Off Hand Longbows


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Folks if this worked like you are saying it does (and it does not work), then a Kasatha would be able to use three longbows to multi-weapon fight in a single round and would have no need of their special racial archetype.

Which is patently ridiculous.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Weslocke wrote:
Folks if this worked like you are saying it does (and it does not work), then a Kasatha would be able to use three longbows to multi-weapon fight in a single round and would have no need of their special racial archetype.

+1


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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?

That's ultimately the problem. There are two potential limiters when we look at the FAQ. We have an item that (most people) say requires no hands to use, put in as an example with a weapon that requires two hands, and then the FAQ says "You can't do that," especially when we can sub in a weapon like Unarmed Strike, which can be made with limbs that are not hands, and the result is still the same.

It's not truly defined as to whether it's solely because of the "unwritten rule," if it's solely because you don't have a hand open for the weapon in question, or both. It's much easier (and more consistent) to say that both limitations apply in regards to the FAQ, in that all weapons, regardless of how many hands are needed to use it, still need at least one, and that you can't pass the 1.5x modifier. (If anything, the "unwritten rule" actually invalidates Double Slice and several of the Two-Handed Fighter's class features, if the "unwritten rule" can't be broken at all, like it was with the Armor Spikes FAQ, so they actually make more inconsistencies with that interpretation.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
actually invalidates Double Slice and several of the Two-Handed Fighter's class features, if the "unwritten rule" can't be broken at all,

I keep seeing this come up.

Specific trumps general. General is only 1.5x and specific is 2.0x of Double Slice.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

*Arches eyebrow*

Just looking in to see if anything changed...

Nope, nothing new to say here. Proceed... Proceed.


thaX wrote:

*Arches eyebrow*

Just looking in to see if anything changed...

Nope, nothing new to say here. Proceed... Proceed.

I think we need to just go ahead and have a blog post about "hands" vs hands vs. not quite hands.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It would be a "Handy" blog...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Weslocke wrote:

Folks if this worked like you are saying it does (and it does not work), then a Kasatha would be able to use three longbows to multi-weapon fight in a single round and would have no need of their special racial archetype.

Which is patently ridiculous.

How so?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Once bow in three hands and the forth pulling strings...

I can't believe you didn't see that.

Here is what I have determined between several threads about this and other subjects that talk about TWF/MWF.

When TWF, the character would want to use a One Handed Weapon with a Light Weapon in the "off" hand to offset penalties.

One can not TWF with Two Handed weapons, no matter the individual skill that a particular character has. (like, one handing an Earth Breaker, which is still a Two Handed Weapon)

A Bow still uses Two Hands to Wield even though it is not "classified" as a Two Handed (Melee) weapon. (So the above statement that BBT missed can not happen)

The FAQ in the OP clarifies that one still can not TWF with Two Handed Weapons, even with weapons "at hand" such as Gauntlets and Unarmed Strikes. This would include Bows. (even if you could Melee attack with a bow)

So, what is the question? Can you hit someone after firing a bow in the same round? Why would this even come up?


? Why wouldn't it come up? I have two iterative attacks. For my first attack, I shoot someone with my bow. For my second iterative attack, I punch someone else in the face.

What's the problem? Why can't I do that? I've asked this question at least 3 times now and nobody has answered it.


_Ozy_ wrote:

? Why wouldn't it come up? I have two iterative attacks. For my first attack, I shoot someone with my bow. For my second iterative attack, I punch someone else in the face.

What's the problem? Why can't I do that? I've asked this question at least 3 times now and nobody has answered it.

Because changing weapons for your iterative attack has no relation to two weapon fighting. So no one is answering you because the question is irrelevant to this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Who is suggesting additional off-hand attacks, beyond normally granted?


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
actually invalidates Double Slice and several of the Two-Handed Fighter's class features, if the "unwritten rule" can't be broken at all,

I keep seeing this come up.

Specific trumps general. General is only 1.5x and specific is 2.0x of Double Slice.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded. If we're talking optimally, I can get 2.5x, or even 3x modifier using the Armor Spikes + Greatsword method (Two-Handed Fighter + Double Slice). An even less optimal scenario, which results in 2x modifier, is disallowed according to the FAQ; what makes you think an even more powerful modifier from the result of Double Slice or THF class features would change that? Specific trumps General has no basis if the Specifics don't give the ability to pass the hard cap, which it seems SKR mentions. One could extrapolate this to mean that Multi-Weapon Fighting is also invalid, though that's a completely different beast compared to merely TWF or using a two-handed weapon, which I can guarantee you the FAQ does not cover.


