Off Hand Longbows


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

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

according to crb it falls under ranged weapon

That doesn't fall under the melee classifications for effort use (light, one handed, two handed). As such it could need 1 or two hands of effort.

We'd need to know both it's weapon category and it's 'effort' category. Really, it would be nice if projectile weapons DID fall under the melee designations like firearms do for just this reason.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, I ask, what classification, or classifications, does the Bow fall under?

according to crb it falls under ranged weapon

Indeed, it does!

Does it fall under additional classifications?


graystone wrote:
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.

Right, but when the people are reading the intent of "it takes two hands to use" as "it takes two hands" are everyone but you and blackblood troll its time to leave over. You don't need to manufacture an epistemic crisis out of clear english, especially to garner a mechanical advantage.

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

Its not an unwritten rule. Its the meaning of whats written. Sometimes that is legitimately vague. This is not one of those times.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Some weapons, fall under subcategories of classifications.

A Ranged weapon, can also fall under the sub-classification of "Thrown".

A Ranged weapon, can also fall under the sub-classification of "Firearm: One-handed".

These are in addition to weapons that could, fall under multiple classifications.

Example: The Dagger is a Light Weapon, but also falls under the classification of Ranged, with a sub-classification of Thrown.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Some weapons, fall under subcategories of classifications.

A Ranged weapon, can also fall under the sub-classification of "Thrown".

A Ranged weapon, can also fall under the sub-classification of "Firearm: One-handed".

These are in addition to weapons that could, fall under multiple classifications.

Example: The Dagger is a Light Weapon, but also falls under the classification of Ranged, with a sub-classification of Thrown.

And?

Where are go going with with this? It looks like you're just spouting out random rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If a Longbow does not fall under the classification of "Two-Handed Weapon", then it cannot be used with abilities that effect, specifically, Two-Handed Weapons, or restrictions, that specifically pertain to Two-handed weapons.

This is true, even if the rules are unwritten, or extrapolated from rules pertaining to Two-handed weapons.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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.

This character has two main hand attacks and two offhand attacks.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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

This doesn't work. You're making two bow attacks. This requires two main hand and two offhand attack's worth of effort. You have no attacks left to make an unarmed strike.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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?

Again, this example includes two bow attacks, resulting in no attacks left over for unarmed strikes.

----------

This character can, however, do this:

Attack once with a bow. (expends a main hand and an offhand attack)
Attack with a main hand unarmed strike. (expends one main hand attack)
Attack with an offhand unarmed strike. (expends one offhand attack)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Now, if we can at least agree on the classification of the Bow, we can now move on.

What, outlined within the Armor Spikes FAQ, pertains to weapons that fall only under the classification, of "Ranged"?


Following that line of thought, since it doesn't fall under two handed weapons, or light weapons, or one handed weapons then it can't be used at all because it doesn't exist! Its schrodingers giant toothpick! firing the weapon causes a rules vortex. Cats sing with dogs, the world implodes in itself, cern creates a black hole I"VE GOT A BOW AND ARROW AND NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE!"

Or you can just figure out that it occupies "hands" for the exact same reason that a two-handed weapon occupies your "hands": because your hands are occupied. The game simply is not playable if you're not able or not willing to correctly parse rules like that all the time.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Right, but when the people are reading the intent of "it takes two hands to use" as "it takes two hands" are everyone but you and blackblood troll its time to leave over. You don't need to manufacture an epistemic crisis out of clear english, especially to garner a mechanical advantage.

If you take even minimal time looking over the thread, you'll fine it's just not the two of us. Second, who's trying for a mechanical advantage? Do you know something awesome about a bow/melee weapon TWFing I don't know? Third, if we followed plain English, we wouldn't have hands being different from hands of effort. Pathfinder isn't known for plain English or do you want to debate how clear race traits are vs racial traits...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its not an unwritten rule. Its the meaning of whats written. Sometimes that is legitimately vague. This is not one of those times.

