Ranger - Twin Strike kick to the groin?

[Zurai]

No, it doesn't make sense. Not by any definition of the word wield I have ever seen.

Go see your elementary english school teacher and tell her you are 'wielding your hand'. She'll be very proud. Add that you are 'dual-wielding your feet'. You'll give her a stroke.

I think it's you who needs to re-examine your elementary english.
Wield:
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.

Next, I think by the letter of the rules, you can't use Twin Strike when you are unarmed, because the unarmed "weapon" does not have the off hand property.

Rangers can bypass that restriction. They can wield any one-handed weapon in their offhand, as long as they take the Two-Weapon Fighting path (which is a whole different discussion, but suffice to say it's not uncommon for even archer rangers to take that path).

 

[ForbidenMaster]

No, it doesn't make sense. Not by any definition of the word wield I have ever seen.

Go see your elementary english school teacher and tell her you are 'wielding your hand'. She'll be very proud. Add that you are 'dual-wielding your feet'. You'll give her a stroke.

The power state that you must be wielding two melee weapons and I'll never accept two feet as meeting that requirement!

At best I can accept your whole body as one weapon. That's it.

Fine, then from the PHB page 55:

Weapon: Many martial powers, as well as several divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.) [...]

 

[ryryguy]

Rangers can bypass that restriction. They can wield any one-handed weapon in their offhand, as long as they take the Two-Weapon Fighting path (which is a whole different discussion, but suffice to say it's not uncommon for even archer rangers to take that path).

Oh, did this ranger have that feature? I thought he was an archer but I guess he could. If so only question would be if he had to drop the bow or not.

I think that version of the monk in the WotC article was written as a new path? The easiest way to apply that two-weapon path feature but only to unarmed was to make unarmed an off-hand weapon.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Oh, did this ranger have that feature? I thought he was an archer but I guess he could. If so only question would be if he had to drop the bow or not.

I think that version of the monk in the WotC article was written as a new path? The easiest way to apply that two-weapon path feature but only to unarmed was to make unarmed an off-hand weapon.

Why would he have to drop the bow? He isnt using it as a bow, he is using it as a giant stick. Are you telling me that just because the giant stick has a string attached he cant beat someone with it?

 

[ryryguy]

Why would he have to drop the bow? He isnt using it as a bow, he is using it as a giant stick. Are you telling me that just because the giant stick has a string attached he cant beat someone with it?

No, that's because of

"You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon."

Arguably, he might be able to hang onto it because of the "whole body is a weapon" theory. But barring that, he'd have to drop it to attack unarmed twice... he couldn't attack with a dagger in either hand, or a dagger and an off-hand unarmed, without dropping the bow.

Though as I said before, I wouldn't think it a big deal to allow the bow to be used as improvised melee, but technically it's probably not allowed.

 

[klobbermeister]

By the way, Shields actually aren't usable as 1 handed improvised weapons. They're too heavy. Even a light shield exceeds the weight limit for a 1 hander, and heavy shields can't be used as an improvised weapon at all. Voila! No problem.

Warpick weight: 6 lbs.

Light Shield weight: 6 lbs.

There is no discrete weight limit for a two-handed weapon that I can find. The heaviest listed is 12 lbs. A Heavy Shield is only 3 lbs. heavier.

I don't get the logic quoted above.

 

[DLichen]

Improvised weapon rules. Presumably something that is 6 lbs an not meant to be a weapon is too cumbersome to use as an improvised weapon in one hand.

1-5 lb = one handed improvised

6-12 lb = two handed improvised

According to the tables on 219.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

No, that's because of



Arguably, he might be able to hang onto it because of the "whole body is a weapon" theory. But barring that, he'd have to drop it to attack unarmed twice... he couldn't attack with a dagger in either hand, or a dagger and an off-hand unarmed, without dropping the bow.

Though as I said before, I wouldn't think it a big deal to allow the bow to be used as improvised melee, but technically it's probably not allowed.

So because the giant stick has a string on it you cant beat someone with it. That makes no sense what so ever. When you use a bow as an improvised weapon it is no longer a ranged weapon. Its just a giant stick that you are using as an improvised melee weapon.

 

[Dan'L]

Wield = Use = Hold = Able to attack with .

This is a fallacious line of reasoning. Essentially, you are saying that since Circle=Shape and Square=Shape, then Circle=Shape=Square.

As far as using a Long Bow as an improvised weapon, remember that the specific rule overwrites the general rule in 4e. So, while generally you cannot use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon (meaning more specifically you can't use its proficiency bonus and damage dice) you can specifically use it as an improvised melee weapon if it meets the qualifications for such (meaning it becomes a non-proficient, 1d4 one-handed weapon.)

I suppose an argument could be made for granting a longbow "versatile" to it's improvised melee status, allowing it to deliver 1d4+1 when wielded two-handed. And a mean DM might rule that hitting for max damage would crack the bow and render it useless as an effective ranged weapon.

-Dan'L

 

[SlagMortar]

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.

Sorry, I did not mean to come across as questioning your style of play. I'm all for different styles of play and in fact enjoy quite a few different ones myself. I was just adding ideas to the thread, though I admit my ideas might have been mostly covered already since I was skimming. There's been plenty of times I didn't like some rule or ruling until someone else pointed out a slightly different way of looking at it.

Happy gaming!