|
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.
It's even worse for composite bows. Leaving a composite bow strung up does more damage then if it is made of one piece of wood. Trust me, you just wanna ignore this aspect of realism unless you want to say that longbows are out of the game. You really are making an issue that isn't there into a big one. There is a perfectly RAW way to deal with it. There is no rules for prolonged riding with your knees. By RAW, you must adjucate what that does. I suggest you call it a hustle and be done with it. Either he gets off the wolf and spends an action to get on the wolf, or he tucks the bow away while he rides and uses an action to draw said bow.
|
Drawing or readying a weapon indicates a time of heightened stress. There's a difference between a troop of soldiers marching from one location to another and a troop on patrol. In the first instance, they are just focused on getting where they need to be. They might assign a few men to keep lookout or scout ahead but the bulk of the troop are on a reduced state of readiness. In the second instance they are focused on their surroundings with a heightened state of readiness. The focus isn't on getting from A to B but seeing what can be seen. The patrol would also move a lot slower than the marching troop. I'd allow that if they want to go around with weapons readied they can, but would suffer a penalty on overland movement. Also, due to the heightened state of readiness, they would fatigue faster. If a character is going to have an arrow nocked while mounted for more than a couple of hours you could reasonably have them make a periodical will save to avoid some kind of misfortune, e.g. Taking a wrong turn, tumbling from the mount, stabbing themself with the arrow, string burn, etc. A character on foot couldn't move faster than single movement/round if they want to be ready for an attack, since double movement usually means they are retreating or marching or something.
|
|
Or, how about an alternative? If your player insists that a "real soldier" would always have his weapon ready, remind him that player knowledge is separate to character knowledge, then allow him to make a Profession (Soldier) check DC15 at the start of each encounter to see if his character "remembered" to be vigilant. Add +2DC for "repetitive scenery" and +2DC for fatigued party. On a roll of natural 1 you can have all sorts of fun! Maybe his bowstring snaps just as the ambush is sprung, or he chose just that moment to scratch himself and his hand gets tangled in his belt (move action to remove). Enjoy!
|
The question was never, "how do I deal with the OP archer PC who is ruining my campaign?" It was about how to adjudicate a situation where a player has used RL knowledge to challenge a long standing house rule that has been fine with everyone at the table for years.
This changes things a bit, actually. We've all been looking for RAW support for what you're wanting to do and have been quoting you reasons why what you're looking for simply isn't possible. Because it isn't there.
I think it's important for you to be clear with your group on what kind of decision you've actually made. Has it just been a quiet understanding that the PCs weapons are sheathed until combat, or did you actually implement a rule stating the weapons are sheathed until drawn? If so, there is still nothing stopping them from having them drawn, but there should be some type of penalty, as stated above.
Unfortunately, with house rules, when a PC disagrees with it you're usually relegated to the "Because I'm the DM and I said so" argument, which PCs are never happy with.
RAW: There's absolutely no reason he can't do what he wants to do.
House Rules: It's your world, you make the rules. Unfortunately we can't do much more for you on that front aside from what we've done already. Sorry. :(
In the Pathfinder world, you get to do everything EXCEPT control the PCs, so you really dont get to say "I want a world where no one carries their weapon out all the time" because it's not going to stop PC's from doing it. Especially in an AP where the PCs are in the position to MAKE the societies rules.
I completely agree that the PCs are the lords of the land -- one of them IS the King, and if he wanted to walk around town with his sword out there really isn't much anyone could do about it. In fact, if the PCs wanted to make it a public policy that THEY surrounded the king at all times when in public, with their weapons out and at the ready, but NO ONE else could -- I'd be fine with that. They are the ones in charge.
To date they haven't bothered doing this, although I haven't had anyone try to attack them in town either. If I did, they might change their protocol, and I'd be fine with that.
In the Pathfinder world, you get to do everything EXCEPT control the PCs, so you really dont get to say "I want a world where no one carries their weapon out all the time" because it's not going to stop PC's from doing it. Especially in an AP where the PCs are in the position to MAKE the societies rules.
