• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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… 😠”

    • aesopjah@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Regular arrows should be infinite and special arrows limited. I like how they did it in BG3 actuallu

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Thranduil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Droechai@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • sammytheman666@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • Thranduil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.