Calling all Archers

[Demonsong]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Demonsong

Silly question: Why don’t any of the bows have the -1/2 Requires 2 hand limitation? It would seem to me that it would be almost mandatory. I have not seen too many one armed archers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Because it is not appropriate for a Champions campeign?

 

I don’t know if I agree with that. In a Champions setting you wouldn’t put it on rifles and heavy weapons because firing that type of weapon with one hand is common practice. But it seams to me that the first time I try to fire my bow one handed the GM is going to laugh at me.

[JmOz]

At the dawn of time:

 

Circle and M.E.T.E.: Kor Hunter

Strike Force: Red Archer

To Serve and Protect: Huntsman

 

Big Blue Book Era

 

Classic Enemies/Enemies III: Rainbow Archer

Zodiac Conspiracy: Sagittarius

Kingdom of Champions: Yeoman

Olymians: Atalanta, Artemis and Apollo

European Enemies: Hood, Huntsman

Champions of the North: Minstrel

Dark Champions: Crossbow

Allies: Crossbow

Golden Age Champions: Fletcher

 

 

The White Books Era

Murderer's Row: Origami

Watchers of the Dragon: Yoshi

 

DOJ

CKC: Warpath & Guan Di

Digital Hero #17: Scarlet Archer

 

Current list, in order

[Gary]

Originally posted by Demonsong

I don’t know if I agree with that. In a Champions setting you wouldn’t put it on rifles and heavy weapons because firing that type of weapon with one hand is common practice. But it seams to me that the first time I try to fire my bow one handed the GM is going to laugh at me.

 

In a heroic campaign, 2 handed is a limitation since equipment is free and if the character uses a bow, she couldn't have a shield or secondary weapon in her off hand.

 

In a superheroic campaign, the character must pay points for everything. The character isn't going to pay character points for a shield if she's an archer. In fact, she wouldn't purchase any powers that couldn't be used with a bow. Thus it's not limiting beyond the -1 OAF that she already gets.

[misterdeath]

FWIW: The archer (crossbow actually) character in Zodiac Conspiracy was Sagittarius. Scorpio was the ninja with the poison stinger.

 

D

[JmOz]

Thanks for the correction, it makes more sense now. SO were there any other archers published? I actualy have a surprising amount of these guy's stats

 

I am missing the stats for the following

All the guys from the beginning

 

Zodiac Conspiracy: Sagittarius

European Enemies: Hood, Huntsman (but have access to close similies thanks to Surbooks stuff, but no background).

Allies: Crossbow (Again have stats thanks to this old disk I bought of all the characters from Allies)

 

Murderer's Row: Origami

[devlin1]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Silly question: Why don’t any of the bows have the -1/2 Requires 2 hand limitation? It would seem to me that it would be almost mandatory. I have not seen too many one armed archers.

 

Green Arrow in The Dark Knight Returns, anyone?

[Guest Champsguy]

Were there any archers in The System That Shall Not Be Named? I seem to remember one or two, but I can't say for sure.

[JmOz]

CNM Bay City: Crimson the Archer

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Supreme Serpent

Wow, I think that we're going to end up with more Archers in the CU than in Marvel or DC...

 

It's an interesting phenomenon that rare power sets in the DC/Marvel-verses are not only common but downright abundant in the characters we build. Archers, speedsters, elongaters...these are much more common in the games that emulate the Mainstreamverses than in the Mainstreamverses themselves.

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Gary

In a heroic campaign, 2 handed is a limitation since equipment is free and if the character uses a bow, she couldn't have a shield or secondary weapon in her off hand.

 

In a superheroic campaign, the character must pay points for everything. The character isn't going to pay character points for a shield if she's an archer. In fact, she wouldn't purchase any powers that couldn't be used with a bow. Thus it's not limiting beyond the -1 OAF that she already gets.

 

I would argue with that if for no other reason than the prefabs I downloaded had several Viper and Until weapons and built with the two-handed limitation. If it works for them, it works for me. Besides, the two-handed requirement makes a lot more sense for a bow than a rifle.

