Arlindil

Igor Horvat's page

Organized Play Member. 387 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
Megistone wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)
IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.
Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.

Do that and it's worthless as a FULL one contains the water you need for the day: As far as I can tell, drinking an almost full waterskin and not drinking are the same thing by the rules for Starvation and Thirst.

Secondly, unless you went out of our way to have a full bulk number without any extra L items, it'll round up to a bulk anyway.

this is where common sense should come into play.

almost full should be enough for one day and should be worth 1 Bulk of bulk.


Lady Melo wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.

Considering survival rations would be less complete then proper modern rations with a good delivery system I would say you can cut those in half and have the person expected to burn body fat as part of there daily calories, with the intent to binge/feast when they return to civilization or when they find something large and edible (A common eating habit before modern ease). This is kind of supported by them being around 1 lb each for PF1e.

However I'm certain it's a mistake and is supposed to be 1 Bulk each week. Since Starfinder uses the exact same bulk system and there rations are sci-fantasy dense nutrient bars and are 1 B/week.

rations are considered to give you enough food for a day. Not to put you on starvation diet.

If you are losing 0,5kg per day that is extreme diet and considered unhealthy for more than a week or so.

If they are mostly fat with some carbs and proteins then 3500 calories can be in 0,5kg(1 lb)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.


SuperBidi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It's also worth keeping in mind that the players don't know the exact stats of the foes they're facing. Adding Attack of Opportunity to a creature is a great and easy way to model a bodyguard type or defensive type foe, but you don't even have to do that. Since the players don't know the stats, they won't know if something can attack them with an opportunity until they take the risk, and in many cases, players won't risk that.

I must admit it puzzles me. If I have a fighter, the monster has no reason to know I can make an attack of opportunity. So, every fight, the DM is supposed to move a monster and discover I have it. It's even worse with stupid monster, this monster is supposed to trigger an attack of opportunity at each and every round if its attack sequence uses a move or manipulate action.

So, I'm pretty sure attacks of opportunity will generate arguments if a monster makes an action that doesn't trigger one without valid reasons. For example, if a spellcaster makes a 5-foot step before casting a spell. As it is metagaming...

In my opinion, there should be a way to know that an enemy has a specific trigger set on a specific action. And enemies should know if a character has a specific trigger on a specific action.

There is a way to Know that for sure.

Take the action and find out :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mE6ba3qj8


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.

Good look keeping your distance in a 6x6 room. Well, if you manage to hurl your fireball from three rooms back and around two corners you are welcome.

/irony

Close quarters combat was always limiting factor with ranged characters,

but even then if you had 3 or 4 melee characters infront of you, enemy melee had to suck up a few AoO's to get to you, softening them in the proces.


Theconiel wrote:
This seems to benefit both martial classes (especially fighters) and casters. It would be nice to hit an enemy with a Shocking Grasp and run away without having to worry about AoO.

if you have to use shocking grasp as a wizard and you are not some kind of gish character you are in the wrong place.

I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance.


Midnightoker wrote:

Theoretically, being designed for someone with Point Blankshot could be the counter argument.

All weapons required explicit training based on the style of the weapon, it's not super outlandish to assume that may come in the form of training, or even compensated by ability scores.

point blank shot would not be a problem if it does not make longbow still worse at close range.

It give +2 attack bonus to longbow only(somehow) and give every weapon except longbow +2 damage(somehow).

it would be better as they did on 5E.
Longbow cannot be used by small characters.


shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Those are flat out ridiculous.

I mean, the thread should be renamed as "What house rule will make me do ridiculous ranged damage?"

At this point it has little to do with volley being "unrealistic" and more to do with "I want more damage".

If you want to house rule d12 ranged weapons with 0 reload and minimal investment, be my guest.

But they are nowhere near balanced in the context of the rest weapons in the game.

You have to keep in mind that die increases scale with striking runes, while propulsive doesn't.

Deadly also isn't worth a full die increase on its own, and giving free "50% range increases"

It will turn the game in a ranged fiesta.

Maybe str requirement is a bit low. It could be raised by 2 for each bow.

then 16 str would be 1d12. Now longbow with 18 str deals 1d8+2.

1d8+2 is more reliable than 1d12.

