Archery Full Round Attack

[Water Bob]

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

This is probably our point of disagreement. I think a 1st level fighter, with a hand axe in each hand, can throw first one axe, switch hands, and throw a second axe, all within one combat round.

And, I think a 1st level bowman, albeit with penalties, should be able to nock and loose two arrows in the same amount of time (takes equivalent effort, if you don't want to talk about time).

And, the rules plain don't let you do that.

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

I would say no to the crossbow as I think it takes considerable time and effort to recock those buggers.

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.

So you think that every time an axeman throws an axe from each hand, he's throwing them at the same time?

Not necessarily.

Especially if he's throwing at two different foes.

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.

I would, but I think it would do no good, with you. You just plain don't see my point. I'll explain it, and you'll just ask me again to explain my logic, around we go in a circle.

Go back and read some of my posts in this thread. It you can't get what I'm talking about from that, then I don't think you or I will benefit from hacking it apart any further.

I know you're trying to help--at least I think you are. But, sometimes, for whatever reason, one side is cloudy. If you can get my point from the several posts I've written in this thread, then we can probably speak on this further. But, I think, if you and I just keep going around in this circle, it's just going to be frustrating for both of us.

I do appreciate you trying, though.

 

[anest1s]

This is probably our point of disagreement. I think a 1st level fighter, with a hand axe in each hand, can throw first one axe, switch hands, and throw a second axe, all within one combat round.

And, I think a 1st level bowman, albeit with penalties, should be able to nock and loose two arrows in the same amount of time (takes equivalent effort, if you don't want to talk about time).

And, the rules plain don't let you do that.

So, you think those are equal?
-A fighter who has to be 10 ft away in order to throw two hand axes, then face his opponent unarmed, and then use a full round to get a second pair of hand axes out
-A ranger who can be up to 110 ft away, throwing 2 arrows every round, with no danger that he will be caught in melee, without any need to reload.

I would feel that the fighter should just tear his char sheet and roll a wizard.

 

[Water Bob]

So, you think those are equal?
-A fighter who has to be 10 ft away in order to throw two hand axes, then face his opponent unarmed, and then use a full round to get a second pair of hand axes out
-A ranger who can be up to 110 ft away, throwing 2 arrows every round, with no danger that he will be caught in melee, without any need to reload.

As I said before, up thread, the two would have to be at a fair distance from their targets.

 

[anest1s]

As I said before, up thread, the two would have to be at a fair distance from their targets.

I am talking about a realistic situation, with actual opponents, not trees
But even against trees, the axe thrower would still need to draw his axes

 

[the Jester]

And, I think a 1st level bowman, albeit with penalties, should be able to nock and loose two arrows in the same amount of time (takes equivalent effort, if you don't want to talk about time).

And, the rules plain don't let you do that.

You keep asserting this, quite incorrectly as I have pointed out multiple times.

A 1st level 3.x fighter who focuses on bows takes PB Shot and Rapid Shot as his first level feats. Ta da!

The rules plain let you do that [fire 2 arrows per round].

I don't know if you've missed it every time I've previously posted it, so I embiggenated it this time. If you have addressed it and I missed it, mea culpa. If you have noticed it and not addressed it, I have to wonder if you are trolling.

 

[Arkhandus]

This is probably our point of disagreement. I think a 1st level fighter, with a hand axe in each hand, can throw first one axe, switch hands, and throw a second axe, all within one combat round.

And, I think a 1st level bowman, albeit with penalties, should be able to nock and loose two arrows in the same amount of time (takes equivalent effort, if you don't want to talk about time).

And, the rules plain don't let you do that.

It's called the Rapid Shot feat as many of us have already pointed out.

Also, your argument seems to hinge on merely the time factor, which would also imply that a swordsman should be able to swing his sword twice in one round even if he's a green recruit who barely knows how to use a sword without hurting himself. Which is fine, but that 1st-level novice is likely going to choke a bit when faced with a real enemy on the battlefield trying to kill him, and is going to be more focused on trying to stay alive while the other guy is taking swings at him with an axe or what-have-you. Likewise, a novice archer might choke and fumble if an orc comes running and screaming at him with an axe, only managing to loose one shot before the orc gets close enough to make the archer run away or something.

Time-wise, I can throw something like 20 punches in 6 seconds or whatever. Doesn't mean I'm gonna hit, or damage, jack-squat if I try that. An opponent would just step back and maybe kick me in the junk while I flailed away. If we were using swords, I might swing my sword around in a quick flurry of unskilled swipes and stabs, but my opponent only really needs to make one good, close slash or stab to utterly ruin my flurry and make me recoil from the edge of their blade in self-preservation.

Now if I were an experienced combat-vet, I could probably judge whether or not the foe was actually going to hit me with that strike and I could just dodge and ram my elbow into their face then stab them in the gut and be done with it. But as an untrained or little-trained swordsman I would probably be a lot more worried and focused on evading or blocking their attacks rather than flailing away like a hyperactive idjit.

