13 arrows in 6 seconds!!

[Elcron Valdune]

Nicos wrote:

That is less than a second to take the arrow, to put it in the bow, to pintpoint the target and to shot. and a level 20 figther can do it.

So, how fast his hands have to move?

And let suppose his targets are spread out, let say 6 targets in 360 arc degree, how fast he have to rotate to do that?

and let he provoke atacks of opportunity, and all hit, how is that the attacks do not interrupt the shooting?

And let suppose his attackers also provoke, and the archer have, snap shot, impproved snap shot and combat reflexes, so he can strike back at all of they, that will be 7 arrows from regular attacks, and 6 arrows form attacks of opportunity, and all in 6 seconds!!

how can it be?

Dude if you can't except that its a game and just mechanic, just stop playing in general!

[Black_Lantern]

Maddigan wrote:

Helaman wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqqStGeYsj8&feature=related

Turkish archery... very accurate on thrown discs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI&feature=related
This chick is going Legolas!!! Worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDfJLB8jTk&feature=related
Three arrows in 2 secs

Just as I suspected. All three non-compound shortbows. Read up on the expedition of Richard the Lion-hearted versus mounted archer's from Saladin's army. Those bows couldn't even penetrate the Crusader's armor. They used their mobility advantage to launch large volley's against unprotected animals and hoped to hit the unarmored areas of European warriors because their bows were so weak they couldn't penetrate the armor.

The English longbow was made to counteract European armor. You could not fire one in the fashion you see in these videos. You could also not fire a compound strengthened-longbow like the archers in these videos.

I've done some archery with 70 to 80 lb. pull compound hunting bows. Still closer to shortbows by D&D standards, but the pull was immense. It took all your strength and concentration to maintain the pull and aim. You would not be able to fire like this with a heavy pull bow. So this provides proof of nothing.

I will only reiterate that D&D is not realistic. No version of it. Not E6. Not any of the editions. Applying realism is ridiculous. My preference is making the game as playable as possible. My version of balance is more concerned with making combats interesting and viable, not realistic or long.

I don't like it when the group goes against a dragon and crushes it in two rounds because the martials do far more damage than the creature can handle, the healer can heal the dragons damage in one round with minor resource expenditure, and the mage can mitigate the dragon's mobility and attack advantage with a minor expenditure of resources thus turning an entire combat against a dragon into a fairly routine and trivial affair. And that is what...

What cleric are you putting against what dragon? Is it a drake?

[Lyingbastard]

Why can't anyone just enjoy the game anymore?

[TOZ]

You say that like the people in this thread are the only ones playing. :P

[Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus]

Nicos wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

D&D is not a game for you, then.

So, the game have an issue and is my fault to point it out?

Doesn't sound like the game has an issue, but rather you have a subscription.

[Maddigan]

cranewings wrote:

I just want to disagree about the army of two handed fighters. A one hand shot - d8 + 3, will probably kill a soldier. If they have a + 3 to strike, and you assume fighting defensivelly, a shield doesn't just reduce the damage by 10%, it reduces it by as much as two thirds. Sword and shield is much better when a one handed attack will kill the enemy, and the enemy almost needs a 20 to hit you.

How would the character almost need a 20?

Heavy Shield and let's be generous, chain shirt. Most small armies can't even afford that. Versus chain shirt.

15 point buy

Str 16 10 pts
Con 14 5 pts
rest 10

AC 16 for shield guy
AC 14 weapon guy

Average hps: 7 for both

Hit roll: +4 for both

Average damage: Longsword: 7
Average damage Two-handed sword: 11

Two-hander hits: 12 or better
One-hander: 10 or better

One hit two-hander equals dead soldier
One hit one-hander equals disabled soldier.

Let's take 10 soldiers:
If two-hander wins initiaive, they kill 5 soldiers right from the first hit.

That leaves five one-handers left that disable 3 two-handers leaving 10 two-handers against five one handers.

Next round, they kill the last five with three going into negative. End of battle two-handers win with seven men standing.

Let's say one handers win:

They disable 6 of the ten two-handers.

Two-handers still counter-attack killing five of the ten one-handers and downing six of the ten two-handers.

Five one-handers attack disabling two of the remaining one-handers.

Four two-handers attack killing two of the remaining five one handers with two two-handers going into negative.

Three one-handers attack disabling the two-remaining one handers.

One handers attack killing two of the one handers but falling themselves.

If the two-handers win initiative, you have seven two-handers standing unscathed.

So if the one-handers win inititive, you have one one-hander fighter remaining.

You're still better off building a two-hander fighting force using D&D rules. This difference becomes even more pronounced as hit points, feats, and abilities get worked into the mix.

[Maddigan]

TOZ wrote:

Maddigan wrote:

What exactly are they doing if not speeding themselves up?

It doesn't matter what they're doing. It's not called out, so it doesn't fall under the restrictions that haste and speed weapon do.

You can add restrictions all you like to suit your own vision, but you won't see that in my game.

Given the relative weakness of monks as combatants, I'll probably let them have the extra attack with haste. Fighters, barbs, paladins, and rangers do so much more damage than monks it seems fairly punitive to take something like this away. Even with the flurry, the monk usually can't keep with the damage output of the +20 BAB classes or even the properly positioned rogue.

[SwnyNerdgasm]

Alex Head wrote:

Anguish wrote:

A 20th level fighter with completely average constitution can throw himself off a 20 story building and expect to just get up and walk away from it. A 20th level fighter with typical stats can expect to climb up the side of that building in 40 seconds then throw himself off its peak again and still get up and walk away from it, and maybe do it two or three more times.

Heroic, fantastic, extraordinary and amazing are the name of the game. Well, that and Pathfinder. Same thing, really.

Has anyone fully explored the combat option of a fighter suplexing a wizard off of a building?

No, but now I desperately want to.

[gbonehead]

TOZ wrote:

You say that like the people in this thread are the only ones playing. :P

I'd say the people in this thread aren't playing :)

[The black raven]

To the OP : If you have a thorough comparative look between the CRB and the RealWorld, you will notice a lot of these incongruities.

Sometimes the characters (even the mundane ones) can do things impossible in the real world and sometimes it is the other way around.

That is just the way things are.

I view the game mechanics as part of the rules of physics in that other universe where the characters live. They do hold true there and are part of the natural order of things even if they do not in our own universe.