| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
curious 40 people that posted never found that 2 years ago..hah!First, there's this:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.Then there's this:
And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.
- Core Rulebook p.147.At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made
up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?
We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?
however the seems to be a conundrum afoot! the samurai class, rules intend the samurai to use a long bow while mounted (it's built into the class as mounted archer) yet in Ultimate combat it states the daiyuku is the "Same" as a longbow so they did not print any special stats. But the Samurai Clearly fought off horseback with their bows (and shot them from kneeling)
so again which is it?
On the board years ago, people arguing this clearly posted video of people firing longbows from horseback, i remember it...
Got a stern problem here with the Samurai and Longbow and mounted archer...
in the wilderness it occured to me there would be alot of cover and concealment, make sure you are using range increments too, range may keep him out of certain combat if he stays too far away, if he gets too close combats might close on him in a single move action.If a fight is mapped out on a battle mat with minis, range is pretty much never an issue for the longbow. On the big chessex mats, you occasionally get the second increment.
things can still be in the way, concealment etc, there are also rules for firing into melee
Well this issue might come up in our Curse of the Crimson Throne AP we are starting tonight
One of the characters is a Elf Ronin who will mainly use his longbow, I Imagine, in the city, walking around with a bow and arrows would be odd. sheathed weapons not so much. But in the city? Where would you put them? Keep them in your room?
Heck what if you had alot of feats sunk in archery? But have to leave it in a room a lot? arg.
Well this issue might come up in our Curse of the Crimson Throne AP we are starting tonight
One of the characters is a Elf Ronin who will mainly use his longbow, I Imagine, in the city, walking around with a bow and arrows would be odd. sheathed weapons not so much. But in the city? Where would you put them? Keep them in your room?
Heck what if you had alot of feats sunk in archery? But have to leave it in a room a lot? arg.
The way I run cities is most places outside are cool with sheathed weapons. Going inside would be fine in marketplaces, blacksmiths, bars, etc... places where it'd make sense. Most churches might frown upon it and most banks would ask for you to use a peacebond on blades and to destring a bow. Going into a castle would be fine, considering they have guards and 'secret service' to protect them. Anything else is on a case by case basis as long as it makes sense
curious 40 people that posted never found that 2 years ago..hah!First, there's this:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.Then there's this:
And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.
- Core Rulebook p.147.At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made
up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?
We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?
however the seems to be a conundrum afoot! the samurai class, rules intend the samurai to use a long bow while mounted (it's built into the class as mounted archer) yet in Ultimate combat it states the daiyuku is the "Same" as a longbow so they did not print any special stats. But the Samurai Clearly fought off horseback with their bows (and shot them from kneeling)
so again which is it?
On the board years ago, people arguing this clearly posted video of people firing longbows from horseback, i remember it...
Got a stern problem here with the Samurai and Longbow and mounted archer...
The samurai's longbow, known as a Daikyu, is of an assymetric design with the grip centered on the lower third of the staff rather than near the middle as in an English Style Longbow. In order to avoid creating stats for a weapon which already exist, they just offered up the solution of treating it mechanically like a longbow, but meant for mounted use.
In 2nd. Ed. they actually stated out the weapon, but here they did not.
In regards to a "No Weapons" zone, I've simply had people keep their weapons but put Peacebonds on sheathed weapons and unstring bows. That way they still have them in case things go South, and it makes a lot more sense in urban settings that would forbid this kind of thing.
That's quite a sensible rule for cities, and it how my groups have always played. However, it's a much less sensible rule for the wilderness, which is where the question in this thread arose.
I also don't buy that NPC's will automatically consider anyone in possession of a bow in the forest to be a psychopath or whatever. Does hunting not exist in this wilderness?
Here is a nice site for the Japanese mounted archery issue. Check out the pick near the bottom of the page to illustrate the difference in bow style. Mounted Samurai
In regards to a "No Weapons" zone, I've simply had people keep their weapons but put Peacebonds on sheathed weapons and unstring bows. That way they still have them in case things go South, and it makes a lot more sense in urban settings that would forbid this kind of thing.That's quite a sensible rule for cities, and it how my groups have always played. However, it's a much less sensible rule for the wilderness, which is where the question in this thread arose.
I also don't buy that NPC's will automatically consider anyone in possession of a bow in the forest to be a psychopath or whatever. Does hunting not exist in this wilderness?
