Volley: Help Me Understand It?


Rules Discussion

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Superbidi I disagree with you. it appears you took my comment the opposite of my intent.

The second edition clearly made restricting weapons by training and familiarity a core aspect of the game.
this is not much different than 1st ed but actually more pronounced overall

Racial familiarity is, if anything, more elusive as they require an ancestry feat instead of being part of the race be default as they are in 1st ed

Exotic weapons vs advanced
Fighters get all advanced, but only racial advanced weapons are available to non fighters - except if they take a feat one advanced weapon per feat - the feat (for advanced)is just like 1st exotic weapon Prof
you must take a ancestry feat, a general feat or be a fighter to use an advanced weapon with proficiency (*in theory a god, not in core, could grant access to clerics and champions, same was true for cleric in 1st ed)

Uncommon weapons
Kukri, Spiked chain, Sawtooth saber and Aklys (on top of racial and monk weapons) now all need Unconventional Weaponry feat. 21 out of the 81 weapon options (meaning 7 of 81 total weapons are bows and crossbows) in core fall into this category of uncommon and/or racial

Bastard sword used to be a proficiency, they addressed this by adding the two-hand trait, and the Dual-handed assault feat (which appears to be fighter only)

- this seems very similar to the concept of making shortbows available to full martials + bard and rogue, but leaving longbow to elves with a feat, fighters, cleric and champions of Erastil, and those that take a general feat specifically devoted to its use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IMHO, the existing PF2 rules regarding missile weapons, longbows vs shortbows, and even the volley trait are spot on. Sure, we can argue about how appropriate the name of the volley trait is, but at the end of the day what is important is the relative value of different missile weapons.

Longbows are great, but suffer a penalty at short range, and can't be used from horseback. Great!

Crossbows have a longer reload time. Great! As it should be.

Shortbows are the versatile go-to weapons for an archer who wants to get up close and personal with his foes, or shoot from horseback. Great!

I just don't see what everyone is arguing about. Sure, the volley property can be slammed for being poorly named. OK, I get it. But the net effect feels appropriate and right. And it helps differentiate between different sorts of missile weapons.

In PF1, everybody and his dog used a longbow. Now, in PF2, there are hard reasons to choose various options. Which is great!


WatersLethe wrote:

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.

"Same range increment" is nearly irrelevant, given the massive range.

"not while mounted" is irrelevant to most characters in most fights.
"Strenuous" seems to me to encourage boring strike-strike-strike turreting.


lordcirth wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

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.

"Same range increment" is nearly irrelevant, given the massive range.

"not while mounted" is irrelevant to most characters in most fights.
"Strenuous" seems to me to encourage boring strike-strike-strike turreting.

not to mention you can always move first and strike afterwards with "strenuous".

none of those upgrades justify a die increase above the already large range increase of the longbow over the shortbow.

in order to justify a die increase, that is a "permanent" upside of the longbow over the shortbow, you need an equally powerful "downgrade".

a mostly situational downgrade can only justify the situational upgrade of the range.

"Volley", mechanically works exactly due to that. It's a penalty that is bound to be relevant quite often, for an upside that's always relevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest issue with the long bow really is that it is so difficult to GM and plan for combat encounters that should start in the 300ft + range, even when having encounters set outside in fairly open terrain. They aren't really handled well by the battle maps and there are 0 guidelines for establishing the distance between the party and the enemies in encounters or how long distance perception checks work. An elf with a longbow is probably the most lethal general enemy a character can encounter out of doors because of their kiting potential, and yet I don't think I will ever really see that in play. If you are playing in an outdoors/forest campaign and your GM does the work to make encounters that happen at range, it will work out just fine but very rarely does it work out like that and I think that leaves a lot of people feeling like they are stuck with a d6 ranged weapon in play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
My biggest issue with the long bow really is that it is so difficult to GM and plan for combat encounters that should start in the 300ft + range, even when having encounters set outside in fairly open terrain. They aren't really handled well by the battle maps and there are 0 guidelines for establishing the distance between the party and the enemies in encounters or how long distance perception checks work. An elf with a longbow is probably the most lethal general enemy a character can encounter out of doors because of their kiting potential, and yet I don't think I will ever really see that in play. If you are playing in an outdoors/forest campaign and your GM does the work to make encounters that happen at range, it will work out just fine but very rarely does it work out like that and I think that leaves a lot of people feeling like they are stuck with a d6 ranged weapon in play.

i see it as a more situational weapon, but still usable.

in cases where you go hunting fliers and dragons, standing on castle walls, on a field vs an army, on a skirmish against a camp, and etc.

for "everyday use" as an adventurer, in woods, caves, dungeons, and etc, the shortbow seems better.

but i don't see an issue with that.

i guess they went with "primary d6 for repeative ranged strikes" due to the whole 3 action economy system. It's much more often that you need to spent actions moving aorund in the battlefield as a melee, whereas a ranged user earns those same actions as extra attacks.


WatersLethe wrote:

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.

These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

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.

These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume

Actually, I was just trying to show flavor effects that actually make sense for the bow and start some brainstorming around them, but people just want to nit-pick instead of contribute which is par for the course I guess.


WatersLethe wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

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.

These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume

Actually, I was just trying to show flavor effects that actually make sense for the bow and start some brainstorming around them, but people just want to nit-pick instead of contribute which is par for the course I guess.

it's not a nitpick when all 3 of the suggestion don't "qualify" for a die increase though.

You should be looking for a drawback that should apply a very good amount of time, probably apply more than not applying, since die increase is a permanent upgrade over the shortbow.

a "penalty on the range of usual engagment" is such a drawback.

