Need feedback on possible house rule re: Archers and Warriors

[Ineti]

Here's the dilemma: Warriors as presented in the core rulebook are slanted toward armed combat (i.e., using swords and other non-ranged weapons) over ranged weapons. A hero wanting to be really good with a bow is pretty much forced to become an archer.

Warriors have an order ability called Swift Strike that gives them an extra Armed Combat action, with the option to improve it to get 2 extra Armed Combat actions. This means a sword-swinging warrior will always end up better in combat than a warrior who uses a bow more than a sword.

Archers get the order ability Swift Shot, but one interested in this has to go through 6 advancements then take the Archer elite order before she can get Swift Shot.

This, in a word, sucks. A PC should be able to play a 0 advancement warrior who focuses on a bow as easily as a PC could play a 0 advancement warrior who focuses on using a sword or other weapon.

I have a couple ideas to make an archery-focused warrior (one that doesn't have to become an archer to be good with a bow) more effective in combat.

OPTION 1:

Make Swift Shot an order ability of Warrior, and reword it to something like so:

Swift Shot: Grants the warrior an extra load and fire action in a round, effectively allowing the warrior to fire two arrows in a round penalty-free. Prereqs: Ranged Combat 6+, Nimbleness 10+. This ability may be improved once. The improvement grants another extra load and fire action, effectively allowing the warrior to load and fire three arrows in a round penalty-free.

Option 1 would also involve adding a new order ability to Archer to make up for the loss of Swift Shot. Something like "Trick Shot," that would allow an archer to fire 2 arrows at the same time (like Legolas did in the chamber of Mazarbul) or a banked shot or something really fancy befitting a high-powered archer.

OPTION 2:

Make loading and firing an arrow one action, rather than the 2 actions it is now (1 action to load, 1 action to fire). This means anyone with a bow could fire twice a round. This would keep Swift Shot as written in the book, and would give either 3 shots a round or 4 shots a round if the archer takes Swift Shot or improves it.

OPTION 3:

Create a new edge for anyone to take called "Speed Load" or something. The edge would allow a character to load and fire as one action. Effectively the same result as Option 2, but making the heroes buy it as an edge rather than getting the ability for free.

So, with all that being said, thoughts? Comments?

[Phantom]

I actually like it the way it is. Historically it took a person alot longer to become a proficient longbowman then it did a swordsmen.

But, then as I always say it's your world, go with your heart.

[Greg Davis]

Here's just an 'off the top of my head' thought on the subject...

If you want to even things out more for the ranged characters when compared to the melee characters, you could alter Swift Strike so that it would affect either melee or ranged attack (but not both, for that, you would have to purchase the ability multiple times). Perhaps simply calling it Swift Action, or something to that effect would work. This would not eliminate the '1 action to load, 1 action to fire' system, though (as that sort of speed should be the province of the Archer, in my opinion).

For the Archer, then, you could alter the Swift Shot ability so that it is only purchased once, but, allows for the Archer to notch an arrow and fire, all in one fluid motion (thus accounting for the rapid shots of Legolas). This would, in the end, make the ranged character just as viable as the melee character, in terms of actions, but would still necessitate the acquisition of the Archer elite order, as well as the altered Swift Shot ability.

Like I said, though, this is just an 'off the top of my head' solution, so I don't really know how feasible, in game terms, it would be. Still, run with it if you'd like.


Greg

[Ineti]

Let me just add that one of the issues I'm having with this is that it's been mentioned on this board and others (and I myself have mentioned it) that a 0 advancement LOTR character is generally superior to a 1st level D&D character.

Now, I know it's like comparing apples and oranges, BUT...

A 1st level D&D 3e fighter gets one attack a round. So he normally would get one arrow off--load and shoot, all one round action. And they get a free move in the deal.

If that 1st level fighter decides to take the feats Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, they now get 2 arrows off in a round, no penalty to either roll.

A 0 advancement warrior in LOTR cannot do such a thing as Swift Shot is not available to a starting character.

This is part of the argument I'm getting from my players, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a reasonable answer other than "that's what the rules say."

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Phantom
I actually like it the way it is. Historically it took a person alot longer to become a proficient longbowman then it did a swordsmen.

I know, but this arguement doesn't really work for the LOTR game. A starting warrior could end up with a very high Armed Combat score and have the ability to use both actions in a round for separate attacks (not to mention sweeps and other nice armed combat options).

Example: in my campaign, the Dwarf warrior could use his two regular actions to perform a sweep against three opponents, then take another swing at -5. Potentially four attacks in one round at 0 advancements.

A warrior with a bow could load, fire, load, fire in the same round, but the second shot would be at -5.

The warrior hitting potentially four times does way more damage than a warrior with a bow can do hitting twice.

Granted, armed combat allows for parries, but I still see a flaw in here somewhere.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Ineti
The warrior hitting potentially four times does way more damage than a warrior with a bow can do hitting twice.

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying here. Is the point of contention really whether an Archer can get off the second shot or that the warrior does more damage in a round?

If you want to give a bowman a bit more of a chance use the 1, 2, or 3 success rules for NPCS...Given what my characters could do if they had max'd out their Ranged Combat they could easily kill 2 orcs, if they were behind one another, with one arrow. Just like Legolas does countlessly in both movies.

How I would handle it.

