| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, but the more I read the rules the less sense Volley trait makes.
Penalty to accuracy for closer target?
How did they logic their way out of that one?
If they needed to balance shortbow to longbow, then give shortbow Agile and reduce it's Deadly value to d8 or remove it.
being less precise at 30ft than 100ft and having same accuracy at less that 30ft and at 200ft has no sense what-so-ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The logic is that the longbow is large and unwieldy so it's harder to set up and aim at something that's really close. The closer something is, the more you have to move the bow to keep it aimed at a moving target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The logic is that the longbow is large and unwieldy so it's harder to set up and aim at something that's really close. The closer something is, the more you have to move the bow to keep it aimed at a moving target.
30ft is not really close from that perspective, if they said 10ft then maybe.
And it's a lot easier to "lead" a target that is closer and moving.
And what if the target is not moving? We ignore the Volley trait?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".
Agreed. The point of volley is to give ranged weapons more ways to be different from each other in a way to create mechanically interesting variations. I don't think reality was as important as ways to create balance. Volley as a trait is completely inconsequential to the guards on the walls 50ft up in the air and that makes long bows a very devastating weapon for armies of archers, which I think gets closer to the intention of the rule than the specifics of how it works in reality.
It was probably influenced by the Tueller Drill, and taking into account nocking and firing an arrow as opposed to drawing and firing a handgun.
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
I don't think that Tueller Drill had much to do with it.
If you have required strength for your specific bow the speed of knocking and drawing is the same.
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.
|
It was probably influenced by the Tueller Drill, and taking into account nocking and firing an arrow as opposed to drawing and firing a handgun.
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
I don't think that Tueller Drill had much to do with it.
If you have required strength for your specific bow the speed of knocking and drawing is the same.
A bow as long as you.
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.
i link how you sneak in the damage buffs.
no, it would still be as an example "d8 d10 deadly loading 1"
more realistic, but at this point we already have the crossbow that is extremely close to this, so why have 2 "same" weapons?
Heavy crossbow is simple and has Loading 2, Longbow is martial and has Loading 1, with some other traits
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bow as long as you.It was probably influenced by the Tueller Drill, and taking into account nocking and firing an arrow as opposed to drawing and firing a handgun.
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
I don't think that Tueller Drill had much to do with it.
If you have required strength for your specific bow the speed of knocking and drawing is the same.
Does not matter, draw length is to your cheek.
I kind of like this rule. And I find it quite logical. Just try to use a longbow inside a tavern with table and chairs everywhere. In real life if you are under 30ft. pistols beat assault rifles.
And in terms of gameplay, it's fine. You have a real choice between longbows and shortbows, which wasn't really the case in PF1, as shortbows were just dumbed down longbows.
|
|
Does not matter, draw length is to your cheek.A bow as long as you.It was probably influenced by the Tueller Drill, and taking into account nocking and firing an arrow as opposed to drawing and firing a handgun.
Also most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.
I don't think that Tueller Drill had much to do with it.
If you have required strength for your specific bow the speed of knocking and drawing is the same.
I'm referring to how big the bow is to move around, not to fire persay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like this rule. And I find it quite logical. Just try to use a longbow inside a tavern with table and chairs everywhere. In real life if you are under 30ft. pistols beat assault rifles.
And in terms of gameplay, it's fine. You have a real choice between longbows and shortbows, which wasn't really the case in PF1, as shortbows were just dumbed down longbows.
I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.
I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all
You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.
You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real issue here is that if the Short bow was just like the longbow, but with slightly shorter range, 1 damage die less, and had agile, it would be a murder machine/monster in the hands of the mutli-attacking hordes. Deadly and Agile? Welcome to crit-landia. So barring that, the short bow is right exactly where they want it to be as a weapon, but the longbow needed to be different beyond "same with more damage."
Adding a reload to the long bow probably would have felt more "authentic" to a lot of players, especially those of us with no real practical knowledge of trying to kill moving things with bows, but that design space is already taken up by slings and cross bows. A weapon better at a middle range than close up was open design space and a pretty cool one for the long bow to occupy.
Your ideas about trying to add properties about being difficult to use are interesting, but kinda clunky to throw on a weapon with one property and be remembered in play, and far too situational to be the defining difference between the short bow and the long bow.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.
I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all
You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.
You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.
Volley is a simplification of all that. You can have 20 rules, or just one, which isn't perfect, but get to the point: Longbows are hard to use in most short range situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Volley is a simplification of all that. You can have 20 rules, or just one, which isn't perfect, but get to the point: Longbows are hard to use in most short range situations.I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size.
I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all
You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty.
You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.
