I never said anyone would. I was pointing out that the specific archer in this specific video does not prove anything.
Of course it proves something. It proves taht 4-5 arrows can be rapid fired in 6-7 seconds in the real world.
Exactly. HEROIC stats and MAGIC items. Guess what IRL people do not have?
And the point is, is you start with real world possibilities and add in the heroic assumptions of PC's and magic items on top of that then rapid firing in pathfinder is not only possible in the game, it should be expected.
Exactly. MAGIC. ITEMS. The second you add those, things are no longer realistic.
I think we all agree here. But not being realistic does not somehow void out the actually possible. And not being realistic, in many ways, is what Pathfinder/D&D is completely about.
I never said that they cannot fire as fast as Pathfinder archers, I said that the archer in the video was not doing Pathfinder style archery and therefore that the video did not prove anything about Pathfinder archery.
Pathfinder style archery? WTH is Pathfinder style archery? Do you mean shooting arrows in combat? No your right the 14 year old little girl is not shooting arrows in combat. So what? The skill to shoot that fast exists in the real world. Someone at one time DID use that skill in combat and survived to pass the skill on. It is a basis of proof that the extrapolation in game starts from.
I never said anyone would. I was pointing out that the specific archer in this specific video does not prove anything.Of course it proves something. It proves taht 4-5 arrows can be rapid fired in 6-7 seconds in the real world.
I never said it couldn't be done with a more powerful bow, I said she didn't do it.
Exactly. HEROIC stats and MAGIC items. Guess what IRL people do not have?And the point is, is you start with real world possibilities and add in the heroic assumptions of PC's and magic items on top of that then rapid firing in pathfinder is not only possible in the game, it should be expected.
As soon as you add in magic items, it is no longer realistic, because magic does not exist.
Exactly. MAGIC. ITEMS. The second you add those, things are no longer realistic.I think we all agree here. But not being realistic does not somehow void out the actually possible. And not being realistic, in many ways, is what Pathfinder/D&D is completely about.
I know that. I specifically said that I have no problem with Pathfinder style archery. I just don't think it can be done.
I never said that they cannot fire as fast as Pathfinder archers, I said that the archer in the video was not doing Pathfinder style archery and therefore that the video did not prove anything about Pathfinder archery.Pathfinder style archery? WTH is Pathfinder style archery? Do you mean shooting arrows in combat?
Pathfinder style archery is the ability to fire several arrows in a space of a few seconds from 100 feet away and hit multiple moving targets with them during combat. The game only penalizes you for this if you use Rapid Shot, and even then only a bit.
No your right the 14 year old little girl is not shooting arrows in combat. So what? The skill to shoot that fast exists in the real world. Someone at one time DID use that skill in combat and survived to pass the skill on. It is a basis of proof that the extrapolation in game starts from.
I doubt it. It doesn't fit any real life combat archery tactics that I know of. I'd be willing to bet that this sort of rapid fire archery developed as a sporting/showing off technique, and was then passed on to others. Actually shooting arrows that quickly in combat is several different types of stupid.
First off, shooting off six arrows in six seconds is about a third of the arrows an IRL archer would have. Who is going to expend so much ammunition so quickly? Arrows are both bulky to carry and time consuming to manufacture. As such, not that many were carried into battle. At 6 shafts every round, you'd be out within 30 seconds. Then what do you do?
Secondly, volley fire was the preferred technique for a foot archer, not aiming at individual targets. You do not need such techniques for volley fire. Horse archery often did involve aiming at specific targets, but not with such high rates of fire.
Thirdly, it takes longer than a second to aim at someone in a combat situation. If you fire off six arrows in as many seconds when trying to hit someone specific, pretty much none of them are aimed well, if at all, meaning you just wasted a third of your ammo. It can be done on the range, but the range is not combat, and what you can do on the range doesn't translate over into what you can do in a fight.
All you really have going for you is that it is possible to fire this quickly on the range. My point is that range shooting and combat are very different, and sporting combat is not real combat.
Now, I again have no problem with Pathfinder style archery. To be frank, realistic combat in Pathfinder would be boring. Everything would be over with the first hit or two, the PCs would go down as much as the bad guys, and there would always be the question of whether or not to heal the BBEGs afterwards (They would most likely be wounded or dying at the end of the battle, not dead. Dying from injuries usually takes a while.). I just accept that it is indeed unrealistic, and say so. Just because it isn't realistic doesn't mean I don't like it.
Re: "shooting in combat." Louis L'Amour, the most prolific and widely read western author ever, once said that the difference between a "gunfighter" and a guy with a gun was that a "gunfighter" was able to keep his head and shoot straight while someone was shooting at him. The same surely was true of archers in combat. The reason gunfighters survived and won gun battles was because they would aim and shoot while their opponents would flinch, shake and dodge. A Pathfinder Archer is surely modeled after those real world examples of people who had the unusual ability to face near-certain death and stay focused on their goals.
