Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nightwyrm 12-03-06, 01:14 AM	In the PHB it states that longbows are too unwieldy to use mounted, but say that you can use a composite longbow while mounted. Is that a typo? Coz the picture of the two bows looks pretty much the same size to me.
Plothos 12-03-06, 01:55 AM	Consensus is the pics of the weapons are crap. Ignore them. More compelling is the justification for the restriction on the longbow but not on the composite longbow. Granted horsed archers like the mongols had extremely effective bows for horseback firing, but should those be classified as shortbows or longbows? Shortbow and longbow on the face of it are classifications by little more than length, so if something composite qualifies as a longbow there's presumably a bow-length that makes the weapon a longbow but can be fired while horsed. If so, though, a non-composite could as well. So something to me doesn't add up there. That said, there's no evidence that this is a typo. I think the idea was to allow for a weapon that's as powerful as a longbow (probably because of evidence that mongol bows were extremely effective) but that can be fired from horseback. Ignoring the pic, to say no longbow should be fired from a horse would be a house-rule.
claypigeons 12-03-06, 01:55 AM	First: You cant use the picture in the PHB as an argument against a rule. Take a look at the picture of the greatclub. It's all spikey and decent looking. Spikes generally mean piercing. Now look at the actual rules.. crappy weapon that deals bludgeoning damage. Second: In real life, longbows are really freaking tall. Composite bows arent. But this is DnD, so that doesnt count for anything. So... I guess the answer is that they just want it that way.
nightwyrm 12-03-06, 02:04 AM	It's just that I was wonder why would anyone use a short bow if they could just use a composite longbow on horseback. NM: Just remembered that weapon proficiency is class or feat based. Kept thinking in 2e terms where anyone could basically take anything. As you can probably tell, I'm a recent convert. =P
Nezkrul 12-03-06, 02:08 AM	does the greatbow say it can't be used on horseback? lol
TheDarkLord 12-03-06, 04:38 AM	Second: In real life, longbows are really freaking tall. Composite bows arent. But this is DnD, so that doesnt count for anything. So... I guess the answer is that they just want it that way. You know, I have a recurve bow and a Compound bow made of composite materials (Which is about a foot, foot and a half shorter than my huge ass recurve bow), but I've never seen a composite bow. Just to let people know, I'm not really proficient with either of them when targets are more than 30 yards away.
Qube 12-03-06, 07:54 AM	You know, I have a recurve bow and a Compound bow made of composite materials (Which is about a foot, foot and a half shorter than my huge ass recurve bow), but I've never seen a composite bow. Just to let people know, I'm not really proficient with either of them when targets are more than 30 yards away. so, not a typo; RAW is corrent. (isn't it always :D )
primemover003 12-03-06, 08:52 AM	Yeah but the Japanese had a composite longbow (Daikyu) that could be fired from horseback due to it's asymmetrical shape. In game terms it'd probably be an Exotic weapon because it's fired in a slightly different manner than traditional bows.
Niren 12-03-06, 12:38 PM	CW pg 156 Both the greatbow and its composite are restricted. " to unwield to use while mounted.
jeffepp 12-03-06, 01:33 PM	You know, I have a recurve bow and a Compound bow made of composite materials (Which is about a foot, foot and a half shorter than my huge ass recurve bow), but I've never seen a composite bow. A recurve bow IS a composite bow. A "standard" bow is made from a single piece of wood (although it may be strengthened by other materials). A long bow of this sort can be well over six feet for a normal sized archer. The classic english longbow was an example of this. A composite bow is made from several pieces of wood (usually more than one type of wood for that manner), horn, sinew, and hide. It is laminated together in a proper order to make the bow far stronger than a standard longbow. If made incorrectly, the bow may well explode in the face of its user.
