3.P: You Know All Those Rapid Achery Feats...

[Rubik]

...such as Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Greater Manyshot, and Shot on the Run?

Yeah, they're totally realistic. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk)

[Platymus Pus]

You're late, also.
There has been some criticism.
It's been called trick shooting, still impressive.
But he isn't actually doing better than the people in DnD.

[Seerow]

*sigh* here we go again.


This started making the rounds a few months ago. It's actually been brought up here about 3 times since. The gist of it boils down to Lars is a pretty standard trickshooter with a flare for the dramatic, but he hasn't actually "rediscovered" anything, and most of his feats are either staged or have their effectiveness exaggerated.

There's a lot of rebuttals out there but the two biggest ones that I remember are:

http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/pulling-a-fast-one-video-critique-of-a-viral-speed-archery-video/

[Jormengand]

This comment basically sums up the whole controversy for me:


It is really disappointing to see one of our country’s greatest archers come in here to harsh on Lars Anderson.

Not all martial archery is the classic long distance volley archery the Welsh longbow is famous for. Lars is showing what can be done with a very different style of bow, a horse bow. Which you, as a very, very experienced archer know.

Lars can’t do what you do at 90 meters – not even remotely, nor does ever claim that ability. And you can’t do what Lars Anderson can do in terms of speed. Not even remotely.

Why don’t we be fair. You can challenge Anderson to a 70 meter Olympic qualifying round – where you will soundly trounce him by a ridiculous amount. And he can challenge you to close quarters speed shooting. Where he will trounce you by a ridiculous amount.

I really don’t get why you can’t respect him for having the skills he does, ones you lack, nor why you feel a need to denigrate him. Surely your confidence in your own abilities isn’t dependent on belittling others. He has his skills, you have yours.

Also, since you “looked extremely closely” then surely you saw the footage where Lars Anderson easily pierced a riveted chain mail hauberk and a gambeson with his light weight bow. Fact is that chain mail is good at preventing cuts, but lousy at preventing punctures from pointy things, especially bodkin point arrows made just for penetrating chain mail.

For you to bring up your professional authority in your post as why we should believe you and then make counterfactual claims, with added hate, is very, very disappointing and, I think, unprofessional. Calling this man “pathetic” when, in fact, he has world record skills, is something I hope you will retract, as your claim speaks more about you than it does Lars Anderson.

[BWR]

This comment basically sums up the whole controversy for me:

*sigh*
As was said last time, most people aren't criticizing him for his skills (exaggerated by film trickery though some of his feats no doubt are), they are criticizing him for his ridiculous claims.

When he can shoot a chicken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g65CTqHL9o), get back to me.

[Killer Angel]

The gist of it boils down to Lars is a pretty standard trickshooter with a flare for the dramatic,

Perfect for D&D! :smallcool:

[Jormengand]

*sigh*
As was said last time, most people aren't criticizing him for his skills (exaggerated by film trickery though some of his feats no doubt are), they are criticizing him for his ridiculous claims.

Then maybe they should make a new thread for it? Given the whole thing about the OP.


When he can shoot a chicken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g65CTqHL9o), get back to me.

When there's a D&D feat (what this thread is in fact about) for that, get back to me.

[Spiryt]

Where he does perform 'Manyshot' BTW?

Out of all those D&D feats, that's really the only one that has serious 'realistic' problem.


All others - people can Shoot on The run, shoot very rapidly, from weird angles etc.


We don't need those movies to know.

Dunno if all this 'new level or archery', 'forgetting the old disinformation' is some advanced narcissism, or simply business strategy?

[Ruethgar]

Dont forget Arrow Swarm, because firing five arrows in 6 seconds is completely reasonable for a level one.

[Psyren]

*sigh*
As was said last time, most people aren't criticizing him for his skills (exaggerated by film trickery though some of his feats no doubt are), they are criticizing him for his ridiculous claims.

When he can shoot a chicken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g65CTqHL9o), get back to me.

This brightened my day :smallbiggrin:

Also, +1.


