Let me just say that I have read all the email on this subject up
until this time. First of all I REALLY, REALLY like John Hogg's
idea because of the following:
1. It fits in with other AQ type things since we tend to do skill
checks to do extra things instead having special rules for special
situations.
2. I believe Dan mentioned at the meeting that he didn't like the
ranges and that range tables were a bad idea.
Honestly I voted to approve the weapon list, because it had a lot of
very good things in it and Wright had done a chunk of excellent
work. I REALLY didn't like the bows, but the vote was not set up to
allow GM's to vote on particular items. We had to accept the whole
list or not. I was planning at the time of starting a separate vote
to modify the bows after I had done some more research.
As a side note on being able to hit things at a distance. Using a
rifle that is capable of being accurate up to 300yards, I only hit a
3 foot by 3 foot target 85% of the time at 100 yards and I was using
a scope. While I have not shot a rifle a heck of a lot, I have shot
a shot gun more than anyone on this list (even though Joe might
argue otherwise). Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can
hit it! (And this was not a moving target).
I think John has come up with a nice option. Why don't we just cut
the ranges on the bows to mean effective range and reduce the number
by at least 30%.
(Sorry Wright :) )
-Kris
----------
> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> To: Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>
> Cc: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>; gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
> Subject: Re: archery
> Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 12:59 PM
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> John Hogg johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu
> "Adventure? Excitement? A jedi craves not these things."
> -Silent Bob, "Mallrats"
>
>