Sundering ranged weapons

[Guest]

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

A few sessions ago, the party's ranger had his composite longbow (Str
+2) sundered by an enemy warrior wielding /Shatterspike/. I wasn't
really sure how to handle the opposed attack roll, though. It doesn't
make sense to have the defender make his roll as though he were *firing*
his bow, but the rules don't really seem to mention this situation.

I ended up letting him use his normal attack modifiers, to be generous
(he still ended up losing). But I'm thinking it might be more sane to
treat it as an improvised club of some sort -- -4 to hit, normal melee
modifiers apply. What do you think?

On a related note, the player argued that composite bows should be
significantly harder to sunder than other bows, due to the details of
their construction and materials; since the book only has one entry for
projectile weapon hardness and HP -- 5 and 5 respectively, IIRC -- I
just used those anyway. Any thoughts on different values for composite
bows?

Thanks,

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green wrote:
> A few sessions ago, the party's ranger had his composite longbow (Str
> +2) sundered by an enemy warrior wielding /Shatterspike/. I wasn't
> really sure how to handle the opposed attack roll, though. It doesn't
> make sense to have the defender make his roll as though he were *firing*
> his bow, but the rules don't really seem to mention this situation.

You could either treat it as an improvised weapon (as you mention below)
or use the rules for carried objects, where you don't use opposed attack
rolls.

> I ended up letting him use his normal attack modifiers, to be generous
> (he still ended up losing). But I'm thinking it might be more sane to
> treat it as an improvised club of some sort -- -4 to hit, normal melee
> modifiers apply. What do you think?

The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
with such a weapon normally. Here's just the segment that addresses
this, from pp 41-42:

"Normally you need to make an opposed
attack roll to strike a foe’s weapon or shield, but if the item
you’re striking is not a melee weapon or a shield, just use the
rules for striking a held, carried, or worn object (pages 135 and
136 in the Player’s Handbook). Again, you’d normally trigger
an attack of opportunity for striking the foe’s equipment, but a
foe armed with a ranged weapon doesn’t threaten you.
This can be a very effective tactic against opponents armed
with bows. A longbow, composite longbow, or heavy crossbow
has an Armor Class of 14 (base 10, –1 for size, +5 for being a
held object) plus the wielder’s Dexterity bonus and whatever
deflection bonus the wielder might have, which makes it a
fairly easy target. A shortbow, short composite bow, light
crossbow, or repeating crossbow has an Armor Class of 15,
which is same as a longbow, but they have no size adjustment
because these weapons are Medium-size. Bows have hardness
5 and 2 hit points (just like spears), crossbows are tougher
(hardness 10, 5 hit points)."

Obviously, for 3.5 change the page reference to 158 of the PHB and
make the appropriate changes for weapon size, hardness, etc.

> On a related note, the player argued that composite bows should be
> significantly harder to sunder than other bows, due to the details of
> their construction and materials; since the book only has one entry for
> projectile weapon hardness and HP -- 5 and 5 respectively, IIRC -- I
> just used those anyway. Any thoughts on different values for composite
> bows?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Will

Sure, why not. Give 'em +2 HP and don't worry about it.

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> A few sessions ago, the party's ranger had his composite longbow (Str
> +2) sundered by an enemy warrior wielding /Shatterspike/. I wasn't
> really sure how to handle the opposed attack roll, though. It doesn't
> make sense to have the defender make his roll as though he were
> *firing* his bow, but the rules don't really seem to mention this
> situation.
>
> I ended up letting him use his normal attack modifiers, to be generous
> (he still ended up losing). But I'm thinking it might be more sane to
> treat it as an improvised club of some sort -- -4 to hit, normal melee
> modifiers apply. What do you think?

Resisting a sunder attack? Give him full bonus, even including his Dex
bonus. Unlike melee weapons, ranged weapons you don't try to use 'with
strength' -- in defending against a sunder you'd try to move it aside,
slide the blow, etc., *not* beat it off.

> On a related note, the player argued that composite bows should be
> significantly harder to sunder than other bows, due to the details of
> their construction and materials; since the book only has one entry
> for projectile weapon hardness and HP -- 5 and 5 respectively, IIRC --
> I just used those anyway. Any thoughts on different values for
> composite bows?

