Volley: Help Me Understand It?


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


It seems like the folks who have the biggest issue are folks that are accustom to having their characters carry the longbow and have that D8 damage die and now feel like ranged combat is nerfed ...

Because it is nerfed. That was the intent. Realism has nothing to do with it.


N N 959 wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It seems like the folks who have the biggest issue are folks that are accustom to having their characters carry the longbow and have that D8 damage die and now feel like ranged combat is nerfed ...
Because it is nerfed. That was the intent. Realism has nothing to do with it.

I agree. If volley was some trait that made longbows do an extra 2 points of damage at ranges greater than 30ft, I doubt anyone would be complaining about it, even though that would make even less sense from a "realism" perspective.


thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.


JohannVonUlm wrote:
It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

I suspect it's inevitable that the "fragile" weapon trait comes back sooner than later. It does make sense for there to be some traits which are negative. It's like "Noisy" as the one negative armor trait.

It could also be that in the (hidden) math of weapon balance "Volley" is the currency that buys you a bigger die size and more range, it's just not part of the trait because you don't need to know how the numbers are arrived at to use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapons in PF2E (and most fantasy tabletops) are not meant to emulate the actual weapons 1v1, they never really have been.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.

Igor, they needed a label for the nerf, so they could identify it in the feat/ability that removed it. So they called it Volley because there's some plausible association.

My advice...let go of it. I don't mean that in a parental/admonishing way, but in a don't-let-the-little-things-tweak-you way.


Igor Horvat wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.

not really.

shortbow is much more maneuverable and "managable".

there's a reason that scouts, skirmishers, and mounted archers all used shorter bows than the traditional English longbow.


Otha wrote:
Campbell wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas is probably a Fighter.
I disagree. Legolas scouted ahead of the Fellowship when they were trying to take the pass of Caradhras. And he helped Aragorn track the Uruk-hai when the ‘three hunters’ were trying to rescue Merry and Pippin. Tolkien mentioned more than once that Legolas left next to no tracks when he was traveling in the wilderness. Sure sounds like a Ranger to me...

I agree that Legolas is a fighter.

All his abilities are tied to Elves being far superior to Men.

Better eyesight and so graceful that they can walk on loose snow.

Legolas didn't display any major skills with animals or herbalism or deciphering tracks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...

Legolas also clearly used a shortbow


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
shroudb wrote:

the ONE thing i totally agree and it still baffles me since it was mentioned plenty of times in the playtest as well....:

why tf did they named it/kept the name "volley" for the trait.

"volley" has absolutely nothing to do with what the trait in question is trying to achieve.

i mean, if the trait alone was named "unwieldy" or such, there would be much less such threats cropping up imo...

I think the intent was for any weapon that is supposedly used to fire a volley, which is usually done via indirect aiming, to have the trait that makes it not great at short-range shots that have to be directly aimed.

The name then being more about the why than the what of the mechanics of the trait itself. I even hypothesize the reason for the naming was that it was viewed as being intuitive withing context.

any projectile weapon can be used to fire a volley or to be used to fire at an arc.

shooting at 45°degree angle gives you best range, with any projectile weapon. Longbow is nothing special in this regard.

Problem is that shortbow and longbow are the SAME weapon.

Difference is only in amount of power that a weapon can project towards a target. And strength required to use it.

Stance is the same, aiming is the same, draw length is the same.

They wanted something to distinguish one from another so in addition to not being able to shoot it mounted(100% good call) and better usage in cramped spaces for shortbow(DMs call), they added an arbitrary penalty for longbow that has no explanation except that is a balance trait because of balance itself.

Problem is, that if longbow has that penalty, shortbow must have it also.

not really.

shortbow is much more maneuverable and "managable".

there's a reason that scouts, skirmishers, and mounted archers all used shorter bows than the traditional English longbow.

And that is exactly my point.

Better at mounted combat or climbing or cramped conditions.

But nothing about longbow says that it sucks at aiming at 30ft or less.

If it sucks in aiming because of some conditions in comparison to shorbows, it sucks at all ranges.

If you cant get in a position to aim it does not matter if you aim at 10ft or 510ft. Base penalty for bad aim is the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.


Igor,

feel free to come up with any house rules you want around the bow, but just be careful about the effects some of them will have on ranged combat as a whole, which is pretty powerful by default with a reload 0 weapon that can be fired 3 times in a round. Adding reload 1 to your longbow and upping the damage dice is fine for your table and probably not going to break the game as badly as taking volley away and adding agile to short bow as originally proposed.

