Dust Raven's page

I think I'll be drawing the maps in crayon...

I finally got my copy and have been reading through it and came across this. I'm a bit confused by it. It would seem movement from bull rush (and reposition) would provoke.

Comparing the rules between Starfinder and Pathfinder, both generally state the only way to avoid an AoO by moving is a 5ft step/guarded setp or withdraw. The main difference is in the rules for combat maneuvers and other forced movement. In pathfinder they specifically state the movement caused doesn't provoke and in Starfinder there is no stated exclusion. At least not in the descriptions of the combat maneuvers.

I'm almost ready to accept forced movement generally provokes like any other movement if only because of the increased difficulty of successfully performing combat maneuvers.

I may not refer to the tengu as a giant chicken, a chicken I tell you, a giant chicken!

I am not allowed to attack the darkness.

"Get off my lawn!" is not a verbal component of Hand of the Apprentice, even when playing Ezren.

I am not allowed to sell "oops" insurance (especially in Riddleport).

I must apply an oil of silence to my firearm before firing it indoors.

Dust Raven wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

And +2 armor would only add 4,000gp, not 8,000gp.

Heh, I caught that just as I hit submit. Fixed now. :)

Also, a masterwork greatsword has a value of 350 gp not 200 gp.

I'm using the goblin word for fixed, which means "changed to do something different" rather than the normal use, which means "repaired or corrected."

:p

One of my favorites was the Osirion mission in Day of the Demon, but only because there was an Andoran in the party.

My all time favorite is Cheliax in The Disappeared. I love GMing this see the look on the Cheliax player's face when I hand out faction missions.

Could someone help me out in figuring the cost of certain ammunition for a gunslinger, specifically if he's crafting the ammunition himself?

Alchemical Cartridge (paper, adamantine bullet)
Alchemical Cartridge (paper, silver bullet)
Alchemical Cartridge (paper, cold iron bullet)

Some of these seems pretty straight forward (cold iron would be double the cost, crafted at half the cost, so could cost my gunslinger 12gp per cold iron cartridge), but the others confuse me. Does the adamantine cartridge cost 36gp (half of 12+60) or 66gp (half of 12, +60) or something else? Similar for silver... Alchemical Silver says it costs +2gp per piece of ammo (implying a normal cost of 14gp per, and either 7gp or 8gp to craft), but there's a separate entry for a silver bullet in Ultimate Combat which costs 25gp; I'm completely lost here.

Could someone please help shed some light on what these costs should be?

Note: I know this is probably just a general rules question, but it's for a PFS character and I'm aware of (but lack an understanding of) special rules for purchasing ammunition for gunslingers in PFS.

The problem is that it completely denies a character's heritage, humanity, and for what gain? According to PF25, some Tieflings live for years as a human before their traits manifest. In this case it sucks for them, but it's one thing to come face to face with being a Tief, but being denied any humanity? You have the potential for a gripping struggle here, but as is its a losing battle by default. Even Dhampir can call themselves "persons".

A common joke at my table is "tieflings aren't people too."

As for being denied their humanity... so are dwarves. Also not human. Same for gnomes, kitsune, tengu and many others. Hey have absolutely no humanity and never will. Ever.

The only thing tieflings are actually denied is the humanoid creature type. A game mechanic which has absolutely zero bearing on how a creature/person actually fits into society or is role-played.

But since you've brought up the "struggle," consider how important such a struggle is to the individual. Questions get raised, such as what really makes one human? Does my heritage define me or do my actions? Read any book which revolves around these types of questions and you'll see this is hardly a losing battle. Role-playing such a character, or along side such a character, can be fun.

I'm convinced many people see it one way, and I and at least a few others see it differently. To me, there is a solid and definable difference between "you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class" and "a hit against the target's AC." These phrases describe two different things. Sure, the confirmation roll is an attack roll, and a natural 20 automatically hits the target, but you don't have to hit the target to confirm a threatened critical. You have to hit the target's AC. This is clearly stated in the rules.

Group A: A nat 20 on a critical confirmation roll automatically confirms the crit, regardless of the target's AC.

Group B: A nat 20 has no bearing on the result of a critical confirmation roll, and to confirm the roll must hit the target's AC.

I'm in Group B, and consider those in Group A to be using an EXTREMELY popular house rule. Like other EXTREMELY popular house rules, it may be an official rule someday.

