Because Archers aren't powerful enough already..3.5 E feat "Manyshot"
jh
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030225a
A: Well, here's a new feat, Manyshot, along with the sketch of its
illustration.
Manyshot [General]
You can fire multiple arrows as a single attack against a nearby target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single
opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4
penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).
For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may
add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at
a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a
cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total of -6 on the third
arrow and -8 on the fourth).
Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each
arrow fired.
Special: Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply
precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once. If you
score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage;
all others deal regular damage.
A fighter may select Manyshot as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as
having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but
only when he is wearing light or no armor.
www.yahoogroups.com/group/d20conan
..
Wayne Shaw
>FROM WIZARDS.COM:
>http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030225a
>
>A: Well, here's a new feat, Manyshot, along with the sketch of its
>illustration.
>
As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
deal.
Scott Schimmel
>As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
>of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
>practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
>deal.
Actually, unless I'm missing something, it's exactly like the non-epic
version from the ELH, except for the part about the ranger. The epic
Improved Manyshot lets you use more than four arrows, but this
version, like the ELH Manyshot, caps at four.
--
Scott Schimmel * Ex ignorantia ad sapientium;
http://schimmel.sandwich.net * ex luce ad tenebras.
"You really aren't normal, are you?" - Miki Koishikawa
Wayne Shaw
Schimmel) wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
>>of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
>>practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
>>deal.
>
>Actually, unless I'm missing something, it's exactly like the non-epic
>version from the ELH, except for the part about the ranger. The epic
>Improved Manyshot lets you use more than four arrows, but this
>version, like the ELH Manyshot, caps at four.
Hmmm. I thought the non-epic one capped at two. Perhaps I've
misremembered.
Kershek
sh...@caprica.com says...
> As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
> of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
> practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
> deal.
Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack. Since
this manyshot[3.5] is a standard action (and therefore an attack), you can
theoretically still get two manyshots off in one round while hasted[3.5].
Michael Scott Brown
news:MPG.18c94dd4e...@news.gddsi.com...
> In article <51ef401de83c756b...@news.easyusenet.com>,
> sh...@caprica.com says...
> > As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
> > of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
> > practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
> > deal.
>
> Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack.
If you full attack; presuming the implement it as d20 did.
-Michael
Doug Lampert
All previous publications were non core sources, and definitely were
not class features of a core class. Hence they could be ignored, any
of my players who want to can look at the lists of feats allowed from
noncore sources and note that Manyshot is NOT there.
If I want to switch to 3.5 I will either need to allow this silliness
or make a significant change to the core system.
I am not all that worried about the power level, but what the crap
does this feat represent doing!?! Shooting multiple arrows at the
same time by putting them all on the string at once I would guess
(from the ELH illustration that is what the illustrator thought),
but that is (a) absurd, (2) will not work, and (iii) if it did
work would not produce a bunch of arrows that either all hit or all
missed since there is no particular reason they should all follow
the same course.
If the arrows rolled attacks separately then at least I could assume
it simply represented shooting real fast.
Wuxia I am fine with, but if I am supposed to be running a game of
_Men In Tights_ I will use something like a BESM varient.
DougL
Kershek
mister...@earthlink.net says...
Ah, yes, that's true. Good one. Though unfortunately if another person in
this thread is right, if using True Strike for all shots in a Manyshot is
possible, then that brings up another problem.
Michael Scott Brown
> > > Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack.
> >
> > If you full attack; presuming the implement it as d20 did.
>
> Ah, yes, that's true. Good one. Though unfortunately if another person
in
> this thread is right, if using True Strike for all shots in a Manyshot is
> possible, then that brings up another problem.
I think it's reasonable to treat the "first" arrow with True Shot's +20
and the remainder w/o the bonus.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:916560b6.03022...@posting.google.com...
> If I want to switch to 3.5 I will either need to allow this silliness
> or make a significant change to the core system.
Oh, please. "This feat does not appear in my campaign" is hardly a
"significant change to the core system".
> I am not all that worried about the power level, but what the crap
> does this feat represent doing!?! Shooting multiple arrows at the
> same time by putting them all on the string at once I would guess
That's my impression.
> but that is (a) absurd, (2) will not work,
It's an incredibly common fantasy staple - the archery supremacy
equivalent of the cinematic whirlwind attack.
> and (iii) if it did work would not produce a bunch of arrows that either
all hit or all
> missed since there is no particular reason they should all follow
> the same course.
There's no particular reason they *shouldn't*, either, if someone had
practiced at this particular trick. He would be familiar with how the
arrows fly when multiply nocked, and could conceivably direct them according
to his will. The fat penalties, coupled with range modifiers, make it
*hard* to get away with anywhere other than at point blank ranges, and
that's the distance in which trajectories are the flattest anyway.
> If the arrows rolled attacks separately then at least I could assume
> it simply represented shooting real fast.
That's what full-attacking is for.
Mind you, I'm not sure I'm in love with the feat either; the game
mechanical implications are really ... odd, and I'm not sure I like the one
attack roll sink-or-swim mechanic for a "set" of arrows, but on the other
hand, if you shoot 'em all at once, there must be some form of simultenaeity
(perhaps it should be treated as some kind of area of effect attack).
However, your gripes here don't really sound like useful criticisms. We can
*envision* the procedure (thanks to cinema), and so the next question is:
"are these mechanics a good way to represent that" and "are they
overpowered?".
-Michael
Rob Douglas
<ker...@somewhere.net> wrote:
But it is not really a problem, because the extra arrows do not get
criticals, sneak attacks, or favored enemy bonuses. You only get those
once for the attack. You still get all the Str and all the energy burst
bonus damage. It is nice, but it won't make them any more powerful, not
when you consider what Power Attack and True Strike can do in common on
one attack.
ROB
Michael Scott Brown
news:rdouglas-280...@dhcp-235-034.stsci.edu...
> But it is not really a problem, because the extra arrows do not get
> criticals, sneak attacks, or favored enemy bonuses. You only get those
> once for the attack. You still get all the Str and all the energy burst
> bonus damage. It is nice, but it won't make them any more powerful, not
> when you consider what Power Attack and True Strike can do in common on
> one attack.
Seems more like it fills a mobility-enhancing niche for the Great
Archer; if he can land the attack, it makes his shot-on-the-run attack more
effective (since this is a standard action attack).
Logic issue: I think that STR bonuses should only be counted once; after
all, if the missiles are being fired simultaneously then the bonuses of a
'mighty' weapon are being divided among them.
Conceptual issue: this is another example of "shuriken-like" attacks.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
And what if you don't full attack? What if you just make one attack? New
Improved Haste doesn't let you get another attack? I honestly don't know, I
don't have d20 Modern (what I presume you meant above) and I need to leave in 5
minutes so I can't look at the SRD just now.
It seems it should, after all, doing *less* should leave you with more time to
do stuff in the round.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Michael Scott Brown
> >> Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack.
> >
> > If you full attack; presuming the implement it as d20 did.
>
> And what if you don't full attack? What if you just make one attack?
The general gist is, if you full attack, you get an additional attack in
the sequence; essentially identical to the game effect of a sword of speed
(ie; 2 attacks at full BAB, plus your iteratives & TWF bonus). If you take
a standard action, then you can move farther than before. There is no
casting of 2 spells per round anymore, nor is there two attacks and a whole
move unit.
> It seems it should, after all, doing *less* should leave you with more
time to
> do stuff in the round.
Apparently the decision is that fighting long enough to turn your speed
into an extra attack should tie you up enough to keep you from moving
anywhere significant in the round. After all, as things stand, the game
presumes that a standard attack consumes 3+epsilon seconds of a 6 second
round; thus there isn't enough time to make two of them even if you don't
move (frankly, I think this disjoint between stand-and-fight and
move-and-fight is poor design and something ought to be done, but that's
me); haste can buy you a bonus attack as soon as it gets your attack time to
3-epsilon seconds, but two of those can gobble up the whole round if epsilon
is sufficiently small.
-Michael
Kershek
doug.l...@tdytsi.com says...
> I am not all that worried about the power level, but what the crap
> does this feat represent doing!?! Shooting multiple arrows at the
> same time by putting them all on the string at once I would guess
> (from the ELH illustration that is what the illustrator thought),
> but that is (a) absurd, (2) will not work, and (iii) if it did
> work would not produce a bunch of arrows that either all hit or all
> missed since there is no particular reason they should all follow
> the same course.
I've seen it work beautifully with 2 arrows at once with target archery.
Extrapolate it to Legolas-like effect and you have manyshot. Seems
perfectly fine for fantasy gaming.
> Wuxia I am fine with, but if I am supposed to be running a game of
> _Men In Tights_ I will use something like a BESM varient.
I'm surprised you'd have a problem with this if you're fine with Wuxia,
which includes running in trees and up walls.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack. Since
>this manyshot[3.5] is a standard action (and therefore an attack), you can
>theoretically still get two manyshots off in one round while hasted[3.5].
I think as with Ed, you're misinterpeting what the change means. In
practice, the elimination of the partial action is just a
simplification of terminology, but a standard action and an attack do
_not_ mean the same thing.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>
>I am not all that worried about the power level, but what the crap
>does this feat represent doing!?! Shooting multiple arrows at the
>same time by putting them all on the string at once I would guess
>(from the ELH illustration that is what the illustrator thought),
>but that is (a) absurd, (2) will not work, and (iii) if it did
>work would not produce a bunch of arrows that either all hit or all
>missed since there is no particular reason they should all follow
>the same course.
I will use one word: Legolas. This feat was specifically inspired by
one stunt in the movie.
If it bothers you, it does, but if I was bothered by something being
over the top, I'd not chose D&D as my game. From day one it's been
over the top.
Michael Scott Brown
> I will use one word: Legolas. This feat was specifically inspired by
> one stunt in the movie.
Such tricky business has been in cinema and cartoonery well before LOTR.
Legolas' only new contribution to the genre, AFAIK, is the use of the
arrow as a dagger before firing it.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>In article <MPG.18c978bcf...@news.gddsi.com>, Kershek
><ker...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <4pN7a.6321$Wl3.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> mister...@earthlink.net says...
>> > "Kershek" <ker...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.18c94dd4e...@news.gddsi.com...
>> > > In article <51ef401de83c756b...@news.easyusenet.com>,
>> > > sh...@caprica.com says...
>> > > > As has been noted elsewhere, this isn't really new; it's a combination
>> > > > of the epic and non-epic versions of the feat from the ELH. And in
>> > > > practice, once they punt the extra action from Haste, it's no big
>> > > > deal.
>> > >
>> > > Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack.
>> >
>> > If you full attack; presuming the implement it as d20 did.
>>
>> Ah, yes, that's true. Good one. Though unfortunately if another person in
>> this thread is right, if using True Strike for all shots in a Manyshot is
>> possible, then that brings up another problem.
>
>But it is not really a problem, because the extra arrows do not get
>criticals, sneak attacks, or favored enemy bonuses. You only get those
>once for the attack. You still get all the Str and all the energy burst
>bonus damage.
