stuff
Sorry, I just hate to craft nice "quote" posts ;).
Actually, page 141. Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee. Emphasis mine.
That's black and white RAW right there. Distinction made that a melee attack is made with a melee weapon. Where does it specify the different between melee and ranged weapons? Table 6-4: Weapons. It clearly specifies, rather carefully I might add, the difference between the two types of weapons.
If a ranged weapon is not effective in melee, why would you get a bonus (or provide a bonus to someone else) in a situation where you were using a ranged weapon in melee range? It's not effective in melee.
Moving on to threatened squares, page 180, it says "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your turn." You could say that even though you're using a ranged weapon in melee as a ranged weapon (based on the distinction above), you could threaten with the improvised version of the ranged weapon as a melee attack. That's a bit of cheese if you ask me, and would rule that the way you used your weapon on your last turn would decide whether or not you were using a ranged weapon, or an improvised melee weapon. I didn't find any rules that would disallow such action. The only thing I could think of was to reverse it. If you throw your sword, you're not threatening melee anymore, your weapon was thrown. Kinda weak but that's all I got.
Moving to flanking. When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy characer or creature on it's opposite border or opposite corner.
I already covered that a melee attack was with a melee weapon as defined on page 141 and in table 6-4, a threatened square must be done by a melee weapon as defined on page 180, and you must make a melee attack to gain a flanking bonus.
That's the RAW, and I agree with them. You're free to do with them what you please, but the definitions, distictions and separations are there.
stuffSorry, I just hate to craft nice "quote" posts ;).
Actually, page 141. Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee. Emphasis mine.
That's black and white RAW right there. Distinction made that a melee attack is made with a melee weapon. Where does it specify the different between melee and ranged weapons? Table 6-4: Weapons. It clearly specifies, rather carefully I might add, the difference between the two types of weapons.
If a ranged weapon is not effective in melee, why would you get a bonus (or provide a bonus to someone else) in a situation where you were using a ranged weapon in melee range? It's not effective in melee.
Moving on to threatened squares, page 180, it says "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it's not your turn." You could say that even though you're using a ranged weapon in melee as a ranged weapon (based on the distinction above), you could threaten with the improvised version of the ranged weapon as a melee attack. That's a bit of cheese if you ask me, and would rule that the way you used your weapon on your last turn would decide whether or not you were using a ranged weapon, or an improvised melee weapon. I didn't find any rules that would disallow such action. The only thing I could think of was to reverse it. If you throw your sword, you're not threatening melee anymore, your weapon was thrown. Kinda weak but that's all I got.
Moving to flanking. When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy characer or creature on it's opposite border or opposite corner.
I already covered that a melee attack was with a melee weapon as defined on page 141 and in table 6-4, a threatened square must be done by a melee weapon as defined on page 180, and you must make a melee attack to gain a flanking bonus.
That's the RAW, and I agree with them. You're free to do with them what you please, but the definitions, distictions and separations are there.
Well, the bolded parts certainly add to the black-and-white-ness of it :)
I think you're glossing over the gray areas though....
It says right there in what you quoted on page 141 that melee weapons can be thrown. It says elsewhere what to do if a particular melee weapon does not have a range specified in the table. Hence melee weapons can be used to make ranged attacks.
It nowhere says that 'ranged weapons cannot make melee attacks.' Conversely, it does clearly say that ranged weapons (at least bows and crossbows) are effective at coup de grace, but only when from an adjacent square - that to me is a clear case of a ranged weapon working like a melee weapon, and effectively making a 'melee attack' (though the last bit is a loose interpretation of the language, and I would of course use the ranged weapon modifiers appropriate for a ranged attack at that distance).
The gray area is that either type of weapon can be used to make either type of attack. I consider the definition of 'melee attack' to be an armed attack (or equivalent) from an adjacent square (or one that you have reach into). This feeds directly into the rules for threatening and flanking - both hinge on what you consider a 'melee attack.'
Effectiveness is not anywhere a standard applied either to flanking or threatening, or even combat in general. If Milo the Weak and Clumsy is standing adjacent to you holding a sword but covered in bandages (likely more of an actual threat to himself than to anyone else), his ally would still get a flanking bonus.
To your example, if you throw your sword, you may still threaten melee, if you are capable of making "armed" unarmed or natural attacks. Or can cast touch spells, etc. You could easily still threaten an opponent. By your definition, if your sword leaves your hand and hits the opponent, half killing him - in that case it would be cheesy for your ally to get a flanking bonus in that round?
All of the RAW that you've quoted depend on the definition of 'melee attack' - that's the RAW. You're free to define that how you please. I prefer a definition that includes a bit more gray, to avoid what I see as odd consequences. For me, attacks with a ranged weapon aimed at a foe in an adjacent square count as 'melee attacks' (does not trigger AoO). Just like throwing your sword at a non-adjacent foe would count as a 'ranged attack' (does trigger AoO). Loading a ranged weapon in melee is like drawing a melee weapon to throw it (neither are necessarily a good idea...).
In other words, there is no law that a ranged weapon can only make what are considered ranged attacks, and a melee weapon can only make what would be melee attacks. The gray areas are not as clearly defined in the rules as the more obvious ones that you cite, but they are clearly there.
A melee touch spell is considered an armed attack (just looked it up.) and as such would provide flanking bonus.
Note that you have to have already cast the spell and be holding the charge to be considered armed with a melee touch spell. Otherwise you end up with hinkyness where a magic user is always considered armed as long as they prep (or know, in the case of spontaneous casters) a touch spell that can deal damage.
This also leads to something in this thread that's been bothering me but that I've let slide since it was just nitpicking at the time and not germane to the overall debate. Where exactly does it say that you can Threaten with a wand anyway? Touch spell or not, a wand is not a melee weapon. It may contain a spell that is considered a melee weapon, but until that spell is cast it's not a Threat.
"It says right there in what you quoted on page 141 that melee weapons can be thrown. It says elsewhere what to do if a particular melee weapon does not have a range specified in the table. Hence melee weapons can be used to make ranged attacks."
Melee weaopns can be thrown, when they are thrown they become ranged weapons according to the rules.
"It nowhere says that 'ranged weapons cannot make melee attacks.' Conversely, it does clearly say that ranged weapons (at least bows and crossbows) are effective at coup de grace, but only when from an adjacent square"
It doesn't say anything about slings. Could you make an attack with a sling as a coup de grace? Only as an improvised weapon for minimal damage.
No it doesn't say anything about ranged weapons cannot make melee attacks. They can, when used as an improvised weapon. I've said that a few times.
