Hunting Needs to be Changed, Bows Especially.

[OrangFriut]

Here is the (median) amount of juice you'll be able to get out of every ingot/stone you can turn into either spearheads or arrows. This isn't taking into account that spears take damage on failed throws or the likelihood that you'll completely lose an arrow (quite likely), because both of these factors would just be a matter of 'gittin gud'.

Anyways, hunting as it is, is dismal. I really do enjoy this game, but the simple fact of the matter is, I should not have to equip the special Hunter Class, create my Class-Exclusive Best-Bow-In-The-Game, and hammer out Bronze Arrowheads, to achieve what can be done in 30 seconds using a Flint Spear! Bows and Arrows are more expensive, do less damage, and they break or get lost far faster than spears. This isn't even to say that Spears are overpowered, because they're also very under powered compared to their real-life counterpart.

I love Vintage Story for its immersion and the emphasis on reality as a main component of the game, even when it comes at the cost of convenience for the player. But it seems when hunting and weapons are concerned, reality is sidelined because it may actually prove convenient for the player! In reality, you can observe modern bow-hunters are able to easily kill an ELK with a single shot to the chest, and even historically Native Americans made their livelihoods hunting massive drives of BISON with nothing but a humble stone tip on a wooden shaft. Despite this fact, a copper arrow from a Longbow, directly into the chest of a small hare, will leave it alive to run off into the brush and be basically untraceable for someone with poor eyesight like myself. 

The Spear does not have this problem. Whilst it is a bit of a hassle to get close, and its not super accurate, all of this is balanced by the higher burst damage. With the massive amount of shrubs and grass obscuring vision, blocky terrain, and erratic movement, landing another hit on your prey after you've alerted it is very much a game of chance. Being able to kill in one hit is the difference between getting the food and it being essentially lost forever, which is why I will ALWAYS prefer the spear. Not to mention, most larger animals will become aggressive when provoked, in this situation, not only is the spear a MELEE weapon too, you can throw it from up-close very easily to deal huge amounts of damage whilst kiting, making it better for hunting Moose or Oxen.

Now, I understand the balancing implications that remedying this would have. An Elk has 30 health, and making the bow kill it in one hit would easily make it overpowered (not necessarily what I want, the Elk is large and should probably survive 2-3). This is why I believe that lethality should generally be increased across the board by lowering the health of the player and the NPCs, particularly the animals, you can even add some difficult by the actual temporal creatures maintaining a higher health pool. This not-only gives the game more of a realistic and rewarding feel (one-shot one-kill is objectively more gratifying than twenty-panicked-shots-whilst-running one-kill) but also incentivizes players wearing armor and playing smart to avoid danger instead of just charging head-first into danger. This applying to the player as well would also prevent you from being OP in comparison to the animals, because just as a single bow shot can kill an Elk, the swipe of a 600lbs Brown-Bear's Razor-Tipped Claws can DEFINITELY kill a person, if not knock them down and allow them to maul them to death.

Overall, I desperately want to enjoy this game and live as the town's Hunter, but the crux of my entire class and playstyle is hamstrung by poor balancing decisions.

Now, I've seen about three other threads about this, or something similar, so here is the FAQ for the points I've seen raised against it, mostly by one person.

"Arrows can stack to 64, 1 Bow & 64 Arrows > 2 Spears"
>Why would I ever make 64 arrows when I could craft 7 Spears that will deal more damage and last 6x longer than the equivalent metal cost for arrows? I have never had inventory problems in my time being a hunter that could not be solved by tossing out crap I picked up or just... returning to town and then going back out...

"Theres already a weapon that drops Rabbits and Chickens in one hit, the Spear"
>Kinda the point, innit?

"It would make hunting too easy"
>Current hunting is not difficult from any position of skill, it is merely frustrating. Hunting with a recurve bow and steel arrows after a real-time week on a server is exactly the same difficulty as hunting with a flint spear 10 minutes in. You cannot simply 'aim better' because the spread is defined by RNG and the movement of the animals is completely erratic and unpredictable, its just a matter of following it until it sits down and lobbing whatever you have in its direction, scaring it off, and then doing it again. The only exception to this is herding animals into pits or lakes to make it easier, which I consider to be a gimmick that is only necessary because hunting is so poorly handled. You could make animals more aggressive/territorial, you could make them rarer, whatever you want to make it harder would be fine, but right now hunting is just a slog.

