Ranger - Twin Strike kick to the groin?

[generalhenry]

Rogues get hosed though.

yeah, but it sure is a step up. It used to be that almost everyone was hosed.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

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?

I can almost see this in an actiom movie scene. The ranger is hapily shooting with his bow, and is slowly letting mobs close in on him. A bandit confidently walks up with a cocked smile holding his weapon, almost lauging as he draws closer.
Knowing he wouldn't have time to draw his (however many pound) bow string OR drop it and draw a weapon before the bandit gets there, the ranger turns with a bigger cocked smile than the bandit and runs forward planting one foot in the guys chest, making him double over in pain, but instead of falling to the ground the ranger just so happens to be Jackie Chan so he plants his other foot in the guys face, sending him sprawling to the ground as the ranger backflips off of the bandit and lands safely on his feet.

Yep, I'd allow somthing like that

 

[Mort_Q]

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.

You can hold a bow in one hand even if you can't wield it.

Elbow smash and kick... two non-proficient unarmed melee attacks.

Not hard to imagine.

 

[SableWyvern]

You can hold a bow in one hand even if you can't wield it.

Elbow smash and kick... two non-proficient unarmed melee attacks.

Not hard to imagine.

And, an entirely fair ruling, I won't attempt to argue otherwise. However, if the character hasn't previously been defined or treated as a skilled unarmed fighter, I would be inclined to require two hands free to make an unarmed double attack.

If the player of the character had previously mentioned that his PC had been a brawler or was otherwise experienced in unarmed combat, I'd allow the attack without dropping the bow. Similarly, if the character decided afterwards he'd like to have a doulbe unarmed attack as a fall-back, I'd allow him a bit of time to train and practice, and then go with the more generous ruling.

 

[Green Knight]

I'd allow it. Unarmed attacks count as improvised melee weapons. Which means that they're suitable for use with any power that requires the use of weapons. And so long as you got two fists/feet/etc, you've got two or more weapons handy. So if somebody wanted to use Twin Strike to inflict a punch and kick, or two kicks, or two punches, then I don't see a problem.

In addition, as someone else pointed out, the longbow can be used as an improvised weapon. It's a two-handed weapon when you shoot it, but since it only weighs three pounds, it counts as a one-handed improvised melee weapon. So the Ranger could smash a bad guy over the head with his bow with one hand and then punch or kick him.

 

[Particle_Man]

In 4e, all characters are monks.

 

[SlagMortar]

If the player of the character had previously mentioned that his PC had been a brawler or was otherwise experienced in unarmed combat, I'd allow the attack without dropping the bow. Similarly, if the character decided afterwards he'd like to have a doulbe unarmed attack as a fall-back, I'd allow him a bit of time to train and practice, and then go with the more generous ruling.

Why require that the player had declared it previously? It could even make for a fun opportunity for the characters to get to know each other better, if the characters in the party haven't grown up together since birth.

*bandit runs around the fighter and closes in on the ranger
*fighter says, "Dang, he got by me. Look out woodsy!"
*ranger says, "No worries, I got this one," and launches a nasty double kick (meaning he gets lucky and actually hits with no proficiency bonus).
*fighter says, "Where'd you learn to fight like that?"
*ranger says with a smile, "You don't grow up <choose one of: with three older sisters, in the warrens of Beetleburg, fifty pounds lighter than the school bully> without learning how to kick a man below the belt."

Whether the player had it planned all along, or just made it up on the spot, the game will be better off for it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Why require that the player had declared it previously? It could even make for a fun opportunity for the characters to get to know each other better, if the characters in the party haven't grown up together since birth.

You know, I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not trying to argue that my way is the right way. It is simply a way. Once more, someone posts some good reasons to do things differently. I support your prefences to play in such a fashion. However, your reasoning is predicated on a particular style of play and set of desired outcomes.

I am quite confident that my ruling is not likely to make my players cry or ruin their fun. Who knows, they might even consider it entirely fair and reasonable. It works, and does not cause undue harm (the bow can be picked up again as a minor action without risking OAs). However, you are all free not to play in the same fashion as me.

BTW, all the PCs in my game starting this weekend did grow up together.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Twin strike requires two weapons to be used in melee.

If you allow feet to count, you are going to get argument based on that jurisprudence that someone using a shied or a greatword could qualify for the two-weapon fighting feats.

Unarmed fighting should count as one weapon, no matter what part of your body you are using, and then only if you are wielding no other weapons.

 

[Zurai]

If you allow feet to count, you are going to get argument based on that jurisprudence that someone using a shied or a greatword could qualify for the two-weapon fighting feats.

Already covered. Shields and greatswords are too heavy to qualify for a 1 handed improvised weapon.