On Apr 28, 8:27 pm, The Wanderer <inversepara...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Antoine wrote:
> > (lifted off oook with modifications):
>
> > All missile weapons should have massive to-hit penalties at point
> > blank range. ("The hill orc is too close to shoot! You miss the hill
> > orc.")
>
> This idea crops up in many places in fantasy, and it has never made much
> sense to me.
>
> As long as you can still pull back the bow and point it in roughly the
> correct direction, closer should simply mean easier to hit. Admittedly,
> pulling the bow enough to get the arrow to fly properly would be
> impractical with longbows (and perhaps even shortbows) at ranges close
> enough for melee - but that wouldn't apply to crossbows, as long as they
> were already loaded, and probably shouldn't apply to slings etc. either.
>
> Is there something I'm missing about "primitive/medieval missile
> weapons" in general which would make the trope of "hard to hit things at
> very close range" make sense?
>
> --
> The Wanderer
>
> My usual .sig is on vacation while I adjust to my new computer
I believe that the arrow is flexing heavily coming off the bow, and is
more likely to hit cleanly with a moment of stabilization in flight.
At least, that's what I think I learned from the Mythbuster's
"splitting an arrow" episode. So a penalty to-hit or to-dam does make
a bit of sense.
|
