| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that under the description of a longbow it states "You need two hands to use a bow regardless of it's size".
But also given that it's not strictly listed as a two-handed weapon but rather as a ranged weapon.
And given that logically while wielding a bow ones hand isn't occupied 100% of the time my question is this:
When wielding a bow am I considered to have a free hand for the purpose of such things as
- taking unarmed AoOs with the improved unarmed strike feat?
- making use of the Crane Wing style feat?
- making use of Deflect or Snatch Arrows?
or really any other ability that requires a "free hand" to use.
Mostly looking for FAQ hits with this one but please feel free to debate below.
- Torger
No. Not unless you've got three or more fully functional arms. You need one hand to manage the bow and another to manage your arrows, as well as your normal combat movement even in your square.
I tend to agree but I can see points that support the other side and I don't think it's explicitly clear in the rules either way. Thus the FAQ thread. I encourage you to click.
- Torger
You could say the same with a reach weapon (polearm) and wearing spiked gloves or similar... even though reach weapons normally don't threaten adjacent squares.
In theory letting go 1 hand and regrabbing with both is a free action each... but I guess only very few DMs will allow you to get away with this.
|
You could say the same with a reach weapon (polearm) and wearing spiked gloves or similar... even though reach weapons normally don't threaten adjacent squares.
In theory letting go 1 hand and regrabbing with both is a free action each... but I guess only very few DMs will allow you to get away with this.
I believe the debate about that now is whether the free action to grip or not must be made on your turn (ie decide at the end of your turn which weapon you are "wielding") or if the free action to remove the hand may be made off-turn just prior to the AoO.
I can see both sides of the argument.
Same for every other two-handed weapon, are you walking around with both hands on the weapon at all times... well obviously not otherwise you wouldn't be able to, say, open a door.
Personally I don't think you can make the aoo's, it's something that comes with bows.
to give a RL analogy... martial artists who try to block blows and such, usually have a defensive/balanced/martial stance that allows them to react in split-seconds (milliseconds?) if you first have to untangle your fingers from your bow-string there is no realistic way you could deflect/catch that arrow flying at you, because you loose valuable milliseconds to let go of that bow in the first place (ie no martial stance)
and I'm not even getting into tunnel-vision for shooting arrows vs peripheral vision for deflecting anything (be it punch or arrow)
Seems to me you only need two hands to fire the bow. I don't see why, when not firing the bow you wouldn't be considered to have a free hand.
I probably wouldn't even require someone to state they are letting go with one hand, since in my imagination it let go as soon as the last arrow was shot.
Seems fairly clear cut. Unless there's something specific about the off hand being constantly in the quiver, I'd say that hand is free. Unless you are actively trying to threaten with the bow when it isn't your turn. Actually, maybe that's the reason why ranged weapons generally don't threaten.
|
It takes two hands to use, not to hold. This is definitely a 'to each GM their own' call.
In my case, I would say so long as you did not use the bow this round, then you have a free hand. If you attacked with it last turn, then this turn you decided not to attack anyone but cast a spell, that'd be perfectly fine. Your hands aren't glued to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think every question needs to be faqed again and again. Because believe it or not, you aren't the first person to ask this, and nor will you be the last.
So I'm not the first. That's great then point me to where it's been definitively answered. Otherwise it does need to be asked again. As you can see above there are people on either side of this question and there are people like me who can see both sides. If that's not what the FAQ is for then what is?
- Torger
in my imagination it let go as soon as the last arrow was shot.
When was the last arrow shot? If you are making a full attack, do you make all your attacks in an instant and then wait six seconds for your turn to come around again, or; are you taking shots over the entire six seconds, thus keeping both hands engaged?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
When was the last arrow shot? If you are making a full attack, do you make all your attacks in an instant and then wait six seconds for your turn to come around again, or; are you taking shots over the entire six seconds, thus keeping both hands engaged?in my imagination it let go as soon as the last arrow was shot.
Fair enough.
But if you drop the guy below your initiative he doesn't get to take most of his actions just because it was the last shot at the last second that dropped him. Which took place during the same six second period in which he was acting just before he was dropped.
If he just shot once and moved, would you say his other hand is free?
