longer distance, more damage, harder to handle while running around, if not nigh-impossible.
It is, as they say, your game ;)