<nitpick>
You only get the burst damage once (since you can only crit once), though you do
get the energy damage for each arrow.
</nitpick>
>It is nice, but it won't make them any more powerful, not
>when you consider what Power Attack and True Strike can do in common on
>one attack.
Now think about what happens when you use TS and MS together. Some are saying
(and I'm undecided here) that TS should apply to each arrow (since it is one
attack).
Ed Chauvin IV
Um, no. You pull the bow back so far and the arrow flies harder, faster etc.
There's no reason to believe that adding an arrow or 4 will slow down the first
one, and they certainly don't make the bow harder to draw.
> Conceptual issue: this is another example of "shuriken-like" attacks.
Almost. If it were exactly the same, there wouldn't really be that many
questions about interactions, since we could just look at the shuriken entries
in the faq for guidance.
Ed Chauvin IV
Yes, this is definitely my mistake. And to think I've admonished others for
making the same error in the past. For shame.
Phil Turner
>Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>>"Rob Douglas" <rdou...@stsci.edu> wrote in message
>>news:rdouglas-280...@dhcp-235-034.stsci.edu...
<snip>
>>
>> Logic issue: I think that STR bonuses should only be counted once; after
>>all, if the missiles are being fired simultaneously then the bonuses of a
>>'mighty' weapon are being divided among them.
>Um, no. You pull the bow back so far and the arrow flies harder, faster etc.
>There's no reason to believe that adding an arrow or 4 will slow down the first
>one, and they certainly don't make the bow harder to draw.
You pull the bow back so far, storing a certain amount of energy in it.
You release and the energy is transfered to the arrow(s). The
more arrows, the more ways you need split the energy, so the slower
they end up moving. So there _IS_ a reason to think that adding
arrows might slow down the first.
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply
Michael Scott Brown
after
> >all, if the missiles are being fired simultaneously then the bonuses of a
> >'mighty' weapon are being divided among them.
>
> Um, no. You pull the bow back so far and the arrow flies harder, faster
etc.
> There's no reason to believe that adding an arrow or 4 will slow down the
first
> one, and they certainly don't make the bow harder to draw.
The system can only generate so much potential energy when drawn. If
you divide this between multiple projectiles, the results should be obvious.
Each arrow only gets *part* of the spring power.
-Michael
Wayne Shaw
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>Mere moments before death, Wayne Shaw hastily scrawled:
>>On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:44:07 -0700, Kershek <ker...@somewhere.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, the new haste[3.5] is supposed to provide an extra attack. Since
>>>this manyshot[3.5] is a standard action (and therefore an attack), you can
>>>theoretically still get two manyshots off in one round while hasted[3.5].
>>
>>I think as with Ed, you're misinterpeting what the change means. In
>>practice, the elimination of the partial action is just a
>>simplification of terminology, but a standard action and an attack do
>>_not_ mean the same thing.
>
>Yes, this is definitely my mistake. And to think I've admonished others for
>making the same error in the past. For shame.
Eh. It happens. I made a really long argument when the ELH came out
that Improved Spellcasting would let you access Epic Spellcasting as a
Bard or Ranger given enough increments, by the same kind of thing.
Then I had my nose rubbed in the specific terminology and had to admit
by it, I was wrong. Fact it turned out the terminology was bad and my
assumption _was_ the intent makes no difference here.
Ed Chauvin IV
>> > Logic issue: I think that STR bonuses should only be counted once;
>after
>> >all, if the missiles are being fired simultaneously then the bonuses of a
>> >'mighty' weapon are being divided among them.
>>
>> Um, no. You pull the bow back so far and the arrow flies harder, faster
>etc.
>> There's no reason to believe that adding an arrow or 4 will slow down the
>first
>> one, and they certainly don't make the bow harder to draw.
>
> The system can only generate so much potential energy when drawn.
And this amount of energy is so great in comparison to the mass of an arrow that
the arrow will fly hundreds of yards. And besides, maybe the feat includes
pulling the string a *bit* farther than you would normally in order to
compensate for the additional mass?
>If you divide this between multiple projectiles, the results should be obvious.
>Each arrow only gets *part* of the spring power.
If that's the case, you should be splitting the range increment with every extra
arrow. And doing less damage with arrows even if the bow isn't mighty.
Michael Scott Brown
the first
> >> one, and they certainly don't make the bow harder to draw.
> >
> > The system can only generate so much potential energy when drawn.
>
> And this amount of energy is so great in comparison to the mass of an
arrow that
> the arrow will fly hundreds of yards.
Of course. But when you add a *second arrow*, that energy is divided in
two.
> And besides, maybe the feat includes
> pulling the string a *bit* farther than you would normally in order to
> compensate for the additional mass?
Apparently I need to bludgeon you with physics.
The potential energy stored in the bow, E, is transformed into an
equivalent amount of kinetic energy at the launch of the missile (presuming
100% efficiency for now). That kinetic energy translates into velocity via
the formula KE= (1/2)*mass*(V^2), which you can solve for velocity = Sqrt(
2*E/mass). Velocity then translates into distance when combined with launch
angle and so on and so forth.
Nocking several arrows doesn't change one whit of the energy you store
in the bow by drawing it, so E remains the same. However, the energy is
divided among the projectiles evenly (on a clean release), so for any given
arrow in a manyshot you get KE'=(E/n)=(1/2)*m*(V'^2), or V' = sqrt (2*
(E/n)/mass) = sqrt(1/N)*[velocity with a single arrow]
Fire 2 arrows at once, and *like it or not*, each flies at about 3/4
their original velocity. Fire 4, and they move at half. The total energy of
the bow is divided among the arrows.
That's why it makes sense to apply strength-bonus damage only *once*, as
the sum of a subdivided strength input. The manyshotted arrows *must* impact
more weakly than their singleton counterparts.
Pulling a "bit" farther is irrelevant; if pulling a "bit" farther could
be used to generate extra power so as to hurl two arrows each with all the
strength of a standard arrow shot, then one could just as well do so with a
single arrow, and give *it* all that energy. Further, to match conditions
you would have pull so much farther that you doubled the energy stored in
the bow. Unlikely!
> >If you divide this between multiple projectiles, the results should be
obvious.
> >Each arrow only gets *part* of the spring power.
>
> If that's the case, you should be splitting the range increment with every
extra
> arrow. And doing less damage with arrows even if the bow isn't mighty.
Manyshot is for point blank only, so range increments aren't an issue.
-Michael
Hong Ooi
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:b3effbdecfc3c53f...@news.easyusenet.com...
>> I will use one word: Legolas. This feat was specifically inspired by
>> one stunt in the movie.
>
> Such tricky business has been in cinema and cartoonery well before LOTR.
Indeed. In addition to _Men in Tights_, the Zen swordsman guy (can't
remember his name) in _A Chinese Ghost Story_ was also doing the Manyshot
thing back in 1987, way before Legolas.
--
Hong Ooi | "If you don't appreciate it,
ho...@zipworld.com.au | ignore me"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- WS
Sydney, Australia |
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:39:40 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>>news:b3effbdecfc3c53f...@news.easyusenet.com...
>>> I will use one word: Legolas. This feat was specifically inspired by
>>> one stunt in the movie.
>>
>> Such tricky business has been in cinema and cartoonery well before LOTR.
>
>Indeed. In addition to _Men in Tights_, the Zen swordsman guy (can't
>remember his name) in _A Chinese Ghost Story_ was also doing the Manyshot
>thing back in 1987, way before Legolas.
However, the author of the feat has specifically mentioned the FOTR
movie as what prompted him to it.
Michael Scott Brown
> >Indeed. In addition to _Men in Tights_, the Zen swordsman guy (can't
> >remember his name) in _A Chinese Ghost Story_ was also doing the Manyshot
> >thing back in 1987, way before Legolas.
>
> However, the author of the feat has specifically mentioned the FOTR
> movie as what prompted him to it.
The author seems to have forgotten the Elfmunchkin handbook from 2nd
edition ...
-Michael
Robert S. Harrison
... and what inspired the FOTR usage was a wide range of prior art.
What is so goddamed difficult to understand about this?
RSH&
Ed Chauvin IV
All well and good, but that's no reason to restrict Str bonus to a single arrow.
That's a reason to apply a damage penalty to all arrows, and decrease the range
increment.
> Pulling a "bit" farther is irrelevant; if pulling a "bit" farther could
>be used to generate extra power so as to hurl two arrows each with all the
>strength of a standard arrow shot, then one could just as well do so with a
>single arrow, and give *it* all that energy. Further, to match conditions
>you would have pull so much farther that you doubled the energy stored in
>the bow. Unlikely!
OK then, where does the extra energy come from when a stronger person uses a
mighty bow? Is the guy with Str 18 pushing the arrow as he releases the string
for a bit more oomph? Obviously not.
>> >If you divide this between multiple projectiles, the results should be
>obvious.
>> >Each arrow only gets *part* of the spring power.
>>
>> If that's the case, you should be splitting the range increment with every
>extra
>> arrow. And doing less damage with arrows even if the bow isn't mighty.
>
> Manyshot is for point blank only, so range increments aren't an issue.
As soon as you stick 3 arrows on a shortbow for your Many Shot, it would be.
Wayne Shaw
<webm...@rharrisonplc.com> wrote:
>>However, the author of the feat has specifically mentioned the FOTR
>>movie as what prompted him to it.
>
>... and what inspired the FOTR usage was a wide range of prior art.
>What is so goddamed difficult to understand about this?
That it had nothing to do with my point about where _specifically_ the
feat came from?
Cut back on the caffeine.
A'koss
news:UGi8a.9109$Wl3.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> Apparently I need to bludgeon you with physics.
This just got me thinking on the real "usable range" for missile weapons.
Arrows aren't particularly speedy projectiles - they travel between 170 -
270 ft per second. A single archer trying to hit a person 1 second's
distance away (who was aware of the archer) would have a tough time - even
an untrained target should be able to dodge it pretty easily. 2 seconds or
more with ease. D&D bows can have ranges of 1000' or more, and at ~250
ft/sec that arrow takes 4 whole seconds to reach it's target. Not to mention
the loss of energy an arrow suffers over distance. At some point it just
doesn't matter how good an archer you are, arrows aren't radar guided to
target... typically. Now, if the target wasn't aware (surprise) or you have
a large number of archers who simply "cover" a square with arrows (ususally
against another large group of people) that's a little different.
Thrown weapons are even worse. Javelin - something like 75' per second. I
was reading how the vikings would acutally *catch* thrown javelins from
their enemies, then throw 'em back.
Just musing...
A'koss!
--
The Rings of Concordance have moved!
http://members.shaw.ca/infinity
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
Sure.
But by a significant amount?
Michael Scott Brown
> > Fire 2 arrows at once, and *like it or not*, each flies at about 3/4
> >their original velocity. Fire 4, and they move at half. The total energy
of
> >the bow is divided among the arrows.
> > That's why it makes sense to apply strength-bonus damage only *once*,
as
> >the sum of a subdivided strength input. The manyshotted arrows *must*
impact
> >more weakly than their singleton counterparts.
