Search results

Yes. You don't even have to use the improved weapon rules to flank - you just "have to be able to attack the enemy" - but it does specifically mention that you can flank while unarmed in the same sentence. Likewise, OAs just require you to be able to make a melee basic attack, and you can make a...

By the way, Shields actually aren't usable as 1 handed improvised weapons. They're too heavy. Even a light shield exceeds the weight limit for a 1 hander, and heavy shields can't be used as an improvised weapon at all. Voila! No problem.

Y'know, I don't know where I got that from. Sleep deprivation, probably.

Mounted combat is very much an afterthought in 4E. It's no surprise that lances are nowhere to be seen. Maybe in the Martial Powers splat.

Not true. The feat requires you to be holding a melee weapon in both hands. The powers require you to wield two melee weapons. That's a small and subtle distinction, but it is a distinction. For one thing, you can't qualify for the feat if you're using an unarmed strike, because you're not...

I never said anything at all about kicking. I said it could be wielded as a one-handed improvised weapon, with an unarmed strike using the other hand. And, yes, you can use a bow as a one-handed improvised weapon - the only reason it's a two handed ranged weapon is you have to use a hand to hold...

No problem. It is a little confusing, so I didn't mind clarifying :)

Yes, it does. Or at the very least, the RAW is silent. At the worst you could wield the bow as an improvised melee weapon in one hand and an unarmed strike in the other hand.

Any monster can use any of the options listed from pages 286 to 292 in the PHB - except for Action Point (most monsters have none) and Second Wind (specifically mentioned that monsters/NPCs can't use it unless stated otherwise).

Like I said, there's a number of Warlord powers that grant either melee or ranged basic attacks. As in, "And one ally in range can make a basic attack". Any time it doesn't specify melee vs ranged, you can choose - thus, melee or ranged.

There's only one Warlord power that explicitly grants a ranged basic attack (and then only on a miss), but there are quite a few that grant either melee or ranged basic attacks. I'd say half a dozen or so?

That is not a correct ruling, however. You're welcome to it, just realize that it's deviating from the rules of the game.

There's really no "correct" or not to this. It's not covered by the rules. I would allow it because unarmed attacks are utterly crappy. There's no proficiency bonus, he's using a stat he hasn't pumped, and he doesn't get his strength bonus if any because of the power. At most he'd do 2d4 damage...

A fighter will make far, far, far more melee basic attacks in their career than a wizard AND a warlock put together.

Around here nobody bothers with the Stealth skills because they're useless in a party setting: they're limited by the lowest roll in the group, and you're not gonna get the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard to roll above a 10 with any consistency. With Spot and Listen, it's very rare for any single...

No? Person A's action resolved. Then Person B's action resolved. Their initiative order is set when their action resolves. Thus, it goes: Trigger A B Simple.

Actually, I've always found Iron Guard's Glare to be the best 1st level stance, personally. If you build your crusader right, the enemies won't be hitting anyone, you included.

And if the enemy acts before then, he's lost an entire turn for vanity. <shrug> I don't see the problem. Anyway, there's no official way to decide, so it's entirely up to the DM.

If it's a mexican standoff, how are they delaying to change initiative? You cannot both delay and ready an action. Its either-or.

Are your PCs really competing to see whos triggered action goes first? If not, why does it matter that they could compete? If so... why are you still running for them?