That composite bows be harder to sunder doesn't really hold. They are
stronger *for archery purposes* than self bows, but also more complex in
construction. Bear in mind that 'sundered' doesn't *necessarily* mean
'broken in two', it can also be 'rendered useless'. Given how they are
constructed, there are probably easier or better ways to ruin a
composite bow than a self bow.

Since I'm a lazy sod, I'd just equate the two in terms of hardness and
hit points and leave it at that.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

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

Keith Davies wrote:
>
> Resisting a sunder attack? Give him full bonus, even including his Dex
> bonus. Unlike melee weapons, ranged weapons you don't try to use 'with
> strength' -- in defending against a sunder you'd try to move it aside,
> slide the blow, etc., *not* beat it off.

Eh, good enough for me. I'm fine with any answer that ends up as "I did
it right anyway."

Thanks,

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

Some Guy wrote:
> The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
> AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
> with such a weapon normally.

Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?

 

[Spinner]

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

>> The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>> AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>> with such a weapon normally.
>
> Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>
I'd think so. And of course if you can, then you ought to be able to make
an opposed roll to avoid a sunder rather than treating it as a "carried
object". This makes a HUGE difference at high level especially where
hitting AC 15 (+Dex+Deflection) is trivial and winning an opposed roll
against an enemy archer is hard.


Spinner

 

[Guest]

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

<alordofchaos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some Guy wrote:
>> The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>> AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>> with such a weapon normally.

That's why Monk-Archers rule (for the slow, they threaten the spaces around
them even when their hands are full... think feet, elbows, etc).


>Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?

Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.
I believe the "elven bow" (Races of the Wild?) is specifically designed
for this.


Donald

 

[Guest]

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

Donald Tsang wrote:
> <alordofchaos@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>
> Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.

IOW, "No." At least not spur of the moment, the character would have
had to shift grips before the sunder attack and already be using the
bow as an improvised weapon to threaten and gain an AoO

Makes sense. Avoids the whole, "I'm using the bow as a missile weapon
_and_ threatening with it as an improvised weapon" schtick.

I think I'll house-rule it to apply the "drawing weapons" rules - MEA
unless BAB>0, then can be combined with a move (either drawing or
shifting grip to use as an improvised weapon).

 

[Guest]

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

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > <alordofchaos@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
> >
> > Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.
>
> IOW, "No." At least not spur of the moment, the character would have
> had to shift grips before the sunder attack and already be using the
> bow as an improvised weapon to threaten and gain an AoO

I disagree. Shifting grips to switch from wielding a weapon in one hand
to wielding it in two (or vice versa) is a free action. I fail to see
why this type of "grip shifting" should take any more time.

> Makes sense. Avoids the whole, "I'm using the bow as a missile weapon
> _and_ threatening with it as an improvised weapon" schtick.

What's wrong with that schtick? There's plenty of precedence for it in
fantasy novels and movies.

> I think I'll house-rule it to apply the "drawing weapons" rules - MEA
> unless BAB>0, then can be combined with a move (either drawing or
> shifting grip to use as an improvised weapon).

Holding a weapon differently should take far less time and effort than
drawing it.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

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

Donald Tsang wrote:

> Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.
> I believe the "elven bow" (Races of the Wild?) is specifically designed
> for this.

"Elvencraft" costs 300 GP and means that your bow is also a club (if a
shortbow) or a quarterstaff (if a longbow). You *do* threaten an area
and switching between functions is free.

The problem I'm having now is that I've done it to a MW Composite
longbow and am having trouble working out whether the "staff" element
is also Masterwork, or not.

The entry states that, for the purposes of enchantment the "Bow" and
"Quarterstaff" are treated as separate weapons and in the general rules
each end of a quarterstaff is also considered a separate weapon (it
costs 600gp to MW a quarterstaff for example). So we are going with
"not" for now (annoying, because that means I cannot get the
"quarterstaff" part enchanted at all in the future).

Blath

Blath

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Aug 2005 06:00:51 -0700, alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:

>Some Guy wrote:
>> The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>> AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>> with such a weapon normally.
>
>Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?

If you did, I'd have the bow automatically broken anyway. Bows aren't
clubs.

 

[Guest]

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

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>>AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>>with such a weapon normally.
>
>
> Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>

Not in the case originally presented, because that would allow the
bow-wielder to take an action outside his turn. If you're firing a bow
you don't threaten an area so you can't take an AOO with it.

Now, of course, there are ways in which you can wield a bow and still
threaten an area (monk, armor spikes, etc.) but none of those allow you
to switch uses when it's not your turn.