I did not misspeak. The reason I brought up PFS was because PFS requires a strict adherence to RAW. In PFS, you cannot talk your GM into allowing you to use a dagger or a sickle or a handaxe as your black blade. In anything else, your GM has the authority to chose otherwise.

Daggers and sickles are weapons which may be used in one hand, but they are not "one-handed weapons." "One-handed" is a weapon category, and is used as such everywhere it is found in the rules. It is this reason they cannot be used as black blades. The fact they are not swords has nothing to do with it. A battlaxe (a one-handed slashing melee weapon) may be a black blade for example, but a handaxe (a light slashing melee weapon) may not.

It comes down to this, if you are limited to creating items for which the skill is listed as an alternate skill in the create magic items section, is the feat even worth taking? It is clearly not.

If you may use you chosen skill to craft any item (for which you take the applicable crafting feat) then all it does it put you on par with any given spellcaster with the same item creation feat, but with more difficult checks due to not having any spells available (though an actual spellcaster may assist you, providing the spell components). This seem to be RAI, even if the RAW is a bit confusing to some.

For anyone who needs justification to maintain immersion in the story, remember "crafting" a magic item rarely entails actual crafting, merely enchanting an already constructed item, or the simple assembling the pieces of the item as most. As far as how the item gets enchanted, use your imagination to determine a clever way one might use mundane skills in an unusual way, resulting in a magic effect. It shouldn't be too hard in a world full of magic.

Craft (baskets): a special basket is weaved into which the item to be enchanted is placed for a duration, and this basket is then handled in a particular way and ta-da! Magic item!

Craft (pottery): the item to be enchanted is baked into a piece of pottery (the magic prevents it from melting/burning) and ta-da! Magic item!

Profession (barrister): secret articles of divine or arcane law are written/etched/drawn into the item and ta-da! Magic item!

Profession (innkeeper): the item to be enchanted is placed/hidden in a high traffic area within the inn, allowing it to absorb the residual magic of those who pass by and ta-da! Magic item!

Profession (fisherman, midwife, soldier): these profession are full of oddly specific and unusual superstition; invent one and ta-da! Magic item!

I'm thinking the spells don't interact at all. FoM doesn't change how a character is affected by normal gravity (or protect him from falling damage, or even from being knocked prone), why would it if gravity was pulling in a different direction?

Dust Raven wrote:

...there's a feat and a wizard archetype that would, but normally no.

What feat are you referring to?

Cypher Magic allows you to cast from scrolls at +1 caster level. Not really the same thing, so serves me right for not looking up the details before posting. :)

Then how does my character caster level get factored in? The rules are rather clear about it being based off the spell level and the Creator's Caster Level

When casting from a scroll, your caster level and relevant ability score is never factored in. Well, there's a feat and a wizard archetype that would, but normally no.

A scroll's effective ability score is always the minimum required to cast the spell, and the CL is always set at the time it is scribed (though usually the minimum necessary to cast).

If all you've done is open the door and looked into a room, there is a lot you might notice. The dagger in a desk drawer is not one of them. I'm fairly certain you have to open that specific drawer to even have a chance of noticing there's a dagger in it.

In general, anything and everything that is noticeable, even if disguised or hidden (but still in LOS), can be spotted on a single Perception check. Anything else requires a specific attempt at searching, and some of those things may involve multiple rolls. If a player says he wants to search the entire room, I'll only ask for a single check. If there are multiple items hidden, each with a different DC, I'll let that single check have a chance to find everything, unless for some reason one of those items couldn't be found the same way as the others. For example, you searched the room and found the dagger in the desk drawer, but would need to examine the dagger specifically to notice the family crest on the pommel is unusual.

If I were to play a paladin, and I ended up participating in a scenario along side a reanimator or other evil-like character, I'd just assume it was all part of allying "with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil" only the need for atonement for doing so is unnecessary due to PFS guidelines. For RP purposes, my paladin wouldn't like it and might complain a bit, but would view it as an unwelcome necessity he'd have to tolerate until the scenario's quest was complete. "The need to complete our objective prevents me from acting against you... for now."