When you drop Extra crit damage and extra range seems as a nice addon.
Not to mention that 90% of ranged combat is between 10 and 100ft


I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.


Can we get for once a mana point system by default??


Midnightoker wrote:

What about the proposed change I made to attacking multiple targets, which thematically makes sense since changing targets with a longbow is harder due to the needed repositioning.

I.e. “If you make more than one strike in a round with this weapon and the subsequent strike is a different target than your previous strike, you receive a -2 to the attack roll”

That’s the same incentive with a selective enforcement that thematically fits the weapon.

Want to take down multiple targets? Perhaps dish out hinderances to more than one enemy? Short bow is better.

Want to shoot down Smaug from a billion yards away? Want to plug three arrows straight into the cyclops? Longbows the way to go.

Bulky is just there because it makes sense. As far as the point on mounts, that’s not really a universal thing you can say. Especially in an edition where full attack five foot step is no longer king, but you’re welcome to the opinion.

The above is more than enough to grant incentive to different choices.

This could be a good solution to the problem.

If longbow is larger and clumsier to move around then -2 cumulative penalty per extra target in a single round is a good negative trait.

Ad in that already it cannot be used while mounted and that is enough to balance it vs shortbow.

Or remove Volley trait and give shortbow Agile.


Kyrone wrote:

The main problem becomes the spontaneous versus prepared casting, in 5e Sorcerer is just a inferior to Wizard with less spells know and fixed list.

I think that in the internal playtesting of PF2 they tried that method and if it had gone forward Sorcerer would not have been a class.

We just made sorcery points recharge on a short rest.

That way sorcerer knows less spells but can cast more or have them heavily influenced by metamagic skills.


Joey Cote wrote:
Just my opinion, but I think a reason why they choose to say you cannot poison ammunition is to prevent someone from claiming they could poison 10 objects at a time, since all ammunition comes in batches of 10.

well, if you had a jar of poison like Nutella 1kg, then yes, you could apply poison to all 10 arrows.

But, that is a clumsy situation so I would say that you spend 10+2d12 doses of poison due to spilling, dripping, etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Retraining should not be possible at all.

This just give option to exchange a feature that you took because of lack of knowing how mechanics for your class Works.

It is pretty generous.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
human feat Unconventional Weaponry wrote:

You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.

If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon.

Say a human monk wants a long-range option. If they want the halfling sling staff (uncommon martial weapon with the halfling trait), they can use Unconventional Weaponry to gain access to it and treat it like a simple weapon for proficiency purposes, which means they'll get to expert at 5th and master at 13th. OTOH, if they want a longbow then Unconventional Weaponry can't help them, because it's a common martial weapon and U.W. only lets you choose uncommon weapons.

Does this seem wacky and maybe even unintended to anyone else? Being able to select uncommon but not common options strikes me as like being proficient in martial weapons but not simple weapons---it shouldn't happen. But maybe I'm biased by my desire to build a monk with a bow who gets past trained reasonably quickly (elven weapon familiarity + elven weapon expertise will do it, but not til 13th).

Yeah, it's kind of weird.

They should have moved away from simple/martial/uncommon/superior categories and give all classes Access to all weapons.

Then the skill with weapons would be determined with untrained/trained/expert/master/legendary bonuses to proficiency.

Same goes for all armour, just have it based on str if it can be used.

I.E.
Wizard would be untrained in weapons and armor at lvl 1, they would get trained in armour and weapons at lvl 3 and expert at lvl 13.

Fighters would start as expert in weapons and trained with armor at lvl3.

Fighter would get expert/master/legendary with weapons at levels 3/9/15
and with armours at levels 5/11/17

All other classes would be somewhere in-between.


Ap0th1x wrote:

Specifically this is mentioned.

If you retrieve a two-handed item with only one hand, you still need to change your grip before you can wield or use it.

So it's probably a good idea when you retrieve your weapon to use both hands.

Igor Horvat wrote:

I was just being sarcastic due to the rule that grasping a 2hander with your offhand cost an action.

By that same logic, you draw the sword from the scabbard with your main hand then you have to grasp it with your off hand to make a proper 2handed grip.

I just want to see a 2handed draw of a sword from a scabbard. Hahaha!!


It does not work together.

But if you want to make Elf step work in any situation, you can house rule it:

Any time you make Step move, increase that move distance by 5ft.


