Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog
I suppose. But if I had armor? I'm not saying "punching and arrows are the same." I'm saying, "multiple attacks do not automatically discourage forward advancing into melee."
We know people walk into gunfire - why does a few arrows coming from one guy seem like it's going to discourage anyone?
|
Attacks, whether effective or not, don't
automatically discourage people. But given how much of the gunfire on modern battlefields is discharged almost solely to discomfit and discourage the opposition, it seems that exposing foes to a low, but non-zero risk of death or injury is considered an effective way to reduce their freedom to threaten you back, and incidentally, also of taking coordinated, effective action to accomplish their tactical goals.
We know that area saturation with arrows, primarily reliant on volume, was a tactic used historically. While the individual rate of fire was much lower than the video of the OP and Lars' method of rapid shooting is probably far too technically demanding to ever be a viable possibility for significant numbers of troops, as well as being too short ranged for battlefield applications, I would not rule out a limited utility in causing foes to hesitate for a short time in a skirmish.
Personally, I think that utility would be less than using the same level of technical proficiency with a bow to engage more decisively, but I can't say for sure that this would hold true in
all conceivable combinations of situation and forces.
Note that using the RAW rules for fright checks on the battlefield from
Tactical Shooting, there
would be some benefit to shooting so ridiculously fast. Given that hits would probably not incapacitate the target, though, it's likely that this utility would, as I predicted above, be less than simply shooting to kill or cripple.