And he is a Ranger. I think the fact he is on a wolf would be more disturbing, haha.
curious 40 people that posted never found that 2 years ago..hah!First, there's this:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.Then there's this:
And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.
- Core Rulebook p.147.At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made
up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?
We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?
however the seems to be a conundrum afoot! the samurai class, rules intend the samurai to use a long bow while mounted (it's built into the class as mounted archer) yet in Ultimate combat it states the daiyuku is the "Same" as a longbow so they did not print any special stats. But the Samurai Clearly fought off horseback with their bows (and shot them from kneeling)
so again which is it?
On the board years ago, people arguing this clearly posted video of people firing longbows from horseback, i remember it...
Got a stern problem here with the Samurai and Longbow and mounted archer...
The samurai's longbow, known as a Daikyu, is of an assymetric design with the grip centered on the lower third of the staff rather than near the middle as in an English Style Longbow. In order to avoid creating stats for a weapon which already exist, they just offered up the solution of treating it mechanically like a longbow, but meant for mounted use.
In 2nd. Ed. they actually stated out the weapon, but here they did not.
so you are saying only samurai can fire longbows from a mount, since, mechanically they aren't different in this game..
IT is an errata issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth mentioning that nearly *all* large weapons were simply carried.
Germanic warriors carried their two handed swords on their shoulders. Knights had special stirrups for their lances. Polearms of all kinds were basically walking sticks. Ever seen a sheath for a greatclub or greataxe? Of course not. They're just shoulder carried, or lugged by the balance point near the heavy end.
Even smaller weapons were commonly carried, not sheathed. Warrior monks would carry nunchaku draped around their necks. Manriki-gusari were usually just carried in the palm of the hand, which was kept in a pocket. Garrotes were just looped around the hand or wrist.
How about ranged weapons? The setting has muskets. With a sling they're pretty much carried at "ready to fire". Slings? Load it and carry it wound around your hand. Daggers? Spring-loaded wrist sheaths mean they're basically always drawn. Javelins? Zulu warriors used to carry a brace of them tucked behind their shields ready to throw.
Even shields (which definitely count as weapons) are usually simply worn on the arm than strapped to the back, especially when moving around in potentially hostile territory.
A guy wanting to have his bow in hand is really not that bad. In the real world there's an issue with the bow string, but this is a fantasy game. Even if the GM makes an issue of it, the archer can still decide to have his string smeared with Oil or Timelessness or made out of Giant Spider Silk or something.
Having weapons at the ready isn't just common, it's normal. Anyone who says otherwise just isn't that familiar with how they are used.
The problem here is not really can someone keep a weapon drawn at all times. The real problem has been discovered: The OP feels it is unfair for an archer to always get a full round attack that first round of combat.
Perhaps the OP should post a question in the advice forum as to how to deal with an archer.
Summary: Archers in PF are powerful. But they do have drawbacks. Biggest drawback is they are extremely feat intensive.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archers are less powerful than casters so why should the player not just go with a caster instead if this is houseruled into the game?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger draws his bow as a move action, and gets one attack.Versus
Round One:
Paladin moves up to enemy, drawing his weapon as part of his move action, and gets one attack.
Ranger (who had his bow in hand all day) gets off three attacks from the back of his mount.
Your examples are spot on. What you're describing here, as others have already pointed out, is the advantage of being an archer. There is no reason the archer HAS to put his bow away while he's adventuring or travelling. There also is no reason anyone else HAS to put their weapons away while they're travelling.
This is not an uncommon trend among PCs. When your life is filled with danger and uncertainty, you tend to be a little paranoid outside of town, and often times, even in town. If your goal in all this is to strip the Ranger of his ability to make a full attack on round 1 I would beg you to reconsider because I personally feel you're looking at this backwards.
If the party is being attacked, they don't need to run to the NPC. The NPC is coming to them. I would suggest a standard marching order placing the melee characters in front of the Ranger and have the melee characters ready an action (if necessary) to engage the enemy once the enemy has moved within melee range. The melee characters have no need to waste a move action to get to the fight, the fight is coming to them, and when it does, EVERYONE gets a full attack action on their first go against an enemy who is already weakened with arrow wounds.
My issue would not be with your Ranger taking so many attacks on round one. My issue would be with why the rest of your PCs aren't.
My issue would not be with your Ranger taking so many attacks on round one. My issue would be with why the rest of your PCs aren't.
