Archery Full Round Attack

[Jackinthegreen]

The basis for a character being able to make two attacks with two weapons is that they hit at the same time essentially. Swinging twice with a single weapon takes longer than making a swing each with two weapons.

 

[Water Bob]

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.

Ah, I see. I've found another of those little differences in D&D and the d20 Conan game as the penalties in Conan are different.

 

[Greenfield]

Hmm. Sorry.

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

Okay, now I'm officially confused.

Up until now your argument has been that a bow should get two attacks as a base because it's held in two hands. You compares it to fighting with two weapons, even though it's only one.

When asked about other two handed weapons, you argued that they too should get the extra attack, for the same reason.

At least, that's what I've been getting. Have I been misreading you all this time?

So let's recap, and you can tell me where I've gone wrong

A) You think that a Bow and Arrow should get two attacks, because it's held in two hands.
B) When asked, you said that it was comparable to two weapon fighting.
C) When asked, you said that other weapons should get extra attacks if they're held in two hands.
D) When given the specific comparison of Claymore (2 handed) to Rapier (1 handed), you ???

Did I miss anything in the evolution of this topic? Did I get something wrong?

And for the record: I used to LARP for a bit, but got turned off by some bad experiences. I work at the local Ren Faire when its in season. I fenced in college, and did some stage fencing as well. I'm in my 50s, so it's been a long time since college.







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.







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?)







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).[/QUOTE]

 

[Water Bob]

Okay, now I'm officially confused.

You're starting to confuse me!

Up until now your argument has been that a bow should get two attacks as a base because it's held in two hands. You compares it to fighting with two weapons, even though it's only one.

Not quite. My argument is: If a 1st level fighter can get off two attacks because he's wielding two weapons, it seems logical that a 1st level bowman could also easily get off two attacks.

And, if a 1st level fighter can throw two hand axes, there should be more than enough time in a round for a 1st level archer to also get off two attacks.

So let's recap, and you can tell me where I've gone wrong

OK.

A) You think that a Bow and Arrow should get two attacks, because it's held in two hands.

Not quite. See above.

B) When asked, you said that it was comparable to two weapon fighting.

Also see above.

C) When asked, you said that other weapons should get extra attacks if they're held in two hands.

You lost me here. What do you think I said?

D) When given the specific comparison of Claymore (2 handed) to Rapier (1 handed), you ???

I picked the quicker weapon, the rapier.

 

[domino]

Not quite. My argument is: If a 1st level fighter can get off two attacks because he's wielding two weapons, it seems logical that a 1st level bowman could also easily get off two attacks.

Except the 1st level bowman is only weilding one weapon.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, a bit of thread history:

I was talking about using a full-round for to shots at 1st level, citing that a person can take two attacks with a weapon in each hand at 1st level, so why not allow a bow to do something similar.

You were comparing two weapon fighting with double use of a single weapon. Apples and oranges.

A 1st level fighter can get two attacks in a round (with penalties) if he uses two weapons.

A bow and arrow is a single weapon that takes two hands to use. Completely different thing. Okay? Same for comparing it to a pair of thrown weapons.

If you want to throw both your bow and your arrow in the same round, I'd allow it. But to use them as intended, they are a single weapon (not separate weapons in each hand), and thus get a single attack.

Would you let a level 1 character swing a sword twice in a round?

Yes, if he had one in both hands.

This is where it began to look like you were saying two handed weapons should get more attacks. I asked you to clarify if you were talking about a blade in each hand, rather and a blade in both hands.

You didn't respond to me, but when Domino asked...

What if he had only one sword, but was holding it with both hands? You'd let him swing it twice in one action?

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.

So you didn't make it any clearer, saying that you wouldn't allow the two handed sword to get two attacks, but then referred to it as a "rub" (i.e. problem) because the rules don't allow it. Then you argued that a single weapon should get as many attacks as a weapon in each hand.

You see why I'm confused? You say something, then immediately turn around and imply that you don't agree with your own statement.

So next I asked...

Water Bob, do you believe that a Claymore (2 handed Scottish greatsword) should be quicker than a Rapier (one handed French dueling sword)?

Yes

Which you reversed when I questioned the apparent insanity of this reply.

Now I can appreciate an evolving position as the result of input from friends on the forum and thought. Learning is a good thing.

So I'll ask: Do you still believe that a single weapon, whether held in one hand or two, should get as many attacks as having two weapons, one in each hand?

(Note: A bow and arrow are the two pieces of a single weapon, held in two hands. Neither is very effective without the other.)

 

[Water Bob]

Except the 1st level bowman is only weilding one weapon.

You were comparing two weapon fighting with double use of a single weapon. Apples and oranges.

Guys, all I'm saying is this: If a 1st level fighter, even with penalties, can throw two hand axes, then it should be possible for an archer to nock, aim, and loose two arrows in one round.

It's nothing more complicated than that.

As for the apples and oranges, thing--not really. Think of the hand axe as the ammo and the arm as the launching mechanism, just like the arrow and the bow.

 

[Greenfield]

Well, if you can hold and use two bows, as launching mechanisms, at the same time, then it's a fair comparison to using two arms as launching mechanisms to throw axes.

You see the wall you keep hitting? You're comparing a double-weapon attack to a single weapon attack, and asking why they aren't the same. The answer is pretty obvious from the question itself.

There was a video linked in another thread (mounted archery, I think it was) that showed what was essentially the world's top expert at rapid fire archery, and he was averaging 1.5 seconds per shot, mounted or on foot, accurately, at moving targets. (17 seconds for 12 shots, or 10 seconds for 6 shots mounted.)

That's a top rate of fire of 4 per round, in D&D terms, and absolutely falls in line with the D&D multiple attack progression. 1 at 1st level, 2 at 6th, 3 at 11th, and 4 at 16th. After that you're talking epic.

So the D&D progression actually seems to line up pretty well with reality. It's also fair and balanced as far as rules of play go. Throwing axes do a single D6 + Strength, with a range mod of 30 feet, if I recall right, and you take TWF penalties for throwing 2. Strength damage is halved for the second shot. Arrows do a D8, regardless of strength (lacking specially made bow) with a range mod of 110.

You can take the Rapid Shot feat if you like to get that extra "twang" in your life (with penalties), and as a DM you can make it as common as you like, just as you can spend a feat on TWF. (Swinging/throwing twice without that feat will typically result in a damage output of zero at 1st level.)

And when you compare the two feats, Rapid Shot is much better. The penalties are smaller.

Now if you were in my game and wanted to have your 1st level archer take two shots per round, at untrained-TWF penalties, I'd probably let you. I doubt you'd waste more than a few arrows on that trick though, since you pretty much won't hit anything but the ground.

 

[kitcik]

How about a "double bow" that fires two arrows at once?

}}

 

[Jimlock]

How about a "double bow" that fires two arrows at once?

}}

How about this guy carrying two bows? }}