As DM, you DO get to step in and adjudicate when the rules lead to silly results. If a player wants to have his horse climb a tree, for example (RAW, horses can climb trees pretty well). If a player wants to grasp a 50 pound chunk of ice to sink to the bottom of a pool of water (RAW, it works). And so on.
Here's what WILL happen if I just let the players use RAW on this one:
* Ranger keeps his bow out at all times, while riding his wolf through the woods.
* Paladin says, "Hey, I can do that too -- might as well. I keep my greataxe out at all times while I'm riding, too."
* Rogue says, "Wait -- Guiding a mount with knees is only DC 5? Well heck, I keep my daggers in hand all day and guide my mount with my knees!"
* Mage chimes in: "FIVE? OK, I've got a wand in each hand while I guild my mount with my knees all day."
And so on.
An entire party of people riding all day guiding their mounts with their damn knees and daggers, etc. in their hands. Because RAW, it works.
Give me a RL example of people who actually did that. I have a hunch you won't find any.
Anyway, I think I've got a solution -- someone mentioned the Ranger getting the Endurance feat. Considering what I'm hearing from the actual military folk here (as well as the player), it would seem reasonable to allow a character with Endurance to carry his weapon all day long if he wanted to (seems in line with sleeping in armor, and Endurance is sort of a weak feat to begin with). That should keep the player happy and keep everyone in the world from riding around with their hands full of weapons and shields.
* Mage chimes in: "FIVE? OK, I've got a wand in each hand while I guild my mount with my knees all day."
Um... I meant "guide", of course, not "guild".
At least I didn't write "geld"...
I agree. Please forgive.
It is impossible for me to NOT forgive someone who is using a kenku as their image.
Good advice, too.
So all of this thread is based on what is possibly a move action OR a free action as part of a move?
Jezus hell DM. If a character is on patrol, let him have his weapon out.
We don't keep track of how many times a guy has to whiz in a day or other bodily functions.
Assuming some modicum of caution, folks would have weapons at the ready while in hostile, or potentially hostile territory.
Drawing or readying a weapon indicates a time of heightened stress. There's a difference between a troop of soldiers marching from one location to another and a troop on patrol. In the first instance, they are just focused on getting where they need to be. They might assign a few men to keep lookout or scout ahead but the bulk of the troop are on a reduced state of readiness. In the second instance they are focused on their surroundings with a heightened state of readiness. The focus isn't on getting from A to B but seeing what can be seen. The patrol would also move a lot slower than the marching troop. I'd allow that if they want to go around with weapons readied they can, but would suffer a penalty on overland movement. Also, due to the heightened state of readiness, they would fatigue faster. If a character is going to have an arrow nocked while mounted for more than a couple of hours you could reasonably have them make a periodical will save to avoid some kind of misfortune, e.g. Taking a wrong turn, tumbling from the mount, stabbing themself with the arrow, string burn, etc. A character on foot couldn't move faster than single movement/round if they want to be ready for an attack, since double movement usually means they are retreating or marching or something.
I do agree that marching, and casual walking are not done at the same speed in real life, but the rule book has a set marching speed, and your ability to perceive things is not affected by it. Well maybe if you are running, but other the normal marching speed is pretty fast compared to real world people so it would seem the PC's are always marching.
Werebat:
Larger swords do not require being sharp. In fact, many large swords were really quite dull. In the evolution of swords and armor the sword sizes increased due to improvements in armor. They were used 'slashing style' but that damage against heavy armor was force being applied through a blunt edge rather than force being applied through a cutting edge.
D&D in general does not model this well (at all). Oh well.
This is why warriors had no problem with carrying a bare large sword on the shoulder.
Note: I do not have any references for my information. I used to have a friend who owned a greatsword sized sword passed down through his (scottish) family. When I asked why it was dull he answered that that kind of sword is always dull.