Using one of your suggestions and applying this, it should look something like that:
"Strenuous: You cannot use an action with the move trait and an action with the Attack trait with this weapon on the same round"

But something like that promotes routines of strike/strike/strike, which is a step back in development for the 3 action system.


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

Let's look at the value of volley then.

* A -2 penalty on ranged attacks within 30ft is an incredible negative. A -2 with your main weapon as a martial is close to a "Don't use this" option.

* Point Blank Shot, which removes volley, takes up a class feat, a Stance, and has the opportunity cost of the bonus damage for non-volley weapons.

* If you are given the choice, you should essentially always move first to get distance (which has its own value) before firing with a Volley weapon.

* However, if you're at distance already, or can make distance easily, Volley may rarely come up.

* We're assuming Volley is equivalent to die size increase.

* Reload 1 is also approximately worth a die size increase

* Deadly d10 costs a die size.

Now let's look at features of the Longbow that make actual flavor sense, and don't arbitrarily punish longbow users, and aren't shared by shortbows.

* Longbows have extremely heavy draw weight

* Longbows are very long and clumsy if there's not a lot of room around you

* Longbows take lots of training to be able to reliably use

* Longbows must be used upright for full draw (Shortbows should be too, but something like a chest draw is more feasible due to lower draw weight)

* Longbows are heavier than shortbows

* Longbows have a long range

What I'm not seeing is any logical reason why a longbow shouldn't be accurate within 30ft. Target shooters in real life (especially moving target shooters) certainly aren't more accurate at range than close up.

So let's try some more brainstorming.

Strenuous: You can only Strike twice a round. (Getting toward reload cost)

Obvious: It's obvious where you're aiming. Shields offer an additional 2 AC versus attacks from this weapon.

Bulky: This weapon is better suited for use in open spaces. If you are in difficult terrain, an enclosed space, or are flanked, all of your attacks take a -2 penalty.

Long-draw: It takes concentration to fully draw this weapon. The multi-attack penalty of this weapon is increased by 1 for each additional attack after the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:


These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume

In a system where 5ft from a single attack means you lose 10ft total possible movement it creates a lot of tactical incentive.

Now, with those drawbacks your character sort of plays like a siege engine. You can’t move with mounts, you’re slower, and trying to switch targets is hard.

I think waterslethe presents some interesting ones, although I’d say the only one I’d consider changing is the “same range increment” for simply “if you attempt to shoot a separate target” which makes it a much better single target weapon, which is more or less how it was actually used (outside of blanket shots into crowds).

Idk, I liked them and thought it was better than a flat -2 which is basically “don’t use this”.

Overall I’m okay where they are, but I definitely wouldn’t call those three traits “pointless”, especially with the new combat action system.


Midnightoker wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume

In a system where 5ft from a single attack means you lose 10ft total possible movement it creates a lot of tactical incentive.

Now, with those drawbacks your character sort of plays like a siege engine. You can’t move with mounts, you’re slower, and trying to switch targets is hard.

I think waterslethe presents some interesting ones, although I’d say the only one I’d consider changing is the “same range increment” for simply “if you attempt to shoot a separate target” which makes it a much better single target weapon, which is more or less how it was actually used (outside of blanket shots into crowds).

Idk, I liked them and thought it was better than a flat -2 which is basically “don’t use this”.

Overall I’m okay where they are, but I definitely wouldn’t call those three traits “pointless”, especially with the new combat action system.

the vast majority of the characters will never do mounted combat in a whole campaign.

you will almost never have to engage enemies in 2 different range increments.

you can always move first and then strike with strenuous as written.

So, even if all 3 negatives were together, they would never apply in a regular campaign. Or, to be fair, maybe they would apply like, once in the whole campaign.

If the longbow was just a shortbow with +70% range, even then it would be a stretch,

But here it is both that AND a die increase.

WatersLethe wrote:


Strenuous: You can only Strike twice a round. (Getting toward reload cost)

Obvious: It's obvious where you're aiming. Shields offer an additional 2 AC versus attacks from this weapon.

Bulky: This weapon is better suited for use in open spaces. If you are in difficult terrain, an enclosed space, or are flanked, all of your attacks take a -2 penalty.

Long-draw: It takes concentration to fully draw this weapon. The multi-attack penalty of this weapon is...

1st of all:

Current Volley is far from terrible as you describe. And ti certainly doesn't make it a weapon you'll never use.

As i said before, it is a more situational weapon: It's a straight upgrade vs everything that's away. So, for someone specilizing in close combat, as an example, it's far better to have as an auxiliary a longbow since he already has "close range" covered. Same for most guards and soldiers. It's a straight upgrade. Same for war. Same for dragon hunting and etc.

It just isn't "this is the best ranged weapon hands down" that it was in PF1, and that's really OK.

It really is fine, if the lighter, easier to maneuver shortbow, is actually the better weapon to use in close encounters and dungeons and caves and indoors.

It's ok for one who wants to rely on a single ranged weapon for every single encounter he might ever face in his adventures, to actually use the "more versatile but slightly lesser damage" weapon.

Now, on your suggestions:

Strenuous is again more light than it should be. The 3rd attack is almost always pointless either way. And it will have a terrible interaction with feats like twin-shot that Strike twice with 1 action, making the weapon an almost downright upgrade for everyone, except one class where it will be a straight downgrade.

Obvious: that one is actually more of a drawback, but it is still only applying to a very small subset of enemies you will ever face. Maybe something like "increase the AC bonus from shields AND cover by 2" sounds more reasonable, but still light. I just don't know how to keep it balanced and in that thematic.

Bulky: no. For various reasons, like having to define "enclosed space", having too many different subsets of situational conditions to apply, and etc.