>
> All well and good, but that's no reason to restrict Str bonus to a single
arrow.
Yes it *is* - THE STRENGTH OF THE BOW IS *DIVIDED* among the arrows!
Whatever "extra oopmh" is imparted by being mighty, it is delivered to
the entire arrow attack - not "whole" to each arrow in the attack.
> That's a reason to apply a damage penalty to all arrows, and decrease the
range
> increment.
Again, range increment is *irrelevant* - the trick doesn't work worth
monkey turds outside of point blank range (30') and the -2 per arrow penalty
already *is*, effectively, a reflection of the reduced penetrating power and
range-related accuracy agonies. *Think*. To be -4 to hit with a decent bow
you would normally have to be how far distant? Thankyou. Given that we
allow bows to do their full damage at any range (despite certain physics
objections to such practice related to drag), it *may* be
not-too-unreasonable to give the extra arrows the same base damage as a lone
arrow at point blank ranges, as the feat allows. But it is *not* reasonable
to presume that all N arrows *each* have the full power of the mighty bow
behind them. That power is only put into the system *once*.
> > Pulling a "bit" farther is irrelevant; if pulling a "bit" farther
could
> >be used to generate extra power so as to hurl two arrows each with all
the
> >strength of a standard arrow shot, then one could just as well do so with
a
> >single arrow, and give *it* all that energy.
>
> OK then, where does the extra energy come from when a stronger person uses
a
> mighty bow?
Mighty bows, as I understand them, must be *manufactured* to a given
strength level; nothing happens if someone stronger than its rating uses
one - and someone weaker can't pull it to its full draw.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:6jh46vshq1d1vqcg1...@4ax.com...
> ... and what inspired the FOTR usage was a wide range of prior art.
> What is so goddamed difficult to understand about this?
My thoughts exactly. About the way I'd say 'em, too.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:_Us8a.373371$sV3.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Fire 2 arrows at once, and *like it or not*, each flies at about 3/4
> > their original velocity. Fire 4, and they move at half. The total
energy of
> > the bow is divided among the arrows.
>
> Arrows aren't particularly speedy projectiles - they travel between 170 -
> 270 ft per second. A single archer trying to hit a person 1 second's
> distance away (who was aware of the archer) would have a tough time - even
> an untrained target should be able to dodge it pretty easily.
Well, it can be argued that the trick of hitting such persons is to
anticipate where they're going to dodge and aim there. Unless your target
is pinned down, odds are he won't be where you fire if you aim at where he
is at the moment ...
> 2 seconds or more with ease. D&D bows can have ranges of 1000' or more,
and at ~250
> ft/sec that arrow takes 4 whole seconds to reach it's target. Not to
mention
> the loss of energy an arrow suffers over distance.
Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage ranges
for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
> At some point it just
> doesn't matter how good an archer you are, arrows aren't radar guided to
> target... typically. Now, if the target wasn't aware (surprise) or you
have
> a large number of archers who simply "cover" a square with arrows
(ususally
> against another large group of people) that's a little different.
This was the only way to do things successfully at long ranges -
saturation fire of the area and hope for an intersection.
> Thrown weapons are even worse. Javelin - something like 75' per second. I
> was reading how the vikings would acutally *catch* thrown javelins from
> their enemies, then throw 'em back.
Of course, every now and then one might pull a Garner (my new term for
that moment in Daredevil ...).
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>> >V' = ... sqrt(1/N)*[velocity with a single arrow]
>> > Fire 2 arrows at once, and *like it or not*, each flies at about 3/4
>> >their original velocity. Fire 4, and they move at half. The total energy
>of
>> >the bow is divided among the arrows.
>> > That's why it makes sense to apply strength-bonus damage only *once*,
>as
>> >the sum of a subdivided strength input. The manyshotted arrows *must*
>impact
>> >more weakly than their singleton counterparts.
>>
>> All well and good, but that's no reason to restrict Str bonus to a single
>arrow.
>
> Yes it *is* - THE STRENGTH OF THE BOW IS *DIVIDED* among the arrows!
> Whatever "extra oopmh" is imparted by being mighty, it is delivered to
>the entire arrow attack - not "whole" to each arrow in the attack.
>
>> That's a reason to apply a damage penalty to all arrows, and decrease the
>range
>> increment.
>
> Again, range increment is *irrelevant* - the trick doesn't work worth
I did point out at the end of the last post where range increment most certainly
*is* relevant. Is there a reason you ignored it?
>monkey turds outside of point blank range (30') and the -2 per arrow penalty
>already *is*, effectively, a reflection of the reduced penetrating power and
>range-related accuracy agonies. *Think*. To be -4 to hit with a decent bow
>you would normally have to be how far distant? Thankyou.
Your welcome. One question: Where did you get the idea that I thought a to-hit
penalty and a damage penalty didn't amount to the same thing with different (and
varying) scales of effect?
>Given that we
>allow bows to do their full damage at any range (despite certain physics
>objections to such practice related to drag),
>it *may* be
>not-too-unreasonable to give the extra arrows the same base damage as a lone
>arrow at point blank ranges, as the feat allows. But it is *not* reasonable
>to presume that all N arrows *each* have the full power of the mighty bow
>behind them.
As soon as you get into "reasonable" -vs- "unreasonable", you get into personal
preferences. I'm not going to discuss that here.
>That power is only put into the system *once*.
Duh.
>> > Pulling a "bit" farther is irrelevant; if pulling a "bit" farther
>could
>> >be used to generate extra power so as to hurl two arrows each with all
>the
>> >strength of a standard arrow shot, then one could just as well do so with
>a
>> >single arrow, and give *it* all that energy.
>>
>> OK then, where does the extra energy come from when a stronger person uses
>a
>> mighty bow?
>
> Mighty bows, as I understand them, must be *manufactured* to a given
>strength level; nothing happens if someone stronger than its rating uses
>one - and someone weaker can't pull it to its full draw.
You do not understand.
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:_Us8a.373371$sV3.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> > Fire 2 arrows at once, and *like it or not*, each flies at about 3/4
>> > their original velocity. Fire 4, and they move at half. The total
>energy of
>> > the bow is divided among the arrows.
>
>and at ~250
>> ft/sec that arrow takes 4 whole seconds to reach it's target. Not to
>mention
>> the loss of energy an arrow suffers over distance.
>
> Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
>Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage ranges
>for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
>range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
Why do that? The current system already reduces damage for every single range
increment.
Ed Chauvin IV
You're fired Michael.
RSH is the new MSB.
Michael Scott Brown
> >Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
ranges
> >for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
> >range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
>
> Why do that? The current system already reduces damage for every single
range
> increment.
Only in a miserably abstracted way. Of course, armor class is
abstracted in that fashion, too ...
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> >not-too-unreasonable to give the extra arrows the same base damage as a
lone
> >arrow at point blank ranges, as the feat allows. But it is *not*
reasonable
> >to presume that all N arrows *each* have the full power of the mighty bow
> >behind them.
>
> As soon as you get into "reasonable" -vs- "unreasonable", you get into
personal
> preferences.
Bah. Personal preference is a matter of whether or not you choose to
*tolerate* unreasonable propositions. Physics being what it is, letting X
arrows do X times strength damage is utterly unreasonable - to the point of
being outright *stupid*. Plan your personal preferences accordingly.
> > Mighty bows, as I understand them, must be *manufactured* to a given
> >strength level; nothing happens if someone stronger than its rating uses
> >one - and someone weaker can't pull it to its full draw.
>
> You do not understand.
Clarify. Note - my "nothing happens" should be read nothing *bigger*
happens, is that what perturbed?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> >> What is so goddamed difficult to understand about this?
> >
> > My thoughts exactly. About the way I'd say 'em, too.
>
> You're fired Michael.
>
> RSH is the new MSB.
Not until he starts using god in the plural, he isn't!
-Michael
Bill Seurer
> OK then, where does the extra energy come from when a stronger person uses a
> mighty bow? Is the guy with Str 18 pushing the arrow as he releases the string
> for a bit more oomph? Obviously not.
No, he draws the arrow back and the bow transfers the energy from it to
the arrow. Being stronger shouldn't make a difference other than being
able to hold the drawn bow longer which is meaningless in an abstract
system like d20.
The mighty bow rules are inherently broken. No one without at least a
ST 18 should be able to effectively draw a +4 mighty bow at all. I've
seen people trying bows and you just can't effectively shoot a bow that
you can't draw. It's not a matter of not being able to "pull it back
all the way", either. You just can't do it.
They got it right the other way (being stronger doesn't help) but blew
it on the weaker end.
Dastardly
I think that a whole bunch of unconcise and split statements have
confused the issue. I think there are a few reasons adding arrows only
reduces to-hit and not damage:
1) Each range increment is a -2 to-hit penalty, but damage is the same
even though the missile is moving slower.
2) Adding arrows slows down each arrow, so based on (1) for
consistency adding arrows should only affect to-hit, not damage.
3) Also, based on (1) mighty composite bows add strength to damage
regardless of range.
So, based on 1,2,3 all arrows should get strength bonus to damage,
since if number of range increments does not affect strength bonus to
damage, neither should multiple arrows.
This does lead to an interesting contradiction for bows. It seems to
me that logical consistency suggests that mighty bows should actually
add strength bonus to-hit only. Since, slowing arrows only reduces to
hit, speeding up arrows should only add to-hit. If we really want
mighty to add strength bonus to damage, maybe that should apply only
at point blank range, or maybe within just the first range increment.
Dastardly
Ed Chauvin IV
>> >it *may* be
>> >not-too-unreasonable to give the extra arrows the same base damage as a
>lone
>> >arrow at point blank ranges, as the feat allows. But it is *not*
>reasonable
>> >to presume that all N arrows *each* have the full power of the mighty bow
>> >behind them.
>>
>> As soon as you get into "reasonable" -vs- "unreasonable", you get into
>personal
>> preferences.
>
> Bah. Personal preference is a matter of whether or not you choose to
>*tolerate* unreasonable propositions. Physics being what it is, letting X
>arrows do X times strength damage is utterly unreasonable - to the point of
>being outright *stupid*. Plan your personal preferences accordingly.
Well, I think you're wrong anyway and that's my personal preference. You can
think it's stupid if you like, but that's just your personal preference.
Personally, I prefer not to argue about personal preferences.
In any case, the reduced energy is *already* compensated for by the to-hit
penalty. Why the need to double penalize?
>> > Mighty bows, as I understand them, must be *manufactured* to a given
>> >strength level; nothing happens if someone stronger than its rating uses
>> >one - and someone weaker can't pull it to its full draw.
>>
>> You do not understand.
>
> Clarify. Note - my "nothing happens" should be read nothing *bigger*
>happens, is that what perturbed?
No, I misread the "someone weaker" and mentally deleted everything after "pull
it" :-P
But, that's kind of the point. The extra energy is obviously coming from
pulling the string a bit farther than a weaker person would be able to.
Ed Chauvin IV
I agree with everything you just said, but them's the rules. :-P
Ed Chauvin IV
>> > Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
>> >Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
>ranges
>> >for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
>> >range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
>>
>> Why do that? The current system already reduces damage for every single
>range
>> increment.
