Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How Many Quivers?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:25:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi All,
Very simple quick question.

How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?

And where would you put 'em?

Regards,

Blath

More about : quivers

Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:04:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
> Very simple quick question.
>
> How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?

I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
absolutely dedicated archer.

> And where would you put 'em?

Back and hip.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:24:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
> than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
> worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
> absolutely dedicated archer.

To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
three quivers. My positioning is a bit different to yours (One down
either side of Backpack and one on right hip to balance the longsword
on his left hip).

Would this be allowable in your opinion?

Blath
Related resources
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:23:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
> > than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
> > worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
> > absolutely dedicated archer.
>
> To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> three quivers. My positioning is a bit different to yours (One down
> either side of Backpack and one on right hip to balance the longsword
> on his left hip).
>
> Would this be allowable in your opinion?

Yeah, whatever. You say you use three quivers. I say you're not getting
much advantage out of it because very few fights will last for more
than 40 arrows without a spare MEA to move one into a handy position.
You get your "flavor." I lose nothing. Go ahead.

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:41:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
> > than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
> > worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
> > absolutely dedicated archer.
>
> To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> three quivers. My positioning is a bit different to yours (One down
> either side of Backpack and one on right hip to balance the longsword
> on his left hip).
>
> Would this be allowable in your opinion?

I would think the one on the bow side of the backpack would be a bit
awkward to draw from (relative to the other two). I'd probably rule a
slightly reduced rate of fire when drawing from that quiver, but my
initial ruling would be to allow it.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:44:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> > copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
> > > than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
> > > worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
> > > absolutely dedicated archer.
> >
> > To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> > three quivers. My positioning is a bit different to yours (One down
> > either side of Backpack and one on right hip to balance the longsword
> > on his left hip).
> >
> > Would this be allowable in your opinion?
>
> Yeah, whatever. You say you use three quivers. I say you're not getting
> much advantage out of it because very few fights will last for more
> than 40 arrows without a spare MEA to move one into a handy position.
> You get your "flavor." I lose nothing. Go ahead.

The archer may want to use two or three different kinds of arrows.
Rather than mixing them in one quiver (and either risk pulling out the
wrong type or really going slowly), he has a different quiver for each
type.

Now, if it's just to have 60 arrows available, then I agree with you.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124454305.298272.7290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi All,
> > Very simple quick question.
> > How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> > character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?
>
> Why would you assume that the only possible quiver design could contain
> 20?

Because that's what the ones in the PHB carry, also it is how many
check boxes for ammo there are on WotC character sheets that I have
seen that include check boxes for ammo. It's a reasonable assumption
that the game designers intended quivers to hold 20 arrows.

There must be some limit on non-magical quivers else the Quiver of
Ellohona/Efficient Quiver is relatively pointless giving only a
modest savings to weight carried. But AFAIK the gamerules give
no rules for such limits.

Hence a need to do one of:
1) Make a houserule
2) Assume only one quiver of 20 arrows is the rule
3) Allow a non-magical quiver with 1,000+ arrows

(1) is fine. (2) is IMAO clearly overly restrictive and NOT state
in the rules. (3) is bloody silly and stupid.

(1) it is, we need a houserule, would you care to suggest one?

I would allow 24 arrows per quiver on historical precedent.
(Also this allows one "standard" group of 20 arrows plus a few
magical/special arrows.)

I would probably also rule that you can carry as many quivers as
you like, but only one is in an easily accessable location, and
that swapping out quivers is a standard action.

I don't really see this one as important. I've never actually seen
someone run out of arrows in a close range action, only in fights
involving repeated strafing runs by flying opponent's with breath
weapons, and in those fights there is plenty of time to pull extra
arrows out of the bag of holding on "off rounds" where the opponents
were turning at range and waiting for their breath weapons to be
ready. (Sure the PC's could have let loose at that range too, but
losing the opportunity to miss a few times isn't a big cost.)

