| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey all,
So rogue type provokes an AoO from an enemy armed with a crossbow. Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?
Thoughts?
Shade325
|
That... is an interesting case. Certainly the text is clear that you only threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack. However, you are correct in that you may also make a melee attack with a ranged weapon as, say, an improvised club at a -4 on the attack roll.
Unarmed attacks do not threaten normally, but improvised weapons? I must admit, I am uncertain.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
asknethys@karuikage.net
I've wondered about this before (in particular, with regards to whether a target could be flanked by a wizard holding a wand, say). As a DM, my ruling would be: "Not generally, but use common sense."
|
|
I've wondered about this before (in particular, with regards to whether a target could be flanked by a wizard holding a wand, say). As a DM, my ruling would be: "Not generally, but use common sense."
I agree. I would rule that, if you believe the item could be used as an improvised weapon otherwise, then an attack of opportunity should be fine. I would treat a crossbow as a club of the same size. A wand I would not allow for an improvised weapon. And if any of my faithful so much as TRIED to use a valuable wand to club someone over the head with then I would send their heathen souls straight to Pharasma.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
asknethys@karuikage.net
My rule of thumb is "only if you're wielding it as an improvised weapon". You're not going to be able to effectively use a crossbow as an improvised weapon if you're holding it ready to shoot, for example. Don't forget AoO's are instantaneous opportunities; you don't necessarily have time to shift the way you're holding your crossbow/bow/wand/guitar to make it into a melee weapon before the opportunity disappears.
|
|
My rule of thumb is "only if you're wielding it as an improvised weapon". You're not going to be able to effectively use a crossbow as an improvised weapon if you're holding it ready to shoot, for example. Don't forget AoO's are instantaneous opportunities; you don't necessarily have time to shift the way you're holding your crossbow/bow/wand/guitar to make it into a melee weapon before the opportunity disappears.
To be fair, a person with a melee weapon might be otherwise engaged with another opponent, and they can still get in an AoO. I think a person holding a crossbow could just as easily swing it to the side and try to whack someone running by with it. Well, not AS easily, but that's why they'd have a -4 on the attempt! :)
My rule of thumb is "only if you're wielding it as an improvised weapon". You're not going to be able to effectively use a crossbow as an improvised weapon if you're holding it ready to shoot, for example. Don't forget AoO's are instantaneous opportunities; you don't necessarily have time to shift the way you're holding your crossbow/bow/wand/guitar to make it into a melee weapon before the opportunity disappears.
That's reasonable, as long as it's more than a free action to "switch grips". Otherwise it's pretty much the same as saying they always count as weapons.
(And I remember what originally brought it to mind for me -- the 3.5 disarm rules were different for disarming a weapon vs. disarming a non-weapon.)
The intent of improvised weapons is that they are similar to standard weapons but not quite designed for such a purpose. Thus, I could use a chain as an improvised weapon, but it's not quite as effective as a spiked chain. Thus, I'd lower the damage to 1d6 due to lack of spikes and lack of design for combat. Note this is a DM judgment call -- there are no rules for using a chain as an improvised weapon. There are rules for using a crowbar or torch as improvised weapons though.
I can't imagine how effective using a crossbow as a melee weapon would be. It would seem like the most likely outcome would be the destruction of the crossbow.
I mean, I see that, given the wooden section, it could be somewhat club like. I guess I'd have to go with Zurai and say you'd have to intend the weapon to be used as an improvised weapon. Even then, the damage output would be below a club's output. I'd say. . . 1d4? It seems like it would be weaker than a dagger though. Also, I'd say there's a 50% chance each attack that you'd break the crossbow.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?
Yes if the DM allows.
This is an "Ask your DM" question, since the rules says that if you don't threaten you don't take AoO.
The DM needs to rule you do in fact threaten.
Hey all,
So rogue type provokes an AoO from an enemy armed with a crossbow. Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?
Thoughts?
Shade325
Ranged weapons do not threaten the adjacent spaces. The rogue cannot provoke an AoO if the enemy is not threatening his space.
If that enemy had used(or declared to use) such crossbow as an improvised weapon(and therefore not shooting with it) that round then he would be threatening. AoO is triggered.
