439
Counting arrows?
(diyrpg.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
439 points (96.2% liked)
RPGMemes
10129 readers
1166 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
DM: "You all get a magic quiver with unlimited arrows. Hurray!"
The one player who spent all their money on fancy arrows of various kinds crumples their character sheet up and tosses it aside
Player: "I don't wanna play anymore... 😠"
Regular arrows should be infinite and special arrows limited. I like how they did it in BG3 actuallu
I haven't played 5E on paper so I was actually wondering if that's how the rules worked or not.
Normally you count them and get half of the shot ones back. It sucks. Thats why almost nobody does it.
Technically no. In reality, yes. Bows require arrows and most spells require a material component. These are never tracked unless it's something special. If a spell costs thousands of gold in material components to cast, it should be required that you actually aquire that component, but otherwise pretty much everyone just assumes that you are prepared with a enough basic materials. The same for arrows and any other basic resources usually. I've never played with a party that tracks food and water, for example. It's just assumed you've come prepared.
I hardly have players even using arrows in our 3.5 games, but I do definitely require the expensive material components (like I know there's a spell that requires a ruby with 100gp or more). Most of them can be acquired easily enough that it doesn't matter (such as sulphur + bat guano) but if it's expensive/rare enough, I'm going to make sure you can actually get them.
My players would just sell it back. I know, I gave them important items and they did that XD
For me it was not being able to cast spell with sword and shield
I started a Pathfinder CRPG a few days ago and one of the classes is specifically designed just to do that. I was tempted to choose it but it had like the highest class difficulty and it's my first time playing so I played it safe and just went with a regular ol' sorcerer.
Its mainly because it makes no logical sense. You van just put the sword in the shield hand then cast the spell it would not even be that hard.
It's almost impossible to do that in a high stress environment without dropping the weapon, and if the shield is a buckler or a viking shield it's completely impossible due to how you hold the shield. In any case you make the shield unfit for blocking while holding the sword.
If you want to throw spells you should do as the romans with a small sword with a scabbard on the sword arm side and sheathe the sword to free the hand
Drop the sword = free action Spell = action Take the sword back = object interaction Voila. You casted a spell with a sword in hand.
Some DMs could be a bit tight and say you need object interaction to touch your focus, but me as a DM a free hand is enough.
While i dont have one of those shields irl I can easily hold 3 swords in one hand so I disagree. Besides if your opponent is just letting you do hand movements eitherway being able to block is irrelevant. Not to mention you can also hold the sword in the palm of the hand by facing the palm uppwards.