Re: (TFT) Crossbows Are Too Powerful in TFT or Longbows are Not Powerful Enough

[Mark Tapley <mtapley@swri.edu>]

All,
	Weighing in from a gaming perspective only, as I've never shot any
bow other than a 45-lb target bow, nor seen the damage any bow did to any
target other than a field target straw mat, using a practice point.

	The weapons list for ranged weapons in Melee/TFT is *frustrating*
for an archer. As has been pointed out, an archer can run up to a ST11
weapon that does 1d+2 damage - and that's it! Fine plate + large shield is
immune to his attack, unless he rolls double or triple damage. To go beyond
this, he has to sacrifice rate of fire to unacceptable levels and switch to
a crossbow (and learn a new talent!) He's pretty severely career-limited.
The double-shot per turn rule, questionable as it is from a realism point
of view, helps him mow down lesser opponents, but doesn't really help
against his "peers" - characters with similar numbers of attribute points,
who are likely to have good armor.

	A ST 15 English Long Bow (or whatever we want to call it) doing
3d-2 damage (with no new penetration rules) sounds to me like an ideal
cure. It gives the archer a career path that lets him be a threat to almost
anyone. It gives a beginning character an interesting choice - bows, which
shoot 1/turn at less damage, or crossbows, shooting 1/2 turns or 1/3 turns
but at more damage. I say 3d-2 to avoid totally obosleting the existing
heavy crossbow - in a choice between 3d-1 every turn vs. 3d every 3rd turn,
I can't imagine anyone choosing the latter.

	I disagree that a new talent is needed for ELB - the character
would sink the experience instead into ST, to get his ST up to 15. There's
no reason he needs to be more intelligent - just stronger. (On the subject
of the crossbow talent, I would let the crossbow talent allow its user to
maintain a crossbow as well as shooting it. I can live with it requiring a
whole IQ to remember with that provisio.)

	Regarding penetrating vs. normal damage, I would not add rules for
this, I'd instead just increase the damage for the longbow to the point
that it's felt to be realistic in dealing with armor (I think it's there at
3d-2). The "losers" from this decision are un-armored characters, but they
already have to deal with the same problem from crossbows as well as
charging halberds. If you open the door to penetrating damage from an
arrow, I don't see how you avoid similar arguments for spears, rapiers,
lightning bolts, etc. etc. etc. and I'm afraid you'll end up with a very
substantial new set of rules. The result might be more "realistic", but
it'll make things more complex and slow, and I'm afraid would not be worth
it.

	Re: superiority of English longbow vs. French knights - well, *in
the right tactical situation* (i.e. the mud of Agincourt) that was true. On
a firm field with no pre-set defenses, I think mounted knights would make
short work of an equal number of archers. Trying to balance playability vs.
realism, a 3d-2 longbow that would expect to do around 4 points/shot of
damage to a fallen (crawling) figure in plate mail, or 2 points/shot
against a mounted knight with shield in place, sounds about right. The
archer wins in mud, killing the knight before he can crawl up. The knight
wins on the tourney field, closing the range rapidly and smashing the
archer before he can wear down the knight through his armor.

	One final point about Agincourt: the archers there were among the
cream of the fighting men available to the English side - else they'd not
have been shipped across the channel in the first place. The French were
probably a lot closer to beginning characters.
								- Mark
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"