As James said the DM could rule that you threaten with ranged weapons at a -4(for improvised weapon) penalty. But that would be a houserule.
Unarmed attacks do not threaten normally, but improvised weapons?
My interpretation is that you normally don't threaten with unarmed strikes because you are not considered armed and cannot cause lethal damage. However, if you take Improved Unarmed Strike or are a Monk you are considered armed and can cause lethal damage. You do threaten at that point and can make AoO even with unarmed strikes. There is nothing in the Improvised Weapons section to suggest that you would not be considered armed or would not cause lethal damage. Therefore I believe you do in fact threaten with improvised weapons and could make AoOs with them.
A wand I would not allow for an improvised weapon.
Depends on the application; realistically, you could put a toothbrush through someone’s eye. In light of that I might allow it but I would probably apply some ad hoc penalty for a "called shot" in addition to the -4 IW penalty. If I did allow it, I might also rule that if the PC hit his target's AC plus -4 IW penalty but failed to meet his target's AC plus -4 IW penalty plus ad hoc, "called shot," penalty there may be a % chance of breaking the wand (representing that he hit the target, just not in the soft/vital area where he was aiming).
My rule of thumb is "only if you're wielding it as an improvised weapon". You're not going to be able to effectively use a crossbow as an improvised weapon if you're holding it ready to shoot, for example. Don't forget AoO's are instantaneous opportunities; you don't necessarily have time to shift the way you're holding your crossbow/bow/wand/guitar to make it into a melee weapon before the opportunity disappears.
Except that there is no action required for switching grip on a weapon or readying a weapon that is already in your hand. And actually, you wouldn't have to switch grips at all depending on how you strike the opponent.
To be fair, a person with a melee weapon might be otherwise engaged with another opponent, and they can still get in an AoO. I think a person holding a crossbow could just as easily swing it to the side and try to whack someone running by with it. Well, not AS easily, but that's why they'd have a -4 on the attempt!
Exactly, there are no actions required for switching grips, shifting your body weight, or turning to face opponents beside or behind you. Therefore the only penalty you are facing is the -4 to use an improvised weapon.
I can't imagine how effective using a crossbow as a melee weapon would be. It would seem like the most likely outcome would be the destruction of the crossbow.
Again it would depend on the application. Using a crossbow like the one in your picture I'd say it would be far more effective to jab than to club. You could jab someone in the face, side of the head, or back of the head/neck with the butt of this crossbow and cause some damage. Alternately you could jab the metal, front brace into someone’s face, neck, groin and so on. If you went at it that way there might still be a % chance to break the weapon but it would be less than 50% and it would decrease as you take into account whether it is a heavy crossbow (which would be significantly sturdier), a master worked weapon, or a magic weapon (in which case there should be very little chance of breaking it, if any).
Even then, the damage output would be below a club's output. I'd say. . . 1d4? It seems like it would be weaker than a dagger though.
Weapon damage isn't always accurate to the amount of damage a weapon would do in reality. Case in point: The Kukri was commonly used to take peoples arms or heads off in one swing, yet in game it only does a d4 of damage. The Kukri is a very thick, heavy blade and the inward curve makes it quite capable of severing limbs and decapitations. That said, I would agree with your assessment of potential damage and probably set the light crossbow at a d3/d4 as an IW and the heavy crossbow as a d4/d6 as an IW.
As James said the DM could rule that you threaten with ranged weapons at a -4(for improvised weapon) penalty. But that would be a houserule.
Technically I think it would also be a house rule not to allow it since there is no RAW against it, or even to imply that it couldn't be done.
.....
What about different types of bows as an IW? I would say that a normal shortbow would be a considerably sub-par IW and probably set it as a d2/d3 with the damage scaling up from there based on type of bow: longbow d3/d4, composite shortbow d3/d4, and composite longbow d4/d6. I might go on the low side of these estimates based on personal opinion: I don't think a weapon should do nearly as much damage as an IW as it does using its primary function and I don't think any bow is built sturdy enough to equal a quarterstaff in damage.
Hey all,
So rogue type provokes an AoO from an enemy armed with a crossbow. Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?
Thoughts?