However, it is not something I would do, because I prefer the design space of mid to long range weapon, than a martial version of the crossbow.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.

The Bow of the Galadhrim is probably a longbow - but Tolkein was never specific, only that it was longer and stouter than his Mirkwood bow. The Mirkwood Elves definitely used shortbows, though.

Grand Lodge

Unicore wrote:
Legolas, and most other high fantasy characters are most definitely carrying shorter bows than longbows.

Legolas was given the the bow of the Galadhrim as a gift from Galadriel in Lothlórien; that was most definitely a longbow. Tolkien described it as ‘longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood.’ The shot by Legolas that brought down the Nazgûl riding the fell beast while the Fellowship was on the river could not have been made with a shortbow.

According to the Tolkien Gateway, among other sources, the Elves of Doriath and Lothlórien used longbows. The best archer from the First Age, an Elf named Beleg Strongbow, also used a longbow. Not sure about Mirkwood Elves other than they were shorter than those of Lothlórien. The Riders of Rohan are mentioned as using shortbows which makes sense as they were mounted.

From The Sword of Shannara, Menion Leah used a longbow (he was most definitely a Ranger); the two Elves, Durin and Dayel are pictured with longbows as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.

The longbow as a concept was way outside of the time period that Tolkien was romanticizing in the Lord of the rings. If he had wanted to draw comparisons to the english long bow, it would have been talked about at much greater length.

I think it is the D&D tradition that has confused people about the long bow and made it seem like the weapon that everyone would and should carry.

The Gondorians used longbows, for sure, as did certain Elves, since they passed their knowledge to Men. The Gondorians had heartwood bows, 68 inches tall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas also clearly used a shortbow

Longbow.

Rohirim used shortbows.

The longbow as a concept was way outside of the time period that Tolkien was romanticizing in the Lord of the rings. If he had wanted to draw comparisons to the english long bow, it would have been talked about at much greater length.

I think it is the D&D tradition that has confused people about the long bow and made it seem like the weapon that everyone would and should carry.

The Gondorians used longbows, for sure, as did certain Elves, since they passed their knowledge to Men. The Gondorians had heartwood bows, 68 inches tall.

I am wrong, that is why I deleted the post.

but this lego las is definitely using the short bow.


Unicore wrote:

Igor,

feel free to come up with any house rules you want around the bow, but just be careful about the effects some of them will have on ranged combat as a whole, which is pretty powerful by default with a reload 0 weapon that can be fired 3 times in a round. Adding reload 1 to your longbow and upping the damage dice is fine for your table and probably not going to break the game as badly as taking volley away and adding agile to short bow as originally proposed.

However, it is not something I would do, because I prefer the design space of mid to long range weapon, than a martial version of the crossbow.

I will do that.

I was just explaining how nonsensical is Volley penalty for longbow.

Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

Then for balance reasons, longbow can have the LONGEST volley range penalty(30ft) and hand crossbow can have shortest(15ft).

But if you are just shooting at someone, there is no difference between shortbow and longbow except strength required and power transferred to the arrow and then target. Described in mechanics as damage and range.


Unicore wrote:
..but this lego las is definitely using the short bow.

Okay..that was funny.

Grand Lodge

Igor Horvat wrote:
Otha wrote:
Campbell wrote:
Otha wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters...
Legolas is probably a Fighter.
I disagree. Legolas scouted ahead of the Fellowship when they were trying to take the pass of Caradhras. And he helped Aragorn track the Uruk-hai when the ‘three hunters’ were trying to rescue Merry and Pippin. Tolkien mentioned more than once that Legolas left next to no tracks when he was traveling in the wilderness. Sure sounds like a Ranger to me...

I agree that Legolas is a fighter.

All his abilities are tied to Elves being far superior to Men.

Better eyesight and so graceful that they can walk on loose snow.

Legolas didn't display any major skills with animals or herbalism or deciphering tracks.

Still think Legolas was more Ranger; heck, he grew up in the Forest of Mirkwood as he was Sindarin (aka Wood Elf). He was the chief scout and lookout of the Fellowship even when the best of Rangers was in the party. It also appears he was among those who tracked Gollum when the creature escaped from Mirkwood; Legolas mentioned in the Council of Elrond that they followed his trail for a while before giving up the hunt.

