Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 23604" data-attributes="member: 1008">Your comments appear to be disagreeing with the 50% or -4 solution.So, I'll delve deeper into my reasoning.First, your last comment - your ally's good AC makes things good for him. Uh, yeah. If you know your ally has DR 5/+5, would you worry about hitting him with +2 arrows? No. Similarly, if you know you're unlikely to injure him because of non-magical armour/skill/whatever, then you won't worry so much about it.Regarding good/bad archers.Assume a mediocre archer would usually need 16 to hit the enemy. If he is worried about hitting his ally he needs 20, due to the -4. If he just fires into the group, he needs 16, but will automatically miss 50% of the time. So, his chances of hitting the bad guy are:Firing at lone enemy: 20%Fire carefully at enemy in melee: 5%Fire uncautiously at enemy in melee: 10%A good archer needs 6 to hit a lone enemy. His chances of hitting are:Lone enemy: 80%Carefully in melee: 60%Uncautiously in melee: 40%So, you are right. The poor archer is more likely to hit his enemy by firing indiscriminantly. Which means that a good archer does not need to risk hitting his friends/allies when firing into melee. He's good enough to pick the targets he wants. A poor archer simply is not good enough to be able to pick targets at leisure. If he wants his best chance at hitting an enemy, he has to release and hope.So: a poor archer relies on luck to hit in this circumstance, while a skilled one relies on skill. Makes sense to me.The poor archer simply has to realise that he isn't good enough to fire safely into melee with a decent chance of hitting his intended target.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 23604, member: 1008"] Your comments appear to be disagreeing with the 50% or -4 solution. So, I'll delve deeper into my reasoning. First, your last comment - your ally's good AC makes things good for him. Uh, yeah. If you know your ally has DR 5/+5, would you worry about hitting him with +2 arrows? No. Similarly, if you know you're unlikely to injure him because of non-magical armour/skill/whatever, then you won't worry so much about it. Regarding good/bad archers. Assume a mediocre archer would usually need 16 to hit the enemy. If he is worried about hitting his ally he needs 20, due to the -4. If he just fires into the group, he needs 16, but will automatically miss 50% of the time. So, his chances of hitting the bad guy are: Firing at lone enemy: 20% Fire carefully at enemy in melee: 5% Fire uncautiously at enemy in melee: 10% A good archer needs 6 to hit a lone enemy. His chances of hitting are: Lone enemy: 80% Carefully in melee: 60% Uncautiously in melee: 40% So, you are right. The poor archer is more likely to hit his enemy by firing indiscriminantly. Which means that a good archer does not need to risk hitting his friends/allies when firing into melee. He's good enough to pick the targets he wants. A poor archer simply is not good enough to be able to pick targets at leisure. If he wants his best chance at hitting an enemy, he has to release and hope. So: a poor archer relies on luck to hit in this circumstance, while a skilled one relies on skill. Makes sense to me. The poor archer simply has to realise that he isn't good enough to fire safely into melee with a decent chance of hitting his intended target. [/QUOTE]

Verification