Simplification is not always good, especially if it's a nonsense.
Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.
Where are you going to feel safer?
You can even run around at that distance as a moving target.
Or take that same longbow at 4 targets 15ft, 30ft, 60ft and 120ft
20 arrows each target and mark points.
I do not think that 60ft will be your best score. Ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP, I definitely don’t think it’s the dumbest rule ever. There have been far dumber rules.
I digress. While I have no practical knowledge on the matter, based on some brief research I can find multiple sources citing longbows were less effective at shorter range than shortbows. Some of the comments (not my thoughts) were 1) the stance and draw would give a close target more time to react as the proper stance requirement is more involved and the draw is longer and more difficult, 2) longbow arrows travel slower (but are more wind resistant and powerful on impact because they were longer, heavier and gravity), 3) longbows were designed to fire at a 45+ degree angle - using a lower angle for a close target interferes with accuracy because it’s not being fired as intended.
I can’t say how that should be accurately reflected in the simulation that is PF2E, but I don’t think it sounds dumb and I’m ok with their interpretation. I like it from a balance and practical perspective. Honestly I’ve always thought the idea of wandering a close quarter dungeon with a longbow as being the optimal range option in prior editions was very weird.
1. Yes, maybe. If you use a bow that is to "heavy" for you then you would have problem of drawing a bow to a full draw and it would be slower.
2. No. Most of the time. If they used broadheads or hunting tips that are heavy and wide for blood vessel laceration then that extra weight could slow down an arrow.
But most of the time arrow were made for maximum penetration and speed adds more than mass to energy of an arrow.
Arrow were made as light as possible for surviving the bow shot.
3. Hell no!
That was only used if shooting at beyond maximum effective range, more of a display of skill than a major military value.
Arrow were expensive to make and you could only carry so much of them and you wanted to make every shot count.
I'm pretty sure some version of the grappling rules is way worse than volley. So the question posed in the OP can be answered in the negative.
But as for the content of the post, I feel like some consideration was made to make the longbow not the best ranged weapon in every single context, like it was in PF1. Even if we have to make it function somewhat contrary to reality, it's still good if the shortbow is a valid choice sometimes for someone with proficiency in both. We are talking about probably the single best weapon in PF1, after all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.
Where are you going to feel safer?
At 30ft, clearly. Between a tavern, a cave, a forest with a lot of underbush and a clear open field with 100ft. visibility, I clearly prefer the former.
If you have to shoot at 30ft. or less, you are in a cranky environment where your longbow is not optimal at all. If you are in an open field, then you are further away from your target. Hence the reason of this rule.The fact that there is one single case, the combat happening at 30ft. despite being in an open field where you have perfect maneuvrability, doesn't invalidate the whole rule.
Also, this rule forces the player into a good "bow attitude". Thanks to it, a longbow user will look for long and clear lines of shoot. Which is exactly what you should do if you are adventuring with a longbow.
Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away.
Where are you going to feel safer?
At 30ft, clearly. Between a tavern, a cave, a forest with a lot of underbush and a clear open field with 100ft. visibility, I clearly prefer the former.
If you have to shoot at 30ft. or less, you are in a cranky environment where your longbow is not optimal at all. If you are in an open field, then you are further away from your target. Hence the reason of this rule.
The fact that there is one single case, the combat happening at 30ft. despite being in an open field where you have perfect maneuvrability, doesn't invalidate the whole rule.Also, this rule forces the player into a good "bow attitude". Thanks to it, a longbow user will look for long and clear lines of shoot. Which is exactly what you should do if you are adventuring with a longbow.
Really?
If someone tries to hit me with a gun, bow, spear or a brick, I would rather be 100ft than 30ft away.And how is longbow not optimal, but shortbow, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, crossbow and slings are somehow optimal?
Yes, longbow and shortbow should be different with own advanatages, but conjuring a nonsense just for balance sake? Isn't that lazy?
Maybe there should be only bows. without propulsive trait and based on user strength:
1d4, range 40ft, min strength n/a, deadly d4
1d6, range 60ft, min str 12, deadly d6
1d8, range 80ft, min str 14, deadly d8
1d10, range 100ft, min str 16, deadly d10
1d12, range 120ft, min str 18, deadly d12
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the longbow didn't have volley, it'd be the best ranged weapon in the game.
If the longbow didn't have volley, and had reload 1 instead, it'd be the worst martial weapon in the game.
I dunno, I think for my preference I'd go with a shortbow on most any archer character just because I get stuck in many situations where Volley will be a factor, but it is far from a clear cut choice and I'm glad that longbows aren't just the unopposed champion of ranged weapons anymore.