DougL
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:23:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124457879.461353.178280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> > three quivers.
>
> Translation: "I want to be special!"
>
> <rolls eyes>

Well, umm...Yes... yes I do.

Surely part of creating a character is trying to create one that is
unique and memorable after all.

As far as the 20 arrows per quiver limit, call it a convenience on the
part of the GM (With the added bonus that it makes the Quiver of
Elhonna (sp) more desireable).

Anyway, part of the reason for 3 quivers is that I've worked out that
about 60 Arrows is what this character'd need to have a couple of
fights worth of regular arrows, in case he can't get back to his horse
and re-stock (my GM isn't comfortable with him carrying "spare" quivers
in his pack...doesn't think they'd fit), and a selection of
"speciality" arrows (Mostly from the Races of the Wild book) to use as
needed.

And that got me wondering whether there was any functional limit to the
stock of arrows a character could carry and have available for use...
and that led me to RTFM...
and after I'd RTFM and I'd found out that there were NFR (No Friendly
Rules) that led me to solicit opinion on here.

Working out well so far.

Blath
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:30:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> <aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124454305.298272.7290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> > character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?
> >
> > And where would you put 'em?
>
> Well, I guess that depends on how crazy you want to get. Are we talking
> "practical use" or "matrix style use"? Practically speaking, it would be
> difficult to carry more than about 2 quivers before things get a bit crazy.

Reminds me of characters that carried 20 throwing knives -- are they
weapons or improvised armor?

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:33:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124457879.461353.178280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> > three quivers.
>
> Translation: "I want to be special!"
>
> <rolls eyes>

It's worth reminding the world that Brown is an ass.

However, he usually does the reminding on his own.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
> Very simple quick question.
>
> How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?

Up to their carrying capacity of course.

What? You think a character with 57 quivers full of 57 different kinds
of arrows that he can draw from whenever he wants is unreasonable?

WHY are you trying to GIMP the bowman?!?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124469207.207869.89510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > > Why would you assume that the only possible quiver design could
> contain
> > > 20?
> >
> > Because that's what the ones in the PHB carry, also it is how many
> > check boxes for ammo there are on WotC character sheets that I have
> > seen that include check boxes for ammo. It's a reasonable assumption
> > that the game designers intended quivers to hold 20 arrows.
>
> Oh, please. Just because that's how arrows "come" when purchased doesn't
> mean they have to remain in those containers! Next thing you'll tell me that
> I can only keep the things I buy in their original wrapping.
>
> > There must be some limit on non-magical quivers else the Quiver of
> > Ellohona/Efficient Quiver is relatively pointless giving only a
> > modest savings to weight carried. But AFAIK the gamerules give
> > no rules for such limits.
>
> Nor do they need to.
>
> > Hence a need to do one of:
> > 1) Make a houserule
> > 2) Assume only one quiver of 20 arrows is the rule
> > 3) Allow a non-magical quiver with 1,000+ arrows
>
> <raises hand>
> You just made a blatant logical error.
> Please stop now.

Oh, please point to the excluded alternative. ANY limit is a houserule,

and without any limit there is no limit, hence houserule (1), claim
there is already a rule (2), or claim there is no limit (3).

No limit is no limit. Tautology.

DougL
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
> Very simple quick question.
>
> How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?
>
> And where would you put 'em?
>
> Regards,
>
> Blath
>

Quiver of Elhonna. Absolute necessity for an archer.

The bigger question is: how many quivers can you carry, and what are the
requirements to carry more? That's an unanswered question in the RAW.

As a house rule, I'd limit a character's max accessible quivers to one
quiver per bow feat. So a character would need, at a minimum, two bow
feats before he could use two quivers. (That's not the best rule, but
it's easy to remember and only a dedicated archer.)

Another possibility is to have a primary quiver, and numberous secondary
quivers. Drawing from your primary quiver is a free action. Drawing from
a secondary quiver is a move action. The Quickdraw Ammunition feat would
allow you a second primary quiver.

Whatever you choose, make sure that it plays well in your group.

CH
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:19:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124454305.298272.7290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?
>
> And where would you put 'em?

