Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 5613572" data-attributes="member: 13966">But why are you insisting on two-weapon fighting rules applying here, or as some kind of precedent?  An archer holds his bow with one hand and loads/fires with the other.  They're not attacking simultaneously or in quick succession with both hands, like someone wielding a pair of daggers or spinning a quarterstaff could do.YES, the rules could stand to be a little more realistic (all characters ought to be capable of making a certain maximum number of attacks per round based on how heavy/clumsy/complicated/slow their weapon is, with higher BAB intervals just reducing the penalties for doing so and feats etc. allowing extra attacks for masters of those weapons), but it's not absolutely necessary in the abstract combat of D&D.The rules don't allow for every character to attack that rapidly just due to matters of game-balance, suspense, simplicity, and abstraction.  Primarily, I think, for the reasons I outlined in my last post.  IMHO anyway.  And you're free to houserule it differently in your own games so it's just a largely pointless discussion of why the game-designers decided to make the combat rules work the way they did.Games like Shadowrun where any sufficiently-fast character can gun down anyone else quickly every round tend to have a higher PC-mortality rate and lower high-fantasy/heroic feel to them (that or most enemies end up dying too quick to present any real challenge, making some adventures a cakewalk).  It could just be a stylistic choice if nothing else.</blockquote>

Verification