Longdrawn: It really should be -2 per extra strike.

Again, you're basically trading, usually, a -1 on the second attack, for a +1 damage/die on both 1st and 2nd attack. Or a -2 on the 3rd for again a +1/damage/die.

Just compare that to something like Forceful vs Agile, as an example, which trades the exact same penalty (as opposed to agile) but only gets the +1/die on the second, and a +2/die on the 3rd.

Obviously, +1/die on the 1st/2nd/3rd attack is much stronger than +0/+1/+2 (since you get the bonus on the highest attack roll as opposed to the lowest that you most often skip either way)

Plus, in ALL of your examples, you forgot to calculate, in your "equipment score" that there is a 70% Range increase that you have to take in mind.

The range increase is worth around 1 trait if we look at similar weapons with just different ranges (like Hatchet vs Light hammer)

So, longbow vs shortbow, you need to account for simultaneously BOTH a die increase AND a "trait" increase.

remember, the goal is to make the weapon in such a way, that you actually have to struggle to pick either the short or the longbow as your choice


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about the proposed change I made to attacking multiple targets, which thematically makes sense since changing targets with a longbow is harder due to the needed repositioning.

I.e. “If you make more than one strike in a round with this weapon and the subsequent strike is a different target than your previous strike, you receive a -2 to the attack roll”

That’s the same incentive with a selective enforcement that thematically fits the weapon.

Want to take down multiple targets? Perhaps dish out hinderances to more than one enemy? Short bow is better.

Want to shoot down Smaug from a billion yards away? Want to plug three arrows straight into the cyclops? Longbows the way to go.

Bulky is just there because it makes sense. As far as the point on mounts, that’s not really a universal thing you can say. Especially in an edition where full attack five foot step is no longer king, but you’re welcome to the opinion.

The above is more than enough to grant incentive to different choices.


Midnightoker wrote:

What about the proposed change I made to attacking multiple targets, which thematically makes sense since changing targets with a longbow is harder due to the needed repositioning.

I.e. “If you make more than one strike in a round with this weapon and the subsequent strike is a different target than your previous strike, you receive a -2 to the attack roll”

That’s the same incentive with a selective enforcement that thematically fits the weapon.

Want to take down multiple targets? Perhaps dish out hinderances to more than one enemy? Short bow is better.

Want to shoot down Smaug from a billion yards away? Want to plug three arrows straight into the cyclops? Longbows the way to go.

Bulky is just there because it makes sense. As far as the point on mounts, that’s not really a universal thing you can say. Especially in an edition where full attack five foot step is no longer king, but you’re welcome to the opinion.

The above is more than enough to grant incentive to different choices.

This could be a good solution to the problem.

If longbow is larger and clumsier to move around then -2 cumulative penalty per extra target in a single round is a good negative trait.

Ad in that already it cannot be used while mounted and that is enough to balance it vs shortbow.

Or remove Volley trait and give shortbow Agile.


At this point, we are really debating the merits of different house rules, and when it comes to your own table, pick the one that works for you and report back on it. The dangers of give no the short bow agile have been well discussed. The specific range of volley was reduced to sit just outside of closing the distance in a single stride. It exists to make using the most powerful bow a tactical trade off in most situations. It is a perfect weapon for guards on a wall, and for primary melee fighters who want a decent back up weapon. With point blank shot it doesn’t surpass the longbow until you get a +3 striking weapon, but both are now weapons so your character can upgrade to the long bow when you get there without penalty when you are ready. Mechanically, this makes the two bows very interesting without one being an obvious choice. If it bothers you, and you want all enemies, as well as PCs, carrying a pretty lethal weapon in mass all the time, try it out. Just be aware that lots of low level enemies with 0 reload ranged weapons are incredibly deadly to the party. 5or 6 well placed level-1 archers have a decent chance right now of bringing down a PC and house rules that boost bows generally will only make that more true.
One houserule thought:
You might want to consider adding a trait that damages the bow on a critical miss to limit the crit fishing threat of the bow


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmmmm... I wonder how important Deadly is for bows. I know in PF1 they had a high crit damage, but how necessary is that flavor-wise?

Are arrows inherently more deadly than other weapons?

If both Shortbow and Longbow dropped deadly, and Shortbow got Agile and Longbow no longer needs Volley, how would that play out?

Also, I have become a homebrew derailer. I think this system begs for house rules because of how transparent its math and goals and philosophy are. Sorry about that!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

People seem to not be questioning the idea of weapons needing to be different - in game design and mechanics I agree - but that puts game design ahead of a semblance of realism.
It's a fantasy game so everyone is always free to act how they see fit in their own games.
So anyone arguing they think its more fun in a game to do this might be right for them and their group. To me it breaks the suspension of disbelief required in story telling of any kind, but you do you and have fun.

Realism is out the window if you apply a penalty to a bow at shorter ranges. Anyone arguing it makes sense on a realism basis is either deliberately trolling or was not born on earth, or has never thrown anything, watched a sporting event, played darts, thrown a old coffee cup in the trash, etc, etc, etc. It is patently ridiculous.

For those that like more realism, you either simply have to drop the volley trait - making long bow objectively better than short bow - which I don't see as game breaking personally, or homebrew a solution of a replacement trait.

this thread has a few good options:
rainzax mention it being unwieldy, imposing a penalty on those that move first
Igor Horvat mentioned strength first & Deadmanwalking essentially linked that strength to training and familiarity

Waterslethe mentioned making prohibited from horseback

I think making them an advanced weapon and/or limiting range under cover/indoors were both also reasonable possible limitations and I may have forgotten a couple of others that were mentioned and other good ideas might still be brought up.

the rulebook trait as-is is terrible at least to those that need a health portion of reality in their fantasy combat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Sheahan wrote:

People seem to not be questioning the idea of weapons needing to be different - in game design and mechanics I agree - but that puts game design ahead of a semblance of realism.