"It would disincentivize livestock"
>Once again, you can make the actual wild animals rarer if you want, but I don't think that even matters. If the only reason people do livestock is because hunting is so unbearably annoying to do, then thats a problem that should be fixed. Hunting as a mechanic should be fun, and the reason people switch to animal husbandry should be for its benefits, not to escape having to hunt. Secondly, Hunters existed for a LONG LONG LONG time past the advent of livestock rearing, in fact, they're still around today, therefore you should be able to subsist off of hunting, rather than have it entirely replaced by livestock.

"You can just kite with a spear"
>See 2. I'll expand on this one past just the spear argument. I don't want to have to work around mechanics. I don't want to kite animals and throw spears behind me. I don't want to corral them into a pit and throw rocks at them. I don't want to do a gimmick or play whats 'optimal' or 'meta', I want things that are historically viable and fun. When I choose the Hunter class, I want to go out and HUNT. I want to go in the bushes and snipe a deer with my super-cool recurve bow and watch it fall down, one-shot one-kill. Instead, it is most optimal for me to just throw around 7-8 flint spears at whatever I feel like, regardless of the server's game progression, this sucks.

[MKMoose]

Some of this is being being adjusted in 1.22 (but more changes are likely to come before it hits stable):

• spear damage when thrown has been reduced quite significantly,
• spear windup time has been increased twice, and the time to achieve full accuracy increased thrice,
• ferrous spears have been adde added,
• the health of several small animals has been reduced (foxes and raccoons from 6 to 5, rabbits from 5 to 3, chickens from 3 to 2.5),
• quenching is being added, but arrowheads currently can't be quenched and so don't get free buffs - whether that's an oversight or a deliberate choice remains to be seen.

These are the changes to spear damage, to be specific:

damageByType: {
	"*-granite": 2.5 (4 on the current stable), // only one-taps chickens and small fish
	"*-flint": 3.25 (5), // one-taps hares
	"*-copper": 4.25 (5.75), // one-taps some medium fish
	"*-tinbronze": 5.25 (7.5), // one-taps foxes and raccoons, 3-taps pigs and wolves
  	"*-iron": 6 (8.25), // one-taps pudu deer and some medium-large fish
  	"*-meteoriciron": 6.1, // two-taps T0 drifters
  	"*-steel": 6.2 // no notable breakpoints
},

 

2 hours ago, OrangFriut said:

In reality, you can observe modern bow-hunters are able to easily kill an ELK with a single shot to the chest, and even historically Native Americans made their livelihoods hunting massive drives of BISON with nothing but a humble stone tip on a wooden shaft.

Do keep in mind that modern compound bows are leagues ahead of anything that we have available in the game.

 

2 hours ago, OrangFriut said:

When I choose the Hunter class, I want to go out and HUNT. I want to go in the bushes and snipe a deer with my super-cool recurve bow and watch it fall down, one-shot one-kill.

It is extremely unlikely that a deer will just "fall down" after getting hit. One-tapping a deer is something I would like to see as well, but if that's the case, then I expect to also have to (in most cases) follow the blood trail from the hit location to the body, in many cases 50+ m away. And that's primarily for arrows that hit the heart or lungs. Instant collapse is technically possible, especially on a hit to the brain or spinal cord, but it's rare in practice.

 

2 hours ago, OrangFriut said:

Now, I understand the balancing implications that remedying this would have. An Elk has 30 health, and making the bow kill it in one hit would easily make it overpowered (not necessarily what I want, the Elk is large and should probably survive 2-3). This is why I believe that lethality should generally be increased across the board by lowering the health of the player and the NPCs, particularly the animals, you can even add some difficult by the actual temporal creatures maintaining a higher health pool. This not-only gives the game more of a realistic and rewarding feel (one-shot one-kill is objectively more gratifying than twenty-panicked-shots-whilst-running one-kill) but also incentivizes players wearing armor and playing smart to avoid danger instead of just charging head-first into danger. This applying to the player as well would also prevent you from being OP in comparison to the animals, because just as a single bow shot can kill an Elk, the swipe of a 600lbs Brown-Bear's Razor-Tipped Claws can DEFINITELY kill a person, if not knock them down and allow them to maul them to death.