If I were to play a reanimator or other evil-like character and ended up participating in a scenario with a paladin, I'd assume the only reason he's not smiting me is because he's agreed to work along side me to thwart what he sees as a greater threat and I should avoid repeated action which may jeopardize such a viewpoint. "Hey, at least I'm not making my new undead dance the Macarena or reenact the Three Stooges for our amusement."

Though if anyone would like to check out what I consider a fantastic example of paladin-like goody-two-shoes cooperating with slaughters innocents for fun and laughs evil: Looking For Group

Pai Song wrote:

Is the boldet legal? I thought you have to own it yourself, because it says a watermarked PDF. Would be cool though really, since a group could then pool it´s ressources and i could let some of my new players use my stuff.

Technically, no. The intent of the rule is that you, yourself, own the rulebook for any rules which your character is using.

Actually, it's perfectly legal. The intent of the rule is to avoid requiring a GM to buy and memorize everything ever published. The GM only needs to know the core rules; it's the player's responsibility to provide anything else (and players may pool resources to provide it).

Questioning why a high charisma character hasn't put ranks into Diplomacy and other "face" skills is like questioning why a high dexterity character hasn't taken Dervish Dance and a scimitar. There is no "right" build and definitely no "if you have A, then you must have B & C." A high charisma sorcerer doesn't have to put ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy any more than a high dexterity monk must put ranks in disable device and sleight of hand.

this is heavily confusing, so i just have one question, would i be able to 1st turn--> use spellstrike to cast a spell on my scimitar. 2nd turn, cast true strike and move next to an opponent, turn 3...spell combat, the first attack imbued with shocking grasp and the spell disrupt undead (my GM allowed me to learn this spell) next to it? would i be able to do an extra attack after this, or is this even allowed?

Others have said no, but I can say no but you can do it this way:

Round 1: Cast true strike
Round 2: Cast a spell which involves a touch attack (such as shocking grasp) which you deliver using a weapon with Spellstrike, gaining a +20 bonus to your attack roll. Combine with Spell Combat, and you may also make a regular attack with your weapon (and if you somehow missed the 1st attack, you are still holding the charge of your touch attack and get a 2nd chance on this next attack).
Round 3: Um... profit!

87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

And 104% of them are exaggerated.

What I would like to know is how tattoos work that duplicate items that have to be taken off to work like the sleeves of many garnemts.

Normally you take them off and put them back on to change the looks of your clothing. Can you make those into a tattoo and turn them on and off instead or are you stuck with looking as if wearing the exact same clothes from the moment on that you get the tattoo?

What specific item are you referring to? Maybe I've just missed it but I can't think of any items you have to take of then put back on to change their effects. The Hat of Disguise, for example, need not be taken off to alter the appearance it provides.

Am I being unreasonable in assuming the x2 cost is enough of a restriction to stop magic item stacking?

(It is for example even LESS expensive to just stack a slotted item with additional abilities at x1.5!)

In my opinion, yes you are being unreasonable. First of all, RAW specifically states what you can do with magical tattoos, and a spell tattoo doesn't provide any exceptions. Second, you are still talking about magic items which cannot be taken from you except by extreme circumstances. Other items may be cheaper (slotted or not), but even a poor pickpocket has a chance to rob you of them.

Filling your body with unlimited scrolls should cost a LOT, if it is allowed at all. I personally would not allow it and would suggest you just used scrolls. For flavor you could have the scrolls be filled with strange runes instead of standard magical writing (whatever that may be) but they'd function just like scrolls.

RAW, getting more magic tattoos of any kind than you have slots for them isn't going to happen. So if you must stick with RAW, the most you can have is 11, and you'll need a mirror to use the ones on your head and neck. 50 is never going to happen.

If your GM is okay with a few house rules, propose some or ask how he'd do it. The items are already effectively slotless, but have a restriction on total number mainly (I assume) to keep people from overloading their body with magic items (although there is also a finite space to put tattoos). That's technically not what you are doing here, since you are aiming at spell tattoos specifically and not any other kind. Opening up a general rule allowing you to ignore the slot restrictions should apply ONLY to the use of spell tattoos and not any other type of tattoo to maintain this balance.

All that said, I'd go with Heaggles suggestion to simply double the cost of the Spell Tattoos to make them effectively slotless.

The ironic part about exorcising your creativity to write your own PFS scenarios is that every other GM will have to run them exactly as you've written them. :)

I would say you get the bonus for flanking if the flanker is invisible, but the target would automatically know an invisible creature that threatens him is in that square.