Edit:
Given you can use a two handed weapon, and release one hand from it as a free action, is there any reason to not to, if the weapon is ranged?
|
Watch the CW show Arrow and tell me you can't may unarmed strikes wielding a bow. If you invest in the improved unarmed strike feat I would have to say hell yeah go for it. In the words of the great Captain Jack Sparrow "They're not so much rules as they are guidelines." So unless it's PFS then you're just in it for the fun of it anyway. GAME ON!
This question is also up for a FAQ HERE with the arguments completed laid out for both sides.
Yes, I suppose the core of your question is the same as mine, yours certainly couldn't get answered without mine also being answered. I've FAQ'd yours.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need two hands to fire a bow.
When you aren't actively firing it, you can hold (but not use/fire) the bow in one hand, just as you can with any two-handed weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to give a RL analogy... martial artists who try to block blows and such, usually have a defensive/balanced/martial stance that allows them to react in split-seconds (milliseconds?) if you first have to untangle your fingers from your bow-string there is no realistic way you could deflect/catch that arrow flying at you, because you loose valuable milliseconds to let go of that bow in the first place (ie no martial stance)
Regarding your RL analogy, if you have to "untangle your fingers from your bow string", you can't possibly fire that bow.
In RL, I used to teach archery at Girl Scout camps and later in the SCA. There's currently a traditional-style longbow in my closet. This is not a hypothetical statement:
Your fingers are only on the string when you are nocking and aiming. To fire the bow, you must let go of the string.
By definition, once you fire the bow, your string hand is free. To me, that means you are free to make unarmed strikes or deflect attacks with that hand. (There's another question about wearing a cestus or gauntlet on the string hand, but that's a different issue.)
I can understand the argument that your string hand is manipulating your arrows. However, the description of firing a bow states that loading the bow is a "non-action" or just part of firing. Also, there is an Elven racial feat (Stabbing Shot) that lets you attack someone with an arrow and then fire that arrow as part of a full attack action, so there is a precedent for using the string hand for melee attacks.
Until it gets officially decided, I've been ruling that your string hand is generally considered free when it is not your turn, and your string hand is considered occupied during any action where you plan to fire the bow. For example:
- If you use a bow for a full attack action, your string hand is occupied for your entire turn. (You can take a swift action that requires your hand before or after your full attack action.)
- If you only fire for a standard action, you can have your string hand free for your move or swift action.
- If you ready an action to fire your bow, your string hand is occupied until your readied action goes off or you change your readied action.
- If you plan to use Snap Shot to take AoOs with your bow, your string hand is considered occupied until you take your AoO OR until you give up the option to use the Snap Shot feat. (Basically, if you want your string hand to be free outside of your turn, you can't take AoOs with your bow.)
If/when a ruling is issued, I'll adjust this as necessary, but this seemed to be a decent balance to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What does your real life experience say about snatching arrows out of midair or blocking swords with your bare hands?
I can field the latter of those questions, having had some low-level shotokan training. First, you don't "block", per se. You "deflect" by striking the opponent's limb to make it go a different direction than it was originally headed, which takes a whole lot less force than trying to straight-up stop it. Also, you deflect at the wrist, not at the weapon as you imply. And yes, it's with your bare hands (or more specifically, with your own wrists).
Why are you overruling one set of rules based on experience but not the others?
What set of rules did she overrule based on experience?
|
|
There is nothing preventing AoO with an improved unarmed strike, though I think the other two options require a free hand and wouldn't be possible.For unarmed strike you can kick can't you? eliminating the need for a free hand?
Yeah, that was the point I was making. The second two items, though, require a free hand, IIRC.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In RL, I used to teach archery at Girl Scout camps and later in the SCA. There's currently a traditional-style longbow in my closet. This is not a hypothetical statement:
Your fingers are only on the string when you are nocking and aiming. To fire the bow, you must let go of the string.By definition, once you fire the bow, your string hand is free. To me, that means you are free to make unarmed strikes or deflect attacks with that hand. (There's another question about wearing a cestus or gauntlet on the string hand, but that's a different issue.)
I can understand the argument that your string hand is manipulating your arrows. However, the description of firing a bow states that loading the bow is a "non-action" or just part of firing. Also, there is an Elven racial feat (Stabbing Shot) that lets you attack someone with an arrow and then fire that arrow as part of a full attack action, so there is a precedent for using the string hand for melee attacks.
Until it gets officially decided, I've been ruling that your string hand is generally considered free when it is not your turn, and your string hand is considered occupied during any action where you plan to fire the bow. For example:
- If you use a bow for a full attack action, your string hand is occupied for your entire turn. (You can take a swift action that requires your hand before or after your full attack action.)