EDIT to add: I guess what annoys me most about all the fawning over the Lars videos is not that he is capable of doing something that looks cool. Obviously he worked hard at trick shooting and that should be celebrated. But a lot of players posting that video have the ulterior motive of saying "...and therefore, my character should be able to do X!" Yet none of Lars' videos depict any kind of combat situation, or show how many failed takes where he missed there were, or show him shooting at something with more AC than a target dummy or piece of fruit, or dealing with conditions like wind, shooting much beyond the first range increment etc. It's an entertaining spot but there's almost nothing there you can extrapolate to using archery in D&D.

[Ilorin Lorati]

When there's a D&D feat (what this thread is in fact about) for that, get back to me.

If you look carefully, you'll find that all chickens are, in point of fact, heavily specialized arrows that need to be fed and cared for. The fact that they're good for eating is just serendipity.

[elonin]

Does that mean that chicken infested is a part of a viable archer build?

[Zaq]

Does that mean that chicken infested is a part of a viable archer build?

Chicken Infested is a viable part of every build.

[jaydubs]

Yet none of Lars' videos depict any kind of combat situation, or show how many failed takes where he missed there were, or show him shooting at something with more AC than a target dummy or piece of fruit, or dealing with conditions like wind, shooting much beyond the first range increment etc.

Serious question, since I'm not an archery enthusiast. Do we see many videos demonstrating that kind of thing with traditional archery? It seems like it would be too dangerous to dress people up in armor and then fire arrows at them to try to pierce it. Has something like that actually been done?

If so, that sounds incredibly interesting, and I'd love to see it.

If not, then it seems like an unreasonable standard to hold him to.

[Doctor Awkward]

Like others have said, Lars has an impressive set of skills. But calling it any kind of groundbreaking "rediscovery" is extremely sensationalistic.

As an aside: Manyshot is pretty much the only archery feat that has almost no basis in reality.

Occasionally, historical archers would nock a second arrow when they cared more about volume than precision. But doing so cuts the power of each arrow in half, reducing penetration and distance accordingly. You don't need anything beyond simple physics to tell you this. Force = Mass x Acceleration. If the mass goes up but force stays the same, acceleration goes down.

Anything beyond two arrows is pure fiction, since the draw weight required to create the necessary force for penetration is well beyond practical human capacity.

[Arbane]

When he can shoot a chicken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g65CTqHL9o), get back to me.

There's actually a Charm to do that in Exalted: Generalized Ammunition Technique. (It can also be used to shoot shadows, handfuls of dust, or small fires.)



EDIT to add: I guess what annoys me most about all the fawning over the Lars videos is not that he is capable of doing something that looks cool. Obviously he worked hard at trick shooting and that should be celebrated. But a lot of players posting that video have the ulterior motive of saying "...and therefore, my character should be able to do X!" Yet none of Lars' videos depict any kind of combat situation, or show how many failed takes where he missed there were, or show him shooting at something with more AC than a target dummy or piece of fruit, or dealing with conditions like wind, shooting much beyond the first range increment etc. It's an entertaining spot but there's almost nothing there you can extrapolate to using archery in D&D.

Because archers must have realism. Now excuse me, I'm going to watch this wizard shoot down a flying fire-breathing dragon with lightning bolts from their fingertips.

[Seerow]

There's actually a Charm to do that in Exalted: Generalized Ammunition Technique. (It can also be used to shoot shadows, handfuls of dust, or small fires.)



Because archers must have realism. Now excuse me, I'm going to watch this wizard shoot down a flying fire-breathing dragon with lightning bolts from their fingertips.

Yeah I have no problem with players wanting to recreate the stuff in D&D. I've even tossed out a couple homebrew feats in the past to let people match and exceed Lars' firing rates.

My personal issues with it lean more towards the "No seriously, Lars is entertaining but not unique, and is hyping himself up through blatant lies". If Lars stuck to his trick shooting rather than trying to put down every other archer in the world and try to claim he is some brilliant scholar and archaeologist or whatever, I'd find it a lot more palatable.

[Psyren]

Serious question, since I'm not an archery enthusiast. Do we see many videos demonstrating that kind of thing with traditional archery? It seems like it would be too dangerous to dress people up in armor and then fire arrows at them to try to pierce it. Has something like that actually been done?

If so, that sounds incredibly interesting, and I'd love to see it.

If not, then it seems like an unreasonable standard to hold him to.

I'm not holding Lars to anything. My objection is primarily aimed at the folks who keep bringing his trick shots up in a gaming/combat context - i.e. "this guy mastered a bunch of trick shots, therefore my archer character can do X."