Overall, hunting broadly encompasses a bunch of older, low-level mechanics in the game, which have seen a lot of improvement over the years, but regardles I think they seem to be in the recent months receiving increasing attention as deserving of an overhaul. I'm not sure whether there are any good consolidated threads on any of it, and everything is kind of scattered all over.

Hunting itself basically just gets a range of the same ideas thrown at it semi-regularly :

• improved hitboxes, ideally with localized hit detection for vital organs,
• improved awareness mechanics for animals (line of sight, hearing, potentially smell),
• improved animal pathfinding and behavior,
• bleeding and various kinds of injuries (presumably implemented through a status effect system; the Blood Trail mod is frequently brought up at this point) - the primary way to increase lethality across the board without an excess of immediate one-tap kills, under which your suggestion would fall in quite neatly; this is also probably the most likely to get implemented in the relatively short term,
• deeper, more mechanically involved aiming system.

To avoid excessive reiterating of the same topics and to avoid making this into a whole essay, I'm gonna just point to another thread where similar issues have been discussed (there's also this, you've probably read a couple of them), as well as plug my own suggestions to implement butchering (this could also serve as a balance lever for livestock against hunting) and improve ranged weapons (mainly focusing on aiming) which I feel would be greatly beneficial for the game.

Unfortunately, most of those don't seem to be a significant priority and it's very unlikely that anything in this category beyond the spear rebalance will be squeezed into 1.22.

Edited February 25 by MKMoose

[LadyWYT]

I don't disagree that hunting could be made better, however, I don't think we'll see significant changes to hunting until the status effect system arrives, since such a system is what's required to do things like cripple a target or inflict bleeds and other serious injury. I'll also note that if it's possible to drop large animals with a single shot, then it will be necessary for wildlife to become harder to find in order to keep things balanced and give players more incentive to invest in livestock. Same goes for increasing yields from hunted animals. Otherwise, hunting would end up too strong and fewer players would bother investing in livestock(of which there are already several players that don't bother with livestock due to hunting being an easier way to acquire most of the same products).

The other issue is that with creatures being harder to find but more satisfying to hunt, the world may end up feeling emptier since there's not as much wildlife to encounter regularly.

19 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

Some of this is being being adjusted in 1.22 (but more changes are likely to come before it hits stable):

• spear damage when thrown has been reduced quite significantly,
• spear windup time has been increased twice, and the time to achieve full accuracy increased thrice,
• ferrous spears have been adde added,
• the health of several small animals has been reduced (foxes and raccoons from 6 to 5, rabbits from 5 to 3, chickens from 3 to 2.5),
• quenching is being added, but arrowheads currently can't be quenched and so don't get free buffs - whether that's an oversight or a deliberate choice remains to be seen.

This too, with the change to windup time being the most significant, I feel. It changes the spear from the obvious "everytime" pick to a jack of all trades, but master of none. That is,t he spear is a solid general-purpose weapon, but it will be outclassed by the bow for ranged damage and outclassed by the falx for melee. The main strengths of the spear in 1.22 are the longer poke range in melee, and the ability to soften up a target at range before it can close the distance to engage in melee.

[Thorfinn]

The other thing that is being not sufficiently considered is the effect on seraphs. Boars, wolves, bears, etc. have to become substantially more dangerous if they are also one- or two-tap. I do not see that as being overwhelming popular. But if you don't make them more deadly, VS becomes even more of a cozy. It needs to retain some element of danger to keep it interesting.

 

Edited February 26 by Thorfinn

[MKMoose]

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The other issue is that with creatures being harder to find but more satisfying to hunt, the world may end up feeling emptier since there's not as much wildlife to encounter regularly.

I don't personally think that's an issue. Everything depends on exact implementation, of course, so it could end up being an issue, but the main way to make hunting more difficult and satisfying is not to make animals less common, but to make them better at evading and escaping the player. Making animals less common could actually make hunting less satisfying, because too much focus would be placed on searching and not enough on actually hunting, making the whole process more tedious and boring as well as forcing the hunting itself to be easier.

