Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Keeping Weapons Drawn at All Times


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:
You do understand that quick draw only works on light weapons? Which a longbow isn't?

Quick Draw I believe you are mistaken about that, quick draw has no such restriction. As for the longbow, I have NPCs react according to their outlook and the situation to PCs who are fully armed or armored, but in my Kingmaker campaign generally it is not out of sorts for people to be armed when in the wilderness.

Taldor

Ok, we've been doing this feat an injustice all this time...

Osirion

Hama wrote:
You do understand that quick draw only works on light weapons? Which a longbow isn't?

You do understand that's not true?

Spoiler:

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish this board would do a "a new post has been made in the time you've been writing" type thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it might not be ideal, my ranger's in the past have always walked around with bow in hand. Same way a wizard or monk with a quarterstaff would walk around with it out. Always bring those things up with the DM before game.

Training for years with a gun, bow, sword, shield, etc... it becomes natural to have them in your hand and on you. They become a part of you. An extension of who you are.

Going even further, all rogues I have ever played walk around quietly (taking penalties where appropriate). Not hiding, but not making much noise either. Training for years to move quietly, it would become natural to always walk that way. Its called muscle memory. When a movement is repeated over time, a long-term muscle memory is created for that task allowing it to be performed without conscious effort. This applies to controlling a horse with your knees.

I don't see a problem with being mounted and having on hand on your bow or crossbow across your lap, and one hand on the reigns. In fact I would assume that all of the party exploring a hostile territory would have their weapons ready at all times.

As far as the NPC thing goes, I personally cant see a NPC getting their panties in a bind because someone is walking around with a bow or quarterstaff out. Now a bunch of adventures with swords drawn out over their shoulders and at their sides might cause NPCs to get a little jumpy.

On a side note, I have been bow hunting. Carried that thing with me in my hand all day long.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
I thought you couldn't take 10 on anything that had a potential for a failure that would result in something "bad" - such as taking 10 on a trap disarm. [...]

You confuse taking 10 and taking 20.

Taking 10 is simply doing something carefully and without hurry, which you can do at all times, as long as you are not under stress (i.e. someone is trying to stab you in the face.)
The part with "not possible if there are negative consequences for failure" is from take 20. This makes sense because take 20 assumes that you just try whatever-you're-trying-to-do until you get it JUST right. This, of course doesn't work, if there are negative consequences.


mplindustries wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Longbows would not typically be able to be kept strung that consistently. That much constant tension on the bow would eventually cause the bow to warp, as would constantly being exposed to the elements and changing temperatures.

This is the answer. The idea that someone carrying around a longbow is carrying a strung bow on their back is something that all D&D players need to be broken of. An unstrung longbow pretty much just looks like a stick--the curve is entirely due to the tension of the string.

You can carry a gun in your hands all the time without damaging the gun and modern ones come with safeties. You could probably also do so with a weapon like a staff, axe, mace, etc.--anything that is mostly non-hurty bits. You could not do so with a bow, however, unless you replaced it often, and doing so with a sword or other weapon that is more hurty bits than not would be awkward and asking for accidents.

I agree. I would have no issue with a character carrying an unstrung longbow in their hand all the time (it's the same size as a quarterstaff, basically), but I wouldn't let them carry a strung bow on their back.

Also, leaving your bow propped up on end is a bad idea for the same reason. It needs to lay flat or hang from "that leather cap that holds the string on" (whatever it's called).

With that in mind, what kind of action is it to string a bow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwen Smith wrote:
With that in mind, what kind of action is it to string a bow?

In game? None at all, the RAW game mechanics have no concept of strung versus unstrung bows.

Going by real life? A 5-round action. You may as well just say "nobody is allowed to play an archer" outright.


McTaff wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Anyway, as fas as how NPCs react to someone carrying a longbow? Why, who cares, its a bow.

A notched arrow IN the bow is a different stance than walking around with a bow in hand.

Drawn Sword = Notched arrow

That depends on the NPC. Almost all NPCs the players meet are trained in the use of, or are familiar with other people who use bows. In this case, the NPC knows it is a non-action to nock and fire. (Applying the real-world nocked vs. held doesn't hold true with game mechanics as to draw, nock, aim and fire is an attack action, not something that takes a significant amount of time, and therefore can just be done with nothing more than the bow in hand.)

