Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sundering ranged weapons

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:05:01 PM

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
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:05:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 1:48:30 AM

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 9:57:31 AM

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
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:00:51 AM

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?
August 15, 2005 3:58:04 PM

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
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 7:59:01 PM

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
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:33:20 AM

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).
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:50:50 AM

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
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 9:55:31 AM

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
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 8:18:00 AM

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.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:34:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:41:36 PM

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?
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:42:15 PM

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
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:06:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:43:25 PM

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."
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:37:12 PM

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
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:38:20 PM

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
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:20:19 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

[snip]

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

-Will
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:49:34 AM

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
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:33:34 AM

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
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:44:17 AM

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
August 24, 2005 10:44:18 AM

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&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:56:27 PM

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
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:37:41 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:44:19 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> 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.

You're using both hands to fire it, but only one when you're not.

>>>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.

Like sunder.

>>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."

Why would your archer need Quick Draw in the context of vulnerability?

>>>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.

RGFD feels like home again... I missed you, Bradd.

>>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?

The original questions were "what kind of opposed roll should I use" and
"is a composite bow harder to destroy than a normal bow" (to
paraphrase). The sunder rules only talk about 2 cases: a weapon or
shield your foe is holding, and a carried or worn object. The first
uses opposed attack rolls and the second does not--it's attack roll
versus object's AC.

While the books themselves don't say whether a held bow is treated as a
held weapon or a carried object, the FAQ indicates it's to be treated as
the latter. [Insert usual caveat about whether or not the FAQ is
official, credible, or relevant.]
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:47:05 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Likewise, the sunder rules explicitly state that you use opposed attack
> rolls when attacking a weapon or shield, and a simple attack roll
> otherwise. (I don't know where MSB got the idea that you might use the
> rules for sundering non-weapons; I don't recall anyone else bringing it
> up, and the rules are clear.)

Your recollection is irrelevant. Someone else brought it up, and we
assumed it was correct, sine my recollection only extended as far as
sundering *melee* weapons.

> Personally, I think that's too harsh on archers.

Which just means that personally, you are a fool. Archery can do
damage from great range. That's what bows are for, and that's what
they do well - provide the ability to attack without risk of melee
damage. Your endless whining about how much they suffer when trying to
fire bows IN MELEE is pathetic! They're not melee weapons! The fact
that the rules allow it to happen at all is a fantastic blessing to
archers - though it has proved a curse to you, as you actually seem to
think that you have a "right" to use archery in melee unmolested, as a
result.
The archer does less damage per round, but *takes* less damage per
round, when he uses missiles. Unless he's a halfwit who breaks out his
bow in the middle of a swordfight!

> Firing the weapon and stowing it both provoke AOOs,

Stowing *any* weapon provides AoOs.

> and those AOOs can easily be used to disarm or break the bow.

... which means that you shouldn't use your projectile weapon in
melee!

> Dropping the bow isn't much of an option
> either.

Since when? YOU'RE IN MELEE! You can pick it up again when you're
done waving your two handed sword about. Anyone goes for your bow, you
threaten them now...

> About the only reasonable response to getting cornered is to
> keep the bow in your off-hand and draw a one-handed melee weapon.

See? There you go with this "reasonable" idea which is nothing of
the sort. In a fight for your life there is nothing more absurd than
carrying around a 5-foot long stick that cannot help you defend
yourself.

> I think bows and melee weapons are already balanced without the AOO and
> special attack rules; bows have excellent range and rate of fire, but
> they also deal poor damage, and IME much lower hit rates because of
> cover and concealment. The AOO rules make some sense from a realism
> standpoint, but they aren't really necessary for balance, and I believe
> that they actually unbalance the game in favor of melee once you take
> disarming and sundering into account.

How can a game based on medeival MELEE combat be "unbalanced" in
favor of melee?


-Michael
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 7:49:46 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> Now there is some irony.
> Bradd, with all due respect, do try to make your second day back a
> little bit less of a complete faceplant. The only person being an idiot here
> is you. Improve. *Now*. .

