Is it just the target's defense? Or is their Defense used as a modifier to a target number based on the target's size and the distance?

I'm thinking that the default target should be 3 if it's a size 0 target within normal range. Then add the listed -3 penalty for every range increment past the first. And then modify by +/- 3 for every size below or above 0. Add to that their Defense score from shields and combat ability (no weapon modifiers though) and Qik and you have a target number.

So to use an example. A size 0 Grog with Sword and Round Shield and an Ability of 4 and Qik of 1, and no encumbrance, at normal range gets a target of 10 (base 3, plus Ability 4, plus Qik 1, plus 2 for shield). Does that sound right? A large (+1) Grog would be a 7. And if the first Grog were further back it would be a 13, or if he were small (-1) it would also be 13.

Or is that too much? Basically I'm adding 3 for the base and then additional modifiers, by 3, to keep it simple. By doing it this way you have a base for inanimate or defenseless targets also. A Bullseye (Size -3 say) target at two ranges away would have a Target number of 18 (Base 3, +9 for size, +6 for distance).

What do you think?

I don't see it either, I'm just wondering if it should be 3. A default of 0 seems a little low, since actually hitting things at a distance with a thrown weapon or fired arrow is not that easy. Even if the target (that Grog I mentioned) were not defending or surprised, then that means the Target number is at least 3 (if within range).

Maybe instead of adding 3 to the target calculated from Defense and Size and Distance, it should be a minimum of 3 after calculating. Would that work better? If instead of adding to the Target we instead say there is a minimum (if within ideal range and size), then I'd say the default is actually 6; making it a touch challenging.

Missile attacks work just like melee attacks - you have to beat the target's Defense roll. Page 172 says that when defending against missile attacks, the defense bonus of a shield counts, but other weapons don't count in the defense.

The rules don't say what Ability is used to defend against missile attacks, because that depends. You use the Ability that corresponds to whatever weapon you're using: if you are holding a staff, you defend using Great Weapon and if you're holding a sling, you defend using Thrown Weapon.

From your question it sounds like you have played Fourth Edition, where missile combat inexplicably used completely rules to determine whether you hit. Fifth Edition uses the same rules for all forms of combat.

I know the rules on missile combat for Arm5 in that the target number is the target's defense, plus shield but not the weapon used, and the Ability corresponds to the weapon Ability they have. My main thing is that IMO there should be a minimum target number. I'm going to use that instead of mu first formula now (I tested it last night) where the target is the person's defense, but has a minimum of 6. The first post I made added 3 to the difficulty, I'm dropping that now.

BTW, a grog in last night's game who was a longbow specialist reaped a deadly toll. I was glad to see that longbows were still so lethal. He dropped basically a person a round with a heavy wound or higher.

"gcifer, do you allow the defender a defense roll in adition to the calculated defense?
If so, I think a total defense of 6 would occur seldom, unless you botch the defense roll of course."

Come to think of it, I didn't allow them to roll. That does make a difference doesn't it?

I'll do that next time, but having thought about it, rolling perhaps isn't the best answer (for me). People literally dodging arrows or other missiles is pretty tough to visualize, but making yourself a hard target by increasing the difficuly of the shot through your defense seems OK.

But I'll try the rules as their written (fancy that!) and see how it works.

Some thoughts:
Having shot more than a few arrows (from several different style bows) I have found that hitting a less than man sized target (i.e. the standard archery target) at less than 50 feet is trivial for most bows. Stronger bows make further distances easy as well, as not as much arc is required to actually hit the intended portion of the target.

Having read an interesting novel where the archer suspended a target from a tree with a rope, and set it swinging back and forth before shooting at it, led me to experiment... So long as the target was not spinning, it was easy, but not trivial at 50 feet, and more difficult as I got further away. Spinning was next to impossible for me beyond 25 feet.

I have not found a good simulation for a target actually paying attention to me and trying to get out of the way, but given that the time it takes for an arrow to travel more than 50 feet, it becomes easy to get out of the way of most of the bows I have shot. Just wait until you see the release, and step to the side. The arrow will go by. Unless of course, the archer missed to that side...

So as far as rules: A base difficulty of 0 for close shots is reasonable. I might consider bonuses to dodging beyond 50 feet, as it becomes very easy to make someone miss at that range.