- Gauss
Your friend was mistaken, the blades were kept quite sharp. That particular blade was most likely dull because nobody had sharpened it, and swords are often kept dull if they are to be used for decorative or training purposes. It also helps with transporting them through customs and the like. A dull sword is still somewhat effective, but a sharp one is always better.
As to the issue at hand... I would say the longstanding house rule is a candidate for revision. Certain weapons, including longbows, are designed quite well to be carried, ready to use, for long periods of time. Swords are one of the few that do not share this quality. If anyone in the party uses a spear, quarterstaff or polearm, I'd say they are just as right to be holding it at all times. Frankly, he wouldn't even need to guide his mount with his knees, holding a longbow in one hand is entirely doable... integral to proper use, even.
Try looking at this from his perspective: you are insisting that his character be strictly worse at his role in combat simply so that everyone else gets to be strictly better, despite the fact that ranged combat is already disadvantaged to melee by lower damage output, fewer options, greater feat dependency, limited ammo, and...
Gauss was not supporting the idea of the archer putting his bow away.
Here's what WILL happen if I just let the players use RAW on this one:
* Ranger keeps his bow out at all times, while riding his wolf through the woods.
* Paladin says, "Hey, I can do that too -- might as well. I keep my greataxe out at all times while I'm riding, too."
* Rogue says, "Wait -- Guiding a mount with knees is only DC 5? Well heck, I keep my daggers in hand all day and guide my mount with my knees!"
* Mage chimes in: "FIVE? OK, I've got a wand in each hand while I guild my mount with my knees all day."
And so on.
An entire party of people riding all day guiding their mounts with their damn knees and daggers, etc. in their hands. Because RAW, it works.
Give me a RL example of people who actually did that. I have a hunch you won't find any.
Why is this even a problem? It can't be realism because we have testimony that holding the weapon does not cause any problems in real life. Even so it is a fantasy game. If the players are good at controlling horses I am failing to see the issue. People in real life are not in fantasy land where you can be attacked at any moment so that is a terrible comparison to make. As I said before if you want to change the game you need to let it be known that these random attacks won't be taking place in your game world. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to keep the weapon out. Otherwise it won't be long before you players use weaponcords unless you ban them.
RAW the core book prevents the Longbow from being used from horseback. The Composite Longbow, on the other hand, can be used from horseback. What is there to fix? The Japanese longbow is composite in rl. I would guess the Samurai carry a Composite Longbow in PF as well...
Chance, IM WELL AWARE of what the differences are between the oriental bows and the standard bows are, it's the fact that the rules are designed to keep characters from using longbows while mounted yet have put a RAW class together using the same mechanical item for use on horse back. It needs to be addressed.
Thats not what it says however in UC, it says the longbow is the same as the diayuku. It does not say composite. and an eastern and western composite bows are not the same, as already stated how the japanese version works.
Shouldnt this be in the suggestions/homebrew area?
Shouldnt this be in the suggestions/homebrew area?
It did start out as a rules question, but now it is more suitable for the advice area.
Did I say make him forget about combat entirely? Even a soldier in real life has to worry about the journey as much as the combat at the end of it. It's about finding a balance, which is a key part of the DM's job.The biggest problem I see with your player's stance is as someone said he's thinking like a soldier, not an explorer. Try to get the player to worry less about combat, and more about the whole experience of traveling.Or don't tell him how to roleplay his character. There's nothing wrong with playing a PC that identifies more as a soldier than an explorer.
How to roleplay is a key part of the player's job. If the player wants to roleplay his character as a nut gun-survivalist, he's entitled to do so. Just like if he wants to roleplay it as a happy tree-huger hippie he's entitled to do so too.
In the Pathfinder world, you get to do everything EXCEPT control the PCs, so you really dont get to say "I want a world where no one carries their weapon out all the time" because it's not going to stop PC's from doing it. Especially in an AP where the PCs are in the position to MAKE the societies rules.As DM, you DO get to step in and adjudicate when the rules lead to silly results. If a player wants to have his horse climb a tree, for example (RAW, horses can climb trees pretty well). If a player wants to grasp a 50 pound chunk of ice to sink to the bottom of a pool of water (RAW, it works). And so on.
