• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Archery Full Round Attack

I'm sorry. I've been nice, and I've asked you to explain the logic, the mechanics of your proposal, and all I get back is "it's logical" and "I'm not going to try to explain". So I'm not going to try to be nice any more. It doesn't work, not in real life, and not within the rules. I'm an archer and I know, for a fact, that it doesn't work.

I've explained it several times. It boggles the mind how you can't understand (I didn't say agree with) my point if you've read any of the preceding pages in this thread.

I'll explain the position one more time for you, and then I'm done. If you can't understand this, then you'll just have to "not be nice" and go off in a tiffy.

1 - The rules allow a 1st level Fighter to hold a hand axe in each hand and then throw them at separate targets, using a penalty.

2 - It is not logical that the hand axes are thrown simultaneously because the penalty would be greater to pull something like this off, throwing at separate targets in separate directions.

3 - The combat round is six seconds long, and it takes the entire round to throw both hand axes. The character can perform no other actions except for Free Actions. Therefore, throwing the two hand axes takes about six seconds of time.

4 - A 1st level archer can move 30', draw an arrow, nock it, aim, and let flow the arrow at a target in about the same amount of time.

5 - Therefore, it seems logical, based on the above points, that an archer should be able to give up his move and instead fire two arrows in the same amount of time.

6 - I suggest that aiming and throwing a hand axe at a target takes about the same amount of effort and time as it does an archer to nock, aim, and loose an arrow. Therefore, if two hand axes can be thrown, then two arrows attacks should be allowed (at a similar penalty).



I know you're not being "nice" with me anymore, because that's what you said above. Well, read what I wrote above three or four times if you have to, because therein lies my point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Okay WB, I read your explanation. Thank you for finally laying it out, sans bad examples.

Now, try something for me. Sit at a table or desk. With your right hand, drum a beat, as fast as you can.

Now, do the same with your left.

Now, are your two hands beating faster than the one hand?

Guess what? You've just proven that you can do things faster with two hands than with one.

As for your logic: I see flaws with more than a few of your premises.

A Standard Action isn't three seconds long. It's whatever portion of six seconds it takes you to make all the attacks or other actions you can while still moving.

For a first level archer, that's drawing an arrow, nocking it on the string, drawing that string to a firing position, picking a target, waiting for the right moment and releasing. Unless your target is a tree (i.e. stationary), you have to time that shot or you have no chance of hitting.

Now, when you do that 30 foot move, it might be done at standard walking speed, 3.409 mph, and you're prepping your bow and eying a target as you move, and firing as soon as you get into position. It might be at a hustle, 6.818 mph, which makes it harder to set up that shot because of your movement, but gives you more time to establish a stance. Hell, it might be done at a full run, then skid to a stop and take your shot.

But it isn't any set amount of time. Your argument presumes that it is, that it's a fixed three seconds.

So let's revisit one of your premises. You say a first level archer can move 30 feet, then draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow and fire. I suggest that it's far more "logical" that he's combining those motions, pulling the arrow as he moves, that he selected his target before he moved, and is positioning to get a better shot. That he's gauging the distance and motion as he moves, using both his brain and his legs at the same time. And therefore it's more "logical" that he can't skip the movement and double his rate of fire. The mechanics of "loading" the bow take time, a time that the axe man doesn't have to spend since he has two axes all ready "loaded". He'll have to take a move or move equivalent action to reload, in fact, before he can repeat that trick next round.

Now, is it logical that two hand axes are thrown simultaneously? They can be. I've watched lumberjack competitions that include axe throws, and yeah, when they double throw, they're thrown in unison. I've also seen martial arts demonstrations where darts, shuriken and axes are thrown, rapid fire, at a series of targets.

But you know what? None of those guys we see doing these demonstrations would be considered "first level". They're competition grade, good enough to show off their speed and accuracy.

Whether they're thrown at once or in a windmill motion, one after the other, to get both off takes some skill, and the throw actions are combined into a single combination move. You throw with your whole body, not just the arm. I'm pretty sure you know that if you've ever played a sport.

Still, try it. Stand up and go through the throwing action with one hand. Now try it with both. The natural body mechanics move the throwing shoulder from back to forward as you release, setting the other shoulder into that "back" position for it's throw. Two weapons, two separate throws, one continuous flow of muscle and motion in the upper body. But you put your legs into that first throw, didn't you. Leaving them in the wrong position to help with the second? Off hand penalty to both accuracy and power? In the real world? Tell me it ain't so!