>
> Only in a miserably abstracted way.
Then it fits with the overall system. What's the problem?
Ed Chauvin IV
Nah, that's one of the reasons we're firing you. We don't like others to refer
to us in the plural. It runs too much danger of giving the game away to the
norms.
Michael Scott Brown
news:3cadb4c4.03030...@posting.google.com...
> 1) Each range increment is a -2 to-hit penalty, but damage is the same
> even though the missile is moving slower.
Tsk. Your logic is all broken and yucky.
These penalties reflect the difficulty at *targeting* at range; not some
form of linearly decreasing reduction in damage due to aerodynamic drag.
Drag certainly matters at the extremes of a long arrowflight, but not to a
degree where an arrow still can't deliver a decent blow to a man. That blow
probably shouldn't be d8 anymore at 10 range increments, but it should be at
least d4.
At -20 to hit, however, if this were a "damage reduction factor", you
would essentially be postulating that the ~5% chance of hitting represents a
1/20th damage reduction, and that's just silly.
> 3) Also, based on (1) mighty composite bows add strength to damage
> regardless of range.
Ie; they fire a more powerful arrow - so of course the scale of the
problem is upgraded. A 14-strength bow is essentially firing a d12
projectile (same average as d8+2).
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> penalty.
Bah. Reduced *accuracy* is compensated for by the hit penalty.
Further, the energy isn't reduced so badly that the arrows arent' still
lethal *within point blank ranges*. Arrows with 3/4 of their original head
of steam are likely comparable to arrows at the end of their flight; I'd
have to do the math but it doesn't seem like the orders of magnitude would
be too far off. Consequently, having multiple d8's *within point blank
range* is reasonable, as long as you penalize the difficulty of getting them
on target. But multiplying your mighty-bonus by the number of arrows is
*not*, it's fundamentally stupid, because that extra oomph is contained in
the arrows as a *set*; thus a +3 mighty bow shooting two arrows should do
(2d8 for the two arrows +3 for the mighty strength increment applied to the
*set* of them).
> But, that's kind of the point. The extra energy is obviously coming from
> pulling the string a bit farther than a weaker person would be able to.
Your assessment of "a bit" needs a serious upgrade.
-Michael
A'koss
> "A'koss" <infinitySP...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:_Us8a.373371$sV3.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > This just got me thinking on the real "usable range" for missile
weapons.
> > Arrows aren't particularly speedy projectiles - they travel between
170 -
> > 270 ft per second. A single archer trying to hit a person 1 second's
> > distance away (who was aware of the archer) would have a tough time -
even
> > an untrained target should be able to dodge it pretty easily.
>
> Well, it can be argued that the trick of hitting such persons is to
> anticipate where they're going to dodge and aim there.
I tried to account for that and FWIW, I can buy that... perhaps even up to a
second's distance away. But longer than that... the target even has enough
time to _think_ about it a little before getting out of the way. The only
way you get hit at that point is a failure on the target's behalf rather
than something the archer did right. Again, only if the target is aware of
the archer. If you think about it - very loosely, 1 second in D&D translates
to an unarmored 5' move at normal walking speed. Pretty easy to get away
from a "hostile square" in that time (the arrow has left the bow at this
time). Even though D&D doesn't normally allow for that kind of movement it
does give us something to think about.
Maybe missile weapons should have about 1/4 their normal range vs aware
targets, normal with surprise? 25' for a longbow, -20 to hit at 250'?
> > 2 seconds or more with ease. D&D bows can have ranges of 1000' or more,
> and at ~250
> > ft/sec that arrow takes 4 whole seconds to reach it's target. Not to
> mention
> > the loss of energy an arrow suffers over distance.
>
> Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
> Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
ranges
> for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
> range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
Both sound pretty good. The first has the advantage of built-in
deterioration of damage bonuses (Str, Magic, Skill) but the latter has a
nicer progression...
> > At some point it just
> > doesn't matter how good an archer you are, arrows aren't radar guided to
> > target... typically. Now, if the target wasn't aware (surprise) or you
> have
> > a large number of archers who simply "cover" a square with arrows
> (ususally
> > against another large group of people) that's a little different.
>
> This was the only way to do things successfully at long ranges -
> saturation fire of the area and hope for an intersection.
Return of the Coordinated Missile Fire rules? Feat?
> > Thrown weapons are even worse. Javelin - something like 75' per second.
I
> > was reading how the vikings would acutally *catch* thrown javelins from
> > their enemies, then throw 'em back.
>
> Of course, every now and then one might pull a Garner (my new term for
> that moment in Daredevil ...).
You may have to explain that one to me. I don't think I can willing stomach
Ben Affleck for 2 hours to find out... ;-P
A'koss
> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
> >"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
> >> > Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
> >> >Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
> >ranges
> >> >for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every
X
> >> >range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
> >>
> >> Why do that? The current system already reduces damage for every single
> >range
> >> increment.
> >
> > Only in a miserably abstracted way.
>
> Then it fits with the overall system. What's the problem?
The penaties to hit at range represent the simple difficulty at hitting
*anything* at a distance. Trying to abstract that as overall damage
reduction is icky. Melee attacks don't lose their steam, but missile weapons
do and technically should be taken down in damage at longer distances *in
addition* to range penalties on your attack.
Joseph Michael Bay
>>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>>news:b3effbdecfc3c53f...@news.easyusenet.com...
>>> I will use one word: Legolas. This feat was specifically inspired by
>>> one stunt in the movie.
>>
>> Such tricky business has been in cinema and cartoonery well before LOTR.
>Indeed. In addition to _Men in Tights_, the Zen swordsman guy (can't
>remember his name) in _A Chinese Ghost Story_ was also doing the Manyshot
>thing back in 1987, way before Legolas.
What about _Hawk the Slayer_? Man, that movie sucked, huh?
I might be thinking of a different movie, though.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
"We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us BLEAAAAGHH, AARGGH HRRRRRRRK"
--Oscar Wilde
Michael Scott Brown
> the archer. If you think about it - very loosely, 1 second in D&D
translates
> to an unarmored 5' move at normal walking speed. Pretty easy to get away
> from a "hostile square" in that time (the arrow has left the bow at this
> time). Even though D&D doesn't normally allow for that kind of movement it
> does give us something to think about.
Aye - but did the archer aim at the square the target was in? Or where
the archer predicted he'd go? Of course, if we're aiming at squares, we're
not really making very credible attacks anymore; that's more like a 100%
concealment case where there's a 50% chance of hitting the thing in the
square if you aimed at the right square in the first place. Hmm. Perhaps
that mechanic needs to be dusted off and applied here - if you're firing
with indirect fire, can it really be said that you're doing anything other
than lobbing an arrow where you hope it will go, no?
> Maybe missile weapons should have about 1/4 their normal range vs aware
> targets, normal with surprise? 25' for a longbow, -20 to hit at 250'?
Hmm. The rules as they are seem a little short sighted about the
relationship of how hard it is to hit a *moving* target at range. Gurps has
a complex formula that consideres crosswise velocity, characteristic
dimension, and distance, which is unweildy but at least has all the right
elements. I think D&d's range rules as they are only really good only for
"target shooting" conditions, and it's definitely worth considering that
there is a range beyond which shots against moving targets are going to be
very ineffective.
The more I think about it, there more I'm thinking that 'effective
concealment' effect might be the one to use. Depending on the speed of a
given projectile, we can work out at what distances the attack takes so long
to arrive that the target is highly unlikely to be where the attack was
aimed (thus forcing the attacker to 'guess' where the target will go, a
classic concealment paradigm). Your 1-second traverse threshold might be
just the thing. How well do we understand the velocities of D&D missile
weapons? Sling? Spear? Dagger? Xbow? Bow? Do these result in interesting
"effective range" limitations?
> > Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
> > Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
ranges
> > for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every X
> > range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
>
> Both sound pretty good. The first has the advantage of built-in
> deterioration of damage bonuses (Str, Magic, Skill) but the latter has a
> nicer progression...
I would argue that magic and skill shouldn't deteriorate; only the
energy imparted by the bow (ie; base weapon damage), and thus the "correct"
approach would be some kind of damage-die degradation (smooth or simplified
into two categories, I'm easy).
> > This was the only way to do things successfully at long ranges -
> > saturation fire of the area and hope for an intersection.
>
> Return of the Coordinated Missile Fire rules? Feat?
I don't see why a feat is required; if we take advantage of the
'concealment' paradigm then the archer has to "hit" and surpass the miss
requirement. True shot would be very nice for that ...
Alternatively, we might target the square the target is in (or is
predicted to be in, same difference when it comes out of the game
mechanics). A 5' square is probably the equivalent of a 'Large' creature
with 0 dex at great range, so we can work out the base AC of the target zone
itself (I think it works out to 5 -1 = 4?), and see if, with the range
modifier, the archer can even land an arrow in the square. By rolling, or
using flat average statistics, we can determine how many arrows land in the
square. We might then use some manner of saving throw mechanic to see if
one or several of those arrows strike home or not?
> > > Thrown weapons are even worse. Javelin - something like 75' per
second. I
> > > was reading how the vikings would acutally *catch* thrown javelins
from
> > > their enemies, then throw 'em back.
> >
> > Of course, every now and then one might pull a Garner (my new term
for
> > that moment in Daredevil ...).
>
> You may have to explain that one to me. I don't think I can willing
stomach
> Ben Affleck for 2 hours to find out... ;-P
Yeah, his kung fu was very bad.
SPOILER
Jennifer's character hurls a weapon at a foe, who catches it. He hurls it
back. She catches it. *Through her palm*.
Ie; she "Garnered" the weapon. <snicker>
-Michael
A'koss
> "A'koss" <infinitySP...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:2eR8a.383105$Yo4.12...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > the archer. If you think about it - very loosely, 1 second in D&D
> translates
> > to an unarmored 5' move at normal walking speed. Pretty easy to get away
> > from a "hostile square" in that time (the arrow has left the bow at this
> > time). Even though D&D doesn't normally allow for that kind of movement
it
> > does give us something to think about.
>
> Aye - but did the archer aim at the square the target was in? Or where
> the archer predicted he'd go?
What I was trying to say was after the arrow has been fired the target can
see which square the arcing arrow is heading for and take an appropriate
move away from there. Now, you can argue how much time it takes for the
target to really get a bead on where it's headed...
On that note, a little research yeilded some interesting numbers. Naturally
a whole host of factors can alter this, but this is a good enough baseline
to be able to get an idea of what's happening to an arrow in flight...
An arrow shot for 2 second's distance loses roughly 40% of it's initial
speed and 60% of it's energy by the time it gets there. It typically reaches
1 second's distance by calculating 85% of the initial shot's speed in feet,
then drops like a rock after that. So a bow that fires an arrow at an inital
rate of 250' ft/sec, reaches about 210 in the first second. It reaches 2
seconds distance by calculating ~1.6x the initial shot's speed in feet. So
the same bow fires an arrow 400' in 2 seconds and is now travelling at 150
ft/sec. I'm sure you could work out how much energy is lost at different
ranges using this as a rough guide. Firing 1,000 ft would probably take a
whole round thereabouts...