Not going to work.

An unseen servant "can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like"; it "can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices."

A crossbow, being "an other device" than a door or box, is beyond the capabilities of the servant. Basically, the role of an unseen servant is to open things, and to perform skills which can be used untrained in tasks which can be resolved at DC 10 or less (such as serving tea and biscuits, or whatever).

I'm pretty sure you should reread the part about "certain pressure plates and other devices." That means some, not all. The purpose of an unseen servant is to perform any task which doesn't require a skill check (or a routine enough task the DC of the skill check is 10 or less). I'm sure you wouldn't argue an unseen servant could never operate a lever. Also, any character with a strength score of 1 or higher can load a crossbow, so strength is not the issue.

Although I completely agree an unseen servant cannot open a heavy crossbow, seeing it is not at all like a normal door, drawer or lid.

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

The damage type for bite attacks is found in the Natural Attacks by Size table in the Universal Monster Rules.

Absolutely! But the new wand is restricted to only 10 charges and it requires you have Craft Staff. On the upside it's rechargeable now.

Or buy a bunch of weapon cords and tie them to your wands.

There is always some gizmo or thingamadoodad on the market which claims to improve the quality of someone's singing voice. Most are nothing more than shams, but in a fantasy world there's no reason the snake oil can't be real and have a real effect. A special belt or collar, throat magnets, a weird contraptions you keep in your mouth... and because they are masterwork they are either concealed as clothing or jewelry or otherwise just look impressive. So sure, master tools for singing make perfect sense.

The need to own the books you use the build your character has nothing to do with pay to play or funneling money to Paizo. It's about proof the rule the player is using is being used correctly and is allowed as presented per the Additional Resources. It may be assumed the GM has access to a small list of books, but if you have something on your character sheet that's not in one of those books, it's the player's responsibility to have purchased a copy of that book and bring it to the table to show the GM.

As far as policing this, I'm very flexible. I have just about everything every published by paizo on pdf (falling behind on the newer books and still need ARG, UE and NPC Codex). If a player can quote me the book and page number the rules for his whatever is from, I'm satisfied as I can verify it. If they don't, it's not my responsibility to find out for them.

By all means though, buy more books and support the people who makes this game possible. And buy the physical books from your FLGS; spread that support to your local community too.

Kobolds love making traps, but unless they're making a barricade usually need to build into each trap a method of bypassing it quickly allowing them to pass while still hindering others. A favorite is pressure/weight sensitive traps which 3-4 of the lightweight kobolds can scamper across or even jump up and down on but when 1 or 2 medium sized or larger creatures enter the square the trap triggers.

Consider trapping only half a section of a 10' wide corridor. The untrapped half is where the kobolds know to walk, and the trap can be triggered by something other than pressure to offer variety.

Also consider making some traps more of an alarm than something that can directly harm the PCs. If the trap is triggered, it means all the kobolds/monsters in the next room can't be surprised and are all armed and ready for the PCs, and may even go looking for them. If such a trap goes off, maybe the nearby kobolds release a pet they have and can barely control to hunt town the PCs.

If the kobolds have a competent caster, they'll have the potential for magical traps and can get really creative. Have an entire room light on fire unless a command word is spoken. Mix in some explosive runes among the graffiti. Label all the caster's potions "poison: do not drink" (and possibly with no magic aura via magic aura) plus a half dozen poisons which are unlabeled but detect as magic (also via magic aura).

It breaks verisimilitude for me to have to buy the items back from a merchant after the party sells them to the merchant. I mean this isn't the fed or anything.

It breaks verisimilitude for me if a merchant won't sell me an item just because it's too expensive, even if I put the gold down on the counter in front of him.

But I'm not looking for verisimilitude in my fantasy gaming - I'm looking for a workable rules system.

My verisimilitude is not broken at all by either of these, as it simply doesn't work that way.

You never buy back an item you just sold off. The money received represents a share of party treasure, as tallied should you sell everything. If you want something you found, you "buy" it from your group by sacrificing a corresponding amount of gold from your share. This method of diving treasure was one of the preferred methods of 3.5.

As for a merchant not selling you something you have the money for, never happens. You simply never find the merchant. That's what the Fame score does. It uses your contacts and influence withing your faction and the society as a whole to put you in touch with merchandise not commonly available to the public.

