Re: archery commentary

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

> 
> What about cover? ( not Rob's suggestion of cover which I am against since
> combat is fluid and that sounds like holding an action ).  The ability to
> furnish unpassable shields is missing from our game. ( Obviously nothing
> is unpassable you can come in from the sides ). As GMs we all let someone
> hide on the other side of a wall but Trees and Tables generally have not
> afforded any protection we might as well be in the open to ranged attacks.
> Does anyone have a simple way to determine the protection of an overturned
> table? No charts please.
> 					     Greg

I've run that in the past, what I allowed was:

	The person was taking no offensive action(the one being shot at),
	they were just hiding behind an upturned table.  I ruled that it
	took a crit(the arrow going through the table, and it was a
	heavy oak one), to hit them.  And even then it was just a hit.

	For a lighter table that an arrow could penatrate, I'd give a
	significant penalty to hit, may be -8 or so?  

	For a tree, something similiar to the heavy table for a big tree,
	but generally they won't try and shoot at you if you are just
	hiding behind a tree.

	Again, remember, these are STRICTLY for purely defensive purposes.
	The person was pinned down by archers, and making no attempt,
	at that moment to be offensive.  i.e. not popping up to fire or
	whip off a spell, ect...  They were just cowering behind a
	table.

	For someone charging someone using a table, I'd give them the -8
	or so thing.  You can still hit their legs and hands or go
	through the wood, but its harder.  Same if the person is using a
	mobile mantlet or other big mobile shield.

	For someone doing the fire, duck, fire thing, I'd give less of
	a bonus, you are afterall exposing yourself during 'simultaneous'
	actions.

Wright