Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[Farmer]

Well, fair enough. You won't address the issue with the GM (and that is the actual problem) and you're happy to quote all the special things that melee can do without naming any of the archery options.

I've played and GMed archers (including currently) archers or various levels and types. They're entirely viable and lots of fun. /shrug

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by 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.

What everyone here is trying to tell you is, in most games, these disadvantages are balanced by the advantage of being able to make multiple attacks (potentially ending the combat) before a melee opponent can respond at all. If enemies in your game can move at sixty miles per hour (i.e., can can cover thirty yards in a single second), this disadvantage is minimized, and melee attacks are stronger by comparison, but this is a very unusual case that tells little about the normal balance.

If every opponent can fly, melee attacks will seem worthless; if every opponent can teleport, ranged attacks will seem pointless; if most opponents move like normal humans, the two are usually fairly balanced.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by 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.

All valid points, and worthy cautions for a new player who thinks a few points in bow skill will make the PC a Legolas. There are lots of limitations to overcome, and you enumerate them well.

In the end, though, I think a proper appreciation of archers comes down to "Don't bring a bow to a sword fight."

It goes both ways. Set up a full-on bow fight - facing foes across a chasm, looking down at foes from atop the castle wall, etc. - and the archers will do all the killing while the useless melee fighters might as well play chess or take naps.

(And on that matter of bringing the right weapons to the right fight, a note to GMs: Don't place an archer in what looks like a nice long-range bow fight, and then suddenly warp the map into a sword fight!)

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by 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

That's 100% unfair to GURPS based on what you started describing.

You started out with a setting where you were 2 TLs behind the people you were attacking. They were fortified and you were under equipped (albeit with the 'best' bow you could get your hands on).

GURPS Archery isn't the problem in this scenario, its either your expectations or the GMs vision that are the issue.
Sure Archery isnt fun when the realism dial is turned all the way up, but its not really about that is it? I'm am a critic of the range rules in general {0-19yds specifically}, but in modern settings they really do play out fairly realistic past 20yds. Fact is I have a simple house rule that covers this, and its just about my only issue with the mechanics of GURPS so its still superior to anything I could make myself and anything I have encountered. It turns the dial a little towards the cinematic for ranged vs. melee in my Med-Fan games but it makes the player and the GM happy :)

Issues with the GURPS Archery mechanics aside....

Why would your PCs even try this? I mean I get hiding in the bushes and plinking arrows at them from a distance, trying to get them to chase you INTO THE WOODS where you have better options against their tactics. I don't get why a TL1 group would mass rush a TL3 group in open combat.

I don't get why the TL3 group would leave their walls to come out and engage you. (this sort of smells like a Romans vs. 'Celts' type situation and we know that those did not usually go well for the Celts {and yes I know Celts isn't an ideal definition but its enough for this})

These kind of encounters were won, if at all, with numbers, surprise and luck. Most of the time they were routed with significant loss of life and resources.

Your Archery doesn't seem ideal, because it isn't ideal for this scenario.

As I said before you seem caught between a desire to be a 'cinematic Archer' and actually having built a fairly skill bow shooter.

Leaving the family/GM stuff aside I still think your expectations are unreasonable given the setting and the opponent. If you knew in advance what your char might get into then you get to learn from this poor choice.
If you didn't know, well.... we don't get to choose our skill sets based on future knowledge so that's not unrealistic either, embrace the RP opportunity.

And sometimes you have to play to the GMs style. If you know he likes in your face melee encounters then dont be upset when making a diametrically opposed character doesnt get treated the same way.

Maybe just stop playing when your Brother GMs if its just a family thing. I tell my kids that all the time, you have a choice whether you enable the behavior by participating in it. Walk away if its that unfair/important to you, but don't think its on the GM to comply with your wishes.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Anthony

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.

As far as a battle is concerned they are both the same. Neither is going to have any effect on the outcome of a fight. Infections take days to manifest.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

As far as a battle is concerned they are both the same. Neither is going to have any effect on the outcome of a fight. Infections take days to manifest.

