| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see how some don't like the idea of someone using a bow to fire and a spiked gauntlet to defend itself, but if this someone happens to be a werewolf with big, sharp teeth, I think most would see less problems with that.
On the other had, it's silly to see archers adopted by orcs to be able to get the toothy trait to gain a bite attack (which, btw, would make no genetic sense) just to be able to defend themselfs on melee.
In a game with access to magic items that can do anything, where imagination is the limit, it seems to be very hard to limit players to not use their hands or other body parts to attack with the weapons at their disposal, if they know how.
Look, as long as the player is using only the attacks he's entitled to, from BAB, AoO, Haste, etc, shoudn't make much difference if he used it to fire an arrow, punch, kick, bite or hit with the damn bow (hopefully it will break), or whatever.
@ bbangerter
@ Crash_00
@ Graystone
First, let me say that I have no intention of being "that guy", the guy who hijacks the thread by demanding people prove things to justify his own faulty reasoning. I'll just make one last point here.
Crash; there is no confusion on my end. I was giving an overly literal interpretation of the rules. Common sense dictates that a bow would be considered a two-handed weapon because you use two hands to operate it. I agree. I was playing devils advocate.
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
The only section(s) of the weapon table that refer directly to "Two-Handed Weapons" is the "Two-Handed Melee Weapons" subsection(s). Technically that means that the rules must apply to only that. Common sense dictates that bows would fall under that ruling because of their weapon description, but, if we are dismissing common sense, we would stick with only the completely literal definition of Two-Handed; that subsection. Saying that the bow would be included is a natural assumption, but not actually supported by the phrasing of the table. Not making assumptions like that(common sense) proves to be a stupid and impractical method.
This is why dismissing common sense and relying strictly on literal interpretations of the rules is a terrible idea. To quote myself:
I have heard the whole "Well this is a fantasy game so we should rely on rules and completely disregard common sense, and gee, I hope there is no ambiguity in these rules otherwise we will constantly be in conflict" argument before and I believe, after much observation, that it is one of the factors that leads us to long, steadily-degrading threads like this one.
Most of this forum has been honest rational debate, which I like. A useful debate tactic is to over-elaborate and analyze when people demand you to fit your argument into unreasonable parameters to demonstrate how unreasonable those parameters are. That's what I was doing.
I was trying to use the concept of being entirely literal principally against the people who were demanding that of me. I did not intend to ensnare you three in the verbal exchange I had with the people telling me I shouldn't interpret rules using common sense. Perhaps I should have expected it might go that way in a public forum, so I sincerely apologize. Sorry; my fault.
I could respond to your posts further by pointing out the 'legitimacy' (massive sarcasm) of my statements when using the unpractical method I explained above, but I won't, because in reality I actually agree with you. On multiple levels.
I made a comment on page 3 that should explain the progression of my shift of stance somewhat.
the explicit raw text on bow is:
you require two hands to use.there is nothing there indicating, by raw, that you only need 1 hand to grip, and one hand to draw, and that the drawing hand is free in between shots.
everything else discussed in this thread, isn't raw, it is haw a bow works irl, which has nothing to do gamewise.
That's actaully a good point. Where do the rules ever say that you have a free hand while wielding/using/holding/whatever a bow? Because if it doesn't, then only arguing from the rules kind of falls apart.
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.
Provide evidence.
Common sense is what dictates a free hand of course, but do the rules? Sure, it's logical to assume that someone would have a free hand at all times they aren't firing their bow, but...
the realism argument doesn't get very far in a game where you can take 10 arrows to the face and keep swinging, throw a fireball that melts stone, and swing a sword which does the exact same amount of damage as a crushing hammer whether the target is wearing plate metal or nothing at all.
My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.
...apparently we aren't arguing from realism or logic(in my last post I address that too).
Realism is what dictates to us what is fantastical and what is not. Completely abandoning realism in an argument like this is just as slippery as overusing it, if not more so.
Suspension of disbelief and a complete abandonment of realism are two different things. To get a good idea of suspension of disbelief from a player/GM, see ryric's comment. He explained the concept much better than I ever could.
A bow is wielded in one hand and used with two.
Provide evidence. Again, we aren't using common sense to iron out inconsistencies in the game, so the rules have to support the claim.
For people asking for a rules quote that says turns happen sequentially and not simultaneously:
Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:
[list]
When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest). When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).Emphasis added by me in the above.
Now THAT is what compelling evidence for that argument looks like!
Especially this:
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
(Emphasis mine.)
That seems like pretty solid proof for the overarching general application of combat that Malachi Silverclaw went over. I'll address my other point on that in the next comment I make.
Honestly, I'm just enjoying this because it's a good debate. In threads with discussions like this, we usually descend into ad hominem and Personal Incredulity at this point.
For me, continuing to participate in this thread is taking up too much of my effort to format the text, proofread my words before posting, and to search and provide valid links to support my arguments. I think this will probably be the last comment I make here, especially considering that I'm not really adding much to the discussion anymore. Have a good night everybody.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly firing arrows is impossible because bows require both hands to wield. Drawing an arrow would require a free hand, but if you have a free hand then you aren't wielding the bow. It is a two-handed weapon. If you want to wield the bow, you'd have to put the arrow down.
Makes perfect sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly firing arrows is impossible because bows require both hands to wield. Drawing an arrow would require a free hand, but if you have a free hand then you aren't wielding the bow. It is a two-handed weapon. If you want to wield the bow, you'd have to put the arrow down.
Makes perfect sense.
It's easy. All archers have a hidden third arm so that they can load arrows! ;)
It's almost like the rules are an abstraction and don't perfectly match reality.
@OP: unsure if pointed out, but you can AoO with an unarmed strike even while using a bow in both hands--you have feet, elbows, knees, and a perfectly good skull to hit people with.
Can you use 2 Bows if you have 3 arms?
And are there any penalties for fighting with a 2h melee weapon while your hands are bound by handcuffs, manacles or shackles?
If there are any penalties, then not only you Can take your hands off your 2h melee weapon while you fight, but you are also supposed to in order to fight freely and properly.
Just know that if it is possible to use 2 bows in 1 turn I'm quite certain you can't TWF with them.
@OP: unsure if pointed out, but you can AoO with an unarmed strike even while using a bow in both hands--you have feet, elbows, knees, and a perfectly good skull to hit people with.
Pointed out literally over a year ago but thanks for the thought ^_-
- Torger
P.S. no idea why this thread got necro'd
even if you just attacked with the bow. if you have improved unarmed strike or a boot blade, you can always use your foot to make attacks of opportunity, whether your are kicking with the weighted portion of your heel or kicking with a blade coming out of the toe section of your boots.