Off Hand Longbows


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

things like the light crossbow wouldn't reiterate that it used two hands but it does.

require wielding to flicker on and off all round? Seems like a pain in the butt IMO.

Light crossbow gives you ways to use the item one handed, and reiterates it is normally 2 hands. Otherwise there might be confusion that it is always a one handed weapon. Isn't your stance "it doesn't say I can't"?

It isn't going to flicker. A longbow requires two hands. Either you have one on an arrow and one on the bow, or you have one on an string & arrow and one on the bow. When not using, but just holding, you have only one hand on the longbow. You have used both hands to draw and shoot that arrow, just like when using a two handed weapon you have used both hands to swing. How is that hard to grok?

"Either you have one on an arrow and one on the bow, or you have one on an string & arrow and one on the bow" You missed something. There is that moment where you are reaching back to get that arrow, neither on the arrow or on the bow. The bow REQUIRES time without a hand on it or it's ammo.

The part that's "hard to grok" is that it's not like a THW where you have to have your hands ON the weapon to be counted as wielding it. Ranged weapons that require 2 hands REQUIRE the opposite in fact, being unable to operate normally if both hands stay on the weapon the whole time. SO it's hard to "grok" that people automatically assume that act the same with no evidence of it even when they operate on different principles.

zylphryx Your point seems to be that requires two hands MUST mean it requires two hands to wield. By that logic you treat all light weapons as one handed weapons...

On not threatening without a nocked arrow, you mean that someone with snapshot MUST nock an arrow to make AoO? I'd have to disagree with that.

Free action load: It becomes VERY important with readied actions. If it's only wielded/threatened while loaded/nocked then abilities that rely on wielded blink off during reloading. So a weapon that gives a defensive bonus while wielded would drop it during reload allowing that readied attack without it.

hence "pain in the butt".


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let me give you an example of a weapon, that actually falls into both a Ranged weapon, that requires two hand to use, and, is a two-handed weapon:

The Spear.

It requires two hands to use in melee. I can't find any rules for how many hands it takes to throw it but it should be just one. You can throw one of those things one handed (i have a pilum around here somewhere...) I'm not sure how you'd use two hands. Its not big enough for a caber toss.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let me give you an example of a weapon, that actually falls into both a Ranged weapon, that requires two hand to use, and, is a two-handed weapon:

The Spear.

It requires two hands to use in melee. I can't find any rules for how many hands it takes to throw it but it should be just one. You can throw one of those things one handed (i have a pilum around here somewhere...) I'm not sure how you'd use two hands. Its not big enough for a caber toss.

Two-Handed Thrower (Combat) feat. Look at normal section too.


graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let me give you an example of a weapon, that actually falls into both a Ranged weapon, that requires two hand to use, and, is a two-handed weapon:

The Spear.

It requires two hands to use in melee. I can't find any rules for how many hands it takes to throw it but it should be just one. You can throw one of those things one handed (i have a pilum around here somewhere...) I'm not sure how you'd use two hands. Its not big enough for a caber toss.
Two-Handed Thrower (Combat) feat. Look at normal section too.

As much as that would solve the problem in my favor by simply making all thrown weapons a full round action to chuck and thus take them out of the equation...

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on the following weapon tables), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Italics mine. I don't think that the language on that feat fits with things that are supposed to be thrown , it fits in with that paragraph there about things that aren't supposed to be thrown.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, if you really want to get all super RAW about it, Snap Shot would allow you to make ONE AoO. Drawing ammo for a bow is a free action and could be done at the end of a PC's turn.

Snap shot allows you to threaten 5' and make AoOs with ranged weapons with which you have Weapon Focus. So that arrow you knocked at the end of your turn, no worries, you get to make an AoO.

HOWEVER, even if you have combat reflexes, an AoO allows you to make a free attack, but it does not allow you to take free actions outside of your turn (these are free actions, not immediate actions, after all). Hence, one AoO with a bow.

This is not how the Snap Shot feat is played, however (nor should it be how the feat is played). But if you want to be a diehard RAW player, then I expect you will now play it that way.

The point I am making, is if one parses any rule deep enough, you will find some anomaly in the writing. This should not be a "game of lawyers" and some debates become overly ridiculous if they continue for long enough.

This, the "TWF with a bow", is one of those arguments I believe.