An argument about how real a fantasy game is.. quite amusing :)
I'll bite.. The video certainly shows proof of concept.. if the arrows can be fired with proper speed it is certainly possible you could do it in a combat scenario as well. The problem is we may never know.. After all, we use guns nowdays. If seal team six was forced to storm the bin-laden compound with just archers, you could almost guarentee that they would be better trained and able to use stronger bows than the girl in this video. The problem is guns made archery obsolete so soldiers dont train with them like they used to :)
Dr. Gecko, there are plenty of historical accounts of archers performing in combat. The Mongols in particular were reknowned for their ability to shoot fast and accurately from horseback. As far as I am concerned the idea that an archer in the real world could shoot four arrows in six seconds accurately enough to hit a human sized target has been completely proven, and that's before you start adding fantastic elements like magical bows, bracers of archery or superhuman attributes. Whether "archery" in PF is realistic or not isn't about how fast an archer can fire, it's more about how much damage they do compared to melee. Once you start asking that, the immediate question becomes "how realistic is PF melee combat?" But at some point the fundamental issue of "but isn't this a fantasy game?" Blows the other stuff out of the water.
Re: "shooting in combat." Louis L'Amour, the most prolific and widely read western author ever, once said that the difference between a "gunfighter" and a guy with a gun was that a "gunfighter" was able to keep his head and shoot straight while someone was shooting at him. The same surely was true of archers in combat. The reason gunfighters survived and won gun battles was because they would aim and shoot while their opponents would flinch, shake and dodge. A Pathfinder Archer is surely modeled after those real world examples of people who had the unusual ability to face near-certain death and stay focused on their goals.
The truth about this statement regarding gunslingers doesn't make shooting multiple targets in six seconds at 100 feet without missing any more realistic. A Wild West gunfight was generally fought at very close range and was over in seconds. I haven't ever seen that happen in a Pathfinder archery battle.
Dr. Gecko, there are plenty of historical accounts of archers performing in combat. The Mongols in particular were reknowned for their ability to shoot fast and accurately from horseback. As far as I am concerned the idea that an archer in the real world could shoot four arrows in six seconds accurately enough to hit a human sized target has been completely proven
On a range? Yes. In a real fight? No f@#%ing way. Were Mongols good shots? Absolutely. Four arrows in six seconds DURING COMBAT good? No. Nobody is that good IRL. Again, sporting and demonstration weapon tactics are not the same as combat tactics. A prime example is fencing, which is a sport that was never used as a real combat style.
Actually Don't ability scores come first which have some completly inhuman starting scores no matter what race. Or is 20 still within real-world human reach?
A character with a 20 Str can deadlift 800 lbs above the head. The current world record is 1,015 lbs. You would need a 22 Str to break the world record.
Master Arminas
On a range? Yes? In a real fight? No f@@!ing way. Were Mongols good shots? Absolutely. Four arrows in six seconds DURING COMBAT good? No. Nobody is that good IRL.
LOL, what am I going to believe, an internet commenter or my own lying eyes?
I think I know the answer to that.
On a range? Yes? In a real fight? No f@@!ing way. Were Mongols good shots? Absolutely. Four arrows in six seconds DURING COMBAT good? No. Nobody is that good IRL.LOL, what am I going to believe, an internet commenter or my own lying eyes?
I think I know the answer to that.
Your own eyes? Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? RANGE TECHNIQUES ARE NOT REAL LIFE COMBAT TECHNIQUES. I even explained a few reasons why this particular technique would be stupid to use in combat. Just because you see a video of it done on a range doesn't mean it can or should be done in combat. Why don't you get of Youtube and read a history book?
On a range? Yes. In a real fight? No f$*%ing way. Were Mongols good shots? Absolutely. Four arrows in six seconds DURING COMBAT good? No. Nobody is that good IRL. Again, sporting and demonstration weapon tactics are not the same as combat tactics. A prime example is fencing, which is a sport that was never used as a real combat style.
Actually, they are more likely to be able to do that in actual combat, adrenaline is a very powerful thing, and it does make you faster for short periods of time. For an experienced combat archer, they stand a very very good chance of being able to do that, because now their adrenaline has kicked in, and they are using it to enhance their fighting ability.
On a range? Yes. In a real fight? No f$*%ing way. Were Mongols good shots? Absolutely. Four arrows in six seconds DURING COMBAT good? No. Nobody is that good IRL. Again, sporting and demonstration weapon tactics are not the same as combat tactics. A prime example is fencing, which is a sport that was never used as a real combat style.Actually, they are more likely to be able to do that in actual combat, adrenaline is a very powerful thing, and it does make you faster for short periods of time. For an experienced combat archer, they stand a very very good chance of being able to do that, because now their adrenaline has kicked in, and they are using it to enhance their fighting ability.
Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your own eyes? Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? RANGE TECHNIQUES ARE NOT REAL LIFE COMBAT TECHNIQUES. I even explained a few reasons why this particular technique would be stupid to use in combat. Just because you see a video of it done on a range doesn't mean it can or should be done in combat. Why don't you get of Youtube and read a history book?
LOL, the Mongol example I used was actually performed by a military historian.
What do you think happens in combat Kelsey? Is it only "combat conditions" in your mind if the archer is not allowed to fire arrows unless someone is swinging a sword at them? Most archers in conbat, both in real life and in my Pathfinder games fire their bows from behind the front lines. Are you suggesting that's not combat?
This whole thing is hilarious on so many levels...
Your own eyes? Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? RANGE TECHNIQUES ARE NOT REAL LIFE COMBAT TECHNIQUES. I even explained a few reasons why this particular technique would be stupid to use in combat. Just because you see a video of it done on a range doesn't mean it can or should be done in combat. Why don't you get of Youtube and read a history book?LOL, the Mongol example I used was actually performed by a military historian.
Do I have to say it AGAIN?
What do you think happens in combat Kelsey?
First off, your heartbeat accelerates to provide a greater blood supply. Some blood vessels constrict and others dilate to direct blood flow to where it is most needed. Breathing accelerates to increase oxygen supply. The brain accelerates thought processes to increase reaction times, peripheral vision is lost, depth perception is lost, cognitive processing is impaired, fine and complex motor skills are diminished, and many other things.
Is it only "combat conditions" in your mind if the archer is not allowed to fire arrows unless someone is swinging a sword at them?
No, it is combat conditions when the above listed biological responses are initiated. These biological responses aren't as bad on the range as they are in combat, and they significantly impair performance. THAT is why what is possible on the range is not possible in real life.
Most archers in conbat, both in real life and in my Pathfinder games fire their bows from behind the front lines. Are you suggesting that's not combat?
No, but I am suggesting that this is not firing several arrows in the space of a few seconds at several specific targets from 100 feet away and hitting them. THAT is what I am saying is unrealistic.
Volley fire from behind the lines is fairly realistic, except for the fact they archers were as often placed in front of the lines as behind. This doesn't make firing from behind the lines unrealistic, as it was a used tactic and is completely realistic, I'm just saying that shooting from ahead of the lines was just as common, though few realize it.
Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.
Sure, if you aren't used to it.
Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.Sure, if you aren't used to it.
There isn't some magical technique that removes all traces of biological responses to combat. They can be mitigated somewhat, but not eliminated. They will always be a factor. It also happens that many of these responses (slowed cognition, reduced fine motor control, loss of peripheral vision and depth perception) are things that impair accuracy with bows. Can you react and shoot faster when pumped full of adrenaline? Yes. Can you shoot as accurately as on a range? No way.
There isn't some magical technique that removes all traces of biological responses to combat. They can be mitigated somewhat, but not eliminated. They will always be a factor. It also happens that many of these responses (slowed cognition, reduced fine motor control, loss of peripheral vision and depth perception) are things that impair accuracy with bows. Can you react and shoot faster when pumped full of adrenaline? Yes. Can you shoot as accurately as on a range? No way.Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.Sure, if you aren't used to it.
Perhaps that is the reason for the -2 when using rapid shot?
Like I mentioned.. proof of concept is there in the video. Is it that unrealistic that a stronger and better trained archer couldn't do this in combat?
There isn't some magical technique that removes all traces of biological responses to combat. They can be mitigated somewhat, but not eliminated. They will always be a factor. It also happens that many of these responses (slowed cognition, reduced fine motor control, loss of peripheral vision and depth perception) are things that impair accuracy with bows. Can you react and shoot faster when pumped full of adrenaline? Yes. Can you shoot as accurately as on a range? No way.Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.Sure, if you aren't used to it.Perhaps that is the reason for the -2 when using rapid shot?
Like I mentioned.. proof of concept is there in the video. Is it that unrealistic that a stronger and better trained archer couldn't do this in combat?
The video was taken on a range. I just got through explaining why real combat is extremely harder. Yes, it IS unrealistic do to biology. The accuracy just isn't there when you are swamped with adrenaline. Can you shoot quickly in combat? Yes. Can you fire 6 arrows in as many seconds with unerring accuracy against multiple targets 100 feet away in combat? No. No, you can't.
The video was taken on a range. I just got through explaining why real combat is extremely harder. Yes, it IS unrealistic do to biology. The accuracy just isn't there when you are swamped with adrenaline. Can you shoot quickly in combat? Yes. Can you fire 6 arrows in as many seconds with unerring accuracy against multiple targets 100 feet away in combat? No. No, you can't.