Though if I were to critique his video on its own merits, I might start by pointing to something like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4)



Because archers must have realism. Now excuse me, I'm going to watch this wizard shoot down a flying fire-breathing dragon with lightning bolts from their fingertips.

Since fallacies seem to be in vogue, here's Psyren's Fallacy: "Wizards/magic exists, therefore GMs should be okay with every single thing my character feels like doing, rules be damned."

[squiggit]

Because archers must have realism. Now excuse me, I'm going to watch this wizard shoot down a flying fire-breathing dragon with lightning bolts from their fingertips.
Thing is, you don't even have to bring magic into the equation here.

I've never run into anyone shouting "realism" when my tetori wrestles an elephant. Or kills said elephant with a single punch. Or takes a fully loaded revolver to the chest and doesn't even slow down.


"Wizards/magic exists, therefore GMs should be okay with every single thing my character feels like doing, rules be damned."
I don't think it's fallacious to take the position that realism isn't a driving force in a sword and sorcery game, so selectively applying it feels arbitrary and punitive more than meaningful.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's fallacious to take the position that realism isn't a driving force in a sword and sorcery game, so selectively applying it feels arbitrary and punitive more than meaningful.

It's not arbitrary at all. Spellcasters are allowed to break physics in very specific ways and to very specific degrees throughout their careers, barring the odd bit of poorly-edited cheese that lets them break away from that progression earlier than planned. Thus it is indeed quite meaningful that they are allowed to do this and non-spellcasting classes are more limited.

There are other systems where that divide is attenuated (like 4e) or all but removed entirely (like Exalted.) And that variety is a good thing. But not every system should strive to follow those same design principles.

[squiggit]

It's not arbitrary at all. Spellcasters are allowed to break physics in very specific ways and to very specific degrees throughout their careers, barring the odd bit of poorly-edited cheese that lets them break away from that progression earlier than planned. Thus it is indeed quite meaningful that they are allowed to do this and non-spellcasting classes are more limited.
Well, disagree. There's nothing particularly meaningful about just being better.

That's besides the point though, since like I said, realism isn't even applied equally to non-magical stuff. We're here fussing over how many arrows an archer can or cannot shoot 'realistically' while on the other side of things you can make a fighter who can punch out whales and suplex godzilla.

[Psyren]

Well, disagree. There's nothing particularly meaningful about just being better.

That's besides the point though, since like I said, realism isn't even applied equally to non-magical stuff. We're here fussing over how many arrows an archer can or cannot shoot 'realistically' while on the other side of things you can make a fighter who can punch out whales and suplex godzilla.

Sure, but at what level can he do those things, and wearing what gear? I'm all for archers doing supernatural things too - the question is when and how.

[squiggit]

Sure, but at what level can he do those things, and wearing what gear? I'm all for archers doing supernatural things too - the question is when and how.

4-5 for pretty crazy stuff, 8-10 for impossible things. 15+ should start reminding you of previously mentioned exalted (not the really off the wall stuff probably though).

My issue with the realism factor generally tends to be that the progression for normal to superhuman gets applied selectively in ways that kind of feel weird. Said high level fighter can wade through an entire army as a spinning vortex of death and jump off mountains and all that jazz... but still has trouble dealing with opponents that stand ten feet away. Etc.

[Ashtagon]

The one bit that really sticks in my craw most is his claim that conventional archers nock the arrow on the left hand side of the bow staff, whereas he (and supposedly ancient archers) do it on the right side. Doing it the Lars way means you can reload faster and in a single motion. He claims we've all forgotten this.

Except...

When I first joined an archery club, this is the way I instinctively did it. And the instructors also did it that way. This was a couple of decade ago now, so before youtube, and probably before Lars. I was getting rates of fire matching his, although without the parkour stuff thrown in (university regulations forbade that).

His real talent isn't so much archery as publicity and media.

[Psyren]

"Impossible" for who? And I'm not clear on how to define "pretty crazy" either.