No it's not. Hands can mean two different things now. That went WAY past legitimately vague and went straight to damn confusing. Second, it's the very definition of unwritten, when even the dev's explaining it say it is. It's a limitation that appears nowhere in the written text: an unwritten rule. Just because that's how you understood/understand it doesn't make it suddenly show up in the books.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It exists.

I falls under a specific classification.

It notes how it is used.

It cannot occupy both hands, at all times, or it would not function.

The game functions, and these classifications are a part of how they do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
]No it's not. Hands can mean two different things now. That went WAY past legitimately vague and went straight to damn confusing. Second, it's the very definition of unwritten, when even the dev's explaining it say it is. It's a limitation that appears nowhere in the written text: an unwritten rule. Just because that's how you understood/understand it doesn't make it suddenly show up in the books.

Because of you. This is what you did. This is the language you forced on the game. This is the absurdity you forced us all to live with trying to poke and pry at the rules in the quest for yet one more attack to make.

You did this, you can't complain about it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Are we still resorting to personal attacks?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It exists.

I falls under a specific classification.

It notes how it is used.

It cannot occupy both hands, at all times, or it would not function.

It occupies them often enough to keep your hands busy in combat so that they can't be used for other things. This is how the game works. Action economy is important. Time spent doing things on your turn is an exclusive choice. You fired a bow, you can't start two weapon fighting because your hands are busy.

And I can't find a better note to leave the thread on than the hawkeye thing. So later.


Absolutely not true. The game works by issuing #'s of attacks, iteratives, feats, etc. Time spent firing a bow consumes 1 attack, just as much time as swinging a sword. If for my 2nd iterative I want to use that free hand to punch instead of nock and fire an arrow.

I absolutely should be able to do so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It exists.

I falls under a specific classification.

It notes how it is used.

It cannot occupy both hands, at all times, or it would not function.

It occupies them often enough to keep your hands busy in combat so that they can't be used for other things. This is how the game works. Action economy is important. Time spent doing things on your turn is an exclusive choice. You fired a bow, you can't start two weapon fighting because your hands are busy.

And I can't find a better note to leave the thread on than the hawkeye thing. So later.

All other things? Does my Spiked Gauntlet, not threaten? Can I not Quickdraw a Quickdraw Shield? Can I not kick?

What makes this different, than say, holding a Shield, firing a Crossbow, and making an unarmed strike, all in one turn?

Action Economy has allowed: 1 Ranged attack, and 1 Melee attack.

What makes them different?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Can I fire a Sling, and make an Unarmed Strike?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
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.

This is complicated by the inability to take a free action to draw an arrow when it isn't your turn.

Snap Shot FAQ allows this which isn't normally allowed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Speaking of Snap Shot...

Can one threaten with a Bow, using Snap Shot, and still be considered to have a free hand?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
graystone wrote:
]No it's not. Hands can mean two different things now. That went WAY past legitimately vague and went straight to damn confusing. Second, it's the very definition of unwritten, when even the dev's explaining it say it is. It's a limitation that appears nowhere in the written text: an unwritten rule. Just because that's how you understood/understand it doesn't make it suddenly show up in the books.

Because of you. This is what you did. This is the language you forced on the game. This is the absurdity you forced us all to live with trying to poke and pry at the rules in the quest for yet one more attack to make.

You did this, you can't complain about it.

I must have missed my promotion to cartoon villain. Is it time to destroy Tokyo/new York yet? Did I also cause global warming and bird flu? *rolls eyes* You make it sound like I went to paizo and kicked their dog...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It exists.

I falls under a specific classification.

It notes how it is used.

It cannot occupy both hands, at all times, or it would not function.

It occupies them often enough to keep your hands busy in combat so that they can't be used for other things. This is how the game works. Action economy is important. Time spent doing things on your turn is an exclusive choice. You fired a bow, you can't start two weapon fighting because your hands are busy.

And I can't find a better note to leave the thread on than the hawkeye thing. So later.

It MAY be that "It occupies them often enough to keep your hands busy in combat so that they can't be used for other things." We can't tell that from the FAQ though. It only provided an unwritten rule as guidance so I have nowhere to find out. I can only be sure that is can't work the same as a two handed weapon and that's the only example given for our unwritten rule.