 

Green Arrow obviously spent some points to buy off that limitation.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Crisis

I would argue with that if for no other reason than the prefabs I downloaded had several Viper and Until weapons and built with the two-handed limitation. If it works for them, it works for me. Besides, the two-handed requirement makes a lot more sense for a bow than a rifle.

 

Green Arrow obviously spent some points to buy off that limitation.

 

I fail to see how two handed is at all limiting in a world where you can't buy equipment with money, but must use character points.

 

It's only limiting if there would otherwise be something else you can do with your other hand, such as using a shield.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Gary

I fail to see how two handed is at all limiting in a world where you can't buy equipment with money, but must use character points.

 

It's only limiting if there would otherwise be something else you can do with your other hand, such as using a shield.

 

Incorrect -- even in a game where points are paid for equipment, there are still are many circumstances under which you would have only one free hand.

 

(Hanging off a ladder, partially worked free from an Entangle, caught in a trap, handcuffed to a railing, trying to lead your DNPC by the hand to safety, carrying the Maltese Falcon out of a firefight, etc, etc.)

 

Heck, a guy with a drawn sword can still fire a gun in his free hand, and Lord knows there's nothing stopping you from paying points for both a sword and a gun. A guy with a drawn sword and a bow, OTOH...

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Gary

I fail to see how two handed is at all limiting in a world where you can't buy equipment with money, but must use character points.

 

It's only limiting if there would otherwise be something else you can do with your other hand, such as using a shield.

 

Well, that's exactly the situation, actually. With a two-handed weapon you can't pull the classic grab the hostage as a human shield maneuver, for one. (Although, I certainly hope none of our heroic archers would consider doing such a thing in the first place!)

 

FWIW, I agree with you that it seems out of place in a superheroic campaign, but once official write-ups use it I think it needs to be considered. I can take it or leave it, personally. My archer-type doesn't take the limitation, but he does point it out (more as a -0 lim type of situation).

[Gary]

Originally posted by Chuckg

Incorrect -- even in a game where points are paid for equipment, there are still are many circumstances under which you would have only one free hand.

 

(Hanging off a ladder, partially worked free from an Entangle, caught in a trap, handcuffed to a railing, trying to lead your DNPC by the hand to safety, carrying the Maltese Falcon out of a firefight, etc, etc.)

 

Heck, a guy with a drawn sword can still fire a gun in his free hand, and Lord knows there's nothing stopping you from paying points for both a sword and a gun. A guy with a drawn sword and a bow, OTOH...

 

To some extent this is true, but certainly not a -1/2 worth of limitation. A lot of what you've described can be mitigated with some creative roleplaying. For example, while leading a DNPC to safety, Hawkeye can release her hand, fire in one motion, and grab her hand again before she even realizes anything. This would simply be a special effect. With an object like the Maltese Falcon or a sword, Hawkeye can toss it into the air, fire the bow, and grab it when it falls down in one smooth motion.

 

A good chunk of the -1/2 for 2 handed is because of the effects on Str Mins, which only apply in Heroic campaigns. I'd say that the inconvenience of 2 hands in a Superheroic campaign is worth no more than a -0.

[Enforcer84]

Golden Age Champions had Fletcher.

[gewing]

Mythic Greece wrote up Heracles also. Now THERE was an archer.

 

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Strike Force: Red Archer

 

European Enemies: Hood

 

Dark Champions: Crossbow

 

Allies: Crossbow

 

Kingdom of Champions: Yeoman

 

Watchers of the Dragon: Yoshi

 

Golden Age Champions: Fletcher

 

Murderer's Row: Origami

 

Champions of the North: Minstrel (although primarily a music-based spellcaster)

 

Digital Hero #17: Scarlet Archer

 

You might also include the Huntsman of the Black Forest from European Enemies, although he used a sword as much as a bow - not to mention a pack of demonic hounds.

 

Then there are two archer gods from Greek myth, Artemis and Apollo, who were written up in The Olympians. Conquerors, Killers and Crooks also presented a version of the Chinese war god Guan Di modified to be more of an archer-god.

[Demonsong]

Well I guess my only point would be if you didn’t allow a player to use the -1/2 2 handed limitation there should never, ever, be a time when they can’t use the bow with one hand.