SuperBidi wrote:
Lightwire wrote:
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.
A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.

Yes, and 5th level wizard can deal 300d6 of damage with fireball in one round... but it won't happen every day


Draco18s wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
There is no momentum needed for drawing two shortswords at the same time.

There's no momentum required to thrust two swords forward at the same time either.

Unless Pathfinder 2 takes place in place where there's no friction, so you have to throw one arm behind you and one in front of you with each attack...

Oh and you can't swing your arms around when you move, either, as there's no friction, so your arms are busy jabbing your weapon into the ground in order to push against something.

Obviously.

(Less sarcastically its because the action is called "Manipulate an Item")

OK, since you didn't do much swordmanship:

If you attack with your right hand, you twist the torso in that direction to generate power in the swing.

If you attack with left hand in the SAME time, you remove power from your left hand swing as your torso is moving against the direction of attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was just being sarcastic due to the rule that grasping a 2hander with your offhand cost an action.

By that same logic, you draw the sword from the scabbard with your main hand then you have to grasp it with your off hand to make a proper 2handed grip.


Xenocrat wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action

Correction: 1 action per dropped item.

Suddenly your Battle Medic feat became actively worse than a 3-action Heal spell.

you can't pick up 2 item at the same time with both hands?

No more than you can strike with two items at the same time with both hands using only one action.

Of course there are class feats to allow just that, so maybe in the future you can take a class feat called Double Retrieval to help you out.

how is that in any way relevant to each other?

You cannot attack at the same time while dualwielding as one attack draws away the momentum on another attack. You have to do it in sequence.

There is no momentum needed for drawing two shortswords at the same time.


not to mention that you need to spend 2 actions to draw a 2handed weapon :D


Draco18s wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action

Correction: 1 action per dropped item.

Suddenly your Battle Medic feat became actively worse than a 3-action Heal spell.

you can't pick up 2 item at the same time with both hands?


Zapp wrote:

Far too many gamers want to eat the cake and have it too.

They want Fireballs. They want dragons. They want poison that simply adds damage, to allow them to kill foes in seconds.

At the same time, they complain over timing issues.

If they banned magic and monsters, I could take their criticism against the Interact action seriously.

As it is, however, they basically ignore game balance as long as it suits them, but cry "unrealistic" whenever it doesn't.

That simply isn't credible.

Pathfinder 2 is a game. Hand usage is a rource to be managed. It's made richer by your hand choice having a real game impact.

Saying you should be able to change hand usage freely simply means some configurations are invalidated, resulting in less choice and a poorer game.

Magic does not exist so we have to invent what is "realistic" and "balanced" for magic.

We could say that fireball is sor of RPG-like weapon and Dragons are more or less attack helicopters, but that is not the issue.

Issue is with actions that can be made by any of us.

And we know how those actions are complicated.

Is standing up worth 2 seconds of your time?
Yes, as most people need a second or two to stand up from lying down.

Does drawing a sword takes 2 seconds? No, if it is not a 2hander strapped across your back. 1 second might be better. Half an action?

Re-gripping a sword handle with your free hand? 1/10 of an action?

Also, there is a topic for hand usage for Medicine. I would be 1st to say that you need BOTH! hands free to do that.
Drop any weapons/shields; free action
Medicine; as many as it takes
Picking up weapons from floor; 1 action

If drinking a potion is 1 action then administrating it to knockedout ally is 3 actions(maybe 2 if generous).

Maybe if they went with 6 actions instead of 3, (For 6 seconds round) things could be made more realistic.

Then we could have:
attack; 2 actions
move; 2 actions
step: 1 action
stand up: 2 actions: 1 if trained or better in both acrobatics and athletics
spellcasting: base 4 actions, 5,3,2,1 for some spells
draw weapon: 1 action


I would not give 2 sets of 4 ability boosts every 5 levels

rather a boost to each ability score every 5 levels.
That will still cover any possible MAD problem but prevent abilities going over 22/20.

Point of gestalt is versatility not pure power.

Also for HPs, I would use average HP per level from 2 classes.