In another post, Sean (or another dev) mentions that statements like the one you bolded are referring to the base case, at level 1. When you add on more levels, feats, and abilities, things change.


That's 12 FAQ requests so far from 314 posts - more than I thought you'd get.


BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

? Why wouldn't it come up? I have two iterative attacks. For my first attack, I shoot someone with my bow. For my second iterative attack, I punch someone else in the face.

What's the problem? Why can't I do that? I've asked this question at least 3 times now and nobody has answered it.

Because changing weapons for your iterative attack has no relation to two weapon fighting. So no one is answering you because the question is irrelevant to this thread.

Who's changing weapons? Instead of drawing an arrow and firing it, I'm using that hand to punch. The bow is still in the other hand. Why does that work for an iterative attack, but not the extra attack from TWF? Either that hand is available for punching or it is not.


_Ozy_ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

? Why wouldn't it come up? I have two iterative attacks. For my first attack, I shoot someone with my bow. For my second iterative attack, I punch someone else in the face.

What's the problem? Why can't I do that? I've asked this question at least 3 times now and nobody has answered it.

Because changing weapons for your iterative attack has no relation to two weapon fighting. So no one is answering you because the question is irrelevant to this thread.
Who's changing weapons? Instead of drawing an arrow and firing it, I'm using that hand to punch. The bow is still in the other hand. Why does that work for an iterative attack, but not the extra attack from TWF? Either that hand is available for punching or it is not.

For basic iteratives, it's available. For TWF, it's not. TWF doesn't follow the same rules for iterative attacks, and required hands for pulling off the attacks are separate issues for each employ of attack. Trying to treat iterative attacks and TWF as being the same beast just doesn't work.

@ Byakko: That's actually taken from the very same post that mentions 1st level characters being able to do (X). It doesn't change, no matter what level you are, or what class features or feats you possess, and that's evidenced by the Armor Spikes FAQ. This isn't like some Spells class feature that scales based on your class level, the scale has a hard cap as defined by SKR; 1.5x modifier for both THF and TWF. He says that's the most damage you're allotted from TWF or THF. That's it. That is a hard cap. If I get a +10 weapon, I can't raise it any higher or give my weapon further properties (from magic items or other class features) because +10 is a hard cap.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded.

No, "A Dev" says that is the norm. Special abilities that allow you to exceed the "norm" wouldn't be covered by that statement.

I can only guess you are serious and not being a joker, but statements like that are based around base characters without special abilities that allow you to do things not normally allowed.


James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded.

No, "A Dev" says that is the norm. Special abilities that allow you to exceed the "norm" wouldn't be covered by that statement.

I can only guess you are serious and not being a joker, but statements like that are based around base characters without special abilities that allow you to do things not normally allowed.

How would they not? There is nothing in the class features or the feat that grants you the ability to exceed the hard cap that SKR says. He also mentions that 'optimally' (which means best case scenario, so this includes things like Double Slice and Two-Handed Fighter, meaning 3x modifier), you're not getting any more than 1.5x modifier, as SKR says, and that's regardless of what attack mode you use.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded.

No, "A Dev" says that is the norm. Special abilities that allow you to exceed the "norm" wouldn't be covered by that statement.

I can only guess you are serious and not being a joker, but statements like that are based around base characters without special abilities that allow you to do things not normally allowed.

How would they not? There is nothing in the class features or the feat that grants you the ability to exceed the hard cap that SKR says. He also mentions that 'optimally' (which means best case scenario, so this includes things like Double Slice and Two-Handed Fighter, meaning 3x modifier), you're not getting any more than 1.5x modifier, as SKR says, and that's regardless of what attack mode you use.

Double slice quite literally is the feat that lets you exceeds the norm.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
grants you the ability to exceed the hard cap that SKR says.

You are totally misunderstanding what he is saying.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:
That's 12 FAQ requests so far from 314 posts - more than I thought you'd get.

Are you just mocking the fact that the thread exists?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does firing a Longbow, or Shortbow, make my off-hand unavailable?

322 posts in this thread. The original question can have but one answer: yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does firing a Longbow, or Shortbow, make my off-hand unavailable?
322 posts in this thread. The original question can have but one answer: yes.

Ah, but for what purpose? For how long? For what reason?

Hmm, maybe, a quick one word answer, isn't enough. :)


There is no rule that allows this because the devs did not think of anyone trying it, but when they get around to making a ruling I am about 99% sure they will say it can't be done. Now I will press the FAQ button so this can get an answer.


From everything that I have seen in the FAQ. It looks to me like

Your off hand is in use any time you off hand is in use...