Well, I guess that depends on how crazy you want to get. Are we talking
"practical use" or "matrix style use"? Practically speaking, it would be
difficult to carry more than about 2 quivers before things get a bit crazy.

But, if you wanted to have some fun, you could just start strapping quivers
to every open space on the body until a person runs out of encumbrance. I
picture 4 on the front, 4 on the back, 2 on each arm, 2 on each leg, and
what the hell, how about the front of a shield having quivers on them too,
what, say, about 3 of them there(note that you'd need to drop the shield to
actually USE the bow, but whatever). Hell, strap a quiver onto your sword
scabbard, that's another one. Then there's the phallic quiver, between your
legs. So, that's what, like 16 quivers or so that you could carry and not
be overloaded, even when the quivers are full(4 pounds for quiver and 20
arrows is what we use for weight on them, so that would be 60 pounds of
arrows and such). That doesn't even begin to talk about doubling up in
certain areas, like multiple layers of quivers on the front and back. Heck,
why not dump the quivers altogether, and just get armor with that florist
spongy stuff all over it, and you can just stick the arrows in your armor
and go for the porcupine look, that would be pretty funny.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:23:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CbnNe.8450$WD.5803@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
> reduced
> > rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>
> Err... why isn't it possible?
> DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
> of 3/1."
> Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...

Goslin, some thing will always be enduring truths of R.G.F.D, and
one of them is that posts from Jeff Goslin and Brandon Cope will
display a quotient of idiocy far exceeding the weekly allotment. Did
you, perhaps, notice that changing from three iterative attacks to two
is a THIRTY THREE PERCENT reduction in attack rate? How about going
from two to one? FIFTY PERCENT.
This is not, by any sensible definition of the term, "slight".

You can only manage "slight" reductions in attack rate by stripping
attacks from characters who have enormous attack rates already, at
which point one has to ask the question - what the hell kind of
"limitation" is that? It *isn't* one for most heroes.

If one truly believes that a hero is fighting in an awkward fashion,
there is a mechanism for handling that - CIRCUMSTANCE PENALTIES. A
stock -2 to full-attacks made with a dorky quiver does all the work
required. Of course, since Cope and Goslin don't know anything about
D&D anymore (being editional dinosaurs), they couldn't have come up
with that solution.

As a hero with big ammunition loads would presumably cycle his
quivers to more appropriate places as the convenient ones are depleted
in order to avoid such difficulties, they would only be pulling their
FORTY FIRST arrow from a "dumb" quiver in the most absurd
circumstances. A low level archer with rapid shot would have to full
attack continuously for 20 rounds. A high level archer with haste &
rapid shot could deplete two quivers in 7 rounds of full attacks ...
but it's a funny campaign indeed that hasn't led to such a hero getting
a magical quiver for himself.

This means that for all practical purposes, thinking about this one
moment more is a complete waste of time. There is no "game balance"
concern here if we just ignore the matter completely, given that
magical quivers are available dirt cheap and haven't broken the game
yet.
Encumbrance handles ammunition loading just fine. So carry a box of
arrows in a pack (or on a mule), and reload a pair of quivers between
battles, until you get a quiver of elhonna.
It's just that easy.

End of discussion.

-Michael
August 19, 2005 7:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 19 Aug 2005 07:44:26 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>Silveraxe wrote:
>> aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > I wouldn't allow more than two (or, rather, the PC *could* have more
>> > > than two but they would prove to be more difficult than they are
>> > > worth.) Three quivers (back and both hips) is remotely plausable for an
>> > > absolutely dedicated archer.
>> >
>> > To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
>> > three quivers. My positioning is a bit different to yours (One down
>> > either side of Backpack and one on right hip to balance the longsword
>> > on his left hip).
>> >
>> > Would this be allowable in your opinion?
>>
>> Yeah, whatever. You say you use three quivers. I say you're not getting
>> much advantage out of it because very few fights will last for more
>> than 40 arrows without a spare MEA to move one into a handy position.
>> You get your "flavor." I lose nothing. Go ahead.
>
>The archer may want to use two or three different kinds of arrows.
>Rather than mixing them in one quiver (and either risk pulling out the
>wrong type or really going slowly), he has a different quiver for each
>type.