Shade325
Interesting topic - never had it come up in my game. If it had and I was making a ruling on the spot, I would probably allow them to take a swipe in the AoO for 1-3 points of damage or so. At the time of the AoO the character would be holding it in ranged position, maybe cocking it in "game reality" and should not be allowed to express that much damage as a "club" with a -4.
|
|
Hey all,
So rogue type provokes an AoO from an enemy armed with a crossbow. Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?
Yes, it's allowed by the rules at first glance and it's fun. I'd say 1d4.
If the crossbow is loaded at the time, have it go off in a line from the bowman past the rogue (not fair to target him) until it hits something.
Crossbow gains the broken quality on a successful hit.
Technically I think it would also be a house rule not to allow it since there is no RAW against it, or even to imply that it couldn't be done.
Rethinking about it, you're right.
But given the situation I'd enforce the breaking objects rules.
I wouldnt feel comfortable if my players thought they could pull off a stunt like this at no cost/risk.
After all ranged weapons are not designed to be effective as melee weapons.
I don't think the intent of the rules was to allow ranged weapons to be used as melee weapons without extra cost, but I can't show any fast or hard rule quote to back that up.
In complete Scoundrel page 109 has the bayonets for crossbows which does actually turn them into full melee weapons. In Races of the wild they added Elvencraft bows that are allowed to be used a quarterstaff (longbow) or club (short bow). As their are special rules given later in the WotC books it seems to enforce the idea that normally bows could not be used in melee combat.
Looking at higher levels adds another question if you allowed a crossbow to be used in melee combat. What happens when that crossbow becomes a +1 Flaming crossbow. Does that mean the player also has a +1 Flaming club now for no additional cost? If you rule that it does not affect melee attacks and must be enchanted as separate melee weapon I think it could remain balanced to those not using the splat books.
|
That's reasonable, as long as it's more than a free action to "switch grips". Otherwise it's pretty much the same as saying they always count as weapons.
You have hit on the key point, what type of action is it to "switch grips"? I had hoped to see some rules for this in the PRPG, but none appeared, once an actual FAQ starts(maybe in January according to James Jacobs) I plan to start beating the staff over the head with that question.
I've wondered about this before (in particular, with regards to whether a target could be flanked by a wizard holding a wand, say). As a DM, my ruling would be: "Not generally, but use common sense."
Funny story. A Multiclass wizard/rogue stabbed a foe in the eye in a moment of desperation. His catch off guard and arcane strike inflicted enough damage to drop an otherwise uninjured barbarian in the throes of rage.
we laugh at the wand of deadliness nowadays (1D2+3 +1D6)
Batts
Technically I think it would also be a house rule not to allow it since there is no RAW against it, or even to imply that it couldn't be done.
Rethinking about it, you're right.
But given the situation I'd enforce the breaking objects rules.
I wouldnt feel comfortable if my players thought they could pull off a stunt like this at no cost/risk.
After all ranged weapons are not designed to be effective as melee weapons.
I think it would be absolutely fair to apply the breaking objects rules. I was taking a look at hardness/HP yesterday and it seems like it would apply. The only issue I had was, the rules are for making attacks against an object and how much damage it would do. But it doesn't say how much damage the object would take if you made an attack with it. How would you judge that? Would the object to equal amounts of damage to itself as it does to an opponent?
I don't think the intent of the rules was to allow ranged weapons to be used as melee weapons without extra cost, but I can't show any fast or hard rule quote to back that up.
I had thought about that too but I really can't see why that would be the case. If you can rip the leg of a chair off and use it as a club why not jab someone in the face with the butt of your crossbow?
In complete Scoundrel page 109 has the bayonets for crossbows which does actually turn them into full melee weapons. In Races of the wild they added Elvencraft bows that are allowed to be used a quarterstaff (longbow) or club (short bow). As their are special rules given later in the WotC books it seems to enforce the idea that normally bows could not be used in melee combat.
But these rules turn the ranged weapon into a fully functional melee weapon. IW rules have risks, like breaking the object. Also IW won't do as much damage as a true melee weapon application in most circumstances.
Looking at higher levels adds another question if you allowed a crossbow to be used in melee combat. What happens when that crossbow becomes a +1 Flaming crossbow. Does that mean the player also has a +1 Flaming club now for no additional cost? If you rule that it does not affect melee attacks and must be enchanted as separate melee weapon I think it could remain balanced to those not using the splat books.