[Ineti]

No, the contention is that a warrior preferring to use a bow is far less effective in combat than a warrior using a good old sword. Total damage isn't the issue. The issue I see is that a sword-swinger can get way more attacks in a round than an bow-user.

The rules allow for a D'Artagnan (sp?) wannabe, but not a Robin Hood wannabe. Does that make sense? I'm trying to find a good way to keep the system flexible enough to allow for a warrior who wants to concentrate on a bow as much as it allows for a warrior who concentrates on a melee weapon.

[Jason Durall]

Personally, I have little problem with the relative slowness of archers compared to hand-to-hand fighters.

I do think that arrows, spears, javelins, and the like are horribly underpowered in the LotR game system (and in almost all other roleplaying games, actually).

If I were narrating, I would address this by leaving the potential rate of fire the same, but doubling the damage modifier for these weapons.

I'd probably also include a Nimbleness or Swiftness penalty for victims who have arrows or spears stuck in them, and possibly additional damage for when they're removed.

This, to me, would be a much more "realistic" and balanced concept, than having archers pulling arrows, nocking them, drawing their bows back, sighting, and releasing, at a similar duration to a sword-swing.

But this is my opinion, not really a statement of how everyone should do it.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by Ineti
A warrior with a bow could load, fire, load, fire in the same round, but the second shot would be at -5.

The warrior hitting potentially four times does way more damage than a warrior with a bow can do hitting twice.

Granted, armed combat allows for parries, but I still see a flaw in here somewhere.

You might be overlooking the fact that archers generally don't have to worry about parrying or dodging in combat, while fighters in the middle of a melee should ideally have to do all of those things.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Jason Durall

I'd probably also include a Nimbleness or Swiftness penalty for victims who have arrows or spears stuck in them, and possibly additional damage for when they're removed.

But if say an orc gets hit with one or two arrows he already has a wound penalty. Most characters are int the same boat as well why would you install another penalty?

[Sarge]

An old saying says, "To make a good longbowman, start by training his grandfather." IOW, it takes a lot of time and practice to get really good with a bow.

My SCA combat experience definitely supports the LotR game rules. In battles with combat archers, a swordsman can hit his opponent with a whole lot more blows than an archer. The great advantage of the archer is that he can strike from beyond melee range.

I agree with Jason about having arrows stuck in characters. Even in D&D, I don't consider arrows to just subtract HPs and vanish. If you get hit with an arrow, then you have a three-foot stick jutting out of your body. That will make many actions extremely awkward and painful. I also think that a successful Healing roll should be required to remove an arrow without doing more damage.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by Phantom
But if say an orc gets hit with one or two arrows he already has a wound penalty. Most characters are int the same boat as well why would you install another penalty?

I would do so to indicate that unlike a bludgeoning, slash, or a puncture wound, the victim actually has a half-yard of wood sticking out of (or through) them, limiting their ability to move freely.

How easy is it to swing a weapon and use a shield if you've got arrows in your arm and your chest?

Having a spear or javelin (4-6 feet of wood and metal head) sticking in one's body would be significantly more inconvenient.

To me, this goes above and beyond the modifier for "pain and injury" which the Wound Penalty represents.

And as I mentioned, it is mostly my own taste which would guide this rule. I have always had a problem with the notion of combatants who actually have weapons sticking out of their bodies not being inconvienced in the least by them.

This would also indicate the need to remove the arrows, or break them off, to negate the negative modifiers, which is reinforced by everything I have read about actual injuries from such weapons.

And as I indicated in my prior message, it's something I would do in my game, rather than a rule I would enforce on anyone who buys the game.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by Sarge
I agree with Jason about having arrows stuck in characters. Even in D&D, I don't consider arrows to just subtract HPs and vanish. If you get hit with an arrow, then you have a three-foot stick jutting out of your body. That will make many actions extremely awkward and painful. I also think that a successful Healing roll should be required to remove an arrow without doing more damage.

DragonQuest actually did this quite nicely. Characters hit with arrows, bolts, thrown knives, throwing axes, spears, javelins and the ilk were considered to have those weapons lodged in their body. This caused a (cumulative) Agility loss while still in, and removing them required either a Healer skill, or risked causing d10-5 hit points in additional damage.

Once, in a DQ Hyborian Age game I ran, my woodsman NPC threw a throwing axe and hit a Pictish tribesman in the stomach. It was his only weapon, though, so he charged in to grapple. I rolled a 01 for his attack (the best roll possible), and announced that Hauk the woodsman had just grabbed the axe back out of the Pict's stomach. The damage roll for this was enough to kill the poor guy, as well.

All of the players were open-mouthed at this cool move, and even made to make Hauk the team leader (though they didn't realize he was much less experienced than them). It was a bad-ass move, and anything that encourages bad-assedness in games is to me, a good thing.

[Turin]

In my game I have found the Archers to be the most difficult to plan for. They are almost never hit and deal out as much damage as the Armed Combat Warriors. Since baddies can only dodge arrows or take the bonus to their defense from a shield, the archers are getting extra successes a lot. Historically archers were decimated when their ranks were broken by foot or cavalry. My archers have all taken swift strike so that they can dodge and still fire arrows.

I have thought about adding penalties for those still impaled by an object in many systems, but I am not sure how to apply it here. What would you guys think? A straight minus to nimbleness or something more far reaching? I think that other tasks not associated with nimbleness, climb and swim come to mind, should be effected also.

[sooth]

why not force archers who dodge to reload or reaim their weapons before they can fire.