Archery Full Round Attack

[irdeggman]

You're acting a jerk, I see (for all to see, really), but it's simple math. If a character can shoot his bow and move, he's basically firing the bow in 3 seconds and moving the other 3 seconds.

This is what gets most people.

3 sec is an approximation and not a rules/absolute issue.

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

Not 1/2 a round actually. A standard action takes more effort than a move action which is why you can substitute a move action for a standard action but not the other way around.

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

D&D combat is an abstraction - trying to apply too much logic will mess up the game totally.

In 2nd ed bow attacks worked differently - in 3.5 the number of attacks is based on BAB (in 2nd ed it was based on class and level)

 

[domino]

You're acting a jerk, I see (for all to see, really), but it's simple math. 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.

Would you let a level 1 character swing a sword twice in a round? Or cast a pair of standard action spells? Without using any feats to grant extra attacks, I mean.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Would you let a level 1 character swing a sword twice in a round? Or cast a pair of standard action spells? Without using any feats to grant extra attacks, I mean.

I find that giving the two attacks per round option with -5/-5 penalties is a nice non game breaking method.

in that house rule penalties would be for long bow

normal: -5/-5
with rapid shot: -2/-2
with improved rapid shot: -0/-0

 

[Empirate]

With a penalty of -5 attached, this is certainly not gamebreaking. However, if I were to play an archer in your game, I'd probably never use that option: sounds like a waste of arrows to me, since you're not going to hit even as often as if you fired only once/round.
If you're fighting something with an abysmal AC, though, this might be interesting.

Also, Water Bob, you seem to get upset easily at my tongue-in-cheek comments. I'm not trying to be insulting or anything really. It's just that your topics seem to bring out a streak in me time and again - cf. my reply in your other recent thread... I'm sorry, man, I just find it funny! Try not taking it to heart, it's just a little fun!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But...doesn't it seem logical to you that a bowman, using a Full Round action, should get two attacks in a round? Kinda-sorta like the fighter using a weapon in each hand?

Trained bowmen do. And they get them at the same penalties - -2/-2 - as someone trained in fighting with two swords.

[All trained bowmen have Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot. Anyone lacking those feats is, by definition, not a trained bowman.]

 

[Greenfield]

I'm not talking about using two bows, and maybe using the two-weapon rules as an example was a mistake.

I'm talking about rate of fire. What I'm saying is basicaly this: If an archer can fire his bow (standard action) and move 30' (move action), all in one combat round, doesn't it make sense that he could give up his move and fire his bow twice?

The other way to say it would be, what happens when an archer (lower than 6th level) fires his bow using a full-round action? He fires one arrow, right? I'm asking if it's logical that he should be able to fire two arrows during that time.

So, if a 1st level Fighter can move 30 feet, then swing his sword (Standard action), shouldn't he get to swing it twice as a full round action?

It's the same question, and earns the same answer: No. The rules cover this. Pulling an arrow, nocking on the string, draw, aim and fire takes time. Surprisingly, taking aim at a non-stationary target takes almost half of the time needed for that sequence. (I shoot a bit).

You can draw and nock the arrow while moving, and you should be picking your target at that time as well. With practice and experience you can expand your battlefield awareness to the point where you're tracking your next target while aiming at the current one, but like I said, that takes time and experience.

 

[kitcik]

No.

Couldn't this thread have ended after this (the 2nd) post?

 

[Visigani]

Couldn't this thread have ended after this (the 2nd) post?

No.

 

[Dandu]

You're acting a jerk, I see (for all to see, really)

Water Bob can see Empirate's true nature, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

 

[kitcik]

Water Bob can see Empirate's true nature, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

It's the toast part.

As to an actual response, I don't see why this is different than any other weapon. If you can attack with a sword and move 30' in the same "round," it strikes me that you could probably attack with the sword 4 or 5 more times rather than moving, It just wouldn't be a balanced game mechanic.

If you really want to have "realistic" combat, you have to start from scratch. No more 6 second rounds. No more taking turns. The player and the monster decide what they want to do and the DM adjudicates the outcome. You can still have "to hit" rolls, but there may be some odd circumstantial bonuses / penalties as people move and take multiple wild attacks. Would need one heck of a DM.