As an archer, it takes time to aim and load, especially if you have almost no experience with a bow. It also gets tiring if you have to hold the bow steady and drawn while aiming. You're looking at more than a measely -2 penalty or whatever if you're THAT much of an archery-newb and trying to fire rapidly. But if you take Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot as your 1st-level feats, then no problem, you've obviously had more archery training than the average 1st-level warrior, despite still being a novice overall. So you can pull it off with some difficulty (Rapid Shot's -2 penalty), but at least those feats show that you've put a lot of practice into rapid-fire during your brief training so far.

So you think that every time an axeman throws an axe from each hand, he's throwing them at the same time?

Not necessarily.

Especially if he's throwing at two different foes.

But it does take time to pull back your arm for the next throw and take aim. ESPECIALLY if you're changing targets. Moreso with moving targets.

Also, a 1st-level newbie on the battlefield is likely to sweat a lot in nervousness or fear when faced with a real fight against opponents that are trying to kill him or her. That newb's grip might slip up sometimes, and he or she might also be shaking with fear or excitement. Once they get enough experience to steady their hands and cool their nerves, they can throw faster and still have some accuracy (Quick Draw, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot).



And this thread is just going in circles because you seem to be dead-set on measuring actions in time alone, in a vacuum, without any other variables of real combat. And ignoring the abstractions in D&D combat. You CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Or walk and swing a sword, as it were. Or walk and shoot. That's a standard action with a move. If you stay still or mostly still and just attack repeatedly, that's a full-round action. If you try jogging towards cover, that's a double-move or withdraw. Running all-out is a full-round action.

Point is, just because you can attack once with a standard action doesn't mean that a standard action necessarily represents 3 seconds or half a round or whatever. Because D&D combat is abstract in its use of rounds, HP, etc., you may technically be walking around while you make your attack at the first good opening that you find. And orcs may be charging towards you at the same time.

And enemy archers may be shooting at you at the same time as you're trying to aim at them, but because you're a 1st-level noob on the battlefield, you get distracted by that or have trouble taking aim at the moving targets, when a more-experienced archer might just ignore it all and release a fluid stream of shots, easily estimating from enemy positions and angles of attack and wind speed/direction (which may differ from one end of the battlefield to another, especially when a lot of trees or buildings or hills or the like are nearby) that he or she does not need to dodge or just not more than a sidestep or two.

 

[irdeggman]

So you think that every time an axeman throws an axe from each hand, he's throwing them at the same time?

Not necessarily.

Especially if he's throwing at two different foes.

Per the rules they do.

All of your attacks are resolved during your phase.

I again go back to not looking at everything in terms of time.

Per the rules no one acts at the same time, per the rules each individuals actions are all resolved before the next person's in the initiative order. Hence a combat round really has no true time. If you insist that a combat round lasts 6 seconds (which is not a definitive by the way only an approximatation) then 100 people involved in combat are all acting at the same time - and yet each one's actions are resolved before the next ones (which can affect how that one performs his actions). When a character has multiple attacks from a high BAB he resolves each one in order - and can change targets between attacks - if he throws both axes at the same time (i.e., two weapon fighting) they are not iterative attacks and are suposed to be resolved at the same time - hence you should be choosing the targets at the same time.


I state, yet again that to try and analyze a combat round based on "time" will continually lead an individual to madness since the entire system is abstract.

 

[Greenfield]

So you think that every time an axeman throws an axe from each hand, he's throwing them at the same time?

Not necessarily.

Especially if he's throwing at two different foes.

Actually, the answer is yes. Necessarily.

He's doing both throws in one standard action. That is "at the same time", or as close as it gets in 3.5, since they don't break anything down to seconds.

Now your idea of "Throw, switch hands, and throw" is an interesting one. Sounds like you're describing two throws with the same hand, performed sequentially. That is no longer using anything related to the TWF rules, and is now heading into Rapid Shot territory.

I would, but I think it would do no good, with you. You just plain don't see my point. I'll explain it, and you'll just ask me again to explain my logic, around we go in a circle.

Bob, I do see your point, perfectly. I just don't agree with it.

I've asked you to explain it, several times, and you don't. Instead you just repeat it, often accompanied by a bad example. (And yes, calling each arm a projectile hurling device is a bad example, when you're comparing two "devices" to a single one, and claiming a matching rate of fire.)

So please explain how, mechanically, a person can draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow, select a target and fire, then do it all again, in the same time it takes to throw axes with both hands.

Yes, the second shot is going to suck, particularly if you're trying to site on two targets. That's sort of built into the penalty system.

If your vision of "Throw with right hand, pass axe from left to right, then throw again with right hand" were the way it operated, why would you only get half Strength bonus to the second shot? Why would it be at a greater penalty than the first shot?

That doesn't meet the "it's only logical" standard you keep invoking. The TWF attacks aren't sequential. There isn't time for that. The only reason you get that second shot at all is because you have two weapons, held in two hands, ready to go at the same time. Repeat, AT THE SAME TIME.