In actual practice, he's probably got four or five different kinds of
arrows (magic, silver, cold-iron, exploding, dispelling...) The
abstractions within the system assume he's got an unspoken method for
insuring he grabs the right kind when he needs it regardless of how
many quivers he uses.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:48:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124462499.847844.56520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I would think the one on the bow side of the backpack would be a bit
> awkward to draw from (relative to the other two). I'd probably rule a
> slightly reduced rate of fire when drawing from that quiver, but my
> initial ruling would be to allow it.

It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly" reduced
rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:48:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CbnNe.8450$WD.5803@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
reduced
> rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.

Err... why isn't it possible?
DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
of 3/1."
Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
> >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
> >
> >Err... why isn't it possible?
> >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
> >of 3/1."
> >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>
> You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
> successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
> a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
> +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
> +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
> +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>
> How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?

Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:49:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124476731.331720.104340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>
> Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.

Yeah, what he said...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124454305.298272.7290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
> Very simple quick question.
> How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
> character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?

Why would you assume that the only possible quiver design could contain
20?

-Michael
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:54:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124457879.461353.178280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To put it another way, I have a dedicated archer PC and I want to wear
> three quivers.

Translation: "I want to be special!"

<rolls eyes>

-Michael
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1124482988.340294.89670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Goslin, some thing will always be enduring truths of R.G.F.D, and
> one of them is that posts from Jeff Goslin and Brandon Cope will
> display a quotient of idiocy far exceeding the weekly allotment. Did
> you, perhaps, notice that changing from three iterative attacks to two
> is a THIRTY THREE PERCENT reduction in attack rate? How about going
> from two to one? FIFTY PERCENT.
> This is not, by any sensible definition of the term, "slight".

By 3E rules, the dropping of the final attack *IS* slight. While you get +X
to attack(I'll use the previously provided example of +11/+11/+6/+1), the
chances of that final attack hitting are almost miniscule by weight of
comparison. Assuming an otherwise equal chance of hitting, the +28 combined
total on the other three attacks is GARGANTUAN in comparison to the bonus of
+1 on the final attack. As such, dropping the final attack, in 3E, *IS* a
slight reduction, regardless of the fact that you are dropping a relatively
large percentage of the hit rolls. If you need to hit an AC of 20, your
first two attacks are 55% to hit, your next is 30% to hit, and your final
attack has next to no chance of hitting(5%), assuming no other
bonuses(magic, etc). So, yeah, it *IS* a slight reduction, regardless of
the number of dice rolled. Nice try, though.

> This means that for all practical purposes, thinking about this one
> moment more is a complete waste of time.

Then I shall look forward to you shutting your piehole for once.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:40:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124469207.207869.89510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Why would you assume that the only possible quiver design could
contain
> > 20?
>
> Because that's what the ones in the PHB carry, also it is how many
> check boxes for ammo there are on WotC character sheets that I have
> seen that include check boxes for ammo. It's a reasonable assumption
> that the game designers intended quivers to hold 20 arrows.

Oh, please. Just because that's how arrows "come" when purchased doesn't
mean they have to remain in those containers! Next thing you'll tell me that
I can only keep the things I buy in their original wrapping.

> There must be some limit on non-magical quivers else the Quiver of
> Ellohona/Efficient Quiver is relatively pointless giving only a
> modest savings to weight carried. But AFAIK the gamerules give
> no rules for such limits.

Nor do they need to.