Therefore, if I am an armed, I may understand and not care, especially if the area is a place you'd likely run into trouble.
If I am armed and guarding something, or you have come onto my property, I may be offended or standoffish. I'd expect that you, once you are aware of who I am or where you are, that you'd put the damn thing away lest I get the wrong idea.
If I am not armed in any way, or I know I'm outwardly appearing to be not a threat, I'd be extremely concerned why the dude holding the pointy-stick-launcher hasn't seen fit to sling it over his shoulder to relax or even put it away - is he expecting to use it? Why? Am I about to be attacked?

-

Perhaps another analogy. You see two people. One is holding a rifle, with a magazine in it. You can't tell if it is loaded or the action worked/safety on or off. The other approaches you, but his buddy hasn't made any effort to make it clear he is not intending to shoot you (by making safe and slinging his rifle or anything like that). How would you treat him and his friend? With suspicion? Angrily? Scared? Respectful?
Different people would react in different ways, and you'd DM accordingly.

The point is, anyone openly carrying weapons in hand that could be perceived as a threat is probably going to be treated differently to if they were unarmed or had their...

You are trying to use "game mechanics" to meta game how a NPC would react.

Eerrrrrrrr WRONG.


PoisonToast wrote:

While it might not be ideal, my ranger's in the past have always walked around with bow in hand. Same way a wizard or monk with a quarterstaff would walk around with it out. Always bring those things up with the DM before game.

Training for years with a gun, bow, sword, shield, etc... it becomes natural to have them in your hand and on you. They become a part of you. An extension of who you are.

Going even further, all rogues I have ever played walk around quietly (taking penalties where appropriate). Not hiding, but not making much noise either. Training for years to move quietly, it would become natural to always walk that way. Its called muscle memory. When a movement is repeated over time, a long-term muscle memory is created for that task allowing it to be performed without conscious effort. This applies to controlling a horse with your knees.

I don't see a problem with being mounted and having on hand on your bow or crossbow across your lap, and one hand on the reigns. In fact I would assume that all of the party exploring a hostile territory would have their weapons ready at all times.

As far as the NPC thing goes, I personally cant see a NPC getting their panties in a bind because someone is walking around with a bow or quarterstaff out. Now a bunch of adventures with swords drawn out over their shoulders and at their sides might cause NPCs to get a little jumpy.

On a side note, I have been bow hunting. Carried that thing with me in my hand all day long.

Amen to that. american indians are depicted all over the place holding things int heir hands while mounted.

Even though it happens in movies Ive watched as well, the actors and the horses are still real and therefor a good example of how it isnt a big deal IRL, so if it can be done (and has been done) IRL, whats the big issue with fantasy?


Gwen Smith wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Longbows would not typically be able to be kept strung that consistently. That much constant tension on the bow would eventually cause the bow to warp, as would constantly being exposed to the elements and changing temperatures.

This is the answer. The idea that someone carrying around a longbow is carrying a strung bow on their back is something that all D&D players need to be broken of. An unstrung longbow pretty much just looks like a stick--the curve is entirely due to the tension of the string.

You can carry a gun in your hands all the time without damaging the gun and modern ones come with safeties. You could probably also do so with a weapon like a staff, axe, mace, etc.--anything that is mostly non-hurty bits. You could not do so with a bow, however, unless you replaced it often, and doing so with a sword or other weapon that is more hurty bits than not would be awkward and asking for accidents.

I agree. I would have no issue with a character carrying an unstrung longbow in their hand all the time (it's the same size as a quarterstaff, basically), but I wouldn't let them carry a strung bow on their back.

Also, leaving your bow propped up on end is a bad idea for the same reason. It needs to lay flat or hang from "that leather cap that holds the string on" (whatever it's called).

With that in mind, what kind of action is it to string a bow?

erm why cant you just lean your strung bow up against something?

People keep inventing this uber need to unstring bows, Im serious it is only necessary IRL for LONG term storage. As already stated about nothing in game about it so a bow can be strung FOREVER in game. IRL there is no detriment to leaning a bow that is strung up against a chair, wall or tree.


Nobody actually cares about properly representing unstrung bows. They've just started with the conclusion they want ("You can't have your weapon drawn outside of combat"), worked backward from there to try to come up with a semi-plausible justification ("Bowstrings! Suddenly bowstrings, which I have never given the slightest thought to before this thread and for which the game has zero mechanics, are the absolute most vital element of the game world to simulate properly!") without bothering to think about what else that justification would entail ("Why can't you lean it against things? Why doesn't waiting until combat to string a bow waste your first five turns? Because I say so, I only care about bowstrings insofar as they justify not letting you walk around with weapons drawn."), and the result is quite ridiculous.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal if someone is carrying their longbow all the time.