I'm willing to be persuaded, but you have to step up and do the persuading. Explain the mechanics, step by step. Explain the logic behind "it's logical".

You've ignored my questions whenever they get to the "put up or shut up" stage.

Please understand and accept that it's quite possible for someone to completely understand your point, and still disagree with it. And I have read your many posts, and I do understand what you're trying to say.

Do you mind a personal critique? If one would bother you, stop reading now.






Still here? Okay.


You don't communicate well. Your comments appear not to be very well thought out, and are often expressed in somewhat ambiguous terms. And when pressed to clarify, you often respond in equally ambiguous terms.

For example, I commented earlier on your use of holding a sword "in both hands", rather than "in each hand".

When I asked you to clarify that, that you were talking about TWF and not a two handed sword, you didn't. Instead we ended up wasting time comparing a claymore to a rapier.

So answer the questions asked, the way they are asked. If it's a "yes or no" question, begin your answer with a yes or a no. Explanations and qualifiers can follow, but start by answering the question.

You make poor choices in selecting your examples. You specifically described using two arms as two projectile hurling mechanisms, while clearly comparing them to a single mechanism, the bow. It was almost as if you were arguing my side of this issue, illustrating why you couldn't fire a bow as fast as you could throw axes.

Finally, you need to stop using "proof by example". Go ahead and use examples to illustrate your argument, but you have to make the argument that the examples illustrate. Preferably before you toss in the example.

As it is, you toss out an example, frequently a bad one, without explanation.

And if you can't explain why the example supports your point, consider that maybe it doesn't.

 

[Water Bob]

You keep asserting this, quite incorrectly as I have pointed out multiple times.

A 1st level 3.x fighter who focuses on bows takes PB Shot and Rapid Shot as his first level feats. Ta da!

The rules plain let you do that [fire 2 arrows per round].

I don't know if you've missed it every time I've previously posted it, so I embiggenated it this time.

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.

He's doing both throws in one standard action.

Actually, no. By RAW, he's using a Full-Round Action, which is a different animal than the Standard Action.

As much as you have been discussing actions, I thought you'd know that.

And, you can throw at two different targets, yes? You're telling me you think that a 1st level fighter throws his two hatchets at two different targets simultaneously?

Now your idea of "Throw, switch hands, and throw" is an interesting one.

To be clear, that's a comment about real life, not about 3.5 game mechanics. Yes, the two weapon rules consider a hatchet to be thrown, one from each hand. The game isn't allowing the character to throw with the same hand twice.

Bob, I do see your point, perfectly. I just don't agree with it.

There's not agreeing with my point from a 3.5 point of view, and then there's not agreeing with my point from a real life point of view.

The first, I understand. The second is where we have disagreement.

So please explain how, mechanically, a person can draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow, select a target and fire, then do it all again, in the same time it takes to throw axes with both hands.

Forget the axes. Just concentrate on the length of the round. Six seconds. Shouldn't a 1st level bowman be able to loose two arrows in six seconds, doing a full round action?

I think he should. The rules say "no".

3 seconds is more than enough time to draw, nock, aim, and let fly, albeit with a penalty to each shot (and the two weapon penalities sound fine to me).

I'm willing to be persuaded, but you have to step up and do the persuading.

I really don't want to put the effort into that. If you can't see my point after six pages on this thread, it's not worth the effort for me to spend another six pages convincing you.

Convincing you was not my goal when I started this thread, anyway. I started the thread to understand the rule. Nothing you've said so far has convinced me that the rule is a good one.

You don't communicate well.

I would say something about your comprehension skills, but let's not derail the thread.

And if you can't explain why the example supports your point, consider that maybe it doesn't.

There are things that you continue to question that should be obvious to you. And, as I said above, I don't want to spend another six pages explaining it to you.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I just don't want to put the energy into making you understand when I know I've expressed several examples that other people understood without pages of supporting material to explain what the example meant.

I understand your side well, but I do wonder if I brought in mechanics from a similar game, maybe even a d20 game, that did allow an archer to use a Full Round Action to fire two shots at a penalty, what you would say about it.

 

[Greenfield]

Bob, you want to talk real life?

I shoot at a local archery club. I'm not great, but I've won the first round of a few amateur tournaments.

I'm hard pressed to shoot as fast as you say, at a target that's neither moving nor shooting back.

But that's not the point is it? Your continual gripe has been that "the game rules simply don't allow that", so we're not talking real life, are we.

You say you're not willing to put the effort into explaining yourself. I kind of figured that out several pages ago, when I kept asking you to explain yourself and you wouldn't.

If you don't want to explain yourself, that's fine, don't.

But please stop wasting our time and yours by continuing to *not* explain yourself in post after pointless post.

You're the one dragging this out by claiming "it's logical", and then refusing to demonstrate your logic. You have, in fact, spent more time and effort refusing to explain the logic than if you had just gone ahead and made your case. So please don't complain to me about six pages of posts.

Or, to put it more simply, put up or shut up.