Re: archery

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> 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.

Sure GMs do this all the time.(tm)

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

Yes and No. Doing math is certainly more complicated than looking at
a chart. So from that standpoint you are correct. However, even though
it is objectively more complicated, John's proposal would run faster.
With a chart you have to have the chart. That means a lot of "let me
see your book" or "look this up for me"... after a bit some people will
start memorizing it, some won't. GMs will be _FORCED_ to memorize it
or slow their games down looking it up everytime. I hate having to stop
to look up crits and wished the chart was simpler.

The way John proposes it the player says I fire at arrow at blah. I'm
rolling 2d6 for extra distance... Doh! Never mind, drive through.

Skill costs more than mod, and caps out at a stat, so I'm all for this :)
And it logically caps off at about double for a skilled archer. A REALLY
skilled archer can get 75% more distance 100% of the time... accurately.
I don't have a problem with that. And to achieve this feat they spend
51300 XP (compared to 4200 eeps (for a warrior) to buy their mod up to 6
to compensate for double distance. Definate dedication difference here.

						-Steve