Volley of Arrows Treated as One.

[Scribble]

In movies and TV no matter how powerfull the character, it always seems that when people are shooting at them, they dive for cover.

In D&D it seems that after a while it becomes, "Eh... I have enough hitpoints..."

What I was thinking, was as the title says, houseruling that a volley of arrows from multiple sources would be treated as one for purposes of massive damage.

Perhaps with:

Arrows must hit the target on the same initiative count?

I was also thinking perhaps there can be no more then 5' between two archers in the volley?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Heroes of Battle has this mechanic for massed fire.. books are at home tho

All you need is the occasional Improved Crit + Keen {for piercing weapons} tossed in. When the potential of those arrow hits being a X4 crit they will think twice about having enough hit points.

I use HRs that change how the Bow is used, borrowing from a 'discussion of bows' to change the stats of the bows {one of the strongest bows deals 1D20 damage} and then Taking Aim in which an archer trades rate of fire for higher threat range.

 

[Goken100]

Soap Box About Ever-Increasing HP

The falling down of d20 in this respect is just one example of why hit points that increase as a character gets more experienced is a crude approximation for increased defensive skills... AT BEST. There's the obvious 10-ton boulder too: no matter how well a character can "roll with the punches", a 10-ton boulder splats a level 15 wizard just as flat as a level 1 barbarian. In fact, one might argue that level 1 barbarians would stand a better chance (unless that wizard's unusually buff).

If a system is used where skill goes up (rather than the meat on your bones somehow growing more dense), then dealing with dangerous range attacks is fairly intuitive. One cannot apply one's skill against missiles zipping through the air nearly as easily as a thrown punch, so a penalty to defense skill is applied (no more complicated than having a pre-calculated flat-footed AC).

How did people actually defend themselves from arrows in the old days? Sounds like a good question for Gygax, but one can guess. Diving for cover is one. Another is shields and helmets; I allow double protection from such devices against missile weapons. Still... I'd advise ducking for cover just to be on the safe side.

 

[Rothe]

The falling down of d20 in this respect is just one example of why hit points that increase as a character gets more experienced is a crude approximation for increased defensive skills... AT BEST. There's the obvious 10-ton boulder too: no matter how well a character can "roll with the punches", a 10-ton boulder splats a level 15 wizard just as flat as a level 1 barbarian. In fact, one might argue that level 1 barbarians would stand a better chance (unless that wizard's unusually buff).

If a system is used where skill goes up (rather than the meat on your bones somehow growing more dense), then dealing with dangerous range attacks is fairly intuitive. One cannot apply one's skill against missiles zipping through the air nearly as easily as a thrown punch, so a penalty to defense skill is applied (no more complicated than having a pre-calculated flat-footed AC).

How did people actually defend themselves from arrows in the old days? Sounds like a good question for Gygax, but one can guess. Diving for cover is one. Another is shields and helmets; I allow double protection from such devices against missile weapons. Still... I'd advise ducking for cover just to be on the safe side.

QFT

 

[Machiavelli]

How did people actually defend themselves from arrows in the old days? Sounds like a good question for Gygax, but one can guess. Diving for cover is one. Another is shields and helmets; I allow double protection from such devices against missile weapons. Still... I'd advise ducking for cover just to be on the safe side.

Yes, shields were pretty much the only reliable defense against arrows, because GOOD arrowheads almost always kept pace with GOOD armor, such that any armor (helmet included) which was impenetrable by a bodkin arrow (the very narrow-headed kind) was also too expensive and cumbersome to equip more than a few troops with. Certainly armor that is less than "impenetrable" offers some protection, as arrows rarely strike at the optimum angle to penetrate, but big wooden shields were the only cheap and reliable way to stop an arrow.

Of course, a shield only offers protection for the portion of the body that it covers, meaning that a soldier and his unit must be well-trained in using their shields to provide cover for themselves and each other, or else they must use truly massive shields. Massed groups of spears also deflect and reduce the lethality of arrows if they are raised into the path of incoming arrows and are moved around a bit. The key is training.

Basically, an army's best hopes against arrows were to close with the enemy very quickly to reduce the volleys that can be launched against them, stay out of range completely, or equip their troops with the best armor, shields, and training that money could buy. That left cavalry and heavy infantry (both quite expensive) as the best defenses against archers, unless a tactical advantage could be gained by clever maneuvers and ambushes.