I disagree. Mr. Goslin is also being an idiot.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:41:49 PM

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

Some Guy wrote:
[big snip from FAQ 3.0]

Imagine that. Why, it's as if those of us correctly remembering the
FAQ might have had reason to believe bows should be treated as held
objects, rather than melee weapons!
<shakes head sadly>
Bradd, please, now that you've repaired your computer, *do* try to
do something about your brain, and your ridiculous attitude.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:40:28 PM

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

Some Guy wrote:
> You know, on further review, I think that I might agree with you here
> and change my mind about this. It seems clear that this might in fact
> be a 3.5 change. CAVEAT: I haven't compared the 3.0 sunder rules to
> the 3.5 rules, as I sold my 3.0 books. Since they go to all the trouble
> to list hardness and hit points for missile & projectile weapons right
> there in the description of Sunder, it seems clear they intended to
> allow sunders versus missile weapons, and thus attack rolls.

Doesn't follow - there are also stats for sundering armor, but it
can only be sundered at all when it is not being worn. The presence of
a potential sundering target on the table has no bearing on how it is
intended to be attacked. Further, the table's intent is to provide a
quick reference to a set of "common" sundering targets; it is not in
any way comprehensive and it is not relevant to the question at hand.
All we have is that in a 3.0 FAQ, "weapon" was restricted to melee
weapon, but the text of the 3.5 SRD (which may not precisely mimic the
full text of the PhB) doesn't use the melee qualifier. Relying solely
on the 3.5 SRD rule (which trumps the 3.0 faq), a bow is a weapon and
would defend accordingly. That state of affairs suits me fine; it is
the way I preferred the situation to be resolved when I thought it was
otherwise. But whether this is change or oversight is not apparent.
Regardless, the system works better if the bow is not merely a held
object, and if there is room to interpret it as such, then go do and
don't look back.
However, a very strange set of circumstances ensues if we replace
the bow with a decorative wooden object of the same dimensions (ie;
*not a weapon*) - suddenly an object held exactly the same way as a bow
is sundered far more easily; this conceptual disjoint is why the robust
(rule 0) approach to the issue is to require contested attack rolls for
anything in the hands at all; discussions of weapon-or-not become
irrelevant, it is either held in one (or two) hands and can therefore
be controlled like a weapon, or it is not. Note that this provides the
basis for Jackie Chan style combats where he keeps an item from being
sundered by his opponents by virtue of his great fighting skill;
agility based AC bonuses only go so far against sustained attacks.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:25:09 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> You are, Bradd, for stubbornly clinging to an argument you know full
> well is wrong on the merits --

I see that your telepathy is malfunctioning again. You may want to
invest in a tinfoil helmet, to cut down on interference.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:25:32 PM

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

Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
> As a neutral observer, I declare Bradd the loser in this altercation.
> That was very, very weak.

Hm, are you docking me points for technique or for style?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:25:33 PM

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
news:slrndgpidb.1e2.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
>> As a neutral observer, I declare Bradd the loser in this altercation.
>> That was very, very weak.
>
> Hm, are you docking me points for technique or for style?

For content.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:32:46 AM

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

Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
> news:slrndgpidb.1e2.bradd+news@szonye.com:
>
>> Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
>>> As a neutral observer, I declare Bradd the loser in this altercation.
>>> That was very, very weak.
>>
>> Hm, are you docking me points for technique or for style?
>
> For content.

There's not much to say when half of his rant violently agrees with me
and the other half is nonsense.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:39:39 AM

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>
scribed into the ether:

>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.

Wield, yes, held no. A hand on the drawstring would not make you more
capable of defending against sunder/disarm attempts.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:41:22 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:32:46 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in
>> news:slrndgpidb.1e2.bradd+news@szonye.com:
>>
>>> Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
>>>> As a neutral observer, I declare Bradd the loser in this altercation.
>>>> That was very, very weak.
>>>
>>> Hm, are you docking me points for technique or for style?
>>
>> For content.
>
>There's not much to say when half of his rant violently agrees with me
>and the other half is nonsense.

His rant only agrees with you if you cannot distinguish between the
definitions of "held" and "wield".

A bow is wielded with two hands.

It is held in one hand.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:17:05 AM

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> His rant only agrees with you if you cannot distinguish between the
> definitions of "held" and "wield". A bow is wielded with two hands. It
> is held in one hand.