It used to be in the 3.5 rules [i](as far as I can remember)[i] that a ranged weapon with an enchantment applied the enchantment to its ammunition but not itself. So the arrows/bolts would be flaming but the crossbow itself would remain just a crossbow. However the magical enhancement would increase the hardness/HP of the crossbow so it could be more effectively used as an IW without risk of breaking however it would still cause very sub-par damage as an IW and would only be used for emergencies.
Seriously, I would rule that you cannot threaten with an improvised weapon. If it was designed to be swung with that level of efficiency it wouldn't be improvised. Obviously catch off guard would muddy the waters but otherwise it's a convenient fix.
Batts
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You have hit on the key point, what type of action is it to "switch grips"?
As swift action for those that have the Short Haft feat.
It used to be in the 3.5 rules [i](as far as I can remember)[i] that a ranged weapon with an enchantment applied the enchantment to its ammunition but not itself.
Yes, so a bow or sword of +2 used as an improvised weapon would be a non-masterwork improvised weapon (so no bonus to hit.)
Also, the elvencraft weapons (bows that work as clubs and swords) were dual weapons. They required two masterwork qualities and two enhancement bonuses to enhance the bow part and the club/sword part separately.
You have hit on the key point, what type of action is it to "switch grips"?As swift action for those that have the Short Haft feat.
FWIW: that's a pretty big shift. Really, you don't have to change your grip on a crossbow to backhand someone with it.
For comparison, I've always ruled that it's a free action to switch grips from "wielding a two-handed weapon" to "holding a two-handed weapon in one hand" and vice versa, for casters who need to free a hand for somatic components... but you can only perform this free action once per round. Doesn't suck down the free action (and IMO shouldn't) but prevents AoO for a round after you cast a spell.
Aside: normal bows should deal nonlethal damage at best. :P
I think it would be absolutely fair to apply the breaking objects rules. I was taking a look at hardness/HP yesterday and it seems like it would apply. The only issue I had was, the rules are for making attacks against an object and how much damage it would do. But it doesn't say how much damage the object would take if you made an attack with it. How would you judge that? Would the object to equal amounts of damage to itself as it does to an opponent?
Yes, damage dealed minus hardness is applied to the improvised weapon. When the weapon's HP reach 0 it gets the broken condition.
Maybe it is often hand-waved for ease of play but I think this would apply to all weapons, not only improvised ones. Then using a whetstone during rests, craft(weaponsmithing), mending and make whole spells become more relevant.
You want your barbarian to dish out insane amounts of damage at high levels? Just make sure his weapon is +5 adamantine to resist the hit.
Now that magic weapons can bypass special materials DR. This could give special materials(at least adamantine) the relevance they have lost.
Just my 2c.
Maybe it is often hand-waved for ease of play but I think this would apply to all weapons, not only improvised ones. Then using a whetstone during rests, craft(weaponsmithing), mending and make whole spells become more relevant.
That would add and interesting dynamic to the game. It would cause combat to take a little longer due to calculating the damage to weapons and armor but it would add a level of realism.
I have played with item damage during combat in some of my games but never went as far in depth as to break out the Damage to Objects rules.
You did remind me of a question I have had for a while now: What exactly does a whetstone do in game? I couldn't find a description of it in the Equipment section so I have been unsure if it repairs minor damage to weapons or if it is strictly an RP item.
Seriously, I would rule that you cannot threaten with an improvised weapon. If it was designed to be swung with that level of efficiency it wouldn't be improvised. Obviously catch off guard would muddy the waters but otherwise it's a convenient fix.
Batts
I could have sworn that you couldn't threaten a square with a weapon you weren't proficient in, but I can't find a rules reference to back me up. Maybe it's an artifact from 3.5 or 3.0? Ah well.
You did remind me of a question I have had for a while now: What exactly does a whetstone do in game? I couldn't find a description of it in the Equipment section so I have been unsure if it repairs minor damage to weapons or if it is strictly an RP item.
I don't think there's any description, it's up to you as a DM to decide.
Maybe it could be used as a consummable: Like the medic kit.