On your turn you could change to using a bow as an improvised weapon if
you wish or must, of course, but that also doesn't apply to someone
making a sunder attempt on their turn against your bow when it's not
being so used.

 

[Guest]

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

Spinner wrote:
>>>The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>>>AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>>>with such a weapon normally.
>>
>>Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>>
>
> I'd think so. And of course if you can, then you ought to be able to make
> an opposed roll to avoid a sunder rather than treating it as a "carried
> object". This makes a HUGE difference at high level especially where
> hitting AC 15 (+Dex+Deflection) is trivial and winning an opposed roll
> against an enemy archer is hard.
>
>
> Spinner
>
>

Why would you allow a character who didn't threaten an area on his turn
to suddenly do so when it's not his turn?

 

[Guest]

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

Donald Tsang wrote:
> <alordofchaos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>>The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>>>AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>>>with such a weapon normally.
>
>
> That's why Monk-Archers rule (for the slow, they threaten the spaces around
> them even when their hands are full... think feet, elbows, etc).

Armor spikes, too.

>>Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>
>
> Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.

Which you can't do outside your turn.


> I believe the "elven bow" (Races of the Wild?) is specifically designed
> for this.
>
>
> Donald

 

[Guest]

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

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>>><alordofchaos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could you use the bow as an "improvised weapon" to gain an AoO?
>>>
>>>Uhh. Personally, I'd force you to "shift grips"... probably a MEA.
>>
>>IOW, "No." At least not spur of the moment, the character would have
>>had to shift grips before the sunder attack and already be using the
>>bow as an improvised weapon to threaten and gain an AoO
>
>
> I disagree. Shifting grips to switch from wielding a weapon in one hand
> to wielding it in two (or vice versa) is a free action. I fail to see
> why this type of "grip shifting" should take any more time.

It's a move action, actually, and you'd have to take it at the end of
your previous turn. From the FAQ:

"My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar
to cast spells. Is he right?"

"Yes and no. To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component,
you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (Player’s
Handbook, page 140) A cleric (or any caster, for that matter)
who holds a weapon in one hand and wears a heavy shield on
the other arm doesn’t have a hand free to cast a spell with a
somatic component (which includes most spells in the game).
To cast such a spell, the character must either drop or sheathe
his weapon.
Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or
light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one
hand free for spellcasting, and you don’t even lose the
buckler’s shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The
light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but
since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light
shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a
hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held
in the same hand as your shield, of course.) *The rules don’t
state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the
equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t
provoke attacks of opportunity)."* [Emphasis added.]

As well as:

"In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching
weapons from one hand to the other should take a move
action. My group and I thought that seemed pretty long,
since it’s only a free action to drop something. Why can’t
you just drop it into your other hand?"

"It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to
another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a
weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground,
with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands.
Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more
complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching
hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon
from the other and at most it involves using both hands together
in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like
drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply
drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it
doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action."

>>Makes sense. Avoids the whole, "I'm using the bow as a missile weapon
>>_and_ threatening with it as an improvised weapon" schtick.
>
>
> What's wrong with that schtick? There's plenty of precedence for it in
> fantasy novels and movies.

So make a feat that allows it. It shouldn't be a standard combat option
or else there's no consequence for firing a bow in a threatened area.

>>I think I'll house-rule it to apply the "drawing weapons" rules - MEA
>>unless BAB>0, then can be combined with a move (either drawing or
>>shifting grip to use as an improvised weapon).
>
>
> Holding a weapon differently should take far less time and effort than
> drawing it.
>
> Laszlo

Wrong.

 

[Guest]

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

> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>The 3.0 FAQ seems to agree with me, too. It points out that there's no
>>AOO when you're sundering a bow because you don't threaten an area
>>with such a weapon normally.