Basically my point is that the DM should decide whether a given action feels too outlandish for their campaign - if it feels too incredible or requires suspending too much disbelief, they shouldn't necessarily feel like they are being overly harsh or restrictive by questioning it, even if "wizards exist." Nor should they feel bad that martial classes face more restrictions in this regard, because spellcasting has a progression and drawbacks of its own. The existing first-party martial classes are a baseline most GMs seem to agree on, and ToB/PoW are a reasonable increase to that paradigm for GMs that feel comfortable tackling those. If a given GM wants to make the tweaks to martial classes even further-reaching than that, that is their right, but they shouldn't feel bad for not wanting to go beyond that either, even if it means that by stopping, the martial classes are not as powerful as their spellcasting counterparts.


The one bit that really sticks in my craw most is his claim that conventional archers nock the arrow on the left hand side of the bow staff, whereas he (and supposedly ancient archers) do it on the right side. Doing it the Lars way means you can reload faster and in a single motion. He claims we've all forgotten this.

Except...

When I first joined an archery club, this is the way I instinctively did it. And the instructors also did it that way. This was a couple of decade ago now, so before youtube, and probably before Lars. I was getting rates of fire matching his, although without the parkour stuff thrown in (university regulations forbade that).

His real talent isn't so much archery as publicity and media.

As mentioned in the response video I posted - "archery is about what works." Lars' belief that there is "one true way" that people somehow forgot when guns came around, and that modern archers are all somehow doing it wrong (complete with comically exaggerated Lars-fail clips of him trying to do it the other way, similar to those late-night infomercials where people somehow can't crack eggs or open jars without making a giant mess) are laughable at best. So you're perfectly right to feel skeptical about his claims.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Personally, the worst part about this is the chain mail stuff. Yes he can penetrate the chain mail. Yes he might even penetrate the padding underneath it. But with that kind of low power fast shooting he will be hard pressed to do any kind of debilitating damage. I suppose the point would have to be to get the shafts of his arrows in the way? Or perhaps to get the person to die of an infection much later?

[elonin]

If you are going to worry about arrows penetrating chainmail armor you could bring back the armor vs weapon type modifier list from 2nd edition. This might not be as unrealistic as you think as comparisons were made in midevil tech shows (discovery or history can't remember) in which there are demonstrations of attack abilities. It turned out that it matters what type of arrow head was used, which is a detail that Dnd largely glosses over.


Dnd is a high fantasy game as presented with strange creatures never existed and magic etc, but at the same time physical combat has to comport to real world standards.

[Spiryt]

This comment basically sums up the whole controversy for me:

Can't comment on whole 'pathetic' drama part, but looks at 'factual' side, which is very weird.


Not all martial archery is the classic long distance volley archery the Welsh longbow is famous for. Lars is showing what can be done with a very different style of bow, a horse bow. Which you, as a very, very experienced archer know.


Extremely weird comment suggesting that 'horse bow' is somehow more suitable for such tricks...

Well, I guess that being generally way shorter may help, but other than that I can't see it.

If anything, they may be a bit worse than many selbows, because doing such shootings is much more feasible with light draw bow.

And 'horse bows' generally have problems with efficiency beneath 60 pounds of draw weight.

Basically, ~60 pounds tend to be the point above which gains in efficiency from bow shape start to take over decreases from higher weight of bow arms needed to attain the shape.

At very low weight, some well made selfbows can theoretically be more dynamic than composites.



Also, since you “looked extremely closely” then surely you saw the footage where Lars Anderson easily pierced a riveted chain mail hauberk and a gambeson with his light weight bow. Fact is that chain mail is good at preventing cuts, but lousy at preventing punctures from pointy things, especially bodkin point arrows made just for penetrating chain mail.

Mail being 'lousy' at preventing punctures is another myth that hopefully will die a bit in future.

Mail was very expensive armor, worn by rich combatant for hundreds and hundreds of years all around Europe, Africa and Asia, on battlefield dominated by 'pointy things'. If it wouldn't protect from those, no one would bother.

Good article about basics (http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html)

[NeoPhoenix0]

If you are going to worry about arrows penetrating chainmail armor you could bring back the armor vs weapon type modifier list from 2nd edition. This might not be as unrealistic as you think as comparisons were made in midevil tech shows (discovery or history can't remember) in which there are demonstrations of attack abilities. It turned out that it matters what type of arrow head was used, which is a detail that Dnd largely glosses over.


Dnd is a high fantasy game as presented with strange creatures never existed and magic etc, but at the same time physical combat has to comport to real world standards.