I just double-checked the SRD disarming rules, and it turns out that MSB
and I were both arguing from ignorance; the rules specifically cover
this case: "If the targeted item isnt a melee weapon, the defender takes
a -4 penalty on the roll."

Likewise, the sunder rules explicitly state that you use opposed attack
rolls when attacking a weapon or shield, and a simple attack roll
otherwise. (I don't know where MSB got the idea that you might use the
rules for sundering non-weapons; I don't recall anyone else bringing it
up, and the rules are clear.) While sunder doesn't explicitly state the
modifier for a defender with a non-melee weapon, the disarming rules set
a clear enough precedent: ranged weapons are neither two-handed nor
light for the purpose of special attacks, so the defender uses an
unmodified attack roll.

Personally, I think that's too harsh on archers. Firing the weapon and
stowing it both provoke AOOs, and those AOOs can easily be used to
disarm or break the bow. Dropping the bow isn't much of an option
either. About the only reasonable response to getting cornered is to
keep the bow in your off-hand and draw a one-handed melee weapon.

I think bows and melee weapons are already balanced without the AOO and
special attack rules; bows have excellent range and rate of fire, but
they also deal poor damage, and IME much lower hit rates because of
cover and concealment. The AOO rules make some sense from a realism
standpoint, but they aren't really necessary for balance, and I believe
that they actually unbalance the game in favor of melee once you take
disarming and sundering into account.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:47:15 AM

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

Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
> While the books themselves don't say whether a held bow is treated as
> a held weapon or a carried object, the FAQ indicates it's to be
> treated as the latter. [Insert usual caveat about whether or not the
> FAQ is official, credible, or relevant.]

Where in the FAQ? The SRD says that you use the weapon rules, but the
bow-wielder gets a -4 to his roll. (Oh, and read the thread before
replying. I already cited the rule.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:47:16 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>
>>While the books themselves don't say whether a held bow is treated as
>>a held weapon or a carried object, the FAQ indicates it's to be
>>treated as the latter. [Insert usual caveat about whether or not the
>>FAQ is official, credible, or relevant.]
>
>
> Where in the FAQ? The SRD says that you use the weapon rules, but the
> bow-wielder gets a -4 to his roll. (Oh, and read the thread before
> replying. I already cited the rule.)

You probably missed that part of the thread. Here it is again, from the
3.0 FAQ [insert usual caveat about whether or not the parts of the 3.0
FAQ that haven't changed in 3.5 are still official, credible, or relevant]:

"I have a fighter character. Is there any way I can keep
enemy spellcasters and archers from simply stepping 5 feet
back from me and blasting me with ranged attacks or
spells?"

"Yes, but you probably don’t need to. The foe’s 5-foot step
keeps you from making an attack of opportunity when the
opponent fires or casts a spell, but on your turn you can take a
5-foot step of your own and use the full attack action to chop
the foe to bits. Alternatively, you could prepare an action to
disrupt a spellcaster and you can make a 5-foot step or even a
partial charge to close with the spellcaster and deliver the
attack.
You can’t disrupt an archer, but if you’re getting tired of the
step back and shoot tactic, consider using a reach weapon. That
way, you’ll still threaten foes 10 feet away from you. Of
course, you don’t threaten foes who are only 5 feet away when
you’re armed with most reach weapons. You can solve that
problem by having an ally who can threaten the spaces adjacent
to you or by gaining the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked
chain) feat, as the spiked chain is a reach weapon that also
works against foes 5 feet away.
Also, don’t forget grappling or striking the foe’s weapon.
Most spellcasters won’t be holding a weapon, and foes holding
ranged weapons don’t threaten you, so you don’t have to worry
about triggering an attack of opportunity when using either
tactic. Foes you’ve grappled can’t step away from you until
they escape your hold. Striking a foe’s weapon is often less
troublesome, and if you break it, you won’t need to worry
about ranged attacks. 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). If you have multiple attacks, it’s
usually best to aim your attacks with the highest attack bonuses
at the opponent and save your later attacks with lower attack
bonuses for the weapon. Often, you’ll have difficulty hitting the
opponent with these attacks, but you’ll find the weapon an
easier target.
You also could do the following: Ready an action so that
when the archer steps away from you, you make a partial
charge against him or just a 5-foot step and an attack). When
you’ve finished your attack, he’s within your reach and you’ll
get an attack of opportunity against him if he tries to shoot. The
higher level you are, however, the worse the trade-off between
taking a single attack with a prepared action and taking the full
attack action."
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 3:27:47 AM

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

Bradd wrote:
>> (I don't know where MSB got the idea that you might use the rules for
>> sundering non-weapons; I don't recall anyone else bringing it up, and
>> the rules are clear.)