Technically, there is a FAQ that says otherwise regarding snapshot.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You need both hands to fire the Bow.

I don't know how else to say it. Both hands, you need, hmmm?

I would go outside of RAW here and explain the difference between Melee and Ranged.

You see, when you get up close and personal, wielding a weapon with all your might (and with both hands), you are putting extra effort into doing as much mischief to your opponent as possible. You are gonna do a little extra (1.5) damage.

Then there are those pansies in the back, with their flighty little bows, taking aim to distant targets, steadying the bow and sighting the notch to try and hit those little targets a ways away. Trying to do extra damage would mean an arrow would harm the dirt at the targets feet, and could snap a line.

So, going back to RAW, a Bow is never gonna get 1.5 str bonus to damage, but it will still take two hands to attack with it. (Composite or not)

Yes, I can Grok that.

Sovereign Court

Right, but the point I was making still stands. The FAQ came about due to parsing rules down until there was an anomaly found. The anomaly was freaking ridiculous (it would have basically made the feat not worth taking). Instead of making the leap that one could make the AoO's with ranged weapons as stated with the feat, it sparked a thread of 130 some odd posts and resulted in a FAQ.

But the overall reason for the discussion and need for the FAQ was rather ridiculous (as the wording of the feat should have just covered it ... i.e. - "While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon" which would mean that regardless of X (free actions required to nock an arrow) you can do Y (make AoOs with your bow).

So to use that feat as a backup to my initial point, are folks taking the stance that if you quick draw a shortsword that you are still wielding a bow? And that you still threaten 5' with the bow while you have the shortsword in hand? does that not seem a bit on the ridiculous side to anyone other than me?


zylphryx wrote:

Technically, if you really want to get all super RAW about it, Snap Shot would allow you to make ONE AoO. Drawing ammo for a bow is a free action and could be done at the end of a PC's turn.

Snap shot allows you to threaten 5' and make AoOs with ranged weapons with which you have Weapon Focus. So that arrow you knocked at the end of your turn, no worries, you get to make an AoO.

HOWEVER, even if you have combat reflexes, an AoO allows you to make a free attack, but it does not allow you to take free actions outside of your turn (these are free actions, not immediate actions, after all). Hence, one AoO with a bow.

This is not how the Snap Shot feat is played, however (nor should it be how the feat is played). But if you want to be a diehard RAW player, then I expect you will now play it that way.

The point I am making, is if one parses any rule deep enough, you will find some anomaly in the writing. This should not be a "game of lawyers" and some debates become overly ridiculous if they continue for long enough.

This, the "TWF with a bow", is one of those arguments I believe.

You can take free actions on your turn of as part of another action. So you can draw an arrow at the end of your turn, and then draw an arrow at the end of each AoO so you are ready for the next one.

Sovereign Court

With the FAQ, yes, but AoOs are technically not on your turn, hence no free actions. And instead of taking the wording of the feat at face value ("you can do x" which should supersede any restricting rule since it is overriding the normal rule), it turned turned into a discussion of whether the the restricting rule (i.e. reloading a bow is a free action) would make the feat unusable.

In this case, the rule states bows require 2 hands to use. The snap shot feat states that you threaten 5' with the bow while wielding it. if you draw a sword into one of your hands, would you still be threatening 5' with the bow or would you not be threatening with the bow? One of the possible answers is fairly silly.

If you deny the silly answer, then TWF fails as you are then wielding only 1 weapon, not 2.

If you accept the silly answer, then TWF works but I really want to see how you take that AoO with the bow when someone provokes and you are holding a bow and a sword. ;)


zylphryx wrote:


So to use that feat as a backup to my initial point, are folks taking the stance that if you quick draw a shortsword that you are still wielding a bow? And that you still threaten 5' with the bow while you have the shortsword in hand? does that not seem a bit on the ridiculous side to anyone other than me?

That isn't the question. Lets say we assume that the bow takes your second hand. We aren't talking about that hand, we're talking about your off "hand" of effort.

So going off your example, we're talking about wielding a bow and having armor spikes or having a unarmed strike. You still threaten with them while using the bow right?

The whole issue we have is an FAQ divorced physical hands from hands of effort. It means that you can't assume that things that affect one effects the other. Hands are a lot less simple now...


Or just accepting that the writers have been a little loose with free actions vs. non actions.

