archery

[Galen Bevel]

JC>What is really wierd about all this is that I remember several time
JC>fighters have complained that they didn't like the archers because 
JC>could not feel the arrow shots and know when to die.  So now we hav
JC>they can feel and what do we get?
JC>
JC>Savian


Savian,

Personally, I kind of like the TM's.  They do give a hard blow, but in my
opinion not an excessive one.  But I think that comparing an arrow hit to
a sword blow is a mistake.  As someone mentioned earlier (forgive my
failing memory, I can't remember who) an arrow could possibly leave the
field of combat and strike an innocent, unarmored bystander.  This is very
unlikely to happen with a sword shot.

But more germaine is the fact that sword shots have quite a few
restrictions placed on them that, at present, do not apply to arrows.  I
refer to illegal targets such as the hands or blows below the knee, and
not striking from behind.  The rules are for the safety of the fighters
due to the force and nature of a blow from a sword, etc.  

If an arrow delivers the same amount of punishment as a sword blow,  can
we really expect people to be sanguine about receiving such a hit from
behind, at a distance, by total surprise, as often happens in melee?  Or
do we start telling archers they may not fire unless they have two eye
contact and can guarantee they won't hit an illegal area of the target?  I
can't say that I like either of these options.  

There must be an upper limit on the force of arrows just as there is on
any blow. IMHO, that force should be significantly less than those for a
hand weapon because we cannot place the same controlling regulation on a
missile.  At least with arrows, we have some way of quantitativly
measuring the force delivered.

Sir Galen Kirchenbauer

___
 X Orator V1.13  X  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]