Thri-kreen dual longbow wielder

[TallerSpine]

Are there any feats or class features that would allow a Thri-kreen to dual wield longbows? Two-weapon fighting does not allow two-handed weapons to be dual wielded. Same goes for Multi-weapon fighting. Do any feats exist for this, or would I have to homebrew something?

[Zombulian]

Are there any feats or class features that would allow a Thri-kreen to dual wield longbows? Two-weapon fighting does not allow two-handed weapons to be dual wielded. Same goes for Multi-weapon fighting. Do any feats exist for this, or would I have to homebrew something?

Multi-weapon fighting plus Oversized TWF should do the trick.

[TallerSpine]

Multi-weapon fighting plus Oversized TWF should do the trick.

While I appreciate the advice, I'm not sure I follow how that would do the trick. Or are you suggesting that as a house rule?

[FaerieGodfather]

I can't think of anything by RAW. Also, as a DM, I wouldn't allow it under any circumstances.

[Uncle Pine]

Nothing in the rules disallow you from dual wielding two-handed weapons except for the normal lack of limbs to hold them. However, you're going to have to eat a -4/-4 penalty as normal for dual wielding with a non-light weapon in your off-hand. The TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079-3-5-The-TWF-OffHandbook) doesn't talk specifically about dual wielding bows, but if you're in need of additional options for your TWF character you should look there.

[InterstellarPro]

Nothing in the rules disallow you from dual wielding two-handed weapons except for the normal lack of limbs to hold them. However, you're going to have to eat a -4/-4 penalty as normal for dual wielding with a non-light weapon in your off-hand. The TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079-3-5-The-TWF-OffHandbook) doesn't talk specifically about dual wielding bows, but if you're in need of additional options for your TWF character you should look there.

Agree with Uncle Pine. There is even the humble Xill who dual wields longbows: Xill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/xill.htm).
The Xill has a BAB of +5, a Dex mod of +3, and Multiweapon Fighting. His bow attacks are +4/+4, implying the -4/-4 penalty that Uncle Pine suggested.

[TallerSpine]

I stand corrected. Thanks

[Darrin]

The TWF/MWF rules don't specify melee, so you can use them with ranged weapons. As far as Thri-Kreen goes... Diopsid might also be an option, if you don't mind the Dex penalty. Oversized TWF won't help, as that only works with one-handed weapons, and longbows require two hands.

To get around the -4/-4 penalty... well, the first thing that comes to mind is to turn yourself into an Arrow Demon (MM3) and get access to Symmetrical Archery (Ex). Easiest way to do this is I think metamorphosis, so maybe consider a Neraph or Savage Progression Tiefling with an Ardent 2 dip to pick that up. Somewhat more complicated would be the Multi-headed template to get Superior Multi-Weapon Fighting. Throw the Insectile template on there for two more longbows if you like.

[Zombulian]

While I appreciate the advice, I'm not sure I follow how that would do the trick. Or are you suggesting that as a house rule?

As others have stated, TWF and Multiweapon fighting say nothing about melee weapons, so they should apply. Oversized was just an extra feat to maybe get some buy-in from your DM if they're uncomfortable with the idea.


I can't think of anything by RAW. Also, as a DM, I wouldn't allow it under any circumstances.

Haha what? Why?

[Flickerdart]

Interestingly, a longbow is not a two-handed weapon, because ranged weapons don't have handedness (just take a look at the table). It merely requires two hands to operate due to its description.

However, you may be better off with four throwing weapons, because it's cooler and they can be Light, thus reducing penalties by 2. You can also benefit from both Rapid Shot and Multi-Weapon Fighting, in addition to throwing 4 per round.

[PacMan2247]

Interestingly, a longbow is not a two-handed weapon, because ranged weapons don't have handedness (just take a look at the table). It merely requires two hands to operate due to its description.

However, you may be better off with four throwing weapons, because it's cooler and they can be Light, thus reducing penalties by 2. You can also benefit from both Rapid Shot and Multi-Weapon Fighting, in addition to throwing 4 per round.

This is a good route, especially if you're a Rogue or something else that can get the bulk of its damage from a source other than the weapon itself.


Also, ranged weapons and TWF are absolutely compatible, per the crossbow descriptions on PHB 115. Longbows and shortbows aren't called out in the same way, but four-armed PC races didn't exist at the time of printing. The arrow demon sets precedent, and it's not a game-breaking thing considering the investment in feats and level adjustment (though it can be horrifically expensive).

[FaerieGodfather]

Haha what? Why?

Because it's ridiculous? Absolutely, beyond the pale, unforgivably stupid?

My general prohibition on (non-thrown) ranged TWF notwithstanding, there's no physical way to hold two longbows vertically without crossing your arms in a way that makes firing them impossible.

If you wanted to aim your longbows horizontally-- which I might almost allow-- well, then, unlike four-armed mammals, the thri-kreen doesn't even have a bellybutton to aim the lower bow with.