DC 15 Craft(weaponsmithing) to repair 1 HP to a weapon. 5 minutes to complete and 5 uses per whetstone or something like that...
"Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?"
I would say the crossbowman only threatens if he declared that he was using the crossbow as an improvised weapon during his own turn.
Having an object in your hands does not automatically mean you are using it as an improvised weapon.
Remember, the standards of what qualifies someone to make an AoO are fairly strict. A 20th level raging barbarian with a 40 strength is not even allowed an AoO if he is unarmed. It would seem even metal gauntlets don't allow AoO. Whipping someone really hard with a bow might hurt a lot, but it isn't even close to what a real weapon is capable of.
"What exactly does a whetstone do in game?"
If you drop it on the ground, Thor gets really pissed off!
"Does the crossbowman threaten the squares around him counting the crossbow as an improvised weapon, rather than considering him unarmed?"
I would say the crossbowman only threatens if he declared that he was using the crossbow as an improvised weapon during his own turn.
The IW rules don't state that you must declare you are using something as an IW. I think the whole point of IW is that it is a spur of the moment, this is what I happen to have in my hands at the time, type deal.
For instance: A thief grabs an old ladies money pouch and starts running away with it. You hear her scream for someone to stop that man. You are walking along with a crate of apples in your arms. The thief runs right past you (in your adjacent square):
DM: Would you like to make an attack of opportunity?
Player: With what I don't have a weapon?
DM: You can smash him in the head with that crate as an improvised weapon but you take -4 to the attack roll.
Player: Awesome!
You smash the thief in the head with your crate of apples. The crate breaks open, apples fly all over the street, and the thief falls unconscious to the ground holding the old lady's money purse. Congratulations you just became a hero walking back from the market.
Having an object in your hands does not automatically mean you are using it as an improvised weapon.
However, there are also no rules that say you can't use what is in your hands on the spot as an IW. In order to make a real case by RAW to say you can't use something spur of the moment like that you would have to produce rules that say one of two things:
1) You must declare that you are using an improvised weapon on your turn before you may use it.
2) Shifting grips on something in your hands to use it as an improvised weapon is an X action. (X being a free action, standard action, move action or whatever)
Since no such rules exist (or at least not to my knowledge) there is no case that by RAW someone couldn't use the crossbow in their hands as an IW to deliver an AoO on the spur of the moment.
Remember, the standards of what qualifies someone to make an AoO are fairly strict.
Not really, all you have to do is be armed and threaten the area in question. There is nothing in the IW rules that suggest you are not considered armed or that you do not threaten.
A 20th level raging barbarian with a 40 strength is not even allowed an AoO if he is unarmed.
That is because he is unarmed. The only attacks he has available to him are unarmed attacks which specifically state you cannot make AoO because you are not considered armed. However, if that Barbarian had Improved Unarmed Strike or a Spiked Gauntlet he certainly could make AoO because in either case he is considered to be armed.
It would seem even metal gauntlets don't allow AoO.
That is again because you are unarmed. Gauntlets allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes (normally you are unarmed and may only cause non-lethal damage) but you are still considered unarmed. With IUS or Spiked Gauntlets you are considered armed, in addition you can cause lethal damage.
Again there is nothing in the IW rules that state you would not be considered armed, nor do they suggest that you would not threaten.
I will be glad when we have an official word on this one. I don't think that was the intent of the feat, but by the way its written it does seem to work.
intent of the featI must have missed something, which feat?
The one that lets you use improvised weapons without a penalty. With that feat technically you can threaten with anything. I thought this was the thread it came up in. I may be in the wrong thread. I think the feat is called catch off guard.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I thought this was the thread it came up in. I may be in the wrong thread. I think the feat is called catch off guard.
Well, I'm not sure if it came up in this thread but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning.
3.p p119 Caught Off-Guard removes the penalty and makes them flatfoot (hate this phrasing wish they had used "denied dex" because how do you make reset someone's clock back to "before you have had a chance to act".)
Removing the penalty doesn't touch on what can and can not threaten. Meaning, I don't see a rule that could apply to a weapon used at -4 to hit from (Improvised) that doesn't also apply when you don't take the -4 penalty.
