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

[pawsplay]

I'll forego the technical points of the argument for now. I'm not convinced you are 100% correct in your physics, but I need to find some sources that I don't have access to at the moment.

I recommend Aristotle's Physica.

 

[nightjackal1977]

Oh oh Techanical stuff.......

Just to comment on it. momentum is P = M*V (M = Mass, V = Velocity)

So V = A*T (A = Acceleration and T = Time)

In case of a Bow Fired Directly the A (result of the stored energy (potential energy) of the bow string)and T (time takes from release to arrow leaving String) is the imparted only by the Bowstring. So V can only come from Bow.

So Newton's First Law of Motion is Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

After all that...I would say the rules of physics don't apply when you can point your finger at someone and say die and they do.

 

[Klaus]

This also applies if you are in the threatened square and shooting at the foe that threatens you - since you are now shooting into melee.

In that case you're not firing *into* a melee, you're firing *within* a melee...

Plus, you're not in the arrow's path, but quite behind it.

 

[Arnwyn]

No, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with everyone here. You're DM is mostly right. The ruling however is limited to the Dark Sun campaign setting, however. Since most creatures either have active or passive psychic powers, a buffer of sorts is created when they enter in close proximity of each other. In this case, when they enter melee combat. This Buffering Supernatural Shield causes all ranged attacks, including spit, to slow to a crawl until it has exited the BS Shield which covers your entire threatened area. It is noted that attacks affected are only done so by the Shield you and the creatures you threaten have created.

IIRC it's under the section "Ten fast ways to get kicked out of my own game."

I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not... but that's only because I despise Dark Sun.

 

[Artoomis]

To get really techincal and be complete, the further away you are from the target the slower the arrow will go when it hits - assuming that height above the ground at origin and target is identical. That's because of the friction of going through the air.

I only added that for completeness, it certainly does not matter in a simplified fantasy combat system.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I only added that for completeness, it certainly does not matter in a simplified fantasy combat system.

Right - 'swhy I noted "assuming no air resistance effects" a few times

-Hyp.

 

[lukelightning]

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."

Coupled with "It is so a real rule, it's in the book but I just forgot where!" What the heck was he thinking! That is a bald-faced lie. Lie lie lie.

I'd never game with someone like this. I might accept it if a DM said "I want to make firing a bow while threatened more dangerous, so I will add a further -4 penalty to hit..." or something like that (though I think that would be dumb), but a random crazy "-35" along with the rest of that kooky scenario says to me "this DM is on a power trip and is not worth playing with."

 

[moritheil]

If any of that is incorrect, please let me know why.

It's a question of conservation of energy. The energy gained from falling from a height is the exact same (ignoring friction) as the energy lost by attaining that height. If you factor in friction, it's actually a little less.

At any rate . . . the oddest thing about this example is the -35 which came out of nowhere.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Also, if you do decide to shoot into melee whilst in melee, they get an AoO against you, since you do not threaten."

This DM is wrong on so many points, but no one's commented on this one yet.

AoO activations have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the target threatens. All that matters is whether the person potentially able to make the AoO threatens.

In the example where you have a bow and you're adjacent to an opponent and you decide to try to shoot (shoot him or anyone else), the only thing that matters is whether the *opponent* threatens you.

Whether or not you threaten your opponent has no bearing on whether or not your opponent gets an AoO. It does not matter. At all.

Also, the definition of "in melee" is one opponent threatening another with a melee weapon. If your opponent is unarmed and doesn't threaten you (no Unarmed Combat feat, no armor spikes, no natural weapons, etc.), and you don't threaten him, then you're not in melee. Even though you're adjacent and don't like each other.

If your buddy across the room is adjacent to an opponent, and neither threatens the other, then they aren't in melee--even though they're adjacent to each other and they're enemies. Shoot at the opponent all you want; there's no penalty*.

The whole concept of "threaten" is pretty fundamental to D&D 3.5. Your DM should really take the time to read the combat rules in a single sitting, especially the paragraph dealing with attacks of opportunity.

-z

* Potentially, there may be cover penalties, range penalties, etc. But there's no penalty for shooting a foe standing next to a friend unless one threatens the other/is in melee with the other.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.

 

[Asmor]

I'll forego the technical points of the argument for now. I'm not convinced you are 100% correct in your physics, but I need to find some sources that I don't have access to at the moment.

The cliff comment was meant as a joke, basically, but technically in that particular case an arrow does have more momentum at the end of it's flight than the beginning. You brought arcs into it, not me.

If nothing else, the drag of air and the arrow's terminal velocity would probably have something to say. It sounds right that the velocity imparted as it left the bow would equal the velocity when it reached the same vertical displacement (i.e. fell to the same level as from where it was fired) in a void (with gravity...).

However, wind resistance would work with gravity to slow the arrow down faster on the way up, and it would work against gravity to keep the arrow from accelerating as quickly on the way down. Plus, I don't know much about the construction of real arrows, but I'd imagine that their terminal velocity isn't amazingly high...

So basically, I'm saying that I'd guess that an arrow fired in an arc would have much less momentum when it struck than when it was fired. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd guess the arrow's momentum at impact was derived almost entirely from its horizontal velocity, and the vertical velocity from gravity would be almost neglible.

Of course, I'm just pulling this out of my ass and I don't really know much about anything relevant...