But as Corvo stated, nice way is Extra class feats for multiclass every even level.


graystone wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
balance must not collide with common sense.
For me, we lost that battle when we got told it take 2 seconds to put a second hand on a weapon... Or use mundane healing in 2 seconds. Or that 20 shortswords held loosely in my arms is just as unwieldy as 20 shortswords carefully packed into a backpack. or... So if we're arguing common sense, this is WAY, WAY, WAY far down on the list IMO. I wouldn't call this 'pathfinder: the common sense version' by any means.

I am not going into that discussion again. LoL. Same goes for Volley.

There simply too much balance features for balance only sake.

Seem that no devs ever held a weapon of any kind.

Maybe if they made 6 actions per round instead of 3, things would be more fluid.


Matthew Downie wrote:


Battle Medicine is vaguer than that, but it's hard to visualise a form that requires zero hands.

Telekinesis?


SuperBidi wrote:

You don't understand the point.

Ammunitions are no weapons. There is not a single line stating that, and clearly you can't just say they are on the same chart to prove it.
The fact that you can't poison ammunitions per the rules is there for balance. Being able to apply poison at every attack would double a bow ranger damage output, putting it way ahead of everything else.
Poisoning a "bow" is of course poisoning it's ammunitions. Just, RAW, you'll apply poison only once. That's all.

balance must not collide with common sense.

Find other ways to balance:

Chance to poison yourself, higher cost of poisons, poisons being illegal by default and carrying risk for owning them,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a GM tells me that I cannot put poison on arrows/bots and that poison must be put on bow/crossbow and that during the attack poison transfers from bow/crossbow to it's ammunition, I would leave the table and never return :D


The ShadowShackleton wrote:

This is something that desperately needs some developer commentary. I built a whole character concept on a sword and shield battle medic. If I have to use two hands to heal he will be dead in the water. Dropping or sheathing my sword I can buy but surely it is not intended to need two hands.

Seems like there are two valid ways to interpret it which isn’t great.

Unless you are using heal potion that you will smash against your target's forehead, I would say that medicine should require 2 hands.

Drops arms-free action
Medicine-how many it takes,
Pick up arms from the floor- 1 action


3 Ancestry feats at 1st level.
Ancestry feats and general feats share the same pool
Extra class feat at every odd level, but use your level/2 round up for the choice of extra class feats:
at lvl1 you can take level 1 class feat,
at lvl3 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl5 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl7 take lvl 4 or lower class feat
...
at lvl19 take lvl 10 or lower class feat


Tectorman wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).

haha. I just had an image of 3' halfling with a 6' bow.


JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?


Squiggit wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

But it's easier to maneuver a smaller weapon than a larger one in close quarters.

Which is why Longbows have an explicit penalty while the more compact shortbow does not.

Depends how you define close quarters:

Is it in melee reach of an enemy? Yes, I agree that shortbow is better then.

Is it in cramped conditions? Low ceiling, narrow corridor, climbing?
Yes, shorbow is better for that.

Is it some arbitrary distance outside any melee reach and independent of a terrain situation? There is no difference in aiming with either weapon.


Malk_Content wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

All armor should be based on strength to use

all classes should have level+2 bonus to AC with some classes getting improved proficiency; +4/+6/+8

You kinda just described the Armour system in PF2

not quite, but almost.

Not all classes are proficient with all armour.

And str requirement is only to negate/lessen penalties from armour


Unicore wrote:

Igor,

feel free to come up with any house rules you want around the bow, but just be careful about the effects some of them will have on ranged combat as a whole, which is pretty powerful by default with a reload 0 weapon that can be fired 3 times in a round. Adding reload 1 to your longbow and upping the damage dice is fine for your table and probably not going to break the game as badly as taking volley away and adding agile to short bow as originally proposed.

However, it is not something I would do, because I prefer the design space of mid to long range weapon, than a martial version of the crossbow.

I will do that.

I was just explaining how nonsensical is Volley penalty for longbow.

Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

Then for balance reasons, longbow can have the LONGEST volley range penalty(30ft) and hand crossbow can have shortest(15ft).

But if you are just shooting at someone, there is no difference between shortbow and longbow except strength required and power transferred to the arrow and then target. Described in mechanics as damage and range.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.

not really.

shortbow is much more maneuverable and "managable".

there's a reason that scouts, skirmishers, and mounted archers all used shorter bows than the traditional English longbow.

And that is exactly my point.

