|
I've started playing an Half-orc Warpriest of Erastil from level 1. He uses an Orc Hornbow, but I've noticed that the Deadeye Bowman trait only applies to Longbows.
Among the party members, a melee Fighter and a Roc animal companion are the ones who could most probably cause cover against enemies during fights.
Should I stick to the Hornbow and swap Deadeye Bowman for something else, or should I use a Longbow instead? In other words, is the +2.5 average damage of the Hornbow worth the occasional cover caused by an ally? I know that Deadeye Bowman is superseded by Improved Precise Shot, but I won't be able to take it before level 12, so it's not an option.
Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows.
Deadeye Bowman applies ONLY to Longbows, not to BOTH Long- and Shortbows. Am I missing something?
Any effect that applies to longbows or short bows applies to hornbows.
Since the effect Deadeye Bowman applies to longbows, it also applies to hornbows.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadeye Bowman applies ONLY to Longbows, not to BOTH Long- and Shortbows. Am I missing something?
Nope. I worded it "both longbows and shortbows" explicitly so Deadeye Bowman (among other things) wouldn't apply. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it mean that also this trait applies to Hornbows as well?
It lists both longbow and shortbow, so yep. Go for it. ^_^
Go with the hornbow and just hold out for Improved Precise Shot at 11th level. It is strictly better and Warpriests use their level as BAB to qualify for feats. One body worth of cover is not that difficult to work around with good positioning.
Deadeye Bowman applies ONLY to Longbows, not to BOTH Long- and Shortbows. Am I missing something?Nope. I worded it "both longbows and shortbows" explicitly so Deadeye Bowman (among other things) wouldn't apply. ^_^
You wrote the orc hornbow? If so, can you answer a few quick questions:
1. What did you envision the difference being between hornbows and higher strength composite longbows? As far as I can tell the description of an orc hornbow reads just like I would expect a composite longbow.
2. Did you intend for them to require a special type of ammunition? That's the only thing I could come up with that would justify the different damage dice.
3. What was the logic behind requiring an effect to apply to hornbows if the effect applies to both longbows and shortbows only? Is the hornbow supposed to be an in-between size? Is it purely a mechanical choice, and if you could give us examples of other things besides Deadeye Bowman that you had in mind that would help.
I had assumed, based on a conversational reading of the orc hornbow, that someone had made a mistake with the either/or both/and because I didn't see any reason a weapon should count as both but not either alone.
|
Master Han - Warpriests treat their BAB as their level for prerequisites for bonus feats. So 12th would be the earliest one could take Improved Precise Shot (without retraining).
Gray Warden - Hornbow vs Longbow, as you noted, is a difference of 2.5 average damage, which is slightly better than weapon specialization. If you have a way to use gravity bow, then it’s a difference of 3.5 damage.
The other thing to consider is that at 10th level, the damage gap gets smaller due to sacred weapon damage improving Longbow to 1d10. At 15th they’ll be equal. There would only be three levels where the damage is both higher with the hornbow and you don’t have the cover penalties. Before 12th, accuracy is better with the longbow, damage better with the hornbow. 12th-14th accuracy is the same, hornbow damage is slightly higher (1.5). 15th on Damage and accuracy are the same. So that depends a little on how fast you are leveling, and how high the game is going to go.
I guess it also comes down to how often they are getting in the way. Being able to ignore them for cover means you don’t have to move as much to get a clear shot, and that means more full attacks, which ultimately may mean more damage overall than the bump from Longbow to hornbow. But if you don’t find yourself needing to move around a lot, then hornbow would be the way to go.
My bard is going to make the jump from shortbow to hornbow. But I don’t worship erastil, and it’s a bigger damage gain of 3.5 base and 6 with gravity bow (wand UMD). That’s decidedly better than the Arcane Strike feat I’ll be retraining for proficiency.
|
|
3. What was the logic behind requiring an effect to apply to hornbows if the effect applies to both longbows and shortbows only? Is the hornbow supposed to be an in-between size? Is it purely a mechanical choice, and if you could give us examples of other things besides Deadeye Bowman that you had in mind that would help.
I had assumed, based on a conversational reading of the orc hornbow, that someone had made a mistake with the either/or both/and because I didn't see any reason a weapon should count as both but not either alone.
The Hornbow is a bow, therefore anything applying to bows (which in Pathfinder divide into Longbows AND Shortbows) applies to Hornbows as well. Anything applying ONLY to a specific bow-type, such as Longbow, does not necessarily apply to Hornbows (the same way it does not apply to, say, Shortbows).
Go with the hornbow and just hold out for Improved Precise Shot at 11th level. It is strictly better and Warpriests use their level as BAB to qualify for feats. One body worth of cover is not that difficult to work around with good positioning.
As was already said, Warpriest's BAB counts as full only for the purposes of bonus feats, which means that the earliest level for Improved Precise Shot is 12th.
Furthermore, to answer also to Ferious Thune, this game progression is very slow (it took like 5 sessions to get to level 2), so it doesn't really make sense to think about things happening at 10th level or more. Also, with Cha 7 using Gravity Bow with UMD is not really an option (if not, again, at higher levels), and I'm using the Arsenal Chaplain archetype, so no damage dice improvement.
The adventure path is Rise of the Runelords, and so far I'm leaning slightly more toward Longbow + Deadeye Bowman. It would allow me to be second in line while exploring dungeons, being shielded by the fighter and at the same time dealing damage without penalties to hit.
A final note to make the debate a bit more concrete.
2d6 + 7 = 14
and the -2.5 damage loss corresponds to ~17.8% less damage, which means one "less" arrow shot every 5-6 shots. The loss goes down to ~15.6% at 5th level with Deadly Aim (1 lost arrow every 6-7 shots), and ~13.2% at 6th level with Weapon Specialisation and +1 Divine Favour (1 lost arrow every 7-8 shots).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You wrote the orc hornbow? If so, can you answer a few quick questions:
Well, I'll do what I can.
1. What did you envision the difference being between hornbows and higher strength composite longbows? As far as I can tell the description of an orc hornbow reads just like I would expect a composite longbow.
Size was a major consideration (bigger weapon, bigger damage), as well as material ("hornbow" was meant quite literally). There are probably also differences in shape, curve, and other factors. The exotic designation suggests that there are complexities of use not encountered with normal bows.
On some level, though, it's a purely mechanical (in the game design sense) design. An exotic weapon for dealing more damage, and something to give orc and half-orc archers a little competitive advantage.
2. Did you intend for them to require a special type of ammunition? That's the only thing I could come up with that would justify the different damage dice.
Not statistically, no. A hornbow user might find a specific type of arrow most efficient, but it shouldn't be any different than the compatibility of generic arrows with everything from a shortbow to a composite longbow.
3. What was the logic behind requiring an effect to apply to hornbows if the effect applies to both longbows and shortbows only? Is the hornbow supposed to be an in-between size? Is it purely a mechanical choice, and if you could give us examples of other things besides Deadeye Bowman that you had in mind that would help.
Gray Warden has a pretty good insight into this. Up to now, "longbows and shortbows" was used to cover "bows that aren't crossbows". This is essentially a way of stealth-revising such elements to read "longbows, shortbows, and hornbows". It also acts as future-proofing - if a future game element refers to longbows and shortbows, this ensures that wielders of more obscure weapons aren't left out in the cold.
Deadeye Bowman is the only game element that comes to mind at the moment - and is the one that motivated the decision - but careful language such as this reduces the need to cover every available situation.
I had assumed, based on a conversational reading of the orc hornbow, that someone had made a mistake with the either/or both/and because I didn't see any reason a weapon should count as both but not either alone.
I think I've covered this above. But, nope - a decision, not a mistake. Though, of course, whether the decision was itself a mistake is a matter of opinion. ^_^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, that was very helpful!
|
|
3. What was the logic behind requiring an effect to apply to hornbows if the effect applies to both longbows and shortbows only? Is the hornbow supposed to be an in-between size? Is it purely a mechanical choice, and if you could give us examples of other things besides Deadeye Bowman that you had in mind that would help.Gray Warden has a pretty good insight into this. Up to now, "longbows and shortbows" was used to cover "bows that aren't crossbows". This is essentially a way of stealth-revising such elements to read "longbows, shortbows, and hornbows". It also acts as future-proofing - if a future game element refers to longbows and shortbows, this ensures that wielders of more obscure weapons aren't left out in the cold.
Deadeye Bowman is the only game element that comes to mind at the moment - and is the one that motivated the decision - but careful language such as this reduces the need to cover every available situation.
As a follow-up, so it was meant to group the hornbow in with short bow and longbow, not the make choices made for one of those individual weapons also apply to the hornbow? That makes sense.
So for example, something that says it applies to "bows" would also apply to the hornbow. Weapon Focus (Longbow) would not. Correct?
I think it only became confusing in the context of other abilities that are trying to make one thing count as a different thing. Like Shield Gauntlet Style treating a gauntlet as a buckler. It seems like on a quick reading, that's what people thought was going on here.
As a follow-up, so it was meant to group the hornbow in with short bow and longbow, not the make choices made for one of those individual weapons also apply to the hornbow? That makes sense.
So for example, something that says it applies to "bows" would also apply to the hornbow. Weapon Focus (Longbow) would not. Correct?
Correct. ^_^
I think it only became confusing in the context of other abilities that are trying to make one thing count as a different thing. Like Shield Gauntlet Style treating a gauntlet as a buckler. It seems like on a quick reading, that's what people thought was going on here.
That's very possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a decision, not a mistake. Though, of course, whether the decision was itself a mistake is a matter of opinion. ^_^
The existence of this thread shows that it wasn't a mistake. Multiple options where without any clear ranking/best option is exactly the essence of (well done) balancing. So, good job!
While we're at it, may I ask what other weapons you wrote for AA2?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we're at it, may I ask what other weapons you wrote for AA2?
Certainly! ^_^
I actually wrote all of the new weapons and armors, and was responsible for adjustments to those reprinted from older sources. In addition, I wrote all of the weapon and armor modifications and associated options, as well as a number of equipment tricks, special materials, alchemical items (including the concoctions and their table), and other assorted items. If it appears in the Implements of War, Alchemical Wares, or Equipment From Abroad sections of the book, I was responsible for it. It was a pretty big project.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Solar bloodline sorcerer definitely appreciates the lantern staff :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Isabelle Lee: Have I mentioned that I love you? ;-)
Honestly though, great work, thank you - my only real complaint is that the Waveblade is not in the monk weapon group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we're at it, may I ask what other weapons you wrote for AA2?Certainly! ^_^
I actually wrote all of the new weapons and armors, and was responsible for adjustments to those reprinted from older sources. In addition, I wrote all of the weapon and armor modifications and associated options, as well as a number of equipment tricks, special materials, alchemical items (including the concoctions and their table), and other assorted items. If it appears in the Implements of War, Alchemical Wares, or Equipment From Abroad sections of the book, I was responsible for it. It was a pretty big project.
I apologize: if my ??'s have been covered.
When designing the Hornbow and Butchering Axe; was it intented to create the new high damage dealer? I understand the rules you followed & don't see a problem based on the systems use and how the rules could be used to create them. Why though create two wpns that are now top of the food chain damage dealers? Other than you could, was there a consideration for the catastrophic dmg repercussions when paired with feats, spells & size that these (2) weapons could have on the natural order? Such as Giants? In a world that is supposed to be primarily Human, what were the reasons to just supplant humanities weapons w/ Orc weapons? How were the Orcs w/ numbers and these weapons ever subjugated by any race?