An attack made with a ranged weapon, when used as intended, say a bow firing an arrow, is a ranged attack. Ranged attacks and melee attacks are mutually exclusive of each other. When you are using a sword as a sword, it is a melee weapon making melee attacks. When you are throwing a sword, it is a ranged weapon and you are making a ranged attack. Melee attack and ranged attack are defined by what weapon you are using and how you are using it, regaurdless of what it is.
"that to me is a clear case of a ranged weapon working like a melee weapon, and effectively making a 'melee attack' (though the last bit is a loose interpretation of the language, and I would of course use the ranged weapon modifiers appropriate for a ranged attack at that distance)."
You're reading what you choose to read. It's a case of a ranged weaopn making a ranged attack for a specific purpose in melee range. That does not classify it as a ranged attack.
"The gray area is that either type of weapon can be used to make either type of attack. I consider the definition of 'melee attack' to be an armed attack (or equivalent) from an adjacent square (or one that you have reach into). This feeds directly into the rules for threatening and flanking - both hinge on what you consider a 'melee attack.'"
The only gray area is that you can make an improvised attack with a crossbow or bow. Otherwise a melee attack is made with a melee weapon. Period, as described on page 141.
"Effectiveness is not anywhere a standard applied either to flanking or threatening, or even combat in general. If Milo the Weak and Clumsy is standing adjacent to you holding a sword but covered in bandages (likely more of an actual threat to himself than to anyone else), his ally would still get a flanking bonus."
Maybe effectiveness isn't enough. But the Shooting into a Melee rules should be enough to deter that.
"To your example, if you throw your sword, you may still threaten melee, if you are capable of making "armed" unarmed or natural attacks. Or can cast touch spells, etc. You could easily still threaten an opponent. By your definition, if your sword leaves your hand and hits the opponent, half killing him - in that case it would be cheesy for your ally to get a flanking bonus in that round?"
Yes, because you made a ranged attack on your turn. You, or your ally in flanking position in relationship to you, would not gain a flanking bonus until you made a melee attack. That is my interpretation of the rules, there are no RAW to support this.
In regaurds to the touch spells, you have to be armed with a touch spell to threaten, as pointed out by ZappoHisbane. The ability to cast a touch spell does not mean a mage threatens at all times.
"All of the RAW that you've quoted depend on the definition of 'melee attack' - that's the RAW. You're free to define that how you please. I prefer a definition that includes a bit more gray, to avoid what I see as odd consequences. For me, attacks with a ranged weapon aimed at a foe in an adjacent square count as 'melee attacks' (does not trigger AoO). Just like throwing your sword at a non-adjacent foe would count as a 'ranged attack' (does trigger AoO). Loading a ranged weapon in melee is like drawing a melee weapon to throw it (neither are necessarily a good idea...). "
The definition of melee attack is given. A melee attack is made with a melee weapon. A melee weapon is a weapon designed for melee attacks as listed in table 6-4. Using a weapon for a use it was not intended is using it as an improvised weapon, hence throwing a broad sword or swinging a crossbow like a club. You can do this because the rules ARE flexible in how you can use a weapon. What kind of game would it be if they said you couldn't hit someone with a chair or throw a chair at someone or anything else you could get your hands on? The rules are flexible to a point. You're breaking a specific set of rules about using a ranged weapon in melee, and firing a ranged weapon into melee.
Firing a ranged weapon in melee provokes an attack of opportunity. That is clearly described in the rules. There is no distinction about where or who your target is, only that it provokes. You get a -4 for firing into a melee, that much is clear too. There is no distinction that if you are flanking or if your target is in melee with you.
If you want to play at your table that way, that's up to you. You're putting gray into something that's clearly defined. And really, that's ok by me, but that's not RAW.
A melee touch spell is considered an armed attack (just looked it up.) and as such would provide flanking bonus.Note that you have to have already cast the spell and be holding the charge to be considered armed with a melee touch spell. Otherwise you end up with hinkyness where a magic user is always considered armed as long as they prep (or know, in the case of spontaneous casters) a touch spell that can deal damage.
This also leads to something in this thread that's been bothering me but that I've let slide since it was just nitpicking at the time and not germane to the overall debate. Where exactly does it say that you can Threaten with a wand anyway? Touch spell or not, a wand is not a melee weapon. It may contain a spell that is considered a melee weapon, but until that spell is cast it's not a Threat.
Honestly, it's a mixture of fantasy literature assumption, Hollywood mage duel choreography, and basic logic. It's usually understood that if a wizard holds a wand or staff in hand while spellcasting, they incorporate the stick into their choreography, and if there's a touch spell cast while holding a stick, the magical charge inheres in the business end of the thing--the orb at the top of your typical fantasy wizard's staff or the ivory tip of a traditional magician's ebony wand. If a mage doesn't have a staff or wand, the charge usually goes at the tip of the wizard's index finger or the far end of the dragon lady press-on nail he's wearing on that digit. A staff or wand is basically used as a conductor, so if you've got a wand with a touch spell, you can cast the spell, then run around and poke someone with the business end of the stick you still conveniently have in your hand.
No, it does not say this anywhere in the RAW that I can find. Touch spells are left a bit vague, and it doesn't say whether the charge resides in one hand or both. The only mention is in the section of using a wand while being grappled, saying that if the wand is in your hand when you are grappled, you must wave the wand in vaguely the direction of what you want to cast the spell on. With a touch spell, it's rather impossible choreography to point a wand at the hand holding it, even when not grappled, and when grappled, it still sound odd to attempt to point it at your off hand and the slap the creature grappling you with your off hand because no way are you letting go of your wand to make a touch attack with your primary hand if for some reason a wand does not work as conductor.
Or to put it another way....
Going with the understood fantasy tradition of index fingertips for touch attack with wands being used as conductors/extenders:
Joe the Wizard raises his wand, says a magic word, and the tip of his wand blazes alight with fell energy. He then attempts to poke someone with it.
As opposed to the most embarrassing interpretation of the RAW:
Joe the wizard sticks his wand up his nose, says a magic word, and both his hands blaze with fell energy. He then chases an enemy around with the outstretched pinky of his off hand.
Actually, there are more embarrassing places Joe could have stuck his wand, but let's not go there.
Conductors for touch spells are something that DMs will need to decide for themselves, but either interpretation has consequences. If conduction doesn't occur, must a wizard in a frostfell take off his mittens to deliver a touch spell? If mittens do insulate rather than conduct, can a wizard who doesn't want to lose a touch put on kid gloves while he does something else? Is a touch spell on one hand or both?
Personally, I go with the idea of it inhering in the tip of the index finger of the caster's primary hand or the tip of the wand therein, which may be the same wand just used to cast the touch spell.
But since a lot of fantasy literature and film goes with the same assumption, this is why I go with being able to threaten with a wand with a touch spell.
Sarcastic stuff refuting nothing of what I said.