Better at mounted combat or climbing or cramped conditions.

But nothing about longbow says that it sucks at aiming at 30ft or less.

If it sucks in aiming because of some conditions in comparison to shorbows, it sucks at all ranges.

If you cant get in a position to aim it does not matter if you aim at 10ft or 510ft. Base penalty for bad aim is the same.


Otha wrote:
Campbell wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas is probably a Fighter.
I disagree. Legolas scouted ahead of the Fellowship when they were trying to take the pass of Caradhras. And he helped Aragorn track the Uruk-hai when the ‘three hunters’ were trying to rescue Merry and Pippin. Tolkien mentioned more than once that Legolas left next to no tracks when he was traveling in the wilderness. Sure sounds like a Ranger to me...

I agree that Legolas is a fighter.

All his abilities are tied to Elves being far superior to Men.

Better eyesight and so graceful that they can walk on loose snow.

Legolas didn't display any major skills with animals or herbalism or deciphering tracks.


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.


All armor should be based on strength to use

all classes should have level+2 bonus to AC with some classes getting improved proficiency; +4/+6/+8


Unicore wrote:

An AC penalty in melee doesn't really effect the way the weapon is used though, which Volley clearly does.

The intention for using a longbow is that it is a long range hunting weapon and one that the fighter can use close up if they are dedicated to it. Mechanically, Volley accomplishes this perfectly.

I get not liking the feel of the weapon. But there are a lot of great other options out there, for different kinds of builds.

@Igor, what build were you wanting a longbow for, that now feels off?

Well, it doesn't really need to affect the weapon use directly.

It can affect your overall performance as fighting unit.

at 100ft it does not matter(most of the time) if you have -2 AC, but if you shoot someone from 20ft you might be very sorry for that missing AC when axes start flying around your head.

As for build you asked, I have an Elven ranger.
But I have both bows in gear irrelevant of Volley trait as one can't be used on a mount(per rules, which is great) and as I have climb speed and intend to use it in forests/hills and maybe urban areas, I find it more feasible to climb with 3ft bow than with 6ft bow.

And in canopy I can tell that DM would give me more opportunity for a shot with more compact weapon.

Also in cramped spaces, DM might say that only 1Bulk weapons or lighter can be used...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity.

Elements are, most other elements aren't imo. For instance if a creature's weight is simply size+GM adjustment. Then that is objectively easier to figure out on the fly (when it would be needed) than if you were calculating each race's specific size/weight and adjusting for their equipment in a straight weight system.

And if the GM was just arbitrarily giving weights to things then there is no difference in the scenario realistically, just mental metrics used to set the weight/bulk figure.

I would say that size shifts are just as easy to calculate for with both.

It becomes more complex if people try to insert verisimilitude into it that the system wasn't designed for though. Square peg circular hole conundrum.
The challenge for a designer is trying to decide what elements the average user would like to have simulated and what elements would be better approximate

Igor Horvat wrote:
And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan

That is going back to handwavium though, which seems to be one of the bigger complaints people have about bulk, except with even more GM fiat.

Be aware that I am not intending to post this as a "value what I value" statement, I just like discussing elements like this.

Well as weight goes, we write up all gear on character sheet and out own weight.

Also if medium creature is lets say 5 Bulk, is every one 5 Bulk?

Last time in 5E i played 20 str half orc fighter. And as str comes from BIG muscles he had 280lb. Is that same Bulk as 100bl 8 str She-Elf Sorceress?


Claxon wrote:
I don't find either rule particularly offensive to my sensibilities.

Not offended by that at all.

I was just: WHAT?!?! when I 1st time came across it.


RexAliquid wrote:
I just keep imagining an archer with a longbow as tall as themselves trying to aim at an adjacent halfling and constantly poking themself in the shins.

That is another topic. And a good one.

I just remembered Pillars of Eternity. More or less 3.5e/PF1 based game.

Ranged weapons there have "unfit for melee" trait. You have less AC when you use them.

So if on general ranged weapons gave you -1 AC, and longbow(and maybe heavy crossbow) gave you -2 AC for that round that you use them, that would be a great way to give difference between shortbow and longbow.

Some ranged weapons like hand crossbow, dart or javelin could give no penalty at all.