Here's what WILL happen if I just let the players use RAW on this one:
* Ranger keeps his bow out at all times, while riding his wolf through the woods.
* Paladin says, "Hey, I can do that too -- might as well. I keep my greataxe out at all times while I'm riding, too."
* Rogue says, "Wait -- Guiding a mount with knees is only DC 5? Well heck, I keep my daggers in hand all day and guide my mount with my knees!"
* Mage chimes in: "FIVE? OK, I've got a wand in each hand while I guild my mount with my knees all day."
And so on.
An entire party of people riding all day guiding their mounts with their damn knees and daggers, etc. in their hands. Because RAW, it works.
Give me a RL example of people who actually did that. I have a hunch you won't find any.
Anyway, I think I've got a solution -- someone mentioned the Ranger getting the Endurance feat. Considering what I'm hearing from the actual military folk here (as well as the player), it would seem reasonable to allow a character with Endurance to carry his weapon all day long if he wanted to (seems in line with sleeping in armor, and Endurance is sort of a weak feat to begin with). That should keep the player happy and keep everyone in the world from riding around with their hands full of weapons and shields.
If that's what you're worried about he Ranger (or whoever) doesn't even need to use his knees, he can ride around with the weapon in one hand and the other controlling the mount while exploring, then let go as a free action when combat starts and guide it with his knees for the few rounds that a combat usually lasts.
If the players are good at controlling horses I am failing to see the issue. People in real life are not in fantasy land where you can be attacked at any moment so that is a terrible comparison to make. As I said before if you want to change the game you need to let it be known that these random attacks won't be taking place in your game world. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to keep the weapon out.
You are confusing the issue. For one, guiding with knees is a DC 5 ride check, so anyone with a dexterity higher than zero can take 10 and do it all day. Second, it isn't only in "fantasyland" that attacks could come at any moment, there are plenty of RL examples of times and places where this was true and to my knowledge none of them featured all non-paralyzed people who rode horses carrying weapons and shields (for example) in both of their hands while guiding their mounts with their knees all day.
Outside of the riding issue, I agree that the best solution would probably be to rule on each and every object in the game as to its suitability and associated penalties with carrying it around for days on end. However, I lack both the time and inclination to do that.
To the OP:
What do you do with armor spikes, cestus, improved unarmed strikes, and natural weapons just to name a few melee weapons that are always at the ready?
Do you nerf those too?
Do you really think that my ruling gives claw specialists, armor spike specialists, cestus specialists, and monks an unfair advantage compared to everyone else?
If that's what you're worried about he Ranger (or whoever) doesn't even need to use his knees, he can ride around with the weapon in one hand and the other controlling the mount while exploring, then let go as a free action when combat starts and guide it with his knees for the few rounds that a combat usually lasts.
You're missing the point. A ruling in one case will be extrapolated to other cases in the game and lead to silliness like I have already mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your friend was mistaken, the blades were kept quite sharp. That particular blade was most likely dull because nobody had sharpened it, and swords are often kept dull if they are to be used for decorative or training purposes. It also helps with transporting them through customs and the like. A dull sword is still somewhat effective, but a sharp one is always better.
To digress a bit from the thread's main topic.... Actually, large swords like the claymore mentioned were not always fully sharpened. European fighting styles of the 15th Century included elements known as "half sword" techniques, which involved the sword's wielder grasping its blade for additional leverage or power. To facilitate this, they would only sharpen the blade half-way along its length, leaving the forte unsharpened. Blades made for such use often had a longer ricasso than earlier swords.
For examples of these fighting styles, you may want to look up the fighting manual of Hans Talhoffer or other German fechtbuchs of that period.
As far as the actual thread topic goes, I still don't think the player should be prevented from carrying his strung bow. Let him play his character his own way.