I appreciate the work and effort for the jobs you have taken on, I also love the creativity. I remember as 3 & 3.5 started introducing items, weapons, & armor. They allowed some very injurious ideas into the system, that were always changing the *New* Hot Weapon, Feat, Spell, or Class that players aimed for. With a new campaign starting my players are all angling for these wpns,which to me is a huge warning sign. We are all Power Gamers @ heart and if I was still playing I would also... Hence my sincere concern and questions.Thank you, for your time and patience....
They don't supplant humanity's weapons because they're Exotic and cost an extra feat. The butchering axe is probably still not as good as the falchion outside of Vital Strike builds, even.
Personally, I'm glad to have a couple more options other than the falcata and fauchard that make EWP actually worth the feat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since my thread has clearly gone off-topic, I will take advantage of Isabelle's kindness as well, if I may :) Is the Butchering Axe considered an Orc weapon for the purposes of weapon familiarity? It doesn't have 'Orc' in the name, but according to the description, it pretty much seems it is.
Anyway, I'd still appreciate other suggestions on the Longbow/Hornbow choice.
Well, since my thread has clearly gone off-topic, I will take advantage of Isabelle's kindness as well, if I may :) Is the Butchering Axe considered an Orc weapon for the purposes of weapon familiarity? It doesn't have 'Orc' in the name, but according to the description, it pretty much seems it is.
Anyway, I'd still appreciate other suggestions on the Longbow/Hornbow choice.
Based on the new information, I would recommend sticking with a longbow for two reasons. First, it is very common that a friendly player gets between you and your target. It's almost guaranteed to happen, and smart enemies will even try to take advantage of that cover. The extra damage from the hornbow is nice, but hitting when you need to is even nicer. I've never actually played past 12th level so waiting until then for such a nice effect is a hard sell for me. The second is that you're much more likely to be able to get your hands on a magic longbow, as they're much more common.
You can also write-off the trait at higher levels and retrain into hornbow if necessary. Considering the value of deadeye bowman over the first half of your character's progression, I think that's fair. Much better trade off than Rich Parents, for example. Archerz are also already good damage dealers, and you might find the flexibility of the extra range and positioning options outweigh the damage in the long run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Butchering Axe considered an Orc weapon for the purposes of weapon familiarity? It doesn't have 'Orc' in the name, but according to the description, it pretty much seems it is.
She's answered that here - it's intentially written not to be an orc weapon.
On the original topic (sorry for derailing the thread): It kinda depends on your campaign. If you often fight multiple enemies in open areas, go with the hornbow (in open skies, the roc can probably be above your line of fire). If you're constantly crawling through narrow dungeons or fighting lonesome bosses all the time, go with longbow.
I suggest you ask your GM what kind of campaign it's going to be.
It also depends on your party members - is the Fighter dependent on charge or can he move towards the enemy's side?
In a world that is supposed to be primarily Human, what were the reasons to just supplant humanities weapons w/ Orc weapons?
orcs not smart, but good at making things that hurt. no one makes better things that hurt than orcs. orcs crush puny humans if want, but not want. weak humans not make good prey. bones not make good chairs, only stools.
Honestly though, it's an exotic weapon you might not be able to wield at first level. Many classes, especially those without bonus feats, will have a hard time dealing with these limitations.
|
|
The campaign is Rise of the Runelords, and I've played only once so far. I don't really know what kind of environment to expect. Of the two fights we had, one was inside a big room, and one underground. While in none of the two cover has been a problem, having Deadeye Bowman allowed me to start the combat and explore the dungeon behind the fighter, and so feel more comfortable.
Since Rapid Shot will arrive at 3rd level, moving won't be a problem for another full level. Meanwhile, my teammates will become familiar with positioning tactics (hopefully). After that, I'll try to get other ways of movement (Slippers of Spider Climbing to 5ft step along the walls of dungeons for example) or I'll just lose an arrow from time to time.
