Deadly Archery

[Insect King]

Not if an enemy had a spell that made you hindered or something, but most of them, yeah.

How does one differentiate one hinderance you can cancel from the others you can't?

That's actually a pretty powerful ability. Look at the Woodmen's Bearded Axe, for an example of a similar ability costing a whole Reward. This version isn't quite as good, but still seems worth an xp. Especially as it's combined with a situational damage boost.

What, do you mean as powerful as the opening volley of Woodland Bow with a +1 damage from Dour-handed using the Rain of Arrows called shot?

Not if an enemy had a spell that made you hindered or something, but most of them, yeah.

So only magical hindrances are unaffected? Are all natural hindrances cancelled? How do people know how to separate them?

No. I was aiming to be inclusive of the previous version. You add Body + Heart to hit, then Heart to damage, that's all.

So it's spend 1 Hope and get Body + Heart to hit (I think that's +8 to attack rolls for my elf's basic Body and Heart attributes) and a +2 to damage (for my elf's 2 Heart). That's a big buff but I think it's reasonable.

Only when using a bow. And only against melee attacks, not against being shot at. And yeah, you get to attack their normal Parry rating, that's what's cool about it.

Basically you want to ignore shields or parrying two-weapon styles? Why not say: After your opponent rolls a Rune (a critical fail), and you use your bow against your opponent, your opponent only defends with a basic parry rating.

Creatures with Fell Speed can attack archers with their melee attacks (something most foes can't do), they were an example of a situation where the conditional Parry bonus would actually be useful.

I believe unprotected characters have to drop out of rearward stance into defensive or one other when attacked. I'm not sure though.

Cheers,

Chris.

[Deadmanwalking]

What, do you mean as powerful as the opening volley of Woodland Bow with a +1 damage from Dour-handed using the Rain of Arrows called shot?

Well, it's only replacing Dour Handed of that list. And yes, being able to permanently drop an enemy's Protection is pretty amazing vs. larger foes, so I'd definitely say it's as good an option as +1 Damage.

So only magical hindrances are unaffected? Are all natural hindrances cancelled? How do people know how to separate them?

Is it environmental? If so it's effected, if not it isn't. That's really not a difficult distinction to make. And the sort of thing TOR's rules do pretty regularly, IMO.

So it's spend 1 Hope and get Body + Heart to hit (I think that's +8 to attack rolls for my elf's basic Body and Heart attributes) and a +2 to damage (for my elf's 2 Heart). That's a big buff but I think it's reasonable.

Yeah, Elves have crappy Hope scores, which makes this a decent but not unbelievable buff.

Basically you want to ignore shields or parrying two-weapon styles? Why not say: After your opponent rolls a Rune (a critical fail), and you use your bow against your opponent, your opponent only defends with a basic parry rating.

No, that's not what it does at all. It ignores certain specific enemy abilities that raise their Parry, not shields or using two weapons. It does exactly what it says it does.

I believe unprotected characters have to drop out of rearward stance into defensive or one other when attacked. I'm not sure though.

If they're unprotected (ie: lack two melee combatants in the group), sure, but Fell Speed lets the enemy attack them even if they are protected and in Rearward, and does nothing to change their stance. Ditto Great Leap. Which would be why I used it as an example.

[Glorelendil]

I have to agree that I think ignoring hindrance either needs to be very specific of very general. 99% of the time "environmental" would be fine, but my spidey-sense says there would still be edge cases and if those can be prevented I would prefer it.

It could either apply to all Hindrance modifiers (again, either removing them completely or reducing by one step), or it would require some language that would give more specific guidance. I suggested a list of factors (e.g. range, light, obscurement, cover...).

Alternatively it could be something like "anything that makes the target smaller or hard to see, but doesn't physically affect the hero". E.g. vines obscuring the target would be covered, but not vines entangling the archer. A target up to its neck in mud wouldn't get the benefit of cover; the archer up to his neck in mud would suffer penalties.

[Deadmanwalking]

I guess the distinction I was aiming for was that it would stop any hindrance from incidental stuff, but not that from active opposition. To use an example that would be impossible to come up, Seek A Mark hinders people's parry score, but not because of the environment or anything, and I don't think One with The Wind would help vs. a similar ability that hindered everyone's offensive abilities because the person using it is so good at dodging. Nor would it help with a hindrance like a wolf gnawing on your bow arm or a spell that makes you woozy and likely to miss.

Basically, it doesn't work if the hindrance represents someone actively doing something to you. Only environmental factors. Or that was my thought process anyway.

[Glorelendil]

I guess the distinction I was aiming for was that it would stop any hindrance from incidental stuff, but not that from active opposition. To use an example that would be impossible to come up, Seek A Mark hinders people's parry score, but not because of the environment or anything, and I don't think One with The Wind would help vs. a similar ability that hindered everyone's offensive abilities because the person using it is so good at dodging. Nor would it help with a hindrance like a wolf gnawing on your bow arm or a spell that makes you woozy and likely to miss.