That depends, a inch deep wound with that wounding modifier for piercing is likely to be more worth than 1 HP and even 2-3 HP can bring the usual character near the point were he IS hampered by his wounds.

Yes in GURPS terms it´s a wound that wouldn´t hurt enough to be a problem, but the next shallow cut or bruise will add up to the lost HP and you come into the area were it matters.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Boge

We're adults. The issue is that he's the GM. He makes the rules and I go by the book rules. They don't always agree. I've learned that I just need to shut up and let him make the decisions on how things will play out.

This is the problem. It is not GURPS, it is not the archery, it is not the melee combat. It is your inability to stand up to your brother and talk like adults. This is not a rules lawyer thing. You are pointing out that your GM is making your character ineffective, when they are supposed to do the opposite. A good GM is supposed to let everyone shine when they can, and that was your time to shine.

Telling your GM "You just made my character ineffective in this game" and them getting mad means you either stop playing, roll over and continue to suffer and end up depressed, or create a new character that abuses their rules. Cause at that point you are never going to be happy trying to play a character you think you would enjoy.

This thread should be closed since it is getting side tracked about archery efficiency and everything that needed to be addressed about the OP has been.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Boge

Limited ammo.

This is true, but if they're using stone cutting weapons, realistically they should need replaced pretty much after each battle (particularly if used against foes with DR, which it sounds like is more-or-less exclusively what you encounter). If that's not the case (that is, if the melee characters get to keep using the same axe in each battle), the GM should be allowing you to recover your arrows after each battle as well, in which case you only need enough to see you through a battle.

Originally Posted by Boge

Two strikes vs one per turn, not counting extra attack which can't be used with a bow.

Unless you're intending to use it with multiple skills - multiple skills at once without the Multi-Strike Enhancement - Extra Attack is a trap. Without Multi-Strike, Dual Weapon Attack will accomplish the same thing (and accomplish it better, as hitting with both strikes results in the foe having a -1 to defend), and only costs [5] per skill rather than [25] - so if you have fewer than 6 skills you'll be using it with, you're better off with DWA. With Multi-Strike, it costs [30], which is enough for +7 to one skill (net +1 when using Rapid Strike, and +3.5 to Parry while you're at it) with [2] left over. With two skills you're likely to use it with, it might be worth it, although honestly I think +3 to each skill and [6] left over is a better option. Of course, personally, I wouldn't have any issues with an archer who has Extra Attack using up said additional attack for rapidly shooting his bow - that is, instead of rolling at -6 to draw and -6 to attack, you roll at +0 to each.

If you're instead talking about other ways to get multiple attack, those are available to bows. Quick Shooting Bows (or whatever it's called, I forget the exact term) is pretty clearly an application of Rapid Strike to archery - take -6 to attack twice as often as usual (and it's arguably easier to justify a Technique to reduce/negate the penalty). DWA is also available to archers, in the form of nocking two arrows at once. That latter isn't realistic, of course, but neither is buying up DWA in the first place. So, at most, in a realistic setting, melee has the advantage that it can take a -4 to attack twice, while archery cannot.

Certainly, melee does have a speed advantage, in that you can attack twice as often (possibly a bit faster, considering there's the risk of failing your Fast Draw).

Originally Posted by Boge

+4 vs +1 all out attack. Telegraphic attacks which bows can't do.

Tactical Shooting allows these for firearms, and I see no issue with extending that to bows. The caveat, of course, is that you have to be in melee range. As another poster said, if archers want to get melee performance, they need to take the risk of getting into melee.

There's also the option of adapting from On Target (Pyramid #3/77), which introduces an option to use Committed Attack to get a +1 to hit at range, and boosts All Out Attack to +2 to hit at range.

Originally Posted by Boge

+2 or 1 damage per die all out attacks which I can't use with a bow.

This is true. Personally, in a cinematic campaign I wouldn't have issue with allowing this - it's basically just taking -4 to hit for +2 to damage (as per the Technique design rules from Martial Arts). Of course, you've got to be in melee range for this - All Out Attack (Strong) at range would be -3 to hit and +2 to damage (or -2 to hit, if using On Target).