Nobody said it was unerring accuracy. Thats what the dice rolls are for.. The pathfinder archer attack bonus already reflects his combat ability in shooting a bow. The -2 for rapid shot reflects the difficulty in shooting accurately quickly.
I've watched video of professional hunters taking down individual birds in mid-flight with a bow, and they are damn good at it. I would assume that would be the closest "Combat" scenario you're ever going to find in the modern age. Now if you combine the girls rapid shot skills with that of the bird archer, you can get pretty close to a combat rapidshot archer.
Unrealistic compared to what? Personally I think Archery as well and other type of combat is far to realistic compared to wizards. By the time a wizard is altering reality with wish I could see a fighter flinging fire balls from their sword. So is archery unrealistic, not at all.
The video was taken on a range. I just got through explaining why real combat is extremely harder. Yes, it IS unrealistic do to biology. The accuracy just isn't there when you are swamped with adrenaline. Can you shoot quickly in combat? Yes. Can you fire 6 arrows in as many seconds with unerring accuracy against multiple targets 100 feet away in combat? No. No, you can't.Nobody said it was unerring accuracy. Thats what the dice rolls are for.. The pathfinder archer attack bonus already reflects his combat ability in shooting a bow. The -2 for rapid shot reflects the difficulty in shooting accurately quickly.
I've watched video of professional hunters taking down individual birds in mid-flight with a bow, and they are damn good at it. I would assume that would be the closest "Combat" scenario you're ever going to find in the modern age. Now if you combine the girls rapid shot skills with that of the bird archer, you can get pretty close to a combat rapidshot archer.
Birds generally don't try to kill you, they try to escape. Rapid accurate shooting isn't unrealistic outside of combat. It's when you are in real danger that biology kicks in and makes such shooting infeasible.
Does that same adreniline rush prevent swat team members from accurately shooting thier pistols in the heat of a raid? The danger is real but thier training keeps them accurate.
110' is not that far for a bow, I've hit targets consistently at 80yards with my compound bow. I'm sure others can do it with other styles of bows.
Given the proper training, I see it as completely realistic to rapidshot in combat given we have the: bird archer / rapid shot girl / swat team members; as our proof of concept. It seems reasonable a properly trained warrior could pull this off.
Does that same adreniline rush prevent swat team members from accurately shooting thier pistols in the heat of a raid? The danger is real but thier training keeps them accurate.
SWAT officers don't fire well aimed shots unless they are snipers. They shoot at the center of mass until the target drops. They don't have time to aim aside from pointing their gun at a general region of the target unless they are in a standoff. SWAT accuracy is to do the extreme close range of the fighting, and, in the case of a standoff, large amount of time available to aim, not do to sheer skill. Are they skilled shooters with very good aim? Yes. They practice a whole hell of a lot on the range. Are they accurate enough to pull off well aimed shots in combat against multiple targets with only a second to aim each round? No. Nobody in the world is that accurate. SWAT training focuses on instant shoot/don't shoot decisions (which are incredibly difficult to make), not pinpoint accuracy. They rely on close range and volume of fire to take targets down, because that's what works and gets the officers home alive. You'll see that in special forces and general military training, too. Being reflexive enough to point your gun at the center of mass and pull the trigger several times is much more valuable a skill than being able to shoot several people with unerring accuracy in only a few seconds.
110' is not that far for a bow, I've hit targets consistently at 80yards with my compound bow. I'm sure others can do it with other styles of bows.
No, it isn't that far. That is, until you have to hit several targets with only a second to aim and fire each shot while people are trying to kill you. THAT'S when it starts to become a rather long distance.
Given the proper training, I see it as completely realistic to rapidshot in combat given we have the: bird archer / rapid shot girl / swat team members; as our proof of concept. It seems reasonable a properly trained warrior could pull this off.
I feel that it is both unrealistic and a tactic of dubious worth.
Also, I should point out that I have never seen or heard of a SWAT officer shooting several people in the space of six seconds, which is the specific tactic we are arguing about here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWW_uhX_Ts
he is shooting a 65 lb composite bow
He has made world records with a variety of speed shoots, yes the target is close but the speed combined with moving on horseback and moving target
Impressive. It's also not done under combat conditions (as in, a boatload of physiological difficulties do to how the body reacts to life and death stress), and he just used up all of his ammunition doing it. Now what's he going to do?
It's an incredible demonstration of his skill at the sport of archery, and he is very good at what he does. That does not, however, translate into combat performance. No Mongol would have attempted to do that in an actual battle.
