Archery Full Round Attack

[Arkhandus]

If a character can shoot his bow and move, he's basically firing the bow in 3 seconds and moving the other 3 seconds.

Or, if a character is limited to one standard action, which is half a round, he can fire his bow.

It stands to reason, logically, that a character could fire his bow twice in 6 seconds.

Yes, a reasonably well-trained archer could. But a green recruit (i.e. 1st-level or the like) who only barely knows how to use a bow properly is going to be relatively slow at loading, pulling, aiming, and firing the bow (especially if the target is moving, which any creature not immobilized, surprised, or helpless is automatically assumed to be doing, even if only within his or her individual 5-foot combat space).

If he trains enough (Rapid Shot feat or reaching 6th-level etc.), he'll get comfortable enough with the weapon to handle the whole process faster and smoother. And given the abstraction of rounds and turns, a standard action is more like 3-1/2 or 4 seconds, with a move action being roughly 2-1/2 seconds or so of the turn.

Also, note that attacks/round are somewhat abstract in D&D; the one attack per round with a standard action is the one "good" attack that actually has a chance of hitting something rather than just being a brief feint or set-up or the like. D&D combat is abstract, and always has been. Doesn't always make perfect sense, but there's a balance that needs to be struck between realism, game-balance, and practicality in game mechanics.

If you want to just do away with the normal action-limits per round as a houserule, that's your prerogative when DMing. But if you allow 2 standard actions per round, then combats are going to get a lot quicker and deadlier for PCs and NPCs alike (plus, it'll make the extra attack from a +6 BAB on full-attack actions worthless, unless you decide to have full-attacks at +6 BAB and higher simply add on to the 2 regular attacks per round that would be doable with 2 standard actions in the same round).

When the orc barbarian closes in on your buddy's rogue, that rogue is gonna die twice as quick and quite possibly before the party's cleric can heal him enough (though with 2 standard actions allowed per round, at least the cleric could then cast 2 Cure spells per round, if the rogue survives the barbarian's double-attacks long enough for the cleric to get there and start double-casting). And when the dark elf wizard starts flinging Fireballs at your party, he's gonna fling a double-whammy for 10d6 total fire damage to the entire party instead of 5d6 on the first round, before the party cleric can try damage-control with Cures and before the party's own wizard has time to down a Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds to save himself. And that ogre's gonna bash the party fighter twice as rapidly.

While the PCs will also be more dangerous with two standard actions per round, they'll also have to rest twice as often and twice as soon, because of all the damage they'll be taking and all the daily spells etc. they'll use up in each fight. Initiative becomes more important, and whoever wins initiative is likely to win the fight then, given the double-casting or double-attacking they'll be able to do. Normally this is an issue that only comes up at high levels, but at least then casters are limited by the limitations and drawbacks of Quicken Spell etc.

 

[Water Bob]

Yes, a reasonably well-trained archer could. But a green recruit (i.e. 1st-level or the like) who only barely knows how to use a bow properly is going to be relatively slow at loading, pulling, aiming, and firing the bow (especially if the target is moving, which any creature not immobilized, surprised, or helpless is automatically assumed to be doing, even if only within his or her individual 5-foot combat space).

Fine. But, per the rules, it's impossible. That's all I'm questioning. It seems more logical, to me, that a 1st level archer be allowed two shots using the standard two-weapon penalties.

And, further, I think it logical that a 1st level fighter, using a longsword, should get two attacks using the standard two-weapon penalties, as well. You could probably cut this one off at the one-handed weapons, though (and I'd make the penalty so high that it wouldn't be worth it).

Heck, maybe that's what the game designers were thinking and decided not to include the rule since the penalty was so steep anyway (-10 per blow?).

 

[anest1s]

Fine. But, per the rules, it's impossible. That's all I'm questioning. It seems more logical, to me, that a 1st level archer be allowed two shots using the standard two-weapon penalties.

And, further, I think it logical that a 1st level fighter, using a longsword, should get two attacks using the standard two-weapon penalties, as well. You could probably cut this one off at the one-handed weapons, though (and I'd make the penalty so high that it wouldn't be worth it).