The biggest problem is in a dnd context the damage would be maybe a regular shortbow at half damage to get that kind of rate of fire. No compound bow for strength to damage either. just 1d3 damage per arrow for a medium creature.

If someone brought this up for proof that there character should realistically be able to do that rate of fire or better i would have to put damage caps "because realism. After all you were asking for more realistic archery, right?"

If my players want better archery in dnd i can work with them, just don't bring junk like this up as justification.

[Psyren]

The biggest problem is in a dnd context the damage would be maybe a regular shortbow at half damage to get that kind of rate of fire. No compound bow for strength to damage either. just 1d3 damage per arrow for a medium creature.

If someone brought this up for proof that there character should realistically be able to do that rate of fire or better i would have to put damage caps "because realism. After all you were asking for more realistic archery, right?"

If my players want better archery in dnd i can work with them, just don't bring junk like this up as justification.

+100000, especially your last sentence.

[Arbane]

(Warning: Duck in distress)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/16/article-2629967-1DDBF12C00000578-76_634x393.jpg

You know what's unrealistic? HIT POINTS.

[squiggit]

"Impossible" for who? And I'm not clear on how to define "pretty crazy" either.
Intentionally nebulous because I'm not trying to get into an argument about anything specific.

There was a thread on the paizo forums entitled "Why don't fighters get 'epic' options at high levels" or something like that and Sean Reynolds of all people had some really interesting points on the subject. I can dig up the actual link when I get home this afternoon.


Basically my point is that the DM should decide whether a given action feels too outlandish for their campaign - if it feels too incredible or requires suspending too much disbelief, they shouldn't necessarily feel like they are being overly harsh or restrictive by questioning it, even if "wizards exist." Nor should they feel bad that martial classes face more restrictions in this regard, because spellcasting has a progression and drawbacks of its own. The existing first-party martial classes are a baseline most GMs seem to agree on, and ToB/PoW are a reasonable increase to that paradigm for GMs that feel comfortable tackling those. If a given GM wants to make the tweaks to martial classes even further-reaching than that, that is their right, but they shouldn't feel bad for not wanting to go beyond that either, even if it means that by stopping, the martial classes are not as powerful as their spellcasting counterparts.

Well we're not talking about what anyone's rights are. Certainly a GM can do whatever we please.

My larger point was simply that even when you aren't bringing magic into the equation, there's a lot of fantastical things mid and high level martial characters can accomplish. Deflecting bullets out of mid air, fighting dozens of people simultaneously in a straight fight, base jumping off mountains without gear, skinny dipping in lava, taking a rocket to the face and shrugging it off. These all exist far beyond the scope of what a normal human can do.

But dealing with an enemy standing ten feet away without your combat efficacy being cut by three quarters? Jumping high? Firing a lot of arrows at once? Being deadly with a crossbow (well bolt ace helps that last one, but it's been brought up before and this discussion isn't so much about specifics)? Well that'd just be unrealistic. I find it a bit silly.

[Psyren]

(Warning: Duck in distress)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/16/article-2629967-1DDBF12C00000578-76_634x393.jpg

I fail to see the relevance of this picture at all. If anything, you're supporting the idea of less lethal arrows (and hit points for that matter), not refuting them.



Well we're not talking about what anyone's rights are. Certainly a GM can do whatever we please.

Not exactly. A GM can do anything reasonable, and that makes things slightly more complicated, because different groups have different benchmarks for that sort of thing.



But dealing with an enemy standing ten feet away without your combat efficacy being cut by three quarters? Jumping high? Firing a lot of arrows at once? Being deadly with a crossbow (well bolt ace helps that last one, but it's been brought up before and this discussion isn't so much about specifics)? Well that'd just be unrealistic. I find it a bit silly.

You can do all of those things using the rules as written. Perhaps not all of them at level 1 (well, I guess that depends on how you define terms like "lot of arrows," and "being deadly" etc) but I don't see anything unrealistic/unreasonable in this list.

[nyjastul69]

I'm not holding Lars to anything. My objection is primarily aimed at the folks who keep bringing his trick shots up in a gaming/combat context - i.e. "this guy mastered a bunch of trick shots, therefore my archer character can do X."