There isn't some magical technique that removes all traces of biological responses to combat. They can be mitigated somewhat, but not eliminated. They will always be a factor. It also happens that many of these responses (slowed cognition, reduced fine motor control, loss of peripheral vision and depth perception) are things that impair accuracy with bows. Can you react and shoot faster when pumped full of adrenaline? Yes. Can you shoot as accurately as on a range? No way.Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.Sure, if you aren't used to it.
No, but there is a way to adapt those biological responses to your fighting ability. The entire point of getting used to adrenaline is to allow it to not overwhelm you completely when a fight breaks out, you direct it, because denying it doesn't work. Veteran soldiers shoot just as accurately when their adrenaline is pumping as they do without it.
No, but there is a way to adapt those biological responses to your fighting ability. The entire point of getting used to adrenaline is to allow it to not overwhelm you completely when a fight breaks out, you direct it, because denying it doesn't work. Veteran soldiers shoot just as accurately when their adrenaline is pumping as they do without it.There isn't some magical technique that removes all traces of biological responses to combat. They can be mitigated somewhat, but not eliminated. They will always be a factor. It also happens that many of these responses (slowed cognition, reduced fine motor control, loss of peripheral vision and depth perception) are things that impair accuracy with bows. Can you react and shoot faster when pumped full of adrenaline? Yes. Can you shoot as accurately as on a range? No way.Adrenaline makes this sort of archery HARDER, not easier.Sure, if you aren't used to it.
I have never heard of a soldier taking down six targets in as many seconds with a rifle in combat. It just isn't happening. Outside of combat without all the physiological stuff going one? Sure. Trick shooters do stuff like that all the time. In combat? Not happening. It isn't feasible, and they aren't trained to do it. There is a reason that suppress and flank/fire support is the dominating infantry tactic of modern warfare, not "Boom! Headshot!". Adrenaline can be controlled to a point with training and experience, but never outright dominated. It will always be a diminishing factor to combat accuracy. That's why IRL gunfights are about reaction times and volume of fire in a general area, not unerring accuracy (snipers and sharpshooters are an exception to this).
That's because most people use cover these days, back when that wasn't such a huge problem, soldiers could do that crap all the time, though it happened a lot more often in old west shoutouts, if they were really close.
That's because most people use cover these days, back when that wasn't such a huge problem, soldiers could do that crap all the time, though it happened a lot more often in old west shoutouts, if they were really close.
Uh, no. Regardless of era, nobody shot several different people in only a few seconds with a rifle or pistol. One person several times? Yes. Several? That's stretching way too far.
Also, Old West shootouts were rare. When they did happen, it was usually at smacking range, over in a few seconds, and nobody ever shot half a dozen people in as many seconds. Same with soldiers. I have never once heard of a soldier taking down several enemies with a rifle or pistol in a few seconds. There have been some badass military rampages where one guy slaughtered massive numbers of enemies, but not one bad guy per second with unerring accuracy.
That's because most people use cover these days, back when that wasn't such a huge problem, soldiers could do that crap all the time, though it happened a lot more often in old west shoutouts, if they were really close.Uh, no. Regardless of era, nobody shot several different people in only a few seconds with a rifle or pistol. One person several times? Yes. Several? That's stretching way too far.
Also, Old West shootouts were rare. When they did happen, it was usually at smacking range, over in a few seconds, and nobody ever shot half a dozen people in as many seconds. Same with soldiers. I have never once heard of a soldier taking down several enemies with a rifle or pistol in a few seconds. There have been some badass military rampages where one guy slaughtered massive numbers of enemies, but not one bad guy per second with unerring accuracy.
A single person killing a bunch of people with a firearm is a matter of an advanced weapon on automatic. The attacker uses the "fill the air with bullets" strategy to great effect. No firearm pre WW1 could compete. The machine gun being an exception, but those are large contraptions on a wheeled base and fired by turning a crank up until around the Vietnam era.
The one burning question I have always had, but so far absolutely no one has explained to me is why the same BS that each attack and damage roll is more than just hitting (it's parrying and attacking, etc) that is applied to melee combat is never applied to archery? BTW it doesn't even make sense with the feats and just makes the AC redundant.
I'd also like to know why (Without applying special feats) being stabbed with a dagger is less deadly than being shot by an arrow from a bow. I care less about the answer to this one
Anyway, there's something to be said about the fact that in the game that the archer standing 60ft back can deal just as much, if not more hits and damage than the swordsman who is face to face with his opponent.
My only real beef is that Pathfinder/D&D swordsman are incredibly slow compared to Archers in the same game.Why do you care how many times they swing their swords mechanically?
Cause everyone plays archers..
No really. An archer can shoot a large number of times mechanically before the enemy can even reach the archer. The swordsman has to move in and gets 1 attack.