> Hence a need to do one of:
> 1) Make a houserule
> 2) Assume only one quiver of 20 arrows is the rule
> 3) Allow a non-magical quiver with 1,000+ arrows

<raises hand>
You just made a blatant logical error.
Please stop now.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:58:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CbnNe.8450$WD.5803@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
>
> reduced
>
>>rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>
>
> Err... why isn't it possible?
> DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
> of 3/1."
> Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>

That's a bit more than "slightly" if you ask me. Perhaps a penalty to
initiative would be a better solution?
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:41:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>><aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1124454305.298272.7290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>How many Quivers (assuming a quiver contains 20 arrows) can one
>>>character carry and use (ie - get arrows from)?
>>>
>>>And where would you put 'em?
>>
>>Well, I guess that depends on how crazy you want to get. Are we talking
>>"practical use" or "matrix style use"? Practically speaking, it would be
>>difficult to carry more than about 2 quivers before things get a bit crazy.
>
>
> Reminds me of characters that carried 20 throwing knives -- are they
> weapons or improvised armor?

WHY are you trying to GIMP knife throwers?!?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:45:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
>> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>
>Err... why isn't it possible?
>DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
>of 3/1."
>Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...

It's worth reminding the world that...

D&D. 3E or 3.5e. Not "2nd Edition AD&D".

You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
+13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
+11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
+11/+11/+11/+6/+1.

How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?

"-2 to BAB", maybe, but there's absolutely no precedent for reducing
one's effective BAB.

Donald
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:45:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:D e55rd$258u$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
> successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
> a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
> +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
> +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
> +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>
> How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>
> "-2 to BAB", maybe, but there's absolutely no precedent for reducing
> one's effective BAB.

Speaking from admitted ignorance, it seems logical that if one has
difficulty REACHING the arrow to fire, you simply reduce the number of
attacks appropriately. Hence, +13/+8/ no third shot. Or +11/+11/+6 no
fourth shot, etc. I am working under the assumption that the bonuses apply
to successive attacks in a single round.

Since we are JUST talking about RATE of fire, and not effectiveness of
attacks(base attack bonus I assume is analagous somewhat to "to hit bonus"),
it's easy to simply remove one die from the dice rolled. Simply put, you
don't reach the final arrow in time to fire it that round, with no other
effect than to reduce the total number of hit rolls made. It would be as if
you ran out of arrows with one attack still to go in the round(however that
is handled in 3ED&D).

Of course, I'm speaking from admitted ignorance, so feel free to correct any
assumptions I've made.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:32:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

copeab wrote
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
> > >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
> > >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
> > >
> > >Err... why isn't it possible?
> > >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1
instead
> > >of 3/1."
> > >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
> >
> > You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
> > successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
> > a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
> > +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
> > +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
> > +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
> >
> > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>
> Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.

and if he only has one attack?


John
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:32:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:p lrNe.114889$5N3.58721@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>
> and if he only has one attack?

Then there would be no need to carry a thousand arrows.

Or, if he STILL wants to carry a thousand arrows, geez, guy, you're carrying
so many arrows that you are having trouble getting everything situated right
to actually get one ready to fire. Too bad, you get no attacks. Might want
to drop a few quivers or something, you know, make it so that you're not
always fumbling with your porcupine o' arrows thing going on there, I
dunno...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:44:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:
> copeab wrote
> > Donald Tsang wrote:
> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > > >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
> > > >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
> > > >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
> > > >
> > > >Err... why isn't it possible?
> > > >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1
> instead
> > > >of 3/1."
> > > >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
> > >
> > > You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
> > > successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
> > > a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
> > > +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
> > > +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
> > > +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
> > >
> > > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
> >
> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>
> and if he only has one attack?

He still gets that one attack, after everyone else has acted.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:57:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

guppy wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:CbnNe.8450$WD.5803@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
> >
> > reduced
> >
> >>rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
> >
> >
> > Err... why isn't it possible?
> > DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
> > of 3/1."
> > Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
> >
>
> That's a bit more than "slightly" if you ask me. Perhaps a penalty to
> initiative would be a better solution?