Though if I were to critique his video on its own merits, I might start by pointing to something like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4)



Since fallacies seem to be in vogue, here's Psyren's Fallacy: "Wizards/magic exists, therefore GMs should be okay with every single thing my character feels like doing, rules be damned."

Very cool archery link. The narrator claims that archery is the fastest growing sport in the U.S. The narrator never supports this claim. I find it dubious. A quick google search supports that what the narrator claims is not as clear a fact as stated. Maybe all her claims are as dubious. Dunno, don't care. Good stuff though. Thanks.

[Psyren]

Very cool archery link. The narrator claims that archery is the fastest growing sport in the U.S. The narrator never supports this claim. I find it dubious. A quick google search supports that what the narrator claims is not as clear a fact as stated. Maybe all her claims are as dubious. Dunno, don't care. Good stuff though. Thanks.

Your statement relies on at least two fallacies (composition fallacy and ad hominem) rather than attempting to address the actual points the video raised, but you're welcome I suppose.

[nyjastul69]

Your statement relies on at least two fallacies (composition fallacy and ad hominem) rather than attempting to address the actual points the video raised, but you're welcome I suppose.

Wow... so touchy. No offense was meant. Try to untie your knickers, they seem to be in knot. I was being sincere. I apologize.

[Psyren]

Wow... so touchy. No offense was meant. Try to untie your knickers, they seem to be in knot. I was being sincere. I apologize.

Neither was I, I was just pointing out the fallacies in your statement :smalltongue: (And I did so without referring to your knickers, I might add.)

[jaydubs]

After watching that video (which did bring up many good points), I can understand some of the frustration. But most of those points were focused on the historical context (aka that Lars does crappy research, and makes grandiose claims).

I still think the Lars videos are evidence that it's possible to shoot a bow very quickly. I'm sure it's much harder to shoot a powerful bow quickly. But that's why they're Feats. And that's why only leveled characters who invest resources into it can shoot very quickly and powerfully.

So yeah, I'd absolutely deny a player who said their 1st level archer should be able to fire 6 arrows a round, because all historical archers used to be able to do it, and then referenced Lars for it. But it's still good evidence against DMs who want to ban all the rapid archery feats, for some reference to realism.

[nyjastul69]

Neither was I, I was just pointing out the fallacies in your statement :smalltongue: (And I did so without referring to your knickers, I might add.)

Fair enough, point taken. That *was* a bit too uppity.

[Rubik]

After watching that video (which did bring up many good points), I can understand some of the frustration. But most of those points were focused on the historical context (aka that Lars does crappy research, and makes grandiose claims).

I still think the Lars videos are evidence that it's possible to shoot a bow very quickly. I'm sure it's much harder to shoot a powerful bow quickly. But that's why they're Feats. And that's why only leveled characters who invest resources into it can shoot very quickly and powerfully.

So yeah, I'd absolutely deny a player who said their 1st level archer should be able to fire 6 arrows a round, because all historical archers used to be able to do it, and then referenced Lars for it. But it's still good evidence against DMs who want to ban all the rapid archery feats, for some reference to realism.This is basically my stance. I've seen DMs levy serious hate on archers because "You can't do that IRL! It's not realistic!"

Which is incorrect AND stupid. You're playing a fantasy game where unicorns and pegasi prance around, and where people can reverse time and throw fire from their fingertips. You don't get to say something that's entirely possible in the real world is "unrealistic."

I posted this in response to that mindset. AND because he does some amazing shots, and I wanted to share. (So take that, Psyren. I didn't post the thread for the reasons you said I did.)

[Psyren]

This is basically my stance. I've seen DMs levy serious hate on archers because "You can't do that IRL! It's not realistic!"

Which is incorrect AND stupid. You're playing a fantasy game where unicorns and pegasi prance around, and where people can reverse time and throw fire from their fingertips. You don't get to say something that's entirely possible in the real world is "unrealistic."

I posted this in response to that mindset. AND because he does some amazing shots, and I wanted to share. (So take that, Psyren. I didn't post the thread for the reasons you said I did.)

Er, those pretty much ARE exactly the reasons I said. GMs are not "incorrect and stupid" for refusing to take Lars' trick shots as gospel for what is realistic or applicable to combat. And the mere existence of pegasi and spellcasters are not relevant to what an archer can do either; only the techniques (including magic) employed by said archer matter. "Pegasi exist, therefore I can shoot 12 arrows at level 1" is a non sequitur at best.