My point with fantasyland is that you are more likely to be attacked there by random monsters/enemies than in real life under most GM's. That is why most players keep their weapons out in games I have seen or run. That leads to my second point which was that if your version of fantasyland is less lethal then normal then you should let the players, or at least the one player know it. They they might not want to always keep the weapon out. If the player has had another GM before it might take a while to convince him though. It took players a while to realize I won't use GM fiat to make things happen the way I want to.
Just to be clear when I said it was a terrible comparison I was saying you are more likely to be attacked in fantasyland in real life so my point that it is a terrible comparison stands. I think you read it as me saying you are safer in fantasyland, which is not what I was saying.
If you are relatively safe in RL then the guide with the knees method would not be as popular*. It is probably(I have never ridden a horse) easier in the game than in real life, so if you can be a lot safer with relatively little difficulty then there is no reason not to do so. Even if the DC was higher people would just put more ranks into the ride skill for a game like Kingmaker.
*I will also add that you would only have to change directions while guiding with the knees at certain point of the march. The horse might be able to walk in a straight line for a few miles before you have to change his course. That leaves you free to hold the weapon. Heck you can even hold it with one hand, having it partially braced by the saddle. When I had to march in the military I had some of the weight of my rifle resting on my LBE. As someone else said you can use the other hand to guide the horse if you wanted to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much into house rule and advice territory, here, but I think it would be fair to adjudicate varying "readiness states" and house rule them in.
Some suggestions:
Battle Ready: The character has his weapons in hand and ready to use (is considered to be wielding the weapon for effects and abilities that depend on it).
Prepared: The character may have one weapon (or other item, such as a wand or staff) held, as well as a shield.
Normal: The character has weapons sheathed but easily to hand (use normal rules for drawing weapons).
Resting: The character has no weapons on his person. Weapons must be picked up from the ground before use.
A character may be at Normal readiness or Resting readiness indefinitely. Prepared characters may remain so for up to 8 hours + 1 hour per point of Constitution modifier consecutively without suffering any drawbacks (the Endurance Feat adds 4 hours). For each hour beyond that time, the character must rest for two hours or suffer a cumulative -1 penalty to Attack rolls, and any checks modified by Dexterity or Wisdom (the penalty only applies once, so ranged attack penalties are not doubled). Being Battle ready reduces the time before penalties start by 2 hours for each full hour at Battle readiness (a typical fight will not affect this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I think I've got a solution -- someone mentioned the Ranger getting the Endurance feat. Considering what I'm hearing from the actual military folk here (as well as the player), it would seem reasonable to allow a character with Endurance to carry his weapon all day long if he wanted to (seems in line with sleeping in armor, and Endurance is sort of a weak feat to begin with). That should keep the player happy and keep everyone in the world from riding around with their hands full of weapons and shields.
So after all of this, you're going to let him keep doing what he was doing as long as he gets the feat that he gets for free at 3rd level? Wow.
Hmm... didn't you say that this character had an animal companion? Rangers get those at, what... 4th level?
So after all of this, you're going to let him keep doing what he was doing as long as he gets the feat that he gets for free at 3rd level? Wow.
Hmm... didn't you say that this character had an animal companion? Rangers get those at, what... 4th level?
I certainly love non-solutions to non-issues :)
|
|
Werebat, I think a lot of the issue is coming from the fact that you're trying to pull from real world situations here. Yes, I know the player made a real world reference to his sling, but for good reason. To be perfectly honest, you made a house rule that makes no sense.
I had a similar situation in my first group. I decided to play a caster and was informed they changed the rules for combat casting and casting defensively. By their ruling, casting defensively did not mean I no longer provoked, it meant I got to use the plus 4 from combat casting on my concentration check after I got hit.
This rule is nowhere near as detrimental, but you're basically wanting to put limitations on the ranger for being a ranger. Has it ever occurred that the paladin can do the very same thing the ranger can? If the paladin has 3 BaBs he can take three shots with a bow. He doesn't have to be a ranger to do so.