"The IW rules don't state that you must declare you are using something as an IW."
If you don't state that you are using it as in IW, then it is just an object. If you are not using it as a weapon, then you don't threaten any squares with it, and thus are not entitled to an AoO.
If you were not "armed" at the end of your turn, what makes you think you can suddenly make the decision to become "armed" in the middle of someone else's action? As per the other thread, if it isn't speaking, or an immediate action, you can't do it if it is not your turn.
PS The apple thing is a nice idea, but dealing LETHAL damage by smashing someone with a flimsy crate of fruit? Nah. Also, initiative makes the whole example moot.
|
Why is that so many people want to be so restrictive with actions? Requiring actions to declare intent? Has it come to this?
My players are in a tavern and a brawl breaks out. One of the brawlers attacking a party members provokes an AoO and I have to tell the player he can't attack with his ale mug because he didn't declare its use as an improvised weapon on his last turn?
That seems a little un-fun to me...
The one that lets you use improvised weapons without a penalty. With that feat technically you can threaten with anything. I thought this was the thread it came up in. I may be in the wrong thread. I think the feat is called catch off guard.intent of the featI must have missed something, which feat?
Even without the Catch off Guard feat you can threaten with IWs. All the feat does is remove the -4 penalty to attack and causes anyone you attack with an IW to be flat-footed, which makes a Rogue with a crowbar and this feat a dangerous foe.
"Why is that so many people want to be so restrictive with actions?"
Because it is not your turn! You are not supposed to be doing anything. On your own turn, you can do whatever you want. If someone else is taking their turn, why does everyone feel the need to interrupt?
Edit - No disrespect Lord oKOya, I just think that AoO were meant to be fairly quick, simple attacks that occurred fairly rarely. My belief is that characters were not intended to threaten the squares around them while unarmed, holding a ranged weapon, dribbling a basketball, etc.
|
|
Why is that so many people want to be so restrictive with actions? Requiring actions to declare intent? Has it come to this?
My players are in a tavern and a brawl breaks out. One of the brawlers attacking a party members provokes an AoO and I have to tell the player he can't attack with his ale mug because he didn't declare its use as an improvised weapon on his last turn?
That seems a little un-fun to me...
+1, oh very much +1
|
|
"Why is that so many people want to be so restrictive with actions?"
Because it is not your turn! You are not supposed to be doing anything. On your own turn, you can do whatever you want. If someone else is taking their turn, why does everyone feel the need to interrupt?
Edit - No disrespect Lord oKOya, I just think that AoO were meant to be fairly quick, simple attacks. My belief is that characters were not intended to threaten the squares around them while unarmed, holding a ranged weapon, dribbling a basketball, etc.
Non taken.
My point would be that I think it is overly restrictive and highly unimaginative to say that IW cannot be used for AoO without some sort of declaration.
What is the harm really?
The guy swinging the table leg is already at a disadvantage due to a -4 penalty to hit (CoG non-withstanding) and most likely doing reduced damage. To also say that he doesn't threaten AoO is too much IMO.
As for the crossbow example above. Everyone using a crossbow would end up declaring their intent to use the crossbow as an IW at the end of their turn. You don't threaten with ranged weapons so it would only make sense to make that declaration at the end of your every turn. When it was your turn again, you would again declare that you intended to use it was designed. What is the point then of requiring the declaration? To punish forgetful players? To slow the game down with multitudes of declarations?
If your game falls apart because someone uses an apple crate to brain a purse snatcher, then I fear you have bigger problems to deal with.
I am also not meaning to offend anyone... I just find slavish adherence to turns and actions overly restrictive in some cases...
Cheers
|
|
Even without the Catch off Guard feat you can threaten with IWs. All the feat does is remove the -4 penalty to attack and causes anyone you attack with an IW to be flat-footed, which makes a Rogue with a crowbar and this feat a dangerous foe.
Only if the target of the rogue's crowbar attack is unarmed. :)
"Why is that so many people want to be so restrictive with actions?"
Because it is not your turn! You are not supposed to be doing anything. On your own turn, you can do whatever you want. If someone else is taking their turn, why does everyone feel the need to interrupt?
