Archery Full Round Attack

[anest1s]

According to this logic, shouldn't be wizards able to cast two spells instead of one? I mean, most lvl 0 spells do lower damage than a normal weapon would do...wouldn't it be fair to allow 2 attacks with level 0 spells at least?

Or a wizard having cast chill touch shouldn't be able to have two attacks with it?

 

[Water Bob]

According to this logic, shouldn't be wizards able to cast two spells instead of one? I mean, most lvl 0 spells do lower damage than a normal weapon would do...wouldn't it be fair to allow 2 attacks with level 0 spells at least?

Or a wizard having cast chill touch shouldn't be able to have two attacks with it?

Depends on casting time. If it takes most of the round to cast, then, no. If it takes a second to cast, then yes.

 

[Greenfield]

Casting times fall into four categories, none of them measured in seconds.

First, there are the free/immediate action spells that are all but instant.

Second, there are "Standard Action" spells that take, well, a standard action.

Third, there are "Full Round" spells that take both your Standard and Move actions in the round.

Finally, there are a number of spells that take extended times to cast, times measured in minutes instead of rounds or parts of rounds.

There are no other measures for casting time, no way to jiggle the math and say that "Spell A takes two seconds and Spell B takes 4, so you could cast them both in a round."

You can cast a free or immediate action spell, and then cast a standard action spell, and that's it unless you happen to take a certain Epic feat to let you cast multiple Quickened spells per round.

So you're arguing a case that doesn't exist, using terms and measures that don't apply.

You mentioned that you're learning 3.5, and that's great. My advice would be to learn it thoroughly before you try to rewrite it.

 

[Dandu]

The Buddha once said that one cannot fill a cup that is already full.

 

[Water Bob]

Casting times fall into four categories, none of them measured in seconds.

Fine. They're measured in fractions of a round, then. We're still talking seconds here--you just can't pin them down to the exact second in each instance.

The "Full Round" spell? How long do you think that takes to cast?

Guess what: Six seconds.

So you're arguing a case that doesn't exist, using terms and measures that don't apply.

And, I would say that you're thinking too narrowly, in terms of the game only.

You mentioned that you're learning 3.5, and that's great. My advice would be to learn it thoroughly before you try to rewrite it.

Here we go again.

OK. Just because I'm questioning this rule doesn't mean I'm trying to rewrite it. It only means I'm trying to make sense of it.

I'm not saying I won't house rule it. I'm just saying that it's not my goal.

 

[irdeggman]

Fine. They're measured in fractions of a round, then. We're still talking seconds here--you just can't pin them down to the exact second in each instance.

The "Full Round" spell? How long do you think that takes to cast?

Guess what: Six seconds.

I go back to my earlier statement about not confusing "time" with effort.

None of the categories in a D&D combat round reflect time. They all reflect the amount of effort it takes. Time is an arbitrary measure the rules mention for a rough reflection of how long a combat would last.

Every time I see someone posting about combat in terms of time they end up in arguments like this one and of course they end up circular in logic - this is just my observation of what I have seen and may not be factual.

A free action consumes relatively no effort

A swift action consumes more than a swift by less than a move action

A move action consumes more than a swift but less than a standard

A standard action consumes most of a character's effort allowed per a single round leaving only enough effort for a move action and a swift action

A full round action consumes all of a character's efforts for a single round excepting free actions (again consuming no effort and limitied in number only by the DM)

 

[Greenfield]

Fine. They're measured in fractions of a round, then. We're still talking seconds here--you just can't pin them down to the exact second in each instance.

The "Full Round" spell? How long do you think that takes to cast?

Guess what: Six seconds.

Water Bob, as much as I enjoy dissecting bad math, I'm going to cut you off here. At the knees.

Before you pursue this "multi casting" digression, show me a D&D 3.5 spell, of any class, any level, from any WOTC book, that has a casting time of 2 seconds. Or 4 seconds. Or 5 seconds. Or 1 second.

When you can do that, we can proceed with this. Until then, you argument about "if the spell only takes two seconds" is meaningless.

Back to an earlier digression: You say it's "only logical" that a person could swing a single blade, effectively, as frequently as they could swing two blades effectively.

Please explain your logic, in mechanical terms. (I'd hate to be accused of being too narrow minded, and thinking only in game terms, after all.)

Regressing to the original point: You say that it's "only logical" that a person could use a single, two handed weapon like a bow as rapidly as they could swing two separate weapons, one in each hand.

Please explain your logic. In mechanical terms. To a man who has both fenced and scored well in archery tournaments.

Please.

 

[Water Bob]

I go back to my earlier statement about not confusing "time" with effort.

I'm not. And, your point is well taken.

But, I think you're ignoring that time does play a part in the action round. The combat round is six seconds long. That means that everything you can do in a combat round, you can do in six second or less.

It's not hard to interpolate how long those actions take.

Please explain your logic. In mechanical terms. To a man who has both fenced and scored well in archery tournaments.

Please.

Would you say it takes about the same amount of time for a first level fighter to throw a hand axe as it does for a first level archer to unleash an arrow?

 

[anest1s]

Would you say it takes about the same amount of time for a first level fighter to throw a hand axe as it does for a first level archer to unleash an arrow?

The archer has to ''reload'' the axeman will have to spend the next round drawing weapons.

What about crossbows? They need a move+ action to reload them. Shouldn't someone be able to throw 2 bolts just to be fair?

 

[Greenfield]

I'm not. And, your point is well taken.

But, I think you're ignoring that time does play a part in the action round. The combat round is six seconds long. That means that everything you can do in a combat round, you can do in six second or less.

Ah, but how much less?

By the rules, nothing less.

Would you say it takes about the same amount of time for a first level fighter to throw a hand axe as it does for a first level archer to unleash an arrow?

Sounds good.

And you can throw an axe with each hand, simultaneously, though there are penalties involved (TWF).

Can you fire a bow with each hand, simultaneously?

And that's the key word I think you've been missing. "Simultaneously". As in, "at the same time". As in, overlapping time frames.

It takes 1 hand to throw an axe, and you have two hands, so you can throw two axes at the same time. It takes two hands to fire a bow, and you only have two hands.

So, once more, can you please explain your logic of how you can fire a bow twice, or swing a single sword twice, in the time it takes to throw an axe.