As I said, the arrow initially often just wounds the animal, even if much of the time (75-90% depending on who you believe) the wound will prove directly fatal. In HW you would need to administer a coup de grace if you wanted someone dead /now/, or be very very good at archery.
> AFAIK, in most cases the target of a hunting arrow usually dies of
> oxygen starvation to the brain, as bloodflow hemmorhages
internally.
Bow hunters aim for the chest so usually hit a lung, on the occasion that they hit the heart the animal usually dies very quickly. Ovbiously a poor shot can leave the animal hurt but not dying any time soon.
> So to drag this back to the topic, I entirely agree that a human
> target of an arrow would in MOST circumstances be able to fight back
> quite effectively, at least for a short time. Sometimes longer.
That all depends and I think rules-wise we can leave it to the level of success to suggest how well or how long the victim can function.
Personally I would not fancy trying to run to catch up with a sneaky archer just after he put an arrow through one of my lungs, leave that sort of thing for berserkers and similar idiots. A dagger is a different story, the person who did it is within reach already and the weapon is not stuck most of the way through the victim.
> (It's definitely not like the movies where *thunk* the arrow hits a
> guy's chest and he flips onto his back, dead. Nope.)
Agreed, different genre.
-- Nic
Powered by hypermail