Edit - No disrespect Lord oKOya, I just think that AoO were meant to be fairly quick, simple attacks that occurred fairly rarely. My belief is that characters were not intended to threaten the squares around them while unarmed, holding a ranged weapon, dribbling a basketball, etc.
Strangely enough, 3.0/3.5/PF holds attacks of opportunity (AoOs) as the guiding mechanic of combat balance. If you're big and strong (melee), AoOs will be your friend. If you're small and weak (caster), then AoOs will be your nemesis. The *threat* of AoOs should cause characters to act in a certain way in combat. There could be countless AoOs every session if characters consciously decided to incur them at every chance.
If you've managed to keep your AC up for your level, a -4 to hit for an improvised weapon is pretty bad deal most of the time. I think it comes down to little things, like being able to flank, that make the ability to wield ranged weapons as improvised weapons more interesting than it seems. I think most DMs treat someone wielding a light crossbow as purely a ranged weapon -- not as an improvised melee weapon. It may be permissible within the framework of the rules, but virtually all DMs would disallow this.
|
|
Strangely enough, 3.0/3.5/PF holds attacks of opportunity (AoOs) as the guiding mechanic of combat balance. If you're big and strong (melee), AoOs will be your friend. If you're small and weak (caster), then AoOs will be your nemesis. The *threat* of AoOs should cause characters to act in a certain way in combat. There could be countless AoOs every session if characters consciously decided to incur them at every chance.
If you've managed to keep your AC up for your level, a -4 to hit for an improvised weapon is pretty bad deal most of the time. I think it comes down to little things, like being able to flank, that make the ability to wield ranged weapons as improvised weapons more interesting than it seems. I think most DMs treat someone wielding a light crossbow as purely a ranged weapon -- not as an improvised melee weapon. It may be permissible within the framework of the rules, but virtually all DMs would disallow this.
I think it would be entirely fair to rule that improvised weapons should not be allowed to deal precision damage (ie. sneak attack).
Of course, this is only my opinion, as it is most likely not supported by RAWA*. :)
Cheers
*Rules As Written Anywhere
If you don't state that you are using it as in IW, then it is just an object. If you are not using it as a weapon, then you don't threaten any squares with it, and thus are not entitled to an AoO.
Again, I don’t recall reading anything that suggests you must first “state you are using an IW” before you may use the object in your hand as an IW. Can you show me in the rules where what you are saying is supported? By that logic you also could not use a weapon until you declare your intent to stab/slash/bludgeon someone with it, even if it was already drawn and in your hand.
If you were not "armed" at the end of your turn, what makes you think you can suddenly make the decision to become "armed" in the middle of someone else's action? As per the other thread, if it isn't speaking, or an immediate action, you can't do it if it is not your turn.
Except that there is no rule saying you must declare intent to use an IW before opportunity arises. This is basically the same argument as the person saying you must first "ready your weapon" but as I said to that, there is no action required to ready a weapon. The only action is drawing a weapon. But if the object/weapon is already in your hand, you don't have to ready the weapon or declare anything, you just attack. The only difference is that since it is an IW you take -4 to the attack roll.
I am perfectly aware of what actions can be taken out of turn but it is an irrelevant point since, as pointed out above, there is nothing in the rules that states you must first declare intent to use an IW or decide to be armed before using an item as an IW. So, there is no action to be taken, in or out of turn.
And you forgot one action that can be taken out of turn = AoOs.
And AoOs can be taken as long as you threaten.
You threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack.
And you can make a melee attack into adjacent squares with an IW.
So, you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone but, as far as RAW is concerned, if you want to prove your case the burden is on you to show one of two things:
1) You cannot threaten with an IW.
2) It takes some action (which can’t be taken out of turn) to ready an IW before you may use it.
PS The apple thing is a nice idea,
Thank you.
but dealing LETHAL damage by smashing someone with a flimsy crate of fruit? Nah.
My scenario did not specify nor is it dependant on lethal or non-lethal damage. In this scenario the DM might rule that the IW most closely resembled a weapon that would deal non-lethal damage. It is still more than reasonable to assume that 1d4/1d6 of non-lethal damage + STR bonus would be enough to K.O. a level 1 Rogue or Expert, which was the idea of my scenario.