The point I was trying to make is that until the touch spell is cast, there is no threat because the weapon that does the threatening (the spell) does not exist. Personally I don't have an issue with the wand itself delivering a touch spell, I think it makes perfect sense (and I have often jokingly described wands of Shocking Grasp as tasers and cattle prods). Until you take that standard action to cast the spell though, you're not considered armed, therefore you don't Threaten (as per my fairly well established opinion on the matter) and therefore cannot flank.
Consider the situation without a wand. Would you allow a Sorcerer with Disrupt Undead selected as a cantrip to ALWAYS Threaten undead adjacent to him? Or if had had at least one use of Shocking Grasp available, anyone adjacent?
Finally, also look at it from this perspective. If you Threaten a square and an opponent leaves that square (without using a 5-foot step or the Withdraw action), you are entitled to an attack of opportunity. This must be a single melee attack. However casting a spell or using a wand is a standard action. You don't have time to do that. So you really don't Threaten that square, do you? On the other hand, if you had cast the spell previously and were holding the charge, then you're entitled to make a melee touch attack as your AoO.
I may have to skip around through this - the quotes are getting a bit confusing. I didn't insert quotes to me for the parts of my posts that you quoted, just left them in quotes inside your quoted text.
"It says right there in what you quoted on page 141 that melee weapons can be thrown. It says elsewhere what to do if a particular melee weapon does not have a range specified in the table. Hence melee weapons can be used to make ranged attacks."
Melee weaopns can be thrown, when they are thrown they become ranged weapons according to the rules.
"It nowhere says that 'ranged weapons cannot make melee attacks.' Conversely, it does clearly say that ranged weapons (at least bows and crossbows) are effective at coup de grace, but only when from an adjacent square"
It doesn't say anything about slings. Could you make an attack with a sling as a coup de grace? Only as an improvised weapon for minimal damage.
This I would completely agree with - a sling cannot be used for coup de grace, except as an improvised weapon. This may be the first time we've read the same rules and came up with the same interpretation! (yay progress!)
No it doesn't say anything about ranged weapons cannot make melee attacks. They can, when used as an improvised weapon. I've said that a few times.
But it is not an improvised weapon attack when a bow or crossbow makes a coup de grace attempt. They deal their normal damage for that situation, not improvised weapon damage. This is part of the gray area.
An attack made with a ranged weapon, when used as intended, say a bow firing an arrow, is a ranged attack. Ranged attacks and melee attacks are mutually exclusive of each other. When you are using a sword as a sword, it is a melee weapon making melee attacks. When you are throwing a sword, it is a ranged weapon and you are making a ranged attack. Melee attack and ranged attack are defined by what weapon you are using and how you are using it, regaurdless of what it is.
Ranged attacks and melee attacks are mutually exclusive, that much is clear. What you don't seem willing to accept is that a ranged weapon can make melee attacks in certain situations (at least coup de grace). I think that is the sticking point here - I don't see that the rules unambiguously support your interpretation - your interpretation is not invalid (and I have not been arguing that, only that it is an interpretation, not "RAW" to the exclusion of other interpretations).
"that to me is a clear case of a ranged weapon working like a melee weapon, and effectively making a 'melee attack' (though the last bit is a loose interpretation of the language, and I would of course use the ranged weapon modifiers appropriate for a ranged attack at that distance)."
You're reading what you choose to read. It's a case of a ranged weaopn making a ranged attack for a specific purpose in melee range. That does not classify it as a ranged attack.
I'm sure you meant "classify it as a melee attack" - and here I disagree and would define melee and ranged attack differently than you do. Again, I don't see anything in RAW that prohibits my interpretation - yes I am choosing to read it that way, because it makes more sense to me to do so. But you are also reading what you choose to read, for the same reasons. The definitions are not clear enough to unambiguously determine these special cases.
"The gray area is that either type of weapon can be used to make either type of attack. I consider the definition of 'melee attack' to be an armed attack (or equivalent) from an adjacent square (or one that you have reach into). This feeds directly into the rules for threatening and flanking - both hinge on what you consider a 'melee attack.'"
The only gray area is that you can make an improvised attack with a crossbow or bow. Otherwise a melee attack is made with a melee weapon. Period, as described on page 141.
Not period. You can make a coup de grace attack when adjacent with a crossbow or a bow. This is not because you are banging the helpless person with the bow itself, but shooting them. The rules you cite on page 141 are again, not unambiguous, and in any case refer to weapons, not attacks. The rules there never say: "a melee attack can only be made with a melee weapon" - they say that "melee weapons make melee attacks". This does not directly or indirectly say that other things cannot make melee attacks, and the section on ranged weapons is mute on the point - it does not even say that thrown or projectile weapons can only make ranged attacks.
"Effectiveness is not anywhere a standard applied either to flanking or threatening, or even combat in general. If Milo the Weak and Clumsy is standing adjacent to you holding a sword but covered in bandages (likely more of an actual threat to himself than to anyone else), his ally would still get a flanking bonus."
Maybe effectiveness isn't enough. But the Shooting into a Melee rules should be enough to deter that.
Maybe, but who can say why characters do what they do? :)
"To your example, if you throw your sword, you may still threaten melee, if you are capable of making "armed" unarmed or natural attacks. Or can cast touch spells, etc. You could easily still threaten an opponent. By your definition, if your sword leaves your hand and hits the opponent, half killing him - in that case it would be cheesy for your ally to get a flanking bonus in that round?"
Yes, because you made a ranged attack on your turn. You, or your ally in flanking position in relationship to you, would not gain a flanking bonus until you made a melee attack. That is my interpretation of the rules, there are no RAW to support this.
So by your reading, an ally would not get a flanking bonus if they had initiative to act before you did, even if you did actually make a melee attack? But on the next round they would get a flanking bonus, because you had just made a melee attack, even if in that round you throw your sword instead (after they attack with their flanking bonus)? That seems like it's more difficult to keep track of.
In regaurds to the touch spells, you have to be armed with a touch spell to threaten, as pointed out by ZappoHisbane. The ability to cast a touch spell does not mean a mage threatens at all times.
Ok - I don't think I've argued otherwise (but Kevin might have - I'm not sure if I agree or disagree yet on this point).
