Come again - you can't shoot bows in melee while in melee?

[javcs]

Wow, just wow.

Where's he pulling -35 to hit from?! Gah .. it's a good thing I don't know your DM.

If you're in melee with somebody, and you shoot them, they don't get soft cover, if anything, you should get a further bonus to hit and to damage, something along the lines of truly point blank shot - +2 attack, +2 damage, when within 10ft, point blank shot and precise shot are pre-reqs (if it were a feat).

Send him a link to this thread.

 

[nittanytbone]

...since you do not threaten."

Easily solved: Use a spiked gauntlet (Simple Weapon, SRD), armor spikes (Martial weapon, SRD), Elvencraft bow (Races of the Wild), or Improved Unarmed Strike (feat, SRD). Now you threaten all the time.

 

[sukael]

The appropriate text from the SRD.

Ranged Attacks

With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is ten range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee

If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

And in the Standard Actions table, making a ranged attack is listed as provoking AoOs.

 

[Nyaricus]

Send him a link to this thread.

I am planning to; he told me point black to ask you guys if (t)his ruling was true or not.

nittanytbone, why do those allow you to threaten? Thanks.

 

[brehobit]

DM of Nyaricus, let me introduce you to Newton's Laws. Now, please step away from the crack pipe.

I'm guessing the argument _might_ be that on a long bow you are very unlikely to have the arrow finish leaving the bowstring before it hits it's target. So it won't end up going full speed.

But I'm just guessing....

 

[Sejs]

Sounds like kind of a cool custom bow enchantment! "Arrows fired from this bow magically accelerate as they travel through the air, dealing an additional +1 in damage for every x in distance travelled before they strike their target."

Ramjet Arrows!

Anyone who would use a bow in such a way is immediately cursed.

DM: Use your character in this way, but beware, for to do so carries with it a terrible curse.
Player: That's bad.
DM: But you get a free frogurt!
Player: That's good!
DM: The frogurt is also cursed.
Player: That's bad.
DM: But it comes with your choice of topping!
Player: That's good!
DM: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
Player: ...
DM: That's bad.
Player: Can I go now?

 

[Thurbane]

I agree that the DM is pretty far out with -35. The RAW is -4 and provoke an AoO, I believe.

As for momentum, there is some vailidity to what he says, although not exactly how I think it's being explained.

When longbows were used historically, it was generally in arced volleys rather than "direct fire". After the arrow has reached the apex of it's arc, it gains momentum from gravity as it falls. Therefore the further (higher) it is fired, the more momentum will be behind it when it hits.

Which is NOT to say that the momentum an arrow has when it first leaves the bow is not sufficient to be lethal.

 

[Hypersmurf]

When longbows were used historically, it was generally in arced volleys rather than "direct fire". After the arrow has reached the apex of it's arc, it gains momentum from gravity as it falls. Therefore the further (higher) it is fired, the more momentum will be behind it when it hits.

Um. That's not how it works.

The momentum the arrow has at the target will be the same whether you fire a high arc, a shallow arc, or direct (discounting air resistance, etc). The higher the arrow goes, the more momentum it loses. So yes, an arrow falling from a higher arc will gain more momentum between the apex and the ground... but it lost more getting there, and the two balance out.

-Hyp.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I dunno, crack-head rulings like that usually distinctly turn me off a guy's game.

I mean ... -35? That's just saying: "You can't do that because I say so, but I'm not man enough to say it's just my say-so, so, here's a made-up number."

Might as well go Kids Next Door on it and say:

"Anybody firing a bow while in melee takes negative seventy-bajillion to their attack roll."

--fje

 

[Thurbane]

Um. That's not how it works.

The momentum the arrow has at the target will be the same whether you fire a high arc, a shallow arc, or direct (discounting air resistance, etc). The higher the arrow goes, the more momentum it loses. So yes, an arrow falling from a higher arc will gain more momentum between the apex and the ground... but it lost more getting there, and the two balance out.

-Hyp.

Well, I was going to let this slide so as not to appear petty, but I found you've been doing this with a few of my posts.

Let me requote my whole post with some relevant bolding:

I agree that the DM is pretty far out with -35. The RAW is -4 and provoke an AoO, I believe.

As for momentum, there is some vailidity to what he says, although not exactly how I think it's being explained.

When longbows were used historically, it was generally in arced volleys rather than "direct fire". After the arrow has reached the apex of it's arc, it gains momentum from gravity as it falls. Therefore the further (higher) it is fired, the more momentum will be behind it when it hits.

Which is NOT to say that the momentum an arrow has when it first leaves the bow is not sufficient to be lethal.

If any of that is incorrect, please let me know why. Perhaps I should have added "when used in this fashion" as a caveat to the end of the third paragraph, but I thought that would be abundantly clear to the casual reader. Apparently not.

So yes, I am aware that firing an arrow into the air does not allow it to magically overcome the laws of thermodynamics. I was just posting why I thought the DM in question might be harboring the misapprehension that arrows did more damage at long range than close.

Of course, if the arrows were being fired from the top of a cliff...let's not go there...