Re: archery

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> Ok,
> Archery ...
> 
> What I propose will still allow the maximum range for the bows to be what
> they are now, based upon the skill of the wielder (pretty cool, eh?), and
> resolve the issue about doubling range at the price of -6 to hit
> 
> First, the -6 to hit for double range should be dropped outright because
> of the way it interacts with existing rules (Ironically it allows those
> whom are completely incompetent with a bow to be more lethal at extended
> range than someone with great skill.  Let me explain:
> 
> The premise behind doubling range and sacrificing accuracy was at least,
> in part based on engaging masses of incoming troops, ostensibly in tight
> formations.
> 
> Now, assuming the original MDV of the troops are a conservative 12,
> someone with a Missle Mod = 0 firing at maximum range hits only on 19 or 
> 20 (a crit).

The chances of being critted are still the same as with anything else.
You get the same thing when fighting someone in the dark (-8 to hit).

> 
> That is, 1 in 2 hits is a crit.
> 
> A more experienced bowman with a MM = 5 would hit on 14-20.
> 
> That is, 1 in 7 hits is a crit.
> 
> As the rules state that when firing on masses of troops, a miss simply
> results in a roll on another target (# of potential targets up to GM).
> 
> In the premise of a large mass of troops, and therefore large number of
> secondary targets to be additional rolls when the bowman misses, the
> rookie kills more people outright than the veteran simply because he rolls
> more piercing crits.

No, because the average non-adventurer, has only 6dp or so.  May be a
few more if he's a soldier.  The _ELITE_ soldiers would have more
than 10 or _MAY_ be 15.

Sorry, Don't buy it John, 1/5 of the rookies' hits are going to be crits,
however, he's still going to hit _FAR_ less than the vet who its 1 out
of 7 times.  I'll gladly take my chances against the rookie, any time,
any day.

> 
> Proposal:
> ========
> 1)	Maximum range on a bow and effective range on a bow are two
> 	completely different animals.
> 	Example:  the bow (from the '96 manual printing) has a range of
> 	160 feet, a bit over 50 yards.  Undoubtedly, one could fire a shaft
> 	farther, but not with any accuracy or damage and still be within
> 	the rules.
> 2)	However, giving Skippy the wonderbowman a bigger bow doesn't make
> 	just as easy to aim and hit at twice the range, it merely allows 
> 	the arrow to do some (admittedly impressive) damage when it gets
> 	there, and makes the trajectory a bit more linear (perhaps
> 	SLIGHTLY easier to aim as a result, but we already agreed we
> 	don't want to get into the battle of +1's)
> 
> I suggest:
> 
> 1)	Reducing the new bow and crossbow ranges considerably ... not
> because the hardware can't deliver a payload at a dramatic range, but
> because as Wright said (paraphrased), he'd be lucky to SEE a target at
> that range, let alone hit it.

I said I'd be lucky to see a 4.8" target at 230 feet.  I said nothing
about a man sized target being difficult to see at said range.

> 
> Therefore reduce the printed range on the weapon list (the effective
> range) for the weapon.
> 
> 2)	Check out the Artillery skill.  One of the abilities of the
> Artillery skill is extending range.  Incorporate this into the Missle
> weapon skill.
> 
> I believe extending range is done as follows:
> 
> add 25% of the weapons printed (effective) range per each D6 rolled
> against the skill ... up to an additional 100%.
> 
> However, weapon breaks (overstressed) on a roll of 1 on attacking D20 (I
> presume BEFORE missle mod is added)
> 
> This would also make the missle weapon skills worth having above 7 or 12
> (almost solely for quickdraw)
> 
> Simpler than range tables AND skill based
> 

I disagree..weapon tables are very simple.  I've dealt with them for
years in AD&D.  Each player knows the range of his weapon, he asks
the GM what the range from A to B is(gee this is already done), then
auto adds or subtracts from his MM.

I see no difficulty in this.

re: BJ's note of cover, etc...  this is already done in AQ, the GM
gives a modifier if one is needed.  I routinely do it, its a simple
He's behind a small tree, give him a -4.  Its up to the GM, and a simple
thing.

Again, I don't see a difficulty in this.  The system you propose John is
far more complicated and time consuming.

Wright