- If you only fire for a standard action, you can have your string hand free for your move or swift action.
- If you ready an action to fire your bow, your string hand is occupied until your readied action goes off or you change your readied action.
- If you plan to use Snap Shot to take AoOs with your bow, your string hand is considered occupied until you take your AoO OR until you give up the option to use the Snap Shot feat. (Basically, if you want your string hand to be free outside of your turn, you can't take AoOs with your bow.)
If/when a ruling is issued, I'll adjust this as necessary, but this seemed to be a decent balance to me.
Agreed.
The key point here is that bows aren't the same as two handed melee weapons, because the melee weapons require both hands to remain on the weapon the entire time they're used. Bows don't. I really don't understand all the people who are ignoring that fact. Just because they both require two hands to use, it doesn't mean that you're required to keep two hands on them when you're not using them in order to be ready to instantly use them again. Anyone who has ever actually seen a bow and arrow used should know this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In RL, I used to teach archery at Girl Scout camps and later in the SCA. There's currently a traditional-style longbow in my closet. This is not a hypothetical statement:
Your fingers are only on the string when you are nocking and aiming. To fire the bow, you must let go of the string.What does your real life experience say about snatching arrows out of midair or blocking swords with your bare hands?
Why are you overruling one set of rules based on experience but not the others?
Because I have no RL experience with snatching arrows out of midair or blocking swords with my bare hands? I was responding to the comment that you have to "untangle your fingers from the bowstring", nothing else.
But the point is, what specifically do you think I'm "overruling"? There is already a ruling that you can add or remove a hand from a 2-handed weapon as a free action, and that if you end your turn with only one hand on the 2-handed weapon, you cannot make AoOs with that weapon. You can, however, use Deflect Arrows, Crane Wing, and Snapping Turtle Style off your turn, and you can make AoOs and Crane Riposte attacks with unarmed strikes. However, if you ready an action with a 2-handed weapon or you want to take AoOs with that same 2-handed weapon, you can't have your hand free for all that fancy stuff.
How, exactly, is my interpretation of the bow any different? I mean, other than the fact that I'm not forcing the player to constantly say "And as a free action, I let go of the string (which I've already let go of anyway)"? Currently, we don't force bow-using players to say "As a non-action, I draw an arrow from my quiver, and as another non-action, I nock the arrow, then as a non-action, I draw my bow, then fire as my standard action".
If it helps, I can restate my normal ruling as "Unless you say otherwise, I assume that you always take a free action to drop one hand from your bow after you fire the arrow. You cannot fire the bow again until your next turn, when you can take a free action to put your hand back on your bow."
I just thought my original way of saying was less confusing. My mistake.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand all the people who think that, because they've shot bows in real life, they know how the game rules should work. It's a game, defined by rules. The rules say one pretty simple thing. Why are we complicating that with stuff completely outside the scope of the game?
Maybe because the rules also specifically say to use common sense, and that judgment calls will sometimes be needed for things that aren't explicitly covered in the rules.
Yes, the rules say that it requires two hands to use both a two handed melee weapon and a bow. You need two hands on the handle of a heavy weapon to swing it properly. You need one hand on the bow and the other hand on the arrow and string to fire a bow. In both cases, both the rules and common sense dictate that both hands are engaged when you make an attack with these weapons, so you don't have a free hand to do anything else during that attack.
The difference comes from what happens when you're not making an attack, or to word it the same way as the rules, using the weapon. This part isn't explicitly covered by the rules, so we have to fall back on real world experience and common sense.
With a two handed melee weapon, most combatants in the middle of the fight will want to keep both hands on the weapon to swing it again immediately should the opportunity arise to take an AoO. We do have rules that say it's a free action to release or re-grab the weapon with one hand, because such questions have come up so often that Paizo finally broke down and made a ruling.
With a bow, the hand holding the bow continues to hold it between shots. But the hand that released the arrow and string is now empty. Thus, actions that require an empty hand can be taken before or after the action of loading an arrow and firing the bow. This is the most obvious when the archer fires an arrow as a standard action, and then spends their move action using that free hand for something else, such as drawing a one handed melee weapon or pulling out a potion. But why would it be any less true when full attacking, and then using that free hand and Improved Unarmed Strike to punch someone as an AoO?