I'm sorry I don't have the certainty in the nebulous unwritten intent as you seem to have. I'm sorry I want the wording to actually read clearly and have only one meaning, I'm sorry having more than one kind of hand is confusing. I'm sorry that a complete 180 degree change from how this kind of thing works throws me off.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, Graystone, it looks like you may have to change your name to Snidely Whiplash. ;)


I agree with Liz's post a few pages back: An actual FAQ would be enlightening, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing. I see a whopping 5 FAQ requests, including my own, on BBT's first post. Let's fix that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh, but personal attacks are just how rules debates are won.

Right? ;)


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, Graystone, it looks like you may have to change your name to Snidely Whiplash. ;)

Sorry, didn't catch that. I was too busy kidnapping girls and tying them to railroad tracks. Mwwhahahahahahahaha!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
graystone wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, Graystone, it looks like you may have to change your name to Snidely Whiplash. ;)
Sorry, didn't catch that. I was too busy kidnapping girls and tying them to railroad tracks. Mwwhahahahahahahaha!!!

Well, I do, occasionally laugh like Muttley.


Ashram wrote:
I agree with Liz's post a few pages back: An actual FAQ would be enlightening, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing. I see a whopping 5 FAQ requests, including my own, on BBT's first post. Let's fix that.

Good luck with that...


Remember a bow is held in what is normally your offhand, you do not need to drop or stow it to draw a sword. You do need to get rid of the sword before you can use the bow again though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bardach wrote:
Remember a bow is held in what is normally your offhand, you do not need to drop or stow it to draw a sword. You do need to get rid of the sword before you can use the bow again though.

Replace Sword, with Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes, Unarmed Strike, or Cestus.

Less work.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Holy Crumbcake, it is still going!!

Sovereign Court

The only problem there would be that you are then restricting what can be used for TWF with a bow, which would need to have a qualifier. Which would be more work.

The baseline for consideration as to whether you are wielding a bow (and therefore qualifying for applying TWF) would be if TWF feat would apply in all circumstances.

For improved snap shot with a bow in one hand and sword in another, the TWF model breaks down. As you do not have two hands to use the bow, you do not threaten someone 10' from you. Since you do not threaten, this means you are not wielding the bow. Since you are not wielding the bow, you are wielding only one weapon and the TWF feat does not apply.

Sovereign Court

thaX wrote:

Holy Crumbcake, it is still going!!

The thread will not die because it is 10' from us and we only have one hand available for the bow ... ;)


Twin Bows wrote:
At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two-weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren't light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

This class feature is only available to Kasatha Rangers.

But I can cheat that by selecting Racial Heritage (Kasatha) and be able to take levels in this archetype anyway by 1st level.

So I can be a race that has only 2 hands, take this class feature, and TWF with two bows whenever I want, since both apparently only require one hand ever for TWF.

Sovereign Court

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Twin Bows wrote:
At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two-weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren't light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

This class feature is only available to Kasatha Rangers.

But I can cheat that by selecting Racial Heritage (Kasatha) and be able to take levels in this archetype anyway by 1st level.

So I can be a race that has only 2 hands, take this class feature, and TWF with two bows whenever I want, since both apparently only require one hand ever for TWF.

broken ... just broken.

I would not allow at a home game. For PFS, I would ask the player if they were serious and shake my head in pity for the fool who would have picked something so broken it will inevitably be listed as not legal in the additional resources, hopefully without a free rebuild. That is if the race ever became available for PFS play.


zylphryx wrote:

The only problem there would be that you are then restricting what can be used for TWF with a bow, which would need to have a qualifier. Which would be more work.

The baseline for consideration as to whether you are wielding a bow (and therefore qualifying for applying TWF) would be if TWF feat would apply in all circumstances.

For improved snap shot with a bow in one hand and sword in another, the TWF model breaks down. As you do not have two hands to use the bow, you do not threaten someone 10' from you. Since you do not threaten, this means you are not wielding the bow. Since you are not wielding the bow, you are wielding only one weapon and the TWF feat does not apply.

