Legolas trick (Discussion from General)

[The_Gneech]

Don't forget that 50% chance of being destroyed -- that counts for melee too!

So, draw as a free action, -4 to hit, d4 damage, 50% of destroying the arrow ... hardly seems bad to me. It's a tactic barely worth using except against the lowliest of mooks.

-The Gneech

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

My original response, copy/paste from the General thread:

The rules state "When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action..."

If your intent is to draw the arrow and nock it, ready to fire.. its 'ammunition'
If your intent is to grab the arrow and weild it as an improvised weapon...its not 'ammunition' anymore. With Quickdraw this could be a free action, leaving you weilding an improvised weapon that threatens an area into which you can react with an AoO.

However, this puts you at the start of your turn weilding an arrow, not the bow. Quickdraw could feasibly be used to re-ready the bow. Personally I would call in the DM option of limiting the number of free actions in order to void any 'I weild a bow but threaten all around me with an improvised weapon {arrow}' strategies.

Without Quickdraw the character would have to expend a move action to draw the weapon and re-ready the bow. A rather sub-optimal choice if you ask me.

An addition, based on the additional thoughts in this thread, if the archer chose to take the penalties for TWF, I would allow the multiple free action changing of weapons.
This would be the expenditure of two non-archery feats in exhange for an improvement in a known weak area.

To me, the cheese factor is comparable to:
- using a polearm with armor spikes or IUS for the close range
- using a THweapon with armor spikes to TWF
- using Imp Buckler Defense
- do the same stunt as above with IUS

All stuff allowed ... but many DMs (like me) refrain from allowing it.

The problem with rulings like this is defining 'holding' vs 'weilding'. Common sense will tell you that 'holding' and 'weilding' a spiked gauntlet look exactly the same. However game mechanics make the two states distinctly different and you are required to 'ready' a spiked gauntlet even if you are already 'holding' it.

Actually I also allow all of this, however in order to weild a second weapon in order to threaten a second area you either need to take the TWF penalties or do the Quickdraw trade mentioned above.

This is a very sub-optimal tactic, however in the case of protecting oneself against grappling, only 1 point of damage is needed.

Sidenote:
Improvised weapons are treated as if you are non-proficient with them, however this does not stop you from using Weapon Finesse, Power Attack, or other options while weilding them.
I allow a feat 'Bar Room Brawler' that grants proficiency in improvised weapons

 

[mvincent]

in order to weild a second weapon in order to threaten a second area you either need to take the TWF penalties or do the Quickdraw trade mentioned above.

From the RotG:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty, though you still take the -4 penalty for an off-hand attack; you also still take the -4 penalty for an improvised weapon for a total penalty of -8.)"

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Clarify my above:

You need to have taken the TWF penalties for the attacks during your turn.

 

[mvincent]

You need to have taken the TWF penalties for the attacks during your turn.

While that seems like one possible interpretation of the text by itself, it also seems to resolve the "when fighting this way" TWF'ing argument, thus allowing one to be threatening (i.e. wielding) a secondary weapon whether they have attacked with it (and taken TWF'ing penalties) or not, which seems consistent with other off-hand threatening examples from the 3.5 FAQ.

 

[Darklone]

So in this case the arrow stunt would be much better than a Spiked gauntlet because you don't need to take the TWF penalties (on your bow shot???).

 

[KarinsDad]

The Legolas trick sounds like a feat to me.


Ranged attacker gets to do a melee AoO with an arrow, even though he has a ranged weapon in hand.


Isn't this one of the purposes of feats in the first place? To give PCs cool abilities that other PCs and NPCs typically do not possess?

 

[Darklone]

Nah, feats are too expensive, I want cheese without having to pay!

Like spellcasting with a twohanded weapon...

Hmm. Why not using the bow itself as improvised weapon (club) for the AoO?

 

[molonel]

If I were going to address this, I'd consider a couple of different options:

1. Make a feat that allows a bow wielder to be considered "always armed" with an arrow as an improvised stabbing weapon, doing 1d3/20 (x2) damage plus strength etc. Legolas would have been a ranger, and his top chosen enemies would have been orcs, so it's easy to see him waxing a low-level orc warrior with an arrow.

2. Allow #1 as a free ability for a ranger against his chosen enemies.

 

[Deset Gled]

By a strict reading of the rules, the Legolas trick is not possible. A bow does damage of 1d6 or 1d4, but an arrow does damage of "-". Feel free to attack with one all you want, but you'll never hurt someone with it.*

Now, if you want to create a separate feat to treat an arrow as a weapon, or allow an arrow to have a different damage when used without a bow, that's fine. But remember that the damage is completely made up. You now also have to make up the crit range, and decide whether the damage is piercing (with the tip) or bludgeoning (smacking someone with the shaft). More importantly, you need to decide how much area it threatens. A DM would be well within their rights to rule that an arrow does not threaten an area (like an unarmed strike or a whip) when used as an improvised weapon. And you need some way to threaten in order to make an AoO (although there is no requirement to take the AoO with the weapon you threaten with). These same limitation apply to trying to use a bow as an improvised weapon. The key thing to remember, though, is that all of this is purely made up by the DM, and is well into the area of house rules.

*Edit: Hmm, I completely missed the text that details the arrow being used as an improvised weapon. I'll have to retract most of this post. Oops.