I'm really sorry if this is an obvious thing, but I haven't been able to find the proper rules that governs this issue.
The thing is that I'm using the paid version of the Pathbuilder app to build my characters. My latest character is a rogue (Thief racket) that just found himself a Composite Shortbow, and when added to his weapon roster, the app gives him a 'Trained' when using the weapon.
Is this entirely correct? I am under the impression that individual Weapon Proficiencies attained from character classes like the Rogue are exactly that. Individual. And that no similar weapon may be used with any degree of skill except for 'Untrained'.
Thanks in advance
This is actually covered by the Composite Long/Shortbow description that indicates that any ability that relates to these bows also applies to the Composite version. Training is just one such ability that this interacts with.
Could you give me directions to where this is written. Exactly, please?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, click here. Since it specifies Shortbow for the Rogue functionality the Composite is also included since the rules fail to explicitly say that it should NOT work with the Composite version.
Sure, click here. Since it specifies Shortbow for the Rogue functionality the Composite is also included since the rules fail to explicitly say that it should NOT work with the Composite version.
Thanks for the link. Although I agree that this should indeed make the Shortbow proficiency work with a composite shortbow, I just miss a better example to convince my GM that this is RAW (or not as is the case here, LOL)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the link. Although I agree that this should indeed make the Shortbow proficiency work with a composite shortbow, I just miss a better example to convince my GM that this is RAW (or not as is the case here, LOL)Sure, click here. Since it specifies Shortbow for the Rogue functionality the Composite is also included since the rules fail to explicitly say that it should NOT work with the Composite version.
It's clear language straight from the CRB. What more would your GM want?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the link. Although I agree that this should indeed make the Shortbow proficiency work with a composite shortbow, I just miss a better example to convince my GM that this is RAW (or not as is the case here, LOL)Sure, click here. Since it specifies Shortbow for the Rogue functionality the Composite is also included since the rules fail to explicitly say that it should NOT work with the Composite version.
The example provided in the version for a comp longbow speaks about that as a deity favored Weapon, another example of where the rules just reference an individual weapon. Sneak Attack and Training, in general, should absolutely be covered by this.
Longbow link for you where you can see the example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thank you all for clarifying my problem. The last link was just what I needed. Thank you very much. :-)
I thank you all for clarifying my problem. The last link was just what I needed. Thank you very much. :-)
And then it turned out that this issue hasn't at all been resolved in any satisfactory manner.
After having consulted with my GM we are both in agreement that being trained in a short bow doesn't in any way makes you proficient with a composite shortbow.
This is based on several rules.
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.
What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?
Second, the following is listed for every character class:
INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way.
Third, we believe that the rules written for composite bows are meant to be applied to class features, like spells, champion and cleric weapons, etc.
Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.
Third, we believe that the rules written for composite bows are meant to be applied to class features, like spells, champion and cleric weapons, etc.
Initial Proficiencies is listed under Class Features: as such, if you believe it applies to class features, you then believe it applies to weapon proficiencies...
"Initial Proficiencies
At 1st level, you gain a number of proficiencies that represent your basic training. These proficiencies are noted at the start of this class."
Second, the following is listed for every character class:
INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way.
"Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated" would seem to quite clearly be a way to "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow".
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.
There are a LOT of places in the rules where you get things stated that don't have to be. It might just be redundancy or a different person writing it that wanted to spell it out or any number of other reasons. It's frustrating tht it happens but it happens.
Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.
Wouldn't "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow" mean gaining the proficiency?
Now if you and our DM wish to exclude it, you can but IMO it isn't meant to, both from a RAW and a RAI point of view.
Third, we believe that the rules written for composite bows are meant to be applied to class features, like spells, champion and cleric weapons, etc.Initial Proficiencies is listed under Class Features: as such, if you believe it applies to class features, you then believe it applies to weapon proficiencies...
"Initial Proficiencies
At 1st level, you gain a number of proficiencies that represent your basic training. These proficiencies are noted at the start of this class."Second, the following is listed for every character class:
INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way."Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated" would seem to quite clearly be a way to "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow".
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.There are a LOT of places in the rules where you get things stated that don't have to be. It might just be redundancy or a different person writing it that wanted to spell it out or any number of other reasons. It's frustrating tht it happens but it happens.
Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.Wouldn't "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow" mean gaining the proficiency?
Now if you and our DM wish to...
Sorry, but I absolutely think that you are mistanken.
Sorry, but I absolutely think that you are mistanken.