If animals had increased awareness to make them bolt from upwards of 50 m away when they hear the seraph, as well as improved pathfinding if only to avoid jumping into pits, then an unskilled hunter would struggle to kill anything even if the world was absolutely filled with animals. In this case, even a skilled hunter would need to go through the process of finding an animal, approaching it quietly, hitting it, and then following the blood trail - a much more time-consuming process than we have now, serving to balance hunting independently of animal frequency, and also creating plenty of incentive for livestock which can provide more continuous products (milk and eggs), or be killed quickly and easily on the spot for meat.

 

5 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

The other thing that is being not sufficiently considered is the effect on seraphs. Boars, wolves, bears, etc. have to become substantially more dangerous if they are also one- or two-tap.

I personally take that as a given whenever a status effect system gets implemented, and it seems to have been mentioned by the OP, though I cannot guess how the devs will go about it. Bleeding and injuries are a very intuitive way to increase lethality of combat both ways without an excess of annoying, unsalvageable one-taps. Moment-to-moment combat would still lilkely end up easier, but having a supply of bandages and other healing items would be much more critical for survival than it is now.

[LadyWYT]

6 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Moment-to-moment combat would still lilkely end up easier, but having a supply of bandages and other healing items would be much more critical for survival than it is now.

Given my experiences in modded Skyrim with this kind of thing, I don't know that I would call combat easier, as much as I would more intense. It's easier in the sense that the player can end enemies or otherwise bully them into submission quickly with well-timed attacks or raw brute force, but the combat also ends up more lethal for the player since all it takes is one miscalculation to suffer an injury that changes the tide of battle entirely.

I will note that usually such situations are survivable unless the opponent is very strong, but you are right in that it's critical to have some sort of first aid kit to treat injuries sustained in the fight. Said injuries also take a while to heal, so the player will likely need to take a couple days to recover before they go delving back into a dangerous situation again.

[Thorfinn]

6 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Bleeding and injuries are a very intuitive way to increase lethality of combat both ways without an excess of annoying, unsalvageable one-taps.

Could be, so long as the effects are not quickly remedied. You can stanch the bleeding, yes, but you will not have use of that arm for at least a few days. But if it's just apply a strip of willow bark or chew on a bit of Black Eyed Susan root and you are right as rain, the only way the experience has been changed IMO is that inventory management gets more tricky.

More realistic? Sure. More enjoyable...?

Edited February 26 by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

4 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

You can stanch the bleeding, yes, but you will not have use of that arm for at least a few days.

The way it works in my modded Skyrim is that the injury applies penalties to movement or character stats until it's healed. Bandages and other medical attention may be needed to prevent the injury from getting infected, or to speed up the healing process, or if the injury is particularly nasty--to allow it to heal at all. Splinting broken bones helps them heal faster and restores some of the character's movement, and drinking painkiller would further dull the effects of injuries for a time.

[Thorfinn]

But will that affect much of the core gameplay, @LadyWYT? Is your arm injury is going to make it so you can't hold a hammer in your injured hand and pound out a new sword? Or use a scythe? Crafting? Build your house? If it did, that would make hunting an even worse option, yes, but would be a "fair" trade for insta-kills.

Yes, I'm excited to see the status effects. But only if it makes your choices have consequences, and isn't just an excuse to suggest adding a medicine belt pouch..

[LadyWYT]

20 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

But will that affect much of the core gameplay, @LadyWYT? Is your arm injury is going to make it so you can't hold a hammer in your injured hand and pound out a new sword? Or use a scythe? Crafting? Build your house? If it did, that would make hunting an even worse option, yes, but would be a "fair" trade for insta-kills.

Yes, I'm excited to see the status effects. But only if it makes your choices have consequences, and isn't just an excuse to suggest adding a medicine belt pouch..

Potentially. The mod I have for Skyrim will absolutely stop the player from wielding weapons in the appropriate arm if the injuries are bad enough. The only way to get around it is to use magic, drink a potion to fix the injury, or otherwise brace the broken bones so your character can still function while the injury heals. It's rather brutal.

Personally, I enjoy such things, but I don't know that Vintage Story would necessarily go that far. I do expect some potentially brutal consequences, but perhaps nothing to the extent that the player is prevented from doing safe things like forging and building back at their base. I more expect that injuries will significantly impact movement speed and attack strength for a few days, meaning that while the player can still function they won't be able to effectively fight enemies or explore until they recover.