He also wore no armor and his only weapons were a longbow and knives; that doesn’t sound like your standard fantasy fighter to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're getting tripped up on classic DND archetypes in a game that has in many ways divorced itself from them; Fighters in PF2 get legendary perception and anyone can become legendary in survival. The main difference between a Fighter and a Ranger is that Rangers are better at exploiting the weakness of a specified enemy, it's almost entirely a mechanical distinction not a flavor one.

Grand Lodge

Roger that...as an old AD&D (1st edition) guy, I guess I’m looking at it more from the classical side. Still think in PF1 that Legolas favors a Ranger moreso than a Fighter. But you’re right, in PF2 not as much distinction, so I’m splitting hairs...


Arachnofiend wrote:
You're getting tripped up on classic DND archetypes in a game that has in many ways divorced itself from them; Fighters in PF2 get legendary perception and anyone can become legendary in survival. The main difference between a Fighter and a Ranger is that Rangers are better at exploiting the weakness of a specified enemy, it's almost entirely a mechanical distinction not a flavor one.

Fighters only get master perception and have one rather than a few class feats related to detecting things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It seems obvious to me that Legolas is either a Fighter/Ranger or a Ranger/Fighter. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Legolas is obviously neither ranger nor fighter... he's an Elf.

I mean, that was at some point simultaneously both a race and a class^^


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I also don't like it because it's a negative trait. Really just feels like someone slapped it on with the sole intention of reducing the number of longbow users, not to increase fun.

It's relatively bearable, but I'm still planning on tinkering with alternatives to Volley.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To some people, reducing the number of longbow users is increasing the fun.

Anything that makes the number of options that are "good enough to use" larger means more variety in what they can do with a character and feel good about it.

And for many a player, the practical effect of the volley trait is only a few more Strides taken to create distance between the character and their enemies... a thing often done for flavor or to "make sure" that the enemy can't just dart over and start attacking the archer character.


The "problem" is that the combat rounds is 6 second.

This makes sense for short skirmishes, but not for long battles.

The game has adapted mechanics that end up conflating the two, such that, a weapon that was better for one but not the other must be shoehorned into the mechanics in a general way.

Combine that with considerations for prioritizing "meaningful choices" as a game, and ergo, we have Volley.


Igor Horvat wrote:


Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

But it's easier to maneuver a smaller weapon than a larger one in close quarters.

Which is why Longbows have an explicit penalty while the more compact shortbow does not.


Squiggit wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


Or if longbow has it, ALL projectile weapons MUST have it.
As there is some inherent problem with aiming at a very close target.

But it's easier to maneuver a smaller weapon than a larger one in close quarters.

Which is why Longbows have an explicit penalty while the more compact shortbow does not.

Depends how you define close quarters:

Is it in melee reach of an enemy? Yes, I agree that shortbow is better then.

Is it in cramped conditions? Low ceiling, narrow corridor, climbing?
Yes, shorbow is better for that.

Is it some arbitrary distance outside any melee reach and independent of a terrain situation? There is no difference in aiming with either weapon.


Igor Horvat wrote:
And how is longbow not optimal, but shortbow, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, crossbow and slings are somehow optimal?

If you don't want to listen, why do you ask questions?


Ups, I wrote the previous message while a bit annoyed, but decided not to send it. And this morning, it went through because of a missclick. If a moderator comes around, could you remove it? Thanks.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Otha wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Legolas, and most other high fantasy characters are most definitely carrying shorter bows than longbows.

Legolas was given the the bow of the Galadhrim as a gift from Galadriel in Lothlórien; that was most definitely a longbow. Tolkien described it as ‘longer and stouter than the bows of Mirkwood.’ The shot by Legolas that brought down the Nazgûl riding the fell beast while the Fellowship was on the river could not have been made with a shortbow.

According to the Tolkien Gateway, among other sources, the Elves of Doriath and Lothlórien used longbows. The best archer from the First Age, an Elf named Beleg Strongbow, also used a longbow. Not sure about Mirkwood Elves other than they were shorter than those of Lothlórien. The Riders of Rohan are mentioned as using shortbows which makes sense as they were mounted.

From The Sword of Shannara, Menion Leah used a longbow (he was most definitely a Ranger); the two Elves, Durin and Dayel are pictured with longbows as well.

In the novels yes, but in the cinematic adaptions, which is what a lot of people use in their mind to visualize what's what, Legolas was using a shortbow.

