Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9682882" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Agreed.I don't think we have much data on how common archers sniping people in shield wall combat was historically, so much as we have data that in mass battles archers and melee-focused troops tended to be segregated a bit in different units (at least until later, with stuff like pike & shot squares).  In large scale battles archers tend to group up and volley fire.  Although in skirmish engagements it was and is (in recreationist combat) much less divided.  The first time I read a book on ancient warfare I was a bit taken aback by the emphasis on ranged firepower, how slings and bows and thrown spears and their ability to strike from outside melee range was always incredibly valuable, even millennia ago. My own experiences LARPing in the 90s and early 2000s also gave me a personal sense of how well ranged combatants (especially when screened by and working with melee allies, particularly ones with shields) can contribute at fairly short ranges both in line battles and skirmish engagements. And of course my personal experiences inform what feels verisimilitudinous to me. This feels backwards to me, because making ranged attacks into melee not work is itself an additional special rule.  I suspect this is exactly why B/X has no such rule.  Because it's just got fewer rules in general than AD&D, and lacks the ones about firing into melee. Just as OD&D does. I totally respect that adding more missiles into the mix with your rules set would represent additional complications, though.For my games I'm usually happy to let the shooters shoot, and include some penalties for obstructions and other combatants in the way, with chances of hitting a friendly cropping up enough for spice and danger.  Other OSR DMs I've played with tend to either do the same (in keeping with B/X) or just ban shooting into melee.  Nice and simple either way.Agreed on the philosophy, again.  Though my players with thieves do tend to like to mix it up at least a bit.  My groups tend to enjoy combat quite a bit and may spend more time and put more emphasis on it than yours.I know that editorial.  I think you may be mis-remembering/reading into it a bit more than I would.  I think Gary's got his facts wrong/exaggerated about the spear being "ineffective" against armored troops (obviously Greek hoplites facing one another would beg to differ with Gary's assessment!) , and about it no longer being common after the 11th century, but I think accusations of him hating the spear are a little overblown. I try to bear in mind that he was largely referencing history books from the library in some cases dating back to 1909, and that popular history well into the modern era included nonsense misconceptions like plate-armored fighters being barely able to walk around (the worst part of The Once and Future King, to my recollection).  I think in the man to man chart from Chainmail, and in the damage and the weapon vs. armor charts from Greyhawk and the PH that swords get a bit of obvious preferential treatment, and[ATTACH=full]408291[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification