FAQ: Is it intended that the hornbow be freely usable by bards & others with no EWP feat?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

So one of the the things about "all this other stuff doesn't work with the hornbow" is that maybe that's fine? In a game where the difference between a 80' and 110' range increment isn't likely to come up much, for a character who can get hornbow proficiency fairly painlessly (a half-orc or half-elf, perhaps a character whose parents were a half-orc and a half-elf?) there should be some reason that a longbow is a competitive choice other than deadeye bowman.

Like if the only things that work with a hornbow are Point Blank Shot, (Improved) Precise Shot, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Clustered Shots, (Improved) Snap Shot, and things that work with any weapon (weapon training, focus, specialization; sneak attack; studied target, etc.) it's still a strong choice.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So one of the the things about "all this other stuff doesn't work with the hornbow" is that maybe that's fine? In a game where the difference between a 80' and 110' range increment isn't likely to come up much, for a character who can get hornbow proficiency fairly painlessly (a half-orc or half-elf, perhaps a character whose parents were a half-orc and a half-elf?) there should be some reason that a longbow is a competitive choice other than deadeye bowman.

Seems like a fair approach.

As far as I can tell, if you're a half-orc, planning to use a bow, you take a Hornbow. There doesn't seem to be a trade off in my interpretation.

EDIT: Had to fix a your/you're.


Not many halfling archers or elven crossbowmen or tengu clubmasters either...


DamD wrote:
The logic is fairly simple.

It must not be as I can't see it: From my understanding, the wording now does nothing as it affects nothing as everything is an affect on the PC.

DamD wrote:
But, if you do have knowledge of the use of a Hornbow. You can use it in substitute of a Longbow or Shortbow, for effects that can be applied to either, but not one on its own.

If an affect on the PC doesn't work [proficiency] then I can't see how an affect on the PC [substitute of a Longbow or Shortbow, for effects that can be applied to either] works as they are both applied to the PC. If it's as you say, then it would have to be worded as such: I didn't see anything about the ability being contingent on proficiency in the hornbow in the comments from Moreland.

toastedamphibian wrote:
Not many halfling archers or elven crossbowmen or tengu clubmasters either...

I don't know... Elves have Crossbow Training as an alternate racial trait. ;)

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

*sigh* Couldn't we just append the entry to, "Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows with the exception of weapon proficiency." and be done with it?


Magicdealer wrote:
*sigh* Couldn't we just append the entry to, "Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows with the exception of weapon proficiency." and be done with it?

I was just after writing out a long argument in response to graystone, and then I saw this, laughed and deleted it.


DamD wrote:


An effect that applies to the use of a weapon, is not the same as an effect on the knowledge of the use of the weapon.

Why? What rules text leads you to this distinction? You admit that they are both effects. So why should we treat one effect different than another?


Magicdealer wrote:
*sigh* Couldn't we just append the entry to, "Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows with the exception of weapon proficiency." and be done with it?

That’s what I had expected to eventually happen. I don’t think most of us expected for the original intent to just get gutted.


Magicdealer wrote:
*sigh* Couldn't we just append the entry to, "Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows with the exception of weapon proficiency." and be done with it?

LOL Ask the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier how often things get fixed with moderation. :P


Does it benefit martials? Let it die in a fire!


Mark Moreland wrote:
Dragonborn3 is correct. Proficiency does not affect the weapons in which one is proficient. So you need to take EWP to get proficiency with the hornbow. Weapon Focus needs to be Weapon Focus (hornbow) to affect this weapon, because you normally need to take it twice to affect both long- and shortbows, while a fighter's weapon training would apply to the hornbow because bows encompasses both long- and shortbows.

Thank you! I love getting insight from Paizo staff! And I now also have an answer to my longstanding gladius question. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it, Weapon Proficiency: Longbow is an effect that applies only to longbows, and Weapon Proficiency: Shortbow is an effect that applies only to shortbows. Neither is an effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows. Even if you have both (from 'proficient in all martial weapons', for example), they're still two separate effects.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, we could recognize that it is labeled as an exotic weapon, and so any interpretation that would effectively change that categorization is wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The way I see it, Weapon Proficiency: Longbow is an effect that applies only to longbows, and Weapon Proficiency: Shortbow is an effect that applies only to shortbows. Neither is an effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows. Even if you have both (from 'proficient in all martial weapons', for example), they're still two separate effects.