That makes sense if we assume that all threats only use melee attacks (since otherwise they have no need to close), always charge straight for the party's own melee fighters (instead of, say, launching an ambush from the side to get to the squishies in the middle of the marching order), and are never spotted until they're already on top of the melee PC's (since otherwise the archer gets more shots off when they're first spotted - note that this is only likely to happen for ambushes which the previous point largely precludes). Oh, and even then, the melee fighters will be taking hits before they get a chance to make their own attacks.
So basically what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense at all.
One other thought: If people are marching through the wide open spaces...why isnt EVEYRONE armed with a bow or crossbow? It takes all of 1 round to drop bows and switch to melee once creatures get close enough. Less for some builds.
Yes, an archer build will do better with his missile weapon than a melee build. But that doesnt mean the melee builds will be completely ineffective.
- Gauss
It's worth mentioning that nearly *all* large weapons were simply carried.
Germanic warriors carried their two handed swords on their shoulders.
I think every other example you gave was of either a bludgeoning weapon or a piercing weapon at the end of a long pole.
Think about why that might be.
Now, 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?
I am skeptical.
And he is a Ranger. I think the fact he is on a wolf would be more disturbing, haha.
It's worse than that, as what he really rides is a wolf telthor (the spirit of his wolf animal companion that died in combat) that is bound to him. It's a long story, but it makes sense and the character did "pay" for the privilege.
Archers are less powerful than casters so why should the player not just go with a caster instead if this is houseruled into the game?
We're playing E8, so casters are not as all-powerful compared to everyone else as they might be in a typical campaign.
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
At level 8 they are still better than archers. How much better depends on the player in question though.
On what Guass is saying many swords were were actually bludgeoning tools even though most movies have them used as sharp objects due to the slashing motion.
*pokes wraithstrike* and you were doing so well too! *chuckles*
- Gauss
|
|
My issue would not be with your Ranger taking so many attacks on round one. My issue would be with why the rest of your PCs aren't.
That makes sense if we assume that all threats only use melee attacks (since otherwise they have no need to close), always charge straight for the party's own melee fighters (instead of, say, launching an ambush from the side to get to the squishies in the middle of the marching order), and are never spotted until they're already on top of the melee PC's (since otherwise the archer gets more shots off when they're first spotted - note that this is only likely to happen for ambushes which the previous point largely precludes). Oh, and even then, the melee fighters will be taking hits before they get a chance to make their own attacks.So basically what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense at all.
You're very right. Honestly, this can go back and forth and will eventually end in arguing semantics. The "What if" game in terms of combat never ends. The argument still comes down to the fact that the focus should not be on why the Ranger has his weapon out at all times, but why the rest of the PCs don't have theirs out.
In a purely RAW sense, there's no argument here. If the Ranger wants to carry his weapon at all times he's welcome to do so, as is everyone else. There's no rule stating PCs aren't allowed to be armed at all times nor any rule that states they receive penalties for being armed at all times (Barring NPC interaction in civilized society, of course).
Now, 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?
I am skeptical.
As was said, these swords were not always so sharp. Also, many times they were carried on the back in a sling of sorts. The swords were too long to be drawn from a scabbard on the back, like a short sword, so what they would do is craft a sling made of two pieces of leather. Each piece of leather had a ring on one end and one half of a buckle on the other. The two rings were slid over the blade, the buckle was fastened, and then slung over the chest. When it came time for battle, the sword was able to be used at a moments notice. There was no "drawing" of the weapon, you just started swinging. When you started to attack the tip of the blade would come out of the lower ring, freeing the weapon from your body and the upper ring would be flung from the weapon as the weapon was swung for the attack, sending the sling flying across the battlefield. Many times these were lost but they were also easy and cheap to manufacture. I can probably find pictures or maybe even some videos if you're interested.
Sorry for the long post.
TLDR; Nothing in the rules preventing the entire party from carrying their weapons at all times. Swords not always sharp. Special sling used for carrying longer blades.
curious 40 people that posted never found that 2 years ago..hah!First, there's this:
the long bow mounted combat thing was hatched years ago on this board when we discussed "why have a short bow" it was hashed out and eventually came down to this: Longbow not suitable for mounted combat = myth.Then there's this:
And a longbow cannot be used on a mount.
- Core Rulebook p.147.At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made
up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need
two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is
too unwieldy to use while you are mounted.So, which is it? If the "board" decided years ago that this was a myth, how do we explain the Core Rulebook saying what it does?
We are discussing a longbow in this thread, and not a composite longbow, yes?
however the seems to be a conundrum afoot! the samurai class, rules intend the samurai to use a long bow while mounted (it's built into the class as mounted archer) yet in Ultimate combat it states the daiyuku is the "Same" as a longbow so they did not print any special stats. But the Samurai Clearly fought off horseback with their bows (and shot them from kneeling)
so again which is it?
On the board years ago, people arguing this clearly posted video of people firing longbows from horseback, i remember it...
Got a stern problem here with the Samurai and Longbow and mounted archer...
I remember the discussion. I don't agree with the conclusion the "board" reached about longbow use from horseback, then or now :) Here's why...
Well, the Yumi or Daikyu, the Japanese composite longbow, isn't a western longbow. It's asymetric, that is the bow is gripped with more of the stave projecting above hand than below. About 2/3 of the bow length is projecting above the grip. This changes the position of the bowstring relative to the riders body while in the saddle. Japanese rated the Yumi in "man" pull weights btw, with a one man bow pulling about 45 pounds, 2 90 pounds etc. They topped out at a 4 man (180 pound pull) bow and a 2 man bow was typical iirc. Pulling one of those from horseback had to be interesting. Still, the asymetric construction and composite nature of the Yumi makes it physically doable.
The western longbow is a "simple" self bow gripped in the middle. Given it's the better part of 6' long (and I know the core book says 5 1/2, I'm talking the real ones they recovered from the Mary Rose -- a Tudor warship which contains the only samples of English longbows from close to the period in question that have been recovered in reasonable shape) and with a typical pull of about 150-160 pounds (the full range on the Mary Rose was 100-185 pounds). The pull length is about 30" given the arrows found, and it's generally pulled back to the cheek or ear. The problem with using it mounted has to do with the 3' of bowstave that projects below the hand, the draw length (and where the string has to go as a result), the position you sit in the saddle, and the strength and technique needed to draw the longbow. It isn't drawn with just arm strength but using your body as well. The technique ("bending the bow") is particular to the Welsh / English longbow with the high pull weight. This technique which allowed the high pull weight of English longbows is what made them more effective than other European "longbows". That and the particular construction of the English longbow which used different types of wood within the yew to make what is effectively a natural composite weapon out of a single piece of wood. The high pull weight and the neccesity of lifetime training with increasing pull weights as you grow is what made English (and Welsh) archers a breed apart. Royal regulations required a 90 pound minimum pull and accuracy at targets at specific ranges to qualify for Royal service.
The "English" longbow was developed in Wales and adopted by the English btw. I manage to feel guilty if I don't give the Welsh credit :)
You might be able to use a 5 1/2 foot bow with a regular hunting pull of 60 pounds or so and a shorter draw (28" is the modern standard) from horseback... but I don't see anybody using an English warbow with 150 pound pull and 30" draw from horseback. Videos not withstanding.
In the end it all depends on how you're depicting the longbow. If it's just a slightly stronger 5 1/2' bow with a 60 pound pull, then no big deal. If it's an Anglo-Welsh longbow (a warbow as opposed to a hunting bow) then it's different. Ymmv.
*edit* Sorry if I rambled or got repetative but this post was composed over several hours inbetween grading stacks of papers (my usual night time activity during the school year)...
It's worth mentioning that nearly *all* large weapons were simply carried.
Germanic warriors carried their two handed swords on their shoulders.
I think every other example you gave was of either a bludgeoning weapon or a piercing weapon at the end of a long pole.
Think about why that might be.
Now, 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?
I am skeptical.
My impression is that they were carried in the same way a soldier might carry a musket when marching. I found a couple of pieces of art.
Here andHere
|
The problem here is not really can someone keep a weapon drawn at all times. The real problem has been discovered: The OP feels it is unfair for an archer to always get a full round attack that first round of combat.
Perhaps the OP should post a question in the advice forum as to how to deal with an archer.
Summary: Archers in PF are powerful. But they do have drawbacks. Biggest drawback is they are extremely feat intensive.
- Gauss
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.
It seems to me I'm getting old, I have been DM for too long. Creative problem solving goes a long ways in PnPRPGs. In my opinion solving a "problem" your having with your player(s) by removing or limiting them instead of using the game against them is wrong.