"All of the RAW that you've quoted depend on the definition of 'melee attack' - that's the RAW. You're free to define that how you please. I prefer a definition that includes a bit more gray, to avoid what I see as odd consequences. For me, attacks with a ranged weapon aimed at a foe in an adjacent square count as 'melee attacks' (does not trigger AoO). Just like throwing your sword at a non-adjacent foe would count as a 'ranged attack' (does trigger AoO). Loading a ranged weapon in melee is like drawing a melee weapon to throw it (neither are necessarily a good idea...). "
The definition of melee attack is given. A melee attack is made with a melee weapon. A melee weapon is a weapon designed for melee attacks as listed in table 6-4. Using a weapon for a use it was not intended is using it as an improvised weapon, hence throwing a broad sword or swinging a crossbow like a club. You can do this because the rules ARE flexible in how you can use a weapon. What kind of game would it be if they said you couldn't hit someone with a chair or throw a chair at someone or anything else you could get your hands on? The rules are flexible to a point. You're breaking a specific set of rules about using a ranged weapon in melee, and firing a ranged weapon into melee.
The definition really isn't that given. A melee weapon makes a melee attack, that much is clear. The converse is not necessarily true. "melee attack" is nowhere unambiguously defined (and see earlier posts in this thread for discussion of this point).
Firing a ranged weapon in melee provokes an attack of opportunity. That is clearly described in the rules. There is no distinction about where or who your target is, only that it provokes. You get a -4 for firing into a melee, that much is clear too. There is no distinction that if you are flanking or if your target is in melee with you.
If you want to play at your table that way, that's up to you. You're putting gray into something that's clearly defined. And really, that's ok by me, but that's not RAW.
No, making a 'ranged attack' in melee provokes an attack of opportunity. There is a subtle difference in the wording here that becomes important. I think you are conflating weapons and attacks, and maybe that's why we disagree. I clearly interpret 'ranged attack' and 'melee attack' differently than you do, but I don't think either interpretation is disallowed by RAW, since RAW does not define these particular cases clearly - there is already a lot of gray there.
You're right about the lack of distinction in the rules about who or where the target is - that is my own added interpretation (it seems unfair to me to allow AoO in that type of situation, but I wouldn't be unwilling to enforce it if necessary).
And I have not argued about the -4 penalty to firing into a melee, and I don't know if I will or not - I can see that being appropriate under either interpretation.
What I've been trying to argue is in part motivated by an adverse reaction to people claiming that their interpretation is "RAW" - I don't think that's true in either case, when the rules are read carefully - there is almost always a vague area that is in need of interpretation.
I think we both agree that you must Threaten in order to Flank. We both agree that in order to Threaten, you must be making a melee attack. We differ (I believe) just on the definition of "melee attack" (and also perhaps on the definition of "ranged attack"). These are not clearly defined in the rules, not clearly enough anyway, and so require interpretation. You have yours, I have mine - I don't think either is unreasonable at the end of the day, but to claim that one is "RAW" and therefore "Right" is untenable. Neither is exactly RAW, both are valid. How you play it is up to you.
Wonderful debate to say the least.
I think I got caught up in trying to "win the internet."
The only thing I can add is in the coup de grace rules.
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
Yes it's true you can deliver a coup de grace with a bow or crossbow, what I don't see it saying is that you are making a melee attack with a bow or crossbow. Were that the case, you would be using improvised weapon damage instead of full bow/crossbow damage.
A coup de grace is a lot different than just taking a shot, but it is still "taking a shot" in the case of a bow or crossbow and should therefore be considered a ranged weapon making a ranged attack. You just happen to be adjacent to the target in this case with additional benefits.
It doesn't say that explicitly, but I don't think it should need to. But it is open to enough interpretation to at least gather that much I guess.
Just one quick question, would you allow a ranged weapon to make an attack of opportunity?
Wonderful debate to say the least.
I think I got caught up in trying to "win the internet."
The only thing I can add is in the coup de grace rules.
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
Yes it's true you can deliver a coup de grace with a bow or crossbow, what I don't see it saying is that you are making a melee attack with a bow or crossbow. Were that the case, you would be using improvised weapon damage instead of full bow/crossbow damage.
A coup de grace is a lot different than just taking a shot, but it is still "taking a shot" in the case of a bow or crossbow and should therefore be considered a ranged weapon making a ranged attack. You just happen to be adjacent to the target in this case with additional benefits.
It doesn't say that explicitly, but I don't think it should need to. But it is open to enough interpretation to at least gather that much I guess.
Just one quick question, would you allow a ranged weapon to make an attack of opportunity?
I do enjoy a good debate too - and your points have really made me think - which is good!
You're right - it doesn't say that you make a melee attack with a bow or crossbow - I interpret it as a ranged weapon making an attack that is equivalent to a melee attack (not an improvised weapon melee attack though). I would interpret it the same way even if the foe were not helpless, and it was not a coup de grace (though I realize we would differ on this!).
And I haven't thought about this at all yet... (good question!)...
As for whether a ranged weapon can make an attack of opportunity, only in very few certain cases, as I see it. For me, I interpret a 'melee attack' as one made into a square that you have 'reach' to, so long as you are using a weapon or equivalent (even a ranged weapon, since the option is there to attack while still holding it or while not firing it, as an improvised weapon).
So, if those circumstance are met, then yes, provided that the weapon is drawn and/or loaded. That is, I would never allow someone to fire a weapon then reload and fire it again to make an AoO. I would also not allow drawing a weapon and throwing it as an AoO. If you have it in hand, ok for a foe you have reach to, if you choose to throw it instead of attacking with it (why anyone would actually do this, I have no idea). But once you've thrown the weapon, you're no longer holding one, which could suck for you, and since this situation implies multiple combatants, the non targeted combatant at least would have an AoO against you - if appropriate. Reloading a bow or crossbow would also provoke an AoO from anyone with reach, I think (this is why I understand making a ranged attack with a projectile weapon to provoke an AoO in the first place - generally a character will fire and reload in a round, to be able to fire again in the next round (or even multiple times in that single round). Reloading is a distraction, and so I would not consider that type of sequence the same as a melee attack in which a combatant may never be similarly distracted or with guard down.
Hmm, this has caused me to change my mind on one point at least, in that I would allow that throwing a sword or making an attack with a ranged weapon at an adjacent foe provokes an AoO from that foe, though I may still allow the flanking bonus to their ally.
Would you always disallow a ranged weapon to make an AoO?
Sarcastic stuff refuting nothing of what I said.The point I was trying to make is that until the touch spell is cast, there is no threat because the weapon that does the threatening (the spell) does not exist. Personally I don't have an issue with the wand itself delivering a touch spell, I think it makes perfect sense (and I have often jokingly described wands of Shocking Grasp as tasers and cattle prods). Until you take that standard action to cast the spell though, you're not considered armed, therefore you don't Threaten (as per my fairly well established opinion on the matter) and therefore cannot flank.
Consider the situation without a wand. Would you allow a Sorcerer with Disrupt Undead selected as a cantrip to ALWAYS Threaten undead adjacent to him? Or if had had at least one use of Shocking Grasp available, anyone adjacent?
