Re: archery commentary

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

> From: Benjamin Austin <jedi@ecn.purdue.edu>
>
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:
> > > With a bow range of 720 feet (200% of Keiron Bow Range), your naked 
> > > warrior takes 11 rounds of fire to get into melee range.  With the 
> > > Bowman switching over to quickdraw once you're inside 360ft you take 8 
> > > or 9 Broad-tips at a d10 each before your warrior arrives to BEGIN 
> > > killing him quickly and efficiently.  Sprinting will help do a marginal 
> > > degree, but being a naked target, the bowman with descent missile mod 
> > > won't miss.  Expect to take 6d10 damage if you can make a sprinting 
> > > check, 8d10 if you cannot.  
> > 
> > a) If he hits with all of them.
> > b) the Kieron bow only does a d8.
>
> As per Steve's comment regrading the shield, I would not allow someone to 
> sprint where they are using a arm to hold a 15-20 object in front of 
> them - it is an action contary to the form required for sprinting.  

15-20? object you mean pounds right? Or foot (ie a large table and more
than 1 person). I would let them sprint with a shield never makes a
difference to me. It might not be on the reasonable list but I don't
care about it. It shows guts to make the move and doesn't totally
deny me hitting 'em. Plus the firemage standing behind the bowman will
take care of the first batch of people who try to approach.

> > > >Or get a firemage to go forth and blow them away with a fireball. 8d6 
> > > >in one round after being the target of a couple of arrows is a risk.
> > > 
> > > Again with a ruling that the range can be extended by skill to 720 feet, 
> > > it's not a couple arrows it's 7 to 9 (depending on sprinting, assuming a 
> > > naked mage) before the firemage gets to 120 feet to toss a fireball 
> > > (this does ignore finessing).
> > 
> > As others have said, if you are encountering someone at 720, you are
> > a fool to charge them.
>
> Commented as below
>
> > > Imagine the above scenerio with an archer who has Flaming Arrows.  The 
> > > sprinting warrior eats 6 to 8 arrows at 1d10 + 1d8 each.
> > > 
> > > I like seeing the bow range extended to make missile weapons more 
> > > useful.  But quading the bow range (Keiron Great Bow with skill is a 
> > > 450% bow range jump), is likely to unbalance things in the opposite 
> > > direction.
> > 
> > [Wright reminds us they are RARE and COSTLY]
> >
> > > > The only problem I see with the range situation is that there i
> > > >tend to be scores of dedicated archers for the enemies while we, as 
> > > >adventurers, tend to be diverse.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the above examples assume a single archer.  Banks of archers now 
> > > become unassailable as there range with skill is 5 or 6 times the 
> > > longest ranged spells.
> > 
> > [ Argument about using LONG EYES is just as effective ]
>
> So I need to be a better than average fire/air mage with one or two 
> combinations of spells from multiple groups to begin to take on some 
> shmoe 2/5 of a met away.  Sound unbalancing?
>
> In the game that I ran last weekend, the players came up against a Keep 
> with ten guys on the wall with crossbows.  They had to cover an open 
> field of 600' and I informed the players that they were not extended 
> range crossbows.  The average rating was 24 and no one even attempted to 
> run across the field.

Hey if I was playing my rate 107 I would have just stormed the sucker. But
I was playing my rate 10 and only had 30 DP. If I had more DP and a way to
get to them, since they were on a wall, I might have done it. I think Levi 
should have ENMASSED picked a tree up and charged forward using the tree 
as a shield ( the reason I asked about cover in another post ) and us 
following up behind him.

> > [ Wright again telling us the pain in the Ass to get these bows as well
> >   as the proper training to use em ]
>
> You can say that they are hard to find but as these weapons become common 
> ground, I know that 5 people are going to have them by the end of the 
> semester based on the way gms give out items.
>
> Sorry, but I do not care for the new ranges and am infavor of Dan's idea.
>
> BJ

One of the reasons for this list is to remind GMs of certain restrictions they
should keep in mind before handing out crap in a game. Wright has a good 
point whenever he uses the availability card as part of his arguments.
If we could get GMs to stick to availability they are fine. I like the drop
the range a tad ( to represent the unskilled shot distances ) and then use
skill to increase range. Some weapons CANNOT go past a certain range ( flat
ground ). I'm against Dan's minimum strength idea to get the longer ranges since
it can't be applied to crossbows or other fixed draw/pull weapons.

							Greg