That makes 2 of us then as I think you are mistaken. I'd be VERY surprised if the others that posted here think that the rogue doesn't get proficiency in the composite shortbow. Again, feel free to do whatever you wan for your game but I've seen a LOT of different DM's/games, and plenty of people here in the forums, and you're the first to come to this conclusion. I'll be curious to see if anyone else has seen someone that doesn't allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Third, we believe that the rules written for composite bows are meant to be applied to class features, like spells, champion and cleric weapons, etc.Initial Proficiencies is listed under Class Features: as such, if you believe it applies to class features, you then believe it applies to weapon proficiencies...
"Initial Proficiencies
At 1st level, you gain a number of proficiencies that represent your basic training. These proficiencies are noted at the start of this class."Second, the following is listed for every character class:
INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way."Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated" would seem to quite clearly be a way to "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow".
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.There are a LOT of places in the rules where you get things stated that don't have to be. It might just be redundancy or a different person writing it that wanted to spell it out or any number of other reasons. It's frustrating tht it happens but it happens.
Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.Wouldn't "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow" mean gaining the proficiency?
You and your GM are wrong by RAW and RAI but it is your game so do as you please but as others have said the text on the Composite Shortbow itself gives you the answer you need but seem to deny.
Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated.
Specific overrides general.
|
|
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?
You might be onto something.
The Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity also lists separately shortbow and composite shortbow. Food for thought.
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?
You might be onto something.
The Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity also lists separately shortbow and composite shortbow. Food for thought.
Thanks for putting in your thoughts here, Raven Black.
I was aware of the Hobgoblin rule as well. And exactly this together with the Elven Weapon Familiarity rule is the reason why I dare to believe that I'm right and Greystone (apparently together with many more) is wrong.
He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon familiarity points don't imply non-proficiency when taken with the explicit text of the composite shortbow. It's written as clear as day what they want (shared proficiency between composite and not), and the other is just an inference based on redundancies.
The only place it is explicitly stated is the composite shortbow text, which clearly shows that it shares proficiency with a regular shortbow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying that Monks with Monastic Archer Stance cannot use a Composite Longbow or Shortbow as well then too?
I do find the Elven and Hobgoblin Ancestry Feats to be rather intriguing given that they do explicitly spell out that they provide Composite Bow training but here is the thing, the rules printed with all Composite Bows already covers 100% of the bases when it comes to extending proficiency because the initial proficiencies are "an Ability" that is granted to you by your Class and fall under the umbrella of to treat Comp weapons the same as the non-Comp version of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can just keep patting yourself on the back, since that seems to be the only real purpose of this thread.
No need for personal attacks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but I absolutely think that you are mistanken.
Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies
to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated.
Please cite the text stating that Rogue weapon proficiency doesn't apply to the shortbow.
Or you can just keep patting yourself on the back, since that seems to be the only real purpose of this thread.No need for personal attacks
I agree, but it'd be about my disregarding what Cool Tiefling posted, especially after I posted replies to each point about how I saw it differently: having difference of opinion isn't disregarding anything. He's basically saying I alter my reading of the rules based of my belief instead of what the actual rules read and I personally find that quite offensive and, IMO, a personal attack even I was quite nice by using IMO, IMO. I didn't make it personal.
He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.
IMO, this is NOT cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something being true in 1e is irrelevant to how it is in 2e, which is a different game.
I genuinely cannot see how you can read "Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated." and think it doesn't mean anything. As a general rule they don't print things you're meant to pretend don't exist. Proficiency is plainly an ability you have.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated.
This is an explicit rule, specific to the shortbow found in the Equipment section. It's specific to shortbows.
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.
The notion that composite bows are different from regular bows isn't explicity stated. It is implicit.
In my opinion, a specific and explicit rule overrides a vague implicit rule. The OP's rogue can use Composite Shorbows exactly as well as they can use Shortbows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?
You might be onto something.
The Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity also lists separately shortbow and composite shortbow. Food for thought.
That's an interesting argument. Let's apply the same reasoning to the Investigator's Devise a Stratagem ability.
When you make this substitution, you can also add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided your Strike uses an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it’s a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap.
Saps are listed in the CRB as having the agile trait, and the first part of the quote tells us that all agile melee weapons work with DAS. If those rules were both true then what would be the point of listing the sap separately? If we assume that the authors never accidentally include redundant text, we must conclude that either DAS doesn't work with all agile weapons or that the sap is not an agile weapon.
Or we could assume that it is just redundant text that no one caught during editing.
My guess is that the sap text was accidentally left in when the Investigator went from having a subset of martial weapon proficiencies in the playtest to having proficiency with all martial weapons. I also suspect that the Elven Weapon Proficiency feat was written before the general rule for bows was in place and that the Hobgoblin text was copied from that feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have to say that I think that CT has a point though I'm not sure I'm completely convinced yet.