It may be.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:17:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iMudnRwgIs3r_pveRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
>>"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> And now you're talking about *four* where you were originally
>>>suggesting going from 3 to two ...
>>
>>Fine, the suggested 3E mechanic for three attacks was, if memory serves
>>+11/+6/+1. 17 to 1. That's what, like a 6% reduction? That's a slight
>>reduction. I'm sorry, you were prattling on about how it was such a huge
>>reduction in effectiveness, I don't quite recall, you were too busy eating
>>your own foot.
>
>
> Goslin, you know you can't full anyone with these ridiculous lies about
> what was posted. Your failure is now complete, on every possible level.

Who's the greater full, the full or the full who fallows him?
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:30:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
>
> > > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
> >
> > and if he only has one attack?
>
> Then there would be no need to carry a thousand arrows.

Unless one is going to be away for a long time.

> Or, if he STILL wants to carry a thousand arrows, geez, guy, you're
carrying
> so many arrows that you are having trouble getting everything situated
right
> to actually get one ready to fire. Too bad, you get no attacks. Might
want
> to drop a few quivers or something, you know, make it so that you're not
> always fumbling with your porcupine o' arrows thing going on there, I
> dunno...

That's hardly "slightly reducing".


John
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:30:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:JbsNe.636735$cg1.454679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" wrote
> > "John Phillips" wrote
> >
> > > > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
> > >
> > > and if he only has one attack?
> >
> > Then there would be no need to carry a thousand arrows.
>
> Unless one is going to be away for a long time.

If one is going to be away for a long time, it's called a horse. Or, if
you're DESPERATELY low on funds after having bought out three towns of all
of their arrows, maybe you can get a pack mule or something. ;) 

> > Or, if he STILL wants to carry a thousand arrows, geez, guy, you're
> carrying
> > so many arrows that you are having trouble getting everything situated
> right
> > to actually get one ready to fire. Too bad, you get no attacks. Might
> want
> > to drop a few quivers or something, you know, make it so that you're not
> > always fumbling with your porcupine o' arrows thing going on there, I
> > dunno...
>
> That's hardly "slightly reducing".

True, but it would teach Mr. Porcupine of Arrows an object lesson in the
harshness of reality, now wouldn't it? ;) 

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:CbnNe.8450$WD.5803@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
>reduced
>> rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>
>Err... why isn't it possible?
>DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
>of 3/1."

Doesn't work because everyone with half a brain has upgraded to 3.x by
now.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, copeab@yahoo.com hastily scrawled:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
>> >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>> >
>> >Err... why isn't it possible?
>> >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1 instead
>> >of 3/1."
>> >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>>
>> You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
>> successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
>> a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
>> +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
>> +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
>> +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>>
>> How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>
>Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.

First of all, that doesn't help when the character would only be
allowed one attack to begin with. Secondly, the standard method of
reducing attacks is to restrict the character to one Standard Action
only, and that reduces them to one attack only.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:p lrNe.114889$5N3.58721@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>>
>> and if he only has one attack?
>
>Then there would be no need to carry a thousand arrows.

Wow! Astoundingly stupid.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:JbsNe.636735$cg1.454679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Jeff Goslin" wrote
>> >
>> > Or, if he STILL wants to carry a thousand arrows, geez, guy, you're carrying
>> > so many arrows that you are having trouble getting everything situated right
>> > to actually get one ready to fire. Too bad, you get no attacks. Might want
>> > to drop a few quivers or something, you know, make it so that you're not
>> > always fumbling with your porcupine o' arrows thing going on there, I
>> > dunno...
>>
>> That's hardly "slightly reducing".
>
>True, but it would teach Mr. Porcupine of Arrows an object lesson in the
>harshness of reality, now wouldn't it? ;) 

Yeah, it'd teach you that in reality Jeff Goslin is a stupid dickhead.
Hopefully for him, he'll find another group to play in.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
>"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1124482988.340294.89670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Goslin, some thing will always be enduring truths of R.G.F.D, and
>> one of them is that posts from Jeff Goslin and Brandon Cope will
>> display a quotient of idiocy far exceeding the weekly allotment. Did
>> you, perhaps, notice that changing from three iterative attacks to two
>> is a THIRTY THREE PERCENT reduction in attack rate? How about going
>> from two to one? FIFTY PERCENT.
>> This is not, by any sensible definition of the term, "slight".
>
>By 3E rules, the dropping of the final attack *IS* slight.

