Re: archery

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

> 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.

I never look up crits, I got my handy dandy GM Cheat Sheets with almost
every relevant chart on'em.  Fast and simple for what I don't memorize.

> 
> 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.

Missile Chart combat: 
	a) ask range
	b) consult table
	c) subtract modifier
	d) roll

John's Combat:
	a) ask range
	b) consult table
	c) divide out 25% of appropriate range from table
	d) Figure out how many more incriments of 25% you need to
		hit the person.
	e) roll skill check
	f) roll to hit or not if you blow the check.

> 
> 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

Where do you get these numbers?  Bow skill is only 180.  

Granted I do like John's system, however for ease of game play, its not
simpler, but it would go a step or two towards making bow skills
useful.

Wright