Please verify: you can threaten while unarmed.

[Crazydwarf]

Indeed, and what about "pistol whipping" with a crossbow stock ?
It's a silly rule IMHO. Same with shields acctually.
And I belive I made a suggested houserule about it in some other topic.

If a PC wants to bash someone with a shield/bow as an improvised weapon I'd let them. It's a free action to drop the item at his feet and swing a fist anyway so no problem really.
If the PC wants to block/shoot later though, the appropriate actions can be spent to "readjust" the item same as picking it up from the floor.

 

[Stalker0]

Well that answers that. I still like the idea of using a bow as an improvised weapon. Mechanically there wouldn't be much difference between using a bow as an improvised melee weapon and attacking unarmed, but I find the idea amusing.

Considering there's nothing against just kicking that guy in the jimmies with OA, I say use your bow. Just don't give it any advantages, treat it like a normal improvised weapon. I mean, any mainstay bow user is going to have garbage OA's anyway, so why not. The only thing you might do any real damage to is a minion, and aren't the purpose of minions to make the pcs look cool

 

[the Jester]

In 4e, you're flanking whether you're armed with a melee or ranged weapon or no weapon at all, just as long as you're adjacent to the enemy and an ally is directly opposite you and also enemy-adjacent.

 

[Ginnel]

stuff which makes sense

Apparently its all about saying yes, [fakerant] stupid DM saying I can't have 3 stats at 18 its all about saying yes I tell him *I keeed I keeed!*

Unless your playing a really serious game with no improvisation RAW type, a quick flick of the wrist and your bow thuds into a bad guys stomach, the wizard clonking someone in the head with his book, the crossbow being switched around to slam the butts face into the enemy's face should always be a yes, it does barely any damage but the imagery is exciting, this games at least partly about imagination no?

 

[eamon]

I'd leave it to playstyle. In a gritty, harsh campaign, it's certainly believable that a monster would simply ignore the threat of the unarmed combatant (perhaps it can't take OA's against a combatant it's ignoring thusly?). An OA with a bow might break the bowstring. In a more common heroic, optimistic campaign, (i.e. by default) even your mere fists might be worthy of attention, and you could thus flank even while unarmed.

It's a little unfortunate that there's no modifier beyond "combat advantage". It's unfortunate that an invisible character has no greater a chance to hit a target than a flanking creature. In 3e how I'd have resolved such situations (if players insist) is by saying that a creature may choose to not be flanked, but then the creature it is ignoring is considered invisible (by merit of being ignored) with all ensuing bonuses.

If you do rule that unarmed creatures don't flank, be aware that there are many more situations in which believability conflicts with the simplified world the rules conjure. That means much more work for the DM which the players should then accept without too much fight, and many more potentially unwise adhoc rulings necessary to maintain such a more detailed world. That's OK if that's what you want, but it's not the 4e style you'll normally see, and with good reason.

Edit: possible compromise ruling (only if desired): a creature may ignore another combatant who then cannot flank it, but doing so provokes an OA with combat advantage. If the OA hits, the creature grants combat advantage to everone until the end of its next turn. I don't think this rule is a good one (since it slows down gameplay), but if you really want to have the ability to ignore another combatants flank, it might work.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You seem to have a very strange idea of how a bow is used.

Why do you say that?

 

[tanj]

I find it very difficult to imagine anyone has trained to use a bow as a melee weapon.

It was a joke. Obviously you meant something else, but it did somewhat look like you were saying that you would be trained to use a bow as a melee weapon.

 

[Jack Colby]

I have not found anything in the rules to the contrary? However, unarmed does not mean "I just fired my bow and if I drop it, I'll be unarmed and can make opportunity attacks." I think some care should be taken there to stop abuse.

Why would you drop it? Just let go of it with one hand and use the free hand to punch with... unarmed attack!

 

[Syrsuro]

By the RAW:

You cannot use a bow as a melee weapon. It says so specifically ("You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon"). And thus you cannot threaten with a bow.

You can use a piece of wood the exact same size, shape and composition as a bow as an improvised weapon. It fits the description for such a weapon. And since you can threaten with an improvised weapon, you can threaten with a bow-like piece of wood.



How you choose to resolve this for your own group is up to you. My interpretation (RAI) is that when they say "You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon", they mean to say (for example) "You cannot fire arrows out of a bow and call it a melee weapon" and thus I would allow a bow to be used as an improvised weapon.

What I have not decided is whether I will impose a chance to damage the bow once it has been used in this way. An alternative reading of the RAW could be "You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon and expect it to still be useable as a ranged weapon when you are through".

Carl

 

[DracoSuave]

Pffffft. Kender used their ranged attack weapons as melee weapons ALL the time.


Or was it melee weapons as ranged attack weapons?