Sovereign Court

Or a better test. Your PC has the improved snap shot feat. You end your turn with a bow in one hand and a sword in the other. An enemy passes within 10' of you. Do you get to make that AoO with the bow?

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
zylphryx wrote:


So to use that feat as a backup to my initial point, are folks taking the stance that if you quick draw a shortsword that you are still wielding a bow? And that you still threaten 5' with the bow while you have the shortsword in hand? does that not seem a bit on the ridiculous side to anyone other than me?

That isn't the question. Lets say we assume that the bow takes your second hand. We aren't talking about that hand, we're talking about your off "hand" of effort.

So going off your example, we're talking about wielding a bow and having armor spikes or having a unarmed strike. You still threaten with them while using the bow right?

The whole issue we have is an FAQ divorced physical hands from hands of effort. It means that you can't assume that things that affect one effects the other. Hands are a lot less simple now...

Quite the contrary. If the TWF RAW test fails with a sword in hand, then that would mean that in order to wield a bow, it would require both hands and should make the TWF argument moot re: bows.

Still, for a home game, I would probably allow it.


zylphryx wrote:

With the FAQ, yes, but AoOs are technically not on your turn, hence no free actions. And instead of taking the wording of the feat at face value ("you can do x" which should supersede any restricting rule since it is overriding the normal rule), it turned turned into a discussion of whether the the restricting rule (i.e. reloading a bow is a free action) would make the feat unusable.

In this case, the rule states bows require 2 hands to use. The snap shot feat states that you threaten 5' with the bow while wielding it. if you draw a sword into one of your hands, would you still be threatening 5' with the bow or would you not be threatening with the bow? One of the possible answers is fairly silly.

If you deny the silly answer, then TWF fails as you are then wielding only 1 weapon, not 2.

If you accept the silly answer, then TWF works but I really want to see how you take that AoO with the bow when someone provokes and you are holding a bow and a sword. ;)

Free actions don't have a "on your turn" restriction. They can be taken as part of any other action. Is an AoO an action? Yes? You can take a free action as part of it.


Is an AoO an action? No, it is not. It is a single melee attack.

It is not a free action, immediate action, swift action, standard action, move action, or full round action.


zylphryx wrote:
graystone wrote:
zylphryx wrote:


So to use that feat as a backup to my initial point, are folks taking the stance that if you quick draw a shortsword that you are still wielding a bow? And that you still threaten 5' with the bow while you have the shortsword in hand? does that not seem a bit on the ridiculous side to anyone other than me?

That isn't the question. Lets say we assume that the bow takes your second hand. We aren't talking about that hand, we're talking about your off "hand" of effort.

So going off your example, we're talking about wielding a bow and having armor spikes or having a unarmed strike. You still threaten with them while using the bow right?

The whole issue we have is an FAQ divorced physical hands from hands of effort. It means that you can't assume that things that affect one effects the other. Hands are a lot less simple now...

Quite the contrary. If the TWF RAW test fails with a sword in hand, then that would mean that in order to wield a bow, it would require both hands and should make the TWF argument moot re: bows.

Still, for a home game, I would probably allow it.

That doesn't follow. Having a heavy shield takes up a hand but doesn't take up your hand of effort. NOTHING says that a bow takes two hands to wield, just that is uses 2. Your assuming the bow uses hands of effort, but the only ruling we have is on two handed weapons.

So, again you have to throw out the idea that having the physical hand occupied means anything. Holding 10' pole in both hands doesn't stop you from TWFing with unarmed strikes, so the physical hands are meaningless and that's ALL you can prove by "uses two hands".


_Ozy_ wrote:

Is an AoO an action? No, it is not. It is a single melee attack.

It is not a free action, immediate action, swift action, standard action, move action, or full round action.

Really?
CRB wrote:

Making an attack is a standard action.

CRB wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack


It uses to hands TO USE. One hand is busy pushing the bow forward, one hand is busy drawing the arrows and knocking them. Two physical and metaphorical hands of effort.

This cannot be clarified to your expectations without turning it into a legal treatise. The solution is to accept the spirit of the rules rather than holding onto the position that you can have more dakka unless its absolutely proven true that you can't.


BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Is an AoO an action? No, it is not. It is a single melee attack.

