Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

How is that any different from getting an infected scratch while working on a farm?

Having an inch or three of arrow in you isn't that likely to immediately incapacitate you, but it's by no means a scratch. Yes, for someone in armor you're not likely to get more than incidental penetration, but this came up in the context of hitting unarmored targets.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Looks like he did indeed target the Face (and missed by 1, hitting the torso). Honestly, however, with a 50% chance to penetrate, I might be inclined to just plink away at the Torso.

Note that one of the later clarifications says that these were stone arrows. Which would have (0.5) armor divisor, making them basically hopeless for penetrating mail.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Boge

More clarification for those that care:

Players are 160 point characters including 25 point regeneration. So I don't have a lot to work with so far.

My group was attacking a post. We started with two archers shooting before the melee charged in, I was one of the archers. When I attacked, the GM stated 30 yards away. My arrow bounced off the enemy's armor. The next round, my companions were attacking in melee range while I was stuck readying for another shot.

It's a low tech level, almost primitive with stone arrows and weapons. It's a regular bow I have as my village doesn't know jack about weaponry. So no steel arrows, no armor piercing. This is the first we have even seen armor. I have ST 13 with strongbow, but nobody in the village is stronger than a 14 for bow use, so that's the best I could get at the time. Regular bow, TH+1.

Well that part's not the problem of the rules, but rather the setting. You're fighting an enemy who is 2 TLs ahead of you.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Note that one of the later clarifications says that these were stone arrows. Which would have (0.5) armor divisor, making them basically hopeless for penetrating mail.

There was also a statement of having a 50% chance of getting past the armor, which combined with the stated 1d+1 imp, indicates the GM is not using the rule that stone weapons have AD (0.5). If he is, yeah, the archer has no choice but to aim where the mail isn't.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Having an inch or three of arrow in you

......is probably the reult of marginal armor penetration or a hit beyond 1/2D range. When the Mythbusters shot arrows at close range into ballistic gelatin they got 8 inches with pointed wood and 9 inches with stone arrowheads. That doesn't quite meet FBI standards for pistol ammo but it's well into the potentially lethal range,

[Alden Loveshade]

We've done archers vs. troops in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism). For safety, the fighters wear full armor, and the arrows are specially made with pads on the end instead of arrow points. The SCA is largely based on the honor system, so if a fighter gets hit in an area where they could have taken serious damage, they behave as if they did. When a fighter gets close enough to swing, they don't swing, but the archer is "lost." Other than that, the combat has been pretty realistic.

Typically, an archer gets very few shots before the fighters get to them. That's one reason for shooting from a protective wall or horseback. Using primitive equipment, you'd basically shoot into a crowd and hope you hit someone.

When I was working on GURPS Fantasy Folk: Elves, I consulted with a master archer who's played GURPS. He found archery in GURPS to be pretty realistic, as do I (I am not a master archer, but have done a good amount of archery using a traditional bow.)

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This balance only works, though, if either you don't care about the fate of your melee allies or your melee allies don't rush in to melee while you're doing the shooting.

Once the melee is on, you being out of it makes you safe but does so by distributing the threat you'd draw to all your friends with a premium on top.

Not usually. Not every single opponent is always in close combat, so you can move and fire. If an opponent breaks contact you can fire on them
If reinforcements approach you can fire on them. You can fire behind somone to make them tbi k twice about retreating. If one of your melee is knocked down you could have a shot to help protect them from attack. If your melee need to break contact you can help to stop them being pursued.

The battlefield is three dimensional and dynamic.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Farmer

Not usually. Not every single opponent is always in close combat, so you can move and fire. If an opponent breaks contact you can fire on them
If reinforcements approach you can fire on them. You can fire behind somone to make them tbi k twice about retreating. If one of your melee is knocked down you could have a shot to help protect them from attack. If your melee need to break contact you can help to stop them being pursued.

The battlefield is three dimensional and dynamic.

The point isn't that you can't shoot into the melee (though many of your shots will be obstructed. Which of those things aren't inferior to one more front-liner, though?

Shooting disengaged enemies is less useful than stabbing engaged enemies, unless they're trying to escape and you need to prevent that.

A melee fighter moving in can protect another downed front-liner far better than one archer worth of fire support, both by being more threatening and by physically obstructing attackers.

If the whole front line needs to run for it, okay, another melee fighter doesn't help there, but a single archer doesn't really either - the enemy can Move and even sprint under fire without any special concern. You might slow down people you actually wound, but you're not going to be able to stop the pursuit that way unless the fight your front line is running from is one you could have won singlehanded.


I'll throw in one case I can think of that does legitimately welcome a ranged attacker during the melee: when there's some priority target (a magic threat is the obvious one but an escaping messenger or some kind of special weapon user might also apply) that is using terrain or the enemy front line to keep out of easy melee reach.

[Farmer]

You're really forcing a limited view. The archer has all sorts of other uses and benefits and can still contribute during melee. Saying they're no or limited use when the melee starts ignores their other utility. Are they shining as much as melee vs melee? Likely not. But their overall contribution is what needs to be looked at and whilst they aren't as good as melee vs melee they are infinitely better at range than melee (be it mundane or magic).

And if you add in some magic and give them arrows with spell effects they can contribute on that side, too.

[Boge]

My point is that bow vs melee is very unbalanced. Limited ammo. Two strikes vs one per turn, not counting extra attack which can't be used with a bow. +4 vs +1 all out attack. Telegraphic attacks which bows can't do. +2 or 1 damage per die all out attacks which I can't use with a bow. Flurry of blows and mighty blows which I can't do with a bow. Parries and blocks which are typically higher defense than my dodge. Very high range penalties which negate my skill where that doesn't affect melee.

But hey, I can probably kill pigeons better