But if you want to discourage it, have NPCs react as if the PC were pointing an arrow at them everytime he meets them. Some might be all "Hey hey hey, put that thing down, we don't want no trouble!" Some might pull weapons on him and demand that he drop the bow. Others might pull weapons and shoot him on sight.


smilo that would seriously call for all sorts of combat everywhere and NO roll playing, thats a bad idea.

What is the reason for WANTING to discourage him carrying the bow??


Yeah, honestly, since this is a wilderness campaign, I'd just let it slide no problem. I won't claim to know anything about bows or archery but hell, if I start asking the player to unstring the bow, then I'm going to have to start asking the fighter to upkeep his weapons and start asking the wizard to pick bat guano. And honestly... I just don't care enough about either of those to really push it.


^ Pendagast just asked best question in this thread so far. very relevant.

Why would the GM make an issue out of this in the first place unless they really wanted the character to be unarmed at the start of combat?

If that's the case, why not just literally catch him with his pants down. If Someone's going to ambush them, why not do it while the halfling is doing something that requires them to put down the bow (using Pendagast's earlier example for inspiration).


Pendagast wrote:

smilo that would seriously call for all sorts of combat everywhere and NO roll playing, thats a bad idea.

What is the reason for WANTING to discourage him carrying the bow??

Because some people prefer a game that isn't all combat. Especially in the Kingmaker AP, exploration and friendly NPC interaction is just as important as combat, and automatically assuming that every single encounter is going to be immediately combat tends to get dull after a while. For those that truly want to be that prepared, there are plenty of mechanics that allow them to do so without having the constant obvious threat of a weapon out at all times.


ah! We HAD a thread on the bat guano, I recall the game years ago when that WAS the case ,missing on a 1 damaged your weapon and the magic user could cast fire ball the whole adventure because no one had seen a bat ( a near by dragon had eaten them all)


sunshadow21 wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

smilo that would seriously call for all sorts of combat everywhere and NO roll playing, thats a bad idea.

What is the reason for WANTING to discourage him carrying the bow??

Because some people prefer a game that isn't all combat. Especially in the Kingmaker AP, exploration and friendly NPC interaction is just as important as combat, and automatically assuming that every single encounter is going to be immediately combat tends to get dull after a while. For those that truly want to be that prepared, there are plenty of mechanics that allow them to do so without having the constant obvious threat of a weapon out at all times.

This would be the case if he had it out and drawn all the time. But he just wants to hold it out. And honestly, if they come across a group of people and it turns out they are friendly, I see no reason for him to have the bow drawn. A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Besides, it does add RPing element to it. You see it all the time in fantasy. The stuff protector of the team Cap'n. Like:

Archer: "I got him in my sights Cap'n"
Stranger: "We mean no harm! We are unarmed!"
Cap'n: "Alright we believe you. Archer, stand down."
Archer: (undrawing bow) "As you wish sir."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Why would the GM make an issue out of this in the first place unless they really wanted the character to be unarmed at the start of combat?

Because some DMs prefer parties that aren't hyper paranoid of every single individual or group they meet, and prefer that the characters behave at least to some degree like normal people, not crazy, insane mercenaries. Just because most PCs are doesn't mean they have to behave like it at all times. Besides, there are enough ways to mitigate that potential problem, why should I give the player a pass because they don't want to bother with taking the time to find and utilize them?


Odraude wrote:

This would be the case if he had it out and drawn all the time. But he just wants to hold it out. And honestly, if they come across a group of people and it turns out they are friendly, I see no reason for him to have the bow drawn. A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Besides, it does add RPing element to it. You see it all the time in fantasy. The stuff protector of the team Cap'n. Like:

Archer: "I got him in my sights Cap'n"
Stranger: "We mean no harm! We are unarmed!"
Cap'n: "Alright we believe you. Archer, stand down."
Archer: (undrawing bow) "As you wish sir."