It doesn't become "slight", by *any* stretch of the imagination until
you're talking about a Ftr 13 archer losing 20% of his attacks. And
that's not really all that slight. And as MSB pointed out, at that
point you're talking about someone who can afford to own 61 Quivers of
Elhonna, which allow you to carry 60 arrows in a single quiver. Two
of those carry more arrows than you'd need in almost any adventuring
day.

> While you get +X
>to attack(I'll use the previously provided example of +11/+11/+6/+1), the
>chances of that final attack hitting are almost miniscule by weight of
>comparison. Assuming an otherwise equal chance of hitting, the +28 combined
>total on the other three attacks is GARGANTUAN in comparison to the bonus of
>+1 on the final attack. As such, dropping the final attack, in 3E, *IS* a
>slight reduction, regardless of the fact that you are dropping a relatively
>large percentage of the hit rolls. If you need to hit an AC of 20, your
>first two attacks are 55% to hit, your next is 30% to hit, and your final
>attack has next to no chance of hitting(5%), assuming no other
>bonuses(magic, etc). So, yeah, it *IS* a slight reduction, regardless of
>the number of dice rolled. Nice try, though.

That's a reduction in damage output, not a reduction in RoF. Put your
strawman away.

Besides, there's already precedent for slightly increasing RoF, and
the cost is one Feat and a -2 penalty on all attacks for the round.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com hastily
scrawled:
>Anyway, part of the reason for 3 quivers is that I've worked out that
>about 60 Arrows is what this character'd need to have a couple of
>fights worth of regular arrows,

If you're going through 60 arrows in a couple of fights, you're high
enough level to own several QoE's already. Quitcherbichin, and spend
the gold.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:32:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Clawhound hastily scrawled:
>
>As a house rule, I'd limit a character's max accessible quivers to one
>quiver per bow feat. So a character would need, at a minimum, two bow
>feats before he could use two quivers. (That's not the best rule, but
>it's easy to remember and only a dedicated archer.)

So, a if you don't get a bow feat (whatever that means), you can't use
a quiver?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 3:31:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1124509477.230711.217210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> John Phillips wrote:
>> copeab wrote
>> > Donald Tsang wrote:
>> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> > > >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>> > > >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron.
>> > > >> "Slightly"
>> > > >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D
>> > > >> uses.
>> > > >
>> > > >Err... why isn't it possible?
>> > > >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is
>> > > >2/1
>> instead
>> > > >of 3/1."
>> > > >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>> > >
>> > > You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus.
>> > > Each successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For
>> > > example, a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a
>> > > full attack at +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a
>> > > full attack at +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make
>> > > a full attack at +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>> > >
>> > > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>> >
>> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>>
>> and if he only has one attack?
>
> He still gets that one attack, after everyone else has acted.
>
> Brandon
>

By the rules of 3rd edition D&D, that's retarded. Keep trying.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 3:45:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
>
> > > > > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
> > > >
> > > > and if he only has one attack?
> > >
> > > Then there would be no need to carry a thousand arrows.
> >
> > Unless one is going to be away for a long time.
>
> If one is going to be away for a long time, it's called a horse. Or, if
> you're DESPERATELY low on funds after having bought out three towns of all
> of their arrows, maybe you can get a pack mule or something. ;) 

Underground? The average lifespan of a mule on an extended dungeon crawl is
probably rather short.

> > > Or, if he STILL wants to carry a thousand arrows, geez, guy, you're
> > carrying
> > > so many arrows that you are having trouble getting everything situated
> > right
> > > to actually get one ready to fire. Too bad, you get no attacks.
Might
> > want
> > > to drop a few quivers or something, you know, make it so that you're
not
> > > always fumbling with your porcupine o' arrows thing going on there, I
> > > dunno...
> >
> > That's hardly "slightly reducing".
>
> True, but it would teach Mr. Porcupine of Arrows an object lesson in the
> harshness of reality, now wouldn't it? ;) 

Reality is being able to carry more than 20 arrows in a quiver.