If your GM allows it (this is dependent on how many free actions they allow and if you have quick draw,) you can do the below.
say you have quick draw and TWF & ImpTWF
full attack as such using just BAB of 11 and the off hands are light.
9/4/-1 for primary
8/3 for off-hand
You can use a bow while using a buckler.

Your primary attacks are with the Bow so you don't take the attack penalty on the bow attacks, but you lose the bucklers AC bonus... but your off hand/non-bow attack is taking the -1 penalty to attack.

Goes like this.

1st primary with bow
Quick draw a light weapon with off-hand
First off-hand attack, drop light weapon, grab arrow
2nd primary with bow
Quick draw new light weapon
2nd off-hand attack with new light weapon, drop light weapon, grab arrow
Last primary attack with bow
Quick draw new one handed weapon, or drop bow and Quick draw a melee two handed, so you can threaten for Attacks of opportunity before your next turn (and your off-hand is only being used if you are using your off hand, and the Buckler is still having lost its bonus AC but you only take the -1 to attack for the AoP if you are using the hand that has the Buckler on it.)

This is 7 (or 8 if you dropped bow for a two handed weapon at the end,) free actions before your next turn.

Does that help?

If you have more than two arms/hands I am pretty sure you no longer have the ability to TWF but instead now have to take multi-attack or something like that.....


blackbloodtroll wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
That's 12 FAQ requests so far from 314 posts - more than I thought you'd get.
Are you just mocking the fact that the thread exists?

A little bit.

I am enjoying the justifications/explanations people are coming up with though, very imaginative!

Dark Archive

At this point BBT is just trolling. It’s even in his name blackbloodTROLL. He has just tried to poke holes in everyone’s posts without listening to reason. He has not relented this even with overwhelming number of people posting the same thing. It is amazing this has gone on this long. Bravo.

Sovereign Court

Actually, BBT is rather fond of finding corner cases and bringing them to light (sometimes they are solid, other times they are kind of shaky ... I would classify this particular one in the latter). Sometimes I agree with what he says, other times not. This is one of those cases where I do not agree that it is RAW (for the reasons I have given), but I would consider this as a possibility for a home game simply for the cinematic feel.

While he has "troll" in his handle, he is not a troll in the sense you are implying (and I would not throw that term around lightly in a rules forum just because someone "tries to poke holes in everyone's posts without listening to reason" ... just saying). "Vehement Devil's Advocate" would be more fitting in some cases and "Solidly Taking A Position Counter To The Mainstream" would apply in others. At this point in the thread, I am getting more of a VDA vibe.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Shadowlords wrote:
At this point BBT is just trolling. It’s even in his name blackbloodTROLL. He has just tried to poke holes in everyone’s posts without listening to reason. He has not relented this even with overwhelming number of people posting the same thing. It is amazing this has gone on this long. Bravo.

That is personally insulting. Don't do that. The "troll" in my name, comes from a nickname, I had before it's current usage.

I doubt you hide in the shadows, lording over things/people.

Dark Archive

blackbloodtroll wrote:


That is personally insulting. Don't do that. The "troll" in my name, comes from a nickname, I had before it's current usage.

I doubt you hide in the shadows, lording over things/people.

I apologize then,

From what i read it seemed like you were just poking the beast and trying to lead people on without changing or adding anything to your argument. I am rather new to these forums, zylphryx has pointed out what you do and it makes sense now and troll was not the correct word for what was happening.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It is fine.

I have been known to bring up rules, that some are unwilling to consider.

I have been wrong, and I have been right, but I never go out of my way to "troll" anyone.

This is not 4chan, and I don't act like I am there.


BBT I honestly hopes it gets a good in-depth FAQ and I hope the title quotes you with something like "But HANDS!!!"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.


Well from where I stand I wouldn't let the crossbow guy do it either from a standpoint that you need two hands to reload the crossbow. Which I interpret to be using both of your "hands" for these purposes.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

wait a minute. What does kicking have to do with hands?


You have entered the realm of metaphysical "Hands". Kicking has nothing to do with hands, however attacks per round are limited by "hands". This is why you can't Swing a greatsword and then kick or headbutt as a TWF attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
wait a minute. What does kicking have to do with hands?

It's all covered in the unwritten rules. :)


Talonhawke wrote:
Well from where I stand I wouldn't let the crossbow guy do it either from a standpoint that you need two hands to reload the crossbow. Which I interpret to be using both of your "hands" for these purposes.

Uh, you only need your hands while performing the action, which is a free action. Why can't you use your hand when you're done reloading?