It is not a free action, immediate action, swift action, standard action, move action, or full round action.

Really?
CRB wrote:

Making an attack is a standard action.

CRB wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

Yes, really, pulling quotes out of context non-withstanding. You can make attacks as part of a full round action, which is not a standard action. You can also make spell attacks as a swift action using a quickened spell, or melee attack using a feat such as 'hurtful'.

It just so happens that you don't make AoOs as a standard action, as a move action, as a free action, as a swift action, or as an immediate action.

Quote:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action

So, if I take a standard action during my turn, I can't make an AoO because I don't have a standard action available?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

It uses to hands TO USE. One hand is busy pushing the bow forward, one hand is busy drawing the arrows and knocking them. Two physical and metaphorical hands of effort.

This cannot be clarified to your expectations without turning it into a legal treatise. The solution is to accept the spirit of the rules rather than holding onto the position that you can have more dakka unless its absolutely proven true that you can't.

Nobody is debating that it takes two hands to fire a bow.

Since you are not in the constant action of firing a bow continuously during the entire round, the question is, why can't you use the same hand that draws, knocks, and fires an arrow to, instead, punch someone in the nose?

I have 2 iterative attacks:

Attack 1: Draw, nock, and fire arrow from bow (uses two hands)
Attack 2: Punch someone with free hand in the nose.

Why can't TWF add an extra, Attack 3: punch in the nose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:
Or a better test. Your PC has the improved snap shot feat. You end your turn with a bow in one hand and a sword in the other. An enemy passes within 10' of you. Do you get to make that AoO with the bow?

I certainly could. Why can't I take my Longsword and use it as an improvised arrow?

/sarcasm


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It uses to hands TO USE. One hand is busy pushing the bow forward, one hand is busy drawing the arrows and knocking them. Two physical and metaphorical hands of effort.

This cannot be clarified to your expectations without turning it into a legal treatise. The solution is to accept the spirit of the rules rather than holding onto the position that you can have more dakka unless its absolutely proven true that you can't.

Nobody is debating that it takes two hands to fire a bow.

Points up.

Quote:
Since you are not in the constant action of firing a bow continuously during the entire round

Thats not true. Your character is firing the entire round. He doesn't shoot his arrows and then stand there waiting for the return fire, its all happening simultaneously.

Quote:
the question is, why can't you use the same hand that draws, knocks, and fires an arrow to, instead, punch someone in the nose?

An object can't be doing two things at the same time. That hand is busy.

Quote:

I have 2 iterative attacks:

Attack 1: Draw, nock, and fire arrow from bow (uses two hands)
Attack 2: Punch someone with free hand in the nose.

Why can't TWF add an extra, Attack 3: punch in the nose?

Because there's no mechanism for switching between using a weapon that you're not dual wielding and two weapon fighting after the first attack. There's no rule that lets you do that.


Okay so here's a hypothetical regarding this sort of stuff and a logical answer to this would actually help me get off the fence about this sort of thing (especially in regards to the Bow stuff).

Let's take a Light weapon, any Light weapon will do, let's say a Shortsword for simplicity. Let's say an iteration of this weapon is Huge-sized.

A player tries to use it two-handed; since he is medium-sized, it is treated as a Two-handed weapon for him as far as handedness is concerned (and he gets a -4 penalty to hit, but that's semantics). But it's still a Light weapon for all other intents and purposes.

Reviewing the text for Light Weapons:

Light Weapons wrote:
A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

Bolded part says that even if I were to two-hand the weapon (just to use it, mind you), it still only adds his normal modifier to damage.

So if I were this very same player and I decided to TWF with a Huge Shortsword, which takes two hands for me to use, and Armor Spikes (which for this argument, assume takes no hands for me to use), would I be allowed to use that versus say, a Greatsword and Armor Spikes, because it doesn't betray the "unwritten rule"? Or would it not be valid still because TWF still requires at least one hand (both physical and meta) for all weapons involved?


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Is an AoO an action? No, it is not. It is a single melee attack.

It is not a free action, immediate action, swift action, standard action, move action, or full round action.

Really?
CRB wrote:

Making an attack is a standard action.

CRB wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

Yes, really, pulling quotes out of context non-withstanding. You can make attacks as part of a full round action, which is not a standard action. You can also make spell attacks as a swift action using a quickened spell, or melee attack using a feat such as 'hurtful'.