Do people think it takes less time to grab an arrow from a quiver, knock it, aim, and fire then it does to go from holding a two-handed weapon to placing a second hand on it? Because it's strictly forbidden to do that when it's not your turn while using a melee weapon. You can't take your hand off at the end of your turn, deflect an attack using Crane Wing, and then make an attack with your sword using Crane Reposte's AoO. Why would it make sense to allow someone to do it with a bow either?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do people think it takes less time to grab an arrow from a quiver, knock it, aim, and fire then it does to go from holding a two-handed weapon to placing a second hand on it? Because it's strictly forbidden to do that when it's not your turn while using a melee weapon. You can't take your hand off at the end of your turn, deflect an attack using Crane Wing, and then make an attack with your sword using Crane Reposte's AoO. Why would it make sense to allow someone to do it with a bow either?
Do you think it takes the same amount of time to draw the components of, create, and throw a bomb as it does to throw an alchemist's fire that's already in your hand and ready to go?
Sorry, but "action type X equals Y amount of time" falls apart as a basis for a rules claim. :/
Do people think it takes less time to grab an arrow from a quiver, knock it, aim, and fire then it does to go from holding a two-handed weapon to placing a second hand on it? Because it's strictly forbidden to do that when it's not your turn while using a melee weapon. You can't take your hand off at the end of your turn, deflect an attack using Crane Wing, and then make an attack with your sword using Crane Reposte's AoO. Why would it make sense to allow someone to do it with a bow either?Do you think it takes the same amount of time to draw the components of, create, and throw a bomb as it does to throw an alchemist's fire that's already in your hand and ready to go?
Sorry, but "action type X equals Y amount of time" falls apart as a basis for a rules claim. :/
I agree. I think this ultimately about a balance factor. You shouldn't be able to utilize bows or two-handed melee weapons as part of the AoO granted by Crane Reposte. Why? They both use two hands. People keep asserting that because you have a free hand in real life when not firing the bow that it means you should have a free hand for the purposes of the feat and that you should then be able to use that free hand to make an attack with your bow. It's simply not in line with other rulings that exist on the issue, IMO. So, I made the argument more from the same sort of basis others are trying to argue on.
Is it possible to let a do Crane Wing while Using the Bow with both hands?
As a swift action the wearer can command the belt to animate, transforming it into a prehensile tail under the wearer’s control. The tail does not grant the wearer any additional attacks or actions per round, nor can it wield weapons, but it can make unarmed attacks and hold or manipulate objects about as well as the wearer’s normal limbs (though any activity requiring fingers is beyond the tail’s capabilities).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's simply not in line with other rulings that exist on the issue, IMO.
To my knowledge, an archer's second hand is free by default, until he uses it to fire an arrow, after which it's again free by default. It's my understanding that an archer who is holding his bow while fighting with his backup melee weapon could get disarmed of the melee weapon while it's not his turn and be fully capable of using Snap Shot without having to first have a turn in which he can put a hand (somewhere?) on his bow as a free action.
If those are true, then I see no issue with the topic at hand, so... what "other rulings that exist on the issue" are these "simply not in line with"?
EDIT: I'm not sure how clear all that was, so let me say some more. You say that being able to use your free hand for a feat (or whatever) and then turn around and use it to fire your bow is "simply not in line with other rulings that exist". Well, what other rulings are you talking about? As far as I'm aware, a Pathfinder archer never grabs his bow with both hands, so "use two hands" means that one hand is holding the bow while the other is either drawing ammunition or firing the bow. But doesn't that mean that as soon as you're no longer firing the bow, your second hand is free? I'm not even talking about real-world demonstrations here; once you're done with your attack/full-attack, your second hand is neither drawing ammunition nor firing the bow, so isn't it now "free" by default?
Come to think of it, don't you need a free hand to draw ammunition (for any projectile weapon) in the first place? Doesn't that mean that, by definition, your second hand is "free" right up until you draw ammunition? Every rule/FAQ I'm aware of points to the idea that an archer's second hand is free until you start firing, and free again once you stop.
What "ruling that exists" is all this not in line with?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no trouble with assuming a free action to let go of the bow with one hand at the end of your turn
I feel like I'm missing something, so maybe you (or someone else) can explain it to me.
I have an issue with "assuming a free action to let go of the bow with one hand" because to do so, that means that right before spending that free action, I was holding my bow with both hands.
Huh?
