Combat ??>> Flanking

[ThirdWizard]

The point here being that the "I shoot and then draw as a free action" manoeuver is an exploit to get around the restriction of using a crossbow as a missile weapon and a melee weapon in the same round.

I don't see it as an exploid. I see it as something to make Quick Draw worthwhile as a feat choice. If you want to shoot that crossbow again next round, you either have to have another crossbow on you to Quickdraw, or you have to spend a Move Action to pick up the one you droped. Then, to Quick Draw another longsword to take an AoO (that you don't even have a guarantee of - who moves next to someone to drink a potion?), you have to have yet another longsword on you to Quick Draw.

To pull this maneuver off for two rounds, you have to have two bows and two longswords on your person. For three rounds, three of both! The only plausable way to use this "exploit" is to, say, fire with Manyshot, Quick Draw a Longsword, then Move into melee range so maybe the enemy will perform some action to give you an AoO. Which nets you what really? Your benefit of using a ranged weapon is gone because now the enemy can take a Full Attack against you.

I just don't see the real benefit of pulling out a melee weapon after firing your bow.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which I suppose is the same question as: if he shoots with a crossbow, drops it, and quickdraws a sword, can he take an AoO with the sword?

Now, my answer to that question is "Absolutely... whyever not?"

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now, my answer to that question is "Absolutely... whyever not?"

-Hyp.

Because of the previous ruling that a crossbow can be used in melee as an improvised weapon.

It seems like the posters have a problem with shooting and then using the same crossbow as an improvised weapon to threaten an area, even though they don't have a problem with shooting the same crossbow and then drawing a melee weapon to threaten an area, or throwing a weapon and drawing another throwing weapon and threatening an area.

I see that there's a bit of logical inconsistancy here.

So I posited shooting one crossbow (used as a missile weapon), dropping it, and drawing another (which, having not been shot at all, should not fall under the previously mentioned, "You used it as a missile weapon this round, so you can't also use it as a melee weapon to threaten" problem).

Again, this was met with cries of "No," though I don't quite understand why, given the logical progression mentioned earlier.

 

[Shuffle]

Well how about this, since it's loaded and the crossbow takes damage past hardness. You can use it as an improvised weapon, but the mechanism will fire leaving you with an unloaded crossbow next round.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you strike your opponent with the butt of the weapon, and the mechanism fires, where do you suppose the bolt will go? In the opposite direction of the butt...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

don't see it as an exploid. I see it as something to make Quick Draw worthwhile as a feat choice. If you want to shoot that crossbow again next round, you either have to have another crossbow on you to Quickdraw, or you have to spend a Move Action to pick up the one you droped. Then, to Quick Draw another longsword to take an AoO (that you don't even have a guarantee of - who moves next to someone to drink a potion?), you have to have yet another longsword on you to Quick Draw.

To pull this maneuver off for two rounds, you have to have two bows and two longswords on your person. For three rounds, three of both! The only plausable way to use this "exploit" is to, say, fire with Manyshot, Quick Draw a Longsword, then Move into melee range so maybe the enemy will perform some action to give you an AoO. Which nets you what really? Your benefit of using a ranged weapon is gone because now the enemy can take a Full Attack against you.

I just don't see the real benefit of pulling out a melee weapon after firing your bow.

Well, I started off from the shield bash and the crossbow. Certainly it's an exploit to work around the shield bash rule by quickly switching to a new shield to regain the shield bonus to AC that you lost by bashing that round. And certainly you ought not be swinging around that crossbow that you shot with this round (although if you disagree that a crossbow should be either a melee or missile weapon on any given round, my argument will be lost on you).

So putting the two together and switching weapons in order go get around the "melee or missile but not both" restriction, you're starting to get into cheese territory. I mean, certainly you'd have to carry around a lot of bows and swords, but isn't that what a Quiver of Ehlonna and Heward's Handy Haversack are for? The thing is, it starts to get a little ridiculous and becomes a strain on what I'd call "good faith"...the notion that at the table a player character won't behave in a way that exploits the vagaries of the ruleset in a way that a sane person (who doesn't believe he is governed by simplified combat rules) would never attempt. Like carrying around a bag of rats.

But the problem isn't really with people doing this over the course of five or six rounds. It's that it might happen once. But if it happens once, then it's allowed to happen any number of times. Since "any number of times" is implausible, one time must be too, for consistency. Still, as far as I see it, if I rule that a crossbow cannot be used as a melee weapon on the same round as it was used for missile fire--which is a house rule, as crossbows are not assumed to be improvisable in the PHB for attacks of opportunity--then an attempt to try to squeeze that melee capability out of it is an exploit for exactly the same reason as the shield bash exploit is an exploit.

P.S. It's spelled caffeine. I know because it's my bestest friend in the world.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Phew! These are things that I don't have to worry about with my group.

Really, I had never considered it; we never really thought to hit someone with the butt of the crossbow as an AoO. It is also very rare for a ranged combatant to be allowed an AoO due to their being away from combat (if they are sucessful). In practice, most ranged characters in my game have taken Quick Draw so that they can join melee as soon as it comes to them, not as a way to draw a new weapon every round (with the occasional 5' step back Full Attack option instead).

In cases like this, where we're presented with a choice we weren't previously aware of (ranged combatants taking AoO with their bow), what I like to do is explain it to the group and we vote on how to handle it. So, I can't tell you how we are going to play it from now on. But, I see the slippery slope that is possible if allowed to be taken to the extreme. Luckily for me, my group would frown on such behavior and any PC who tried this would be berated by the other players.

And sig changed! EDIT: sig also not showing up in this post.

 

[Arkhandus]

Daggers are listed as melee weapons in the chart. Crossbows are listed as ranged weapons. Daggers can be thrown for ranged attacks, but are technically melee weapons by default. Melee weapons can threaten an area. Crossbows can be used for improvised bashing in melee, but are technically ranged weapons by default. Ranged weapons cannot threaten an area. It doesn't matter that you're using the crossbow for a melee attack, it is not designed for use in melee and it is awkward to use in melee, and no matter what your combat training, you'll never be able to swing a crossbow as quickly, accurately, and effectively in melee as you would a mace, hammer, or club; it's just not built for it. Just like a chair makes for an awkward melee weapon compared to a baseball bat. Anything that is classified as a ranged weapon by default cannot threaten an area, because using it in melee as an improvised weapon still doesn't change its actual type to melee weapon, and doesn't actually change the object's form to be appropriate for melee.

Anything with claws or gauntlets can threaten an area with those unless they're holding something with those hands all round. You only need a hand free for a moment to throw a quick punch or whatever. Though, by the rules as written, I'm not sure if someone wearing a gauntlet can threaten an area with it unless they have Improved Unarmed Strike... Something with a natural bite attack would always threaten an area with it, except when paralyzed or something (or wearing a helm that covers their mouth).

 

[Hypersmurf]

P.S. It's spelled caffeine.

'Caffein' is also an accepted spelling.

EDIT: sig also not showing up in this post.

Sigs only show up on your first message on a given page.

-Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Sigs only show up on your first message on a given page.

That is a wonderful idea that should be on more message boards.