If you want Paizo and other gamers to take your feedback seriously, nothing beats creating the title “Volley: the Dumbest Rule Ever?”
I'm sure everyone took it super seriously and the rules is now being changed by adding the damage buffs and everyone got up and clapped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just keep imagining an archer with a longbow as tall as themselves trying to aim at an adjacent halfling and constantly poking themself in the shins.
I just keep imagining an archer with a longbow as tall as themselves trying to aim at an adjacent halfling and constantly poking themself in the shins.
That is another topic. And a good one.
I just remembered Pillars of Eternity. More or less 3.5e/PF1 based game.
Ranged weapons there have "unfit for melee" trait. You have less AC when you use them.
So if on general ranged weapons gave you -1 AC, and longbow(and maybe heavy crossbow) gave you -2 AC for that round that you use them, that would be a great way to give difference between shortbow and longbow.
Some ranged weapons like hand crossbow, dart or javelin could give no penalty at all.
An AC penalty in melee doesn't really effect the way the weapon is used though, which Volley clearly does.
The intention for using a longbow is that it is a long range hunting weapon and one that the fighter can use close up if they are dedicated to it. Mechanically, Volley accomplishes this perfectly.
I get not liking the feel of the weapon. But there are a lot of great other options out there, for different kinds of builds.
@Igor, what build were you wanting a longbow for, that now feels off?
An AC penalty in melee doesn't really effect the way the weapon is used though, which Volley clearly does.
The intention for using a longbow is that it is a long range hunting weapon and one that the fighter can use close up if they are dedicated to it. Mechanically, Volley accomplishes this perfectly.
I get not liking the feel of the weapon. But there are a lot of great other options out there, for different kinds of builds.
@Igor, what build were you wanting a longbow for, that now feels off?
Well, it doesn't really need to affect the weapon use directly.
It can affect your overall performance as fighting unit.at 100ft it does not matter(most of the time) if you have -2 AC, but if you shoot someone from 20ft you might be very sorry for that missing AC when axes start flying around your head.
As for build you asked, I have an Elven ranger.
But I have both bows in gear irrelevant of Volley trait as one can't be used on a mount(per rules, which is great) and as I have climb speed and intend to use it in forests/hills and maybe urban areas, I find it more feasible to climb with 3ft bow than with 6ft bow.
And in canopy I can tell that DM would give me more opportunity for a shot with more compact weapon.
Also in cramped spaces, DM might say that only 1Bulk weapons or lighter can be used...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I agree with you.
I believe the Dev's were actually quoted as saying what everyone depicted in pictures of characters holding a longbow, were actually pictured with shortbows. The devs were trying to make ranged combat more diverse, with more options that varied use in different circumstances.
So they decided to make Longbows, the actual longbows, and thus said they decided to embrace that they were designed for 'indirect' fire usage, arced up, rather than direct fire. I believe the combination of needing to draw the string back fully to their face for full draw, and the height of the drawn bow, the idea is that there is a decent chance that attempting to shoot straight at a target nearby, right in front of them, via direct fire, you either have to make sure you target only the top of your target (reducing viable target area) or you risk the bottom of your bow tapping the ground as you track downward, and risk accidentally bumping your shot in an unintended direction. Either of which could be a reasonable reason to justify getting a minus to hit in those circumstances. (is anything past 30 feet enough to stop that from happening, maybe not, but it at least provides a flavor and a rule of thumb)
But irrespective of the reality explanations, its game reason was to make one of the strongest martial ranged weapons have a viable weakness to make some people, intentionally choose an alternate weapon.
But, if you are going to try to conceptually the reality aspects of it, make sure you pick up a bow that is taller than you while it is strung, when you testing your idea out. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Volley makes this the first version of D&D or Pathfinder where there is a reason other than lacking proficiency to use a shortbow instead of a longbow.
It also successfully creates the niche of "ranged character who is more effective at longer ranges", which is a common fantasy trope that the rules didn't really support before.
In all honestly, I couldn't care less how realistic it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Legolas, and most other high fantasy characters are most definitely carrying shorter bows than longbows.
Longbows feel sexy because "short bow" is not really a specific thing that people can point to with the historical impact of the English longbow. Maybe it would have been better just to have the bow and then have a special advanced weapon be the longbow if the goal was realism, but the tropes are so rooted at this point, II have no problem with the way paizo has handled it.
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 the short bow should be the weapon that people, outside of a very specific subset of Long range archer, are carrying into dungeons. With deadly and the ability to stand still and shoot 3 times with ease, fishing for those crits, the short bow is a fine weapon for an adventurer.
|
Legolas is probably a Fighter.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...
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...