What would be a sensible way of representing the differences between bows and crossbows in an RPG?

What doesn't make sense? With the exception of the bow's strength requirement not applying to all bows at all ranges maybe, that's how they work. (Though the concept of "just pick up the crossbow because any mook can use it" is a little exaggerated.)

>strength mod to bow dmg
How stupid is that. If you can pull the string to the maximum its strength will be capped at that point.

Archery perk for years of training. Some cultures get them for free.

Longbows require an exotic feat representing a lifetime of training.

Snipers and sentinal should be switched desu. One of the advantages of using a crossbow as opposed to a longbow is that it allowed one to line the bolt with their point of vision, leading to far greater accuracy and the ability to hold one's shot in check for hours allowed one to make their shots at the right moment when the opportunity presented itself.

Pick a bow with a draw weight suited to your strength.

youtube.com/watch?v=HD3uP_LNQ5g

Archers aren't likely to draw their bows all the way back in a fight. That takes a lot of time for high-poundage bows, and taking shots at individual targets is time-sensitive. The strength mod represents how far back they can pull the bow during a single fluid 'draw + release' movement.

Could go either way. "Sniper" in this context isn't an actual "sit in one place waiting for the mark to appear and finish with one shot" sort of sniper, but more of a gamey "very long range combatant that wants to be left alone" and for that I think longbow fits better.

I guess you could do something like have a weapon selection for types of weapons, like
heavy crossbow->sniper,
light crossbow->sentinel,
dual hand crossbows -> skirmisher

I could even do it for each character type, so an arcane "archer" would have
orb->sniper (since it's usually got the association of seeing afar)
staff->sentinel (since it's usually associated with protection)
wand->skirmisher (because it's light and fast and HP wizard battles)

but I'm rambling. It's a mechanics first game, so you are free to attach whatever fluff you want, and that felt like a good set of options at the time.

Then you can aswell pick a crossbow that's suited to your strength.

Okay, you don't understand that crossbows only require enough strength to carry them and then the ability to use a lever. It is possible to make an exceptionally powerful crossbow, and the guy wielding it only needs to be able to move a 30lb weight. Military Crossbows have never been loaded by the user pulling the cord back with his hands without aid. They have always used either a lever system, a stirrup, or a winch. Arm strength and back strength only need to be that of a healthy man who is well exercised.

Also, by the time people were making crossbow arms that could support that level of draw, they also had made winch systems.

>The strength mod represents how far back they can pull the bow during a single fluid 'draw + release' movement.

If your players know such video game mechanics and are fine with seeing them applied to their P&P, I guess that's fine.

Unless they're going to serve different gameplay roles there's no reason to make them different mechanically.

""""""Realistically,"""""""

Bows
>higher theoretical rate of fire
>using a bow to its maximum poundage is tiring
>variable arrow velocity based on how far back the string is pulled
>optimal usage involves releasing an arrow at a high arc
>memed about by British, Japanese, and Mongols

Crossbows
>reloading is an involved process
>poor energy efficiency due to short prod length and short draw length
>consistent velocity
>high poundage crossbows require a mechanism to load, can take over 20 seconds
>less physically demanding
>bolts are typically simpler in design
>string can be left back and a bolt nocked without needing to physically hold the string back
>flatter trajectory
>memed about by Italians and Chinese

But honestly simulation is lame most of the time, just go for

Looking at it realistically / historically, one of the biggest ways to differentiate between them is that bows would have a pretty high skill requirement but crossbows could be used by just about anyone. Crossbows would be way more expensive and much more difficult to repair than bows.

Doesn't do a whole lot for combat balance, but new technologies are usually pretty OP in real life.

>Crossbows would be way more expensive and much more difficult to repair than bows.
Can you even repair a bow short of just replacing it, assuming the said "repair" isn't just replacing a broken bowstring?

If it's magical... maybe. Otherwise... nope.

The GURPS Pyramid article "The Deadly Spring" offers the most realistic way to deal with bows in a tabletop game. Because of this, it has a lot of math.

>variable arrow velocity based on how far back the string is pulled

You usually don't wanna do this if you're actually trying to hit shit. You're pulling beyond your reference points and the force balance between the arm holding the bow and the one pulling the string will be off too.

So your arrow might fly to the left, it might fly to the right, but it's unlikely to be on target.

>guy asks for help making rules for bows and crossbows
>presents some ideas to get feedback
>you berate him for getting stuff wrong without explaining which stuff and why
He was asking for input, you cock-goblin.

>- Relatively high strength requirement to use them at all
I would say, having shot a good number of bows, including longbows, that this is more of a meme than reality.
Most bows are pretty damn easy to draw. A few big bastards are really hard to draw, in a controlled manner, for me - but I don't work out in any particular way that wouldbe relevant, although I am a larg-ish guy.
I think the whole strength-thing is more of a muscle-fatigue issue.

>A bow as described by you would have a hard time hurting (not to mention killing) a small bird at few feets top
Yes. Because stone age peoples found it useful to develop and employ a weapon that could barely hurt a small bird three feet away. I mean, sure, that would make it far inferior to a spear or a rock, but spears and rocks were so hard to make that they needed something to fill the gap.