It's a fantasy game so everyone is always free to act how they see fit in their own games.
So anyone arguing they think its more fun in a game to do this might be right for them and their group. To me it breaks the suspension of disbelief required in story telling of any kind, but you do you and have fun.

Realism is out the window if you apply a penalty to a bow at shorter ranges. Anyone arguing it makes sense on a realism basis is either deliberately trolling or was not born on earth, or has never thrown anything, watched a sporting event, played darts, thrown a old coffee cup in the trash, etc, etc, etc. It is patently ridiculous.

For those that like more realism, you either simply have to drop the volley trait - making long bow objectively better than short bow - which I don't see as game breaking personally, or homebrew a solution of a replacement trait.

this thread has a few good options:
rainzax mention it being unwieldy, imposing a penalty on those that move first
Igor Horvat mentioned strength first & Deadmanwalking essentially linked that strength to training and familiarity

Waterslethe mentioned making prohibited from horseback

I think making them an advanced weapon and/or limiting range under cover/indoors were both also reasonable possible limitations and I may have forgotten a couple of others that were mentioned and other good ideas might still be brought up.

the rulebook trait as-is is terrible at least to those that need a health portion of reality in their fantasy combat

well, if you want realism, you can drop the longbow damage to d6, bigger bow =/= more damage.

the only thing relevant for the damage is the pull strength, and that's in the Propulsive trait already.

and then just let the short bow be "d6 80ft range" and the long bow be something like "d6 100ft range one of those lesser limitations already mentioned by the people you said"

so, basically, let the deciding factior be "mobility vs range" and leave damage be balanced.

it's much more realistic and much more balanced.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:


well, if you want realism, you can drop the longbow damage to d6, bigger bow =/= more damage.

the only thing relevant for the damage is the pull strength, and that's in the Propulsive trait already.

and then just let the short bow be "d6 80ft range" and the long bow be...

That's a good point, however, it's both draw weight and draw length that goes into the power delivered by a bow, as well as arrow design. It's why crossbows, with super high draw weight but very short draw length don't actually impart as much energy as you might expect. Shortbows do have a shorter draw length in general, but I'm not sure about how much shorter.

I would sooner merge shortbows and longbows than feel good about the Volley penalty, though, so I think you're pretty close to hitting the mark.


I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Why would anybody ever use your STR 8 and STR 10 bows if a crossbow exists?


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

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Why would anybody ever use your STR 8 and STR 10 bows if a crossbow exists?

Reload 0, I imagine.


WatersLethe wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

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.

These sure are some suspiciously pointless drawbacks

Might as well not give the longbow any drawbacks at all

Which is the point, I'd assume

Actually, I was just trying to show flavor effects that actually make sense for the bow and start some brainstorming around them, but people just want to nit-pick instead of contribute which is par for the course I guess.

Not entirely tue

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Why would anybody ever use your STR 8 and STR 10 bows if a crossbow exists?
Reload 0, I imagine.

Ah, I didn't notice that reload doesn't get dropped.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Those are flat out ridiculous.

I mean, the thread should be renamed as "What house rule will make me do ridiculous ranged damage?"

At this point it has little to do with volley being "unrealistic" and more to do with "I want more damage".

If you want to house rule d12 ranged weapons with 0 reload and minimal investment, be my guest.

But they are nowhere near balanced in the context of the rest weapons in the game.

You have to keep in mind that die increases scale with striking runes, while propulsive doesn't.

Deadly also isn't worth a full die increase on its own, and giving free "50% range increases"

It will turn the game in a ranged fiesta.


shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Those are flat out ridiculous.

I mean, the thread should be renamed as "What house rule will make me do ridiculous ranged damage?"

At this point it has little to do with volley being "unrealistic" and more to do with "I want more damage".

If you want to house rule d12 ranged weapons with 0 reload and minimal investment, be my guest.

But they are nowhere near balanced in the context of the rest weapons in the game.

You have to keep in mind that die increases scale with striking runes, while propulsive doesn't.

Deadly also isn't worth a full die increase on its own, and giving free "50% range increases"

It will turn the game in a ranged fiesta.

Maybe str requirement is a bit low. It could be raised by 2 for each bow.

then 16 str would be 1d12. Now longbow with 18 str deals 1d8+2.

1d8+2 is more reliable than 1d12.

When you drop Extra crit damage and extra range seems as a nice addon.
Not to mention that 90% of ranged combat is between 10 and 100ft


Igor Horvat wrote:
1d8+2 is more reliable than 1d12.

They might both be equal in damage on on-magical weapons but 4d12 vs 4d8+2 is an increase of 30% average damage.


Igor Horvat wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

I think that for out games I will throw out short/longbow as a different weapon, also drop volley, deadly and propulsive and base just a BOW on minimum strength.

8 strength, 1d6 P, range 60ft
10 strength, 1d8 P, range 90ft
12 strength, 1d10 P, range 120ft
14 strength, 1d12 P, range 150ft

if you do not have required strength for a given bow, you get -2 attack penalty and deal minimum damage.

Those are flat out ridiculous.

I mean, the thread should be renamed as "What house rule will make me do ridiculous ranged damage?"

At this point it has little to do with volley being "unrealistic" and more to do with "I want more damage".

If you want to house rule d12 ranged weapons with 0 reload and minimal investment, be my guest.

But they are nowhere near balanced in the context of the rest weapons in the game.