I should probably throw in this bit from the 3.0 FAQ as well, just for
completeness. It says that switching from a 2-handed to a 1-handed grip
is a free action, but you *still* can't do it outside your own turn:

"Suppose Gruntharg the barbarian carries a longspear
and wears spiked gauntlets. He has a throwing axe at his
belt. He encounters two orcs 60 feet away and wins
initiative. For his action, Gruntharg draws the axe and
moves and also readies an action to throw the axe at any
orc that comes within 15 feet. The orcs charge. As soon as
the first orc gets within 15 feet, Gruntharg throws the axe
and kills that orc. After throwing the axe, is Gruntharg
assumed to be carrying and wielding the longspear in both
hands? Thus, does he get an attack of opportunity as the
surviving orc passes from 10 feet away from him to 5 feet
away? (Gruntharg does not possess the Monkey Grip feat
from Sword and Fist.) If not, what are the rules for going
from a one-handed (or carrying) grip to a two-handed grip
for a weapon, and what kind of action is it to change this
grip? Now suppose Gruntharg has the longspear in both
hands when a spellcaster 5 feet away from him starts
casting a spell. The longspear does not threaten the
spellcaster because it’s a reach weapon and the spellcaster
is too close. Can Gruntharg just let go of the longspear and
smack the spellcaster with his spiked gauntlet? What kind
of action is it to let go of a two-handed weapon with only
one hand?"

"Gruntharg’s action in the first example (throwing the readied
axe) is possible. Presumably, Gruntharg holds the longspear in
one hand, perhaps letting the shaft rest on his shoulder, or
perhaps just letting the butt drag on the ground. This
arrangement leaves one hand free to draw the throwing axe
while moving, which Gruntharg can manage because he has at
least a +1 base attack bonus. (Even a 1st-level barbarian has a
+1 base attack bonus.) As a general rule, if you’re big enough
to wield a weapon in two hands, you can just carry it
(somehow) with one hand.
The second example (an attack of opportunity against the
second orc) is not possible. Holding a two-handed weapon is
not the same as wielding the weapon. If Gruntharg wants to use
that longspear he has been holding on his shoulder or dragging
on the ground, he has to get his free hand on it. This maneuver
is similar to drawing the weapon, but a little easier, since
Gruntharg already has one hand on it. Therefore, it’s a free
action. But Gruntharg can do this only during his own turn, and
in any case, he does not threaten an area with the longspear
when he’s holding it in only one hand.
The third example (smacking the spellcaster with the
gauntlet) is not possible as described. A spiked gauntlet is a
melee weapon, and Gruntharg threatens the area around him
with it, but only when he has that hand free. In the example,
Gruntharg is holding the longspear with that hand, not wielding
the gauntlet. He could indeed just let go of the longspear with
one hand; this maneuver is the equivalent of dropping the
weapon, even though he is still holding onto it with the other
hand. Dropping a weapon is a free action, but you can use free
actions only on your own turn. Gruntharg could shift the spear
to one hand as a free action at the end of his turn, leaving one
hand free to threaten the area around him with the spiked
gauntlet, but then he would not threaten any area with the
longspear."

 

[Guest]

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

"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
news:nG8Oe.491$mH.8@fed1read07...
> "It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to
> another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a
> weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground,
> with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands.
> Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more
> complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching
> hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon
> from the other and at most it involves using both hands together
> in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like
> drawing a weapon, which is a move action.

This is an idiotic assertion.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green wrote:
> A few sessions ago, the party's ranger had his composite longbow (Str
> +2) sundered by an enemy warrior wielding /Shatterspike/. I wasn't
> really sure how to handle the opposed attack roll, though. It doesn't
> make sense to have the defender make his roll as though he were
> *firing* his bow, but the rules don't really seem to mention this
> situation.

In our game, we assume that archers train defensively with their
weapons, just as melee warriors do. If you're proficient with a weapon,
that includes defense against sundering and disarming, not just
proficiency with attacks. Furthermore, archers receive the same +4 bonus
versus disarming as a character wielding a two-handed weapon. Otherwise,
I think archers are too vulnerable to melee attacks; the AOO rules
penalize them enough already.

> I ended up letting him use his normal attack modifiers, to be generous
> (he still ended up losing). But I'm thinking it might be more sane to
> treat it as an improvised club of some sort -- -4 to hit, normal melee
> modifiers apply. What do you think?

I disagree. A trained archer knows how to handle his weapon in general,
not just when firing it.

> On a related note, the player argued that composite bows should be
> significantly harder to sunder than other bows, due to the details of
> their construction and materials; since the book only has one entry
> for projectile weapon hardness and HP -- 5 and 5 respectively, IIRC --
> I just used those anyway. Any thoughts on different values for
> composite bows?

