Ranger - Twin Strike kick to the groin?

[Metus]

I ran a 4E game for my group for the first time on Saturday. The group was under attack by bandits, and a bandit sidled up next to the ranger of the group.

The ranger was holding a longbow, wanted to attack but couldn't do so and shift as well (he was dazed). He also didn't want to draw an OA for using a ranged weapon. So, in his hands was the longbow, and he declared he wanted to use his feet as improvised weapons, and use Twin Strike to do two kicks at the bandit.

This was a tough call for me, but I decided that he could only do one kick; I figured he wasn't meeting the requirement of "wielding two melee weapons." Plus it seemed kind of unbalanced, wielding both a longbow and two "weapons" at the same time. What are your thoughts on this? Did I rule correctly?

 

[Zurai]

There's really no "correct" or not to this. It's not covered by the rules. I would allow it because unarmed attacks are utterly crappy. There's no proficiency bonus, he's using a stat he hasn't pumped, and he doesn't get his strength bonus if any because of the power. At most he'd do 2d4 damage - less than what he'd do with his bow by far. He's also far less likely to hit.

 

[generalhenry]

I'd say you ruled correctly.

 

[Danceofmasks]

It's not the least bit broken to allow it ..
Improvised attacks (no proficiency bonus), using strength to attack with a dex build, terrible damage without a stat bonus ..

I'm not sure if a single basic melee attack would have been better if the ranger actually had a half decent strength score.

Unless, of course, the bandit was a quarry and 2 rolls = more likely to hit.

 

[shadowguidex]

I don't allow an powers to be used with improvised weapons, or any weapons that the players are not proficient with.

 

[Zurai]

I don't allow an powers to be used with improvised weapons, or any weapons that the players are not proficient with.

That is not a correct ruling, however. You're welcome to it, just realize that it's deviating from the rules of the game.

 

[Baumi]

You can use Unarmed Combat like normal Weapons, but the question is if he count as UNARMED if he is armed with a bow

Anyway I would have let him have his two kicks/elbows/headbuts/whatever because he would only have his Stat to attack (no Proficiency and no magic Bonus) and damage is only a d4, i see no reason how this could overshadow other players.

 

[SableWyvern]

I would have allowed two unarmed attacks as part of Twin Strike, but would have required the bow to be dropped as a free action first.

 

[The_Fan]

Let's consult the Living Tribunal of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism:

Gamist perspective:
Remember the first thing you do as a 4e GM: Say yes, go from there. If it turns out to be a problem later (I don't see that happening) respectfully ask your players to stop abusing it.

Narrativist perspective:
A ranger doing a double kung-fu kick while still wielding a bow? Awesome. Do it.

Simulationist perspective:
It's perfectly possible for anyone with even a modicum of coordination to do a kick while holding a bow in their hands. A double kick is only slightly more difficult. Allow it.

Looks like there's an agreement.

 

[generalhenry]

yeah, by the raw it doesn't work, but since it's not much more effective (mostly it helps the ranger land his quarry damage) and it's cool I'd let it slide