In my super-simplified setting it is:

>Both require a dexterity check for aiming.
>Bows require a strength check to properly fire. Strength determines range.
>Crossbows only require the aiming check to fire, but have a set range.
>Bow reloading is short and can be lowered by dexterity.
>Crossbows reloading time is higher and can be lowered by strength by strength.

A bow isn't "some wood". We've found thousands years old bows, and they're definitely not just a stupid stick a string, and while easier to make than a crossbow, it's not "not very difficulty".

i think the bow and crossbow reload time checks should reversed since with a bow you're using strength to draw the string back and with the crossbow you're using tools and not much strength to draw the string.

Attaching said tools takes time, however. Loading a crossbow takes longer than a bow does. Even for the simple crossbows, it is a multistep process and that takes time.

>HURF DURF WOTS UR POINT
>HE AXED FOR SUGGESTIONS

And I made a suggestion. That he use a bow and crossbow. So he'll be able to write rules that makes sense, not half-baked fantasy tropes. I'm not here to do his fucking work for him.

>What doesn't make sense?
>apart from this thing that doesn't makes sense
>and this thing that doesn't make sense
>and this thing th-

Cool post bro.

Stone age people used slings, spears, javelins, and the atlatl, which was made to throw javelins.

just talking about how crossbows should use dex for reload check and not strength

Pretty sure that guy was trolling.
Working bows tool thousands of years to develop.

>>Crossbows reloading time is higher and can be lowered by strength squared
shit dude that doesn't sound simple at all

Crossbow
+ Reaction attacks are much faster

Honestly I don't think there's any real benefit to gain from making crossbows that much more different that bows.

Is your game significantly improved by having a bunch of fiddly minutiae added on to two weapons? Are the other weapons going to also receive similar levels of autism behind them to the point where every weapon is a bucket of special rules? Will the players enjoy the sweet realism of having to crank their crossbow for several of their turns or tracking fatigue points into their arms?

You're following into that newbie game designer trap in assume that adding needless simulation and detail will improve your game instead of actively harming it.

I think you took a wrong turn friend. This is a board for shitposting about pointless minutiae, not a place for discussing actual game design

>Getting amazed that even the most promitive gun is four times cheaper than crossbow, which itself is twice as cheap as bow?
Depends how primitive we talking about.
I'm pretty sure Calivers and other early light guns were easily 2-3x the price of crossbows and bows.

Not really. They were literally just a straight metal tube, and some wood backing.

Part of the reason why guns replaced bows/crossbows is because they were so cheap.

I have shot both, though not extensively.

Here is my input to supplement your op if you want it

Bows
>carefully selected and shaped layers of wood glued together so not "easy" to make
>seemed like a primitive bow is more of a harrying weapon, but fairly accurate
>sharp point or posin would still hurt

Crossbow
>reload is a process and takes a lot more strength than any bow I've used
>if you pull unevenly with just your fingers it fucks up the flight
>if you dry fire the bow explodes
>you can cut off a finger if your hands are not clear when fired
>very accurate and absolutely devastates whatever it hits.

I think the crossbow should be more risky to use

both are ranged attack, one does a d6 plus dex but the other does d8 plus dex

Weren't belt hooks people used to draw back crossbows a thing?

that explains the guy talking about there being three different rolls every time someone uses a bow or crossbow ()

>I guess if you're fine with le doody vidya gaem mechanics
What a pathetic passive aggressive reply. You're just trying to deflect from how that user blast you the fuck out and you have no actual response.

Hey let's get rid of all of that silly fiddly autistic minutiae, all weapons are exactly the same!

>You can fire crossbows while prone, but not bows.

Ree muh footbow

>I'm retarded and know jack shit about the subject
Thanks for informing.

And for the record - "stone age people" (are you at least semi-aware that covers roughtly 35 thousands of years od development and just for homo sapiens sapiens?) preferred to use spears, because they were not only easier to make, but also MUCH more reliable as a weapon. Not to mention spears being considerably easier to make than even most basic hunting bow, especially when your best fiber for the string is semi-dry guts ripped from some animal or a fucking braid made out of bark of certain plants (no, no strings yet, you idiot). For comparison, spear in most basic form requires a relatively straight piece of hardwood and a fire source.

Then you are pretty sure wrong. Guns required just a pipe with a hole (that primitive). Crossbow mechanism is pretty complex and if you have to make it by hand (since lathe won't be a thing for next few hundred of years, along with jiggs and few other most basic tools), it will take considerable effort and skill, since it all must be tight fit. Early guns, if had firing mechanism at all, it was a so-calles seprent: and S shaped piece of metal with match attatched on one end, no spring in it.
And even if we talk about springs, crossbow needs two. Gun needs one. This alone makes it MUCH cheaper, since spring-worthy metal is not something easy to make when the pinnacle of your metal smelting is handful of entry-tier blast furnaces spread all over the planet.

Serpent had a pivot in the middle, forgot to add that bit. Either way - considerably more simple than crossbow firing mechanism.