And 1,000' of usable range is starting to get pretty ridiculous for a
longbow anyways, the world record (and now this is for *distance* only, not
trying to hit anything) is < 1,300' with specially designed... everything
and under ideal conditions. I've read that direct targeting of individual
humans was under 100 yards, even with the heaviest of longbows. Obviously,
in a skirmish line you might not have anywhere to move even if you had a
second to get out of the way. A "man-sized" target of course could be nailed
much further and of course the "lob fire" in war...
> Of course, if we're aiming at squares, we're
> not really making very credible attacks anymore; that's more like a 100%
> concealment case where there's a 50% chance of hitting the thing in the
> square if you aimed at the right square in the first place. Hmm. Perhaps
> that mechanic needs to be dusted off and applied here - if you're firing
> with indirect fire, can it really be said that you're doing anything other
> than lobbing an arrow where you hope it will go, no?
True enough, especially as you're getting into the 2 second+ distance.
> > Maybe missile weapons should have about 1/4 their normal range vs aware
> > targets, normal with surprise? 25' for a longbow, -20 to hit at 250'?
>
> Hmm. The rules as they are seem a little short sighted about the
> relationship of how hard it is to hit a *moving* target at range. Gurps
has
> a complex formula that consideres crosswise velocity, characteristic
> dimension, and distance, which is unweildy but at least has all the right
> elements. I think D&d's range rules as they are only really good only for
> "target shooting" conditions, and it's definitely worth considering that
> there is a range beyond which shots against moving targets are going to be
> very ineffective.
Indeed, especially considering some of the new information.
> The more I think about it, there more I'm thinking that 'effective
> concealment' effect might be the one to use. Depending on the speed of a
> given projectile, we can work out at what distances the attack takes so
long
> to arrive that the target is highly unlikely to be where the attack was
> aimed (thus forcing the attacker to 'guess' where the target will go, a
> classic concealment paradigm). Your 1-second traverse threshold might be
> just the thing. How well do we understand the velocities of D&D missile
> weapons? Sling? Spear? Dagger? Xbow? Bow? Do these result in interesting
> "effective range" limitations?
It would take some looking into but even applying the arrow's speed/energy
falloff would be fairly telling. Again, the 1 second rule is proabably a
good palce to start.
> > Both sound pretty good. The first has the advantage of built-in
> > deterioration of damage bonuses (Str, Magic, Skill) but the latter has a
> > nicer progression...
>
> I would argue that magic and skill shouldn't deteriorate; only the
> energy imparted by the bow (ie; base weapon damage), and thus the
"correct"
> approach would be some kind of damage-die degradation (smooth or
simplified
> into two categories, I'm easy).
Strength?
> > > This was the only way to do things successfully at long ranges -
> > > saturation fire of the area and hope for an intersection.
> >
> > Return of the Coordinated Missile Fire rules? Feat?
>
> I don't see why a feat is required; if we take advantage of the
> 'concealment' paradigm then the archer has to "hit" and surpass the miss
> requirement. True shot would be very nice for that ...
> Alternatively, we might target the square the target is in (or is
> predicted to be in, same difference when it comes out of the game
> mechanics). A 5' square is probably the equivalent of a 'Large' creature
> with 0 dex at great range, so we can work out the base AC of the target
zone
> itself (I think it works out to 5 -1 = 4?), and see if, with the range
> modifier, the archer can even land an arrow in the square. By rolling, or
> using flat average statistics, we can determine how many arrows land in
the
> square. We might then use some manner of saving throw mechanic to see if
> one or several of those arrows strike home or not?
Hmm, more accurate maybe, but getting a little too unweildy for me
methinks...
I think I'd still just take the easy way out and simply limit ranges vs
aware targets and have expanded (normal) ranges for surprise attacks against
stationary targets (or simply anything immobile) and maybe then all that's
required is some additional penalty for attacking an unaware, but *moving*
target past the 1 second mark (you never know what they're going to do, but
you can still anticipate it somewhat).
Longbow:
Target Aware - Range 30 or maybe a "heroic" 50? Half normal range for game
balance? Base range + additional range based on Strength bow? Greater
poundage, greater speed?
Target Unaware/Immobile - Range 100.
- Moving: -3 to hit / Inc. after 300' ?
This has some "hero factor" involved obviously by being able to place
accurate shots at that range, but overall it feels good as it doesn't change
game mechanics halfway through the shot. Hitting an unaware, moving target
at maximum range (1000 ft) is at -27 to hit, a sitting duck at -20 to hit
and impossible if the target is aware of you (he'll see the shot long before
it reaches him and you would never hit him).
Well, it would certainly curb any complaints of bow abuse. ;)
> > You may have to explain that one to me. I don't think I can willing
> stomach
> > Ben Affleck for 2 hours to find out... ;-P
>
> Yeah, his kung fu was very bad.
>
> SPOILER
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jennifer's character hurls a weapon at a foe, who catches it. He hurls it
> back. She catches it. *Through her palm*.
>
> Ie; she "Garnered" the weapon. <snicker>
>
> -Michael
<shakes head sadly>
;-)
Michael Scott Brown
> What I was trying to say was after the arrow has been fired the target can
> see which square the arcing arrow is heading for and take an appropriate
> move away from there. Now, you can argue how much time it takes for the
> target to really get a bead on where it's headed...
That's an important point. Perhaps there's a lesson to be drawn from
baseball and outfielders ( who are concentrating intently on the batter,
unlike what might be the case for a very distant archer ..). But on the
other hand, you can move easily enough even if you just suspect you've been
targeted.
> An arrow shot for 2 second's distance loses roughly 40% of it's initial
> speed and 60% of it's energy by the time it gets there. It typically
reaches
> 1 second's distance by calculating 85% of the initial shot's speed in
feet,
> then drops like a rock after that.
Very handy values. Sounds like about 200-300 feet is a good limit for
direct fire at actual people.
Random factoid - put an arrow on a high arc and then shoot another in a
flat one so that they hit simultaneously!
> > I would argue that magic and skill shouldn't deteriorate; only the
> > energy imparted by the bow (ie; base weapon damage), and thus the
"correct"
> > approach would be some kind of damage-die degradation (smooth or
simplified
> > into two categories, I'm easy).
>
> Strength?
You could justify halving it if you were using a 50% rule. If damage
die simply degrades, then there's no difference, really - it just prolongs
the fade to zero due to the bonus damage. I think leaving it be is a
desireable simplicity.
> I think I'd still just take the easy way out and simply limit ranges vs
> aware targets and have expanded (normal) ranges for surprise attacks
against
> stationary targets (or simply anything immobile) and maybe then all that's
> required is some additional penalty for attacking an unaware, but *moving*
> target past the 1 second mark (you never know what they're going to do,
but
> you can still anticipate it somewhat).
Hmm. Hmm, hmm, hmm. Smacks of an elegant solution!
> Longbow:
> Target Aware - Range 30 or maybe a "heroic" 50? Half normal range for game
> balance? Base range + additional range based on Strength bow? Greater
> poundage, greater speed?
> Target Unaware/Immobile - Range 100.
> - Moving: -3 to hit / Inc. after 300' ?
Suggest: the moving penalty is redundant with the increased difficulty
of hitting the "aware" target.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>> In any case, the reduced energy is *already* compensated for by the to-hit
>> penalty.
>
> Bah. Reduced *accuracy* is compensated for by the hit penalty.
Bah yourself. Reduced accuracy == reduced damage.
You should know this.
>Further, the energy isn't reduced so badly that the arrows arent' still
>lethal *within point blank ranges*.
Exactly, the energy isn't really reduced that much at all. Otherwise, range
increments should be affected.
>Arrows with 3/4 of their original head
>of steam are likely comparable to arrows at the end of their flight; I'd
>have to do the math but it doesn't seem like the orders of magnitude would
>be too far off. Consequently, having multiple d8's *within point blank
>range* is reasonable,
As I said before, that depends entirely on your definition of "reasonable", and
it's purely subjective.
>as long as you penalize the difficulty of getting them
>on target. But multiplying your mighty-bonus by the number of arrows is
>*not*, it's fundamentally stupid, because that extra oomph is contained in
>the arrows as a *set*; thus a +3 mighty bow shooting two arrows should do
>(2d8 for the two arrows +3 for the mighty strength increment applied to the
>*set* of them).
>
>
>> But, that's kind of the point. The extra energy is obviously coming from
>> pulling the string a bit farther than a weaker person would be able to.
>
> Your assessment of "a bit" needs a serious upgrade.
Doesn't matter. If you're pulling the string further back than the weaker
person, you're not pulling it back any less just because you've nocked 3 arrows,
instead of 1. If you're going to penalize the damage, it should be across the
board and not just penalizing the stronger character.
Ed Chauvin IV
>I think that a whole bunch of unconcise and split statements have
>confused the issue. I think there are a few reasons adding arrows only
>reduces to-hit and not damage:
>
>1) Each range increment is a -2 to-hit penalty, but damage is the same
>even though the missile is moving slower.
>
>2) Adding arrows slows down each arrow, so based on (1) for
>consistency adding arrows should only affect to-hit, not damage.
>
>3) Also, based on (1) mighty composite bows add strength to damage
>regardless of range.
>
>So, based on 1,2,3 all arrows should get strength bonus to damage,
>since if number of range increments does not affect strength bonus to
>damage, neither should multiple arrows.
Precisely.
>This does lead to an interesting contradiction for bows. It seems to
>me that logical consistency suggests that mighty bows should actually
>add strength bonus to-hit only. Since, slowing arrows only reduces to
>hit, speeding up arrows should only add to-hit. If we really want
>mighty to add strength bonus to damage, maybe that should apply only
>at point blank range, or maybe within just the first range increment.
I've always thought this, and may implement it as a house rule. Though, it'll
take some polish.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>news:rlg76vo3744ufi1gg...@news.supernews.com...
>> Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>> >"Ed Chauvin IV" <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message
>> >> > Point blank attacks definitely have more power than distant ones.
>> >> >Perhaps we should insist on a rule from Gurps; there are half-damage
>> >ranges
>> >> >for their weapons - or we could lower the damage die a notch for every
>X
>> >> >range increments (d8/d6/d4/fizzle?).
>> >>
>> >> Why do that? The current system already reduces damage for every single
>> >range
>> >> increment.
>> >
>> > Only in a miserably abstracted way.
>>
>> Then it fits with the overall system. What's the problem?
>
>The penaties to hit at range represent the simple difficulty at hitting
>*anything* at a distance. Trying to abstract that as overall damage
>reduction is icky.
Aw, does the abstraction not please you aesthetically?
>Melee attacks don't lose their steam, but missile weapons
>do and technically should be taken down in damage at longer distances *in
>addition* to range penalties on your attack.
Nah, that'd be a double whammy. You wanna talk about icky?
Michael Scott Brown
>
> Bah yourself. Reduced accuracy == reduced damage.
> You should know this.
