Quote from: jrients;367822I'm pretty sure there's at least one guy on the OD&D board that uses the damage roll for an arrow hit as the number of arrows fired that round.  I like that rule because it uses up more ammo without giving the archer something new to whine about since they only use a lot of arrows when they score decent damage.

That's a great idea! I like it too.  If you rock the 6 damage and take your target out, it's more likely you'll be less upset about the amount of arrows spent for that kill shot.

Quote from: Hairfoot;367745Not initially, but always at the end.  Before the queenie storm-out we get to watch the gradual unravelling of strawmen, false equivalences, red herrings and appeals to popularity in what I've come to think of as the Abyssal Maw Cycle.

There does seem to be a pattern or method to his postings.  I wonder if he has some kind RPG specific variant of Münchausen's Syndrome and he just can't help himself sometimes.

Quote from: StormBringer;367785Allow me to touch on the main points here, I don't want to turn this into a sentence by sentence breakdown, as is my wont at times:



No, that is my point.  Most gamers look at firing one arrow every ten seconds or minute or whatever, and start bringing up archers firing 30 or more per minute or whatever; what they often fail to realize is what I pointed out; they are firing as artillery.  45 degree angle, open field, and a mass of enemies charging the walls in a crowded pack.  That exact same archer, now repaired to the parapets, would likely only get one or two shots off a minute, once the castle's infantry have engaged the enemy, possibly less.  A bit more if they didn't really care about hitting friend or foe.  And that is from an elevated position.  If the line of archers is a couple of dozen yards behind the foot soldiers on the ground, they know better than to try shooting into a melee like that, as they would almost never have a clear shot.  They would be as likely, if not more, to kill one of their own as the enemy.  So, they wait until a few of the enemy break the line and start charging the general, or the marshall, or whoever is in charge, and cut them down as they run across the field offering a clear shot.

In an underground tunnel that is no more than 10' across?  Under actual conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if an archer had to wait ten minutes for the opportunity to shoot.

When our DM in high school was feeling particularly malevolent, each arrow miss would have a chance to hit another target, or one of our own party, depending on the direction of the miss.  The Fighter was a fearsome opponent for those he faced, but a stray arrow with no Dex bonus and rear AC...  Even my Magic User could hit him then.  

As determined by game mechanics?  No, not generally, certainly not officially.  I would add a +1 or +2, however, and decrease the odds of hitting another party member on a miss.

The problem is, if characters aren't being wary, you would need to impose some other penalty, like free Attacks of Opportunity (in 3.x and later) or whatever houserule is in play for earlier editions.  You can't just have someone sprinting through a crowd that is intent on doing them grievous harm with no repercussions.

Doh.. you missed my point so now I have to engage in this frankly ludicrous thread again ... sigh.

First whilst 20 shots a minute into mass troops is certainly the way arrows or muskets were used that does not mean that a skilled archer can't shoot 10 arrows a minute straight into a target at 30 m and hit each time. I know this to be true as I have seen it. You can't justify the RaW by saying "but picking a target in a melee is slower" becuase the RoF rules do not refer to that at all they give a standard rate and that is the rate an archer at Agicourt would use to fire into mass troops or an archer woudl use to fire into a melee. Reducing the rate to a slower speed across the board in order to account for one tactical situation is daft.
Do not confuse accuracy with RoF. By all means rule that you can't get a clean shot into a melee and give a penalty to hit with risk of friendly fire but doing this and reducing the rate of fire is a double whammy.

Exactly the same is true with movement. Yes is you aren't wary you may get hit by AoOs and all that palava but reducing the speed all the rest of the time when there are no enemies about is daft. Simpler to rule perhaps but daft.

And I know this is all carping on about nonsense and we all house rule it so that a specialist archer could fire twice in 10 second round or whatever but lets not pretend that the old rules were 'logical' or 'realistic' because they weren't they were daft , not quite as daft as a rogue moving an ogre back 4 squares from the force of their Charisma but daft none the less.

Quote from: Drohem;367830There does seem to be a pattern or method to his postings.  I wonder if he has some kind RPG specific variant of Münchausen's Syndrome and he just can't help himself sometimes.

Well, there is. I start by taking part in the conversation, and then one of you retards decides to battle me, and then I respond, and then the tears flow like rain. What, would you like to battle too? Exactly how important is maintaining the status quo for you guys anyway?

I went back and read the whole thread. It falls apart at exactly post #280.

I understand the thrust of what you're saying, jibbajabba, but this right here?