If I cast a spell as a quickened action (using a hand to do so) don't I still have that hand available for a standard action attack, spell, or whatever? Why would a free action reload action tie up that hand for the entire turn?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.

BBT's example has nothing to do with iteratives. Why do people keep thinking he is talking about iteratives. There is no iterative in his example.

He is saying that *using two-weapon fighting* that someone could use a sling and make an off-hand kick. However, one could not use two-weapon fighting, to fire a bow and make an off-hand kick.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Perhaps I just see the use of the other hand, pulling out, and readying the arrow, the same as reloading any other weapon.


As a difference between the Bow and the Sling examples; a Bow takes two hands to load and fire, a sling takes two hands to load but one to fire. A crossbow can also be fired with one hand (at -2 or -4 to attack) but must be loaded with two.


BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.

BBT's example has nothing to do with iteratives. Why do people keep thinking he is talking about iteratives. There is no iterative in his example.

He is saying that *using two-weapon fighting* that someone could use a sling and make an off-hand kick. However, one could not use two-weapon fighting, to fire a bow and make an off-hand kick.

How does it not?

With the Armor Spikes FAQ, TWF FAQ, and having BAB +16, I could: Greatsword +16/Armor Spikes +11/Greatsword +6/Armor Spikes +1. That's 100% legal, since I could swap handiness between those attacks to make use of Armor Spikes while also making use of my Greatsword. It doesn't break the "unwritten rule" at all. No toes are stepped on. Everybody wins.

But when you throw TWF into the ability to make attacks, such as it getting you an extra set of attacks, and you no longer able to divvy up your attacks how you see fit, is when it gets hairy and all of the "No, No, No" answers fly out, because you're delving with a completely different beast.

I will iterate the issue again: The problem with the people throwing out the "No, No, No" arguments are that it's not 100% defined as to whether the sole reason you can't TWF with Armor Spikes and a Greatsword is because of the "unwritten rule" or not. After all, if Armor Spikes require a hand to wield (both meta and physical), one other problem presented (that the FAQ could've mentioned, but didn't) is whether you're making the dual iterative attacks simultaneously or not (i.e. granting you the ability to swap handiness), and this is supported by the factor that you need you have your weapons drawn and able to use before you opt for TWF, as presented in the TWF FAQ (and is one of the many-faced definitions of "wield").

Again, if I can TWF with an Agile Elven Curved Blade + Agile Armor Spikes, then I'll concede that you can TWF with a Bow and an a Magic Gauntlet. Until then, I'll stay conservative and say "No dice. The attack fails. Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies."


I seem to be missing something - what is an Agile Elven Curve Blade? I thought Agile applied to armour is it in a splat book? If so which one?

Edit I've just gone through seven pages of results searching for "agile" no mention of a weapon property there?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:

I seem to be missing something - what is an Agile Elven Curve Blade? I thought Agile applied to armour is it in a splat book? If so which one?

Edit I've just gone through seven pages of results searching for "agile" no mention of a weapon property there?

Here you go. ^_^


Thank you, not in the PRD but on d20 which explains the search results. I think I was misunderstanding the point being made anyway.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Thank you, not in the PRD but on d20 which explains the search results. I think I was misunderstanding the point being made anyway.

Let me do the breakdown then:

Elven Curved Blade is a two-handed weapon that can be finnessed. Applying Agile to the Elven Curved Blade makes it deal Dexterity damage, capping out at 1x Dexterity modifier, but it still takes two hands to properly use.

Next, you have Armor Spikes. Since they are a Light weapon, they too can be finnessed, and because they can be finnessed, they too can have the Agile property; used in TWF, they are a 0.5x modifier. They require a hand to use.

One of the reasons why you aren't allowed to use TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "Can't be more than 1.5x modifier" rule; that is, the sum of your stat modifiers between the two sets of attacks cannot be greater than 1.5x (the standard Greatsword + Armor Spikes equating to a base 2x modifier). But it's not called out as being the only reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.

So, many people (myself included) believe that not only is the "unwritten rule" in play here, but also because you need to be able to wield them for the entire duration of the action, as evidenced by the final bit in the TWF FAQ makes a clear mention of this:

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

Emphasis Mine on the key words.

This can certainly mean that you are required to carry out your attacks simultaneously, for the full action; that means no swapping handiness, no punching while reloading, etc.

So, if an Armor Spike requires an actual hand to use (in addition to the meta hand for the multiplier application), that severely restricts the activities of the player's hands in regards to utilizing TWF, meaning I couldn't use an Armor Spike (or a Spiked Gauntlet, as mentioned in the Armor Spikes FAQ).


Can you link to that FAQ? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

301 to 350 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.