Almost no one was saying that. What was argued was that the class ability, “weapon proficiencies”, is granting proficiency in both longbows and shortbows, so that class ability would be applying to hornbows as well, since it applied to the other two weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But that's an ability that applies to two weapon proficiencies, not an ability that applies to two weapons...

You know what? I don't care any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magicdealer wrote:
*sigh* Couldn't we just append the entry to, "Any effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows also applies to hornbows with the exception of weapon proficiency." and be done with it?

You forgot the part about also not being a non-orc sthick since the Ulfen trait the author said would work has now been clarified not to work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The way I see it, Weapon Proficiency: Longbow is an effect that applies only to longbows, and Weapon Proficiency: Shortbow is an effect that applies only to shortbows. Neither is an effect that applies to both longbows and shortbows. Even if you have both (from 'proficient in all martial weapons', for example), they're still two separate effects.
Almost no one was saying that. What was argued was that the class ability, “weapon proficiencies”, is granting proficiency in both longbows and shortbows, so that class ability would be applying to hornbows as well, since it applied to the other two weapons.

If the class ability grants proficiency in all martial weapons, which both longbow and shortbow happen to be, but not in bows in general, nor specifically in shortbow and in longbow, then it does not grant proficiency in the exotic hornbow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
If the class ability grants proficiency in all martial weapons, which both longbow and shortbow happen to be, but not in bows in general, nor specifically in shortbow and in longbow, then it does not grant proficiency in the exotic hornbow.

That was the interpretation I was trying to shop around for the short term. But that would still leave inquisitors and elves with free proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
If the class ability grants proficiency in all martial weapons, which both longbow and shortbow happen to be, but not in bows in general, nor specifically in shortbow and in longbow, then it does not grant proficiency in the exotic hornbow.
That was the interpretation I was trying to shop around for the short term. But that would still leave inquisitors and elves with free proficiency.

Except you're granting it to Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins as well. Any class with "all martial weapons" also gains the hornbow proficiency in your interpretation, so now hornbow is effectively a martial weapon.

But we know that it's not a martial weapon, it is an exotic weapon. Since we know it's an exotic weapon, any rule interpretation that would treat it as a martial weapon must therefore be wrong.

Sovereign Court

We keep getting mechanics revolving around "effects," but that word has never been defined. Either we need a codified definition of effect, or we'll have to keep having this discussion every time a new mechanic references it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Illeist wrote:
We keep getting mechanics revolving around "effects," but that word has never been defined. Either we need a codified definition of effect, or we'll have to keep having this discussion every time a new mechanic references it.

Would that help here? What it came down to was that proficiency is something that affects (for any sense of the word) the user, not the weapon and the Hornbow refers specifically to things that affect weapons.


Irontruth wrote:
Except you're granting it to Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins as well. Any class with "all martial weapons" also gains the hornbow proficiency in your interpretation, so now hornbow is effectively a martial weapon.

Except is isn't "effectively" though. Weapon modifications don't care, a swashbuckler rogue can't add it for their bonus martial weapon, ect. Your conflating giving it to people who have all martial weapons to treating it as one for all purposes and that just isn't true.

Irontruth wrote:
But we know that it's not a martial weapon, it is an exotic weapon. Since we know it's an exotic weapon, any rule interpretation that would treat it as a martial weapon must therefore be wrong.

That's like saying the rules are wrong for the bastard sword because in some circumstances you can use it as a martial... Or that all the weapon familiarities from race are wrong because that allow you to treat an exotic as a martial.

So I doesn't track since there are several official rules that break your assumption.


Illeist wrote:
We keep getting mechanics revolving around "effects," but that word has never been defined. Either we need a codified definition of effect, or we'll have to keep having this discussion every time a new mechanic references it.