You have to keep in mind that die increases scale with striking runes, while propulsive doesn't.

Deadly also isn't worth a full die increase on its own, and giving free "50% range increases"

It will turn the game in a ranged fiesta.

Maybe str requirement is a bit low. It could be raised by 2 for each bow.

then 16 str would be 1d12. Now longbow with 18 str deals 1d8+2.

1d8+2 is more reliable than 1d12.

When you drop Extra crit damage and extra range seems as a nice addon.
Not to mention that 90% of ranged combat is between 10 and 100ft

You're missing the point :

1d8+2 (at 18 str) vs 1d12 (at 16 str) is already "behind".

But how about 4d8+2 vs 4d12?

There's no reason for extra ranged damage.

If anything, you replaced a straight flaw with a straight up buff.

And the you gave a class feat as a free bonus on top (extra range)

Why would anyone be using melee if they can do d12 ranged attacks without wasting actions to Stride?

D8 is already plenty. There's a reason the "easy to use" ranged attack is d6, and you went and doubled that.

Edit:
If you go to go Str requirements route.

Something like:
Short bow d6, 10 str,
Long bow, D8, 16 str,
Great longbow, d10, 20 str,

There's no propulsive, no volley, but they keep Deadly.


shroudb wrote:


Short bow d6, 10 str,
Long bow, D8, 16 str,
Great longbow, d10, 20 str

I could stomach that but I'd probably change the thresholds to 14 and 18 respectively for the limits.

14 is a reasonable requirement for an archer, but 16 is outright damning when you need a high DEX to be viable as well (and that's just a blanket "archer", not even speaking a Class like Champion who needs CHA).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:


Short bow d6, 10 str,
Long bow, D8, 16 str,
Great longbow, d10, 20 str

I could stomach that but I'd probably change the thresholds to 14 and 18 respectively for the limits.

14 is a reasonable requirement for an archer, but 16 is outright damning when you need a high DEX to be viable as well (and that's just a blanket "archer", not even speaking a Class like Champion who needs CHA).

Then you're just handing out damage buffs to a weapon that doesn't need it.

16 is *supposed* to be a restriction.

Someone SPECIALISING in bows could do it easily, if not at level 1,at 5.

20str is for late game. A dedicated archer could have that at 15.

Someone just wanting to use a bow, like the paladin building up Cha, should stick to the shortbow.

Again:

The most "balanced" way to get rid Volley, is making longbow d6.

I thought this was the purpose of this thread "volley seems unrealistic".

Stop trying to sneak in ranged damage buffs.

If you believe that ranged damage is weak, just start a thread asking for buffs.

Or start a house rule thread how you're personally increasing ranged damage in your home games.

Anyways, a vast majority of the people saying "volley is unrealistic" have proven themselves that they care much less about that and it's just Veiled attempts to directly buff ranged damage.

As far as I am concerned, this thread had served its purpose at its fullest and it degraded to house rules long ago.

Probably a mod should move it to house rules.


shroudb wrote:

Then you're just handing out damage buffs to a weapon that doesn't need it.

16 is *supposed* to be a restriction.

16 isn't a restriction, 16 is "you can't use a Longbow on 90% of heroes".

There's already restrictions with proficiency, and most Archers DO NOT have even 14 STR, let alone 16 STR.

So removing Volley in this instance and requiring 16 STR is straight up forcing people to use Shortbow.

Quote:
Someone SPECIALISING in bows could do it easily, if not at level 1,at 5.

And? A level 5 player using a Longbow they just qualified for by boostring STR spent something to get there. It wasn't free in the slightest and if the person is legit using a Longbow as their primary weapon, that's almost a tax.

18 STR is possible for a level 1 Fighter sure, but that level 1 Fighter CANNOT afford 18 STR and a comparable Dex.

Even if they went 18 STR and 16 DEX, that leaves them with very limited stats for CON and WIS (the first of which is definitely needed, the latter of which is highly valuable) and basically excludes them from CHA based skills (such as Intimidate).

And that's the Fighter, Paladin has no prayer with the CHA requirements to be both good at DEX and STR. Ranger will struggle if they want to be good at any of their Ranger pieces.

I have no idea how you're equating a STR requirement of 14 as "just a straight buff" when it taxes a finite resource that is in direct competition with STR.

16 STR on a DEX-based weapon as a requirement is way too high. You arbitrarily picked 16 and it doesn't really have a lot of merit there for the above reasons.

I have made archers and have players that played archers. None started with even 14 STR, and starting with 16 STR would have been nigh impossible without severely compromising the character.

Now if you had argued that these tiers help switch hitters the most, who honestly don't need it, then sure.


Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Then you're just handing out damage buffs to a weapon that doesn't need it.

16 is *supposed* to be a restriction.

16 isn't a restriction, 16 is "you can't use a Longbow on 90% of heroes".

There's already restrictions with proficiency, and most Archers DO NOT have even 14 STR, let alone 16 STR.

So removing Volley in this instance and requiring 16 STR is straight up forcing people to use Shortbow.

Quote:
Someone SPECIALISING in bows could do it easily, if not at level 1,at 5.

And? A level 5 player using a Longbow they just qualified for by boostring STR spent something to get there. It wasn't free in the slightest and if the person is legit using a Longbow as their primary weapon, that's almost a tax.

18 STR is possible for a level 1 Fighter sure, but that level 1 Fighter CANNOT afford 18 STR and a comparable Dex.

Even if they went 18 STR and 16 DEX, that leaves them with very limited stats for CON and WIS (the first of which is definitely needed, the latter of which is highly valuable) and basically excludes them from CHA based skills (such as Intimidate).