Because players will take logic applied in one case and apply to similar cases. A bow probably is not all that big of a problem, but a sword or an axe can be more problematic, and trying to make exceptions that allow a bow but not a sword gets messy fast. A lot of rulings I may make as a DM may not make complete sense in the immediate scenario, but they help make the campaign as a whole go much smoother. The fact that many players don't usually think about that greater picture isn't the DM's fault.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Why would the GM make an issue out of this in the first place unless they really wanted the character to be unarmed at the start of combat?
Because some DMs prefer parties that aren't hyper paranoid of every single individual or group they meet, and prefer that the characters behave at least to some degree like normal people, not crazy, insane mercenaries. Just because most PCs are doesn't mean they have to behave like it at all times. Besides, there are enough ways to mitigate that potential problem, why should I give the player a pass because they don't want to bother with taking the time to find and utilize them?

I could understand that if you were in a town or city. But you're out in the wild with bears and cougars and bandits. Hell, it's worse because you now have to worry about chimeras and manitcores and hydras and basilisks that all want to fly in and kill you, or pull you into the river and feast on your blood. Or turn you into stone and eat you. Hell, if I were in that world, I'd say "F&$@ this s+%%, I'm staying home to cry and eat ice cream." But I am a coward :)


sunshadow21 wrote:
Odraude wrote:

This would be the case if he had it out and drawn all the time. But he just wants to hold it out. And honestly, if they come across a group of people and it turns out they are friendly, I see no reason for him to have the bow drawn. A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Besides, it does add RPing element to it. You see it all the time in fantasy. The stuff protector of the team Cap'n. Like:

Archer: "I got him in my sights Cap'n"
Stranger: "We mean no harm! We are unarmed!"
Cap'n: "Alright we believe you. Archer, stand down."
Archer: (undrawing bow) "As you wish sir."

Because players will take logic applied in one case and apply to similar cases. A bow probably is not all that big of a problem, but a sword or an axe can be more problematic, and trying to make exceptions that allow a bow but not a sword gets messy fast. A lot of rulings I may make as a DM may not make complete sense in the immediate scenario, but they help make the campaign as a whole go much smoother. The fact that many players don't usually think about that greater picture isn't the DM's fault.

I couldn't apply that with blades and hammers since those are much heavier than a bow. Some weapons I have allowed because I just cannot conceivably think of a sheath for it, like most polearms.


Odraude wrote:
I could understand that if you were in a town or city. But you're out in the wild with bears and cougars and bandits. Hell, it's worse because you now have to worry about chimeras and manitcores and hydras and basilisks that all want to fly in and kill you, or pull you into the river and feast on your blood. Or turn you into stone and eat you. Hell, if I were in that world, I'd say "F%+% this s$$@, I'm staying home to cry and eat ice cream." But I am a coward :)

Because in my world, not everything out in the wild wants to hurt you. Even if most of those creatures are there, most are not likely to interfere with the party unless they're hungry or threatened. The idea that every basilisk out there is just waiting to turn you to stone is silly. Having weapons close and accessible is one thing. Having them battle ready at all times isn't necessary, even in the wilderness, especially given the mechanics that render it largely unnecessary for most PCs. Quick Draw removes all the problems with it, and even without Quick Draw, anyone with a BAB of 1 or higher can pull a weapon as part of a regular move, and anyone can pull a weapon as a move action by itself. The times that a PC will truly start a fight completely defenseless are minute in PF. Maybe back in 2nd edition and earlier, it may have been necessary, but the game has changed a bit since then.

Again, I think the issue here is that the player in the OP was trying to match the practice of always having a weapon out while riding. It's not the practice itself that really was the problem, it was the extreme application of it that seemed to be the concern. I know that in most cases, I would ignore people having their weapons out, but while riding is a scenario that I myself would have problems with if they didn't have the appropriate feats and abilities. Even then, I probably wouldn't encourage it; just because you have the skills to be a paranoid crazy and get away with it doesn't mean you always have to be using them.


Wow, that was far more responses than I expected to see in one day! Thanks, everyone!

Pendagast, you ask a great question. I can ask another question in response -- why do you think the player is so adamant about wanting his bow out all the time?

Most likely, it has less to do with roleplaying than it does with his desire to be able to get a full volley of arrows off in the first round of combat. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In fact, one argument in favor of allowing him to do so in this thread and at my table has been that a spellcaster is effectively "carrying around his weapon" all the time (although the caster would be more or less equally unimpeded even if he did have to draw a weapon before casting spells).

Lets say I allow the bowman to keep his bow out all the time while traveling.

How long before the paladin feels short changed because HE has to draw his weapon at the start of every combat when out in the wilderness? Now melee fighters are being rooked by the rules! Casters and archers don't have to deal with this! How long before he begins insisting that he walks around with his greataxe out all the time? I mean, there's no rule against it, right?

