A little learning...

Longbows and crossbows of sufficient draw weight could both pierce plate armor (depending on the missile tip being used).

Modern crossbows of lower draw weight (150-200 lbs) can pierce most medieval plate armor if tipped with a bodkin type point. Because the material for the string wasn't as strong during the heyday of the crossbow as a those used for modern bowstrings, medieval crossbow strings were thicker and threw a bolt more slowly than modern crossbows do. Because of the lower velocity due to the thicker bowstring, greater draw weights were needed on crossbows to achieve the same velocity and force. That is why most military crossbows from the medieval period needed a cranquin or lever to draw the bow. Rate of fire was slow.

The advantages to the military crossbow were that its was easy to achieve proficiency in its use and, as it was a direct fire weapon, it was an excellent missile weapon with which to defend fortifications.

The longbow had a higher rate of fire and could equal the penetrating power of all but the very heaviest of crossbows, but attaining the necessary skill, musculature, and strength to use the bow effectively in war took years of practice and use. This was why the English crown passed laws forbidding all other sport but archery by the yeomanry for much of the medieval period.

The short, heavy, double recurve composite bows of the mongols, magyars, and parthians, also had tremendous penetrating power and were quite capable of penetrating most medieval armors.

As to who would use a bow on a battlefield against a foe in plate armor, well, the English against the French (very, very effectively at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt), the mongols against the russian, bohemian, wallachian, moldavian, hungarian, austrian, and german armors (again with devastating effect), the mercenary troops of the great English captain John Hawkwood against those of other condottieri in the Italian states, and the Parthians against the Romans when they annihilated the legions led by Crassius.

Granted an isolated archer is a pretty easy target. But a squad of bowmen on a field of battle, or a squad of crossbowman behind fortifications were and are very deadly as so many cavalry and infantry based military forces learned too late to do them any good.

UH, yeah, not PDS, DPS, my bad.

Wow, thats some amazing calculations. I really hope that you get all the maximum rolls for the 2 minutes you need, because any misses or partial hits will significantly drop that DPS. Rogues are consistanly high DPS because of their abilities, not their disciplines, relying on 2 disciplines will help your group on a single mob, not the entire raid. When you pick a team, do you pick a memeber based on how they perform on a single mob, or how they perform for the night? So instead of calculating what you can do once every 72min, why don't you calculate what it can do for a 4 hour night of fighting? Then compare DPS to what other classes did in the same amount of time.

BTW, I went back and calculated my own perfect roll for same 2 min time frame, using Rage, and LSoEE, max haste, Duelist discipline, and Bite of Shissar(125dd proc), I roughly estimate 82,340 damage in 120 seconds, or 686 dps. But realistically, I only get about 70-90 dps on average for a night atm.

Aruun Dur'Faroth
60th Assassin

Edited, Thu Dec 19 09:53:46 2002