Real world, throwing with both hands isn't two distinct actions. Nocking, drawing, aiming and firing a bow is.

One weapon can't and won't fire as fast as two weapons, and it isn't anything resembling "logical" to argue that it can. Go practice with two tennis balls, one in each hand, and tell me I'm wrong about the motion.

Now, go to an archery range, and try the move and fire trick. I'll lay long odds thatfor you to get that shot off without "penalty" after a 30 foot move, you had to be pulling the arrow and loading the bow as you moved.

Wanna bet? :)
 

Okay WB, I read your explanation. Thank you for finally laying it out, sans bad examples.

The exact same explanation was there earlier in the thread. You just refused to look at it.

Now, try something for me. Sit at a table or desk. With your right hand, drum a beat, as fast as you can.

Sounds like a handwave in defense of the rules. And, that's fine. You think they are correct.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion that if the rules did not allow two hand axe attacks, you'd be saying the same thing about that type of attack.

An archer can pull an arrow (1 sec.), pull, nock, aim, all in the same motion (2 sec.), and let fly (0 sec.)....then do it again, all in one combat round.

Or, he should be able to. It should be a Full Action albeit with a penalty attached.

I suspect that the game designers did not allow this not because of real life reasons but because they preferred to keep the game melee focussed and not make the bow too powerful a weapon.
 

Allow me to add oil to the fire:

A man with two axes holds an object in each hand, and throws them separately.
A man with a bow and arrow is holding something in each hand, and he uses them together instead of separately.
 

Allow me to add oil to the fire:

Actually, I don't consider comments like these to be your usual mixture of inane comments and trolling, Dandu. You're illuminating a point, and even though it's not my view, it's a constructive comment.

Keep it up! :) This side of you is welcome in my threads.



A man with two axes holds an object in each hand, and throws them separately.
A man with a bow and arrow is holding something in each hand, and he uses them together instead of separately.

He made that point earlier, but I don't buy that a man with two axes is necessarily throwing them at the same time. In fact, I believe he would be more accurate if he threw them separately.

And, to further my point, the rules allow for the man with two axes to throw at two separate targets without further penalty.. Given that there's no facing rules in the core game, the targets could be at 180 degrees from each other making it impossible for the axeman to throw both axes at the same time.

Therefore, the axeman throws one axe and then the other, just a an archer would fire one arrow and another.
 

Allow me to add oil to the fire:

A man with two axes holds an object in each hand, and throws them separately.
A man with a bow and arrow is holding something in each hand, and he uses them together instead of separately.

edit: ''Lets get this over one more time. YOU HAVE TO THROW THE ARROW, NOT THE BOW!''

But this makes me wonder- why the ranger can't put 2 arrows in his bow?

If the axeman can place 2 axes in his throwing mechanism (himself) and target 2 different persons, wouldn't it only be logical that you can do the same with a bow (your throwing mechanism) aiming at two different targets? :devil:

To take it a step further, have you seen how many attacks creatures with natural weapons get? You have two hands and a mouth too, you know...;)
 

edit: ''Lets get this over one more time. YOU HAVE TO THROW THE ARROW, NOT THE BOW!''

But this makes me wonder- why the ranger can't put 2 arrows in his bow?

If the axeman can place 2 axes in his throwing mechanism (himself) and target 2 different persons, wouldn't it only be logical that you can do the same with a bow (your throwing mechanism) aiming at two different targets? :devil:

To take it a step further, have you seen how many attacks creatures with natural weapons get? You have two hands and a mouth too, you know...;)
Shooting two or more arrows at the same time is called the Manyshot feat.
 


It does seem easier to throw two axes than to nock two arrows. In that, I could throw two axes right now, but would be unable to shoot two arrows with a bow.
 

He made that point earlier, but I don't buy that a man with two axes is necessarily throwing them at the same time. In fact, I believe he would be more accurate if he threw them separately.

So there should be a lesser penalty to the attacks than the ones given for fighting with 2 weapons since the primary hand is essentially functioning normally right? (another change in the rules caused by the premise of the first assumption - that is making a rules change to one thing usually causes a domino effect of rules changes)
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top