As for the medical kit, the reason the player would take one with them is to patch themselves up enough to get back to safety where they can make a full recovery. If the player falls in a hole and breaks a leg, they might be able to climb out just fine, but will probably want some painkiller to dull the pain, and probably won't be wanting to spend time searching for enough sticks to make a splint(especially if worried about enemies). Suffering a grievous flesh wound might result in a nasty bleed that will kill the player if not staunched.

The tricky part of the balancing to me, is more deciding what happens to the negative effects if the player dies. I would assume injuries just up and vanish, so the player can start over fresh, but that could lead to some potential mechanic abuse if players decide to just eat the death rather than bother with healing themselves.

[MKMoose]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

The tricky part of the balancing to me, is more deciding what happens to the negative effects if the player dies. I would assume injuries just up and vanish, so the player can start over fresh, but that could lead to some potential mechanic abuse if players decide to just eat the death rather than bother with healing themselves.

Death is probably the most difficult compenent of the system to balance appropriately. Dying can already be beneficial in certain contexts, at least in the early game. At the same time, applying penalties after death would not be met with applause. Some games like Project Zomboid fix it by giving the player a single life, and only allowing to respawn in the same world as a completely fresh character with no accumulated skills (or at least with partial skill loss), but that is completely inapplicable to VS with the current mechanics and lore.

[Thorfinn]

I was just thinking that if there were a dozen status effects, carrying the appropriate herbs or whatever is half your backpack space.

[ijkdenem]

 

21 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

I was just thinking that if there were a dozen status effects, carrying the appropriate herbs or whatever is half your backpack space.

 i too want herbs in the game. although i wanted herbs and spices for COOKING rather than MEDICAL but that would be great too.

[Bruno Willis]

On 2/26/2026 at 12:34 PM, MKMoose said:

Do keep in mind that modern compound bows are leagues ahead of anything that we have available in the game.

To be a bit nit-picky, they really aren't. Compound bows are more about taking the weight off your arms when they hit full draw than about adding power, (although they can do do that), so that people can hold them at full draw for longer and aim in the way you aim with a gun. Traditional recurve bows can be outrageously powerful too, and just as accurate, but people usually draw, aim, and fire in one motion so they don't have to hold the weight very long. For aiming, it's like the difference between chucking a stone and using a slingshot. 

On 2/26/2026 at 12:34 PM, MKMoose said:

It is extremely unlikely that a deer will just "fall down" after getting hit. One-tapping a deer is something I would like to see as well, but if that's the case, then I expect to also have to (in most cases) follow the blood trail from the hit location to the body, in many cases 50+ m away. And that's primarily for arrows that hit the heart or lungs. Instant collapse is technically possible, especially on a hit to the brain or spinal cord, but it's rare in practice.

I'd say it's more likely that an animal drops dead / incapacitated, or you have to follow a blood trail for a long way. Hunters usually aim for an area around the heart rather than the head or spine, I think especially with arrows? I would say, I'm pretty sure medieval hunting arrows are really nasty, designed to work their way deeper as an animal runs, so there'd definitely be a blood trail, and probably a body at the end of it. 

On 2/26/2026 at 10:29 AM, OrangFriut said:

(one-shot one-kill is objectively more gratifying than twenty-panicked-shots-whilst-running one-kill)

Yes. 

I'd love a little instant kill box on all the game animals, which I've written about in this thread here: 

 

[MKMoose]

12 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

To be a bit nit-picky, they really aren't. Compound bows are more about taking the weight off your arms when they hit full draw than about adding power, (although they can do do that), so that people can hold them at full draw for longer and aim in the way you aim with a gun. Traditional recurve bows can be outrageously powerful too, and just as accurate, but people usually draw, aim, and fire in one motion so they don't have to hold the weight very long. For aiming, it's like the difference between chucking a stone and using a slingshot. 

Kinda depends. Modern compound bows differ in much more than just ability to store energy, and the simplest advantage is higher efficiency. They typically use lighter arrows, which allows them to reach much greater velocity, and alongside let-off, stabilizers, sights as well as a couple other improvements it increases their accuracy, ease of use, and can more than double their effective range. Kinetic energy tends to be higher than traditional bows, though lower projectile mass can mean that the penetration ability isn't significantly improved. It may also be worth keeping in mind that hunting bows were generally lighter (~40-80 lb or so, modern ones still fall within this range) than those used in war or whatnot (typically ~100+ lb, sometimes upwards of ~150 lb). I'd be personally interested to eventually see in-game distinction between different draw weights, for a longbow at least. It could even be a nice way to differentiate classes in a more interesting way than blanket ranged changes.