MSB wrote:
> Your recollection is irrelevant. Someone else brought it up ....

I just checked the thread: The OP wanted to know whether an archer
should take a non-proficiency penalty on the roll, and Some Guy
suggested using the rules for sundering non-weapons.

> ... and we assumed it was correct, sine my recollection only extended
> as far as sundering *melee* weapons.

Who's "we"? You and Some Guy? Heh, that's pretty funny. You're too lazy
to look up the rule, so you assume that one of the village idiots is
correct.

>> Personally, I think that's too harsh on archers.

> Which just means that personally, you are a fool. Archery can do
> damage from great range ....

So what? They're balanced against melee fighters already. There's no
need to screw them if they get stuck in melee.

> Your endless whining about how much they suffer when trying to fire
> bows IN MELEE is pathetic!

That's not what I'm complaining about. Learn to read, idiot.

> The fact that the rules allow it to happen at all is a fantastic
> blessing to archers --

Riiiight. Because it's so ridiculous to allow melee-range archery in a
heroic fantasy game.

>> Firing the weapon and stowing it both provoke AOOs,

> Stowing *any* weapon provides AoOs.

You don't normally need to stow other weapons during a fight.

>> and those AOOs can easily be used to disarm or break the bow.

> ... which means that you shouldn't use your projectile weapon in melee!

WTF? I'm complaining that you can't even /stow/ it safely. Try to keep
up, idiot.

>> Dropping the bow isn't much of an option either.

> Since when? YOU'RE IN MELEE! You can pick it up again when you're done
> waving your two handed sword about --

Unless you need to run away, or somebody casts a fireball in your
vicinity. Dropping your primary weapon is a bad idea, especially if it's
expensive.

>> About the only reasonable response to getting cornered is to keep the
>> bow in your off-hand and draw a one-handed melee weapon.

> See? There you go with this "reasonable" idea which is nothing of the
> sort. In a fight for your life there is nothing more absurd than
> carrying around a 5-foot long stick that cannot help you defend
> yourself.

WTF? How is it unreasonable? If you drop it, stow it, or fire it,
there's a good chance that you'll lose it. If you keep it in your off
hand, there's no game penalty at all.

> How can a game based on medeival MELEE combat be "unbalanced" in favor
> of melee?

WTF? Since when is D&D based specifically on medieval melee combat?

Lay off the crack, already.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:42:27 AM

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

Some Guy wrote:
>>> While the books themselves don't say whether a held bow is treated
>>> as a held weapon or a carried object, the FAQ indicates it's to be
>>> treated as the latter. [Insert usual caveat about whether or not
>>> the FAQ is official, credible, or relevant.]

Bradd wrote:
>> Where in the FAQ? The SRD says that you use the weapon rules, but the
>> bow-wielder gets a -4 to his roll. (Oh, and read the thread before
>> replying. I already cited the rule.)

> You probably missed that part of the thread. Here it is again, from
> the 3.0 FAQ [insert usual caveat about whether or not the parts of the
> 3.0 FAQ that haven't changed in 3.5 are still official, credible, or
> relevant]: --

It's entirely irrelevant. The rulebook states that you use an opposed
attack roll when sundering a weapon. A bow is a weapon. The disarm rules
are even more explicit about it; ranged weapons have their own disarm
modifier on the opposed attack roll.