It just so happens that you don't make AoOs as a standard action, as a move action, as a free action, as a swift action, or as an immediate action.

Quote:
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action
So, if I take a standard action during my turn, I can't make an AoO because I don't have a standard action available?

Rounds with AoO's aren't "normal" rounds.

The quoted line literally has no context. It stands alone in the text.


hehehehe...

The example breaks down though. The light one handed two handed thing only works when you stay in your size catagory.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.


@ BigNorseWolf: I don't see what's wrong with that attack sequence, assuming he can properly pull it off. It's no different than a player using a Two-Handed Weapon for an attack, releasing the grip (free action), making an Unarmed Strike, and then reapplying the hand back to his Two-Handed Weapon (also free action).

The problem stems from TWF; this FAQ essentially explains that you can use multiple means of attacks between separate weapons (as long as you can properly carry out those attacks, of course), it is when you try to use more attacks than basic iteratives that you apply TWF, and then apply the rules (both in the books and unwritten) that are associated with that option and the weapons in question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over two hundred posts and no end in sight.

I blame Legolas. Actually I blame Peter Jackson for turning Legolas into Hawkeye. Oh, and I blame Hawkeye.

Carry on!


BigNorseWolf wrote:

hehehehe...

The example breaks down though. The light one handed two handed thing only works when you stay in your size catagory.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Hmmmm...fair enough, and that's doubly supported from this FAQ I found, which, interestingly enough, poses important stuff that can be useful for a topic like this.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ BigNorseWolf: I don't see what's wrong with that attack sequence, assuming he can properly pull it off. It's no different than a player using a Two-Handed Weapon for an attack, releasing the grip (free action), making an Unarmed Strike, and then reapplying the hand back to his Two-Handed Weapon (also free action).

The problem stems from TWF; this FAQ essentially explains that you can use multiple means of attacks between separate weapons (as long as you can properly carry out those attacks, of course), it is when you try to use more attacks than basic iteratives that you apply TWF, and then apply the rules (both in the books and unwritten) that are associated with that option and the weapons in question.

There's too much wrong with the example to really get anything out of it.

The Titans shortsword is not a light weapon for you. (quoted above) Its existance as a light weapon is relative to its wielder, not an intrinsic property.

Spiked armor does require an actual hand to use in pathfinder (by punching) - a change from 3.5


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.

The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
A bow requires two hands to load.
A bow requires two hands to aim.
A bow requires two hands to loose an arrow.

Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.

The intent is quite clear.

Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.

The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
A bow requires two hands to load.
A bow requires two hands to aim.
A bow requires two hands to loose an arrow.

Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.

The intent is quite clear.

Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.

Right. two hands to load. Two hands to aim. Two hands to loose and arrow.

Clearly it is meant to be fired by octopi!

*ow ow ow ow* I deserve that *ow ow ow not on the snout!*


Weslocke wrote:

I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.

The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
A bow requires two hands to load.
A bow requires two hands to aim.
A bow requires two hands to loose an arrow.

Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.

The intent is quite clear.

Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.

The people who actually wrote the words intended for TWF/THW to work. The developers who have made rulings since then have broken something that used to work. Don't blame us for trying to pick up the pieces; you are walking into a room with a busted lamp on the floor and saying, "there are sharp pieces of glass! Clearly the intent was to cut your foot! I don't see why you guys think lamps were ever intended to do anything besides cut your feet on!"


BigDTBone wrote:

Rounds with AoO's aren't "normal" rounds.

The quoted line literally has no context. It stands alone in the text.

You've got to be kidding me. I posted literally two specific examples from the rules that specifically contradict that 'rule' you quoted. And I'm sure I can come up with plenty more.

An AoO is not a 'standard action' in any sense of the rules, you can't use 'vital strike' or 'cleave' or any other feat that relies on an attack action. You also can't take a 5' step during an AoO unless you have a specific feat that allows it.

And yes, rounds with AoO's are indeed 'normal' rounds. What aren't normal rounds are things like surprise rounds, where you only get a standard or move action instead of both.

Sorry man, you're just wrong on this one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Weslocke wrote:

I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.

The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
A bow requires two hands to load.
A bow requires two hands to aim.
A bow requires two hands to loose an arrow.

Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.

The intent is quite clear.

Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.