Instead of telling him what he cant do, make his life miserable because of what he is doing by making encounters that negate his advantages as other posters have described (weather, ambushes, geography, etc...). You might even force him to consider quick draw when a bandit on horseback with a lance is barreling in at him. You should be building encounters like this with all your players in mind (usually effecting one or more at a time), its keeps combat fresh and new as it forces the players to rethink the strategies they use. Plus it allows you to stop activities at the table that you don't like without it looking like your singling out players.
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.
Ah ha. So, it would basically be a bludgeoning weapon, then.
So the main function of a scabbard is not to keep your hand from cramping up, but to keep you from cutting yourself?
Meanwhile, bludgeoning weapons like clubs, quarterstaves, and maces -- there is no real reason NOT to just carry them around all over the place, while walking about or riding horses?
As for piercing weapons, "it depends"?
If your goal in all this is to strip the Ranger of his ability to make a full attack on round 1 I would beg you to reconsider because I personally feel you're looking at this backwards.
If the party is being attacked, they don't need to run to the NPC. The NPC is coming to them. I would suggest a standard marching order placing the melee characters in front of the Ranger and have the melee characters ready an action (if necessary) to engage the enemy once the enemy has moved within melee range. The melee characters have no need to waste a move action to get to the fight, the fight is coming to them, and when it does, EVERYONE gets a full attack action on their first go against an enemy who is already weakened with arrow wounds.
My issue would not be with your Ranger taking so many attacks on round one. My issue would be with why the rest of your PCs aren't.
This right here speaks volumes. This is the kind of thinking out side the box I'm talking about. A game of Pathfinder should be the Players and DM trying to outwit each other.
As a DM your job is to challenge the players. If they keep yawning at your encounters, change them up. If one character seems way too powerful chances are your other players are missing something in the Feats (Cheats) or Combat chapters.
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'm not saying the archer is an all-powerful character that is wreaking havoc with the campaign. Where are you getting that from? I'm talking about a rule that effectively prevents ONE attack from the archer during a small fraction of the combats in the campaign.
Some posters here seem to think I'm talking about nerfing the character into oblivion. "I'd just play a caster, then", etc. It's ONE ATTACK, during CERTAIN encounters!
Sounds to me like the same sort of people who moaned about PF "ruining" the rogue because it got rid of the blink/throw combo, when virtually everything else about the rogue was bumped up in power.
I appreciate all the input, really, but this is just... silly.
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.
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.
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'm not saying the archer is an all-powerful character that is wreaking havoc with the campaign. Where are you getting that from? I'm talking about a rule that effectively prevents ONE attack from the archer during a small fraction of the combats in the campaign.
Some posters here seem to think I'm talking about nerfing the character into oblivion. "I'd just play a caster, then", etc. It's ONE ATTACK, during CERTAIN encounters!
Sounds to me like the same sort of people who moaned about PF "ruining" the rogue because it got rid of the blink/throw combo, when virtually everything else about the rogue was bumped up in power.
I appreciate all the input, really, but this is just... silly.
most DMs ignore or dont realize all the ways Archers are limtied in combat (firing into melee, cover and concealment) archers arent so much powerful when all the rules are used.
Meanwhile, bludgeoning weapons like clubs, quarterstaves, and maces -- there is no real reason NOT to just carry them around all over the place, while walking about or riding horses?
Usually clubs and the like are held in a steel loop or hook on the belt, head of the weapon pointed to the sky (to keep the head of the weapon from striking your leg while running and such).
Usually clubs and the like are held in a steel loop or hook on the belt, head of the weapon pointed to the sky (to keep the head of the weapon from striking your leg while running and such).
Why? I mean why not have them in your hand all the time as you trek for weeks across the wilderness? Is there a reason other than laziness?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that we don't see the need for the nerf. We understand that you do, but if it is not a big deal then it is not worth a rules change. If it is a big deal then there ways to deal with it besides a house rule. I am not the player in question, but it would annoy me since there is nothing stopping the melee characters from always having their weapons out. The fact that they choose not too is their decision, if they choose not to. I would just go with the weapon cord and call it a day. I might even carry two bows, if I had too.
Why? I mean why not have them in your hand all the time as you trek for weeks across the wilderness? Is there a reason other than laziness?
Usually clubs and the like are held in a steel loop or hook on the belt, head of the weapon pointed to the sky (to keep the head of the weapon from striking your leg while running and such).
For when you need both your hands, lazy, in town, don't feel threatened or don't want to seem threatening?
As it has been said before. A person trained with a weapon would have no problem carrying a weapon around in his hands all day long.