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to refer to the obsolete 3.0 FAQ as "the
FAQ" in a D&D 3.5 discussion. But keep digging, if it makes you happy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:42:28 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>>>While the books themselves don't say whether a held bow is treated
>>>>as a held weapon or a carried object, the FAQ indicates it's to be
>>>>treated as the latter. [Insert usual caveat about whether or not
>>>>the FAQ is official, credible, or relevant.]
>
>
> Bradd wrote:
>
>>>Where in the FAQ? The SRD says that you use the weapon rules, but the
>>>bow-wielder gets a -4 to his roll. (Oh, and read the thread before
>>>replying. I already cited the rule.)
>
>
>>You probably missed that part of the thread. Here it is again, from
>>the 3.0 FAQ [insert usual caveat about whether or not the parts of the
>>3.0 FAQ that haven't changed in 3.5 are still official, credible, or
>>relevant]: --
>
>
> It's entirely irrelevant. The rulebook states that you use an opposed
> attack roll when sundering a weapon. A bow is a weapon. The disarm rules
> are even more explicit about it; ranged weapons have their own disarm
> modifier on the opposed attack roll.

You know, on further review, I think that I might agree with you here
and change my mind about this. It seems clear that this might in fact
be a 3.5 change. CAVEAT: I haven't compared the 3.0 sunder rules to
the 3.5 rules, as I sold my 3.0 books. Since they go to all the trouble
to list hardness and hit points for missile & projectile weapons right
there in the description of Sunder, it seems clear they intended to
allow sunders versus missile weapons, and thus attack rolls.

> Furthermore, it's disingenuous to refer to the obsolete 3.0 FAQ as "the
> FAQ" in a D&D 3.5 discussion. But keep digging, if it makes you happy.

Here of course, you're completely wrong.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:46:11 AM

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

Some Guy wrote:
> [big snip from FAQ 3.0]

MisterMichael wrote:
> Imagine that. Why, it's as if those of us correctly remembering the
> FAQ might have had reason to believe bows should be treated as held
> objects, rather than melee weapons!

So your excuse for listening to the village idiot is a rule cite from an
obsolete FAQ? Yeah, you've got a reason for believing that about bows:
You were too lazy to read the /relevant/ rules, and chose to listen to
an ignorant, disingenuous fool instead.

> Bradd, please, now that you've repaired your computer, *do* try to do
> something about your brain, and your ridiculous attitude.

Heh. You're using Some Guy's drivel to defend your idiocy, and you have
the nerve to whine about other people's brains?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:46:12 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>
>>[big snip from FAQ 3.0]
>
>
> MisterMichael wrote:
>
>>Imagine that. Why, it's as if those of us correctly remembering the
>>FAQ might have had reason to believe bows should be treated as held
>>objects, rather than melee weapons!
>
>
> So your excuse for listening to the village idiot is a rule cite from an
> obsolete FAQ? Yeah, you've got a reason for believing that about bows:
> You were too lazy to read the /relevant/ rules, and chose to listen to
> an ignorant, disingenuous fool instead.

You know, you make the Flying Spaghetti Monster cry when you write
things like that.

>>Bradd, please, now that you've repaired your computer, *do* try to do
>>something about your brain, and your ridiculous attitude.
>
>
> Heh. You're using Some Guy's drivel to defend your idiocy, and you have
> the nerve to whine about other people's brains?

All's fair in love and war.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:12:59 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "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.

Idiotic or not, it's irrelevant. I said that switching grips on a
weapon from one-handed to two-handed is a free action. And it is
(according to Rules of the Game).

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

Laszlo
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:22:17 AM

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

MisterMichael <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> However, a very strange set of circumstances ensues if we replace the
> bow with a decorative wooden object of the same dimensions (ie; *not a
> weapon*) - suddenly an object held exactly the same way as a bow is
> sundered far more easily; this conceptual disjoint is why the robust
> (rule 0) approach to the issue is to require contested attack rolls
> for anything in the hands at all --

Yes, I also prefer that handheld objects use the weapon-sundering rules.
If you want justification for it, you can consider anything handheld to
be an improvised weapon when resolving a sunder attempt (which would
impose a -4 penalty to the attack roll, but that's still better than
just using object AC).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:21:26 PM

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrndgqaqp.3mj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> MisterMichael <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > However, a very strange set of circumstances ensues if we replace the
> > bow with a decorative wooden object of the same dimensions (ie; *not a
> > weapon*) - suddenly an object held exactly the same way as a bow is
> > sundered far more easily; this conceptual disjoint is why the robust
> > (rule 0) approach to the issue is to require contested attack rolls
> > for anything in the hands at all --
>
> Yes, I also prefer that handheld objects use the weapon-sundering rules.
> If you want justification for it, you can consider anything handheld to
> be an improvised weapon when resolving a sunder attempt (which would
> impose a -4 penalty to the attack roll, but that's still better than
> just using object AC).