If you want your archer to do something extraordinary, just be clear what that thing is and let the GM judge it on its own merits. Linking to a video full of very controlled trick shots is not, and should not be, persuasive evidence.

[icefractal]

The main thing that annoys me is that people are looking at a video showing what a lowish level person without superhuman stats or any magic items can do, and then saying that even matching that is excessive for D&D characters that should be significantly exceeding it.

Saying he's not doing as much damage as slower shots would do? Of course. Still enough to penetrate chainmail, but I'm sure it could be more with a full draw. But on the other hand, he doesn't have Str 18+, he's not using a magic bow where even a glancing hit sets people on fire, and he's not somebody who fights trolls single-handed and wins. Whereas even a mid-level D&D character is likely all of those things.

So shooting like this at 1st level? No. By 4th level? Yes. And by 10th level? Way better than this.

[Platymus Pus]

Any DnD archer is better, the range they can shoot at is far beyond anything we can do with bows and even quite a few guns.

[shaikujin]

A level 1 D&D character purpose built for this can actually do what Lars can.

Without spells or magic items either.

[AvatarVecna]

This is basically my stance. I've seen DMs levy serious hate on archers because "You can't do that IRL! It's not realistic!"

Which is incorrect AND stupid. You're playing a fantasy game where unicorns and pegasi prance around, and where people can reverse time and throw fire from their fingertips. You don't get to say something that's entirely possible in the real world is "unrealistic."

I posted this in response to that mindset. AND because he does some amazing shots, and I wanted to share. (So take that, Psyren. I didn't post the thread for the reasons you said I did.)

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly: you started this thread to convince DMs to allow Rapid Shot/Manyshot/similar feats, since they're realistic and not overpowered, and not because you want to be allowed to shoot 10 arrows a round at level 1? Because I can agree with that. Beyond that...

"What's that you say? There's DMs that insist D&D is unrealistic? They say that Fighters can't have nice things? And they weren't even persuaded by a revolutionary internet video?! THOSE SCOUNDRELS!"

Once again, I can agree: some DMs suck, and they want Fighters to suck. But I'm not going to pretend that's anything new, shocking, or exciting.

[atemu1234]

Where he does perform 'Manyshot' BTW?

Out of all those D&D feats, that's really the only one that has serious 'realistic' problem.


All others - people can Shoot on The run, shoot very rapidly, from weird angles etc.


We don't need those movies to know.

Dunno if all this 'new level or archery', 'forgetting the old disinformation' is some advanced narcissism, or simply business strategy?

A little bit of both, to be honest.

Also, Manyshot is theoretically possible. However, the penalty to accuracy is still far, far, far more than D&D makes it out to be.

[Psyren]

So shooting like this at 1st level? No. By 4th level? Yes. And by 10th level? Way better than this.

As platymus and shaikujin said, a D&D archer can outshoot Lars easily, and more importantly do so in an actual combat situation with a fully-drawn bow rather than being limited to half-draw close-range trick shots and sad-clown infomercial "my quiver gets in the way!" comedy routines.

My simple question is this - what do you perceive Lars to be doing that a D&D archer cannot match or exceed at most levels?

For example, the 10 arrows in 4.9 seconds thing from Lars' video, involves him half-drawing his ~35lb draw-weight bow while standing 10-15ft. away from his unarmored target. A level 1 D&D archer shoots fewer arrows than this, but can do so while full-drawing a longbow (80-110lb. draw weight) and does not lose any accuracy up to 10x that range. And a level 6 or 11 archer is starting to get the number of attacks, feats, and magic items to completely blow the sheer numbers of the trick-shooting out of the water entirely, plus being able to pierce much harder targets (plate, scales, carapace etc) from much further away. So tell me again how Lars' shooting is supposed to be better? :smallconfused:


Let me see if I'm understanding correctly: you started this thread to convince DMs to allow Rapid Shot/Manyshot/similar feats, since they're realistic and not overpowered, and not because you want to be allowed to shoot 10 arrows a round at level 1? Because I can agree with that.

Exactly, the tools are already there to do cool things with archery. The video adds nothing unless the GM was throwing archery feats out entirely or something.