Lob Shot would have been a really nice feat for this purpose, since it has no BAB requirements, but unfortunately I have not enough feat slots. So far my idea is:
1 Weapon Focus, PBS
3 Precise Shot, Rapid Shot
5 Deadly Aim
6 Manyshot, Weapon Specialisation
7 Point Blank Master
9 Clustering Shot, Advanced Weapon Training
11 Improved Critical
I could take Far Shot at 5th instead of WS and Lob Shot at 7th level, but this would defy the whole Longbow/Hornbow dilemma, since the extra damage of the Hornbow would be compensated by the loss of WS. On the other hand, taking it at 9th level (instead of Clustering Shot, which will go to 11th, or AWT, which will go to 12th) is a bit of a waste, since I'll had been waiting 9 levels, and at that point I could just wait 3 more.
Btw, how do the other archers deal with soft-cover? It's not like EVERY archer conveniently worships Erastil just to take that trait...right? :p
Just for giggles:
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields)."
So, the fighter is proficient in the hornbow, since the effect of the Weapon and Armor Proficiencies ability gives proficiency in both longbows and shortbows.
|
|
Just for giggles:
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields)."So, the fighter is proficient in the hornbow, since the effect of the Weapon and Armor Proficiencies ability gives proficiency in both longbows and shortbows.
Lol. I'd say proficiency applies to the single weapons individually.
Proficiency(Longbow) + Proficiency(Shortbow) =/= Proficiency(Longbow + Shortbow) = Proficiency(Bows)Same with Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation and so on.
The thing is that the fighter ability has the effect of giving proficiency in both weapons, so that effect would also apply to the hornbow. But that's just a joke. I don't think anyone would actually interpret the rules to work that way.
I'm more worried about someone saying that elves get free proficiency:
"Weapon Familiarity: Elves are proficient with longbows (including composite longbows), longswords, rapiers, and shortbows (including composite shortbows), and treat any weapon with the word "elven" in its name as a martial weapon."
Since, the ability gives proficiency in both longbow and shortbow, it'd also give proficiency in hornbow.
Edit: I'm not even sure how to feel about that one. It may even be intended for elves to get free proficiency, since they're such natural bow users.
I'm more worried about someone saying that elves get free proficiency:
"Weapon Familiarity: Elves are proficient with longbows (including composite longbows), longswords, rapiers, and shortbows (including composite shortbows), and treat any weapon with the word "elven" in its name as a martial weapon."Since, the ability gives proficiency in both longbow and shortbow, it'd also give proficiency in hornbow.
Edit: I'm not even sure how to feel about that one. It may even be intended for elves to get free proficiency, since they're such natural bow users.
I mean, how do you argue it doesn't work from a RAW perspective? Does weapon familiarity not count as an effect?
If you rule against it and cite RAI (which is fair) you also kind of have to look at the RAI for elves being master bow users given their weapon familiarity list. Then you have to realize a "hornbow" is literally just a large composite bow, since composite bows are already made with horn.
I could actually see myself allowing it with the right argument.
Edit:
To get this off my chest: I really dislike the design of both the hornbow and the butchering axe because they introduce this weird notion that bigger is better without any kind of justification. If you can make a big axe that does more damage but requires a higher strength, why not any other kind of weapon? If you can make a bow bigger and have it do more damage, what was the point of having composite bows? Bows do damage through draw weight and arrow design. Those are the two factors that determine what sort of harm you can inflict. I'm just not seeing how it being exotic allows it to deal more damage with the same arrows as a longbow with the same strength requirements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with bows and hornbow, is that there wasn't an exotic option in the first place. And there actually, really should have been. Personally, I think the shortbow should have been the martial option and the longbow the exotic option from the very start, but that's just an artifact of the game.
The problem with bows and hornbow, is that there wasn't an exotic option in the first place. And there actually, really should have been. Personally, I think the shortbow should have been the martial option and the longbow the exotic option from the very start, but that's just an artifact of the game.
I feel like there could have been a more inspired exotic option though. If the hornbow required heavier ammo that only worked with the horbow due to its size, even at the same price as regular arrows, that would make me feel a lot better about it. Although I still feel weird explaining to a confused player how the half-orc ranger's bow does the same base damage as his greatsword.
