longshot at DARKTECH.ORG
Thu Apr 19 20:39:55 CEST 2001
At 12:43 PM 4/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
>|| I have a huge problem with the "row for bow" system. Even though,
>|| apparently, that is what it does indeed state in the book,
>|| it totally goes
>|| against the rest of the entire system. I DO NOT agree that
>|| guns and bows
>|| are "point and pull" weapons. I took one too many archery classes to
>|| believe that.
>There are many differnt systems in P&P, as you well know. Witness the
>various differing systems used to handle swimming, Climbing and Influence.
Darn good point :)
>I do agree that using it straight is somewhat unreasonable, but bows are
>pretty much a "fire and forget" system. At most ranges you are targeting a
>most-likely landing point, not bobbing and weaving in order to stay on
>target (which is what the OCV-DCV simulates).
>I do shoot archery to some degree, so I have at least some common
>experience. (EL0, EL1 at best :). AT a 20 yard target (60', or 6" -- Short
>range with my composite bow, a +7) Assigning me a 65% chance to hit a
>combat-aware and moving mansized target is probably being a bit generous; I
>get about 80% on a non-moving target so I guess it's ok.
I also get similar results but with a simple bow. But I've not done it in a
>However, I know several people I would easily classify as EL8+, but with
>about the same "CEL" as me scoring a lot of "deadlies" and "Severe" hits at
>that same range, moreso then would be justified by an extra 7% to hit.
Yeah there is a HS in town that does Archery and some of them are real good
but it is distance and at times random chance that determines success.
>Obviously, many of the rules in P&P are for simulation only and should just
>invoke SoD as 'P&P physics' :}
Yeah heck. If you wanted to take into reality we are forgetting gravity, wind
other things we should use in the rules :). I remeber reading a brief
monk did in the middle ages on bow weapons and he did quite a study on it
and it had alot of that stuff (as far as the science went) in it.
>Well, taking a real squinty-eyed look at the table shows that 1 CEL ~~ 2 EL
>in hitting effectiveness (basically). If you used the row level as a bonus
>(inverting the sign, of course), a +8 bonus is effectivly the same as
>getting +4 CEL. However, the -8 on the roll weights it toward the deadly
>hits, instead of spreading it over the entire hit range. EL alone should do
Yep. EL is pretty much shakiness of hands and Eyes. It determines if your
shot is solid or shaky and if your eye is good in effect.
>Perhaps a slight change in process will do this justice. First off, I doubt
>SB is a help in missile fire any more then DB is in defending against it.
>StB makes sense (being able to remain steady and hold the bow string while
>aiming) as does AB on the defense. Perhaps one needs to make a RCV (Ranged
>Combat Value) of CEL+StB and a RDV (Ranged Dodge Value) of CEL+AB. Purists,
>like Marcel :} can just use OCV and DCV for simplicity.
Hehe...that's a compromise I guess. SB only affects damage in effect if your
stronger the bolt has more power behind it.
>The problem is what to do with the bow values. I'll create an excel table
>(which I will send to Wout) with all the ranged weapon values converted to
>TABLE modifiers (not roll modifiers).
>We'll see how that works this or next weekend.
> -- Burton
But we are forgetting if Snider put this rule into affect per Alex's questions
hes god and we should not go against the grain :) (well...ok maybe we should
but i think that's how they wanted it done...)
More information about the pnp