Originally Posted by Boge

Flurry of blows and mighty blows which I can't do with a bow.

Flurry of Blows should absolutely be an option to reduce the penalty for Quick Shooting Bows, just like it does for Rapid Strike (as noted above, the former is really just a special case of the latter). If All Out Attack (Strong) is available to ranged attacks, as outlined above, I see no issue with allowing Mighty Blows.

Originally Posted by Boge

Parries and blocks which are typically higher defense than my dodge.

Parries are largely useless for ranged combat, which is what bows are used for. Blocks would be worthwhile, of course - but you could still do such with a guige (see LTC2), albeit at a penalty IIRC. I believe LTC2 also has rules for using a DB1 shield strapped to the wrist alongside a bow, which would also allow you to retain the ability to Block.

Of course, if going balls-to-the-walls cinematic, there's always Bow Fencer from DF, which lets you use Bow skill to Parry (and even attack in melee, using an arrow like a dagger).

Originally Posted by Boge

Very high range penalties which negate my skill where that doesn't affect melee.

Yeah, this is where ranged combat runs into its biggest issues. Then again, Aim is often more useful than Evaluate (albeit not by a lot in your case, as you've got an Acc 2 weapon).

Originally Posted by Boge

But hey, I can probably kill pigeons better

And deer (who the melee fighters would need to be very good at stealth to even get close enough to attack). And boars (who are likely to gore melee fighters - an All Out Attack (Strong) Slam from a big boar is no joke, and likely too heavy to Parry without breaking your weapon). If you live in a crapsack world where every animal is heavily armored yet humans haven't figured out ways around this, and your human foes are 2-3 TL's ahead of you, yeah, archery isn't going to work so well.

Really, the problems with archery are low attack rate (~half that of melee), low damage (which is largely an artifact of thr vs sw, particularly when Weapon Master gets involved), and high penalties to hit. They're also not so great at melee range (although at least those attack penalties vanish when in melee range). The benefit is you don't have to be in melee range to attack, so you can take time to line up a shot (Aim), attack from concealment (which is a lot easier when you don't have to step into the well-lit clearing your target is in), attack from a difficult-to-engage position (having the high ground is amazing for ranged combat), engage targets of opportunity more readily (anybody who All Out Attacks is within reach of your arrows), prevent foes from escaping, and so forth. Oh, and you are typically denying the enemy their best defense (Parry), forcing them to rely on Block (if they have a shield) or Dodge.

If your side doesn't use tactics (or the GM invalidates tactics other than "attack attack attack" - say, by teleporting the melee attackers into immediate range of each other), archery is going to lag behind melee markedly. If your side makes effective use of tactics, archery can really shine. It will still often lag behind melee, of course - melee fighters take greater risk, and thus have greater rewards.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, I'm focusing on how they aren't as good as a melee fighter during the time when melee is joined, because that is the statement I previously made, you objected to, and I am now supporting.

I'm not saying archers are categorically useless. I am saying that they really are an underperforming option in a joined melee and one usually needs to account for that by earning their keep while melee isn't joined. Which is a thing that was a problem in the OP's scenario.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yes, I'm focusing on how they aren't as good as a melee fighter during the time when melee is joined, because that is the statement I previously made, you objected to, and I am now supporting.

I'm not saying archers are categorically useless. I am saying that they really are an underperforming option in a joined melee and one usually needs to account for that by earning their keep while melee isn't joined. Which is a thing that was a problem in the OP's scenario.

In my games, players put a high premium on the safety of their own character. An archer may not have the DPS of a melee fighter, but in a "joined melee," the archer can often stay out of harm's way and still have some effect. The ability to participate in a battle, however feebly, without putting yourself at risk, is highly significant, and a big reason archery is so valuable. You might not need to wear heavy armor or learn to wield a shield if you can just Move and Attack, etc. And if your party is smart and uses good tactics, they can delay before entering melee in order to give you more opportunities to strike (unless the enemy has archers as well of course...).