Finally, also look at it from this perspective. If you Threaten a square and an opponent leaves that square (without using a 5-foot step or the Withdraw action), you are entitled to an attack of opportunity. This must be a single melee attack. However casting a spell or using a wand is a standard action. You don't have time to do that. So you really don't Threaten that square, do you? On the other hand, if you had cast the spell previously and were holding the charge, then you're entitled to make a melee touch attack as your AoO.
Does it really hurt anything to let the sorcerer attempt an AoO with an unloaded finger?
Look at it this way. You go into combat. You don't know jack about magic. You're facing a sorcerer. You get your attack of opportunity on him when he fails to cast defensively, wounding him, but he still finished whatever it was he was doing. Next round, he keeps trying to touch you with his finger.
Now, do you know if he successfully cast a touch spell and is now trying to deliver it, or did he cast some other spell on himself and he's now trying to fake you out?
If he's faking you out, when you decide to leave, he touches you with an unloaded finger but you just think that you successfully saved versus his horrible horrible sorcery.
I've always went with no, because that's how I was taught to play the game. There was no reason to question it then, it made sense to me.
The only thing I would guard against is that if a ranged weapon can make an attack of opportunity, then a ranged weapon can make an attack of opportunity at all times, reguardless of location (as long as it's in range), is threatening at all times, reguardless of location (as long as it's in range). It just opens up too many MORE gray areas to allow an attack of opportunity with a ranged weapon.
After reading your response and judgment, it has changed my stance a little bit. If you have a crossbow loaded, why couldn't you just turn and fire? I guess it's my vision of how a battle plays out, you do a lot more than "turn and swing" with an attack of opportunity, but there is some logic there to allow it. A bow is a bit different, if you have a bow loaded, it's usually a readied action for some other event you're looking for. Since you're concentrating for some other event, I don't think i'd allow it with a bow.
You do bring up a good point about reach, that if your opponent is in reach then you can make an attack of opportunity, and the rules do specifically state that. But I could make an arguement that I can "reach" an opponent 60 feet away with this here crossbow.
After looking at it now and playing a certain way for so long, I wouldn't allow a person to flank with a ranged weapon (either grant a bonus to an ally or gain a bonus himself), but would probably allow an attack of opportunity in certain cases with a ranged weapon.
Sarcastic stuff refuting nothing of what I said.The point I was trying to make is that until the touch spell is cast, there is no threat because the weapon that does the threatening (the spell) does not exist. Personally I don't have an issue with the wand itself delivering a touch spell, I think it makes perfect sense (and I have often jokingly described wands of Shocking Grasp as tasers and cattle prods). Until you take that standard action to cast the spell though, you're not considered armed, therefore you don't Threaten (as per my fairly well established opinion on the matter) and therefore cannot flank.
Consider the situation without a wand. Would you allow a Sorcerer with Disrupt Undead selected as a cantrip to ALWAYS Threaten undead adjacent to him? Or if had had at least one use of Shocking Grasp available, anyone adjacent?
Finally, also look at it from this perspective. If you Threaten a square and an opponent leaves that square (without using a 5-foot step or the Withdraw action), you are entitled to an attack of opportunity. This must be a single melee attack. However casting a spell or using a wand is a standard action. You don't have time to do that. So you really don't Threaten that square, do you? On the other hand, if you had cast the spell previously and were holding the charge, then you're entitled to make a melee touch attack as your AoO.
Does it really hurt anything to let the sorcerer attempt an AoO with an unloaded finger?
Look at it this way. You go into combat. You don't know jack about magic. You're facing a sorcerer. You get your attack of opportunity on him when he fails to cast defensively, wounding him, but he still finished whatever it was he was doing. Next round, he keeps trying to touch you with his finger.
Now, do you know if he successfully cast a touch spell and is now trying to deliver it, or did he cast some other spell on himself and he's...
I think it's more obvious than that about whether or not you save vs. a spell to the psyche. Stories about this have got to be around somewhere in DnD times.
I think it's more obvious than that about whether or not you save vs. a spell to the psyche. Stories about this have got to be around somewhere in DnD times.
There are plenty of spells which read basically "fail a save, get effect X/make a save, get effect Y." In those cases, it's rather obvious a spell has been cast.
Other spells? If Save not only yielded nothing but alerted the subject that someone had attempted to cast a spell on them, many spells would be worse than useless.
Consider your average enchantress. She's supposed to be hitting people right and left with Charm Person, but any weenie with an ounce of Spellcraft will be able to peg her, and that includes the people she charms, and once the spell wears off, even if she's treated them really nicely, they're going to remember that she charmed them and doing anything from filing lawsuits to hiring assassins to just spreading vicious rumors about her sexual habits and the bedroom possibilities of Charm Monster. You know, because that's the way people are.
So she decides to be sneaky. She gets Concealed Casting from the Complete Scoundrel, and if that's not available, blows the feats on Still Spell, Silent Spell and Eschew Materials. Okay, now she can use Charm Person over a glass of wine, and if she walks out of the bar with a new boyfriend, hey, great.
Except now the DM has instituted silent alarm bells so that if Thog the Meaty makes his save, he's suddenly roaring about being assaulted by wicked magics and there's no way in hell she's going to pick him up. And if they're alone when this happens, well, she's screwed.
It's a DM decision, but one that has extreme ramifications for many classes and spells.
As for whether spells have kewl special effects when you cast them or are subtle, I look at it like the rule about whether you make a magic sword all sparkly and glowy or just have it look like any other nice sword: caster's option. If you want your Ghoul Touch to have a visual manifestation of fell necromantic energy so you look all bad-ass, sure, go for it. If you prefer your Ghoul Touch to be indistinguishable from a regular hand so you can use it for a treacherous handshake, sure, that's fine too. And you can leave that decision for the last moment of casting, so wizards don't end up screwed relative to sorcerers.
I think it's more obvious than that about whether or not you save vs. a spell to the psyche. Stories about this have got to be around somewhere in DnD times.There are plenty of spells which read basically "fail a save, get effect X/make a save, get effect Y." In those cases, it's rather obvious a spell has been cast.
Other spells? If Save not only yielded nothing but alerted the subject that someone had attempted to cast a spell on them, many spells would be worse than useless.
Consider your average enchantress. She's supposed to be hitting people right and left with Charm Person, but any weenie with an ounce of Spellcraft will be able to peg her, and that includes the people she charms, and once the spell wears off, even if she's treated them really nicely, they're going to remember that she charmed them and doing anything from filing lawsuits to hiring assassins to just spreading vicious rumors about her sexual habits and the bedroom possibilities of Charm Monster. You know, because that's the way people are.