The game designers are writing the game in an already in use language, English. Not every word can, or should, be defined specifically for game purposes, because that would in effect be a new language, which would defeat the purpose of using an already existing language to write their game. Plus then by your reasoning we would need clear and precise definitions for each word that is used to define "effects" in order to avoid any amount of uncertainty. And of course then any words used to define those words would need clear and precise definitions as well. But then we'd need to define those words clearly and....


graystone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Except you're granting it to Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins as well. Any class with "all martial weapons" also gains the hornbow proficiency in your interpretation, so now hornbow is effectively a martial weapon.

Except is isn't "effectively" though. Weapon modifications don't care, a swashbuckler rogue can't add it for their bonus martial weapon, ect. Your conflating giving it to people who have all martial weapons to treating it as one for all purposes and that just isn't true.

Irontruth wrote:
But we know that it's not a martial weapon, it is an exotic weapon. Since we know it's an exotic weapon, any rule interpretation that would treat it as a martial weapon must therefore be wrong.

That's like saying the rules are wrong for the bastard sword because in some circumstances you can use it as a martial... Or that all the weapon familiarities from race are wrong because that allow you to treat an exotic as a martial.

So I doesn't track since there are several official rules that break your assumption.

Except the rogue would just automatically gain it (according to you) if they took the longbow as their bonus martial weapon, so they can actually gain it according to you.

The bastard sword calls out it's own exception to EWP in it's rules. If you want to use the bastard sword to aid your argument, please highlight where in the hornbow description it says it is treated as a martial weapon. Not where you infer that it is, but where it explicitly says it.

Besides, you still haven't given a good reason why it should be given to EVERYONE who has access to all martial weapons. It is an exotic weapon, and therefore requires the EWP to wield, or some specific ability that modifies that. Proficiency in other weapons, including all martial weapons, is not sufficient.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does the rogue have a single class ability that simultaneously grants both longbow and shortbow proficiency? If they get proficiency from two separate sources, then it wouldn’t work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Except the rogue would just automatically gain it (according to you) if they took the longbow as their bonus martial weapon, so they can actually gain it according to you.

You don't understand my argument then: Melkiador got it though: the same ability has to grant both.

Irontruth wrote:
The bastard sword calls out it's own exception to EWP in it's rules.

You made a point that "any" rule interpretation that allowed a an exotic to be treated as a martial MUST be wrong. That is incorrect. We have several instances where that IS the correct way it works. Hence your theory is wrong.

Irontruth wrote:
Besides, you still haven't given a good reason why it should be given to EVERYONE who has access to all martial weapons.

And we don't have one that suggests that shouldn't. Or that EVERYONE would: I know for a fact lost wouldn't.

Irontruth wrote:
It is an exotic weapon, and therefore requires the EWP to wield, or some specific ability that modifies that.

The text in question worked as that "ability that modifies". You're saying it doesn't has no effect on the words on the page that actually DO. I'm more inclined to follow them than your theory.

Irontruth wrote:
Proficiency in other weapons, including all martial weapons, is not sufficient.

Says you... I see no proof that what you assert is true, just your belief.


Melkiador wrote:
Does the rogue have a single class ability that simultaneously grants both longbow and shortbow proficiency? If they get proficiency from two separate sources, then it wouldn’t work.

I don't think any of it works.

Even if the Rogue doesn't work, you still aren't giving me a good reason why the hornbow is now included in "proficient with all martial weapons" when it isn't a martial weapon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we still arguing this at all?

Didn't we get confirmation that you need to have exotic weapon proficiency or be an orc with weapon familiarity and martial weapon proficiency?


Claxon wrote:

Why are we still arguing this at all?

Didn't we get confirmation that you need to have exotic weapon proficiency or be an orc with weapon familiarity and martial weapon proficiency?

Indeed. We have resolved the original question, and have discussed the implications of the answer and the justification behind it (i.e. "If something say 'you get a bonus when using a longbow or shortbow' that doesn't apply to the hornbow.) We've even observed that this is fine, since the Hornbow is plenty strong just with standard archery feats all of which work just fine with it.

What we're doing now? I have no idea. If people want to have houserules for the hornbow, that's fine but not really a rules forum topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about we just take it at face value and say the weapon needs a feat to use like we were told to, (orcs perhaps excepting) and just leave it at that rather than trying to take a straight answer to create even more loopholes for the sake of chaos.

It's a hornbow. Use a feat. Question answered.