Watchman 12-03-06, 02:35 PM	The Japanese dai-kyu isn't what is normally meant with "composite bow". It's a kind of laminate quasi-composite bow made of bamboo and some other stuff, and asymmetrical to enable use from horseback. I understand the nocking technique is a bit odd as a result too, and once the Japanese started using foot archers en masse they developed a simpler version better suited for infantry use. A minor detail is that during their Korean invasion at the end of 16th century the Japanese regarded the steppe-style recurve composite bows of the Koreans and Chinese (well, they managed to go and butt heads with one Manchurian steppe people too) as by far superior to their own bows. What is normally meant with "composite bow" is a rather different and more complicated weapon made of wood, sinew and horn. Without going to the exact details of construction, the clever use of certain interesting qualities in thos ematerials enables an in principle infinite increase in the weapon's draw weight without adding much to the size, making it about the "most bang for the size" ranged weapon in existence pre gunpowder. In practice it took a while before the weapon reached its "ultimate" incarnation, the "Turkic" recurve bow; the ones used by Bronze Age chariot warriors and early horse-archers for example weren't recurved, and not nearly as strong. After them came several other major and widespread designs such as the "Scythian", the asymmetrical and heavy "Hunnish" and the "Avar" ones, until the finer points were finally gotten more or less refined to perfection under the Ottomans. However, I've read that around Tamerlane's times (14th century AD) at least Central Asian infantry archers were using a type of composite bow stronger and larger than what could be used from horseback, and presumably had valid reasons for doing so - this was one of the most thoroughly "archery crazy" regions of the world at the time after all, so the local soldiery doubtless knew the odd vagaries of archery inside out. Going by that making a division to "long" and "short" composite bows, of which only the latter were usable mounted, would in fact be justified. Making a division to Long and Short Composite Bows both of which can be used mounted would, however, be rather nonsensical far as I can tell. What'd be the point and meaningful difference anyway ? :confused:
TheCobra 12-03-06, 02:47 PM	English longbows actually could be fired from horseback, they just weren't as nimble as shorter bows. Writing the 16th century, John Smythe actually suggested training some troops to use both longbows and crossbows while mounted. A minor detail is that during the Korean invasion at the end of 16th century the Japanese regarded the steppe-style recurve composite bows of the Koreans and Chinese (well, they managed to go and butt heads with one Manchurian steppe people too) as by far superior to their own bows. In range, yes, but that could have been simply due to differences in arrow weight. Good numbers on yumi are hard to find, but the ones I've seen paint them as very efficient bows. And, according to some modern scholarship, Japanese archery roughly matched Mongol archery in the fighting during the Mongol invasion. So I'm not convinced Japanese bows were much inferior. In practice it took a while before the weapon reached its "ultimate" incarnation, the "Turkic" recurve bow; the ones used by Bronze Age chariot warriors and early horse-archers for example weren't recurved, and not nearly as strong. After them came several other major and widespread designs such as the "Scythian", the asymmetrical and heavy "Hunnish" and the "Avar" ones, until the finer points were finally gotten more or less refined to perfection under the Ottomans. I find this a little dubious. What evidence is there for earlier composite bows being "not nearly as strong"? And Turkish bows were certainly good, but thinking you're going a little overboard in praising them. Many other cultures used composite bows and used them well, especially the Chinese. However, I've read that around Tamerlane's times (14th century AD) at least Central Asian infantry archers were using a type of composite bow stronger and larger than what could be used from horseback, and presumably had valid reasons for doing so Yes, I understand it, using lighter bows while mounted and heavier ones while on foot the standard practice. It's harder to draw really heavy bows while on horseback.
dengarbountyhunter 12-03-06, 02:48 PM	Conclusion: make the composite longbow impossible to use from horseback if that makes your game better. It doesn't change much in mine anyway.