Works for me.

-Michael
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:35:24 PM

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Yes, I also prefer that handheld objects use the weapon-sundering rules.
>> If you want justification for it, you can consider anything handheld to
>> be an improvised weapon when resolving a sunder attempt (which would
>> impose a -4 penalty to the attack roll, but that's still better than
>> just using object AC).

MSB wrote:
> Works for me.

I gave this some more thought: I think the rules as written are OK when
you're just lugging something around (e.g., a sack, a sofa, a side of
beef). However, when you're actively "wielding" a non-weapon, like a
wand, it makes more sense to use opposed attack rolls. That means making
a judgment call, which I ordinarily try to avoid, but luckily it doesn't
come up often enough for me to worry about it.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 7:34:04 PM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:17:05 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I think bows and melee weapons are already balanced without the AOO and
> special attack rules; bows have excellent range and rate of fire, but
> they also deal poor damage, and IME much lower hit rates because of
> cover and concealment. The AOO rules make some sense from a realism
> standpoint, but they aren't really necessary for balance, and I believe
> that they actually unbalance the game in favor of melee once you take
> disarming and sundering into account.

I presume you're talking about middling-low level archers here. At 11+
BAB they'll very likely get Improved Precise Shot with the first
available feat slot, and that makes cover and concealment go away
(which has interesting implications for rogues shooting flat-footed
people in poor light). Nor is damage terribly poor, due to the
liklihood of getting full attacks most rounds, and the use of Rapid
Shot. If the target is within 30' and you can't full-attack, just use
Multishot (unless they have a very good AC).

IME a well-constructed archer, even one built solely as a fighter or
ranger, can rain death very effectively. Often getting into melee is
the only effective way of stopping them. That said, the ease with
which sundering bows can be effected is possibly a problem - however,
with the right build sundering anything non-adamantine is probably too
easy.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:29:46 AM

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

Bradd wrote:
>> I think bows and melee weapons are already balanced without the AOO and
>> special attack rules; bows have excellent range and rate of fire, but
>> they also deal poor damage, and IME much lower hit rates because of
>> cover and concealment. The AOO rules make some sense from a realism
>> standpoint, but they aren't really necessary for balance, and I believe
>> that they actually unbalance the game in favor of melee once you take
>> disarming and sundering into account.

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> I presume you're talking about middling-low level archers here.

Up to 10th level, at least. We've played beyond that, but not with any
serious archers.

> At 11+ BAB they'll very likely get Improved Precise Shot with the
> first available feat slot, and that makes cover and concealment go
> away (which has interesting implications for rogues shooting
> flat-footed people in poor light). Nor is damage terribly poor, due to
> the liklihood of getting full attacks most rounds, and the use of
> Rapid Shot.

That sounds right, but it hasn't played out that way in my experience.
I don't know why, but it seems that the melee guys hit more often than
the archers, even when cover isn't an issue. I don't know whether it's a
problem with uneven optimization, uneven buffs, luck, cheating, or what,
but it seems like the melee guys hit regularly against targets that I
can barely touch. My ranger/rogue build isn't perfect, but it should
stand up better than it does against our bladesinger and our
paladin/sorcerer/dragon disciple.

> If the target is within 30' and you can't full-attack, just use
> Multishot (unless they have a very good AC).

I almost never use multishot (almost never need to), and I don't think
I've ever hit with one. The attack penalty is nasty, and we didn't get
many soft targets in that campaign.

> IME a well-constructed archer, even one built solely as a fighter or
> ranger, can rain death very effectively.

I wish my archer were better at that. She did pretty well in the last
couple games, taking out some key targets, but mostly it seems that I'm
either rolling 1s or shooting at excessively hard targets.

> Often getting into melee is the only effective way of stopping them.
> That said, the ease with which sundering bows can be effected is
> possibly a problem - however, with the right build sundering anything
> non-adamantine is probably too easy.

It's fairly tough to get through a magic weapon -- often, it's easier to
just kill the wielder -- but disarming is scarily easy against an
archer.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
!