And that's the Fighter, Paladin has no prayer with the CHA requirements to be both good at DEX and STR. Ranger will struggle if they want to be good at any of their Ranger pieces.

I have no idea how you're equating a STR requirement of 14 as "just a straight buff" when it taxes a finite resource that is in direct competition with STR.

16 STR on a DEX-based weapon as a requirement is way too high. You arbitrarily picked 16 and it doesn't really have a lot of merit there for the above reasons.

I have made archers and have players that played archers. None started with even 14 STR, and starting with 16 STR would have been nigh impossible without severely compromising the character.

Now if you had argued that these tiers help switch hitters the most, who honestly don't need it, then sure.

Most archers I've seen start with 14 str, at the very minimum 12.

Your suggestion makes shortbow obsolete.

Again:

Shortbow is used as the golden standard for 0 reload ranged, and you turned it into a "no one should care about this at 5+"

16 str for longbow sounds fine to me, it means that everyone can switch to that, with minimal investment at 5-10.

Again,all this has nothing to do with volley anymore.

It's just a blatant: I want more damage.

Since I've seen no one complaining that ranged damage is low, I suggest you take it into Homebrew.


shroudb wrote:
Since I've seen no one complaining that ranged damage is low, I suggest you take it into Homebrew.

Complaining about Volley and ways to "fix it" because of some perceived "unfairness" is by definition Homebrew.

I suggest the whole thread go to Homebrew if that's your attitude.

It is not a "direct upgrade from Shortbow" anymore than Chain Shirt vs. Breast Plate is a "direct upgrade"

They have trade offs to each choice, so if you're going to boil down the very significant choice of investing in STR as a DEX based character to "Longbow > Shortbow always" then you're missing the point.

An average of 1 damage better at the cost of requiring an ability score you otherwise wouldn't use in your role is hardly a problem. IT directly impacts the character's choice.

Your entire premise that the only way to fix it is to make both do d6 is laughable honestly.

"The only way to make X + Y = Z + W is to just make both X = W and Y = Z!"

There's more than one way to balance things, and making things exactly alike isn't solving any complex equation of balance so much as it is not even attempting at all.

And even then, the removal of a rule is still Homebrew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Since I've seen no one complaining that ranged damage is low, I suggest you take it into Homebrew.

Complaining about Volley and ways to "fix it" because of some perceived "unfairness" is by definition Homebrew.

I suggest the whole thread go to Homebrew if that's your attitude.

It is not a "direct upgrade from Shortbow" anymore than Chain Shirt vs. Breast Plate is a "direct upgrade"

They have trade offs to each choice, so if you're going to boil down the very significant choice of investing in STR as a DEX based character to "Longbow > Shortbow always" then you're missing the point.

An average of 1 damage better at the cost of requiring an ability score you otherwise wouldn't use in your role is hardly a problem. IT directly impacts the character's choice.

Your entire premise that the only way to fix it is to make both do d6 is laughable honestly.

"The only way to make X + Y = Z + W is to just make both X = W and Y = Z!"

There's more than one way to balance things, and making things exactly alike isn't solving any complex equation of balance so much as it is not even attempting at all.

And even then, the removal of a rule is still Homebrew.

You made my point exactly:

in order to justify both the shortbow and the longbow as equivalent weapons (and not just "this one is flat out better than the other") you need them to be different enough:

shortbow = lower die, lower range (almost half the range)
longbow = higher damage, almost double the range.

It's not "1 damage" difference, it's 1 per die, which matters when you reach levels of 3-4dx

Using the propulsive trait as a measure:
18 strength is +2 damage on a ranged attack.

a striking longbow requiring 18 strength is already at the same +2 damage, and it only becomes better at greater striking and major striking, reaching +4 damage for 18 strength vs a shortbow.

So, even 18 strength, using the current weapon balancing math, is generous.

And yes, i think there's a fundamental difference in the original topic of "why volley exists" to "homebrew buffing bow damage"

so, while the thread may have started at an appropriate place, for like 2 pages+ the only thing we're talking is 100% homebrew and 0% "rules"


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

in order to justify both the shortbow and the longbow as equivalent weapons (and not just "this one is flat out better than the other") you need them to be different enough:

shortbow = lower die, lower range (almost half the range)
longbow = higher damage, almost double the range.

I think we need some clearer trait weighting. Weapon ranges seem almost arbitrary, as well as cost. A hand crossbow has the same range a shortbow. A regular and heavy crossbow has a higher(!) range than a longbow.

A Halfling Sling Staff apparently lets you trade out Deadly and 0 Reload for two die size increases and 20 more feet of range.

1+ and 2 hands have a very shaky value.

Compare a sling and a hand crossbow, which are both simple weapons which shouldn't obsolete each other (although Longbows are allowed to be obsoleted by Composite Longbows for money)

Sling: 1d6 B, 50ft range, reload 1, hands 1, propulsive
Hand Crossbow: 1d6 P, 60ft range, reload 1, hands 1

If we can trade 10 ft of range for propulsive, sign me the heck up! Or is B inherently less valuable than P?

If extra range is factored in to die size increases, it must take an awful lot of range to make in impact, 'cause by and large extra range comes along for the ride with a die size increase.

You wouldn't see, for example:

Metabow: 1d10 P, 60ft range, reload 0, hands 1+, deadly d10, Propulsive, Volley 30ft.

or:

Shotput: 1d12 B, 10ft range, reload 0, hands 1, Propulsive, Volley 5ft

Long story short, I wonder if they even mechanically weighted the different ranges for Shortbow and Longbow.


shroudb wrote:


It's not "1 damage" difference, it's 1 per die, which matters when you reach levels of 3-4dx

So 1 damage for the first 7 levels, and then up to 4 extra average damage at the highest Striking rune.