Does it matter that there is only a small pool of weapons it would work for? The whole question revolves around weapons what use a 'hand' but not a physical one. they already exist in the game so it's no more 'work'. You baseline is a complete failure as the baseline weapon selection includes weapons that invalidate your proposal.

Let me give you another situation. Someone has a 10' pole with a banner on it. They are wearing a boulder helmet and armor spikes. Because there hands are full, they'd have an issue with TWFing? Both 'hands' are free.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Twin Bows wrote:
At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two-weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren't light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

This class feature is only available to Kasatha Rangers.

But I can cheat that by selecting Racial Heritage (Kasatha) and be able to take levels in this archetype anyway by 1st level.

So I can be a race that has only 2 hands, take this class feature, and TWF with two bows whenever I want, since both apparently only require one hand ever for TWF.

There is no problem wielding both IMO. Your issue comes when it's time to load and fire as you have no free hand. A juggling bard, growing an extra vestigial arm or something of that nature could fix that.

what you've basically done is say, I'm using two light crossbows at once. That's fine but you need more than those two hands to operate each one. Same principle. To use that style you have to figure out how to get that needed extra hand. The Kasatha has that out of the box but anyone else has to add something to make it work.


zylphryx wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Twin Bows wrote:
At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two-weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren't light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

This class feature is only available to Kasatha Rangers.

But I can cheat that by selecting Racial Heritage (Kasatha) and be able to take levels in this archetype anyway by 1st level.

So I can be a race that has only 2 hands, take this class feature, and TWF with two bows whenever I want, since both apparently only require one hand ever for TWF.

broken ... just broken.

I would not allow at a home game. For PFS, I would ask the player if they were serious and shake my head in pity for the fool who would have picked something so broken it will inevitably be listed as not legal in the additional resources, hopefully without a free rebuild. That is if the race ever became available for PFS play.

It's not broken. It's just so MAD that it couldn't possibly go well, even if it was allowed.

I actually challenge somebody to do this in PFS and see if they get away with it, because I can practically guarantee it won't work.


The Bow Nomad archetype isn't legal for PFS, so it turns out to be rather moot in any case.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Indeed, Bow Nomad is not PFS legal.

Moving on.

What is the difference in written mechanical restrictions between an attack with an unarmed strike, and a Sling, or an unarmed strike, and a Bow?

The Exchange

Apologies if I'm beating at a dead horse because I have only read the start of the thread, but here's what my archer has been doing for the last while, and how I assumed it worked:

  • I wear/hold (but not necessarily wield) a Buckler on my left arm, a Bow in my left hand, and a Cestus on my right hand.
  • When I don't shoot with my bow that round, I am free to Wield my buckler and my cestus, because I am only "holding" my bow, not "wielding" it, and holding it only requires one hand.
  • When I attack with my bow that round, I cannot Wield my buckler or cestus (my right hand was used to wield the bow).

Tell me if I'm wrong about this please.


bbt: It takes two hands to fire a bow but only one hand to attack with a sling. Thus, I'd say you could TWF with a sling and an unarmed strike (although reloading a sling is usually troublesome).

----------

Covert Operator:
That sounds reasonable, however:

Cestus wrote:
Drawback: When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

Is attacking with a bow a precision-based task?

Some might say yes, giving you a -2 penalty on attack rolls if one of the operating hands is wearing a cestus.

The Exchange

OK cool. I don't think it counts as a precision-based task. I have real experience with bows and have read about cesti on wikipedia. The images shown would suggest that your lower knuckles are prevented from going far past the punching position. My experience with bows tells me you wouldn't need to go any farther.

But yeah, it is a matter of opinion. No RAW to save us there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Let's ask this:

Can one use a Dagger, or Shuriken, with two hands, and make an unarmed strike?


A dagger is a light weapon: "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."

So yes, you apparently can wield a dagger in two hands, although you gain no additional damage. Wielding it this way would consume your main hand and offhand attacks as per attacking with any other weapon two-handedly.