So she decides to be sneaky. She gets Concealed Casting from the Complete Scoundrel, and if that's not available, blows the feats on Still Spell, Silent Spell and Eschew Materials. Okay, now she can use Charm Person over a glass of wine, and if she walks out of the bar with a new boyfriend, hey, great.
Except now the DM has instituted silent alarm bells so that if Thog the Meaty makes his save, he's suddenly roaring about being assaulted by wicked magics and there's no way in hell she's going to pick him up. And if they're alone when this happens, well, she's screwed.
It's a DM decision, but one that has extreme ramifications for many classes and spells.
As for whether spells have kewl special effects when you cast them or are subtle, I look at it like the rule about whether you make a magic sword all sparkly and glowy or just have it look like any other nice sword: caster's option. If you want your Ghoul Touch to have a visual manifestation of fell...
I think I gave you the wrong impression with my post, but I didn't say that you felt alarm bells in your head and knew that someone, particularly the caster with all those feats, cast a spell on you. What I was getting at was that if someone that you saw touched you threateningly, as with a spell, you would know whether or not AFTER he touched you if you saved versus a spell or he was just bluffing.
What would this feel like? A chill? A sharp and swift headache? Your head suddenly going foggy for a moment, as say, losing your train of thought. I'm not sure. I just think "save vs. spell and have no effect" is a little more than just "you feel nothing." Not as much as "Enchantress tried to charm me! Get her!" at all though.
Let's take poisons as an example. If you're bit or clawed or stabbed by something with a poison and you make your save, it's not that the poison never entered your body, it's that your body fought off the toxin and you have no ill affects like negative CON. But the poison is still there, doing it's thing.
I think I gave you the wrong impression with my post, but I didn't say that you felt alarm bells in your head and knew that someone, particularly the caster with all those feats, cast a spell on you. What I was getting at was that if someone that you saw touched you threateningly, as with a spell, you would know whether or not AFTER he touched you if you saved versus a spell or he was just bluffing.
What would this feel like? A chill? A sharp and swift headache? Your head suddenly going foggy for a moment, as say, losing your train of thought. I'm not sure. I just think "save vs. spell and have no effect" is a little more than just "you feel nothing." Not as much as "Enchantress tried to charm me! Get her!" at all though.
Let's take poisons as an example. If you're bit or clawed or stabbed by something with a poison and you make your save, it's not that the poison never entered your body, it's that your body fought off the toxin and you have no ill affects like negative CON. But the poison is still there, doing it's thing.
In reality, rattlesnake bites can be non-lethal because the rattler's fangs were dry.
A save versus poison can be as mundane as not enough poison to do damage.
But I get it. You like spell saves to have flavor text to go with them so people can tell the difference between a save against ghoul touch and the necromancer just groping them with his clammy hands: "It is horrible.... The old man touched you with his deathly white hand. You feel sickened, nauseated and violated, but not in any magical way. The old bastard decided to cop a feel in the middle of battle--and you're a guy!"
You've still screwed over the enchantresses, but whatever. I hope you at least give those with Spellcraft the ability to figure out what they just saved against via knowledge of the symptoms of save versus a particular spell.
However, my point still stands: Up until the moment that the necromancer performs an inappropriate touch as opposed to a Ghoul Touch, no one apart from him is going to know which it is, unless you have dramatic glowy effects, and as I've mentioned earlier, all of those theatrical special effects can be faked with Prestidigitation anyway, so just having your hand glowing with apparently fell necromantic energies is no guarantee that's actually what they are. The necromancer could use Prestidigitation to fake the classic special effects of Ghoul Touch and then just cop a feel.
I think I gave you the wrong impression with my post, but I didn't say that you felt alarm bells in your head and knew that someone, particularly the caster with all those feats, cast a spell on you. What I was getting at was that if someone that you saw touched you threateningly, as with a spell, you would know whether or not AFTER he touched you if you saved versus a spell or he was just bluffing.
What would this feel like? A chill? A sharp and swift headache? Your head suddenly going foggy for a moment, as say, losing your train of thought. I'm not sure. I just think "save vs. spell and have no effect" is a little more than just "you feel nothing." Not as much as "Enchantress tried to charm me! Get her!" at all though.
Let's take poisons as an example. If you're bit or clawed or stabbed by something with a poison and you make your save, it's not that the poison never entered your body, it's that your body fought off the toxin and you have no ill affects like negative CON. But the poison is still there, doing it's thing.
In reality, rattlesnake bites can be non-lethal because the rattler's fangs were dry.
A save versus poison can be as mundane as not enough poison to do damage.
But I get it. You like spell saves to have flavor text to go with them so people can tell the difference between a save against ghoul touch and the necromancer just groping them with his clammy hands: "It is horrible.... The old man touched you with his deathly white hand. You feel sickened, nauseated and violated, but not in any magical way. The old bastard decided to cop a feel in the middle of battle--and you're a guy!"
You've still screwed over the enchantresses, but whatever. I hope you at least give those with Spellcraft the ability to figure out what they just saved against via knowledge of the symptoms of save versus a particular spell.
However, my point still stands: Up until the moment that the necromancer performs an inappropriate touch as opposed to a Ghoul Touch, no one...
"You feel a tug at the back of your mind, you're not sure what it is, but as quick as it's there, it's gone again." How would anyone know anything about what happened to them? I guess maybe they'd know it was a mind affecting spell since it was in their mind. But an unsuspecting person that saved versus this spell would be none the wiser. And really who's to say WHAT spell it was?
And how does that screw over anyone? How many times a day do people go through this if they left their front door open or left their keys in the car? I don't think it's that far fecthed that DnD days people go through this excersize daily as well if they secured their front door or fed their horse this morning.
You don't have to be so specific, as a "tug at the mind" is a charm person, or a "quick stiffening of the muscles" is a hold person, or a grogginess is a sleep. It can be as simple as "quick muscle spasm" no matter what happens.
Is there a mechanic to allow people to spell craft a spell that was cast on them? Isn't it only if you see or hear a spell caster casting that you can identify the spell?
I'm just saying there SHOULD be more in the heavy in descriptions world to saving versus a spell than just feeling absolutely nothing. Unless that's the weirdness, you feel absolutely nothing for a split second, but feel normal again as if nothing ever happened.
"You feel a tug at the back of your mind, you're not sure what it is, but as quick as it's there, it's gone again." How would anyone know anything about what happened to them? I guess maybe they'd know it was a mind affecting spell since it was in their mind. But an unsuspecting person that saved versus this spell would be none the wiser. And really who's to say WHAT spell it was?
And how does that screw over anyone? How many times a day do people go through this if they left their front door open or left their keys in the car? I don't think it's that far fecthed that DnD days people go through this excersize daily as well if they secured their front door or fed their horse this morning.