There could also have been some kind of compound bow that gives an increased threat range or makes you treat your strength score as higher for the composite damage, and been classified as exotic because of the extra maintenance it takes or whatever.
|
|
I'm more worried about someone saying that elves get free proficiency:
"Weapon Familiarity: Elves are proficient with longbows (including composite longbows), longswords, rapiers, and shortbows (including composite shortbows), and treat any weapon with the word "elven" in its name as a martial weapon."Since, the ability gives proficiency in both longbow and shortbow, it'd also give proficiency in hornbow.
Edit: I'm not even sure how to feel about that one. It may even be intended for elves to get free proficiency, since they're such natural bow users.
I mean, how do you argue it doesn't work from a RAW perspective? Does weapon familiarity not count as an effect?
If you rule against it and cite RAI (which is fair) you also kind of have to look at the RAI for elves being master bow users given their weapon familiarity list. Then you have to realize a "hornbow" is literally just a large composite bow, since composite bows are already made with horn.
I could actually see myself allowing it with the right argument.
Edit:
To get this off my chest: I really dislike the design of both the hornbow and the butchering axe because they introduce this weird notion that bigger is better without any kind of justification. If you can make a big axe that does more damage but requires a higher strength, why not any other kind of weapon? If you can make a bow bigger and have it do more damage, what was the point of having composite bows? Bows do damage through draw weight and arrow design. Those are the two factors that determine what sort of harm you can inflict. I'm just not seeing how it being exotic allows it to deal more damage with the same arrows as a longbow with the same strength requirements.
Come on, it's not a matter of linguistics, arguments, RAW, RAI or game design.
Longbow is a Martial weapon dealing 1d8 damage. Hornbow is an Exotic weapon dealing 2d6 damage. If you spend a feat for proficiency, you can do more damage. Simple as that. There's no need to go into legalistic shenanigans when the system is just so linear the way it is. Not to mention that, for once, we even got an answer directly from the author!
Come on, it's not a matter of linguistics, arguments, RAW, RAI or game design.
Longbow is a Martial weapon dealing 1d8 damage. Hornbow is an Exotic weapon dealing 2d6 damage. If you spend a feat for proficiency, you can do more damage....
I mean, generally the simple approach like you suggest is good enough, but you have to consider reasonable edge cases.
You can spend a feat and do more damage as you say... or be an orc and get free proficiency with it because it's an orc weapon. The orc fighter says "Sweet, bonus!"
To which the elf ranger says "Hey no fair, I'm the master of all bows. Doesn't my weapon familiarity let me pick this up? *points to rule in question*"
I could honestly see that discussion happening. How do you respond to it?
We don't have word from the author yet about whether or not elves get proficiency though. And I really don't know how to feel about the question. It's not like with the fighter where you can just argue that the class proficiencies aren't really an ability. The wording of the weapon familiarity is about the same language as the trait that we know definitely works.
|
|
This is just a matter of fluff rather than mechanics:
I feel like there could have been a more inspired exotic option though. If the hornbow required heavier ammo that only worked with the horbow due to its size, even at the same price as regular arrows, that would make me feel a lot better about it.[/i]
Just say that he's using some special ammunition then. If the stats are the same, who cares? You don't need it to be written in the weapon description, since it would still not be crunch mechanics, only fluff text.
There could also have been some kind of compound bow that gives an increased threat range or makes you treat your strength score as higher for the composite damage, and been classified as exotic because of the extra maintenance it takes or whatever.
Ok then: the Hornbow works like a composite Shortbow (1d6 damage), but because of it being made from multiple materials, the internal elastic forces augment the effect of your strength. Consider your strength +1d6 points higher when attacking with it. When using a Large Hornbow, the strength increase is +2d6. This bonus is multiplied on a crit.
|
|
I could honestly see that discussion happening. How do you respond to it?