Now the rogue, who actually spent a feat on quick draw, feels cheated because his feat basically allows him to do something that everyone else gets to do for free. He wants to get rid of his feat and start walking around with a short sword in each hand all the time. No rule against it, right?

But wait! The rogue has a weapon in each hand all the time, which means he doesn't have free hands to do things with. This should impede him at various times, because he has no hands free. Now two-weapon fighters are being rooked by the rules! Casters, bowmen, and two-handed weapon wielders don't have to deal with this! Unfair!

Ignoring the plight of the poor TWF-er for the moment, it seems to me that a world of people who travel around with their weapons out and at the ready at all times is a good example of game mechanics gone wild.

Another good point is that due to game mechanics, there is no difference between a character simply holding his bow and a character holding a bow with an arrow nocked and at the ready, pointing it at any random strangers to walk by. I think we can all agree that walking around all day with an arrow nocked and at the ready would be unreasonable (no rules against it, though!). It would obviously, in the real world, result in some Diplomacy issues at least -- but RAW the bowman doesn't have to bother aiming when he can make his shots just as easily without doing so (a houserule that readying an action to shoot an arrow requires aiming in an obvious way would seem reasonable, but it is exactly that -- a houserule).

A final question to the people who actually have archery hunting experience -- if you are out in the woods hunting and spy a likely target, is there ANYTHING you typically have to pause for a moment and do before taking your shot? Do you have to open a canister of ammo, for example? Or are arrows generally kept at the ready in an open quiver while you travel about? If so, does rain or snow getting into the canister ever cause trouble?


I don't think it's paranoid crazy to have a bow out and ready to use in the wild. The character sounds used to the possibility of any ambush.

It's true that animals generally won't attack you unless hungry, or threatened. Some will attack for being in their territory. Knowing this, it's fine to have a weapon out. The archer, even upon meeting a NPC probably wouldn't put the bow 'away' or anything. If that makes the NPC nervous, come to that at that time, but the face could easily let the NPC know that their archer is just being ready in case of danger. Seems reasonable to me, in a land not many may have explored.

Having a weapon out while riding, is fine, in my opinion. Now, being chased, or sprinting or galloping might be cause to give penalties if the rider has both hands on his bow, but not just walking through the woods.


Odraude wrote:

A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Problem being that RAW, there is functionally no difference between the two. Either way the archer can get off several shots at a moment's notice with no special penalties.


Is there a RAW reason why he can't hold the bow all the time?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In this thread: "Carrying a bow in the wilderness" = "crazy insane psycho-killer mercenaries who never RP".

Sczarni

Honestly, even if you win the argument, it will change nothing in the game mechanics. I'm assuming the players have been at this for a decent amount of time and they all have at least a BaB of +1?

If that is the case, it's a free action to draw a weapon as part of a movement. If the weapon is always out and combat starts, they can move and attack in the first round. If they are caught with their weapons sheathed (or bow slung) they can move, draw the weapon as a free action during the move, and attack.

Honestly, you're arguing semantics.

On the other hand though, you said the Ranger is using a longbow? Not a composite longbow? And is a Halfling? Did you give him a shortbow as a substitute due to his smaller stature? And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.

Quote:

At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made

up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.

- Core Rulebook p.147.


were bat.
I listed all sorts of issues I had earlier in the thread traveling about while hunting with my bow, I did forget one, bending over to tie my shoe and having several arrows from the quiver on my back fall out on the ground. (I told you I wasnt very good at bow hunting)

As far as rain getting in my quiver, that was never a problem. snow? never hunted while it was having a blizzard out, but some light snow is about the same as rain.

As far as shooting something with an arrow? Set feet, draw arrow, notch arrow deep breath while drawing bow, make sure to pull bow to corner of jaw, exhale, hold breath, aim, fire.

To a trained archer, all muscle memory.

I have never hit anything (including entirely missing any tree in a full forest) by "snap shooting" like legolas.

By the way legolas walked all over the place carrying his bow in several scenes. in others it was in his quiver, but i suspect that was for conveience of the actor.

Now you get to the point of quick draw. I remedy that with home brew of "everyone gets quick draw as a free feat". but thats home brew.

As per RAW and RAI, the archer has is bow out so there for doesnt need quick draw so the rogues quick draw is wasted? not true, if the ranger gets closed on for melee (lets say by another mounted enemy) then he cannot easily transition his weapon, in fact it's likely he'll have to drop the bow (possibly getting tramped during the fight) and then use actions to draw a suitable weapon to defend himself. a rogue with quick draw throwing ranged weapons doesn't have the problem transitioning from ranged to melee.