That's because most people use cover these days, back when that wasn't such a huge problem, soldiers could do that crap all the time, though it happened a lot more often in old west shoutouts, if they were really close.Uh, no. Regardless of era, nobody shot several different people in only a few seconds with a rifle or pistol. One person several times? Yes. Several? That's stretching way too far.
Also, Old West shootouts were rare. When they did happen, it was usually at smacking range, over in a few seconds, and nobody ever shot half a dozen people in as many seconds. Same with soldiers. I have never once heard of a soldier taking down several enemies with a rifle or pistol in a few seconds. There have been some badass military rampages where one guy slaughtered massive numbers of enemies, but not one bad guy per second with unerring accuracy.
TIMESTOP DELAYED FIREBALL!
I mean seriously. You are talking about characters in game that have the potential to "take ten" in the middle of combat, with bullets pelting all over them.
Archery in PF is nowhere near realistic.
1. Damage:
1.1 Armour:
No 100lb bow has a realistic chance to pierce a medium armour on above 5 meters.
1.2 Distance:
Arrows lose energy fast. In PF it does not matter what range you are at.
2. Speed:
You cannot fire 7 Arrows in 6 seconds in the heat of battle while aiming at moving targets.
You wil be by far too busy moving/evading and aiming for the other guy that is also moving.
3. Fighting Endurance:
People keep up their firing rate no matter how many rounds they fire. Pulling heavy bows for a long time will strain you. Just look at those guys in the old armies who were professional archers and had majorly deformed spines and even those could not keep up their firing rate for 100 arrows.
|
On the topic of adrenaline.
Actually the "combat mode" that an adrenaline rush puts you in makes you more focused in a combat situation, I know this from experience, several years in a ring as a semi-pro fighter showed me that.
When the adrenaline rush takes over you revert to a narrow focused almost instinctive behavior, hence the long and dedicated training that goes into making combat behavior an instinct.
|
So i posted an example of what a normal human with training can do. now lets imagine same guy but superheroic magical land that exceeds the laws of physics on a daily routine. Yep seems completely reasonable that it can be done.
Defending this because in the game I am running I have a player going strength based composite bow, deadly aim, manyshot, rapid shot literally obliterating my bad guys. And it is real easy to just toss up a windwall, protection from missiles, etc....
So i posted an example of what a normal human with training can do. now lets imagine same guy but superheroic magical land that exceeds the laws of physics on a daily routine. Yep seems completely reasonable that it can be done.
Defending this because in the game I am running I have a player going strength based composite bow, deadly aim, manyshot, rapid shot literally obliterating my bad guys. And it is real easy to just toss up a windwall, protection from missiles, etc....
I haven't seen anything that hasn't been studied as a Choreography.
By now I have to see an example of someone moving himself and shooting on a moving target with a heavy draw bow. All I have seen now are people using low draw bows while probably moving a bit and shooting on blankets or about human sized targets...And don't forget: Even if they hit the target its the same effect as having rolled 10+dex modifier+ deflection bonus+ dodge bonus of the target. So in the case of a static object (medium sized) that is a 6? So they perform about as good as someone with 0 BAB and -4 on dex that rolls average...
HITTING a target on the contrary in terms of D&D is bypassing its armour (not that it would be possible at all in the case of a medium armour ^^) so you have to aim for REALLY SMALL weak spots or such.
Optimal would be to see such a thing under pressure while he has to evade things or something is trying to distract them. Many shooting parkours are a good example of that. You have to move between positions and fire on moving targets while being under time pressure or other things bugging you.
So i posted an example of what a normal human with training can do. now lets imagine same guy but superheroic magical land that exceeds the laws of physics on a daily routine. Yep seems completely reasonable that it can be done.
Defending this because in the game I am running I have a player going strength based composite bow, deadly aim, manyshot, rapid shot literally obliterating my bad guys. And it is real easy to just toss up a windwall, protection from missiles, etc....
I haven't seen anything that hasn't been studied as a Choreography.
By now I have to see an example of someone moving himself and shooting on a moving target with a heavy draw bow. All I have seen now are people using low draw bows while probably moving a bit and shooting on blankets or about human sized targets...
And don't forget: Even if they hit the target its the same effect as having rolled 10+dex modifier+ deflection bonus+ dodge bonus of the target. So in the case of a static object (medium sized) that is a 6? So they perform about as good as someone with 0 BAB and -4 on dex that rolls average...
HITTING a target on the contrary in terms of D&D is bypassing its armour (not that it would be possible at all in the case of a medium armour ^^) so you have to aim for REALLY SMALL weak spots or such.Optimal would be to see such a thing under pressure while he has to evade things or something is trying to distract them. Many shooting parkours are a good example of that. You have to move between positions and fire on moving targets while being under time pressure or other things bugging you.