Watchman 12-03-06, 03:23 PM	English longbows actually could be fired from horseback, they just weren't as nimble as shorter bows. Writing the 16th century, John Smythe actually suggested training some troops to use both longbows and crossbows while mounted. Sufficiently small crossbows could be, and occasionally were, used from horseback. AFAIK the possibility of doing that with longbows was purely theoretical (why do you think the Japanese ones were asymetrical anyway), however. It seems to me you are confusing two things here though, namely horse-archer and mounted archer. The latter, which is something the English and some other did use, is essentially what would later be called a dragoon - a mounted infantryman who moves on horseback and fights on foot. As a side note most of the mounted crossbowmen were just that too, but as already mentioned at least some crosbow designs could also be fired from horseback. This tactic was AFAIK mainly employed against heavy infantry stripped of its missile support, but it is not difficult to see how "horse-crossbowmen" could also be useful against the less agile knights. In range, yes, but that could have been simply due to differences in arrow weight. Good numbers on yumi are hard to find, but the ones I've seen paint them as very efficient bows. And, according to some modern scholarship, Japanese archery roughly matched Mongol archery in the fighting during the Mongol invasion. So I'm not convinced Japanese bows were much inferior.To my knowledge there is but nothing in the structure of the Japanese laminate bows that could match the benefits composite bows gain from the interplay of their three main materials. And "very effective" doesn't mean there wasn't "something more effective" around. As for the Mongol invasions, I think you're forgetting the nature of the combat in question. The Mongols were never able to even establish permanent bridgeheads on the beaches, so the Japanese could largely dictate the engagement distance and conditions - and this promptly killed off most of the advantages the light Mongol and Sino-Korean horse-archers would have had over the bushi in less restricted combat. And in a straight archery duel at relativelt short distances the heavy armour of the Japanese horse-archers was doubtless a major advantage - heck, they were often unable to kill each other with their bows when it came to that. The ô-yoroi may have been Teh Suck for everything except mounted archery, but it served very well in that one field. I'm guessing a rather bigger headache for the Japanese were the massed infantry formations the Sino-Korean infantry used; the Japanese did not use such around the time, and figuring out how to deal with them effectively ad hoc was doubtless a rather harrowing experience in the middle of all the rest of the essentially alien military ideas the Mongols brought. It kind of tells something that the Japanese adopted much of those afterwards, too. I find this a little dubious. What evidence is there for earlier composite bows being "not nearly as strong"?...besides the next-generation "Scythian" design rapidly replacing them wherever introduced...? That sort of wholesale usurpation tends to imply a flat out better design in weapons otherwise similar in every respect. And Turkish bows were certainly good, but thinking you're going a little overboard in praising them. Many other cultures used composite bows and used them well, especially the Chinese....and you do realize the Chinese used the exact same bows as their steppe neighbours, right ? Whenever the nomads came up with a better design their settled neighbours would swiftly adopt them too, to maintain parity in military matters and to keep the unshaven horse barbarians from flooding over the borders. Although the Chinese tended to prefer crossbows for mass use, AFAIK. The composite bows were more of a cavalry thing.
Mollusk 12-03-06, 03:31 PM	I think its that any bow, especially a long bow, are hard to pull back. That's what composite bows are for. They're a lot easier to draw back but you can get the same range and power behind it. So i guess thats why it can be done on horseback.
Watchman 12-03-06, 03:37 PM	Like Hell they are. They're so stiff and powerful scholars who hadn't seen them in IRL for a long time honestly thought you needed mechanical aids to even string them. It apparently looks a little weird when one of those wiry little steppe-nomad guys or gals does that seemingly without effort... But then, AFAIK the time-consuming part in learning archery isn't accuracy - you can get that right in a manner of days. I've reliable witness statements of this. It's the physical conditioning needed to be able to nock a war-strenght bow over and over again...
TheCobra 12-03-06, 03:59 PM	Sufficiently small crossbows could be, and occasionally were, used from horseback. AFAIK the possibility of doing that with longbows was purely theoretical I didn't stay it was regularly done, but I doubt Smythe suggest something that was actually impossible. Note that Matthew Strickland agrees with me. He writes, "It was possible to shoot a longbow from horseback, but its length precluded the kind of agile movements constantly practised by eastern horse-archers." however. It seems to me you are confusing two things here though, namely horse-archer and mounted archer. No, I'm quite aware that English mounted archers generally dismounted to fight. To my knowledge there is but nothing in the structure of the Japanese laminate bows that could match the benefits composite bows gain from the interplay of their three main materials. And "very effective" doesn't mean there wasn't "something more effective" around. A while ago on atarn.net, some posted some numbers. A 36lb yumi managed 173 fps with a 494-grain arrow, and a 44lb yumi managed 180 fps with a 460-grain arrow. Those are pretty decent stats. I'd love to see tests of heavier yumi, though. They've tested both yew longbows and Turkish bows, and the difference isn't huge when shooting heavy arrows. Turkish bows give a bit more bang for your buck at any given arrow weight, but a longbow shooting heavy arrow will still hit harder than a Turkish bow shooting light arrows. ...besides the next-generation "Scythian" design rapidly replacing them wherever introduced...? That sort of wholesale usurpation tends to imply a flat out better design in weapons otherwise similar in every respect. It really does not. The change could have mainly stylistic or cultural. Anyway, even very minor improvements could prompt such a shift. It is far from evidence that earlier designs were dramatically weaker. I'd have to look at the article again, but IIRC, reproductions of angular composite bows have posted solid numbers. ...and you do realize the Chinese used the exact same bows as their steppe neighbours, right ? They used a wide variety of designs. Manchu bows, for example, were huge, made for shooting large arrows. Anyway, I don't see how that suggests Turkish bows were the perfect design. Many culture used composite bows, and it's reasonable to assume most served their purpose well.