Bullshit. Reduced *damage* represents reduced damage in D&D. Reductions
in penetrating power and accuracy lower to-hit rates, which have the effect
of reducing damage dealt over time, but that is not the same thing. Notice
how attack penalties don't stop you from penetrating DR, while damage
penalties do ..
> >Further, the energy isn't reduced so badly that the arrows arent' still
> >lethal *within point blank ranges*.
>
> Exactly, the energy isn't really reduced that much at all. Otherwise,
range
> increments should be affected.
GODS *FUCKING* DAMNNIT, ED!!!!
When the attack can ONLY BE MADE WITH IN 30 FEET range increments are
*irrelevant*. The lack of commentary on range increment being affected thus
in no way reflects *anything* about game effects that might interact with
range modifiers, because they *don't exist* for a 30' max-range bow attack.
You've made these statements before, they were wrong then, they are wrong
now, they will *ALWAYS BE WRONG*.
Stop using that argument. You're supposed to *learn* when they're
exposed to be flawed.
> >Arrows with 3/4 of their original head
> >of steam are likely comparable to arrows at the end of their flight; I'd
> >have to do the math but it doesn't seem like the orders of magnitude
would
> >be too far off. Consequently, having multiple d8's *within point blank
> >range* is reasonable,
>
> As I said before, that depends entirely on your definition of
"reasonable", and
> it's purely subjective.
You're confusing reasonable and desireable again. In this context,
reasonable models are those that are at least plausible. In reality, an
arrow's damage is a function of its traverse, but this is averaged out in
D&D to a constant value, for better or for worse (your desirability may
vary). Consequently, as long as a multishot arrow's energy is within the
range of energies one might experience from a singleton arrow shot, it is
not unreasonable to represent that with a standard "arrow" increment of
damage, becuase D&D *already fudges that issue* and it conforms to existing
standards.
> >> But, that's kind of the point. The extra energy is obviously coming
from
> >> pulling the string a bit farther than a weaker person would be able to.
> >
> > Your assessment of "a bit" needs a serious upgrade.
>
> Doesn't matter.
*Does* matter. Go read your Odysseus legend until you *get it*. To get
your bow to fire its arrows with exactly the same strength as firing one
alone, you have to DOUBLE the energy you put into the system. This will
destroy the bow. Have a nice day, you're wrong, go home.
> If you're pulling the string further back than the weaker
> person, you're not pulling it back any less just because you've nocked 3
arrows,
> instead of 1.
Irrelevant.
> If you're going to penalize the damage, it should be across the
> board and not just penalizing the stronger character.
You continue to assume I'm penalizing damage. Listen very carefully,
you physics-crippled, neck-popping, eye-rolling, tongue-wagging idjit. THE
ENERGY OF THE BOW IS APPLIED *ONCE* TO ITS PAYLOAD AND *DIVIDED*. At
extraordinarily short ranges, reducing the energy to each arrow still leaves
you with what the game has defined to be "arrow-range" kinetic energies, and
so you have the potential of getting two base-d8 damage holes for the price
of one firing - but the strength bonus of the weapon is applied to the *set*
of arrows, and thus that energy is carried by them in *total*, which means
that the *only* reasonable thing to do is to apply the Mighty factor once.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>> > Bah. Reduced *accuracy* is compensated for by the hit penalty.
>>
>> Bah yourself. Reduced accuracy == reduced damage.
>> You should know this.
>
> Bullshit. Reduced *damage* represents reduced damage in D&D. Reductions
>in penetrating power and accuracy lower to-hit rates, which have the effect
>of reducing damage dealt over time, but that is not the same thing. Notice
>how attack penalties don't stop you from penetrating DR, while damage
>penalties do ..
Yeah, because we all know how easy it is to penetrated DR when you can't even
hit the creature. *Think*
>> >Further, the energy isn't reduced so badly that the arrows arent' still
>> >lethal *within point blank ranges*.
>>
>> Exactly, the energy isn't really reduced that much at all. Otherwise,
>range
>> increments should be affected.
>
> GODS *FUCKING* DAMNNIT, ED!!!!
Stop the shouting, we all know how excitable you are, so maybe it's time for
another dose of the meds?
> When the attack can ONLY BE MADE WITH IN 30 FEET range increments are
>*irrelevant*.
Ahem. I already pointed out a simple common example of where they could be
profoundly relevant to this feat.
>The lack of commentary on range increment being affected thus
>in no way reflects *anything* about game effects that might interact with
>range modifiers, because they *don't exist* for a 30' max-range bow attack.
Oh, really? So halving the range increment for each additional arrow wouldn't
ever get the first range increment reduced to less than 30'? You need to review
some equipment charts.
> Stop using that argument. You're supposed to *learn* when they're
>exposed to be flawed.
Then what's stopping you from learning?
>> >Arrows with 3/4 of their original head
>> >of steam are likely comparable to arrows at the end of their flight; I'd
>> >have to do the math but it doesn't seem like the orders of magnitude
>would
>> >be too far off. Consequently, having multiple d8's *within point blank
>> >range* is reasonable,
>>
>> As I said before, that depends entirely on your definition of
>"reasonable", and
>> it's purely subjective.
>
> You're confusing reasonable and desireable again. In this context,
>reasonable models are those that are at least plausible. In reality, an
And now you're taking it into the realm of how "realistic" a game one prefers to
run.
Can we *please* not discuss your personal preferences just now? They're already
blinding you to the logic inherent in the situation.
>arrow's damage is a function of its traverse, but this is averaged out in
>D&D to a constant value, for better or for worse (your desirability may
>vary). Consequently, as long as a multishot arrow's energy is within the
>range of energies one might experience from a singleton arrow shot, it is
>not unreasonable to represent that with a standard "arrow" increment of
>damage, becuase D&D *already fudges that issue* and it conforms to existing
>standards.
>
>> >> But, that's kind of the point. The extra energy is obviously coming
>from
>> >> pulling the string a bit farther than a weaker person would be able to.
>> >
>> > Your assessment of "a bit" needs a serious upgrade.
>>
>> Doesn't matter.
>
> *Does* matter.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Shall we skip straight to the stage where our fathers are beating each other up
now?
>Go read your Odysseus legend until you *get it*. To get
>your bow to fire its arrows with exactly the same strength as firing one
>alone, you have to DOUBLE the energy you put into the system. This will
>destroy the bow. Have a nice day, you're wrong, go home.
>
>> If you're pulling the string further back than the weaker
>> person, you're not pulling it back any less just because you've nocked 3
>arrows,
>> instead of 1.
>
> Irrelevant.
Even though it's the crux of the entire issue, I suppose you're right. I mean,
you *are* MSB, what ever could I have been thinking?
>> If you're going to penalize the damage, it should be across the
>> board and not just penalizing the stronger character.
>
> You continue to assume I'm penalizing damage.
You are. Whether you want to call it that or not is irrelevant.
>Listen very carefully,
>you physics-crippled, neck-popping, eye-rolling, tongue-wagging idjit.
Grow up.
>THE
>ENERGY OF THE BOW IS APPLIED *ONCE* TO ITS PAYLOAD AND *DIVIDED*.
And for some strange reason, you only want to apply this principle to the strong
archers.
>reasonable
That word, you keep using it.
Michael Scott Brown
> >in no way reflects *anything* about game effects that might interact with
> >range modifiers, because they *don't exist* for a 30' max-range bow
attack.
>
> Oh, really? So halving the range increment for each additional arrow
wouldn't
> ever get the first range increment reduced to less than 30'? You need to
review
> some equipment charts.
At what point did "halving the range increment per extra arrow" become
the correct representation of such things? I must have missed that one.
Velocity is (1/sqrt(N)) reduced. At most, there are 4 arrows for the 16+
level character, so his manyshot is launched at 1/2 velocity per arrow;
that's the worst it gets. If I had an envelope handy I could work out how
that translates into effective range reduction - and *if* we postulate that
you should always be at -20 to hit at your maximum range, then we could work
out the right range increments from that. However, I don't think that
postulate is correct - after all, thrown weapons are only -10 to hit at
their maximum range, so there is a matter of scale and relative velocity to
consider. Even a half-speed arrow flies at least as quickly as a thrown
weapon, after all.
On top of all that, we already *have* a -8 penalty to hit with a
quadruple manyshot, reflecting the difficulty of the shot *within 30 feet*,
and so who is to say that the effective system isn't using a range increment
of 30/4 already?
In short, your insistence that the existence of the shortbow "proves"
something about what is and isn't being represented in manyshot continues to
be wrong, obviously wrong, and generally stupid to argue.
> >THE ENERGY OF THE BOW IS APPLIED *ONCE* TO ITS PAYLOAD AND *DIVIDED*.
>
> And for some strange reason, you only want to apply this principle to the
strong
> archers.
?
-Michael
Dastardly
> "Dastardly" <dastar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cadb4c4.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > 1) Each range increment is a -2 to-hit penalty, but damage is the same
> > even though the missile is moving slower.
>
> Tsk. Your logic is all broken and yucky.
What logic? You snipped the concluding argument, so I assume you have
problems with my postulates.
> These penalties reflect the difficulty at *targeting* at range; not some
> form of linearly decreasing reduction in damage due to aerodynamic drag.
> Drag certainly matters at the extremes of a long arrowflight, but not to a
> degree where an arrow still can't deliver a decent blow to a man. That blow
> probably shouldn't be d8 anymore at 10 range increments, but it should be at
> least d4.
I guess I was too concise. -2 to-hit accounts for both the reduced
ability to target at range, and the reduction in penetrating power.
Damage must therefore be dependent on the physical properties of the
missile (shape, sharpness, material, magic), which you seem to agree
with.
I think where we might disagree is what the 5 range increment limit
means. I think it means the missile doesn't have enough velocity to
carry beyond that limit with sufficient force to do more than
superficial damage. Another argument is that it can carry beyond that
range, but the ability to target something beyond that range is so
limited as to be irrelevant in game terms.
> At -20 to hit, however, if this were a "damage reduction factor", you
> would essentially be postulating that the ~5% chance of hitting represents a
> 1/20th damage reduction, and that's just silly.
>
> > 3) Also, based on (1) mighty composite bows add strength to damage
> > regardless of range.
>
> Ie; they fire a more powerful arrow - so of course the scale of the
> problem is upgraded. A 14-strength bow is essentially firing a d12
> projectile (same average as d8+2).
Ummm... I wasn't arguing anything here, just stating the rule. The
argument is that if (1) suggests that velocity is irrelevant to
damage, and mighty allows strength bonus to be added to damage
regardless of range, then strength bonus should be added to every
arrow fired using manyshot. This makes it consistent with the other
rules.
>
> -Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> argument is that if (1) suggests that velocity is irrelevant to
> damage, and mighty allows strength bonus to be added to damage
> regardless of range, then strength bonus should be added to every
> arrow fired using manyshot. This makes it consistent with the other
> rules.
(1) doesnt' suggest any such thing, however, and thus your house of
cards has crumbled.
