Allan wrote:
Leading the target for a skilled archer should be no harder than a stationary.
The rules actually derive not only from my understanding that all archers etc. always “lead” their targets, but also from my own experience with archery, which is very limited. I once attended an afternoon workshop and was told that I am quite talented, but some five, six hours of archery are the full extent of my experience — so I am by no means an experieced archer, Proficiency
1 at best, if one is being very generous to me.
Still, once I had gotten the hang of the basics I did not find it any more difficult hitting a swinging, pendulum-like target and a target being dragged dangling along a line than a stationary one — as long as those movements were regular. Once the one target was dragged at an uneven speed and the pendulum target swung in a way so that it kinda ricocheted, I found it nigh impossible for me, at my skill level, to hit it at all. In fact I recall that, under those circumstances, I was only able to hit the ricocheting pendulum once, the other not at all.
The ease with which I hit regulary moving targets, I.e. targets I could easily “lead” even with my practically nonexisting skill, stringly influenced the rule, which I find to correctly simulate matters.
Anarak wrote:
My only problem about this and ranged in general is that, while yeah a skilled archer might have a normal time hitting both moving and standing targets, the game allows unskilled but highly perceptive or passionated characters to overcome this (aka, instantly learn balistics). Say you have a 9 aim because you are very witty and cunning and a mild passion kicking, you already have the pool of a skilled archer. A normal aim but a high passion is the same.
You are introducing a distinction which the mechanics do not make, a distinction between natural aptitude (Attribute), acquired skill (Proficiency), and the certain extra “oomph” which is best left undefined (Passion). If you begin thinking along those lines, the whole system will unravel. I am aware that you know well that Blade does not want to simulate how real life plays out, but how adventure fiction plays out. And in this context, things are not “realistic” in the sense of what “portion” of the outcome derives from which circumstances.
A die is a die. Period.
Anarak wrote:
Now, all this isn’t really a problem if I just rule that low damage is actually a not-hit, and that most of the time all this are to not matter, but its still stands that the ranged rules (although far better than the ones in TroS) aren’t nearly as perfect as the mostly flawless melee rules. — - imho..
Well, thanks. And I grant you that we might not have lavished as much care on missile combat than on the — to us, and probably not only to us — more exciting melee combat.