Re: Alternative proposal on missile skills......

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

> Additional Range:
>
> 	Each additional 25% of range on a weapon requires one point of 
> strength above what is needed to use the weapon. For each additional 
> 25% of range which the player will attempt, he rolls 1D6. If the total
> is less then or equal to his missile weapon skill, he gets the increased
> range, and is entitled to a normal roll to hit. If he fails the check, 
> the shot automatically misses, and may strike someone or somewhere else 
> as determined by the GM (Similar to any missed missile attempt).

That's pretty much what John was suggesting I think.

> With this option, I would probably just leave the existing weapon 
> ranges alone.

I thought about that. An if a skill existed to get better range, I'd
cut existing ranges. Think of it this way. Normal range is the maximum
range that Joe Average can hit anything and expect to do damage. A more
skilled person can extend that range out. I can fire a handgun at 15-20
yards and hit the majority of times. Joe can hit everytime at a greater
range. This isn't a mod difference because closer up the differences
aren't as pronounced. And while an argument could be made that the extra
distance increased the DV of the target bringing it back to a mod issue,
I disagree. Mods work on all missile weapons across the board from
javelin to crossbow. Your mod encompasses such things as:

1) timing
2) wind guage
3) ability lead target accurately (predict where he'll be when the missile
   actually gets to him

These things apply equally to all missile weapons. Your skill is specific
to the weapon and allows you to use that weapon better than someone who
is unskilled (even if they have a higher mod). This could be reflected in
extra damaga, multiple attacks, greater distance.

I'd cut back the ranges on missile weapons to a range that Joe Average
(with no skill) can expect to be able to use them accurately. 

That said... No, I don't want to do the actual work and renumber
everything. But I'll also say that if that looks like a big cutback
or 6d6 of adding 25% doesn't even get close to historical max distances,
I'd change 25% to 50% in a heart-beat.

The model we want to end up with:

no skill - small distance that a no skilled person can hit accurately at
6d6      - historical max range with accuracy (currently 150% > no skill)

Obviously there'll be some slanting to get the percentage close enough
in every case, but it shouldn't be too far off.

If a no skill bowman can hit something accurately at 100' (I'm not sure
that I can) than a 6d6 person should be able to hit at 250 (using 25%).

By accurately, I mean take a non-moving target about humanoid size and
shoot it. It should theoretically have 0 DV unless its armored. So the
Joe Average range is the maximum range at which you can always hit this
0 DV target. The 6d6 range would be 150% more range and we would be
saying that a 6d6 check against your bow skill would let you hit a 0DV
target 150% further than Joe Average. That's skill.

						-Steve