Basically, it doesn't work if the hindrance represents someone actively doing something to you. Only environmental factors. Or that was my thought process anyway.

Hmm. I see the distinction and like it. Maybe it's just a matter of finding the right wording.

How would you classify getting stuck in deep mud? It's not actually "targeting" you, but it is affecting you directly. And it is environmental.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmm. I see the distinction and like it. Maybe it's just a matter of finding the right wording.

Yeah, wording is always tricky.

How would you classify getting stuck in deep mud? It's not actually "targeting" you, but it is affecting you directly. And it is environmental.

I'd probably say that One With The Wind prevents it from interfering with your archery. These are elves we're talking about, so a little bit of magic/implausibility in what they do is reasonable. It would still interfere with stuff other than their archery, like trying to run, though.

[Glorelendil]

I'd probably say that One With The Wind prevents it from interfering with your archery. These are elves we're talking about, so a little bit of magic/implausibility in what they do is reasonable. It would still interfere with stuff other than their archery, like trying to run, though.

Hmm. Then I don't see how one distinguishes, except semantically, between the mud and a wolf chewing on your arm. Both are causing physical restraint.

I think I like the "conditions which affect accuracy that don't physically impede the archer" or something like that.

I realized that if physical cover (which means things that can stop an arrow, as opposed to 'obscurement' that only makes it hard to see, such as smoke or fog or grass) is included, it raises questions about shields. I suppose one could argue that a shield can be quickly moved, or one could except shields 'just because', but I sorta feel either shields should be included, or cover should not. Either the archer isn't affected by having a smaller target, or he is. Has implications for range, as well.

What if the whole virtue were simply: you ignore any negative penalties due to range, light, cover, and obscurement. This includes the Parry bonus of shields, but not absolute darkness or total cover. Nor does it extend range beyond the maximum range of your weapon.

Taking Serpent Scimitar as a comparison, ignoring Shields alone is enough to make it a stand-alone virtue, more or less (some would argue that SS is a weak reward). Adding in all those situational bonuses is just frosting.

Alternate wording:
"When making a ranged attack you ignore the Parry bonus of your target's shield. In addition, all Hindrance modifiers to your ranged attacks are reduced by one step (Severe to Moderate, Moderate to None.)"

This may be my new favorite. I would take this Virtue.

An additional FP/XP could possibly reduce the Hindrance reduction another step.

[Falenthal]

Alternate wording:
"When making a ranged attack you ignore the Parry bonus of your target's shield. [...]"

Remember that, during Opening Volleys, enemies aware of the archer double their shield's Parry bonus.
Would it also be ignored?

[Deadmanwalking]

I dunno, a wolf chewing on your arm and being trapped in mud are pretty different levels of restraint. Or did you mean trapped up to your neck or something? That's a situation I don't think you can do archery in at all, like having your hands tied behind your back. Neither of those are penalties, just an inability to do something at all, and so the Virtue wouldn't apply.

As for shields, I think ignoring them is probably too strong, unless it's all the Virtue does (well, plus ignoring penalties, I guess), and I'm actually liking having multiple options you can spend xp for. In terms of theme, I think the fact that people can move the shield to actively interpose it makes quite a bit of difference and makes not ignoring it make sense. Sure, you can shoot perfectly for where the shield isn't...but they can move the shield. Cover doesn't move, so when you shoot perfectly for where it isn't, the arrow doesn't hit it, the same isn't true of a shield.

[Glorelendil]

I dunno, a wolf chewing on your arm and being trapped in mud are pretty different levels of restraint. Or did you mean trapped up to your neck or something? That's a situation I don't think you can do archery in at all, like having your hands tied behind your back. Neither of those are penalties, just an inability to do something at all, and so the Virtue wouldn't apply.

Sure, but those are matters of degree distinctions, not categorical. Not to be pedantic, but what about mud to your chest? Belly? Waist?

How about a small dog chewing on your ankle? Foot stuck in a snare?

As for shields, I think ignoring them is probably too strong, unless it's all the Virtue does (well, plus ignoring penalties, I guess), and I'm actually liking having multiple options you can spend xp for. In terms of theme, I think the fact that people can move the shield to actively interpose it makes quite a bit of difference and makes not ignoring it make sense. Sure, you can shoot perfectly for where the shield isn't...but they can move the shield. Cover doesn't move, so when you shoot perfectly for where it isn't, the arrow doesn't hit it, the same isn't true of a shield.

While I agree, you also can't keep an eye out for arrows and move the shield while also defending yourself effectively against somebody swinging an axe at you. (And, besides, with static cover you can move your body if you see an arrow coming, so it's not really all that different.) Half of shield value could be an option, but that starts to feel too fiddly, imo.

And, yes, I was proposing the virtue just address shields and hindrance, nothing else. That does have Synergy with Woodland Bow, for the reason Falenthal points out, but only in terms of hit probability not damage done, which I think is fine.