Heck, maybe that's what the game designers were thinking and decided not to include the rule since the penalty was so steep anyway (-10 per blow?).

Ok. I just don't get it.

Half the threads you open are about how to make some rules more realistic, even if it possibly hurts balance.

The other half is how to change realistic rules because if we consider them as numbers it looks ok (balanced) to change them (and maybe they are).

Both are ok, but just what do you want more? You confuse me.

 

[Water Bob]

Both are ok, but just what do you want more? You confuse me.

What confuses me is why people consistently think that I want something particular with these threads.

I have a questioning mind. I'm new to the 3.5 game. I'm questioning the rules.

It's nothing more sinister than that.

I'm just looking for discussion on why a rule is the way it is. This leads to better understanding of the rule.

Many people assume that my game is a miss-mash of House Rules. I'm using exactly one House Rule in my game (and that's a simple die throw to occasionally change nonlethal damage to lethal damage because I think it should be possible to beat somebody to death).

All other rules I use are completely by the book, RAW.

This forum is a place to discuss all things RPG. I start threads to discuss rules.

Why is that confusing?





EDIT: Forget rules for a moment. Picture two warriors out in a field. One has two hand axes, one in each hand, throwing at a tree. The other has a bow with two arrows in his quiver. The warrior with the hand axes is as skilled with his axes as the archer is with is bow.

Range for each warrior is proportional to the weapon (that is, it's longer to the archer's tree than it is to the tree for the axeman).

The question is: Is it likely that both warriors can hit their targets about the same amount of times given an hour throwing/shooting?

The game says that the archer will hit about half as often as the axeman.

Is that a good rule? Does that reflect reality? I'm not so sure.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I start threads to discuss rules.

Why is that confusing?

Discussion? Here? Preposterous. You MUST have an agenda.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Greenfield]

Bob, what's confusing is your posting style. You write something that could be taken several ways, but when someone asks you to clarify, you either don't answer, or write another post that's as ambiguous as the original. You also mix messages a lot. (See the examples I cited in my last post.)

Why don't you simply answer the questions asked, the way they are asked?

Back on topic: A single weapon fighter gets to use a shield. The two weapon fighter trades off that extra defense for extra offense. It's a choice, a trade off, but one offered with game balance in mind.

In terms of game balance, it works. In terms of realism, it sort of works. Fencing "Florentine style" was done with a long blade in one hand, and a main gouche (spike dagger) in the other, used both as a weapon and as a parrying implement.

What you're proposing for the swordsman is that he get both advantages at the same time, the AC boost of the shield and the multiple attacks of TWF. Breaks balance, and doesn't come close to anything realistic. I mean, there's no mechanical reason why someone should suddenly be able to swing a single blade in anything resembling the aforementioned Florentine style, where one blade engages and creates the opening for the other. It really makes no sense, either in terms of game balance or realism.

Perhaps a Riposte' feat that allows a secondary attack using the same penalty formula as Rapid Shot? Of course the prerequisites would have to change. Light blade required, a stat minimum, and probably Weapons Expertise with the light blade in question. That would be fairly balanced, I'd think. It would certainly make the Rapier a bit more desirable as a weapon choice again.

For the archer, there is the Rapid Shot feat that already fills this role. You want to do that? Take the feat, and the whole argument disappears. Simple enough?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

For the archer, there is the Rapid Shot feat that already fills this role. You want to do that? Take the feat, and the whole argument disappears. Simple enough?

Actually no. Bob's point is that anyone could fire two arrows regardless of skill albeit that they're not going to be that great. Following how feats work, the rapid shot feat should then reduce the penalties.

The deeper issue here is the division between what is a "general" skill and what is one that requires specific training or natural skill. I agree that rapid shot could be something done at a -6/-10 penalty with the actual feat reducing this to the common -2. The thing is that the feat is not easy or automatic to get. As written, it is a specialized skill - and Water Bob does not think it should be. I think it a valid point.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[anest1s]

Why is that confusing?