It's something I barely tolerate with repeating pistols in modern games because of genre expectations, but trying to apply it to archaic ranged weapons is where I draw the line.

EDIT:


Also, ranged weapons and TWF are absolutely compatible, per the crossbow descriptions on PHB 115. Longbows and shortbows aren't called out in the same way, but four-armed PC races didn't exist at the time of printing. The arrow demon sets precedent, and it's not a game-breaking thing considering the investment in feats and level adjustment (though it can be horrifically expensive).

I will note, however, that I agree with this. It's not broken or overpowered within the context of the rules of the game, and if the image of it doesn't offend you-- which it should-- there's no fairness or pacing reason not to allow it and not to do it. I would suggest that it require an additional feat on top of Two Weapon Fighting, because archery feats are generally based on the idea that a character is only firing one bow.

[PacMan2247]

I will note, however, that I agree with this. It's not broken or overpowered within the context of the rules of the game, and if the image of it doesn't offend you-- which it should-- there's no fairness or pacing reason not to allow it and not to do it. I would suggest that it require an additional feat on top of Two Weapon Fighting, because archery feats are generally based on the idea that a character is only firing one bow.

Agree on the image, disagree on the extra feat; ranged combat and T/MWF are already expensive enough in that regard. A creature that comes by four arms naturally is used to managing those limbs, and would see two-armed creatures as adapting to dealing with fewer limbs, where we see it as adapting to deal with more. It might not even be entirely accurate to say that such a creature would have one dominant hand, since we don't have any way of actually determining that, but that's not really a rabbit hole I want to go down.

[Elkad]

Because it's ridiculous? Absolutely, beyond the pale, unforgivably stupid?

My general prohibition on (non-thrown) ranged TWF notwithstanding, there's no physical way to hold two longbows vertically without crossing your arms in a way that makes firing them impossible.

I can make it work I think. Hard to picture.
You have to make the upper and lower arms different lengths. Not a lot, just a few inches extra humerus on the lower set is enough I think.
Left-lower is actually touching the left-upper as you brace, with the lower limb of the upper bow touching the lower arm at the wrist..
Right-lower reaches around the extended string of the right upper, also thanks to the longer humerus.

So upper arms have the bow closer to your body.
Arrow from the inside/upper bow travels just above your LL wrist.

You'd be slightly off-centerline, but no worse than a female trying to shoot around her secondary sexual characteristics.

[umbergod]

Because it's ridiculous? Absolutely, beyond the pale, unforgivably stupid?

My general prohibition on (non-thrown) ranged TWF notwithstanding, there's no physical way to hold two longbows vertically without crossing your arms in a way that makes firing them impossible.

Thats your reasoning, "unrealistic"? In a game with flying magical reptiles that have elemental breath, where people regularly consort with beings of upper or lower planes, and flying and slinging balls of fire, but a 4 armed mantis person dual wielding bows crosses the realism line for you? Seems like you missed the point of dnd entirely

[Sayt]

Pathfinder has the Bow Nomad Archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo-ranger-archetypes/bow-nomad-kasatha-ranger-archetype/) for the Kasatha, another four-armed race, which is wholly dedicated to Dual bow archery.

It doesn't give reduced penalties, but it does functionally give you two shots per hit on the first attack in a full attack at sixth, then the second and third attacks at 11th and 16th.

[Ashtagon]

I can make it work I think. Hard to picture.
You have to make the upper and lower arms different lengths. Not a lot, just a few inches extra humerus on the lower set is enough I think.
Left-lower is actually touching the left-upper as you brace, with the lower limb of the upper bow touching the lower arm at the wrist..
Right-lower reaches around the extended string of the right upper, also thanks to the longer humerus.

So upper arms have the bow closer to your body.
Arrow from the inside/upper bow travels just above your LL wrist.

You'd be slightly off-centerline, but no worse than a female trying to shoot around her secondary sexual characteristics.

Quite aside from the fact that breasts do not actually get in the way of archery (unless of a size that requires a specialist bra shop), the big problem for me with dual wield archery is that there is no way to aim the secondary bow, because you can't draw a bead between target, reference point on the bow, and your eye.

That's mitigated to an extent with dual wield pistols, because you can at least turn your head or move your neck slightly. But in any configuration in which one bow is above the other, at least one bow will be outside of that possibility.

Aside from the "above and below" configuration (which has the "only one can be aimed" issue), I can't see any way bows could be dual-wielded and not create a "arms don't work that way" issue.

[FaerieGodfather]

Thats your reasoning, "unrealistic"? In a game with flying magical reptiles that have elemental breath, where people regularly consort with beings of upper or lower planes, and flying and slinging balls of fire, but a 4 armed mantis person dual wielding bows crosses the realism line for you? Seems like you missed the point of dnd entirely

Look, I've got no problem with characters, including martials, breaking the laws of physics. Jumping over castle walls, swimming up waterfalls, balancing on clouds-- I love that sort of thing.