I fail to see how that's busted and worth stacking STR to 18.

If you apply your logic to the same topic of Armor comparisons, you'd see how it doesn't really stand up.

Quote:


Using the propulsive trait as a measure:
18 strength is +2 damage on a ranged attack.

a striking longbow requiring 18 strength is already at the same +2 damage, and it only becomes better at greater striking and major striking, reaching +4 damage for 18 strength vs a shortbow.

A Striking Longbow that requires 18 STR is not something all archers are going to be able to choose.

You keep building this assumption that all an archer cares about is damage with the bow, and a marginal damage increase at that.

A Ranger or Paladin is going to have to make TOUGH choices to even accomplish what you're talking about. A Fighter even has to make tough choices and allow weaknesses to either HP/Saves/Skill selection.

You can't ignore all of the downsides and only count damage. That is not the only parameter that makes someone an archer.

Quote:

And yes, i think there's a fundamental difference in the original topic of "why volley exists" to "homebrew buffing bow damage"

so, while the thread may have started at an appropriate place, for like 2 pages+ the only thing we're talking is 100% homebrew and 0% "rules"

Except you're not talking about why it exists. You've spent most of the time saying why it shouldn't exist and how to "fix" it, making equivalences that, quite frankly, take giant liberties of assumptions about what an archer is going to value.

You need to unequivocally prove that prioritizing STR is "100% the best" before you can unequivocally decree that "Longbow > Shortbow if you had STR requirements".

And since we both know that you can't do that, because it's subjective, your "point" has about as much edge as a sphere.


WatersLethe wrote:
shroudb wrote:

in order to justify both the shortbow and the longbow as equivalent weapons (and not just "this one is flat out better than the other") you need them to be different enough:

shortbow = lower die, lower range (almost half the range)
longbow = higher damage, almost double the range.

I think we need some clearer trait weighting. Weapon ranges seem almost arbitrary, as well as cost. A hand crossbow has the same range a shortbow. A regular and heavy crossbow has a higher(!) range than a longbow.

A Halfling Sling Staff apparently lets you trade out Deadly and 0 Reload for two die size increases and 20 more feet of range.

1+ and 2 hands have a very shaky value.

Compare a sling and a hand crossbow, which are both simple weapons which shouldn't obsolete each other (although Longbows are allowed to be obsoleted by Composite Longbows for money)

Sling: 1d6 B, 50ft range, reload 1, hands 1, propulsive
Hand Crossbow: 1d6 P, 60ft range, reload 1, hands 1

If we can trade 10 ft of range for propulsive, sign me the heck up! Or is B inherently less valuable than P?

If extra range is factored in to die size increases, it must take an awful lot of range to make in impact, 'cause by and large extra range comes along for the ride with a die size increase.

You wouldn't see, for example:

Metabow: 1d10 P, 60ft range, reload 0, hands 1+, deadly d10, Propulsive, Volley 30ft.

or:

Shotput: 1d12 B, 10ft range, reload 0, hands 1, Propulsive, Volley 5ft

Long story short, I wonder if they even mechanically weighted the different ranges for Shortbow and Longbow.

i'd say yes, they did.

d6 60ft range seems quite close to d8 100ft range "cannot be used in close range" to me.

The math show that probably:

there are 2 categories of traits:
minor and major

on minor you have stuff like sweep, deadly, propulsive, etc
on major you have agile, finesse, reload, thrown

it seems to me, that 1 major =1 die increase.

while it's 2-3 of the minor for the same effect.

As for range.

i think shortbow 60ft is the normal "ranged" and 10ft for the thrown.

those increase at the rate of "1 minor" trait per 10ft (for thrown) or 20ft (for ranged)

Using those bases, the numbers more or less make sense:

as an example:
light hammer: d6, agile, thrown 20
vs
hatchet: d6, agile, thrown 10, sweep

you remove 1 minor (sweep) for another minor (+10 range)

vs shortsword:
d6, agile, finesse, versatile

you remove a major (thrown) for another major (finesse)
you remove a minor (sweep) for another minor (versatile)

Looking then at longbow vs shortbow:
+40ft range = 2 minor =1 major trait
d8 vs d6 = 1 major trait

so, effectively, volley is balanced against TWO major traits. Which seems appropriate seeing how restrictive it is.


WatersLethe wrote:
I think we need some clearer trait weighting. Weapon ranges seem almost arbitrary, as well as cost. A hand crossbow has the same range a shortbow. A regular and heavy crossbow has a higher(!) range than a longbow.

Just pointing out that this is nothing new. It existed in PF1E as well, and I believe is also reflected in how real-world crossbows and longbows work.


Anyone approaching PF1e or PF2e as simulationist games is going to have a bad time. They are gamefied games 100%, which is cool I am not meaning it as an insult, but expecting more out of one area raises a lot of questions about the systems overall.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Anyone approaching PF1e or PF2e as simulationist games is going to have a bad time. They are gamefied games 100%, which is cool I am not meaning it as an insult, but expecting more out of one area raises a lot of questions about the systems overall.

Oh absolutely. There are some things that are a bridge too far for me though. Like being less accurate at target shooting because the target is too close.

When a game simplification imposes too heavily on what you would logically expect, it raises the question of whether it should be tweaked for one's own enjoyment.

Like, Volley is purely a weapon balancing construct, but it asks me to think about bows in very unnatural way. If balance is the main purpose, I'd sooner reduce the damage die of longbows like Shroudb suggests than contort my expectations about something as basic as shooting a bow to fit the current mechanics.

Obviously some people are fine with it how it is, though.