 

25 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I'd say it's more likely that an animal drops dead / incapacitated, or you have to follow a blood trail for a long way. Hunters usually aim for an area around the heart rather than the head or spine, I think especially with arrows? I would say, I'm pretty sure medieval hunting arrows are really nasty, designed to work their way deeper as an animal runs, so there'd definitely be a blood trail, and probably a body at the end of it. 

As far as I know, even after a hit through the heart, the animal typically still has enough strength for short flight, at least enough to cover some 10-20 m. That should apply to deer at least - other, especially smaller animals may be incapacitated on the spot more easily.

As for aiming for the head or spine, that's typically not done simply due to how unreliable it tends to be, from what I've read, even though it can be very effective if it happens. It makes sense that they would just be much more difficult to hit than the heart or lungs, especially with an arrow and not a bullet.

[Bruno Willis]

22 hours ago, MKMoose said:

As far as I know, even after a hit through the heart, the animal typically still has enough strength for short flight, at least enough to cover some 10-20 m. That should apply to deer at least - other, especially smaller animals may be incapacitated on the spot more easily.

As for aiming for the head or spine, that's typically not done simply due to how unreliable it tends to be, from what I've read, even though it can be very effective if it happens. It makes sense that they would just be much more difficult to hit than the heart or lungs, especially with an arrow and not a bullet.

From my experience, I shot a deer in the head and it ran a good 40 meters before sitting down, still alive (it was a very distressing hunting experience), and I shot a deer above the heart, in that artery dense area, and it dropped immediately and rolled down the hill, dead (a much better hunting experience). 

As a hunter, the current hunting experience in VS is a bit stressful, because you really don't want to be wounding an animal, but not killing it. Once I've hit an animal in V.S. I chase it all over the place and try to finish it off, because it seems cruel to leave it mortally wounded. I know that's not how animal health works at the moment, but that's how it comes across to me. 

On 2/26/2026 at 10:00 PM, MKMoose said:

I don't personally think that's an issue. Everything depends on exact implementation, of course, so it could end up being an issue, but the main way to make hunting more difficult and satisfying is not to make animals less common, but to make them better at evading and escaping the player. Making animals less common could actually make hunting less satisfying, because too much focus would be placed on searching and not enough on actually hunting, making the whole process more tedious and boring as well as forcing the hunting itself to be easier.

If animals had increased awareness to make them bolt from upwards of 50 m away when they hear the seraph, as well as improved pathfinding if only to avoid jumping into pits, then an unskilled hunter would struggle to kill anything even if the world was absolutely filled with animals. In this case, even a skilled hunter would need to go through the process of finding an animal, approaching it quietly, hitting it, and then following the blood trail - a much more time-consuming process than we have now, serving to balance hunting independently of animal frequency, and also creating plenty of incentive for livestock which can provide more continuous products (milk and eggs), or be killed quickly and easily on the spot for meat.

I think these are good points: I'd love to see animals have a state between "calmly doing their thing" and "fleeing madly". Imagine if deer could hear you move through bushes, and would perk up, get alert, heads up, ears twitching, and they'd move off slowly towards denser forest. If you made another noise, then they'd bolt. 

I also think taking wind direction into animal's senses could be really cool. In real life, wind carries smell and sound, so if you're up wind of an animal, it will become aware of you quickly and move slowly out of the area. If you get downwind though, they can't really hear you that well, you can push through bush and move a bit faster without them noticing, and you can usually get into a better position. Obviously this would be a way cooler mechanic if wind direction could change in V.S. but I still think it could be cool. You'd think about terrain in a different way when hunting than when traveling, and you might feel more confident hunting when the wind was up a little. 

Actually, maybe decent winds should make projectiles less accurate, and animals keener to settle into sheltered spots.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

Hunting is already hard enough when you shoot an animal and it doesn't die so you chase it down only to find it met its end to a bear which ate half of it.

bows are fine the way they are. LOL