Brendan and Phillip, I absolutely agree! Eventually, my gnome pirate will be spending pp on his own ship, the Sundowner*, complete with elf first mate, an opportunistic halfling quartermaster and a goblin cook. But that's eventually.

Today I'm running The Blakros Matrimony and

At least one person in my regular group of players has his own ship. So I'd like to know how fast it is, or can be, or should be, among other factors.

I'm thankful to have discovered PFS and can once again game on the weekends.

I'm thankful my entire family has decided to not go shopping on Black Friday and instead stay in play through the First Steps while teaching my mom to play.

I'm thankful I have such an awesome and supportive group of players in my area who always provide an entertaining time.

I'm also thankful for other stuff, but I'll post about all that on the other stuff forums. :)

From Meteor Hammer

"Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.

You may use this weapon in two different ways:

•Meteor: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon.
•Fortress: In fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC.

Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn."

Thus a precendent exists for you being restricted to 1 free action grip change per round, honestly though its not a particularly unbalancing change to be able to free action change your grip multiple times.

Not really a precedent considering how the weapon is wielded. Deciding to constantly spin one end of a meteor hammer like a shield during your entire turn is a bit more involved than deciding to place both hands on your longsword. With the meteor hammer you are effectively equipping/unequipping a small shield for a free action instead of a move action.

What advice can you give novice GMs?

Mmm...

Use funny voices/accents when talking for NPCs. Everyone thinks you are RPing when you do this.

When the PC are moving across a mapped area but not yet in combat, point to a random square and say "just let me know where everybody is when someone gets here." The results are always fun.

Oh, and um... be familiar with the rules and stuff. You never know when those might come up.

;-)

Given his high level and prolific bookcrafting, perhaps a lich? A lich bard could be fun.

I think, according to RAW, you cannot use your move or standard actions to perform an extra swift action. Outside of PFS, I always rule you can use a standard action to perform any move or swift action, not just another move.

In the specific case of a paladin performing Lay on Hands, I'd rule that he can target himself with the standard action use in addition to the swift action use. I see no reason why, if he could heal himself and also heal another in the same turn, he could not heal himself twice. Hell, after level 4, he could even spend an additional use of lay on hands (for a total of 3) to heal himself once, and then channel to heal everybody including himself.

Where do the magic items come from if there are no casters?

Master Craftsman feat.

This just looks like a jerk player. Players don't need to be drinking during a game to not care about the consequences of their player's actions. Now, if the GM is okay with this kind of player, then hopefully the rest of the group is too. If not, then talk it out.

I'm not convinced the GM did anything wrong or handled thing badly. It's certainly possible for a 1st level character to kill an non-combat NPC in a single strike, and it's even reasonable for a GM to not call for initiative or enter into "combat time" for such a simple action, making it the responsibility of the other players to say they want to stop him. The GM is not required to give the players anything or remind them they can blurt out "I [insert action here]!" whenever they want to.

As for what to do next, do whatever you want do to. Run away. Turn yourselves in. Capture the ninja and turn him in. Kill the ninja. Get wasted during the game and wake up the next morning wondering what your character did...

Assuming I wanted to make use of this spell with my imp familiar, I'd probably be shooting myself in the foot here, but as a GM I'd rule that any ability score increasing items worn would "reset" if taken off and placed on the imp, and would not still count as permanent (I'd say if they stayed on my body they'd still count as permanent when my spirit returned after the spell ended though).

So if I was making use of a headband of int +4 and melded with my familiar, I'd effectively loose 4 point of int for the duration of the spell. Unless I bought a second headband which my imp always wore.

I'm probably not going to use this spell, ever. I'd rather get the extra actions from having both of us up and active.

I was recently having a discussion about this with my local PFS group. The general consensus was that the use of the word "threatened" means what it means elsewhere in the book; in a square into which an enemy threatens with melee weapon. The problem comes near the end of the spell's description, which indicates if the target is threatened (that word again) the spell immediately ends. So, basically if cast on a target adjacent to an ally with a dagger in hand, the target gets a +5 to their will save, and if the fail their save, the spell immediately ends.

Or we can just interpret the use of the word "threatened" in the spell's description the way normal people do, and not as a strictly defined game mechanic.

I roll all my attacks at once to save time. are you suggesting I roll them one at a time so I can choose who I shoot?