Sczarni

Quote:
How long before the paladin feels short changed because HE has to draw his weapon at the start of every combat when out in the wilderness?

He won't feel shortchanged because he's a paladin. He starts with a BaB of +1. He can draw his weapon at the start of combat as a free action during his movement. He is just as ready to go as the ranger.

As I said above, I'm assuming they've all gained enough xp so they all have a BaB of +1? If that is the case, the above applies to everyone.

Edit: If anyone should feel shortchanged it's the Ranger because he's actually carrying his weapon. His hands aren't empty like everyone else's.


Werebat wrote:

Wow, that was far more responses than I expected to see in one day! Thanks, everyone!

Pendagast, you ask a great question. I can ask another question in response -- why do you think the player is so adamant about wanting his bow out all the time?

Most likely, it has less to do with roleplaying than it does with his desire to be able to get a full volley of arrows off in the first round of combat. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In fact, one argument in favor of allowing him to do so in this thread and at my table has been that a spellcaster is effectively "carrying around his weapon" all the time (although the caster would be more or less equally unimpeded even if he did have to draw a weapon before casting spells).

Lets say I allow the bowman to keep his bow out all the time while traveling.

How long before the paladin feels short changed because HE has to draw his weapon at the start of every combat when out in the wilderness? Now melee fighters are being rooked by the rules! Casters and archers don't have to deal with this! How long before he begins insisting that he walks around with his greataxe out all the time? I mean, there's no rule against it, right?

Now the rogue, who actually spent a feat on quick draw, feels cheated because his feat basically allows him to do something that everyone else gets to do for free. He wants to get rid of his feat and start walking around with a short sword in each hand all the time. No rule against it, right?

But wait! The rogue has a weapon in each hand all the time, which means he doesn't have free hands to do things with. This should impede him at various times, because he has no hands free. Now two-weapon fighters are being rooked by the rules! Casters, bowmen, and two-handed weapon wielders don't have to deal with this! Unfair!

Ignoring the plight of the poor TWF-er for the moment, it seems to me that a world of people who travel around with their weapons out and at the ready at all times is a good example of game mechanics gone wild.

Another good point is that due to game mechanics, there is no difference between a character simply holding his bow and a character holding a bow with an arrow nocked and at the ready, pointing it at any random strangers to walk by. I think we can all agree that walking around all day with an arrow nocked and at the ready would be unreasonable (no rules against it, though!). It would obviously, in the real world, result in some Diplomacy issues at least -- but RAW the bowman doesn't have to bother aiming when he can make his shots just as easily without doing so (a houserule that readying an action to shoot an arrow requires aiming in an obvious way would seem reasonable, but it is exactly that -- a houserule).

A final question to the people who actually have archery hunting experience -- if you are out in the woods hunting and spy a likely target, is there ANYTHING you typically have to pause for a moment and do before taking your shot? Do you have to open a canister of ammo, for example? Or are arrows generally kept at the ready in an open quiver while you travel about? If so, does rain or snow getting into the canister ever cause trouble?

Those are some fair points actually. I'd say talk with the player then. Let him know that you'd rather not shortchange everyone and make Quick Draw useless. Like Pendergast said, with walking around with weapons and bow in hand, it'd get in the way of bushes, branches, and vines etc. Other than talking (and outright banning it of course) RAW-wise, there isn't much you can do. As for game mechanics gone wild... eh, I've seen much worse ;)


Corren28 wrote:


He won't feel shortchanged because he's a paladin. He starts with a BaB of +1. He can draw his weapon at the start of combat as a free action during his movement. He is just as ready to go as the ranger.

Allow me to give a comparison.

Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger draws his bow as a move action, and gets one attack.

Versus

Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger (who had his bow in hand all day) gets off three attacks from the back of his mount.

That's the real issue here. Ranger wants all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

Nothing will change the fact that Ranger wants all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

If Ranger could get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods, Ranger would not really give a damn about being allowed or not allowed to carry his bow around all day. What Ranger really cares about is being able to get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

So here we are.


Werebat wrote:
Corren28 wrote:


He won't feel shortchanged because he's a paladin. He starts with a BaB of +1. He can draw his weapon at the start of combat as a free action during his movement. He is just as ready to go as the ranger.

Allow me to give a comparison.

Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger draws his bow as a move action, and gets one attack.

Versus

Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger (who had his bow in hand all day) gets off three attacks from the back of his mount.

That's the real issue here. Ranger wants all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

Nothing will change the fact that Ranger wants all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

If Ranger could get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods, Ranger would not really give a damn about being allowed or not allowed to carry his bow around all day. What Ranger really cares about is being able to get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

So here we are.

It seems to me you trying to reduce the advantage of of being an archer, what you are displaying here IS the Archers advantage. which is why the game has so many archers.

However if you want to level the playing field, simply close enemies on that ranger, force the archer to move (kite) or change weapons and defend himself in melee.

Have sneaky enemies flank him and sneak attack him while he's fixed on faraway targets.

Throw in Cavalier NPC villans that charge him and watch his advantage dwindle.

Have enemy casters focus on him, or even charm him and use his advantage on the rest of the party.

You are clearly by your own admission, TRYING to Gimp the archer, just let the guy play an archer.


Werebat wrote:
If Ranger could get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods, Ranger would not really give a damn about being allowed or not allowed to carry his bow around all day. What Ranger really cares about is being able to get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.

The bolded part is pretty much what I guessed from the OP. The actual method used isn't the important thing; not being able to accept even minor disadvantages in certain circumstances is. You really need to just talk to the player and make him understand that there isn't a win button on the game, and that the occasional hindrance is not going to hurt the game, and might actually make it more interesting in the long run.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Werebat wrote:
If Ranger could get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods, Ranger would not really give a damn about being allowed or not allowed to carry his bow around all day. What Ranger really cares about is being able to get all of his iterative attacks in round one, all the time, even when attacked on day six of a week long trek through the woods.
The bolded part is pretty much what I guessed from the OP. The actual method used isn't the important thing; not being able to accept even minor disadvantages in certain circumstances is. You really need to just talk to the player and make him understand that there isn't a win button on the game, and that the occasional hindrance is not going to hurt the game, and might actually make it more interesting in the long run.

I dont think it's the win button. It's the reality button....ex military issues "I always sit in the corner, I always have an exit planned, I never let my guard down, Im always ready"

Simple attack the party when his character is asleep, healing his wounded mount, eating, bathing, swimming across a swift river or whatever, create situations where he can't get all attacks on round one (ambush with surprise rounds and invisible pilferers using quick steal and stuff like that)


If you really really REALLY want to hinder the archer... There are many ways to do that. Especially for exploring the wilderness. I used many of those rules in my Kingmaker game. Makes things interesting to say the least. Especially when my party got sucked up by a tornado.

Me? I used these to add more to encounters than just a 10 x 10 room with an orc and pie in it. And weather is the great equalizer. You can't charge in snow, can't do the archer/caster shuffle in snow, and rain can put a damper on archery. In fact, snow in general is the great equalizer. And it puts an emphasis on getting proper equipment. Like a pair of f&*$ing snow shows.


in the wilderness it occured to me there would be alot of cover and concealment, make sure you are using range increments too, range may keep him out of certain combat if he stays too far away, if he gets too close combats might close on him in a single move action.


Pendagast wrote:

I dont think it's the win button. It's the reality button....ex military issues "I always sit in the corner, I always have an exit planned, I never let my guard down, Im always ready"

Simple attack the party when his character is asleep, healing his wounded mount, eating, bathing, swimming across a swift river or whatever, create situations where he can't get all attacks on round one (ambush with surprise rounds and invisible pilferers using quick steal and stuff like that)

You could be right. In any case, talking to the player to see precisely why they absolutely must have that full first round seems the next step. That's the only way to determine if it's as suggested or a power gamer who thinks he should always get to play the exact way he wants to. If it's truly the former, get the player to help with developing challenging encounters; many people with that kind of experience are willing to share it when asked. If they just want to win and/or are only concerned about the success of their own character, you at least know what bigger issues you need to resolve.


hah! well I disagree, I would simply create situations that favor hand to hand and make ranged suck. I would make him swim, make him swing, make him get stuck in mud and have flying pixies close in on him. the Dm doesnt need permission. Whatever reason he thinks he is always going to get all his attack off is irrelevant, I would just create situations where he's at disadvantage. Why consult him?

Osirion

Just for the record, although I am not playing right now, all of my characters have their weapons drawn. Always.