Saw this on Youtube and I thought of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

Though, I think WatersLethe might find the Volley rule more infuriating as a result.

1. The bow is supposedly an authentic "English warbow." I think it clearly would fall in to the longbow classification. Look at the 25 second mark. The bow is like 7 feet tall strung.

2. In the video, they reference the fact that the bows were fired straight on and not at an angle.

Enjoy.


Theoretically, being designed for someone with Point Blankshot could be the counter argument.

All weapons required explicit training based on the style of the weapon, it's not super outlandish to assume that may come in the form of training, or even compensated by ability scores.


Midnightoker wrote:

Theoretically, being designed for someone with Point Blankshot could be the counter argument.

All weapons required explicit training based on the style of the weapon, it's not super outlandish to assume that may come in the form of training, or even compensated by ability scores.

point blank shot would not be a problem if it does not make longbow still worse at close range.

It give +2 attack bonus to longbow only(somehow) and give every weapon except longbow +2 damage(somehow).

it would be better as they did on 5E.
Longbow cannot be used by small characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:

it would be better as they did on 5E.
Longbow cannot be used by small characters.

That isn't a negative to the weapon, it is just a reduction in the total amount of player character concepts. If something is only a negative at char gen then it isn't a negative for every single character that can use them.


Volley, as a -2 penalty to shots within 30ft, exists to make the Long bow a Defender/sniper/hunter's weapon, best employed by someone who is going to take the time to set themselves up in a position that will be difficult to get to without exposing yourself to a hail of fairly deadly arrows. As a rule it works for this. It also works very well as a hit and run weapon for very fast characters. Mechanically, it does this both by having more range than the shortbow, and by creating an incentive for not standing still when enemies get too close. Anything that penalizes you for moving and firing destroys the second niche of the Longbow and reinforces the greatest danger the longbow poses to the interesting and dynamic tactical space of the 3 action economy.

spending 3 actions standing still and firing, even with that third shot at -10 is a good tactic as long as your last shot still has a chance of hitting critically on a 20. With no disincentive to avoid critical failure on attacks (they are the same as regular failures), both the shortbow and the longbow exist to be the weapon that exploits this very good tactic, which is why both get deadly.

For 99% of PCs, it shouldn't thematically matter, at least not to their core character identity, if they are using a shortbow or a longbow. Most adventurer's who want to exploit a higher Dex than Str and use a bow as their typical combat action should use a short bow. The shortbow is balanced around being the Dex friendly, good weapon that is not tactically limited.

I think most of the folks arguing that "the longbow is a core part of x character's identity and now that identity doesn't work in PF2" are doing so because older systems of the game made the short bow a terrible weapon and those characters were only carrying Longbows because of obvious optimization reasons. I am very happy to see the shortbow shift back to the generic archer weapon and the longbow to occupy a specific character build space of the Hunter/Sniper/Defensive Army archer who drops the bow to engage in melee when the enemy closes.

However, there are TWO actual character builds that are now complicated by the volley rule specifically, who probably need feat support in an upcoming book before they are ready to hit the table.

The cleric of Erastil is only trained in the Longbow and thus cannot chose to use a shortbow, despite pretty much needing to be close to their teammates for all of their divine abilities to function. With relatively low weapon proficiency values (never getting above expert) and never being able to pick up a composite longbow, the loss of accuracy at close range severely punishes this character.

The Paladin of Erastil is trained in the shortbow and the Longbow, so on one level might bypass the problem, especially because a paladin gets no incentivizing power to use a martial favored weapon, but absolutely none of the Paladin's retributive strike abilities work in a range where the longbow would be tactically viable and, like the cleric, they are too MAD and too inaccurate to overcome a -2 penalty on a main class feature ability.

What I really wish would have happened (and probably will houserule in any game I run) is that Erastil's favored weapon is "the bow" which will include short, long, and composite bows. But that doesn't seem like a path PF2 could officially take at this point, so the more likely solution will have to be cleric and paladin class feats to drop in the first Gods of the Innersea book that grant access to point-blank shot feat that only negates volley penalty, which really needs to be available at level 1, at least for the cleric, but really for the paladin as well.


Composite Longbow
This projectile weapon is made from horn, wood, and sinew laminated together to increase the power of its pull and the force of its projectile. Like all longbows, its great size also increases the bow’s range and power. You must use two hands to fire it, and it cannot be used while mounted. Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a longbow, such as Erastil’s favored weapon, it also applies to composite longbows unless otherwise stated.

...

Still agree about the shortbow vs. longbow Erastil Cleric/Champion argument though...


rainzax wrote:

Composite Longbow

This projectile weapon is made from horn, wood, and sinew laminated together to increase the power of its pull and the force of its projectile. Like all longbows, its great size also increases the bow’s range and power. You must use two hands to fire it, and it cannot be used while mounted. Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a longbow, such as Erastil’s favored weapon, it also applies to composite longbows unless otherwise stated.

...

Still agree about the shortbow vs. longbow Erastil Cleric/Champion argument though...

Well that is good, if a bit buried, since it is in the description of the composite longbow and not something someone might read if they thought the composite longbow was not a weapon they were trained in. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that it doesn't really help the cleric or the paladin that much since the extra damage from having a higher Str isn't really the limiting factor on the two character builds.

Really, the paladin probably is fine with a shortbow, ever if it feels weird that they are punished so hard for using their deity's favorite weapon, at least until we get some new feats.

It is the Cleric who is in a funny space because the longbow is the only bow they are trained in, but I guess the cloisetered cleric probably should be using spells within 30ft and using the bow for sniping, while the warpriest should probably lean Strength over Dex and just drop the bow when things get up close.

101 to 146 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.