Comments on: The “Adventuring Archer” Myth http://mu.ranter.net I miss my frames. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:46:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Mu http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth/comment-page-1#comment-1744 Mu Sat, 25 Dec 2010 05:49:35 +0000 http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth#comment-1744 Regarding archers using other equipment and the absurdity of lone archers, this was written in the context of the fantasy MMO, where this is a staple. Character is focused on archery to the near-exclusion of all else, and when enemies close they keep shooting in melee range. Really. At this point there have been some adjustments to the model, but the idea of archery as the primary skill for a soloist is still pretty prevalent, and viable in MMOs, and it's still annoying. Regarding archers using other equipment and the absurdity of lone archers, this was written in the context of the fantasy MMO, where this is a staple. Character is focused on archery to the near-exclusion of all else, and when enemies close they keep shooting in melee range. Really. At this point there have been some adjustments to the model, but the idea of archery as the primary skill for a soloist is still pretty prevalent, and viable in MMOs, and it’s still annoying.

]]> By: Paul DuPont http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth/comment-page-1#comment-1729 Paul DuPont Fri, 24 Dec 2010 06:37:16 +0000 http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth#comment-1729 I agree with Incanur on the most part. My research points to the fact that the long bows and composite short bows had very similar impact penetration (and optimal range) since the limit is the strength of the archer. The composite bow was largely restricted to drier climates where the materials and conditions were more optimal. In either case, the main advantage of the composite bow was that it maintained its power in a smaller package, allowing it to be used from horseback, while the long bow was much more difficult to use while riding a horse. A few months of constant practice (only an hour or two a day at that) is often considered adequate to develop accuracy at medium distances. Shooting longer ranges with accuracy or from horseback obviously takes more practice and other skills (for horseback). I decided to actually get rid of the 'short bow' category in my games unless the setting is set before the creation of composite bows. Hence, all bows have similar ranges and damage potential, but only composite bows can be used from horseback adequately. The idea of a lone archer waiting in ambush in a forest stays valid (in wet climates with a long bow), as does a lone archer on horseback (in a drier climate with composite bow). In both cases, a lone bowman needs other skills to compliment his archery (stealth and camouflage for ambushes, or horse back riding for mobility). The requirement for these skills and their proper use may fulfill the needs of game balance for those who care about that. On the other hand, how many players are role playing a lone archer anyways. I usually have a group of at least three players in my games and the archer snipes from the back and switches weapon when pressed. I agree with Incanur on the most part. My research points to the fact that the long bows and composite short bows had very similar impact penetration (and optimal range) since the limit is the strength of the archer. The composite bow was largely restricted to drier climates where the materials and conditions were more optimal. In either case, the main advantage of the composite bow was that it maintained its power in a smaller package, allowing it to be used from horseback, while the long bow was much more difficult to use while riding a horse. A few months of constant practice (only an hour or two a day at that) is often considered adequate to develop accuracy at medium distances. Shooting longer ranges with accuracy or from horseback obviously takes more practice and other skills (for horseback).

I decided to actually get rid of the ’short bow’ category in my games unless the setting is set before the creation of composite bows. Hence, all bows have similar ranges and damage potential, but only composite bows can be used from horseback adequately. The idea of a lone archer waiting in ambush in a forest stays valid (in wet climates with a long bow), as does a lone archer on horseback (in a drier climate with composite bow). In both cases, a lone bowman needs other skills to compliment his archery (stealth and camouflage for ambushes, or horse back riding for mobility). The requirement for these skills and their proper use may fulfill the needs of game balance for those who care about that.

On the other hand, how many players are role playing a lone archer anyways. I usually have a group of at least three players in my games and the archer snipes from the back and switches weapon when pressed.

]]> By: Incanur http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth/comment-page-1#comment-752 Incanur Sat, 02 Oct 2010 00:34:53 +0000 http://mu.ranter.net/design-theory/weapons/the-adventuring-archer-myth#comment-752 You've managed to get this one spectacularly wrong. While using a bow indeed takes lots of practice, it by no means prevents one from excelling in other martial skills. The warrior elites across the Middle East and Asia, such as Japan's samurai, mastered both archery and melee weapons. English archers eagerly joined close combat with mauls, swords, and daggers when appropriate. Amerindians in southern North American even beat Spaniards senseless by using their bows as clubs according to Garcilaso de la Vega. I'd suggest that few RPGs actually give the bow the respect it deserve. In outdoor combat between small groups, fighting without ranged weapons on your side imposes a serious disadvantage. In the forest, the foot archer rules. On the plains, the horse archer. Wandering around in full armor and trying to chase down archers would be an exercise in futility. In a dungeon and other confined spaces, however, ranged weapons became far less important. Finally, Mongol equipment and physical abilities were nothing special. You find similar composite bows from Hungary to Korea. We don't know exactly how much the average Mongol pulled, but by consulting sources from other cultures 110-120lbs appears likely for a cavalry bow. This contrasts with the average 150-160lb draw of English bows form the Mary Rose and similar figures for composite foot archers found in Chinese texts. You’ve managed to get this one spectacularly wrong. While using a bow indeed takes lots of practice, it by no means prevents one from excelling in other martial skills. The warrior elites across the Middle East and Asia, such as Japan’s samurai, mastered both archery and melee weapons. English archers eagerly joined close combat with mauls, swords, and daggers when appropriate. Amerindians in southern North American even beat Spaniards senseless by using their bows as clubs according to Garcilaso de la Vega.

I’d suggest that few RPGs actually give the bow the respect it deserve. In outdoor combat between small groups, fighting without ranged weapons on your side imposes a serious disadvantage. In the forest, the foot archer rules. On the plains, the horse archer. Wandering around in full armor and trying to chase down archers would be an exercise in futility. In a dungeon and other confined spaces, however, ranged weapons became far less important.

Finally, Mongol equipment and physical abilities were nothing special. You find similar composite bows from Hungary to Korea. We don’t know exactly how much the average Mongol pulled, but by consulting sources from other cultures 110-120lbs appears likely for a cavalry bow. This contrasts with the average 150-160lb draw of English bows form the Mary Rose and similar figures for composite foot archers found in Chinese texts.

]]>