You are still missing the point.

Two-handed weapon, is a mechanical term.

Two hands to use, does not always equal, two handed weapon.

This is important.


BBT, you really need to spell out your entire argument and what you want to do with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

When I say "Two-Handed Weapon", I mean the classification of weapon.

Like Light, One-Handed, or Ranged, Two-Handed is a mechanical term.

Sometimes, a weapon can fall into multiple categories, such as I noted, a Spear is both a Ranged Weapon, and a Two-Handed Weapon.

Now, these classifications have meaning, and abilities, effects, and rules restrictions, can apply differently, depending on a weapon's classification.

Let's look at the Lance. It's a Two-handed Weapon, as it notes in it's classification. Even though it can be used in one hand, it still counts as, and functions as a Two-Handed Weapon.

The number of hands used, does not always change, or define, a weapon's classification.

So, whilst a Bow, requires two hands to use, it only falls into the classification of Ranged, and not Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed.

This is important.

A weapon is not a Two-Handed Weapon, because it require two hands to use, but a weapon that is classified as a Two-handed Weapon, requires two hands to use.

This may seem silly, to some, but to effectively figure out how abilities/spells/restrictions affect a weapon, one must know it's classification, or, the classification it is currently being treated as.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
BBT, you really need to spell out your entire argument and what you want to do with it.

Getting someone to actually write out the unwritten rules down so we know what works and what doesn't would be a good start. We're here arguing intent because we've got nothing else to work with. We aren't the ones that pulled this 'rule' out of our behinds...

Uses two hands could mean two physical hands, to hands of action or both. I can't point to anything to tell me because our ONLY example is a two handed weapon and as explained by BBT, that isn't the same thing as a weapon that uses two hands.


You still have no ending. Where are you going with this? What do you want to try to do?


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It uses to hands TO USE. One hand is busy pushing the bow forward, one hand is busy drawing the arrows and knocking them. Two physical and metaphorical hands of effort.

This cannot be clarified to your expectations without turning it into a legal treatise. The solution is to accept the spirit of the rules rather than holding onto the position that you can have more dakka unless its absolutely proven true that you can't.

Nobody is debating that it takes two hands to fire a bow.

Since you are not in the constant action of firing a bow continuously during the entire round, the question is, why can't you use the same hand that draws, knocks, and fires an arrow to, instead, punch someone in the nose?

I have 2 iterative attacks:

Attack 1: Draw, nock, and fire arrow from bow (uses two hands)
Attack 2: Punch someone with free hand in the nose.

Why can't TWF add an extra, Attack 3: punch in the nose?

You can't punch someone in the nose because you've already used your main hand and offhand attacks to operate the bow (which requires two hands to attack with).

It doesn't matter if your hand is empty and available - you've already expended all your attacks for the round and therefore can make no more. (assuming the character only has one main hand and one offhand attacks)

ALSO:
1) Just because a weapon can be held in one hand doesn't mean it only requires a single hand of effort to operate.
2) Just because a weapon requires two hands to attack with doesn't make it a two handed weapon.


graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
BBT, you really need to spell out your entire argument and what you want to do with it.

Getting someone to actually write out the unwritten rules down so we know what works and what doesn't would be a good start. We're here arguing intent because we've got nothing else to work with. We aren't the ones that pulled this 'rule' out of our behinds...

Uses two hands could mean two physical hands, to hands of action or both. I can't point to anything to tell me because our ONLY example is a two handed weapon and as explained by BBT, that isn't the same thing as a weapon that uses two hands.

Why is it important?

If you have intent you're done. That's the entire purpose of writing things? to convey intent.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Let me explain how classifications, and the classification you are currently treating a weapon as, matter.

If you note above, in the link to the FAQ, about the Lance, you will see that despite using one hand, the Lance's classification, is still two-handed.
Now, the Titan Mauler, can also wield a Lance in one hand, unmounted, but he does so, as if it were an One-handed weapon.

So, same weapon, of the same size, using the same number of hands, but, the classification is different.

How would we know the difference?

Classifications, as base, or currently treated as.


Byakko wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It uses to hands TO USE. One hand is busy pushing the bow forward, one hand is busy drawing the arrows and knocking them. Two physical and metaphorical hands of effort.