And furthermore, is it the other players who are making a big deal out of this, or is it just you who is wanting to limit the ranger to one attack on the first round? If the other players are taking issue with it, simply present them with the arguments we've offered you here and explain to them you aren't going to pull the ranger down, but they need to step up. If you are the one taking issue with it then let him have his attacks, per the rules, but throw encounters at them that will restrict their attacks. Have some orcs or something start firing at them from a tree-line using the trees as cover. The melee will be much more valuable in that fight than the ranged combatants.
You need to find a way to challenge the pcs within the rules of the game. Making house rules and changing the way rules work is only going to alienate and eventually drive away your players.
ButterKnife:
When I say 'dull' I mean 'not razor sharp'. A semi-sharp sword is like a dull knife. I can put a dull knife blade in the palm of my hand and not cut myself.
Some types of swords were kept razor sharp. Due to the purpose of large swords they did not NEED to be razor sharp. In fact, a razor sharp sword is more likely to get damaged edges. A sword that is slightly dull can still cut through flesh and bone if it is heavy enough without suffering edge damage.
Sir_Wulf is correct about the half sword techniques.
Just to reiterate: I was not speaking about all swords. I was referencing very large european swords that did not need to be razor sharp to do thier considerable damage. Smaller swords had a need to be sharper.
- Gauss
If a character is going to have an arrow nocked while mounted for more than a couple of hours
Why do so many people in this thread assume that "carrying a bow in hand" means "constantly having an arrow knocked, readying an action every round to shoot anything that moves"?
Or, how about an alternative? If your player insists that a "real soldier" would always have his weapon ready, remind him that player knowledge is separate to character knowledge, then allow him to make a Profession (Soldier) check DC15 at the start of each encounter to see if his character "remembered" to be vigilant. Add +2DC for "repetitive scenery" and +2DC for fatigued party. On a roll of natural 1 you can have all sorts of fun! Maybe his bowstring snaps just as the ambush is sprung, or he chose just that moment to scratch himself and his hand gets tangled in his belt (move action to remove). Enjoy!
So it's a DC 19 to simply have a weapon in hand? In other words, a real-life army of rank-and-file soldiers, which have at best a +5 modifier to their Profession (Soldier) skill (1st level Warrior, Basic 8/9/10/11/12/13 array), have only a 1/3 chance of passing? Congratulations, your rule says that all armies are shambles so incompetent that most of them don't even remember to carry their weapons.
Anyone who's actually been in the military want to comment on whether remembering to carry your weapon was so hard that most of you couldn't manage it? This is something people fresh out of Basic can remember with no trouble; if it required a skill check it would be DC 5, not DC 19. But even requiring a skill check seems odd because it's something any proper adventurer would know how to do. The Ranger doesn't need a Profession (Soldier) check to know how to knock and shoot an arrow as a standard action to hit an enemy, so why does the simple task of holding a bow in one hand need one?
As for adding critical fumbles that instantly destroy weapons at exactly the wrong times to skill checks (and in ways that don't even make sense - your whole argument is that it's a long trek and the ambush could come any time in a space of days, yet the bow chooses that exact moment to spontaneously implode?) suggests that you really, really hate your players and have no goal other than to screw them over for no reason.
I've been in the military but not on combat patrol. So count me as having profession:Soldier 1 rank.
If I was going out on patrol you can bet your @$$ I'd have my weapon out and chambered. Of course I'd have the safety on and finger off trigger so count that as bow in hand, but arrow in quiver?
The requirement to state all of this over what is either a free action of a move action is ludicrous as i stated before.
Is the GM just trying to be an assmonkey or is there a valid reason to quibble over this?
I've been in the military but not on combat patrol. So count me as having profession:Soldier 1 rank.
If I was going out on patrol you can bet your @$$ I'd have my weapon out and chambered. Of course I'd have the safety on and finger off trigger so count that as bow in hand, but arrow in quiver?The requirement to state all of this over what is either a free action of a move action is ludicrous as i stated before.