You don't have to be so specific, as a "tug at the mind" is a charm person, or a "quick stiffening of the muscles" is a hold person, or a grogginess is a sleep. It can be as simple as "quick muscle spasm" no matter what happens.
Is there a mechanic to allow people to spell craft a spell that was cast on them? Isn't it only if you see or hear a spell caster casting that you can identify the spell?
I'm just saying there SHOULD be more in the heavy in descriptions world to saving versus a spell than just feeling absolutely nothing. Unless that's the weirdness, you feel absolutely nothing for a split second, but feel normal again as if nothing ever happened.
Well then, is there any way for our enchantress to catch a break? If you cast Charm Person on someone asleep, do they still get to notice it? Are there vague memories of ominous dreams, Dream Police to narc her out? What about if you get them drunk first--will the pink elephants tattle that this is like no hangover you've ever had before? Drugged? Exhausted? All of the above? If you get someone to fall dead asleep after a drug and wine fueled orgy, can you cast Charm Person on them then with them none the wiser if they've made their save?
Well then, is there any way for our enchantress to catch a break? If you cast Charm Person on someone asleep, do they still get to notice it? Are there vague memories of ominous dreams, Dream Police to narc her out? What about if you get them drunk first--will the pink elephants tattle that this is like no hangover you've ever had before? Drugged? Exhausted? All of the above? If you get someone to fall dead asleep after a drug and wine fueled orgy, can you cast Charm Person on them then with them none the wiser if they've made their save?
What exactly is the problem here? First, Drone described it perfectly well as a brief tug at the back of your mind that you shrugged off. There's nothing there that says 'OMG something magic just messed with my mind'. Like he said, it can be equated to one of those 'Did I remember to turn off the stove?' moments we all have from time to time.
Yes, a player at the table can take that as metagame knowledge (combined with the fact that the DM just rolled some dice, or he was just asked to make a Will save) and starting thinking that something is up. If they're playing the same game I am though, they should know better than to equate player knowledge with character knowledge. That's a quick way to get a DMG over the knuckles.
Furthermore, why does the enchantress need to catch a break? Why should she expect there to be no consequences for failure?
What exactly is the problem here? First, Drone described it perfectly well as a brief tug at the back of your mind that you shrugged off. There's nothing there that says 'OMG something magic just messed with my mind'. Like he said, it can be equated to one of those 'Did I remember to turn off the stove?' moments we all have from time to time.
Yes, a player at the table can take that as metagame knowledge (combined with the fact that the DM just rolled some dice, or he was just asked to make a Will save) and starting thinking that something is up. If they're playing the same game I am though, they should know better than to equate player knowledge with character knowledge. That's a quick way to get a DMG over the knuckles.
Furthermore, why does the enchantress need to catch a break? Why should she expect there to be no consequences for failure?
Because she's blown a buttload of feats and skills to make her spells undetectable until the moment of casting and is hoping to have them be undetectable afterwards? For the same reason that assassins go out of their way to find tasteless odorless poisons or at least hide them in things that disguise the taste, and moreover choose poisons where even and especially if they are successful, the means of killing the victim are misdiagnosed as something else? For subtlety, treachery and court intrigue?
Because she's blown a buttload of feats and skills to make her spells undetectable until the moment of casting and is hoping to have them be undetectable afterwards? For the same reason that assassins go out of their way to find tasteless odorless poisons or at least hide them in things that disguise the taste, and moreover choose poisons where even and especially if they are successful, the means of killing the victim are misdiagnosed as something else? For subtlety, treachery and court intrigue?What exactly is the problem here? First, Drone described it perfectly well as a brief tug at the back of your mind that you shrugged off. There's nothing there that says 'OMG something magic just messed with my mind'. Like he said, it can be equated to one of those 'Did I remember to turn off the stove?' moments we all have from time to time.
Yes, a player at the table can take that as metagame knowledge (combined with the fact that the DM just rolled some dice, or he was just asked to make a Will save) and starting thinking that something is up. If they're playing the same game I am though, they should know better than to equate player knowledge with character knowledge. That's a quick way to get a DMG over the knuckles.
Furthermore, why does the enchantress need to catch a break? Why should she expect there to be no consequences for failure?
And when those plans fail it makes for more intrigue and an interesting story. If they fail with no consequences whatsoever, then we just wash, rinse, repeat and hope it'll work on the second try. Sounds boring to me.
Again, you're missing the point that the failure, the little tickle in the back of the mind, does not set up a big neon sign over the enchantress that spells (no pun intended) out exactly what just happened. Just the same way that a successful save against poison may just be written off as a little bit of gas or indigestion.
And when those plans fail it makes for more intrigue and an interesting story. If they fail with no consequences whatsoever, then we just wash, rinse, repeat and hope it'll work on the second try. Sounds boring to me.
Again, you're missing the point that the failure, the little tickle in the back of the mind, does not set up a big neon sign over the enchantress that spells (no pun intended) out exactly what just happened. Just the same way that a successful save against poison may just be written off as a little bit of gas or indigestion.
That I can live with.
I suppose I'm just reacting against DMs who give their NPCs Santa Claus level omniscience and knowledge of everything the PCs do. Which is another problem, I'll admit, but it also goes to the original point:
How the hell is the NPC supposed to know that he saved versus a touch spell versus being bluffed by the necromancer and just groped?
You really can't have it both ways.
Either he fails to notice anything, anything supernatural at all happening when the old man touches him, and thus knows that the man is a charlatan and a fraud, or else he can consider saving versus the enchantress's charm a momentary brainfart and not evidence of her having cast a spell.
Can you see the problem here? If you can tell the difference between a charlatan faking a touch spell and a real necromancer casting one where you save, then you can also tell the differences between saving versus the spell of a subtle enchantress who's covered up any sign of casting a spell and just talking with someone in a bar where nothing supernatural happens or even fails to happen.
It's a case of the NPCs always seeming to know stuff when it's convenient for the DM, and subtlety and subterfuge being nerfed into oblivion because the DM finds them inconvenient relative to people just hitting each other with sticks.
1. I agree whole heartedly that a perceived threat is a threat that will cause a distraction and therefore open the subject up to attacks of opportunity regardless of the source.
2. I dont like the flip side of this argument that a real threat that is percieved as a non threat is ignored and therefore does not count in flanking stiuations.
context:
Were attacking a dragon.
On the far side from me there's a humble old man without weapons and tattered orange robes.
next to him is a heavily armoured and weapon toting person.
--dragon--
--dragonOldMan
MEdragonKnight
--dragon--
the dragon knows that I am a threat based on previous attacks.
the dragon thinks the old man is not a threat (he's old and unarmed and hasnt attacked yet)
the dragon thinks the Knight is a threat cos its a knight.
is the dragon flanked? I'd say yes, but what follows are some of the arguments that are trying to be justified rightly or wrongly in this thread.