Trekking around in a hostel wilderness such as the Greenbelt in Kingmaker with weapons drawn makes sense. Carrying a weapon in your hands at all times while in town doesn't really. It depends on how character is RPed as according to the rules, it is completely fine to be always carrying your weapon around.
You making up rules and limitations to prevent it is silly. ;)
most DMs ignore or dont realize all the ways Archers are limtied in combat (firing into melee, cover and concealment) archers arent so much powerful when all the rules are used.
No, they aren't. Although there is sometimes some eyerolling at the table when cover rules, in particular, are invoked (players like to think the player, not the DM, gets to pick the corner of the square the line to the target is drawn from even though the rule has been pointed out), we use these rules at the table and I would not say the archer PC in question is OP. Effective, yes.
In danger of being made useless if he can't get that one extra attack in when there's a wandering monster encounter while trekking through the wilderness, no.
I guess it would be more important if the character in question didn't have a Perception check that is through the roof. Since he almost always makes his Perception check, he almost always gets to act in the surprise round, when he only gets one shot off even when he does have his bow in hand.
I think the root issue is really DM not wanting either a world where everyone walks around with weapons drawn all the time or the need to adjudicate rules for every damn weapon in the game vs player with military experience who knows it is possible to carry a heavy weapon for days on end and wants his character to do that (and, FWIW, player has said that he developed severe carpal-tunnel syndrome from doing this).
I am not the player in question, but it would annoy me since there is nothing stopping the melee characters from always having their weapons out. The fact that they choose not too is their decision, if they choose not to.
Well, no, since the same rule is applied to everyone else as well. Melee weapons are also assumed not to be in hand and at the ready all through day six of a week long trek through the woods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most DMs ignore or dont realize all the ways Archers are limtied in combat (firing into melee, cover and concealment) archers arent so much powerful when all the rules are used.No, they aren't. Although there is sometimes some eyerolling at the table when cover rules, in particular, are invoked (players like to think the player, not the DM, gets to pick the corner of the square the line to the target is drawn from even though the rule has been pointed out), we use these rules at the table and I would not say the archer PC in question is OP. Effective, yes.
In danger of being made useless if he can't get that one extra attack in when there's a wandering monster encounter while trekking through the wilderness, no.
I guess it would be more important if the character in question didn't have a Perception check that is through the roof. Since he almost always makes his Perception check, he almost always gets to act in the surprise round, when he only gets one shot off even when he does have his bow in hand.
I think the root issue is really DM not wanting either a world where everyone walks around with weapons drawn all the time or the need to adjudicate rules for every damn weapon in the game vs player with military experience who knows it is possible to carry a heavy weapon for days on end and wants his character to do that (and, FWIW, player has said that he developed severe carpal-tunnel syndrome from doing this).
Like i said we all did (get long term hand injuries I mean)
With curative magic like healing spells and lesser restoration, this wouldnt be an issue.
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.
However you could make it so that their subjects later on are weenies who feel threatened by the ever presence of brandished weapons and make public outcry for "peace knotted" weapons in public, there is even a certain NPC that makes trouble in town for the PCs he could become the instigator of this issue as he drums up how over bearing and scary the PCs are and how they subjugate the masses with their ever drawn weapons.
That you can control.
You can't control what the PCs actually do about it tho.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the root issue is really DM not wanting either a world where everyone walks around with weapons drawn all the time or the need to adjudicate rules for every damn weapon in the game vs player with military experience who knows it is possible to carry a heavy weapon for days on end and wants his character to do that (and, FWIW, player has said that he developed severe carpal-tunnel syndrome from doing this).
I personally think its a pointless argument as realistically its possible and completely plausible that they would be carrying weapons at the ready while in unexplored/dangerous territory.
It goes back to my point that IMHO limiting a player or making rules to prevent a player from doing something is not the best way to go about it. Using the games rules in a creative way to give the PCs a reason to not carry weapons drawn when it matters is the better way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not the player in question, but it would annoy me since there is nothing stopping the melee characters from always having their weapons out. The fact that they choose not too is their decision, if they choose not to.Well, no, since the same rule is applied to everyone else as well. Melee weapons are also assumed not to be in hand and at the ready all through day six of a week long trek through the woods.
Other than you not liking it, which I am not saying is not a good reason why try to enforce the rule as an actual rule. If the land has customs, and/or if your world is less violent than most other GM's....