Elthbert 12-03-06, 04:09 PM	I think its that any bow, especially a long bow, are hard to pull back. That's what composite bows are for. They're a lot easier to draw back but you can get the same range and power behind it. So i guess thats why it can be done on horseback. No composite bows are harder to pull back--- they have a greater draw weight and a shorter body. Do not confuse Composite Bow with Compound Bow which is a modern complex machine type bow ( which is also not easier to pull back really but mucch much easier to hold back.
TheCobra 12-03-06, 04:20 PM	Well, as has been noted in this thread, bows intended for use on horseback tended to lighter than ones made for use on foot.
peteyrock 12-03-06, 05:43 PM	No composite bows are harder to pull back--- they have a greater draw weight and a shorter body. Do not confuse Composite Bow with Compound Bow which is a modern complex machine type bow ( which is also not easier to pull back really but mucch much easier to hold back. great googly moogly! has anyone here fired a bow? any bow can be set to almost any weight in drawback. the advantage of a recurve (or composite, same thing) is that the snapping of the string on release is kept even due the way the yew (that's the material generally used on revurve bows) is curved back and then forward. hence the name recurve. now, with the weight release being kept more even than with a regular longbow, they found they were able to bring the drawback weight higher and higher without sending the arrow into an overly odd flight path. in my game, i let them use any ranged weapon from on a mount with certain restrictions. and the ideas for the restrictions i stole from the Star Wars RPG. obviously, i don't let them use ballistas or catapults. i'm not THAT dumb.
Watchman 12-03-06, 06:15 PM	I didn't stay it was regularly done, but I doubt Smythe suggest something that was actually impossible. Theoreticians don't always necessarily stick to what is practically feasible, or even in use anymore in some cases. There's Early Modern works on the art of war that spend a lot of time and space on mounted arquebusieur tactics that are flat out nonviable in actual combat, for example. Note that Matthew Strickland agrees with me. He writes, "It was possible to shoot a longbow from horseback, but its length precluded the kind of agile movements constantly practised by eastern horse-archers.""Possible" does not equal "at all effective" or "feasible" though. If you drop off the difficult hit-and-run tactics it's actually relatively easy to train soldiers in horse-archery - the Arabs and Persians did it all the time for example. That the Japanese had to come up with a special asymmetrical design to make a longbow useful on horseback, and that the English so far as I know aren't on the record for even trying to teach even elementary horse-archery to even a small elite body of their archers, strongly suggest the possibility is in practice rather theoretical. A while ago on atarn.net, some posted some numbers. A 36lb yumi managed 173 fps with a 494-grain arrow, and a 44lb yumi managed 180 fps with a 460-grain arrow. Those are pretty decent stats. I'd love to see tests of heavier yumi, though. They've tested both yew longbows and Turkish bows, and the difference isn't huge when shooting heavy arrows. Turkish bows give a bit more bang for your buck at any given arrow weight, but a longbow shooting heavy arrow will still hit harder than a Turkish bow shooting light arrows. And you bet your arse the people who used those Turkish bows only used the light arrows for long-range harassement fire. Not that much point in shooting at a foeman to begin with if you're not using arrows that'll actually hurt him, now is there ? Massively armoured cataphract cavalry developed in composite-bow using ares for pretty solid reasons too. Comparable developements were by far slower in self-bow areas. It really does not. The change could have mainly stylistic or cultural. Anyway, even very minor improvements could prompt such a shift. It is far from evidence that earlier designs were dramatically weaker. I'd have to look at the article again, but IIRC, reproductions of angular composite bows have posted solid numbers. Weaponry tends to be one field where Darwinism works overtime. So long as it is within their technological reach, everyone who encounters a weapon better than what he is using will tend to try to copy it ASAP to at the very least maintain a parity. One of those "no edge is too small" issues, that one, and I'd say there's gotta be some solid reasons why the early recurve "Scythian" type of composite bow replaced the earlier straight-limbed Bronze Age type over such a wide area so swiftly - and was in turn quickly supplanted by later designs itself. Raw superior performance would sound like the single most obvious reason, given the fundamental nature of the eternal arms race. They used a wide variety of designs. Manchu bows, for example, were huge, made for shooting large arrows. Anyway, I don't see how that suggests Turkish bows were the perfect design. Many culture used composite bows, and it's reasonable to assume most served their purpose well.New Kingdom Egyptian charioteers also liked to shoot really big and heavy arrows, almost