Is the GM just trying to be an assmonkey or is there a valid reason to quibble over this?
I think Werebat is just overreacting to the inherent advantage that archers have over melee. The advantage that, they don't have to move before they attack.
As far as holding a bow all day causing fatigue, I don't buy it in this scenario... Back in my high school days, I was an avid hunter, and would sit in a tree stand from dawn til dusk the whole day with my hand on the handle and bow in my lap. This would be mechanically no different than a mounted character with their bow at the ready in their lap. It's not like you need a death grip on a bow you aren't shooting.
In other words, There is nothing in the rules that says he cant do this, and it's perfectly reasonable that he could do this. So, I would let him do this, and occasionally work in scenarios where not having a hand free could get him into a pickle.
Mmmm. Pickle.
If a character is going to have an arrow nocked while mounted for more than a couple of hoursAnyone who's actually been in the military want to comment on whether remembering to carry your weapon was so hard that most of you couldn't manage it? This is something people fresh out of Basic can remember with no trouble; if it required a skill check it would be DC 5, not DC 19. But even requiring a skill check seems odd because it's something any proper adventurer would know how to do. The Ranger doesn't need a Profession (Soldier) check to know how to knock and shoot an arrow as a standard action to hit an enemy, so why does the simple task of holding a bow in one hand need one?
Ex-military here, and forgetting how to use or carry my weapon would only happen with some type of head injury. <--Yes that is a serious statement. I still remember how to use and maintain several weapons, even the ones I only saw 2 or 3 times a year, and I would be a 1st level warrior, not even a fighter or other PC class. I probably have a higher skill bonus in profession(electronics/computer technician) than I do in solder because I spent more time fixing things, than I did learning how to kill people. So I am sure PF warriors who spend more time doing battle based things than I did would have an easier time remembering how to carry, and use a weapon.
In other words, There is nothing in the rules that says he cant do this, and it's perfectly reasonable that he could do this. So, I would let him do this, and occasionally work in scenarios where not having a hand free could get him into a pickle
^This. Not only is it RAW, it's far more sensible than requiring him to carry around his bow in some sort of cumbersome pseudo-sheath jury-rigged getup. Carrying a bow in hand is the most convenient way to do it.
If the players are good at controlling horses I am failing to see the issue. People in real life are not in fantasy land where you can be attacked at any moment so that is a terrible comparison to make. As I said before if you want to change the game you need to let it be known that these random attacks won't be taking place in your game world. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to keep the weapon out.You are confusing the issue. For one, guiding with knees is a DC 5 ride check, so anyone with a dexterity higher than zero can take 10 and do it all day.
Not exactly true, as a Dex 10 paladin with full plate and shield will fail taking 10 :)
To the OP: if instead of a Bow, the ranger had a lance... would you let him to have it wielded? Same goes with infantry chars with spears. Do you force them to "store" their spears/pikes/glaives? If so, how?
RAW the core book prevents the Longbow from being used from horseback. The Composite Longbow, on the other hand, can be used from horseback. What is there to fix? The Japanese longbow is composite in rl. I would guess the Samurai carry a Composite Longbow in PF as well...
Chance, IM WELL AWARE of what the differences are between the oriental bows and the standard bows are, it's the fact that the rules are designed to keep characters from using longbows while mounted yet have put a RAW class together using the same mechanical item for use on horse back. It needs to be addressed.
Thats not what it says however in UC, it says the longbow is the same as the diayuku. It does not say composite. and an eastern and western composite bows are not the same, as already stated how the japanese version works.
No, it says it is the "equivalent" of a longbow. It also says it is of "laminated contruction". That's what a composite bow is. Laminated construction / composite construction. In short, it's not exactly like a longbow. Why they didn't make it clearer, I don't know. But it's not hard to make the jump.
Ultimate Combat page 134:
"Daikyu: This long curved bow made of laminated
bamboo or wood, and favored by many samurai, is
equivalent to a longbow."