I think people also need to realise that pathfinder is a turn based system. By the time the archer is starting his rapid-fire, there are no attacks being directed at him (save for any AoO's from being in melee range) Therefore his concentration at that moment is all focused on fireing and not defense. If we have video evidence of the accuracy on moving targets. And we also have video evidence of the quickness of rapid shot. We can reasonably conclude that if the BAB for an archer in pathfinder reflects his combat prowess with a bow. The -2 reflects the difficulty of rapid shot. At no time during the moment he is firing is he being attacked or moving, making the trying to evade attacks while shooting argument invalid.
Okay, Alienfreak, here is what we need to do. You go to charge these archers, and they will try to shoot a bunch of arrows at you. We'll then see how many arrows they hit you with per six seconds.
It also like the point out that for many of the reasons you said archery isn't "realistic" that melee combat is either. Cause now you are in melee with the thing that wants to eat you, still trying to go for those tiny openings in his armor, while he is now completely and actively trying to hit you. PF takes in no account for weapon parries unless he is using two weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one reason that the English longbow ended the reign of knights.
Except that they didn't- longbows and heavy armor existed together for hundreds of years and many tests show that you would need to be within extreme close range to even pierce mail with a heavy bow. (and before anybody says it- no, it wasn't the crossbow that did it either, and maybe not even the gun)
My take on the whole 'realism of archery in Pathfinder' subject- no, it's not realistic. Is it more realistic than some people think? Yes. It's easily as realistic as melee vs. giant monsters. I mean, do you really think you could take a sword to an 80ft. long dragon and come out alive? (assuming dragons could exist, of course) Of course not- unless you were some sort of legendary hero, that is... which is just what the archer is, too.
As for real-life cases of this sort of 'fast archery' in combat, yes, we do have recorded claims that it really did happen. As far as I know, however, it was a technique for mounted archers, not archers on foot. The idea is this- ride up to close range, fire a barrage of shots into the enemy and then flee.
That means a few things-
1) It's close range, so accuracy isn't such an issue.
2) you're not going to be there waiting for a counter-attack.
3) Ammo isn't as much of a concern, because you ride back to your side and get more before getting ready for another pass.
Here is another archery video.
I find it interesting that no one has commented on the Saracen test mentioned in this video. 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds as a standard of being "decent" seems to indicate that speed archery was indeed a thing used by real world ancient militaries and that it somehow had combat applications. (He starts talking about it at around 50 seconds in.)
You'll also note that this kid does it outside in normal conditions (no, there were no orcs running at him). He does it while running. He spins and hits several targets. He hits them at pretty long range. He does it with a decent draw on his bow.
After having followed this thread for a bit, I've seen basically two camps (with an invisible third camp). One camp says that Pathfinder-like archery speeds and accuracies are impossible and there is no way it could ever be realistic. A subset of this group says that it shouldn't be realistic. Another camp looks at what these amateur archers can do in their own backyards and sees a proof of concept that indicates, given a few other assumptions, the speeds and accuracy of Pathfinder-like archery is within the realm of possibility. (The invisible third camp just doesn't care one way or the other and is off doing something else.)
Basically, I posted this as proof of concept. I am not saying that we could 100% emulate the things a Pathfinder archer can do in real life. We can't, really, largely because the system makes some unrealistic and simplistic assumptions because it is a fantasy game. However, based on things you can see with your own eyes (or in some cases, have experienced first hand) many of the things that people decry as unrealistic about Pathfinder-like archery aren't actually that unrealistic.
If you take a 5th level Pathfinder archer (which is, to my understanding, the height of real-world human achievement), he's going to have just 2 shots in 6 seconds - one from BAB and one from Rapid Shot. Even if you thing the girl in the first video wasn't pulling enough weight, surely the kid in this video was. And he put three shots into three targets in 3 seconds, or three shots into the same target in 1.5 seconds. Oh, and he did the second one at 226 feet, or three longbow range increments.
Proof of concept exists. Also, those videos are still just cool.
The issue is that the proof of concept ignores battlefield conditions and biological reactions to combat. Nobody is saying that shooting so many arrows in such a short time is unrealistic. The unrealistic part is doing it in combat. I doubt anything more than the 2 accurate shots a round for a 5th level character is happening during an actual fight, with the exception of some close range horse archery tactics, which just solidifies the 5th level limit on what is considered realistic.
Weren't the Saracens big fans of horse archers, too?
Weren't the Saracens big fans of horse archers, too?
Yes. It was a thorn in the ass for the Crusaders.
The issue is that the proof of concept ignores battlefield conditions and biological reactions to combat. Nobody is saying that shooting so many arrows in such a short time is unrealistic. The unrealistic part is doing it in combat. I doubt anything more than the 2 accurate shots a round for a 5th level character is happening during an actual fight, with the exception of some close range horse archery tactics, which just solidifies the 5th level limit on what is considered realistic.