small javelins, for armour-piercing reasons. But they managed that right well with the relatively small straight-limbed composites of the time. Anyway, "Turkish" is just the umbrella term (hence the quotes). So far as I know it's more or less the last stage in the long evolutionary chain of the composite bow, and gets its name from the same simple source as all the others - the name of the people who introduced it to western Eurasia. Given that the Turks are thought to have started their wanderings from fairly close to China, odds are the basic design (only differing from the older "Avar" type in rather small but nonetheless important details) was in common use there before the Turkish wave had even reached the end of the Iranian plateau. Remember that the typology refers chiefly to the actual construction, not specific size or such. The aforementioned large Central Asian infantry bows would presumably have been structurally essentially of the same "Turkish" type as the cavalry of the time used, just scaled up a bit mutatis mutandis in that eternal pursuit of that little extra edge over the opponent. It's not like the performance differences due to bow construction are all *that* major anyway, mind you. Much also depends on the exact draw technique (the so-called "Mongol" thumb-draw with a thumb-ring for protection being apparently about the most powerful; some others AFAIK win in speed though), the particulars of the arrow and God knows what else. Heck, it has been theorized the windsock-like "dragon" standards of the Sarmatians that spread into the Roman army were originally in fact just that - a device to help the archers judge wind direction and strenght... No advantage too small, as it were. And composite bows are one rare weapon type where a real amount of hierarchical evolutionary superiority is present. Mind you, longbowmen from India with their cane bows at least as tall as themselves apparently did good service against steppe-nomad horse-archers (who would've been using late versions of the "Scythian" or early version of the closely related "Sarmatian" composite bow) under Bactrian standards back in the day, which reminds of an important point - the difference is ultimately somewhat marginal and certainly not insuperable.
TheCobra 12-03-06, 06:50 PM	"Possible" does not equal "at all effective" or "feasible" though. I never said it was effective or practical, but it's certainly possible. I'm not sure whether it was ever used much or if horse-archers using longbows could have been effective. And you bet your arse the people who used those Turkish bows only used the light arrows for long-range harassement fire. Well, according to Adam Karpowicz, even Turkish war arrows tended to be rather light. A 150lb composite bow shooting a 650-grain arrow would have trouble beating the penetration of 150lb yew bow shooting a 1750-grain arrow. http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows.htm Weaponry tends to be one field where Darwinism works overtime. Perhaps, but technology is very minor part of the equation. The bow and the pike, two of the most important weapons in 15th century, were both ancient technology. One of those "no edge is too small" issues, that one, and I'd say there's gotta be some solid reasons why the early recurve "Scythian" type of composite bow replaced the earlier straight-limbed Bronze Age type over such a wide area so swiftly - and was in turn quickly supplanted by later designs itself. Raw superior performance would sound like the single most obvious reason, given the fundamental nature of the eternal arms race. There plenty of other possible reasons, such as production issues and cultural factors. I just don't so the evidence for dramatic claims of superiority. Here's a link to good debate about similar problems. I tend to agree with the views Bede expresses in his first post: http://198.170.108.27/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=402 the difference is ultimately somewhat marginal and certainly not insuperable. Well, I certainly agree with that.
Nathreet 12-03-06, 07:13 PM	You know, I have a recurve bow and a Compound bow made of composite materials (Which is about a foot, foot and a half shorter than my huge ass recurve bow), but I've never seen a composite bow. A recurve bow IS a composite bow. A "standard" bow is made from a single piece of wood (although it may be strengthened by other materials). A long bow of this sort can be well over six feet for a normal sized archer. The classic english longbow was an example of this. A composite bow is made from several pieces of wood (usually more than one type of wood for that manner), horn, sinew, and hide. It is laminated together in a proper order to make the bow far stronger than a standard longbow. If made incorrectly, the bow may well explode in the face of its user. To confuse things further, "composite materials" may refer to fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. Darklord's composite (aka recurve) bow could use fiberglass in place of horn, etc. And for more confusion, laminating multiple different materials together is a composite material. So Darklord's composite bow is made of a composite material which consists of different composite materials. Confused yet?