But breaking the laws of geometry, yes, breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of versimilitude-- and the only time I want characters in my game to have clipping bugs is when they're rolling Escape Artist to squeeze "through" wall of force. If you don't understand the clear, bright line between the two, you ought to avoid lecturing other people about the "point of D&D".

EDIT: Trying to be a little less hostile.

[Elkad]

I can't see any way bows could be dual-wielded and not create a "arms don't work that way" issue.

Bows are side-by-side with the limbs vertical. You have a reference point for the 2nd bow, even if you don't have the same sight picture. Good enough for snap shooting, same as the bellybutton trick.
Or take alternating shots. Inside shoots, as that hand draws a new arrow, you shift your arms to aim the outside set.


And these aren't humans. Put eyes on eyestalks. Or give him 360 degree shoulder joints and hold one bow "behind" him - then he can just lean his head side to side. Lower shoulder already has to be different (and doesn't need a clavicle), no reason it can't reach every direction too.

[Ashtagon]

Bows are side-by-side with the limbs vertical. You have a reference point for the 2nd bow, even if you don't have the same sight picture. Good enough for snap shooting, same as the bellybutton trick.
Or take alternating shots. Inside shoots, as that hand draws a new arrow, you shift your arms to aim the outside set.


And these aren't humans. Put eyes on eyestalks. Or give him 360 degree shoulder joints and hold one bow "behind" him - then he can just lean his head side to side. Lower shoulder already has to be different (and doesn't need a clavicle), no reason it can't reach every direction too.

If the bows are side by side, then at least when assuming a thri-kreen-like arm arrangement, the arms will interfere with the strings.

[umbergod]

Look, I've got no problem with characters, including martials, breaking the laws of physics. Jumping over castle walls, swimming up waterfalls, balancing on clouds-- I love that sort of thing.

But breaking the laws of geometry, yes, breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of versimilitude-- and the only time I want characters in my game to have clipping bugs is when they're rolling Escape Artist to squeeze "through" wall of force. If you don't understand the clear, bright line between the two, you ought to avoid lecturing other people about the "point of D&D".

EDIT: Trying to be a little less hostile.

Geometry is broken by the upper arms wielding a bow while the lower arms do as well? Not sure I'm following that logic, given how inhumanly thin thr-kreen torsos tend to be depicted.

[TallerSpine]

Look, I've got no problem with characters, including martials, breaking the laws of physics. Jumping over castle walls, swimming up waterfalls, balancing on clouds-- I love that sort of thing.

But breaking the laws of geometry, yes, breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of versimilitude-- and the only time I want characters in my game to have clipping bugs is when they're rolling Escape Artist to squeeze "through" wall of force. If you don't understand the clear, bright line between the two, you ought to avoid lecturing other people about the "point of D&D".

EDIT: Trying to be a little less hostile.

I'm not sure I see your point at all. It seems like you just don't like bows being used differently from how a typical archer would use them. It is like when military members watch gang members fire guns and say that is the stupidest way to fire a gun ever. The gang members hold the gun sideways so that they cannot even use line of sight for aiming. According to geometry, there is simply no way to aim that way. It breaks geometry to think that could ever be effective. But, gang violence and gang-related deaths are all too common. People can train to do things that are not easy to do. Like people can train to paint with their mouth. People can train to paint with their feet. It is mind boggling how they manage to do it, but they do it. And that's reality. That is not even a role-playing game where you have insectoid creatures with extra arms trying to dual wield. Perhaps a thri-kreen bow is shaped differently than a standard bow. I am not a weapons engineer and have no desire to try to build such a bow. But, I bet it would be easy enough for a thri-kreen to design a pair of bows that are specifically designed to be used with four arms. Sure, a two-armed creature may have trouble understanding how it functions, but it makes perfect sense to the four-armed crowd.

[Flickerdart]

But breaking the laws of geometry, yes, breaks my suspension of disbelief.

So you ban Evasion?

[Elkad]

If the bows are side by side, then at least when assuming a thri-kreen-like arm arrangement, the arms will interfere with the strings.

I covered that. Make the lower arms longer than the upper ones. Lower string-hand can't touch the cheek, but other than that it's fine.

[umbergod]

I covered that. Make the lower arms longer than the upper ones. Lower string-hand can't touch the cheek, but other than that it's fine.

I imagine it would be quite akin to teaching yourself to draw and fire without stopping to aim, aka intense hand-eye coordination training, only with 4 hands instead of 2

[SnugUndies]

Quite aside from the fact that breasts do not actually get in the way of archery (unless of a size that requires a specialist bra shop)

Have you not seen much fantasy art? Seems to me that that would be the case more often than not, ha ha. :smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Have you not seen much fantasy art? Seems to me that that would be the case more often than not, ha ha. :smalltongue:

We are not amused.