You keep saying that, but have you ever been in combat? I suspect (and I might very well be wrong) that you probably haven't. I've not either (outside of some martial arts training and things like paintball or airsoft), but I know that when my fight or flight response kicks in, fight comes much more naturally to me. My senses sharpen, I focus in and can strike quicker and more accurately than when I'm just goofing around. My friends who had combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan said the same things about their experience there (though obviously much more harrowing than my experiences). Your response to adrenaline might be more on the flight side (a perfectly reasonable autonomic response), but for others it's not.
If you have had real-world combat experience, I would be interested to hear about it and why it has caused you to believe that people who are well trained at something become much worse at it when their life depends on it.
The issue is that the proof of concept ignores battlefield conditions and biological reactions to combat. Nobody is saying that shooting so many arrows in such a short time is unrealistic. The unrealistic part is doing it in combat. I doubt anything more than the 2 accurate shots a round for a 5th level character is happening during an actual fight, with the exception of some close range horse archery tactics, which just solidifies the 5th level limit on what is considered realistic.
Except being in a combat situation does not immediately put you into BEZERKER RAGE mode. Its not like the archer is trying to shoot an enemy, while standing in melee. IF it was melee, then you would have somewhat of a point...
You seem to believe that combat is so utterly alien, that there is absolutely nothing a person can do.. Well fortunately, PCs don't increase in archery skill through hard work and dedication to archery. They increase by gaining exp, which is mostly gained via shooting monsters in point blank range with sharp pointy sticks.
Even so, a competition is still very adrenalin inducing.
But you go on further to say that a 5th level character can only shoot twice in combat. By all accounts.. yes. I'm not sure what feats you could take to shoot more than twice, after you have rapid shot.. Then you shoot 3 times at level six. Why? because you are that good now.
No combat. I was military, but didn't do much.
Here. This explains the factors involved.
You CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, aim well enough to take down several people in as many seconds in a real fight. There isn't one account of it ever being done. You can shoot that fast, but you can't hit the target. Ask your military buddies whether you can take out four to six guys with a rifle in only six seconds while they are shooting back at you. The answer is no. Better yet, read up on accounts of battle from veterans. There is very little accurate shooting in war aside from snipers and marksmen.
The issue is that the proof of concept ignores battlefield conditions and biological reactions to combat. Nobody is saying that shooting so many arrows in such a short time is unrealistic. The unrealistic part is doing it in combat. I doubt anything more than the 2 accurate shots a round for a 5th level character is happening during an actual fight, with the exception of some close range horse archery tactics, which just solidifies the 5th level limit on what is considered realistic.Except being in a combat situation does not immediately put you into BEZERKER RAGE mode. Its not like the archer is trying to shoot an enemy, while standing in melee. IF it was melee, then you would have somewhat of a point...
I never said anything about melee or rage, I pointed out biological impulses.
You seem to believe that combat is so utterly alien, that there is absolutely nothing a person can do.. Well fortunately, PCs don't increase in archery skill through hard work and dedication to archery. They increase by gaining exp, which is mostly gained via shooting monsters in point blank range with sharp pointy sticks.
Again, I didn't say point blank range.
Even so, a competition is still very adrenalin inducing.
You aren't actively trying to avoid being killed during a competition. You also generally either know where the targets are or when they will pop up. This is not the case in combat. Both of these things are major limiters to what an archer can do.
But you go on further to say that a 5th level character can only shoot twice in combat. By all accounts.. yes. I'm not sure what feats you could take to shoot more than twice, after you have rapid shot.. Then you shoot 3 times at level six. Why? because you are that good now.
Yes, a game character is that good. A real life archer? Not so much.
So you are saying "there is very little accurate shooting in war aside from snipers and marksmen" and that's why marksmen can't shoot accurately..
most people in the current military are not "war trained" even the veterans. Being a Vet doesn't automatically make you a master of war and combat. It means you where in a combat, possibly multiple ones.
The videos show what is humanly possible. None of this adrenalin crap applies to the PCs. Why? Because they LIVE off combat. Thus allowing them to achieve what is humanly possible, even while they are getting their face eaten by a dragon.
Beyond that.. Paladins. THEY DO NOT HAVE FEAR.
EDITS:
No, you may not say point blank, but you imply it. What fear does an archer have of a knight when the knight cannot reach him? Okay an archer might have a fear of another archer, but that is what arrow slits are for.
Also, stop trying to use rifles as an analog of bows and arrows. While both might be ranged, they are not the same thing. If the enemy is using archery against you, then they are also going to be lightly armored. Then different factors play in. There is no roll for initiative in real life, so this talk about adrenaline also does not fully work.
IF as an archer I ambush another group of lightly armored archers.. What fear do I have of them?