Quote from: jibbajibba;367831You can't justify the RaW by saying "but picking a target in a melee is slower" becuase the RoF rules do not refer to that at all they give a standard rate and that is the rate an archer at Agicourt would use to fire into mass troops or an archer woudl use to fire into a melee.

I think that's just wrong.

Again, I refer to the example of bow-hunting versus martial archery. Most bow-hunters don't simply arch their arrows into a herd of deer and hope for a hit.

And as far as your example of a skilled archer* firing ten arrows into a target 30m away in a minute? Bear in mind that a 1e AD&D archer can fire two arrows per round, but that this increases as the character gains levels and iterative attacks. So a skilled "1e AD&D archer" may fire more than two arrows per round.



*I was going to ask about the conditions under which this skilled archer of yours was shooting the arrows - was the target trying to dodge, for example - but on further consideration, I don't really care, to be honest.

Quote from: Drohem;367830There does seem to be a pattern or method to his postings.  I wonder if he has some kind RPG specific variant of Münchausen's Syndrome and he just can't help himself sometimes.

I liken it to the fan who roots for his team to the exclusion of the sport.  Only his team matters, in play, in discussion, in marketing.  Every other team is a waste of time -- not only his, but yours, too.  You're an idiot and a loser for liking another team.

AM's chosen a winning team, and part of the enjoyment is letting other people know it.

!i!

Quote from: The Shaman;367835Again, I refer to the example of bow-hunting versus martial archery. Most bow-hunters don't simply arch their arrows into a herd of deer and hope for a hit.

Not to undermine the argument of someone on "my side," but according to the AD&D RAW if you fire into a melee it's completely random who you hit, with no discrimination between friend and enemy, which seems pretty close to what you describe in the second sentence...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367834I went back and read the whole thread. It falls apart at exactly post #280.

Nope. #204.
Oh, look! Your post.

Quote from: T. Foster;367841Not to undermine the argument of someone on "my side," but according to the AD&D RAW if you fire into a melee it's completely random who you hit, with no discrimination between friend and enemy, which seems pretty close to what you describe in the second sentence...

That's a super interesting tactical aspect of the combat rules, btw. The way you close in on combat or charge your opponents, who you decide to fight with, exactly, determines your odds of hitting them in a melee, as well.

Quote from: T. Foster;367841Not to undermine the argument of someone on "my side," but according to the AD&D RAW if you fire into a melee it's completely random who you hit, with no discrimination between friend and enemy, which seems pretty close to what you describe in the second sentence...

Agreed. My example is meant to convey the idea that shooting a single opponent out of melee is closer to hunting than what military archers did.

That doesn't count, trouble-maker.  It's the response to his provocation that starts it.

!i!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367834I went back and read the whole thread. It falls apart at exactly post #280.

That's a little unfair, although i agree with the sentiment. I find it amusing that folk have dredged up your arguments with staff at another site - what they haven't mentioned is that you haven't caused staff at another site to threaten to close it down *twice* , like another poster involved in this clusterfuck has.

I'd actually be interested in reading any house-rules you've got for 4e, AM - not in this thread obviously. How's about it, chum?

Quote from: Benoist;367842Nope. #204.
Oh, look! Your post.

I stand by that post. Let me break it down for you:

* There's no such thing as universal appeal.
* People like what they like, which is not a problem.  
* People who can't get over their resentment of a game they aren't playing and don't know anything about.. are a problem. Because they drag everything down.
* those people here are usually the same guys. Every. fucking. time.
* they also never seem to know what they are talking about.  

therefore

* the entirety of their criticism is largely forgettable.

Quote from: One Horse Town;367848That's a little unfair, although i agree with the sentiment. I find it amusing that folk have dredged up your arguments with staff at another site - what they haven't mentioned is that you haven't caused staff at another site to threaten to close it down *twice* , like another poster involved in this clusterfuck has.

I'd actually be interested in reading any house-rules you've got for 4e, AM - not in this thread obviously. How's about it, chum?

You are right, but I'm not good with house rules- I try to create iterations of the existing rules within the framework of whatever I'm doing.

But I'll post about one I did for the drow campaign: rivalry and romance as a roleplaying theme.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;367846That doesn't count, trouble-maker.  It's the response to his provocation that starts it.

If it's provocation that matters, I'd have to vote for #200. "Trite clothing analogies intended to invalidate criticism don't mean much when the critics are gloriously naked and wearing jetpacks."