Archery Full Round Attack

[Water Bob]

This is what gets most people.

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

I do understand that it's an approximation on an abstract system.

Would you let a level 1 character swing a sword twice in a round?

Yes, if he had one in both hands.

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

That is interesting. Thanks for the comment.

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!

Make a joke, and I'll laugh with you. Act like a jerk, and I'll call it as I see it. It comes across, as Dandu does (over and over again) as if you're trolling and trying to show everyone how clever you are at my expense. I call that a jerk.

I'm somewhat new to the 3.5 rules, and I like to question the rules. Why do those topics bother you? And, if they do, why not just ignore the topic instead of be a jerk?

Enjoy making fun of people who haven't played the game as long as you have?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I got the joke. Relax, mang.

 

[Water Bob]

I got the joke. Relax, mang.

It didn't strike me as a joke. It struck me as jerk-ness.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Level 1 characters are a step above commoners, but they're still not trained and experienced enough to get multiple attacks in such a short time right off the bat. The -5/-5 idea I guess could work, since it's trading accuracy for speed.

 

[Greenfield]

Would you let a level 1 character swing a sword twice in a round?

Yes, if he had one in both hands.

Do you mean one in each hand, or are you saying he should get double blows with a two handed weapon?

Now me? I'd be fine if you saying your archer is going to stab someone with an arrow and bash them with his bow (makeshift weapon). After all, you have one in each hand, and as long as you use TWF rules I'm cool with it. But that isn't what you're talking about, is it?

Part of the trade off with a two handed weapon is that you get more damage (bigger base damage plus 1.5 x strength bonus), but less defense (no shield). One swing, no penalty, extra damage, no shield. All your eggs in one basket, home run or strike out.

TWF gives you two shots to hit and two shots at a crit, potentially more base weapon damage, and the potential for the same total STR bonus damage (full with main weapon, half with the off hand one) if you hit both times. Two swings, TWF penalty, high damage potential, no shield.

Each approach has it's benefits, and each has it's drawbacks.

Change that dynamic and you change the entire balance of the game. TWF becomes obsolete on the spot. Is that what you intend?

 

[domino]

Yes, if he had one in both hands.

What if he had only one sword, but was holding it with both hands? You'd let him swing it twice in one action?

 

[Water Bob]

What if he had only one sword, but was holding it with both hands? You'd let him swing it twice in one action?

No. And, that's the rub, isn't it? The rules don't allow it.

If a 1st level character can swing with a short sword and dagger in the first round I think he should be able to swing twice if he's only holding one dagger.

Or, get this: Legally, if a 1st level character is holding a handaxe in each hand, he can throw both in a single round.

He can throw both in a single round! Doesn't it stand to reason that an archer should be able to let loose two arrows in the same amount of time?

 

[Greenfield]

No. And, that's the rub, isn't it? The rules don't allow it.

I think he should be able to, though.

Then you would make TWF obsolete, and put the shield on the "Endangered Equipment" list.

As a note, the rules don't allow extra shots for the bow either, even though it's held in two hands.

 

[Greenfield]

Let me phrase that in a less confrontational manner. There's more than enough heat lately.

Water Bob, do you believe that a Claymore (2 handed Scottish greatsword) should be quicker than a Rapier (one handed French dueling sword)?

In 1st Edition bows got the extra shot each round.

Is that what you're missing? Be careful what you wish for. Rounds were a minute long, and nobody got the kind of attack progression we have in 3e. And, of course, there was no such thing as a Mighty Composite bow either, so you did a D8 flat, with maybe a minor plus if you had a magical bow.

 

[Water Bob]

Let me phrase that in a less confrontational manner. There's more than enough heat lately.

I haven't taken anything you said as confrontational.

Water Bob, do you believe that a Claymore (2 handed Scottish greatsword) should be quicker than a Rapier (one handed French dueling sword)?

Yes.

In 1st Edition bows got the extra shot each round.

Is that what you're missing? Be careful what you wish for. Rounds were a minute long, and nobody got the kind of attack progression we have in 3e. And, of course, there was no such thing as a Mighty Composite bow either, so you did a D8 flat, with maybe a minor plus if you had a magical bow.

I like the 1E rules. Confusing as hell, if you dig into them and read the 1E DMG section on combat. But, it was neat.

And...I like the 2E rules, too. Even though they're contradictory and more than confusing in many places.

And...I like the 3/3.5 E rules, as well.

Hell, I just like D&D.




I'm learning 3.5 E, and I'm just questioning rules. If something doesn't make sense to me, I question it. I sure as heck know my players will question them. And, I need answers when they do.