I genuinely cannot see how you can read "Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated." and think it doesn't mean anything. As a general rule they don't print things you're meant to pretend don't exist. Proficiency is plainly an ability you have.Of course it means something, I'm just not sure it means everything.
For example the Monastic Archer Stance (mentioned above) has a requirement of "You are unarmored and wielding a longbow, shortbow, or a bow with the monk trait" and thus the text would allow either of the Composite bows to qualify too. In a similar vein Erastil has "Favored Weapon longbow" and thus a Composite Longbow would qualify too.
I'm not at all sure that proficiencies are abilities in the way that the text references it.
Well, it's the ability to use it proficiently. I'd say that's an ability.
Besides, what is gained by breaking the rule and saying that composite shortbows are too special for shortbow users to use? And the only support for that interpretation is ... inference, anyway, which could as noted be easily ascribed to editing mishaps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of redundancy in the rules is the Investigator's Devise a Strategem action stating: "When you make this substitution, you can also add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided your Strike uses an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it's a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap."
If you look at the sap, you'll note that it is an agile melee weapon, and thus didn't need to be specified in the list of weapons that this ability applies to and yet it was anyway. Sometimes, Paizo can be very redundant.
All this to say, sometimes they list weapons that they don't need to since those weapons are already included in the list via other traits, whether it be the sap being agile or the composite shortbow counting as a shortbow (unless the rule specifically says "no composite shortbows).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW it is unclear and there are contradictions. Welcome to PF2e ;) (hey, paizo, been a year and a half now, we getting a FAQ replacement... or an actual real errata delivery system?)
RAI almost certainly points to shortbow meaning both and longbow meaning both.
I would put it this way to the GM "it is 2 extra damage an attack for most characters, 3 at most at level 17. Ranged characters aren't damage powerhouses even with it and favoured weapon abilities seem to grant access to it. As it is unclear I think it would be worth ruling in favour of composite bows"
My approach as a GM is, if RAW/RAI is unclear, rule in favour of the player unless it would create a known imbalance.
The weapon familiarity feats have made me wonder this too but composite bows are identical except for having the propulsive trait and being more expensive so I see no reason to restrict players from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a logical standpoint, being able to properly use a Composite Bow doesn't ask for much more than being able to properly use a Bow (I don't count Strength requirements as low Strength characters will have maluses when using a Composite Bow thanks to the Propulsive trait).
I hardly understand the point of reading the rules in the less logical and player friendly way.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's the ability to use it proficiently. I'd say that's an ability.Even with the CRB's intended casual language I think that might be too casual a reading tbh.
Look at the composite longbow language, then.
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.
The 'favored weapon' ability just grants clerics the trained proficiency rank in their deity's favored weapon. So the text itself gives an example of proficiency being an ability.
The text could be better written, sure, but I think RAI and RAW are that if you can use a bow, then you can use the composite version of that bow.
The 'favored weapon' ability just grants clerics the trained proficiency rank in their deity's favored weapon. So the text itself gives an example of proficiency being an ability.
I think what they are saying is that the favoured weapon ability, is an ability. Where trained status is not usually presented as such.
That is to say that favoured weapon is an ability, favoured weapons being trained is the effect of the ability, but just being trained in shortbows is not an ability.
The CRB uses ability fairly liberally but searching the CRB suggests most uses don't align with treating weapon training itself as an ability (as then everything could essentially be classified as an ability, and it isn't).
As I said before, RAI I believe it is likely intended to make them functionally upgraded shortbows and longbows. RAW it can be read multiple ways because it isn't referring to a specific rules term, and there are rules elements that define them separately for the purposes of gaining proficiency. RAW cannot be said to be definite in this case.
It is like the undead lore argument, the CRB suggests the topic should be "suitably narrow" then gives vampire lore as an example. But in the GM section it suggests an easy adjustment for broadly applicable lores and very easy dc adjustment for more narrow lores. The Lost Omens World Guide also has undead lore mentioned multiple times and the GMG has the monster hunter NPC who has "monster lore".
In addition there is dragon lore, devil lore, demon lore, abyss lore (twofor with demons and daemons as well as creatures like barghests) that aren't exactly narrow or narrower than undead lore.
RAW is unclear, rule to players favour when sensible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is unclear, rule to players favour when sensible.
Initial Proficiencies are listed in the class advancement table of every class.