Orcs do not get free proficiency with the weapon either, it just counts as martial (because of the 'Orc' in the name), and if they are proficient with martial weapons, they are proficient with the Hornbow as well. But then what would be the point of the Weapon Familiarity trait if martial weapon proficiency, hence proficiency with Long- and Shortbows, IMPLIES proficiency with Hornbows?
I'd say that's just an inaccuracy (or bug, if you want) in the text. Elves don't get proficiency, nor Fighters (or Warpriests/Slayers/...). If they really want it, they can go Human and spend the extra feat on the proficiency (because humans are OP), or they can spend 1500gp.
This is just a matter of fluff rather than mechanics:
I feel like there could have been a more inspired exotic option though. If the hornbow required heavier ammo that only worked with the horbow due to its size, even at the same price as regular arrows, that would make me feel a lot better about it.[/i]Just say that he's using some special ammunition then. If the stats are the same, who cares? You don't need it to be written in the weapon description, since it would still not be crunch mechanics, only fluff text.
There could also have been some kind of compound bow that gives an increased threat range or makes you treat your strength score as higher for the composite damage, and been classified as exotic because of the extra maintenance it takes or whatever.Ok then: the Hornbow works like a composite Shortbow (1d6 damage), but because of it being made from multiple materials, the internal elastic forces augment the effect of your strength. Consider your strength +1d6 points higher when attacking with it. When using a Large Hornbow, the strength increase is +2d6. This bonus is multiplied on a crit.
To be clear, requiring different ammunition that weighs more has both the mechanical impact of encumbrance and locking you out of using normal arrows found off of bandits or magical regular arrows looted in a dungeon. I think those are pretty weighty implications.
Also, a composite shortbow is by definition made with multiple materials. I get you're being a bit tongue in cheek, but the way you describe it would at least break away from a "bigger = better" mindset and would have the mechanical benefit of being easier to conceal due to a smaller size.
As to your post about elves not getting proficiency, don't you think there's a difference between being proficient with all martial weapons and being proficient with specifically longbows and shortbows? I'm honestly not sure what the RAW says in the end, but I'd hesitate before telling the elf "Sorry, the half-orc two-hand fighter is better than you at bows. Tough luck."
|
|
To be clear, requiring different ammunition that weighs more has both the mechanical impact of encumbrance and locking you out of using normal arrows found off of bandits or magical regular arrows looted in a dungeon. I think those are pretty weighty implications.
And this is exactly why it's not like this. Because it would be just a huge mechanical mess for the sake of fluff.
Also, a composite shortbow is by definition made with multiple materials.
It's made from different multiple materials assembled in a different way. All right? xD
As to your post about elves not getting proficiency, don't you think there's a difference between being proficient with all martial weapons and being proficient with specifically longbows and shortbows? I'm honestly not sure what the RAW says in the end, but I'd hesitate before telling the elf "Sorry, the half-orc two-hand fighter is better than you at bows. Tough luck."
That's because it's an Orc weapon. Why would elves be familiar with it? Elves are not masters of bows, they are proficient with Longbows and Shortbows specifically, but I don't think proficiency is intended as an "effect" according to the weapon description (unless someone is proficient specifically with all bows).
Elves are on the other familiar with weapons with 'Elf/Elven' in the name. Let's say one day an Elven Greataxe exotic weapon will be introduced: Elves will treat it as martial, Orcs won't, I have no problem with that.
Anyway, there's no need to further discuss this matter, since the text is unarguably unclear. I personally prefer not to overthink and keep my games simple and lore-sensible (giving Weapon Familiarity with an Orc weapon to an Elf is not lore-sensible to my opinion), but until the author replies, all this will just remain speculation.
While it’s an orc weapon, it’s also a bow weapon. Should Tengu not be able to use the elven curved blade because it is an elf weapon?
I mean, how do you argue it doesn't work from a RAW perspective? Does weapon familiarity not count as an effect?
It's not something that effects both longbows and shortbows. It doesn't effect weapons at all. So why would it apply?