Grand Lodge

The bow Legolas is using in The Hobbit movies appears to be a shortbow. In The Lord of the Rings movies, at least after he receives the bow of the Galadhrim from Galadriel, he appears to be using a longbow. Look at the battle scene at Amon Hen in the first movie, the fight with the Warg riders in the second, and his famous shield slide down the stairs at Helm’s Deep in the second as well; the bow is close to the same height as Legolas. Look at both the design of that bow and the draw length when Legolas is shooting...that’s a longbow...


Igor Horvat wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
And how is longbow not optimal, but shortbow, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, crossbow and slings are somehow optimal?
If you don't want to listen, why do you ask questions?

I am listening, but I'm sorry, most of the answers are; Volley needs to be in game because game balance.

I realize that shorbow and longbow should be with their own advantages and disadvantages, but there should be somewhat based in reality.

Longbow has 1 Bulk more than shortbown and cant be used while mounted.
it has 1 more damage and 40ft more range.
Is that penalty worth the bonuses?
I would say no, but I would also find some other penalty or some other bonus for shortbow.

It somehow has more bulk than a ten-foot pole.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Otha wrote:
The bow Legolas is using in The Hobbit movies appears to be a shortbow. In The Lord of the Rings movies, at least after he receives the bow of the Galadhrim from Galadriel, he appears to be using a longbow. Look at the battle scene at Amon Hen in the first movie, the fight with the Warg riders in the second, and his famous shield slide down the stairs at Helm’s Deep in the second as well; the bow is close to the same height as Legolas. Look at both the design of that bow and the draw length when Legolas is shooting...that’s a longbow...

Hmm, fascinating.


JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?


Igor Horvat wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tectorman wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).

I like to think of all small races having incongruously large and meaty sailor arms.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I like to think of all small races having incongruously large and meaty sailor arms.

I’m Popeye the sailor gnome...


Tectorman wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
JohannVonUlm wrote:

Honestly, I understand why they want to differentiate between the short and long bows. I even get the concept of the long bow as a long distance volley weapon. That said, my one issue with it is a mechanical one. It's the one weapon trait that is overwhelmingly negative.

Finesse, Sweep, Forceful, Deadly, Versatile, .....

They all are situational bonuses that under certain circumstances make the weapon better.

With the long bow, Volley is a negative trait inside of 30 feet, which is often where the engagement space begins in a Pathfinder society map. I wish they could have found a similar baseline trait that then in certain situations became better.

In 3.0 and 5E main difference between longbow and shortbow was that "small" races could only use shortbow.

That was kind of a size penalty to damage/range.

I dont have CRB available ATM, can small characters use longbow in PF2E?

There is no differentiation whatsoever based on character size. Small characters can use every single weapon a medium character can use (they use smaller weapons that just so happen to achieve the same damage/reach, or they use the same weapons and just never have an issue with how wide the grip is, or weapons in P2E just magically resize themselves (even if not magical) to make it all make more visual sense).

haha. I just had an image of 3' halfling with a 6' bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

Legolas is obviously neither ranger nor fighter... he's an Elf.

I mean, that was at some point simultaneously both a race and a class^^

I'm my research, I have actually found that to be the exception and not the rule.

On topic.

I have zero investment in the properties of a bow, long or short. I use a mega buster.

That said, volley seems kinda lazy and honestly way too game-y.

The name doesn't make much sense to me, and despite the attitudes of many, semantics do matter to lots of us. But I digress.

To me it amounts to making shortbows better by making longbows worse. And that runs against my personal design philosophy.

I will definitely house rule this.

To that end, I like the idea of strength requirements for all bows.
It makes sense to me especially having actually used both types of bows IRL.
Nocking arrows is hard work!

And I'd probably also change volley and add an unwieldy trait.

Volley would probably be an action that increases maximum range but cannot be used at short distances.

Unwieldy would cause a penalty to attack in close quarters or when switching targets.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Volley Alternative Trait
This ranged weapon is large and unwieldy. If you Step, Stride, or use any other action with the Move trait, any subsequent attacks you make with this weapon during the same round suffer a -2 circumstance penalty.

Now you can shoot at close range, but moving and shooting are difficult. And you can "game" the tactics by setting up next round's shot with this round's movement, plus, your enemies can close with you to harry you, forcing you to move and take the penalty.


Igor Horvat wrote:
shroudb wrote:

in general, "really large weapons" like the long bow, the greatsword, and etc are extremely unwieldy.

Most modern bows you see, including the composite and every bow used in competitive archery is much closer to shortbows for that reason. A longbow is on average about a human's full height, sometimes more.

A more "realistic" approach would have been if those kind of weapons would require more actions to fire/swing than 1 action, BUT that would put these weapons in the dumpster almost immediately.