Shurikens, on the other hand, appear to be only usable with one hand. If you did manage to use a throwing weapon with both hands, it would also consume your main and offhand attacks.

In any case, unarmed strikes could be combined with these attacks in the same way they could with any other. You just need to have enough attacks (hands of effort) to do so.

The Exchange

I'd like a clarification in the Unwritten Rules:
Does using a shield which is heavier than a buckler preclude you from making an unarmed strike "offhand attack?"


Nope. Your hands can be completely full and you can still make unarmed strikes (main had or offhand). If your hands are not available, these strikes can be made with other body parts such as feet, knees, elbows, etc.

If you're trying to do something which requires an unarmed strike WITH a hand, and your hands are full, then you might be out of luck, however.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Byakko wrote:

A dagger is a light weapon: "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."

So yes, you apparently can wield a dagger in two hands, although you gain no additional damage. Wielding it this way would consume your main hand and offhand attacks as per attacking with any other weapon two-handedly.

Shurikens, on the other hand, appear to be only usable with one hand. If you did manage to use a throwing weapon with both hands, it would also consume your main and offhand attacks.

In any case, unarmed strikes could be combined with these attacks in the same way they could with any other. You just need to have enough attacks (hands of effort) to do so.

Ah, so wielding a Dagger in to hands, doesn't violate the "unwritten rule" of no more than x1.5 Str to damage, but instead, violates another "unwritten rule", in which any weapon, no matter the classification, being used with two hands, makes any other off-hand attack unavailable, regardless of whether it uses a hand, or not.

Seeing, as that was not covered in the FAQ, and not in the "unwritten rules" highlight, from some Dev post, how does the "unwrittten rules" treat weapon classifications?

You seem to know a lot more about when these rules apply, and when they do not.


I think you're reading a bit too much into the x1.5 Str thing. Even if it was a factor in the decision to create the semi-unwritten "hands of effort" rules, it applies even when a x1.5 Strength modifier is not involved.

For example, if a warrior wields an Agile estoc in two-hands, she can apply her Dexterity modifier to damage instead of Strength. This damage isn't even increased for wielding the weapon in two hands. However, the FAQ continues to apply, and she would still be unable to use two-weapon fighting with the estoc and armor spikes. (in the base case)

In general, weapon classifications indicate how you need to wield a weapon to operate it properly, as well as serving as a method of referencing a large set of weapons at once for the purpose of other rules. This is a generalization - some weapons require a bit more looking at in order to determine how many hands are required to operate them, especially ranged weapons. In the end, the hands of effort depend on how the weapon is actually being used, not just its classification. Aka, just because a longsword is a one handed weapon doesn't mean you can wield it in two hands and then proceed to TWF with armor spikes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I didn't read into the x1.5 Str thing.

It was the whole argument of the unwritten rules to disallow it in the first place. Placed by Devs themselves.

Also, where are the rules discussing "hands of effort" in regards to available off-hand attacks?

If use of hands, and not number of attacks, or classification of weapons, are the true limiter, then how do any weapons that do not use hands work?

You realize you don't even need to have hands, to make an off-hand attack?

What's the qualifier, for what attacks makes the off-hand unavailable?


There's no official rules for most of this off-hand / hands of effort stuff. There are a bunch of scattered posts and replies by devs, which when read together and within context, build up to the concepts I'm presenting. Every GM is, of course, perfectly justified in making their own judgment calls - but without a solid "hands of effort" system, you can very quickly get into abusive situations.

When we speak of "hands of effort", we're of course not referring to actual hands. A weapon which doesn't use a physical hand still requires either a "main hand" or "offhand" of effort to use, in general.

There are two things which consume an offhand of effort:
1) making an "offhand" attack (even if it's a unarmed strike kick, etc)
2) making an attack with a weapon which uses two hands

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You, and others, keep using that word. Abuse.

I don't think it means, what you think it means.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You, and others, keep using that word. Abuse.

I don't think it means, what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

251 to 300 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.