This cannot be clarified to your expectations without turning it into a legal treatise. The solution is to accept the spirit of the rules rather than holding onto the position that you can have more dakka unless its absolutely proven true that you can't.

Nobody is debating that it takes two hands to fire a bow.

Since you are not in the constant action of firing a bow continuously during the entire round, the question is, why can't you use the same hand that draws, knocks, and fires an arrow to, instead, punch someone in the nose?

I have 2 iterative attacks:

Attack 1: Draw, nock, and fire arrow from bow (uses two hands)
Attack 2: Punch someone with free hand in the nose.

Why can't TWF add an extra, Attack 3: punch in the nose?

You can't punch someone in the nose because you've already used your main hand and offhand attacks to operate the bow (which requires two hands to attack with).

It doesn't matter if your hand is empty and available - you've already expended all your attacks for the round and therefore can make no more. (assuming the character only has one main hand and one offhand attacks)

ALSO:
1) Just because a weapon can be held in one hand doesn't mean it only requires a single hand of effort to operate.
2) Just because a weapon requires two hands to attack with doesn't make it a two handed weapon.

3) Just because a weapon uses two hands doesn't mean it requires two to wield or take two hands of effort. The light crossbow proves this.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Let me explain how classifications, and the classification you are currently treating a weapon as, matter.

If you note above, in the link to the FAQ, about the Lance, you will see that despite using one hand, the Lance's classification, is still two-handed.
Now, the Titan Mauler, can also wield a Lance in one hand, unmounted, but he does so, as if it were an One-handed weapon.

So, same weapon, of the same size, using the same number of hands, but, the classification is different.

How would we know the difference?

Classifications, as base, or currently treated as.

Thats a legitimate question.

Argue that.

Faq that. You might get somewhere.

This is something where its far easier to fix the outliers than to make a system where there will be no outliers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The FAQ discussed, pertains to certain classifications of weapons.

So, how it applies, would make the classification of weapons important.


lets say for simplicity a character has a +11 BAB and 15 for strength and dexterity. quick draw, twf and improved twf

+11 BAB will give you 2 iterative attack sequences.

example 1:

First shot with a bow is made at a +13

Iterative sequence #1 with a unarmed strike at +8

Iterative sequence #2 with a bow at a +3

example 2

First shot with a bow is made at a +13

Iterative sequence #1 with twf unarmed strikes at +6 +6

Iterative sequence #2 with bow at +3

Is example 2 such a big deal?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, I ask, what classification, or classifications, does the Bow fall under?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, I ask, what classification, or classifications, does the Bow fall under?

according to crb it falls under ranged weapon


BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
BBT, you really need to spell out your entire argument and what you want to do with it.

Getting someone to actually write out the unwritten rules down so we know what works and what doesn't would be a good start. We're here arguing intent because we've got nothing else to work with. We aren't the ones that pulled this 'rule' out of our behinds...

Uses two hands could mean two physical hands, to hands of action or both. I can't point to anything to tell me because our ONLY example is a two handed weapon and as explained by BBT, that isn't the same thing as a weapon that uses two hands.

Why is it important?

If you have intent you're done. That's the entire purpose of writing things? to convey intent.

LOL You have what YOU think intent is. I have what I think intent is. BBT has what HE thinks intent is. I'm betting none don't match up. So having at the VERY least some guidelines seem needed.

If you've made up your mind you know what the unwritten rules are bully for you. I can't say I do.

Sovereign Court

@BigDTBone

PRD on AoO wrote:

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

Yes, it is only a single melee attack. It is not a full-round, standard, move, swift, free, or immediate action. Full section of "Making an AoO" quoted to be sure everything is in context.

Additionally,

PRD on Free actions wrote:
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
PRD on the only example listed that can be done outside your turn wrote:

Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

As this example was specifically called out as being able to be done when it is not your turn, all other listed free action examples would be limited to your turn only. Additionally, the only action type specifically called out that can be used outside your turn in combat is an immediate action.

As such, you cannot make free actions during an AoO unless specifically stated (such as is the case with the Snap Shot FAQ entry).

That said, you have a bow in one hand and a sword in the other, you cannot use the bow for an AoO since you can't take the swift action to drop the sword and grip the bow with two hands. As such, you are not wielding the bow and therefore it cannot be used in TWF which requires wielding two weapons.

201 to 250 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Off Hand Longbows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.