I don't know whether it makes a difference at all, and I certainly doubt
that it makes enough of a difference to justify extra hardness or hp.
After all, there isn't a big difference between wood and steel, so why
should there be a big difference between a self bow and a composite bow?
(And frankly, my intuition suggests that a composite bow would be more
vulnerable, not less. I'd ask for evidence before even considering a
change. And even then, I just don't see it as worth the effort.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

[snip]

Thanks, Bradd. Good to see you back, BTW!

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green wrote:
> Good to see you back, BTW!

Thanks! I know I'll regret it later, though!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrndgmnoc.al7.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> In our game, we assume that archers train defensively with their
> weapons, just as melee warriors do. If you're proficient with a weapon,
> that includes defense against sundering and disarming, not just
> proficiency with attacks. Furthermore, archers receive the same +4 bonus
> versus disarming as a character wielding a two-handed weapon.

Even though the bow is not held in two hands.
Absurd.

> Otherwise, I think archers are too vulnerable to melee attacks; the AOO
rules
> penalize them enough already.

The same ruleset allows the 5' step to avoid all the AoO. I don't think
your assessment is very reasonable; in fact, the rules are too generous to
archers by far.

> > I ended up letting him use his normal attack modifiers, to be generous
> > (he still ended up losing). But I'm thinking it might be more sane to
> > treat it as an improvised club of some sort -- -4 to hit, normal melee
> > modifiers apply. What do you think?
>
> I disagree. A trained archer knows how to handle his weapon in general,
> not just when firing it.

Because the "general" use of a bow is in melee... there's some bad
logic, here. You need a different rationale. Conveniently, I think it's
reasonable to argue that *anything* held in your hand (that is easily
manipulated) should be attacked via a contest of combat skill (using dex or
strength as befits the scenario) .

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> In our game, we assume that archers train defensively with their
>> weapons, just as melee warriors do. If you're proficient with a weapon,
>> that includes defense against sundering and disarming, not just
>> proficiency with attacks. Furthermore, archers receive the same +4 bonus
>> versus disarming as a character wielding a two-handed weapon.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Even though the bow is not held in two hands. Absurd.

What crack have you been smoking? Every bow or crossbow I've ever used
required two hands to wield.

>> Otherwise, I think archers are too vulnerable to melee attacks; the
>> AOO rules penalize them enough already.

> The same ruleset allows the 5' step to avoid all the AoO.

If you have room, which I know from experience is not always the case.
Also, the same rules forbid the archer from making AOOs himself -- quite
relevant when you're talking about grapples, disarms, and similar
special combat actions.

> I don't think your assessment is very reasonable; in fact, the rules
> are too generous to archers by far.

Riiight. My archer PC has Tumble and Quick Draw for a reason, and it's
not because the "rules are too generous."

>> I disagree. A trained archer knows how to handle his weapon in
>> general, not just when firing it.

> Because the "general" use of a bow is in melee... there's some bad
> logic, here.

Using the weapon "in general" does not mean the same thing as the
"general use" of the weapon, dumbass. Irony from the guy who likes to
whine about equivocation. Bad logic, indeed.

> Conveniently, I think it's reasonable to argue that *anything* held in
> your hand (that is easily manipulated) should be attacked via a
> contest of combat skill (using dex or strength as befits the
> scenario).

Which was never in question! Just whether a non-proficiency penalty
should apply, which is ludicrous when you're talking about a weapon
you're proficient with, even if the circumstances are a bit unusual.

What, did you get even more stupid while I was away?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[KAOS]

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:44:17 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>Bradd wrote:
>> I don't think your assessment is very reasonable; in fact, the rules
>> are too generous to archers by far.
>
>Riiight. My archer PC has Tumble and Quick Draw for a reason, and it's
>not because the "rules are too generous."

Too generous by play standards, or 'realism' standards?

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Riiight. My archer PC has Tumble and Quick Draw for a reason, and
>> it's not because the "rules are too generous."

Kaos wrote:
> Too generous by play standards, or 'realism' standards?

By play standards, at least. I suspect that they're harsh enough for
realism too, but I don't really know the subject well enough to say with
any certainty.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> Because the "general" use of a bow is in melee... there's some bad
> logic, here. You need a different rationale. Conveniently, I think it's
> reasonable to argue that *anything* held in your hand (that is easily
> manipulated) should be attacked via a contest of combat skill (using dex or
> strength as befits the scenario) .
>
> -Michael

I notice they took away the "-5 if it's held in your hand" rule from the
3.5 rules.