Sundering ranged weapons

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
57 answers Last reply
More about sundering ranged weapons
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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?
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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).
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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."
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

    [snip]

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

    -Will
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.]
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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."
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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."
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games