Training archers was expensive, though, and their effectiveness was heavily reduced in inclement weather or extreme terrain, so despite their offensive effectiveness they were not usually used very heavily in the Iron Age (when D&D settings usually are).


You can get a rather accurate feel for the strengths and weaknesses of various units relavent to D&D by becoming familiar with Medieval: and Rome:Total War. Reading about it is nice, but nothing beats ordering around armies in a quality simulation.

 

[ender_wiggin]

This is why hp (IMG) is an abstract idea. Ever seen Advent Children? The characters take beatings that would "realistically" kill someone, but it doesn't really even effect them (i.e. Tifa getting whipped through several wooden pews at high speed).

How can they survive these events without a scratch? Cuz they are badass high level characters with the hp to take it.

If you hit with an arrow mechanically, why does the arrow have to hit narratively? They lose hp, but the arrow never actually hits. No massive damage involved.

 

[Quartz]

Wasn't there an article in Dragon that dealt with this issue? I'm talking way back, mind.

 

[Goken100]

This is why hp (IMG) is an abstract idea. Ever seen Advent Children? The characters take beatings that would "realistically" kill someone, but it doesn't really even effect them (i.e. Tifa getting whipped through several wooden pews at high speed).

How can they survive these events without a scratch? Cuz they are badass high level characters with the hp to take it.

If you hit with an arrow mechanically, why does the arrow have to hit narratively? They lose hp, but the arrow never actually hits. No massive damage involved.

OK, just so I understand... when you play D&D, you're trying to emulate a movie, which is trying to emulate a video game, which is trying to emulate D&D?

No offense, but that's not an experience that most people relate too. We'd rather emulate life... or at least the vast majority of movies out there, in which women don't get blasted through solid objects without feeling anything. Nothing against Advent Children... it rocks... just like FF does. Its just anything but relateable.

In defense of anime in general, most good anime that features characters that take a beating and keep on ticking provides at least SOME rationalization for why they're so awesome. I.E., aura of supernatural power, special abilities, super strong muscles, etc. It really is possible to have role playing charactes create a supernatural aura, gain special abilities, or train up super strong muscles. I'm just sayin.

 

[ender_wiggin]

Ok, sorry bout the FF reference. Forget that.

However, the idea remains. If an arrow mechanically strikes its target, this does not have to translate to a narrative hit. An archer shoots five arrows, four of which mechanically hits, one of which was a critical hit. Narratively, the character dodges all of them.

Or, if you play in a *completely* realistic western combat world where dodging arrows is an obsenely improbable task, then they all miss by a few inches. Or they thud into the shield.

Hp damage, but no crap to worry about.

Then, when a sixth arrow fired by the archer takes the character to negative hp, you say *that* one hit.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Whenever I see threads like this, I'm reminded of the new stories about how many times a pcp-crazed guys shot by the police and still keeps attacking. I also remember a samurai movie where the hero got shot by so many arrows (in armor) that he looked like a porcupine but still sliced and diced (which was cool).

For house rules my suggestion is to take the chance to hit as a %. For example, 5% of the arrows shot are a critical threat. If the PC has a high AC, then 5% of those are confirmed critical hit. Then multiply the # of critical arrows X 14 (3.5 X 4).

Historically, arrow volleys decimated the lightly armored troops not the knights. A high level PC in magical armor doesn't have a whole lot to fear from arrows.

Looking at other systems, if you use Armor = DR rather than AC then arrows are irrelevant without a critical hit which is in fact historically accurate.

But I do agree about the high hit points being an excessive way of explaining heroes not getting hit. IMC Armour = DR, defense bonus = BAB and and hit points are max at 1st level with each level granting 1 (d4), 2 (d6), 3 (d8), 4 (d10), or 5 (d12) hit points. The 20th level wizard now has 23 hit points and compensates with a brooch of shielding, protection from normal missiles, protection from magical missiles, and scrolls in case of dispel magic. His defense is 20 (10 + BAB) + dex + shield spell etc. The defense of 20 allows him to ignore a lot of mook archers.