09-25-2018, 08:40 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Platimus, I agree that it's all about timing. As Skarg mentioned, geometry and reach makes the bow the longest reach of all. However, complicating the AdjDX order further with another special rule for bow last shots I think is unnecessary. That's why I think that moving the last bow shot into the polearm charge sequence makes sense.
I also agree that the simplest solution is to eliminate the polearm charge sequence entirely and everyone goes in AdjDX order (perhaps with the added die damage for a polearm charge). However, the rule is there and I propose that, since there are two adjDX sequences, the last bowshot should be included in the first rather than the last. In my experience, a good bowman can nock and fire in roughly 1 sec. when she doesn't have to aim at a distant target. Perhaps only the Expert or Master Bowman gets the advantage of last shot during the polearm sequence because it does require a certain amount of training and familiarity. She won't be able to do a head shot but a torso shot within 3 m is eminently achievable. Frankly, any bowman who sticks around for a last shot at under 3 m against a charging polearm should be given a medal - posthumously. But it does work in TFT.
__________________
Helborn |
09-25-2018, 08:54 AM | #22 | ||||
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But if the "polearm charge rule" were based entirely upon reach, why wouldn't the author precede the "polearm charge rule" with a "missile weapons first" rule? Because it's not just about reach. It's also about the time it takes to use the weapon. Quote:
If you group bow-fire and polearm charges together and resolving in order of adjDX, you are allowing all bowman to preempt all other attacks (except polearm chargers). All bowmen attack before sword-swingers, dagger-thrusters, etc. That seems wrong from a realism perspective and from the "intent of the rules" perspective. But, hey, we're all going to do what we want to do. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just trying to convince you all to want to do what is right! LOL Unless someone quotes me, I will not make any further attempts at persuasion. :) Last edited by platimus; 09-25-2018 at 08:57 AM. |
||||
09-25-2018, 09:01 AM | #23 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
|
|
09-25-2018, 09:50 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Platimus, you believe that a charge is unstoppable. I disagree. Enough damage will end a charge. Even a rock, causing a stumble will end a charge. The weapon does not have inertia that causes it to continue to travel in a straight line to the target. A stumble - whether caused by a rock or sufficient damage - will alter the trajectory except by accident. Death, definitely, ends a charge.
The question is whether or not a charging polearm wielder should be immune to all adverse effects from anyone with a higher AdjDX other than another polearm wielder. The rules as written give him that immunity. The issue is whether to remove the last bowshot from that immunity. We can agree to disagree but I would like to see Steve's thoughts on the matter.
__________________
Helborn |
09-25-2018, 10:32 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
I also quibble with that the only issue is doing 8+ damage, since some people are already wounded or could be attacked by a friendly pole-weapon user or whatever. (And we play so that the -2DX for taking 5 hits applies immediately as well as next turn, though the current rules say not to do that. I really like the possibility of stopping people before they hurt you, and dislike having there be no way to avoid getting injured.) I also agree that missile weapon users do not need a balance boost. I think there's a real logic problem with archers being able to generally shoot in adjDX order along with people with swords/axes/etc who may be attacking them, but NOT polearms. From a realism/consistency perspective I think that if someone charging an archer with a spear can attack the archer first, then someone attacking an archer with a slightly shorter hand weapon should also be able to. All melee weapons going before first shots would make more sense to me than only polearms always going before last shots. But the rule specifically explains that archers have time to get a last shot off. If that is the case, then I really don't see it being untrue against people who have a slightly different hand weapon. If it's a balance issue, maybe last shots should have a DX penalty. |
|
09-25-2018, 10:59 AM | #26 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
Quote:
I think the best ruling (if there were to be a change or a house-rule) would be similar to the one posted earlier. Everyone attacks in order of highest adjDX down to lowest adjDX - even polearm chargers. But polearm chargers receive a +3 bonus to DX ONLY for the ordering of the attacks, not the attacks themselves. You could give the archers the same +3 bonus. Last edited by platimus; 09-25-2018 at 11:06 AM. |
||
09-25-2018, 11:03 AM | #27 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
That is not what I believe. It is not what I said (and I was/am speaking from a "reality" perspective). Do I believe a charge is stoppable by a normal arrow? Under most/normal circumstances, no. Is it stoppable by something larger than an arrow? Under most/normal circumstances, yes. Quote:
I agree to disagree. I, too, would love to hear/see Steve's thoughts on the matter. IMO, we already have his thoughts on the matter though - the rules-as-written. Last edited by platimus; 09-25-2018 at 11:42 AM. |
||
09-25-2018, 11:27 AM | #28 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
And since you brought it up, an unarmed person who gets the archer in HTH during movement (as is now the rule in the new basic Melee, not just Advanced Melee) would also not get shot by a last shot (RAW), although at least in that case there is a 1d roll that randomly determines whether than happens or not. Quote:
What I personally don't favor about that is that it loses the geometrical argument for pole weapons going first, which I personally quite like. i.e. I think the chance for a pole weapon to hit someone with a shorter weapon in a charge really should be determined before the person with the shorter weapon gets a chance to hit the person with the longer weapon, again because of simple geometry. However, I also favor giving a DX/skill-based chance for the shorter weapon user to avoid being hit, and would tend to house-rule that. Lacking that, I can understand how some people (I'm thinking of other-forum arguments in years past) prefer to let adjDX rule attack sequence even in pole weapon charges. If thinking that way, then yes, I could see changing it to a DX modifier, as you suggest. |
||
09-25-2018, 11:30 AM | #29 | |||
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by platimus; 09-25-2018 at 11:46 AM. |
|||
09-25-2018, 11:54 AM | #30 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Polearm charge against a bowman
Quote:
Now, the logic of imagining the situation DOES (to me and some others here) imply that the shot would happen before the polearm attack, because it probably occurs as the charger is still closing the distance, before the weapon length should matter. To be congruent with other melee weapons, and simplest, it'd occur in adjDX order like everything else, but to counter the odd effect that a last shot might occur before some other higher-DX figure, it would make sense to me to apply a DX penalty to last shots. |
|
|
|