And leveling up says : "Next, return to your character’s class entry. Increase your character’s total Hit Points by the number indicated for your class. Then, take a look at the class advancement table and find the row for your character’s new level. Your character gains all the abilities listed for that level, including new abilities specific to your class and additional benefits all characters gain as they level up. For example, all characters gain four ability boosts at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter."So, it looks like everything in the class advancement table is abilities (including skill increases and ability boosts) otherwise you wouldn't gain them when leveling. In my opinion, class features are abilities. They use the term ability instead of class features as some abilities (like the ability boosts) are not class-dependent and as such can't be considered class features.
It's not a direct RAW ruling, but I think RAW strongly supports RAI in this case.
He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.
Maybe apply to his Common Sense?
A composite shortbow is, in essence, just a more high-tech version of a regular shortbow, its advanced technology allowing it to make use of an archer's greater strength. That is all. It still very much operates as any shortbow in its basic principle: Convert your muscle strength into kinetic energy to propel a projectile. The composite bow just does it better.
Look at this: https://tinyurl.com/uxy6zx55
It's a lance, and it was used in 1914. It is very much a very long, pointy stick, to be used by a mounted soldier to poke his enemies with. It's advantage over a medieval, wooden variant is that it might actually survive a few pokes without breaking off.
Now the question is: Would a medieval knight, proficient in the weapons of war and the joust also be able to wield this 1914 steel lance proficiently? If not, why not?
Same question applies to the composite shortbow really. Maybe that helps.
He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.Maybe apply to his Common Sense?
A composite shortbow is, in essence, just a more high-tech version of a regular shortbow, its advanced technology allowing it to make use of an archer's greater strength. That is all. It still very much operates as any shortbow in its basic principle: Convert your muscle strength into kinetic energy to propel a projectile. The composite bow just does it better.
Look at this: https://tinyurl.com/uxy6zx55
It's a lance, and it was used in 1914. It is very much a very long, pointy stick, to be used by a mounted soldier to poke his enemies with. It's advantage over a medieval, wooden variant is that it might actually survive a few pokes without breaking off.
Now the question is: Would a medieval knight, proficient in the weapons of war and the joust also be able to wield this 1914 steel lance proficiently? If not, why not?
Same question applies to the composite shortbow really. Maybe that helps.
I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.
But even if RAI should be used then what you're saying wouldn't apply.
1. A composite bow is a martial weapon and needs the wielder to be either proficient in martial weapons or in the specific type of bow. My GM argues that the Shortbow and Composite Shortbow - even while similar - requires two dfferent proficiencies. I disagree, btw., but I'm not the GM.
2. The game already requires you to possess proficiency in every other weapon that you wield - either by group (simple weapons, martial weapons, etc.) or by individual type (like Short Sword and Short Bow - not just any sword or bow).
So I need official clear ruling on this. Like an official generated character - a rogue preferably - that is equipped with a Composite Shortbow.
I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.
I love this sentence. If I have the choice between a sensible rule and an illogical one, I'll choose the illogical one as RAW is specifically designed to screw the gaming experience.
And then, I'll proudly tell everyone that I play RAW, as if others were playing something else (if you know where to find RANW, I'm interested).Everyone plays RAW, otherwise they play another game.
And common sense has a lot to do with RAW. In general, the rules try to be sensible. That's why you roll a Fortitude save against poison and a Will save against mind affecting spells and not the other way around. Because illogical rules reduce the gaming experience.
So, the only question is: Would you enforce a reading screwing the gaming experience when you have far enough leeway to apply a sensible one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.I love this sentence. If I have the choice between a sensible rule and an illogical one, I'll choose the illogical one as RAW is specifically designed to screw the gaming experience.
And then, I'll proudly tell everyone that I play RAW, as if others were playing something else (if you know where to find RANW, I'm interested).Everyone plays RAW, otherwise they play another game.
And common sense has a lot to do with RAW. In general, the rules try to be sensible. That's why you roll a Fortitude save against poison and a Will save against mind affecting spells and not the other way around. Because illogical rules reduce the gaming experience.So, the only question is: Would you enforce a reading screwing the gaming experience when you have far enough leeway to apply a sensible one?
Why don't you read my OP or alternately my last post completely?
I am NOT the GM! Get it? So my whole point of asking for help is to try to find unobjectionable rules that clarify the matter and which is not based on subjective interpretations.
I present you with the arguments that I'm facing. Not because I am against a sensible ruling but because my GM is playing by the rules as written.