So for future purposes, what would be the best language to use if we wanted a weapon to count as a different weapon for purposes of feats, traits, class features, weapon enhancements, and spells but not proficiencies? Say we wanted to have an exotic dagger that could work with River Rat and Pharasma's Obedience, but not have everyone proficient with daggers (basically everyone) automatically be proficient in it.

I believe the existence of Deadeye Bowman was what kept the Hornbow from simply counting as a longbow, which seems like a sound decision, even if I have no idea what casting bowstaff on a hornbow does by RAW now (RAI, it's almost certainly a quarterstaff).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
We've even observed that this is fine, since the Hornbow is plenty strong just with standard archery feats all of which work just fine with it.

I think this illustrates that there is a need for some clarity with weapon types: wording like this is a consequence of there being no clear 'bow', 'crossbow', 'thrown', 'monk', ect category for weapons. There should be an easy way to, for instance, differentiate between a weapon in the thrown group and a weapon you are throwing or the exact implications of adding a weapon group to a weapon [weapon mod].

Cavall wrote:
trying to take a straight answer to create even more loopholes for the sake of chaos.

Who was trying to do this? Myself, I was debating the original reason for the question: that and trying to figure out what it will mean moving forward. I was never advocating trying to bypass the new ruling.

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.

You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!


Mark Moreland wrote:
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!

I said 'thank you.' :(


Mark Moreland wrote:
Dragonborn3 is correct. Proficiency does not affect the weapons in which one is proficient. So you need to take EWP to get proficiency with the hornbow. Weapon Focus needs to be Weapon Focus (hornbow) to affect this weapon, because you normally need to take it twice to affect both long- and shortbows, while a fighter's weapon training would apply to the hornbow because bows encompasses both long- and shortbows.

Thank you for this, Mark!


Mark Moreland wrote:
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!

For what it's worth, as the OP, I am extremely grateful that you answered my question. Thank you. I remained silent since page 1 because the more these dudes debate, the more people will hit the FAQ button and trigger the official response. (And it worked! When I last posted, 8 people had hit the FAQ button, but now 25 have hit the FAQ button. One of the fastest growing FAQ threads I've seen. Although now that we're mostly in agreement that it's just "Requires an EWP feat, dude, don't overthink it," I suspect the FAQ votes will slow to a crawl.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!

Well, if chiming in breaks a fun new item, it makes sense some wouldn’t want the chime. It really would have been better to leave this to DM rulings, and just maintain the designer’s original intent.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!
Well, if chiming in breaks a fun new item, it makes sense some wouldn’t want the chime. It really would have been better to leave this to DM rulings, and just maintain the designer’s original intent.

It didn't break, it cut off some ridiculous assumed cheese at how to get around proficiency caused by a bug on Herolab's part.

As for second part, yeah, but enough people were causing noise and Mark offered to step in and cut the ridiculous in the bud rather than let it grow, and now like every Paizo personnel and Freelancer before him hes getting s&%@ about it.

And people wonder why they don't interact with the forums very much anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
You folks really know how to make a guy less likely to chime in on rules clarification threads!
Well, if chiming in breaks a fun new item, it makes sense some wouldn’t want the chime. It really would have been better to leave this to DM rulings, and just maintain the designer’s original intent.

It didn't break, it cut off some ridiculous assumed cheese at how to get around proficiency caused by a bug on Herolab's part.

As for second part, yeah, but enough people were causing noise and Mark offered to step in and cut the ridiculous in the bud rather than let it grow, and now like every Paizo personnel and Freelancer before him hes getting s@%# about it.

And people wonder why they don't interact with the forums very much anymore.

Seriously.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It clearly broke the designed intent it had to let it work with previous and future materials made for both shortbows and longbows.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have not seen any "proof" of anything being broke, I've seen a couple of posters bringing up certain items/abilities and claiming they longer work, but they're just that. Claims and wants, not proof.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those claims are all there and clearly written if you just try to read them. But more importantly, Moreland never corrected those interpretations while we were making them despite replying to other things that came after.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Calm Emotions

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, DF

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)

Area creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread

Duration concentration, up to 1 round/level (D)

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

This spell calms agitated creatures. You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling. Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.

This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ: Is it intended that the hornbow be freely usable by bards & others with no EWP feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.