SuperBidi wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
And how is longbow not optimal, but shortbow, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, crossbow and slings are somehow optimal?
If you don't want to listen, why do you ask questions?

I am listening, but I'm sorry, most of the answers are; Volley needs to be in game because game balance.

I realize that shorbow and longbow should be with their own advantages and disadvantages, but there should be somewhat based in reality.

Longbow has 1 Bulk more than shortbown and cant be used while mounted.
it has 1 more damage and 40ft more range.
Is that penalty worth the bonuses?
I would say no, but I would also find some other penalty or some other bonus for shortbow.


SuperBidi wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.

Where are you going to feel safer?

At 30ft, clearly. Between a tavern, a cave, a forest with a lot of underbush and a clear open field with 100ft. visibility, I clearly prefer the former.

If you have to shoot at 30ft. or less, you are in a cranky environment where your longbow is not optimal at all. If you are in an open field, then you are further away from your target. Hence the reason of this rule.
The fact that there is one single case, the combat happening at 30ft. despite being in an open field where you have perfect maneuvrability, doesn't invalidate the whole rule.

Also, this rule forces the player into a good "bow attitude". Thanks to it, a longbow user will look for long and clear lines of shoot. Which is exactly what you should do if you are adventuring with a longbow.

Really?

If someone tries to hit me with a gun, bow, spear or a brick, I would rather be 100ft than 30ft away.

And how is longbow not optimal, but shortbow, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, crossbow and slings are somehow optimal?

Yes, longbow and shortbow should be different with own advanatages, but conjuring a nonsense just for balance sake? Isn't that lazy?

Maybe there should be only bows. without propulsive trait and based on user strength:

1d4, range 40ft, min strength n/a, deadly d4
1d6, range 60ft, min str 12, deadly d6
1d8, range 80ft, min str 14, deadly d8
1d10, range 100ft, min str 16, deadly d10
1d12, range 120ft, min str 18, deadly d12


Claxon wrote:

The rules are about balance, not simulating reality.

Any appeals to "this is how it works in reality" miss that very important facet. The developers made this rule because they thought it was needed from a mechanical perspective.

Yes, you need the suspension of disbelief to play the game by the rules especially turn based game but some rules just slaps you across the face and return you instantly to reality. Like this. And Volley.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:

To answer the OP, I definitely don’t think it’s the dumbest rule ever. There have been far dumber rules.

I digress. While I have no practical knowledge on the matter, based on some brief research I can find multiple sources citing longbows were less effective at shorter range than shortbows. Some of the comments (not my thoughts) were 1) the stance and draw would give a close target more time to react as the proper stance requirement is more involved and the draw is longer and more difficult, 2) longbow arrows travel slower (but are more wind resistant and powerful on impact because they were longer, heavier and gravity), 3) longbows were designed to fire at a 45+ degree angle - using a lower angle for a close target interferes with accuracy because it’s not being fired as intended.

I can’t say how that should be accurately reflected in the simulation that is PF2E, but I don’t think it sounds dumb and I’m ok with their interpretation. I like it from a balance and practical perspective. Honestly I’ve always thought the idea of wandering a close quarter dungeon with a longbow as being the optimal range option in prior editions was very weird.

1. Yes, maybe. If you use a bow that is to "heavy" for you then you would have problem of drawing a bow to a full draw and it would be slower.

2. No. Most of the time. If they used broadheads or hunting tips that are heavy and wide for blood vessel laceration then that extra weight could slow down an arrow.
But most of the time arrow were made for maximum penetration and speed adds more than mass to energy of an arrow.
Arrow were made as light as possible for surviving the bow shot.

3. Hell no!
That was only used if shooting at beyond maximum effective range, more of a display of skill than a major military value.
Arrow were expensive to make and you could only carry so much of them and you wanted to make every shot count.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.

I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all

You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.

You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.

Volley is a simplification of all that. You can have 20 rules, or just one, which isn't perfect, but get to the point: Longbows are hard to use in most short range situations.

Simplification is not always good, especially if it's a nonsense.

Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.

Where are you going to feel safer?

You can even run around at that distance as a moving target.

Or take that same longbow at 4 targets 15ft, 30ft, 60ft and 120ft
20 arrows each target and mark points.

I do not think that 60ft will be your best score. Ever.

1 to 50 of 387 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>