Roll all your attacks at the same time, against the same (or predetermined) targets, save time picking targets, combat moves more smoothly and you have saved time.

Or...

Roll each attack separately, declaring each one as you make it, drop targets faster, combat moves more smoothly and you have saved time.

Pick one. ;)

Why sacrifice concept? Nothing wrong if with two scimitar wielders in a game. I've never seen any such complications with longswords or composite longbows.

If it's just the weapon, ask if your GM allows you to reskin equipment, and describe your scimitar as some other melee weapon, like a "one handed falchion" or a "sabre".

11) A pegasus can fly without the need of a 100 ft wingspan.
12) Crafting things is based on how much they are sold for rather than on, um... how they are crafted.

In the absence of an author/dev stating otherwise, I'm pretty sure RAI is that you never use more than 1 round of rage duration per round, that you can start a new rage in the same round the previous rage ended (and vice versa) provided you are not fatigued/exhausted or can enter a rage while affected by those conditions, and you may not enter a new rage more than once per round.

If you are immune to fatigue, or are not fatigued at the end of a rage, this means any once per rage abilities are effectively once per round.

I'm pretty sure this is how it's supposed to work, and I'm okay with that.

I don't care much for the re-rolls, but I'm interested in some Golarion bling. Buttons and patches would be nice, and hell even I can make buttons easily enough. What I'd like are some wayfinders, and maybe some holy symbols I can wear around my neck.

For cleverness, make the wayfinder have a spot just large enough to put a d20.

I like having a mechanic to represent a character's attractiveness. Sure, it's subjective, and every individual will have a different notion of what is and isn't attractive, even if only slightly. But we already have game mechanics talking (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.). Sure, some GMs may want you to role-play these things out, but ultimately (and fairly) it comes down to an arbitrary die roll. Why not do the same for attractiveness.

As for what you'd use it for, well, probably those various personal interaction activities we have established mechanics for (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.). So ultimately we're just looking for something that'd modify a characters bonus to those roles, or the DC of such rolls made against the character, in situations in which the attractiveness of the character may come into play.

There are already many traits and feats which modify social skill rolls, so we can just use those. It's far easier IMO, than inventing a new rule and hoping it's fair and balanced.

I own most of Paizo's products on PDF, and if a player has something on his sheet I'm not familiar with, and if he can't provide the printed rule, I offer to look it up for him at the table, provided he can tell me the book and page number to save time. If he can't do that, then that resource can't be used at that session.

Sometimes, however, this can be tricky if the player is using an outdated resource. This happened to me last weekend when a player had the Serpent Lash feat from the Osirion book. Fantastic feat, and obviously over powered, but as I didn't have access to the Addition Resources page I had no idea if it was even legal. I guessed it wasn't but when in doubt, I allowed its use at the table since I had the rules for it. After the game when I once again had an internet connection, I discovered the feat was allowed, but only the updated version from the Rival Guide.

So I'm now making sure I have a pdf copy of the Additional Resource page on my laptop.

My wife and I have virtually identical rogues we call "Rose & Gil". They are currently masquerading as Taldan nobles and will likely get killed after botching a faction mission overseas.

Dust Raven wrote:

To the OP: Welcome to the world of "I can attack you from over here." It's what ranged weapons do. How to deal with the archer? Throw out critters with pounce and rake. Put a high STR big weapon fighter with power attack and step up next to him. Take a second look at Deflect Arrows. Shoot him with our own archer.

Bottom line: Is there an advantage to always having your primary weapon in hand? Sometimes. Is there a disadvantage to always having only one free hand? Sometimes.

Good Lord.

I appreciate all the input, really, but this is just... silly.

I agree. Please forgive.

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 is even simpler. Calmly explain a bow is not a rifle. End of discussion. When the player wants to relate RL knowledge/experience of an applicable nature (such as carrying around a bow all day), then it's worth discussion. Until, any experience concerning firearms and other items his character isn't using just doesn't apply.

I'm not familiar with your house rule, but it sounds like it more of an assumption of character actions than a rule. When I GM, I assume all weapons, wands, scrolls, materials and instruments are not in hand, but otherwise ready to be, unless I'm informed otherwise. Should a player inform he he always has his weapon in hand, I consider myself so informed (and then remind him should he need both his hands for something).