Nevermind, if this is KM the players make the laws in their kingdom. I guess I will rephrase my question. Why does it bother you if the players have a nation that is different from the other nations? I would assume that the Stolen Lands, is more dangerous than civilized lands. If it is not so dangerous then why has it not already been taken?
PS:I know the metagame answer is so that the PC's have something to do, but what is the in game answer?
Now once a few towns get settled I can see people looking at the PC's funny if having weapons out all the time is not the norm, but out in the forest I am failing to see the reason to not have them out since realism is not a reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think explorers in uncharted wilderness should have their weapons peacebonded and spend the first five rounds of each encounter taking them out. Doesn't matter if the PC's would never walk around with their weapons peacebonded, I just don't want a world in which everyone is a psychotic maniac charging like mad across the countryside waving an arsenal about murdering everything in sight.
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).
That is how I DM too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Werebat:
I have no military experience (other than research and wargaming etc.) but I did spend months hiking around Idaho. I had no problem carrying a 6foot staff around when I did that. (aside: I really miss that staff).
Did it get heavy sometimes? Sure. Did I keep it out and not in the loop in my pack? Yup. Did I need it for combat? Nope. Still, it was always in hand or out. It was more useful that way.
The fact that you personally do not want your players to carry weapons all day every day has nothing to do with the game as it is run. That is a house rule. This is a rules forum. IE: Rules as Written (sometimes Rules as Intended if RAW is grey).
If you posted this in an advice forum you would get different answers. You posted this in a Rules forum. By the rules, there is NO, none, nada problem with a PC carrying a bow, sword, or Earthbreaker (14lbs) around all day long.
This is a fantasy game, not a reality game. Even so, reality says: go for it.
I apologize for saying this is a problem with the archer getting first strike. It seemed like that was your real problem. Perhaps your real problem is instead that your player is not abiding by the agreed upon house-rule. In that case, this is again..an matter for the advice forum.
- Gauss
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.
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...
|
As far as unstringing the bow to keep its tension and elasticity, this was only done when bows were put in storage like, after hunting season. I carry a recurve bow, not a composite with pulleys, this bow dates back to the 40s and was handed down through my family, even though Im not very good at it, it was taught how to use and take care of it. My Dad accquired it some time after WW2 used and a young boy, and since it was used Im assuming it probably dates back to 44 or 45 which means it's well of 60 years old.Took a mule deer with it in 2009. Unstringing it regularly is not necessary, only for long term storage. For adventuring purposes it would be in his off hand and strung.
A side note, the bow you had passed down is in all likelyhood not at the draw weight of war longbows which D&D is talking about. When your bow is at 160 lb draw weight, you do have to unstring it more often then say a 60 lb hunting longbow to prevent the bow breakage. However, using how you actually take care of a 100+ lb longbow in D&D is just not very fun.
|
|
I agree that climbing and holding a bow is not realistic. Hopefully he was not taking it that far. Walking up to someone while holding a bow defeats the purpose of having a bow. The NPC should be more concerned if the person tries to stay far away or keeps the bow in a "ready to fire" position.
The weapon cord is only a swift action to use for getting a weapon in hand. If the weapon is one handed there is no reason the other hand should not be free. If the player is suggesting have 3 hands ready you need to sit down and talk to him. That is an entirely different issue than having a weapon in an easy to use position.
you can climb and hold a bow, I do it alot (Tree stand) bow rides in the crook of your thumb leaving the use of your other four fingers. You can also just close your fore finger over your thumb to hold the bow more securely and climb using the three other fingers on your bow hand.
It's easier to do than accurately shooting the bow IRL
Climbing a tree stand is not the same as climbing up a cliffside. Yes I can climb up a tree stand with a bow in hand...but hell if I can do that when I have to go up a cliffside. The the bow either gets put on my belt hook or it goes around my shoulder. I prefer the shoulder.
|
|
However you could make it so that their subjects later on are weenies who feel threatened by the ever presence of brandished weapons and make public outcry for "peace knotted" weapons in public, there is even a certain NPC that makes trouble in town for the PCs he could become the instigator of this issue as he drums up how over bearing and scary the PCs are and how they subjugate the masses with their ever drawn weapons.
Or the PCs might inspire their subjects to feel comfortable carrying weapons in hand, and find they are rulers of a heavily armed nation. Would make it kind of difficult to tell if that group up ahead on the road are bandits or just friendly merchants who prefer big scary weapons...