John
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:25:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124510223.462469.285710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > That's a bit more than "slightly" if you ask me. Perhaps a penalty to
> > > initiative would be a better solution?
> >
> > It may be.
>
> Not in 3rdEd's initiative system it isn't.

Then that's a problem with the rules.

Brandon
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:27:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124509477.230711.217210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > and if he only has one attack?
> >
> > He still gets that one attack, after everyone else has acted.
>
> Your ignorance is showing again, bitch.

Not my fault the 3.x rules are less versatile than 1e or 2e.

Brandon
August 20, 2005 5:54:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 19 Aug 2005 20:44:37 -0700, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>John Phillips wrote:
>> copeab wrote
>> > Donald Tsang wrote:
>> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> > > >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>> > > >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron. "Slightly"
>> > > >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D uses.
>> > > >
>> > > >Err... why isn't it possible?
>> > > >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is 2/1
>> instead
>> > > >of 3/1."
>> > > >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>> > >
>> > > You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus. Each
>> > > successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For example,
>> > > a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a full attack at
>> > > +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a full attack at
>> > > +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make a full attack at
>> > > +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>> > >
>> > > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>> >
>> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>>
>> and if he only has one attack?
>
>He still gets that one attack, after everyone else has acted.

Because, past the first round, initiative is oh so important...
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:23:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"guppy" <guppy@spam.la> wrote in message
news:qwvNe.20885$Ie.1205@lakeread03...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Goslin, you know you can't full anyone with these ridiculous lies
about
> > what was posted. Your failure is now complete, on every possible level.
>
> Who's the greater full, the full or the full who fallows him?

All right. I'm utterly perplexed at how the hell that brain fart got
into the system.
How fullish.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:42:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1124522721.472294.189000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1124510223.462469.285710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > That's a bit more than "slightly" if you ask me. Perhaps a
>> > > penalty to initiative would be a better solution?
>> >
>> > It may be.
>>
>> Not in 3rdEd's initiative system it isn't.
>
> Then that's a problem with the rules.

That it does away with arbitrary divisions from one round to the next? That
it does away with reshuffling initiative order once everyone's had one go?
You silly bugger.
August 20, 2005 8:22:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1124509477.230711.217210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> John Phillips wrote:
>> copeab wrote
>> > Donald Tsang wrote:
>> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> > > >"Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>> > > >> It's worth reminding the world that Cope is a moron.
>> > > >> "Slightly"
>> > > >> reduced rate of fire isn't possible in the resolution D&D
>> > > >> uses.
>> > > >
>> > > >Err... why isn't it possible?
>> > > >DM: "Since you're drawing from an awkward quiver, your ROF is
>> > > >2/1
>> instead
>> > > >of 3/1."
>> > > >Seems pretty easy to accomplish to me...
>> > >
>> > > You gain iterative attacks according to your Base Attack Bonus.
>> > > Each successfive attack is at another -5 from the previous. For
>> > > example, a 13th level Fighter has a BAB of +13, granting him a
>> > > full attack at +13/+8/+3. If he has Rapid Shot, he can make a
>> > > full attack at +11/+11/+6/+1. With a bow "of Speed", he can make
>> > > a full attack at +11/+11/+11/+6/+1.
>> > >
>> > > How would you propose "slightly reducing" this rate?
>> >
>> > Drop the last attack the character would otherwise be allowed.
>>
>> and if he only has one attack?
>
> He still gets that one attack, after everyone else has acted.

Why change the initiative around so? Delay and ready actions which
change the initiative order are intentional acts by characters. Fiddling
with an awkward quiver should be modeled with a negative penalty
modifier to attack rolls, if you feel it is necessary. Being entangled
in a *net* gives a -2 penalty to attack rolls, that's more awkward than
reaching for an oddly positioned arrow.
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!