RE: archery

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Rightio, guys.  I, too, like John's proposed solution for archery, but
instead of halving the already given distances, I'd drop them by a
third or so (i.e. the 200' for the bow would be 140', just under the
old value).  This would result in a 2d6 check giving you basically
the old range of the weapon.

I also agree with Steve's counter to Wright's argument for the charts.
Despite the fact that the chart would give the answer in all cases (for
Joe Pud (tm) as well as a Master Archer (i.e., Bow skill of 14 or so)),
there is still time required to look that information up during game play.

Finally, contrary to Wright's assessment of John's proposal, I find it to
be _simple_ and _elegant_.  I would love to see a write up ASAP so
we can vote on this.

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]
Sent:	Monday, September 21, 1998 1:46 PM
To:	johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu; khelek@ns1.cioe.com
Cc:	gmlist@cioe.com
Subject:	Re: archery

> 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