TheDarkLord 12-03-06, 08:00 PM	To confuse things further, "composite materials" may refer to fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. Darklord's composite (aka recurve) bow could use fiberglass in place of horn, etc. And for more confusion, laminating multiple different materials together is a composite material. So Darklord's composite bow is made of a composite material which consists of different composite materials. Confused yet? Nope, my recurve is made from wood only. It's a very, very old bow that I keep in good shape. I don't know much about it other than my great great grandfather passed it down to my grandfather and my grandfather gave it to me. Though my Compound bow is high tech fiberglass/carbon/titanium mix.
Elthbert 12-04-06, 01:12 AM	great googly moogly! has anyone here fired a bow? any bow can be set to almost any weight in drawback. the advantage of a recurve (or composite, same thing) is that the snapping of the string on release is kept even due the way the yew (that's the material generally used on revurve bows) is curved back and then forward. hence the name recurve. now, with the weight release being kept more even than with a regular longbow, they found they were able to bring the drawback weight higher and higher without sending the arrow into an overly odd flight path. in my game, i let them use any ranged weapon from on a mount with certain restrictions. and the ideas for the restrictions i stole from the Star Wars RPG. obviously, i don't let them use ballistas or catapults. i'm not THAT dumb. A yes I have used a bow quite a bit, I hunt deer and wild Hog with a bow, a recurve bow as a matter of fact, and no you most cetianly cannot set it for whatever weight you want, a bow ( not a compound bow which might be able to be adjusted with in a certian range) is constructed with a certian weight of draw. A 60 lb bow is a 60lb bow, you can't just change it. Now if you mean any type of bow can be constructed for any draw, thats not exactly correct either but is much closer to the truth. And NO a recuve and a Compostie are NOT the same thing, amny english longbows were recurve bows ( contrary to popular thought) and they were NOT composite bows. A recurve bow is a bow which the ends curve back away from the pull of the bow which has all sorts of advantages from a physics perspective, a comosite bow is a bow made from several materials.
Particle_Man 12-04-06, 01:46 AM	It's just that I was wonder why would anyone use a short bow if they could just use a composite longbow on horseback. For "PC heroes going on to greater destinies" not much, unless you have a weapon proficiency restriction (if you are a non-elven rogue, for example). For "Bob, the 1st level NPC warrior", short bows are cheaper than composite long bows. For "King Ralph, on a limited budget", supplying lots of mounted archers with short bows is cheaper than supplying them with composite long bows.
KurenaiYami 12-04-06, 05:00 AM	so, not a typo; RAW is corrent. (isn't it always :D ) Dude, corrent is so awesome now. It's like a hybrid between correct and current, and in this situation, both would make sense!
Elthbert 12-04-06, 09:11 AM	For "PC heroes going on to greater destinies" not much, unless you have a weapon proficiency restriction (if you are a non-elven rogue, for example). For "Bob, the 1st level NPC warrior", short bows are cheaper than composite long bows. For "King Ralph, on a limited budget", supplying lots of mounted archers with short bows is cheaper than supplying them with composite long bows. Agreed on all counts. In a normal D&D setting there is no reason why a higher leveled or important person would use a short bow or even a composite shortbow unless they are required to do so by a proficiency restrictions. However, there might be other reasons such as the fact that making composite longbows maight be a secret of certian peoples, even use of the long bow might be restricted to particular groups. Everything does not have to be available to everyone.
Mollusk 12-04-06, 01:28 PM	No composite bows are harder to pull back--- they have a greater draw weight and a shorter body. Do not confuse Composite Bow with Compound Bow which is a modern complex machine type bow ( which is also not easier to pull back really but mucch much easier to hold back. Yeah you're right man... As soon as I finished posting I was like, wait, Composites probably aren't the same as compound, like what i'm thinking of. but i figured i'd just let it slide. but you right.
savant_warlord13 12-05-06, 04:51 PM	Agter seeing a guy using a 6 foot longbow (with great accuracy) on horseback at a renaissance fair I decided to throw out the rule altogether.