Taldor

Pendagast wrote:
hah! well I disagree, I would simply create situations that favor hand to hand and make ranged suck. I would make him swim, make him swing, make him get stuck in mud and have flying pixies close in on him. the Dm doesnt need permission. Whatever reason he thinks he is always going to get all his attack off is irrelevant, I would just create situations where he's at disadvantage. Why consult him?

Because punishing the player ingame is childish and jerky? I presume you are all reasonable adults. Discuss it like men.


Hey... I understand that ordinary longbows need to be kept unstrung fairly often or else they can suffer wear. Is this also true for composite bows (not modern compound bows)?

I discussed a little with the player and while he does want the extra shots in, it seems he is more interested in realism.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

First, there's this:

Pendagast wrote:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.

Then there's this:

Corren28 wrote:

And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.

Quote:

At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made

up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.
- Core Rulebook p.147.

So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?

We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?


Pendagast wrote:
in the wilderness it occured to me there would be alot of cover and concealment, make sure you are using range increments too, range may keep him out of certain combat if he stays too far away, if he gets too close combats might close on him in a single move action.

If a fight is mapped out on a battle mat with minis, range is pretty much never an issue for the longbow. On the big chessex mats, you occasionally get the second increment.


Brian, the ranger in question uses a composite longbow. I think he probably started with a regular longbow, but we weren't aware of the rule about longbows and mounts at the time.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Odraude wrote:

This would be the case if he had it out and drawn all the time. But he just wants to hold it out. And honestly, if they come across a group of people and it turns out they are friendly, I see no reason for him to have the bow drawn. A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Besides, it does add RPing element to it. You see it all the time in fantasy. The stuff protector of the team Cap'n. Like:

Archer: "I got him in my sights Cap'n"
Stranger: "We mean no harm! We are unarmed!"
Cap'n: "Alright we believe you. Archer, stand down."
Archer: (undrawing bow) "As you wish sir."

Because players will take logic applied in one case and apply to similar cases. A bow probably is not all that big of a problem, but a sword or an axe can be more problematic, and trying to make exceptions that allow a bow but not a sword gets messy fast. A lot of rulings I may make as a DM may not make complete sense in the immediate scenario, but they help make the campaign as a whole go much smoother. The fact that many players don't usually think about that greater picture isn't the DM's fault.

Making me put my bow away won't change anything about how my PC treats people. If anything I would just not play an archer. I would just playing someone with another weapon that is always out. As the GM I might set up customs/social parameters within a certain area that dictates having a weapon out is impolite, and that doing so anyway makes the party, or at least the person, look bad.

edit:Actually I would not do that as a GM, but I as just presenting a possible solution.


wraithstrike wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Odraude wrote:

This would be the case if he had it out and drawn all the time. But he just wants to hold it out. And honestly, if they come across a group of people and it turns out they are friendly, I see no reason for him to have the bow drawn. A guy holding a bow isn't threatening. A guy holding a bow that is drawn is.

Besides, it does add RPing element to it. You see it all the time in fantasy. The stuff protector of the team Cap'n. Like:

Archer: "I got him in my sights Cap'n"
Stranger: "We mean no harm! We are unarmed!"
Cap'n: "Alright we believe you. Archer, stand down."
Archer: (undrawing bow) "As you wish sir."

Because players will take logic applied in one case and apply to similar cases. A bow probably is not all that big of a problem, but a sword or an axe can be more problematic, and trying to make exceptions that allow a bow but not a sword gets messy fast. A lot of rulings I may make as a DM may not make complete sense in the immediate scenario, but they help make the campaign as a whole go much smoother. The fact that many players don't usually think about that greater picture isn't the DM's fault.

Making me put my bow away won't change anything about how my PC treats people. If anything I would just not play an archer. I would just playing someone with another weapon that is always out. As the GM I might set up customs/social parameters within a certain area that dictates having a weapon out is impolite, and that doing so anyway makes the party, or at least the person, look bad.

edit:Actually I would not do that as a GM, but I as just presenting a possible solution.

In regards to a "No Weapons" zone, I've simply had people keep their weapons but put Peacebonds on sheathed weapons and unstring bows. That way they still have them in case things go South, and it makes a lot more sense in urban settings that would forbid this kind of thing.


Brian E. Harris wrote:

First, there's this:

Pendagast wrote:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.

Then there's this:

Corren28 wrote:

And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.

Quote:

At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made

up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.
- Core Rulebook p.147.

So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?

We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?

curious 40 people that posted never found that 2 years ago..hah!

51 to 100 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Keeping Weapons Drawn at All Times All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.