Hmm...ok

EDIT: Forget rules for a moment. Picture two warriors out in a field. One has two hand axes, one in each hand, throwing at a tree. The other has a bow with two arrows in his quiver. The warrior with the hand axes is as skilled with his axes as the archer is with is bow.

Range for each warrior is proportional to the weapon (that is, it's longer to the archer's tree than it is to the tree for the axeman).

The question is: Is it likely that both warriors can hit their targets about the same amount of times given an hour throwing/shooting?

The game says that the archer will hit about half as often as the axeman.

Is that a good rule? Does that reflect reality? I'm not so sure.

It depends on how far away they are. Hand axe has a 10ft range, with -4 and -4 already in place. At 30 ft, both hand axes attack with -10, while a shortbow can shoot without any penalty at 60ft (which is also 10ft more than the max distance you can throw a hand axe)

edit:Yeah I noticed that you put them in different distance. But I don't think its fair to ignore it.

 

[Greenfield]

EDIT: Forget rules for a moment. Picture two warriors out in a field. One has two hand axes, one in each hand, throwing at a tree. The other has a bow with two arrows in his quiver. The warrior with the hand axes is as skilled with his axes as the archer is with is bow.

Range for each warrior is proportional to the weapon (that is, it's longer to the archer's tree than it is to the tree for the axeman).

The question is: Is it likely that both warriors can hit their targets about the same amount of times given an hour throwing/shooting?

The game says that the archer will hit about half as often as the axeman.

Is that a good rule? Does that reflect reality? I'm not so sure.

Could you run some numbers on that for me?

To me it looks like the archer will hit more often. He isn't paying two-weapon fighting penalties.

Let's see... Say the tree is a base AC10, give it two points of natural armor (see Barkskin spell), no DEX modifier, and say it's larger than a man so we get a size mod. End result, let's just say AC10.

Presume both men have similar ability scores, and matching range penalties.

Better yet, let's make those "same ability scores" into 10s, so there's no ability modifier.

With that, both would hit with an unmodified 9 or better (+1BAB, what with them both being 1st level fighters). 55% hit rate, straight up. <EDIT>Correction, 60%. Don't know where my head is at</EDIT>

But the axeman has two blades, one in each hand. He needs to roll a 19 with his off hand (-10 to hit on a "9 or better" roll ), and a 15 for his on-hand throw (-6 on a "9 or better"). So instead of hitting 55% of the time, he hits 30% and 5%.

He'll get twice as many shots in a given time, but his over all hit rate is in the toilet. 20%, in fact, or a bit more than a third as often as the archer. (18.3333333% would be a third).

If you have trouble seeing the source for those numbers, think about it this way: If he throws 100 times with each hand, aside from being tired he'll have hit 10 times with his off hand, and 30 with his on hand, or 40 total out of 200 shots, which works out to 20%.

During that same period of time, the archer will have only shot 100 arrows (half as many), but will have hit 55 times, or 55%. <EDIT> Mea culpa. That's 60%, not 55%. Sorry. So the archer hits 3 times as often.</EDIT>

Now, oddly, the axeman's numbers get closer to the archer's as the AC of the target goes up. At AC11 or higher he needs a natural 20 to hit with the off hand. 5% success, and that can't drop any further as the AC goes up, while the archer's hit rate can. That's a peculiarity of the D20 system though, and the fact that it's granularity is never finer than 5% increments.

In any case, those are the numbers the way I see them. How are you getting the archer hitting half as often as the axeman?

 

[Water Bob]

Could you run some numbers on that for me?

Lot of variables. Hard to figure accurately. For example, you have to find the range to the tree that is proportional to the range the axeman is useing.

It's easier to just call that "equal" and "fair".

Once you figure out the proportional ranges (you can't just pull something out of the air because it may, indeed, benefit the axeman over the archer, or the other way around), you can figure the archer's one shot probability to the probability that either of the axeman's axes will hit.

That woud give you a good number to compare.