So in order to be ready to use my bow off-turn, I need to be holding it with both hands? Keep in mind that using a bow involves using one hand to draw ammunition. So is the argument really that the guy with both hands on his bow is more ready to draw ammunition than the guy with one hand free?
Either I'm grossly misunderstanding something, or this discussion has gotten just-hide-the-thread silly.
|
I have no trouble with assuming a free action to let go of the bow with one hand at the end of your turnI feel like I'm missing something, so maybe you (or someone else) can explain it to me.
I have an issue with "assuming a free action to let go of the bow with one hand" because to do so, that means that right before spending that free action, I was holding my bow with both hands.
Huh?
So in order to be ready to use my bow off-turn, I need to be holding it with both hands? Keep in mind that using a bow involves using one hand to draw ammunition. So is the argument really that the guy with both hands on his bow is more ready to draw ammunition than the guy with one hand free?
Either I'm grossly misunderstanding something, or this discussion has gotten just-hide-the-thread silly.
@Jiggy: I don't think this comes down to free actions or non-actions.
The rules state that you require two or more hands to use a bow.
The rules also state that you must have one hand free when deflecting an attack with Crane Wing.
In this case, much like in the FAQ regarding TWF with a Greatsword and Armour Spikes, "hands" are an abstraction. You can't TWF with a great sword and armour spikes because your hands are occupied (even though everyone knows you don't require a hand to smack your spikey shoulder or cod piece in someone's face).
Should you be able to both? Could you do these in real life? Sure, I'm sure you could. Are you permitted to do this within the rules of the game? I'm not sure. I hope so, but won't be shocked if the FAQ comes down the other way.
|
|
The rules state that you require two or more hands to use a bow.
The rules also state that you must have one hand free when deflecting an attack with Crane Wing.
Yeah, but you're not trying to use the bow and use Crane Wing at the same time. You use the bow on your turn, and Crane Wing on your enemy's turn.
When you're using the bow, both of your hands are engaged with it. When you're done, one hand is still holding the bow, but the other is free, ready to pull an arrow on your next turn, but not actively doing so yet.
So between the end of your attack on your turn, regardless of whether we're talking standard action or full attack, and the beginning of you attacking on your next turn, that arrow hand is free.
Unlike a two handed melee weapon, where you'd have both hands on the hilt continuously, unless you made a point of taking a free action to remove one of them. But if you did that, and had a free hand when it's not your turn, then you aren't holding the weapon properly to make an attack of opportunity with it, should the situation arise.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have with the "let go of the string when it's not your turn" idea is that the whole concept of "turns" is an abstraction to make dealing with combat possible - it's not like you take your shots, then stand there with nothing to do while everyone else does their thing. Conceptually, you are still firing during all the other turns - especially if you're making full attacks, you are basiclaly constantly shooting the entire fight with no breaks. We just make it into "turns" so it's doable in a game context.
If I full attack on turn one, then again on turn two, it seems to my character like 12 continuous seconds of attacking, not as two discreet packets with a gap in the middle.
Hmm... a round is 6 seconds and you are not standing there like a statue waiting for AoO or Arrows to snatch out of the air when it's not your turn... everybody is more or less acting simultaneously, and the entire "turn/round" thingy is just abstraction to make things easier...
So when that archery-monk is done shooting his 4 arrows as a full attack, he isn't standing around after that, waiting to shoot his next volley. He's going to keep shooting, while his enemies are reacting... If he has the time to snatch arrows out of the air between rounds, why wasn't he shooting more arrows to begin with? Is he readying something?
I can see how that archery-monk only takes a standard action to shoot one arrow so as to not neglect his defense, but I fail to see how he can go full-out offense during his "turn" and then be defensive when it's "not his turn"... because all of that is supposed to happen simultaneously.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
There's currently a traditional-style longbow in my closet. This is not a hypothetical statement:
Your fingers are only on the string when you are nocking and aiming. To fire the bow, you must let go of the string.
But once you let go, your fingers go grab the next arrow to let fly... so in between two arrows you send, you want to have the time to snatch an enemy arrow or punch somebody... that's going to take time: you'd loose at least 1 arrow attack out of your volley.
As a DM I'd agree to let you do those AoO or snatches, but you loose 1 attack from your next round for each out-of-turn-action... sounds fair?
EDIT: Oh and those who are in favor of using their "arrow-hand" for other stuff... why can't you use a buckler'S AC when attacking with that arm...
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.