 

“Yes I know the Alien Death Ray cut off my left arm off but I can still shoot my bow at normal speed….I guess I'll use my teeth. Ya that’s it."

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Well I guess my only point would be if you didn’t allow a player to use the -1/2 2 handed limitation there should never, ever, be a time when they can’t use the bow with one hand.

 

“Yes I know the Alien Death Ray cut off my left arm off but I can still shoot my bow at normal speed….I guess I'll use my teeth. Ya that’s it."

Good point.

[Lord Liaden]

In The Dark Knight Returns, a one-armed Oliver Queen did exactly that.

[Supreme Serpent]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

In The Dark Knight Returns, a one-armed Oliver Queen did exactly that.

 

...but I doubt he'd be able to do it *every phase*. I imagine it would take more time and effort than normal.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Well I guess my only point would be if you didn’t allow a player to use the -1/2 2 handed limitation there should never, ever, be a time when they can’t use the bow with one hand.

 

“Yes I know the Alien Death Ray cut off my left arm off but I can still shoot my bow at normal speed….I guess I'll use my teeth. Ya that’s it."

 

No matter what, it's not a -1/2 limitation in a Superheroic world where the character pays points for everything and Str minimums aren't in play. At best, it's a -1/4, although I personally would consider it a -0. And if the player took a -1/4, you can bet that this little problem is going to crop up a lot more than if he took a -0.

 

And yes, if the character didn't take a limitation, I'd be very lenient about letting him be creative about firing the bow with one hand. For example, firing with the teeth, or using a foot on the bow shaft and the good hand drawing the bowstring. Or even throwing some of the trick arrows (darkness, flash, entangle, etc) where kinetic energy isn't a problem.

[Demonsong]

Well I can certainly see your point Gary. But with out the limitation if a GM was to ever limit a player characters ability to use his bow at full effect, in any way, for the loss or use of one hand the player would surly have every right to feel very cheated.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Well I can certainly see your point Gary. But with out the limitation if a GM was to ever limit a player characters ability to use his bow at full effect, in any way, for the loss or use of one hand the player would surly have every right to feel very cheated.

 

It'll be simple. If a player wanted a limitation for 2 handed, he can have it. He'll just have to deal with the consequences. The bigger the limitation he took, the more the problem will crop up in actual play.

 

It's no different from any other special effects. Sometimes circumstances will make certain attacks less effective. A sonic attack won't work through vacuum, which is a -0 limitation in most campaigns. Should the player feel cheated? Unless vacuums come up a lot during actual play, there is simply no reason to.

 

Now if the archer had an arm chopped off or maimed every other adventure, he has a right to complain. But in normal circumstances, he has to accept the limitations of his special effect in the same way that the sonic person does.

[Demonsong]

What about the wounded hostage that he saved and threw over his shoulder to carry to safety. What about the lap top computer, duffel bag full of top secret files, or the new supper high tech what’s-it that he took back for the bad guys that he is now carrying in his left arm/hand. He can’t very well leave any of those thing behind as he fights his way out of the enemy installation, collapsing building, or underground complex. Basically what I am saying it that with out the limitation the character can always fire the bow one handed, end of story. Even if he/she is hanging from a ladder with one hand, holding on to something or carrying a wounded civilian. Personally I would considerate it a bigger limitation than most people are talking about. That’s how I would read it as a player or a GM. But I am not totally inflexible. I can see -1/4 instead of -1/2 but I would think that the player would still be entitled to a good amount of leeway if they were forced in to a lesser limitation amount.

[Gary]

How many of those situations crop up in a typical campaign? And how many of them can't be compensated for by creative roleplaying, such as the Archer slinging the duffel bag or laptop in the air, firing, and then catching it when it comes down? I would allow that maneuver if the character took a -0, but disallow it if the character took a -1/4 or greater.

 

A good deal of the standard -1/2 limitation is because of inability to use a shield. This does not apply in a superheroic campaign. A good chunk is due to the effects on Str Minimums. This also does not apply in a superheroic campaign. What's left IMO is worth a -0. And if the player insisted on more, he'll have more problems in play than if he took a -0. You gets what you pays for.