Also, firing into a melee....(ugh) The only who won't know where the shot is coming from is your ally... because he has his back to you.

Just my 2 cents...

Ed

//I have not found a good simulation for a target actually paying attention to me and trying to get out of the way, //
Hehehehee.. No volunters? "Hey buddy, I need to test out something for a rpg, put on this thick leather (hopefully arrowproof) jacket, and start running around on this field, while I try to shot at you" BwaHAhahaha... "Get away from me you nerdy freak!!!"

Seriously; very usefull RL experience there. Those are things I feel could quite easily be incorporated into the rules. ArM5 combat rules are now so not-complex, that I find it easy to take such common sense/RL experience into consideration.
Thanks for your valuable insights!

Although still not a perfect simulation, I've done a lot of live action roleplaying fighting with bows. They're relatively weak (on average about a 20lb pull) and the arrows have chunky high-density foam heads, but they still fly pretty well. Even so, dodging them at close range is very difficult so I would imagine it's practically impossible with real bows and arrows.

IMHO it's one thing shooting a fixed swinging target, but another thing entirely trying to shoot someone who's running across your line of vision. If they're really moving fast then it's very difficult to hit them, even at just 30-40 feet. Also bear in mind that an archer doesn't have that much time to aim in a combat situation. A round really isn't that long, just a few seconds IIRC, which means that once you've taken an arrow from your quiver, nocked it, picked a target and drawn back the bowstring, there's not much time to steady yourself and aim, all of this makes bows less straightforward to use well.

I'd also increase the difficulty factor when an archer is trying to shoot someone charging towards them. From my experience, people's accuracy drops dramatically when they know that unless their arrow brings down their target then they're going to get attacked with no melee weapon or shield in their hands...

//I'd also increase the difficulty factor when an archer is trying to shoot someone charging towards them. From my experience, people's accuracy drops dramatically when they know that unless their arrow brings down their target then they're going to get attacked with no melee weapon or shield in their hands...//

The only time I 'almost' had a chance to test this, the person charging me with an axe decided that it would be a better idea to stop running towards me, and run away instead. Since I didn't think I would have a leg to stand on legally if I shot him in the back, I chose not to shoot.

Oh well, theory still not tested.

As far as boffer weapon combat, from what I know about that, the archers are at a severe disadvantage, because the weapons are under powered (to prevent injury), and do not do enough 'in system' damage to make the sword wielder fear them... so you take a few hp damage, the archer won't get a second shot...

Ed

//The only time I 'almost' had a chance to test this, the person charging me with an axe decided that it would be a better idea to stop running towards me, and run away instead.//
You're talking for real here??? Scary!!!

//As far as boffer weapon combat, from what I know about that, the archers are at a severe disadvantage, because the weapons are under powered (to prevent injury), and do not do enough 'in system' damage to make the sword wielder fear them... so you take a few hp damage, the archer won't get a second shot...//
That's certainly true for some live-roleplay (LRP) systems in the UK, but I've played a lot in one where arrow damage was more realistic, one shot would incapacitate a limb and a chest hit would render most people unconscious, at the very least you'd be "knocked down" giving the archer plenty of time for a second shot.
Anyway, trying not to digress too much, I played a lightly armoured skirmisher a lot of the time whose task it was to run down enemy archers (and incidentally spellcasters). If you got caught in the open at more than about 20 feet from an archer you were in trouble and had to move fast or seek cover to avoid getting shot (trees are great for this), but if you could get close enough to charge them (and having even a small shield made this a lot safer as it forced them to shoot for your legs, making the shot harder) then a lot of the time they'd panic as mentionned earlier and shots would fly wide or they'd turn and run (obviously having failed their brave rolls ;).
In any event archers were very effective so long as no one got close to them (much like the spellcasters), the point I was making was that in the "real" world shooting moving people is IMHO harder than a couple of previous posts suggested.

4ed took this into consideration, just at it took into consideration the extreme disadvantage someone is once someone else is inside ones reach. In 5ed all this has been taken away so that combat no longer is a math-exam.

The easiest way to handle this is simply to declare that if the archer beats the melee-fighter's initiative, then he gets off a single shot before his opponent reaches him. After that, his bow will be useless, and he'll be fighting with his dagger...