[Seerow]

For example, the 10 arrows in 4.9 seconds thing from Lars' video, involves him half-drawing his ~35lb draw-weight bow while standing 10-15ft. away from his unarmored target. A level 1 D&D archer shoots fewer arrows than this, but can do so while full-drawing a longbow (80-110lb. draw weight) and does not lose any accuracy up to 10x that range. And a level 6 or 11 archer is starting to get the number of attacks, feats, and magic items to completely blow the sheer numbers of the trick-shooting out of the water entirely, plus being able to pierce much harder targets (plate, scales, carapace etc) from much further away. So tell me again how Lars' shooting is supposed to be better?


To be fair, hitting 12 arrows shot per round in D&D is very hard to do. I can't even think of a way to pull it off short of magic. I can come up with 7 offhand (using Arrow Swarm from Targeteer Fighter + Rapid Shot, and BAB 16+). I don't blame someone for wanting to be able to double that without buying a Splitting Bow, even if it comes with some damage/accuracy trade offs.


Even something as simple as a Homebrew feat that lets you use Manyshot as every attack action you make, in exchange for giving up any strength bonus to damage and/or reducing range increment would be nice. It lets someone who really wants to match the Lars' speeds by low-mid level, and greatly exceed it at high level, but the cumulative penalties involved make those attacks relatively ineffective against a level appropriate target. On the other hand a single level 20 archer letting out a volley of 64+ arrows (10 per second!) and taking out 64 mooks or hitting 64 close range targets, is totally awesome, even if against foes with level appropriate AC and damage reduction it is a tactic he just won't consider using because that is a waste (of both time and resources) compared to landing smaller number of more powerful/accurate attacks (instead of 64 attacks almost all of which will miss, 12 attacks that are fairly likely to hit, and deal more damage, should come out ahead)

[Psyren]

To be fair, hitting 12 arrows shot per round in D&D is very hard to do. I can't even think of a way to pull it off short of magic. I can come up with 7 offhand (using Arrow Swarm from Targeteer Fighter + Rapid Shot, and BAB 16+). I don't blame someone for wanting to be able to double that without buying a Splitting Bow, even if it comes with some damage/accuracy trade offs.


Even something as simple as a Homebrew feat that lets you use Manyshot as every attack action you make, in exchange for giving up any strength bonus to damage and/or reducing range increment would be nice. It lets someone who really wants to match the Lars' speeds by low-mid level, and greatly exceed it at high level, but the cumulative penalties involved make those attacks relatively ineffective against a level appropriate target. On the other hand a single level 20 archer letting out a volley of 64+ arrows (10 per second!) and taking out 64 mooks or hitting 64 close range targets, is totally awesome, even if against foes with level appropriate AC and damage reduction it is a tactic he just won't consider using because that is a waste (of both time and resources) compared to landing smaller number of more powerful/accurate attacks (instead of 64 attacks almost all of which will miss, 12 attacks that are fairly likely to hit, and deal more damage, should come out ahead)

That's my point though - his arrow output looks impressive until you realize that (a) they wouldn't even fly a single shortbow's range increment and (b) even 15ft. away they are merely getting lodged in mail, not actually piercing it enough to do real damage to the opponent underneath. I don't really think a feat to do that would be worthwhile myself. And Lars himself is not wearing any armor or even a backpack while doing this either (like a low-level D&D character would be), both of which could easily affect his output further.

Put in D&D terms, his 10 arrows are probably doing 1 damage each, he has to stand 10-15ft. away from his target to even hit, and they have a "no damage" clause to sufficiently armored targets, similar to the one on the whip. You could brew a feat to do all that, sure, but I think my archer would skip it even so.

[Flickerdart]

I've mentioned this in a previous Lars thread, but it bears repeating here: there are two ways you can model what Lars does with a first-level guy.

1) Attack rolls != attacks. Anyone can swing a sword more than once per six seconds, but it takes a 6th level character to make two hits per second that count - everything else is fluffed as parrying, feinting, etc. Similarly, you can treat Lars' multi-shots as a single attack, and abstract away "1 arrow in quiver" as a unit of arrows sufficient for the barrage.
2) Perform: Weapon Drill. Lars is not a combat archer; he's putting on a show. It's a very impressive show, and judging by Lars' following he has a very high modifier on his checks, but it's still not the same as a warrior's skill.