For 1-2 extra projectiles, the resulting energies aren't terribly
different from what you have with arrows at the end of their flight with
normal bowshots, and the game bins the lot of that at d8 (even though it is
really an averaged value). The fact that this value is averaged over the
range of attack doesn't mean that velocity is irrelevant, it just means that
the relationship of *those* velocities to attack damage is *simplified*.
A split payload is still - within a very short range - able to deliver
killing power that falls within the range that the game *averages* to d8
across the board (at least with 2 arrows; I'm a little leery of the 4 arrow
arrangement).
Mighty bonuses aren't subjected to this "in reality it's more up close
and less far away" simplification; an arrow shot harder is an arrow shot
harder (D&D doesn't change the range or range increment for mighty-ness so
this actually holds); we know exactly how much more power the bow puts into
its payload (the str score) - so why not just *do it right* and apply that
extra strength once to the lot? Mighty manyshots are 2d8+4 with an 18 str
bow, it's as easy as pie. <shrug>
-Michael
SD Anderson
>> Hmm. The rules as they are seem a little short sighted about
the
> relationship of how hard it is to hit a *moving* target at range. Gurps has
> a complex formula that consideres crosswise velocity, characteristic
> dimension, and distance, which is unweildy but at least has all the right
> elements. I think D&d's range rules as they are only really good only for
> "target shooting" conditions, and it's definitely worth considering that
> there is a range beyond which shots against moving targets are going to be
> very ineffective.
>
I'm not sure a system that deals with three numbers is all that
unwieldly, and in fact the system could probably be ported straight to
3e without too much trouble.
Using the example on the GURPS GM screen, A five yard long car (+3
for size) is moving 30 mph (15 yds/second) and is 40 yds away. Sum
the last two numbers (15 + 40) and look up 55 on the chart. That
falls in the 46 to 70 range: -9, with a +3 becomes a -6.
Too difficult for D&D? I don't think so. The numbers might need
slight tweaking because of the differences in a 3d6 bell curve system
and a 1d20 linear system, but I doubt the value change would be more
than by 1 in any event.
Dastardly
Actually, that is what I was trying for when I started writing, but
after looking at how range was handled, it lead me the other way.
Either argument is internally consistent with its assumptions.
So, one of your assumptions is that the 5 range increment limit is due
to loss of accuracy, not loss of velocity?
Dastardly
Michael Scott Brown
news:ad847902.03030...@posting.google.com...
> I'm not sure a system that deals with three numbers is all that
> unwieldly, and in fact the system could probably be ported straight to
> 3e without too much trouble.
3 numbers, each of which must be pulled off a table. That's
barf-fodder, pure and simple.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> to loss of accuracy, not loss of velocity?
I'm pretty sure the 5x range limit on *thrown* weapons is just an
approximation of ballistic limitations; at the velocities a person can
throw things, they can only travel so far before being called to earth.
But don't mangle your phsyics; they don't fall down because they "run out
of steam" in some Aristotelian fashion; velocity is not "lost" through
aerodynamic drag all that quickly , and a thrown weapon comes down with
almost all of the velocity that the thrower put in!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>> Mighty bonuses aren't subjected to this "in reality it's more up
close
>>and less far away" simplification; an arrow shot harder is an arrow shot
>>harder (D&D doesn't change the range or range increment for mighty-ness
so
>>this actually holds); we know exactly how much more power the bow puts
into
>>its payload (the str score) - so why not just *do it right* and apply
that
>>extra strength once to the lot? Mighty manyshots are 2d8+4 with an 18 str
>>bow, it's as easy as pie. <shrug>
>You would allow it to apply to the primary (i.e., critical-able)
>arrow, though, right?
(Donald, you replied to my email rather than thre group, I've moved the
answer here where it belongs. Watch that reply sender/reply group
distinction).
Manyshot and critical hit interact "funny", but I don't see any problem
in multiplying the Mighty factor into the bonus damage from a critical,
because I don't see any particularly special need to presume that a
critical hit achieved with Manyshot is just *one* arrow hitting well, but
rather, the *attack* hitting well. We have the right to be completely
arbitrary about how well "well" is, and in the case of a bow, "well" is
+2d8 & 2*Str more damage than before. Notice, conveniently, that for a
two-arrow shot, this works out to double damage for each arrow ... (but
that's about as far as that goes).
I suppose the better way to write [my interpretation of what should be]
the Manyshot would be 1d8 (+str, magic, spec)+Xd8, which makes it conform
to sneak-attack bonus damage type forms and makes clear which piece does
what on a critical hit.
-Michael
A'koss
> Mere moments before death, A'koss hastily scrawled:
> >Melee attacks don't lose their steam, but missile weapons
> >do and technically should be taken down in damage at longer distances *in
> >addition* to range penalties on your attack.
>
> Nah, that'd be a double whammy. You wanna talk about icky?
I think you'll find many who consider missile combat to have plenty to
"oomph" to spare, particularly in combination with other tactics (flight,
invisiblity, hit and run)... And for those who want to model missile combat
a little more believably, it's not a bad thing.
YMMV.
A'koss
> "A'koss" <infinitySP...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:QMW8a.386073$sV3.11...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Strength?
>
> You could justify halving it if you were using a 50% rule. If damage
> die simply degrades, then there's no difference, really - ***it just
prolongs
> the fade to zero due to the bonus damage***. I think leaving it be is a
> desireable simplicity.
Good point!
> > I think I'd still just take the easy way out and simply limit ranges vs
> > aware targets and have expanded (normal) ranges for surprise attacks
> against
> > stationary targets (or simply anything immobile) and maybe then all
that's
> > required is some additional penalty for attacking an unaware, but
*moving*
> > target past the 1 second mark (you never know what they're going to do,
> but
> > you can still anticipate it somewhat).
>
> Hmm. Hmm, hmm, hmm. Smacks of an elegant solution!
>
> > Longbow:
> > Target Aware - Range 30 or maybe a "heroic" 50? Half normal range for
game
> > balance? Base range + additional range based on Strength bow? Greater
> > poundage, greater speed?
> > Target Unaware/Immobile - Range 100.
> > - Moving: -3 to hit / Inc. after 300' ?
>
> Suggest: the moving penalty is redundant with the increased difficulty
> of hitting the "aware" target.
The moving penalty is only applied to the *unaware* target (eg. a blissfully
ignorant target who's just walking down the street). The base "unaware
target" penalty assumes he/she/it isn't moving (sitting, standing guard,
asleep) and is thus treated as any other inanimate object. Yes, naturally it
wouldn't apply to an aware target who's got more than a little motivation to
move! ;)
A'koss
Tables are bad. BADZ THINGZ !
Ed Chauvin IV
>>
>> And for some strange reason, you only want to apply this principle to the
>>strong archers.
>
> ?
Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you had considered the ramifications of dividing the
energy of the bow evenly across the payload. I mean, if you're going to reduce
damage for that purpose, you might as well simply reduce damage across the
board.
Michael Scott Brown
the
> >>strong archers.
> >
> > ?
>
> Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you had considered the ramifications of
dividing the
> energy of the bow evenly across the payload. I mean, if you're going to
reduce
> damage for that purpose, you might as well simply reduce damage across the
> board.
You seem to have failed to grasp the relevant physics. An arrow with
~3/4 the velocity is the same class of damage as a drag-slowed arrow at the
end of its flight (all of which the game treats as "d8" on average),
consequently, within *point blank range* before the weaker initial energy is
dragged to weaker levels and the inaccuracy of the technique overwhelms it,
it is not unreasonable to have both arrows retain their *base* damage,
because they are still just within the "average performance" envelope of an
arrow over its whole flight.
When comparing shot damage, you *must* recall that point blank and long
range cases are apples to oranges. If we were firing a manyshot to the same
distances as the standard arrowshot, the average damage potential would have
to be lowered to be sensible - but we're looking at a snapshot of the
moment when the arrows come off the blocks with the most power they'll ever
have - and over a very brief traverse, they're still "d8-worthy". Since
point blank is all we care about, we can 'get away' with retaining the base
damage value.
-Michael
Dastardly
DOH!!! Missed the 10x part for missile weapons. Hmmm... That is right
the ballistics could be the primary factor in the range limitation. As
the initial speed of the projectile is constant regardless of the
range of the target, to increase distance you must increase the angle
of release. It would be interesting to see a slow motion video of an
arrow shot to extreme range to verify that the trajectory was a nearly
symmetrical parabola versus being squished on the landing side.
Dastardly
SD Anderson
You didn't say it was barf fodder, you said it was unwieldy.
Pulling 3 numbers isn't unweildy. At least not in a game where you
have to pull ACs saving throws, hit points number of attacks and
damage off of the monster you encountered.
Ed Chauvin IV
>> >> And for some strange reason, you only want to apply this principle to
>the
>> >>strong archers.
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>> Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you had considered the ramifications of
>dividing the
>> energy of the bow evenly across the payload. I mean, if you're going to
>reduce
>> damage for that purpose, you might as well simply reduce damage across the
>> board.
>
> You seem to have failed to grasp the relevant physics. An arrow with
>~3/4 the velocity is the same class of damage as a drag-slowed arrow at the
>end of its flight (all of which the game treats as "d8" on average),
Of course, you and I both know that the game represents the loss of penetration
power through the to-hit penalties for range, so it's only appropriate to
represent the same kind of effect with the same game mechanic.
>consequently, within *point blank range* before the weaker initial energy is
>dragged to weaker levels and the inaccuracy of the technique overwhelms it,
>it is not unreasonable to have both arrows retain their *base* damage,
>because they are still just within the "average performance" envelope of an
>arrow over its whole flight.
> When comparing shot damage, you *must* recall that point blank and long
>range cases are apples to oranges. If we were firing a manyshot to the same
>distances
Exactly. The feat should allow compatibility for the obvious follow-up feat,
Extended Manyshot.
>as the standard arrowshot, the average damage potential would have
>to be lowered to be sensible - but we're looking at a snapshot of the
>moment when the arrows come off the blocks with the most power they'll ever
>have - and over a very brief traverse, they're still "d8-worthy". Since
>point blank is all we care about, we can 'get away' with retaining the base
>damage value.
And what do you do when some of the point blank range is also medium to long
range?
Michael Scott Brown
> Of course, you and I both know that the game represents the loss of
penetration
> power through the to-hit penalties for range, so it's only appropriate to
> represent the same kind of effect with the same game mechanic.
No, you and I most certainly do *not* "know" that. I vehemently
disagree. Projectiles' flight is limited by *gravity*, not by loss of
horizontal impetus or kinetic energy, and consequently, while drag imposes
*some* loss of penetrating power for *very long* flights of projectiles,
this is in no way on the scale of the LINEAR range penalties the game uses,
which are straight-up assessments of targeting problems as a function of
distance & projectile speed.
> >as the standard arrowshot, the average damage potential would have
> >to be lowered to be sensible - but we're looking at a snapshot of the
> >moment when the arrows come off the blocks with the most power they'll
ever
> >have - and over a very brief traverse, they're still "d8-worthy". Since
> >point blank is all we care about, we can 'get away' with retaining the
base
> >damage value.