So a compromise had to be made, in the case of the longbow, it's a fictional "less accuracy in close range".

So give longbow 1d10 damage, 150 range,deadly 1d12 and loading 1 property.

That is far more realistic than I'm less precise if the target is close.

Realistic would be firing one arrow a round with a longbow. From what I've read drawing and aiming a longbow takes around 6 seconds. Shortbow is the fast use bow.

Your changes would make that sort of happen. I would support it.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To me the obvious solution to this is to make the Longbow an advanced weapon.
My understanding was that historically it did require a lot of practice so this would apply the penalty to all who have not taken the weapons training.
You get the training to remove that penalty in one of 3 ways:
Ancestry [Elf weapon familiarity ancestry feat];
Class [fighter]; or
Specific training [weapon proficiency general feat].

I can't follow the logic of any ranged weapon being worse to hit close up. There are lots of other things that could make it worse to use for specific cases- easily disarmed, unwieldy in tight spaces or on horseback. but target being too close seems nonsensical and not remotely acknowledging reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Sheahan wrote:
To me the obvious solution to this is to make the Longbow an advanced weapon.

This is the issue the devs wanted to address: Longbows were straight better than Shortbows in PF1. So, they don't want to add a feat tax to everyone fighting with a bow, they want to add diversity. Hence the "volley" trait which, despite its weird name, is getting to the point.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

To add back the realism of bow function, keep the volley trait name, but have it make sense.

Volley
This ranged weapon propels ammo in an high arc over longer distances. If fired in an area with cover or a surface overhead limit range to [X] times ceiling height.

with the X being weapon specific so all bows and crossbows can all have the trait but have it vary by pull strength - since a faster velocity would travel straighter.

(heck, give it to all ranged and, for ranged weapons relying on strength, modify X by strength Mod).

or rainzax's option is also solid too
the current rulebook version is nonsense - the desire to make weapons all different had a lot of good and interesting results overall but this one is an abject failure.

Paizo design team is good but everyone makes mistakes and this is one of theirs -zero question.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To superbidi:
To me, the feat tax argument flies in the face of the overall design.
Making some weapons advanced or uncommon is core to their design and puts some weapons behind that "tax" wall depending on the training and ancestry of the character (or the Gm's will).
(I'm not saying making it advanced is the only solution, just that the feat tax argument doesn't hold water)

To anyone arguing that the volley trait in the CRB makes sense:

Its not a trebuchet or catapult. I'm going to hit with a bow better at 10 ft than at 90 ft and arguing otherwise makes anyone doing so look foolish.
Reality exists, please join us. I mean it sucks generally but it is more comforting than drifting in the void for those of us that live there.


Stephen Sheahan wrote:

To superbidi:

To me, the feat tax argument flies in the face of the overall design.
Making some weapons advanced or uncommon is core to their design and puts some weapons behind that "tax" wall depending on the training and ancestry of the character (or the Gm's will).

I quite agree. Advanced weapons should not be better than martial ones, which is not the case currently (even if they are not much better, they are a bit better). But, anyway, enforcing feat taxes on builds as common as "archer" is a very bad design. And giving some variations to it is a very good idea as, back in PF1, the longbow was used by 90% of the ranged builds.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Realistic would be firing one arrow a round with a longbow. From what I've read drawing and aiming a longbow takes around 6 seconds. Shortbow is the fast use bow.

Your changes would make that sort of happen. I would support it.

Not exactly. Longbows require much greater strength to draw, so this is somewhat true for random people...but not so much for a dedicated longbow user (who develop the specific muscles necessary). And even at their worst, they're quicker than crossbows, so if you give them some sort of Reload, crossbows would need a higher one if we're talking realism (which is far from the primary concern of the rules).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One problem is that whatever weapon trait budget they're using means that Longbow probably affords its higher damage dice by taking on a negative trait.

Negative traits are decent in some cases, when they make sense, but putting a positive trait on Shortbow would skew it against other weapons in the category.

The volley trait is not an example of a negative trait that I would be okay with. The reason is that it's singular purpose appears to be punishment, not flavor.

Here are some quick/brainstormy version of negative traits Longbow could have that would fit:

Volley: All attacks with this weapon during a round must be against targets in the same range increment

Bulky: This weapon can't be used while mounted

Strenuous: Using this weapon is tiring. For every strike you make with this weapon your movement speed for the round is reduced by 5.

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Volley: Help Me Understand It? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.