Full attack action incorporating ranged and melee attacks

[Pielorinho]

Well, under "Crossbow, Heavy", obviously...

Duh.
-Hyp.

Even though I was thinking, "That bastard has GOT to be pulling a fast one on me!" I went and looked up "crossbow, heavy."

Good lord. You're right. That's, um, that's a pretty impressive bit of rules organization right there.

In fact, it's such a ridiculous place for the rule that I'm inclined to ignore it. But I recognize that that's house-rule territory.

In any case, thanks for the pointer!
Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

In fact, it's such a ridiculous place for the rule that I'm inclined to ignore it. But I recognize that that's house-rule territory.

There are people who insist that the rule only applies to heavy crossbows, because that's where the rule is, and to light crossbows, because they say "see heavy crossbow".

But in the FAQ, it's reiterated, and in both places, it specifically says "skill with melee weapons, not ranged weapons".

It is so frustrating debating the point with those people. "Yes, it says 'melee weapons, not ranged weapons', but it obviously means 'melee-weapons-and-ranged-weapons-that-aren't-heavy-crossbows, not ranged-weapons-that-are-heavy-crossbows", or they wouldn't have put it there..."

Aargh.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

It is so frustrating debating the point with those people. "Yes, it says 'melee weapons, not ranged weapons', but it obviously means 'melee-weapons-and-ranged-weapons-that-aren't-heavy-crossbows, not ranged-weapons-that-are-heavy-crossbows", or they wouldn't have put it there..."

Aargh.

-Hyp.

Here's my reasoning for ignoring that clause:

Ignoring it rocks.

I don't see anything particularly unablancing about allowing a character to throw daggers with one hand while he fights with his rapier in the other hand. At a -2/-2 penalty, it's not a particularly effective combat routine, and it looks awful dashing.

Increase the penalty to -2/-4, however, and it becomes pretty horribly ineffective, such that nobody will ever do it.

So I'd allow someone to take those feats and fight with this style, just cuz I like it.

Rule Zero territory, I know. But I think it's a good rule Zero.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Rule Zero territory, I know.

That, I have no problem with.

But claiming that the rule doesn't exist because it's not in the most obvious place? Grr.

It's like claiming that helpless people get a Reflex save...

-Hyp.

 

[diaglo]

Well, under "Crossbow, Heavy", obviously...

Duh.



-Hyp.

hey, i said that already.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties has capital letters as well

Now that is odd. Feat names are properly to be capitalized, but the names of combat modifiers ought not be. Oh, well.

 

[Pielorinho]

hey, i said that already.

Sorta -- I had no idea from the short snippet you posted what you were talking about. Hypersmurf's explanation, OTOH, was complete and informative. Sorry for asking for the repeat!

And I agree that it's stilly to argue that a rule doesn't exist because the rulebooks are poorly organized. Again, however, I think a lot of the arguing about canon around here verges into the surreally absurd, so that's okay.

Daniel

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

True, but throwing a weapon one size larger than you is a full round action so you couldn't rapid shot them. Now, heavy picks on the other hand......

Rapid-shotting a bunch of Monkey-Gripped Flaming Burst Returning Scythes make for a cooler visual

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

True, but throwing a weapon one size larger than you is a full round action...

Well, that's not quite the wording it uses.

That rule applies to weapons that "would be two-handed for you due to your size".

As a Medium character, I can wield a Scythe one-handed with the Monkey Grip feat.

It's up to interpretation as to whether it's a weapon that "would be two-handed due to my size". Any other Large weapon would be, but that one isn't because of the feat...

-Hyp.