In fantasy roleplaying games there are some common themes when it comes to the use of the bow and arrow. It tends to be the case that bows are useful because of their range but rather slow. In fact, the trade-off keeps games balanced. The reason you’re a swordsman rather than an archer is because bows can be frustratingly slow and weak even if they give you the safety of range.
The thing is – those game mechanics are based off our modern understanding of what archery is like. What if our understanding of archery is wrong? Modern archers have dismissed some historic accounts of archery as impossible but Danish archer Lars Andersen has rediscovered techniques that prove they are possible.
I don’t know about you but I’ve certainly enjoyed gamers who pointed out that Legolas’ archery skills in Lord of the Rings were beyond the possible. I can’t quite imagine what it would be like to show them this video and give them cause to re-consider.
This is not the first time Geek Native have dug into archery speed. Back at the start of the year the blog showed the Russian archer Iza Privezenceva in a post called Don’t show the players: Archers are fast.
The final line in that post was a reminder not to bug GMs over game mechanics. That’s still true but perhaps this is something that designers need to wrestle with?
What are your thoughts? Strike up a discussion and leave a comment below.
Really, its almost entirely balance wise. If players could do just as much damage from a long (safer) range as a melee character, there would be little reason not to be an archer all the time. Also, this dude is a master archer. If he was in Pathfinder, where archery doesn’t suck, he would have plenty of levels and feats to give him those extra attacks. XD
I think you’re right about his experience. This dude isn’t into the epic realm of nearly superhuman than some fantasy RPGs get up to – but he’s devoted his life to this.
RPGs with that sort of level advancement should be able to cope. My concern was for systems that baked the disadvantage of slow bows into the weapon mechanics.
This is the old trade-off. Do you want realism, or do you want balance and fairness? There are plenty of Fantasy-based RPGs that I know of that only would allow you one attack per round, irregardless if it was a melee attack, or a ranged attack (with a bow). Some ruled that you could get one attack at the beginning of the row, and another at the end, while the melee fighters still only got one attack. But this is not always the case. Look at D&D 3.5. With specialization into archery feats like Rapid Shot & Manyshot, the fact… Read more »
Seconded. It’s well worth reading bigwisebeard’s insight on this.
I think you’re right about D&D 3.5. It does allow players to experience up to this level. I’ll need to look to see what the melee/close combat feats offered after similar specialisation.
Rapid shooting and accurate shooting is possible, but hitting a moving target – especially at any kind of range – is extremely difficult, even for a life-long archery specialist. Bows can typically be shot (with the Western draw) about six times a minute, with arrows ready. By the time you finished your first shot anyone you shot at could easily reach you and kill you in typical ‘encounter’ situations. The real ‘balance’ is that bows are not guns, they’re terrible for long-range shots against moving targets (which is why even hunters don’t use them that way – they fire from… Read more »
rjcheimison Thanks for the comment. It’s odd – everything you say seems to make sense yet counters all the conventional wisdom I’ve heard.
It does seem to be entirely about scale and damage…. but am I right in saying that you’re arguing that “realism” style RPG mechanics actually aren’t realistic enough?
AndrewGirdwood rjcheimison Actually realistic archery rules would make bows basically useless to your average ‘adventurer’. GURPS is about the only game that models this accurately: as a result, GURPS characters tend not to carry bows. Real life melee thugs-for-hire – ‘adventurers’ to use a euphemism – would equip themselves with axes, javelins and throwing knives. Not only do these have far more momentum at close range [the range you’ll be using them at] but they can also be used in melee without getting murdered like a total fool. The existence of individual/small group archery combat is an artifact solely of fantasy… Read more »
John Lewis Blackthorne Gritty and realistic is far more dramatic, surviving it is far more impressive, and fighting tactically with real limits is far cooler than the WireFu bullshit I see in movies. A Phalanx battle is way the fuck more interesting than a bunch of naked men doing kick dancing ala 300. What you find ‘cool’ I find ‘immersion destroying bullshit’. I can tolerate it to an extent in a game that is way-out there, like superheroes or whatever, but when I play an RPG I want good plans to work and stupid plans to fail. Shooting at an… Read more »
One of the weaknesses about using Lars Anderson as a source is that it is obvious that he is using a very light bow. You wouldn’t shoot an English longbow like that, but that’s the weapon that dealt with mounted knights, when the tactics were right. On the other hand, he’s right about some elements, though some of his sources are more recent than the events they depict. I have shot an old-style longbow. It isn’t like the modern shooting seen in the Olympics. A 65-lb draw is hard work, and that is incredibly under-powered by Agincourt standards. But in… Read more »