Also, initiative makes the whole example moot.
Actually I don't believe I went into enough detail for you to make that claim. If you like I am sure I could build a more detailed picture and series of combat events but I didn’t think it relevant to the debate at hand.
I think it would be entirely fair to rule that improvised weapons should not be allowed to deal precision damage (ie. sneak attack).
Of course, this is only my opinion, as it is most likely not supported by RAWA*. :)
So, no wand through the eye of your foe?
No carpenter's spike to the neck?No broken off broom handle to the spleen?
I don't think it specifies SA damage but it does say you can make critical strikes with an IW on a natural 20. Since crits and SA usually apply hand in hand my assumption would be you can us IWs to deliver SA damage.
|
|
I think it would be entirely fair to rule that improvised weapons should not be allowed to deal precision damage (ie. sneak attack).
Of course, this is only my opinion, as it is most likely not supported by RAWA*. :)
So, no wand through the eye of your foe?
No carpenter's spike to the neck?I don't think it specifies SA damage but it does say you can make critical strikes with an IW on a natural 20. Since crits and SA usually apply hand in hand my assumption would be you can us IWs to deliver SA damage.
Yes critical (as per RAW), no SA (opinion). Wands through the eye and carpenter's spikes to the neck are the results of a confirmed critical. Anything else falls under the purview of "called shots" and are definitely house rule territory.
Geesh! Try to help a guy out and... ;)
(...and I did specifically state that it was my opinion only!)
EDIT: Hey! Quit editing your post while I am responding! :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Even without the Catch off Guard feat you can threaten with IWs. All the feat does is remove the -4 penalty to attack
Which is what I said.
"The IW rules don't state that you must declare you are using something as an IW."
And I'd be sore if my DM said that I couldn't use an improvised weapon in my hand (like a Mug) as an AoO.
The rules don't supply any rules for who allows an improvised weapon or even what can be an improvised weapon.
If your DM says it (whatever you have) is and improvised weapon, then it is. There is no need to worry about whether or not you declared ahead of time you might some day want to use something as a weapon.
Your DM is in charge of this (since there are no rules) and if he sees you with nothing in your hand your ability to convince him you have an improvised weapon is slim. If you had a mug in hand, I'd wager most DM's would call it a perfectly fine improvised weapon usable as one on an AoO.
I think it would be entirely fair to rule that improvised weapons should not be allowed to deal precision damage (ie. sneak attack).
Actually I think that rule exists. I know you can't do nonlethal without a Sap and I thought there was a "must be proficient" rule for Sneak Attack and/or precision also. If so, improvised weapons by definition (even with Caught Off-Guard) are still non-proficient.
Yes critical (as per RAW), no SA (opinion). Wands through the eye and carpenter's spikes to the neck are the results of a confirmed critical. Anything else falls under the purview of "called shots" and are definitely house rule territory.
Geesh! Try to help a guy out and... ;)
It wasn't an attack by any means. I was just trying to point out that, in most cases, if you could make critical strikes you could also deliver SA damage. Also if you can't hit with critical strikes you can't deliver SA. They generally go hand in hand.
EDIT: Hey! Quit editing your post while I am responding! :)
I was actually about to edit it further too. I do that a lot.
I was going to add:
Only if the target of the rogue's crowbar attack is unarmed. :)
Thanks, I forgot that part.
and:
Does that = +2 then? :)
Go ahead and make it +3. I have been +1ing you on the inside.
Shadowlord - "Again, I don’t recall reading anything that suggests you must first “state you are using an IW” before you may use the object in your hand as an IW."
RAW- "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
If you want to use a crossbow in melee, it would seem that you need to do something that 'makes it effective in melee' such as announcing your decision to use it as an IW. I personally would say that is something that must be done on your own turn. Seems others would allow that decision to be made in the middle of another persons turn.
As for precision damage - IW are non proficient weapons. I don't know if that matters.
I guess you are right about non-lethal damage and AoO. I was reading more into it then I should have.
My point about initiative was that either your flat-footed (no AoO), or your turn has passed and you could have declared an IW and even readied an action...
EDIT: Initiative usually makes most of the debate useless anyway. How often are you going to end your turn with a mug of ale in your hand while facing a combat situation?