Scenario 1;
The old man doesnt threaten, he has no weapons.
The knight doesnt threaten, its an illusion.
....therefore the dragon is not flanked.
Scenario 2;
The old man threatens because he looks like a monk and monks have anarmed attacks.
The knight threatens despite being an illusion because the dragon thinks he's a knight.
....therfore dragon is flanked.
Scenario 3 (the one that bothers me most);
the dragon is not flanked because petty humans cannot form a credible threat and therfore are ignored for flanking.
this trails into a topic shift about shooting into melee regardless of if you have allies involved that is also a cause of grief.
Can you see the problem here? If you can tell the difference between a charlatan faking a touch spell and a real necromancer casting one where you save, then you can also tell the differences between saving versus the spell of a subtle enchantress who's covered up any sign of casting a spell and just talking with someone in a bar where nothing supernatural happens or even fails to happen.
No I can't see a problem.
The "necromancer" is touching you. Whereas the enchantress is not giving any visual or audio clues as to where the "weirdness" is coming from, the "necromancer" is.
If the "necromancer" is bluffing the target, and makes his bluff check, then no, the target wouldn't know if he saved vs. a spell or is just really weirded out by some creepy old man. But who knows. If it was clever, it would have a excellent chance of working. If it was really hokey, then it'd probably fail.
|
Kevin, I'm a bit baffled; correct me if I misunderstood you, but are you *really* suggesting that each GM should adjudicate who/which can threaten who/which on a case by case basis, depending on which actions/protections/weapons/immunities/spells/etcetera apply in that particular initiative count? Such as the GM saying: "Oh, you don't get to flank, because the weapon you chose to use this round is not Holy and Adamantine, which means you cannot bypass the creature's DR and therefore *cannot* threaten it with any real harm... so, no bonuses for you or the paladin!". Or: "Hmmm... sorry, buddy, the lich is immune to your touch spell, so you're actually making an unarmed attack which grants the lich an AoO!". And so on.
And yet, while the rules clearly say that figments cannot make real attacks that cause real damage, you say that since the target fails to perceive the image as a harmless entity (snarling in wordless, silent rage), it should be able to threaten and thus grant flanking bonuses.
I'm a big proponent of using common sense, but if you really, really want to make D&D rules confirm to logical thinking or "realism" in all situations, I suggest trying Rolemaster, GURPS or RuneQuest instead; after all, 3E/PF strives for more streamlined mechanics that try to find a balanced approach between "realism" and "heroism". For example, I may think that -- "realistically" -- NOBODY should be able to sneak around (use Stealth) in Heavy Armor without magic involved. Or that if you wear a full helmet, you should receive VERY stiff penalties to Perception. Or that the whole initiative count system is actually pretty silly ("Hit me first a few times, and then I'll hit you a few times, and then the rogue will come dashing in...") although everything supposedly takes place at the same time (within the same period of six seconds). However, having played RuneQuest and Rolemaster for a few years, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a bit when it comes to D&D (although not to the extent a certain other edition requires you to do).
If I misunderstood your points, I apologise.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I very much have. Skip Williams answer in the FAQ proves it ... I rest my case.
I don't buy it. I don't agree with your interpretation of either the Illusions can Threaten via RAW nor the interpretation of what Skip Williams (and I'd bet money neither does Skip Williams.)
interpretation of the rules leads to consequences that don't make much sense, I would prefer to interpret the rules in a way that leads to consequences that do make sense.
I agree with you, and I do this. But to me, what makes sense is the rules (which you believe don't make sense) and I feel no need to house rule that ranged attacks count as Armed Melee attacks if adjacent.
A touch spell also hits or it doesn't. The difference between this and a loaded crossbow is what precisely?
One is a melee attack (touch spell) and one is a ranged attack (crossbow) which is a very big difference in the rules.
If they are made from less than that distance, then they are melee attacks with a ranged weapon. But that's just my interpretation.
Wow, that is way out there on the house rule reservation.
you are saying that if I take my crossbow and use it as a club to hit an adjacent foe, I could provide a flanking bonus to an ally. If I push the crossbow into the chest of the adjacent foe and pull the trigger I do not provide a flanking bonus to my ally?
The difference is that with an improvised crossbow weapon (provided the DM approved it and gave you damage dice and bludgeoning damage) would threaten as a melee attack. The other key point is that threatening means continually poking at the target, something you can't do with a ranged weapon without continually firing bolts.
Kevin, I'm a bit baffled; correct me if I misunderstood you, but are you *really* suggesting that each GM should adjudicate who/which can threaten who/which on a case by case basis
I'm a big proponent of using common sense, but if you really, really want to make D&D rules confirm to logical thinking or "realism" in all situations, I suggest trying Rolemaster, GURPS
Yes, I believe he is. Yes, I agree it is an extreme departure from RAW and untenable in a real game. Yes, GURPS is insane in the level of detail it sticks to real world and physics. Not a game for me.
interpretation of the rules leads to consequences that don't make much sense, I would prefer to interpret the rules in a way that leads to consequences that do make sense.I agree with you, and I do this. But to me, what makes sense is the rules (which you believe don't make sense) and I feel no need to house rule that ranged attacks count as Armed Melee attacks if adjacent.
I backed off on this a bit - I had not considered attacks of opportunity to this point, I think, which mucks this up a lot. Let me rephrase as "count as armed melee attacks for certain purposes - including at least flanking and coup de grace"
If they are made from less than that distance, then they are melee attacks with a ranged weapon. But that's just my interpretation.Wow, that is way out there on the house rule reservation.
Yeah... this did go too far - see caveat above..... :)
you are saying that if I take my crossbow and use it as a club to hit an adjacent foe, I could provide a flanking bonus to an ally. If I push the crossbow into the chest of the adjacent foe and pull the trigger I do not provide a flanking bonus to my ally?The difference is that with an improvised crossbow weapon (provided the DM approved it and gave you damage dice and bludgeoning damage) would threaten as a melee attack. The other key point is that threatening means continually poking at the target, something you can't do with a ranged weapon without continually firing bolts.
This I disagree with - you can continuously poke at someone without firing (say over the course of a single round) - that has got to be "threatening" to some extent - there is a loaded crossbow that could go off anytime. Once fired and/or no longer loaded (which would provoke an AoO), then I would only consider the wielder to Threaten if he/she reloaded and or made an improvised weapon attack.
So in this sense I see the loaded crossbow/bow etc. sort of a hybrid category at this close range - equivalent to a melee weapon for the purposes of Threaten and Flank (and coup de grace), but functioning slightly differently for AoO.
(and one that I wouldn't recommend as a strategy, but stranger things have happened, I'm sure).