Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 217986" data-attributes="member: 4937">Some of this I have already considered, and though it is good to see it all laid out, I still don't think anyone is adressing the underlying question.  Yes, there are some things that some creatures can do in some circumstances in responce to an attacker using missile weapons in melee, BUT are those things really sufficient?  I conceed that the swordsman can get a slight advantage, but is the advantage of a melee weapon in melee combat - ESPECIALLY AT LOW LEVELS - really as high as we would like it to be?- Not everyone is going to have reach.- Grapples are not always practical.- Sundering the bow requires an opposed attack roll, 50/50 chance of hitting at best as the rules are written, unless you want to add in some rule that modifies the opposed attack roll in some manner if the target is missile weapon.  And, if you miss, you are subject to attacks.  Even if you hit, it is not certain you as a low level creature will smash the bow (unless the DM rules bows more fragile than the rules would seem to indicate). And, even if you did, drawing a weapon is a move equivalent action that does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity.  At best you have used an attack to get an attack in return, and at worst the twinkish archer pulls his 'back up bow' and keeps plugging you.  Also note that the rules as written could be literally interpreted to state that you can't sunder a longbow with a handaxe, short sword, or dagger.  If we are going to alter that with a house rule or errata, then why not house rules to cover the more general problem?  And, what if we are dealing with an Orc trying to sunder the PC's +1 bow?-Ogre, thanks for reminding me that you can take a 5' step with a partial attack, I'd forgotten.  But, even so, your plan has several problems with it.  First, if you ready the partial action 'I'll take a 5' step and attack the archer' with the condiation 'If the archer takes a 5' step away from me', then literally by the rules, if the archer doesn't take a 5' step from you, then you lose the action.  So, my twinked up archer might just say, 'Ok, I won't step away, I'll take my full attack action here.', in which case we are back to 1 attack (the AoO) per 1 attack (or 2 with rapid shot).  And, at high levels your plan runs up into the problem that you can only read partial actions, so even if the archer complied with your desires it would be 2 attacks vs. his full comlement of attacks, or if he stayed where he was 1 attack (the AoO) vs. his full complement of attacks.But, I still say that that really isn't the point.  The point ought not to be that there are within the rules some minor advantages of using a melee weapon in melee.  The point is that it ought to be just sort of insanely difficult to fire arrows at someone 4 or 5 feet away from you slashing at you with a sword, so much so, that most people would opt for a melee weapon if they could.</blockquote>

Verification