>
> And what do you do when some of the point blank range is also medium to
long
> range?
What about THIRTY FEET don't you understand?
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>news:v0ic6vcs6qdjgjrd9...@news.supernews.com...
>> Of course, you and I both know that the game represents the loss of
>penetration
>> power through the to-hit penalties for range, so it's only appropriate to
>> represent the same kind of effect with the same game mechanic.
>
> No, you and I most certainly do *not* "know" that.
You know it, you've just forgotten or don't want to admit it here because it
doesn't suit you at the moment.
>I vehemently
>disagree. Projectiles' flight is limited by *gravity*, not by loss of
>horizontal impetus or kinetic energy, and consequently, while drag imposes
>*some* loss of penetrating power for *very long* flights of projectiles,
>this is in no way on the scale of the LINEAR range penalties the game uses,
>which are straight-up assessments of targeting problems as a function of
>distance & projectile speed.
blahblahblah...
Yeah, and we all know a reduction in the number of hits doesn't affect how much
damage gets done.
>> >as the standard arrowshot, the average damage potential would have
>> >to be lowered to be sensible - but we're looking at a snapshot of the
>> >moment when the arrows come off the blocks with the most power they'll
>ever
>> >have - and over a very brief traverse, they're still "d8-worthy". Since
>> >point blank is all we care about, we can 'get away' with retaining the
>base
>> >damage value.
>>
>> And what do you do when some of the point blank range is also medium to
>long
>> range?
>
> What about THIRTY FEET don't you understand?
*sigh*
Michael Scott Brown
by loss of
> >horizontal impetus or kinetic energy, and consequently, while drag
imposes
> >*some* loss of penetrating power for *very long* flights of projectiles,
> >this is in no way on the scale of the LINEAR range penalties the game
uses,
> >which are straight-up assessments of targeting problems as a function of
> >distance & projectile speed.
>
> blahblahblah...
> Yeah, and we all know a reduction in the number of hits doesn't affect
how much
> damage gets done.
Ed, you're officially being a moron. I applaud you. All this time
when shooting arrows at long range, I thought I was missing the target
completely when I failed to strike home - but in fact, apparently
Aristotle's physics were right after all, and my arrows were just *bouncing
off* of the target because *soooo much* energy was lost due to aerodynamic
drag.
Bah.
While it *is possible* for reduced penetrating power to be modeled with
an attack penalty (look at strength), THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF RANGE
MODIFIERS.
> >> And what do you do when some of the point blank range is also medium
to long
> >> range?
> >
> > What about THIRTY FEET don't you understand?
>
> *sigh*
Quit your bitching and back up your statements, twit. A few posts back
you MADE UP a "rule" that range increments should be drastically subdivided
to a degree that for certain bows the 30' cutoff was larger than *a* range
increment. Now, you're talking about 30 feet being "medium" or even "long"
range? Kindly remove your head from your ass. We have established no
"range increment" subdivision - and were we to do so, it sure as hell
wouldn't make 30 feet long range for a bow!
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>> >I vehemently disagree. Projectiles' flight is limited by *gravity*, not
>by loss of
>> >horizontal impetus or kinetic energy, and consequently, while drag
>imposes
>> >*some* loss of penetrating power for *very long* flights of projectiles,
>> >this is in no way on the scale of the LINEAR range penalties the game
>uses,
>> >which are straight-up assessments of targeting problems as a function of
>> >distance & projectile speed.
>>
>> blahblahblah...
>> Yeah, and we all know a reduction in the number of hits doesn't affect
>how much
>> damage gets done.
>
> Ed, you're officially being a moron.
Good to have your seal of approval, I'd hate to be one of those rogue
non-official morons you see crowding the subway stations these days.
>I applaud you.
I'd like to thank my family, and the Academy. Oh, and the director, the makeup
department, the grips...
>All this time
>when shooting arrows at long range, I thought I was missing the target
>completely when I failed to strike home - but in fact, apparently
>Aristotle's physics were right after all, and my arrows were just *bouncing
>off* of the target because *soooo much* energy was lost due to aerodynamic
>drag.
> Bah.
> While it *is possible* for reduced penetrating power to be modeled with
>an attack penalty (look at strength), THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF RANGE
>MODIFIERS.
So you say now. It does, after all, suit your position quite well. Of course,
in this abstracted combat system one can't actually be certain that a particular
blow actually caused actual harm.
>> >> And what do you do when some of the point blank range is also medium
>to long
>> >> range?
>> >
>> > What about THIRTY FEET don't you understand?
>>
>> *sigh*
>
> Quit your bitching and back up your statements, twit. A few posts back
>you MADE UP a "rule" that range increments should be drastically subdivided
>to a degree that for certain bows the 30' cutoff was larger than *a* range
>increment. Now, you're talking about 30 feet being "medium" or even "long"
>range? Kindly remove your head from your ass. We have established no
>"range increment" subdivision - and were we to do so, it sure as hell
>wouldn't make 30 feet long range for a bow!
Oh, stop ignoring the issue and address my points.
Your "division of energy" is far better modeled by either a reduction in range,
or a damage penalty to all arrows in the volley or some combination of the two
than by restricting Str damage when firing from a mighty bow.
Michael Scott Brown
with
> >an attack penalty (look at strength), THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF RANGE
> >MODIFIERS.
>
> So you say now. It does, after all, suit your position quite well. Of
course,
> in this abstracted combat system one can't actually be certain that a
particular
> blow actually caused actual harm.
Actually, one can. If it did damage, it caused physical harm. Official
word from the Sage in discussions of "when is momo poisoned?" with respect
to fundamentals of whether every single hit point represents an increment of
*physical harm*.
> > Quit your bitching and back up your statements, twit. A few posts
back
> >you MADE UP a "rule" that range increments should be drastically
subdivided
> >to a degree that for certain bows the 30' cutoff was larger than *a*
range
> >increment. Now, you're talking about 30 feet being "medium" or even
"long"
> >range? Kindly remove your head from your ass. We have established no
> >"range increment" subdivision - and were we to do so, it sure as hell
> >wouldn't make 30 feet long range for a bow!
>
> Oh, stop ignoring the issue and address my points.
I just did. They're wrong.
> Your "division of energy" is far better modeled by either a reduction in
range,
> or a damage penalty to all arrows in the volley or some combination of the
two
> than by restricting Str damage when firing from a mighty bow.
Range is irrelevant due to inaccuracy problems; a manyshot attack starts
out inaccurate and quickly destabilizes into wildly inaccurate.
Restricting STR damage to one increment *is* a damage penalty compared
to the set. Only managing to do base damage within point blank range *is* a
reduction in damage, effectively - if we were only defining bow damage by
the harm it could inflict within thirty feet, the damage die for a bow would
be *larger*, which is something you are utterly failing to comprehend.
Consequently, the right solutions are a non-mighty just Xd8 damage *in
point blank range*, a mighty bow doing a little better; Xd8+Str, and a weak
archer is penalized in all cases.
*Your* suggestion, that a mighty bow should do Xd8 + X*Str - X*(penalty)
commits the grave sin of multiplying the bow's extra strength rather than
dividing it, which is a violation of physics.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > 3 numbers, each of which must be pulled off a table. That's
> > barf-fodder, pure and simple.
> You didn't say it was barf fodder, you said it was unwieldy.
> Pulling 3 numbers isn't unweildy.
It is *so* unweildy when you're pulling them off of THREE DIFFERENT
TABLES.
Tables are unweildy. Tables *suck*.
"3 numbers" from a *list* is trivial; there's no search and lookup
function involved.
But that's not the case with Gurps' arrangement.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>> > While it *is possible* for reduced penetrating power to be modeled
>with
>> >an attack penalty (look at strength), THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF RANGE
>> >MODIFIERS.
>>
>> So you say now. It does, after all, suit your position quite well. Of
>course,
>> in this abstracted combat system one can't actually be certain that a
>particular
>> blow actually caused actual harm.
>
> Actually, one can. If it did damage, it caused physical harm. Official
>word from the Sage in discussions of "when is momo poisoned?" with respect
>to fundamentals of whether every single hit point represents an increment of
>*physical harm*.
No, that only tells you that a particular *attack*roll* did actual harm, it says
nothing about real individual blows.
>> > Quit your bitching and back up your statements, twit. A few posts
>back
>> >you MADE UP a "rule" that range increments should be drastically
>subdivided
>> >to a degree that for certain bows the 30' cutoff was larger than *a*
>range
>> >increment. Now, you're talking about 30 feet being "medium" or even
>"long"
>> >range? Kindly remove your head from your ass. We have established no
>> >"range increment" subdivision - and were we to do so, it sure as hell
>> >wouldn't make 30 feet long range for a bow!
>>
>> Oh, stop ignoring the issue and address my points.
>
> I just did. They're wrong.
Well then, that's settled. Shall we move on?
>> Your "division of energy" is far better modeled by either a reduction in
>range,
>> or a damage penalty to all arrows in the volley or some combination of the
>two
>> than by restricting Str damage when firing from a mighty bow.
>
> Range is irrelevant due to inaccuracy problems; a manyshot attack starts
>out inaccurate and quickly destabilizes into wildly inaccurate.
> Restricting STR damage to one increment *is* a damage penalty compared
>to the set. Only managing to do base damage within point blank range *is* a
>reduction in damage, effectively - if we were only defining bow damage by
>the harm it could inflict within thirty feet, the damage die for a bow would
>be *larger*, which is something you are utterly failing to comprehend.
> Consequently, the right solutions are a non-mighty just Xd8 damage *in
>point blank range*, a mighty bow doing a little better; Xd8+Str, and a weak
>archer is penalized in all cases.
The weak archer does *exactly* the same amount of damage (sneak attack and so
forth notwithstanding) with his 4 Many Shot arrows as he would with the same 4
arrows fired individually. Where's the damage penalty for dividing the bow's
energy? More to the point, why are you dividing *only* mighty bow energy? Are
they special? Do they not work under the same physical laws as normal bows?
> *Your* suggestion, that a mighty bow should do Xd8 + X*Str - X*(penalty)
>commits the grave sin of multiplying the bow's extra strength rather than
>dividing it, which is a violation of physics.
I'm suggesting that you're dividing the energy wrong. Not that it shouldn't be
divided. Note that the inherent range reduction (MS doesn't work beyond 30')
and the reduction in to-hit probability *already* represents a division of
energy.
Malachias Invictus
"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:3e637...@news3.prserv.net...
> The mighty bow rules are inherently broken. No one without at least a
> ST 18 should be able to effectively draw a +4 mighty bow at all.
That is our house rule.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Niallsszzq
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I6Maa.28$C81....@news.abs.net...
Bill Seurer
> that is the correct rule!
But it's not the published rule.
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:I6Maa.28$C81....@news.abs.net...
>
>>"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
>>news:3e637...@news3.prserv.net...
>>
>>>The mighty bow rules are inherently broken. No one without at least a
>>>ST 18 should be able to effectively draw a +4 mighty bow at all.
>>
>>That is our house rule.
Oh, and don't top post. And don't quote people's .sigs. Grumble grumble.