> > How do people in general handle missile fire?
>
>They dont. HQ and HW do not handle missile fire well at all.
Probably no surprise, I don't think that it's problematic in the least. In play I've had people use ranged abilities many, many times, and never once have I had the slightest problem. First, your problem is only with extended contests, right? I mean, as a simple contest the results all seem reasonable, don't they? If not, let me know, and I'll address that, too.
>My biggest problem is - what is it resisted by? Close Combat seems
>inappropriate to defending vs distance combat, but actually probably
>isnt. Close Combat would surely include training in handling attacks
>from arrows.
So, given that you feel that close combat is appropriate, then most combat characters *will* have an appropriate ability. Seems you've solved your own "biggest problem". I see Run Fast a lot, Tough (fun because you get to narrate them shrugging of flesh wounds), Intimidate, lots of stuff.
>Dodge might appear to be better but not all players
>would have a Dodge skill, and often it isnt improved and would be
>weak against a trained archer.
First, I thought you were trying to argue that archers suffered negative consequences too often (that seems to be the case below). Now you're saying that a common defense will be too weak? Making archery, what? Not as weak as you thought?
"Weak" isn't an issue, in any case. From this logic, Persuade is problematic, because most characters don't have Strong Willed or something. Players will find something to use. And they'll be augmenting with their Loves Wilma 5W, too. If they don't have anything appropriate, then yes, the GM has made an unbalanced contest. Fortunately HQ handles these just fine. Failure is not a problem in HQ.
>From another perspective, most NPCs out there don't have any combat skills.
Does that mean that all combat skills are problematic because they can be
lorded over the non-combatants? No, the GM provides opponents who are
interesting in terms of their ability to challenge the PCs. So if the PCs
have bows, they'll be up against guys with shields. A guy with a high Shield
ability could be a nightmare for the archer.
Oh, but wait, we're talking about problems with archery getting bad results...
>My next problem was the overly nasty effects of fumbling a bow shot.
>A bad roll or a clearly superior enemy results in the archer
>suffering unusual results, well what I considered unusual. Working
>on the assumption that a trained archer knows how to use his weapon,
>isnt in imminent danger of being clobbered, then an archer should be
>resonably safe from repercussions. That is after all one of the
>reasons for doing an attack at distance.
The "repercussions" of an archer shooting his bow at a dodging character don't have to be physical, and very likely aren't in an extended contest. Let's say the archer loses 20 points to a transfer - well, that just means that the guy running away got that much farther because of the archer taking too long with aiming a shot and missing. Or whatever his goal is (maybe he got that much closer, or managed to be more persuasive). That is, you never have to narrate a problem for the archer, you can just narrate some advantage for the guy with the other goal. Nowhere does it say that a loss of AP must be narrated as a problem for the person doing the shooting. The AP change, and you narrate something reasonable.
>Eg archer behind a wall shoots at advancing enemy - little risk of
>soemthing bad happening, so in our game we ruled that they didnt
>suffer any negative effect results. A negative was simply a miss
>(short of a fumble).
Which is, again, what the rules say should happen. Instead the AP should represent the opponent having some success. Remember, a Critical Failure for you is a Critical Success for your opponent. What gets narrated can represent anything that covers either. Basically, the critical failure for the archer is that the opponent had a critical success.
>And if you say he missed and shot a friend, well
>why does the archer loose AP? Embarrassed yes, but a proffessional
>archer would just mark it up to bad luck and notch the next arrow
>(and now has a clearer shot)... it is the poor target who should be
>losing APs.
Which they will if they're a follower. Moreover, if they're a team with combined AP, then it very much makes sense. If they're not a team, then it's not appropriate to narrate a failure as accidentally hitting a potential opponent.
>What it resulted in was that none of my players would use a bow.
Because they're no *more* effective than anything else? That seems silly. Seems like they just were concerned over the odd effects of narration.
>I do apply some modifiers: no shield -10.
Hmm. No shield *or cover* I might buy. But as long as there's something to hide behind, I won't penalize. But yes, it's hard to avoid being hit in the open.
>Not actively conscious of
>the archer -10. Soemthing like this, dont have my list with me.
Seems totally appropriate. Hard to dodge an attack that you're not aware of. These just seem like logical uses of the Improv Modifier rules. Everybody should be using these to best effect - it's not specific to archery.
>Dont extend this to magic at a distance however - magic is an
>exchange of magical powers and failing CAN result in bad effects on
>the caster.
See, you can imagine bad effects, so it's not problematic. If you're creative, you can always come up with something to explain a negative result that does not result in the character looking foolish. I agree that it's bad to constantly be running out of arrows, or breaking your bow, etc (though these are fun in moderation, too). But there are an infinite number of things that one can do explain the negative modifier based on the individual situation.
And, in the end, if you can't or don't want to think of an answer, just say that the opponent gains instead. So I can't see the problem.
Mike
Powered by hypermail