Ymmv, but they just described a composite longbow, with the stats of a western longbow. Maybe because RAW is not the focus of my life (i.e. I don't play PFS where this might be an issue) I don't see this as an insurmountable problem. Just rule it a composite longbow or use the stats of the western longbow and allow the daikyu / yumi to be used from horseback.
*edit* Btw, you won't find a western composite bow. The closest would be the bows of steppes nomads or the ones found in the Middle East. Western Asia, that is to say.
Donald Coyote:
I can put my palm against a moderately sharp blade without cutting it. It is when force and motion is applied that it gets cut. The original comment that sparked all of the discussion about how sharp swords were was when one poster stated (paraphrasing here) that it was a rediculous idea that a barbarian with a greatsword would rest that sharp sword on his shoulder and potentially cut his neck with it.
My point is (not made that well Im afraid) is that large swords do not need to be razor sharp. Even just a little sharp (which has a low risk of cutting yourself unless you apply significant force) is not only adequate, but desired as a way to protect a blade from damage while in combat.
So yes, stupid sharp is not a desirable quality for many medieval blades. :)
- Gauss
It's worth mentioning that nearly *all* large weapons were simply carried.
Germanic warriors carried their two handed swords on their shoulders.
as for these Germanic warriors carrying two handed swords around on their shoulders -- where can I read more about them? Are you saying that they just casually slung six-foot long blades of sharp steel over their shoulders -- near their necks -- and walked around like that all day long?
If you want more, Google "Landsknecht" and just look at the images.
Yes, that is how they carried those massive swords.
It's also worth noting that there is a sword technique called the Mordschlag where you gripped the sword by the blade and bashed the crap out of someone with the pommel/crosspiece. (google it for more)
And they didn't cut themselves because the blades weren't razors and they weren't running their hands down the edges.
|
|
It's also worth noting that there is a sword technique called the Mordschlag where you gripped the sword by the blade and bashed the crap out of someone with the pommel/crosspiece. (google it for more)And they didn't cut themselves because the blades weren't razors and they weren't running their hands down the edges.
The murderstroke (what mordschlag translates into) can be done with a very sharp blade tho. Once again, you palm the blades. Not nearly as easy as if your doing a halfsword...but you can do it. That plate is somewhat confusing as there is at NO point where doing a muderstroke in unarmored combat makes sense once it is out of the scabbard. The germans wore their scabbards on their belt and as such there would be no reason to do this with the scabbard...but the italians did like to carry their scabbarded swords in hands so you could possible do it as a first blow, but fiore writes to use the scabbard as a projectile instead to unsheate while using the scabbard as a distraction. Now with ARMOR, it makes a bit more sense...especially once they are in a coat of plates or better armor. Maybe the plate is just to show how to do the blow for learning sake and not indicative of when to use the technique? In fact the muderstroke would be LESS effective against linen then the stabby end. The pommel certainly will not skewer as well as the pointy end will...and neitehr will the qullions. So why waste time to flip your sword around to attack with the LESS deadly parts of your blade?
It wasn't a rules question, it was a 'general discussion' question. RAW is optional. House rules are normal. And by the look of it, this house rule was imposed without noticing it was a house rule. It wasn't done to punish a specific player. It was just assumed in their game that all characters would needed to draw their weapons at the start of battle. And given the number of threads complaining about how archers are so much better than melee characters, or about how some archer killed off a supposedly powerful enemy single-handedly in one round, it might improve balance to put in such a limitation.
You could codify the house rule to say that 'readying' a weapon is a move action / done during a move action (unless you have Quick Draw), irrespective of whether it is sheathed, on the basis that it takes a couple of seconds to react to danger before you can attack for the first time.
A 2 handed weapon being "hold", instead of "wield", is this:
To those who think weapons need to be stored, (two handed or not), one question. Where did the Halbaldiers "store" they weapon? How can you "sheath" a pike?
It wasn't a rules question, it was a 'general discussion'
Actually Matthew, it was posted as a rules question, in the rules area.
It just got moved to General last night.
The OP asked it as a RAW question.
