Archery Full Round Attack

[Greenfield]

Bob I'm trying to take you seriously here, but it's getting hard.

You honestly think a heavy 5 foot long two handed blade is quicker to maneuver than a light 3 foot long one handed blade is?

Have you ever seen the film Rob Roy? There's a duel scene in there that highlights the difference magnificently. The quick, slashing speed of the light blade cut the Claymore wielder to pieces.

I've fenced and I've LARPed. In LARPS, where all the weapons were overly long and made of foam, the "short" blades (5 to 6 feet long) were still quicker than the "great swords" (7 feet plus in length).

In real life, the trade off was that the light blades were all but useless against heavier armor, but were lightning quick. When gunpowder made the heavy armors obsolete, the light quick blades came into their own.

D&D doesn't really account for that, unless you use the old 1st Ed "Weapon vs Armor" tables, which were insane. In terms of blade speed though, I'll take the Rapier every time.

2 hands adds to power, not to maneuverability.

 

[Dandu]

I must point out that the number of attacks/round a character makes is not indicative of the total number of attacks that occur in a round. Characters are constantly parrying back and forth; the attack rolls a fighter makes only indicate how many of his attacks get to hit.

Or something like that. I think that's what the PHB says about combat paraphrased. If someone could find a more accurate description that'd be nice.

 

[the Jester]

The rules are clear here, right? Are you asking if there's a house rule you should adopt? No, probably not. If someone wants to make multiple shots in a round, they need to take a feat- Rapid Shot- or have a high enough BAB. If he doesn't, he doesn't have the skills to fire off shots quickly enough to have any chance of accuracy.

No, I do not at all think any of the examples you've used mean that the bow guy needs 2 shots/round.

"But I can move and shoot!" So what? Shooting takes longer than moving.

"But the two-weapon guy can..." either invest a ton of feats of lose any realistic chance of hitting.

"But a skilled guy..." represents someone with a decent BAB (like, +6) OR someone with a feat (Rapid Shot).

The question you need to ask is: Should JUST ANYONE be able to launch arrows accurately more than once per round? My answer is NO; only skilled archers should.

 

[kitcik]

I've fenced and I've LARPed.

I didn't want anyone to miss this peak into the secret RL of our friend Greenfield.

I never pictured you as a LARPer.

Hold on a sec while I recalibrate...

...

OK, now I see you as a Renaissance Faire guy - true?

I enjoy the one in Tuxedo Ridge although my wife hates it (she does game) so I rarely go.

 

[Water Bob]

Bob I'm trying to take you seriously here, but it's getting hard.

Hmm. Sorry.

You honestly think a heavy 5 foot long two handed blade is quicker to maneuver than a light 3 foot long one handed blade is?

Did I read the earlier question wrong? I think the two handed Scottish blade is slower than the foil.

D&D doesn't really account for that, unless you use the old 1st Ed "Weapon vs Armor" tables, which were insane.

I liked those rules, and I think they did a better job on them in 2E. I didn't think they were hard to manage once you figured how to use them correctly.

The modifiers in 2E were modifiers to AC. Thus, on your character sheet, you had an AC for slashing weapons, an AC for blunt weapons, and an AC for piercing weapons.

It was pretty easy to figure which one to use when you saw what weapon your opponent held .




And, to be honest, I'm not playing D&D 3.5 E now. I play the Conan RPG which has a different defense system where characters can Parry or Dodge blows--it's not an overriding AC.

The rules are clear here, right? Are you asking if there's a house rule you should adopt?

Yes, the rules are clear, and I wasn't asking for suggestions on a House Rule.

I was simply setting up a thread to discuss if the rule was a good one or not.

Like the RAW flanking rule. That's a bit "gamey" don't you think? It seems like a rule that lends itself more to a miniature wargame than to an rpg game where some sort of "realism" believability must be maintained.

So....I questioned the rule on firing bows. Good rule? Or, bad rule? (Or...necessary rule for game balance?)

No, I do not at all think any of the examples you've used mean that the bow guy needs 2 shots/round.

I do find it odd that a 1st level character can throw two handaxes in a round, by RAW, but as an archer, he can't let loose two arrows in the same round (even with penalties).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm learning 3.5 E, and I'm just questioning rules. If something doesn't make sense to me, I question it. I sure as heck know my players will question them. And, I need answers when they do.

And to me this is an excellent opportunity to see the 3e rules afresh through "virgin" eyes. Many of the rules you are questioning are things my group dealt with a decade ago however, some of the stuff you are questioning is getting me thinking and I appreciate that, even if there is a small group on these boards who for reasons best kept to themselves does not.

I do find it odd that a 1st level character can throw two handaxes in a round, by RAW, but as an archer, he can't let loose two arrows in the same round (even with penalties).

I think your question in regards to the bow is an interesting one as it would seem to be the only ranged weapon where this cannot be done (even a sling in each hand would seem enough to get two bullets off). You can even attack twice with a greatsword in a round if your opponent gives you the "opportunity". Your idea of a -5/-5 (I would suggest -6/-10 so as to follow the same guidelines as twf) penalty as a general use of a rapid shot action makes a lot of sense. I suppose since it is so specific (applying to a single group of two handed ranged weapons), the creators thought not to worry. However, because rapid shot is fairly selective (Dex 13 and the Point Blank Shot feat), I think it should actually be there in the rules, even if -6/-10 is so strong a penalty that it overtly discourages it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Water Bob]

Your idea of a -5/-5 (I would suggest -6/-10 so as to follow the same guidelines as twf) penalty as a general use of a rapid shot action makes a lot of sense.

That wasn't my idea but suggested by another poster. It is a good food for thought.

And...aren't the base penalties for twf -6/-6?

 

[the Jester]

Bear in mind that the -6/-10 makes two-weapon fighting essentially useless at 1st level- your accuracy is very low. If you spend feats to offset this- isn't it just like taking Rapid Shot? (and its prereq- PB Shot IIRC?)

Once you add game balance in as a factor you also have to consider the (vastly superior) range of the bow.

Yes, I think the rules handle it well as is. Giving archers an extra shot without a cost would indeed be broken IMHO; and there already exists a way to do it with a cost.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

That wasn't my idea but suggested by another poster. It is a good food for thought.

And...aren't the base penalties for twf -6/-6?

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat specifically says it's -6/-10. Feats :: d20srd.org

If the OH weapon is light, then the penalties are reduced to -4/-8.

 

[domino]

No. And, that's the rub, isn't it? The rules don't allow it.

If a 1st level character can swing with a short sword and dagger in the first round I think he should be able to swing twice if he's only holding one dagger.

Or, get this: Legally, if a 1st level character is holding a handaxe in each hand, he can throw both in a single round.

He can throw both in a single round! Doesn't it stand to reason that an archer should be able to let loose two arrows in the same amount of time?

No, because the character with the handaxes is throwing one axe out of each hand. It only takes one hand to make those attacks. But there's no way to argue for shooting an arrow from a bow with one hand in the same way that an axe can be thrown from one hand.