Archery Full Round Attack

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Did you not just read up thread where I explained that?

I was explaining my reasoning. As in, it's perfectly okay to want to change rules (or to be considering changing rules); there's no need to continually shout from the rooftops about how you aren't looking to change rules.

It's confusing at best and disingenuous at worst.

Just, you know, ask your questions.

I didn't realize you were annoyed,

Ahem.

"Did you not just read the same post where I explained that?"

I'm not annoyed. I'm just Hamlet's Mother, reading the threads and thinking, "The OP doth protest too much."

We've only had 4 game sessions and very little combat. We've had a lot of role playing. I expect a lot of combat our next game session, coming up in a couple of weeks. Thus, you've been seeing me investigate the combat rules.

Makes sense.

 

[Water Bob]

It is spelled "gnat", fyi.

Thank you. Keyboard flub.

Context: Hoping to defuse tensions after an instance of flaming.

Riiiight. You sound like Eddie Haskell talking to the Beaver's mom.

I was explaining my reasoning. As in, it's perfectly okay to want to change rules (or to be considering changing rules); there's no need to continually shout from the rooftops about how you aren't looking to change rules.

It's confusing at best and disingenuous at worst.

Shouldn't be confusing as I've explained myself a couple of times. And, I explained myself those couple of times in response to a poster automatically assuming that my goal was to change the rules.

If that were the truth, I'd have a lot more House Rules than I do.

I'm not annoyed. I'm just Hamlet's Mother, reading the threads and thinking, "The OP doth protest too much."

Protest...what? Answers I'm given? Question the rules too much? Have too many questions in general?

What is it I'm protesting too much?

 

[Greenfield]

Can I explain our collective mistake?

To us, when you say something like, "The rule should be...", or "You should be able to do ...", it sounds like you're proposing a rule change.

 

[Andras]

And? What's wrong with a rule change? I think WOTC showed there was a need for a rule change with 4e. Pathfinder? Rule change! Are you playing 3.5 or still playing 1e?

Last group of characters we played I was the Elf Wizard, I asked the DM if I could have feat similar to Zen Archery that let me use my Int instead of Dex or Wis for ranged attacks. She let me do it. OMG rule change!

What is the visceral negative reaction to a rule change?

Back to the flanking diagram:
ABC
DEF
GHI

Something that bugs the hell out of me is if you have allies in B, G, and I, no one is flanking the enemy at E despite him being surrounded. Sure the characters could do a 5' shuffle, but does it really serve any purpose to force such bookkeeping on the players?

 

[Dandu]

Change itself is not bad. For example, people commonly ignore the stupid things Complete Psionic did to the psionics system.

I suspect that what people are against is change that doesn't make a lot of sense, or does not improve the gaming experience.

 

[Arkhandus]

I saw it, every time, and I ignored it because I thought you would figure out that it is moot to the discussion.

Why?

When throwing two axes, you don't need a special feat to do it. A character can do it, albeit with a penalty.

My assertion is that the bowman should be able to do the same thing.

.............But to do so at 1st-level, the axe-thrower would need to throw 2 separate axes, one with each hand, as a full-round action. An archer cannot physically hold and load and fire two bows simultaneously nor within a second or two of one another (short of using the Quick Draw feat and Rapid Shot or a +6 BAB instead of Rapid Shot, but even then they'd have to drop one bow before loading and firing the other). If the axe-thrower wanted to throw 2 axes in the same turn with the same hand (not two-weapon fighting by wielding the axes in different hands), he or she would need Rapid Shot just like an archer at 1st-level (or just wait until they have a +6 BAB). Per the rules as written.

And I must ask: WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD? You know that the rules do not technically allow 2 attacks per round at 1st-level without the Rapid Shot feat, and you've said that you're not talking about houseruling it or anything, and you just keep saying that the archer SHOULD, merely for reasons of time elapsed in a combat round, be able to shoot twice in one round regardless of level or feats. And yes, it's an odd quirk of the rules that they can't do that per the RAW.

SO WHAT? What the heck is the discussion about? Why didn't this thread die on its first page? There is no point to it. We've tried to explain the other factors that could explain why the rules have that little quirk, but in the end it doesn't matter. The rules are what they are. We can houserule them if and when we please. We don't know the designers' specific intent or reasoning. D&D has abstract combat rules, where turns are completed in-order rather than simultaneously despite all technically occuring within the same 6-second interval in-game. So what?

I've made all the points I can about how and why the rules may work the way they do on this matter, even noting the balance concerns that may have something to do with it, and many others have tried to explain or persuade you as well, Water Bob. I just don't see the point of this thread or why it has persisted so long.

*leaves in bewilderment*

 

[Water Bob]

*leaves in bewilderment*

*Good, as Water Bob doesn't welcome such attitudes in his threads.*

 

[Greenfield]

Archandus, he knows that the rules don't support it.

He knows about Rapid Shot, BAB 6+, et all.

He knows that there's a difference between "firing" one weapon and two.

He knows it doesn't work, not in real life or in the rules.

He just thinks it should, somehow.

 

[Water Bob]

He knows it doesn't work, not in real life or in the rules.

Correct except for this part.

 

[Greenfield]

And yet you have no explanation for how a person could swing one sword as quickly as they swing two. And you continue to suggest that "it's logical" that you can fire one weapon as quickly as you can fire two.

So if you don't know that it doesn't work, whose fault is that?

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.