Not everybody is playing with RAW. Somebody is playing with RAI - Rules as Intended. The RAW and RAI terms are very commonly used in this Forum so please - pretty please - stop patronizing me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that the thing written in the Composite Shortbow entry is pretty much RAW.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initial Proficiencies from the CRB explicitly list Training in a given Weapon as an example of "an Ability" that benefits the Character based on it being granted by their Class.
Weapon Prof Training = An Ability
Abilities that name Shortbow or Longbow absolutely apply to the Comp versions of these.
This works based on RAW, RAI, and pretty much every other level. My advice is to try to appeal to your GM to come to review the discussion here, maybe they'll see the proofs and justification we found.
I'd say that the thing written in the Composite Shortbow entry is pretty much RAW.
And I would say that it isn't. Please read my earlier posts to get my points.
Had the text regarding Composite bows been phrased like it was in 1st edition then there wouldn't have been any doubts, but that isn't the case.
'Abilities' is very vaguely defined. Some people in this thread seems to believe that anything written in CRB must be an ability. I strongly disagree. Whatever you possess in the way of proficiencies defines the limits of your weapon skills. Nothing else. And since Rougues are having no proficiency in Martial Weapons or Comp. Shortbow - and since some feats clearly lists normal war bows together with their composite counterparts then it seems clear to me that those weapons are meant to require separate proficiencies.
Unless we get an official ruling from somewhere else than the description of bows.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You won't get an "official ruling" because the rule is clear. Composite shortbows are shortbows unless something says EXPLICITLY that they aren't.
Rogue DOES NOT explicitly exclude composite shortbows, therefore they are included.
Your parsing of the word "ability" and "proficiency" aren't supported by the book as written.
You can disagree as to the interpretation of the words, but that is what the words on the page say.
Remember, it is RAW that if a reading of a rule doesn't make sense or results in a problematic situation, the rule should not be read that way.
You won't get an "official ruling" because the rule is clear. Composite shortbows are shortbows unless something says EXPLICITLY that they aren't.
Rogue DOES NOT explicitly exclude composite shortbows, therefore they are included.
Your parsing of the word "ability" and "proficiency" aren't supported by the book as written.
You can disagree as to the interpretation of the words, but that is what the words on the page say.
Remember, it is RAW that if a reading of a rule doesn't make sense or results in a problematic situation, the rule should not be read that way.
As long as people like my GM reads the rules and interprets these rules in any way other than what you do, then the rules isn't clear at all.
'Abilities' is very vaguely defined.
Whatever you possess in the way of proficiencies defines the limits of your weapon skills.
Feats: "A feat is an ability you can select for your character due to their ancestry, background, class, general training, or skill training." + Weapon Proficiency general feat: "You become trained in all simple weapons." What is the difference between a feat [specifically defined as an ability] and a class granting weapon proficiencies?
"Class Features
Source Core Rulebook pg. 68
This section presents all the abilities the class grants your character." + "Initial Proficiencies": this shows proficiencies in the list of "all the abilities the class grants".
As long as people like my GM reads the rules and interprets these rules in any way other than what you do, then the rules isn't clear at all.
That's doesn't follow logically: there are people today that claim the earth is flat but that doesn't then mean it's not clearly wrong. In any big enough sampling of data, you'll get statistical anomalies but that in no way means the underlying premise isn't sound. I don't think any absolutely clear statement that NONE would dispute is ever possible: as such, it's more a percentage game and how many would reasonably not read it as you want. IMO, a reasonable number of people are reading this rule correctly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it really make any sense? That Paizo would create this rule so that the Rogue (and pretty much only the Rogue) specifically can't use composite shortbows?
Not only that, but not actually explicitly state it anywhere and instead have it be this vague thing you have to infer by parsing the text of Elven Weapon Familiarity, a completely unrelated feat, in a very specific way that allows you to treat "shortbow proficiency" as having two separate meanings depending on where you find it in the book.
This line of logic doesn't follow for me. It's such a stretch, it feels more like your GM just really doesn't want you to be able to use a composite bow and that maybe you're just going to have to be okay with that.
Since you've already said you agree with your GM that the ruling is okay, I'm not sure what else there is to say.
I still believe that the phrasing of the rules regarding composite bows could be better and more precise.
But I also realize that nothing more can be said as of now.
Thanks to you all for taking your time to try to help. And pardon me for sometimes writing in a way that may seem "not cool" or offending. No offence was ever meant.
I still believe that the phrasing of the rules regarding composite bows could be better and more precise.
Well no matter HOW precise a rule is, you'd find someone that wants is more precise so at some point you just have to ask 'is it good enough that the average gamer will figure it out' and I think it's fine: if they are thinking about cleaning up wording, I have about a thousand other places in the rules I'd want them to look at before this.