sundering a weapon

[kreynolds]

That is a good point. We haven't had to deal with that yet(for some reason we rarely use crossbows).

What about slings? Exactly how much damage does a really short and thin piece of leather do? 1d2-10 subdual?

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

What about this

Of course everyone seems to be missing one minor point. Yes the bow isn't considered a Melee weapon, but the arrow is considered a makeshift weapon (as stated earlier with a -4 penalty to hit). Since drawing an arrow is a free action you could use it during a Sunder attempt.
I don't see this helping Crossbows or slings much. . well I guess a stone could do 1D2 points of damage if you beat someone over the head with it.

Just my $.02

 

[dcollins]

These item-destroying specials always irk me for some reason. If you don't want your PCs to have powerful items, you don't give them out in the first place. Setting out to destroy them after the fact strikes me as vindictive.

D&D designers have been quoted as saying multiple times that a standard assumption of any D&D adventure is that there should be at least one encounter that can destroy a PCs' magic item. That's supposed to be part of the balancing scheme, that magic items both come and go during adventures.

 

[James McMurray]

Can you point us to this quote? Just curious as to see if its actually a quote, or just something someone used womewhere to bolster an internet board point or seomething.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: What about this

Of course everyone seems to be missing one minor point. Yes the bow isn't considered a Melee weapon, but the arrow is considered a makeshift weapon (as stated earlier with a -4 penalty to hit). Since drawing an arrow is a free action you could use it during a Sunder attempt.
I don't see this helping Crossbows or slings much. . well I guess a stone could do 1D2 points of damage if you beat someone over the head with it.

Just my $.02

Your $.02 are worth $0.00. According to the rules, if someone attempts to sunder your bow, not only is there no opposed attack role, but neither can you draw your arrow as a free action to create the roll. Why? Simple. It's not your turn.

 

[Varius]

But wouldn't you already have an arrow drawn from your last turn? If not, you know archers will be saying specifically that they have an arrow drawn at the end of thier turn.

 

[kreynolds]

But wouldn't you already have an arrow drawn from your last turn? If not, you know archers will be saying specifically that they have an arrow drawn at the end of thier turn.

I wouldn't allow it. As far as I'm concerned, the arrow isn't in your hand unless you either A) attack with your bow, or B) you specifically tell me that you are holding an arrow in your hand.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Re: Re: What about this

Your $.02 are worth $0.00. According to the rules, if someone attempts to sunder your bow, not only is there no opposed attack role, but neither can you draw your arrow as a free action to create the roll. Why? Simple. It's not your turn.

Damn opinion to enboard conversion I'm losing money here

Seriously though, I started looking into this and at first I thought the same way you did. However when I looked up the definition of a Free action here is what it said:

Free actions (such as calling out to friends for aid) consume a negligible amount of time, and one or more such actions can be performed in conjunction with actions of other types.

Therefore you can use a free action in conjunction with any other action type, including an attack action (specificially an AoO). So in theory the bow wielder could get an attack off against the Sunderer. I would most likely allow it if a player came up with it in one of my games.

Another item which points to this would be that some PrC abilities allow a player to use a ranged weapon for AoO's. Specificially the Free Attack ability from Order of the Bow Initiate. How would this ability work if they couldn't draw an arrow to shoot for the AoO.

Disclaimer I know what the FAQ says and I know its an official ruling however as I stated above if the situation was presented to me as either a DM or a player I would let the bow wielder try it.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: What about this

Therefore you can use a free action in conjunction with any other action type, including an attack action (specificially an AoO). So in theory the bow wielder could get an attack off against the Sunderer. I would most likely allow it if a player came up with it in one of my games.

OK. So you might make a successful attack roll at -4 and deal the sunderer 1d6 or 1d8 points of damage. Your bow is getting hit either way because the bow is not a melee weapon, thus you aren't making an opposed attack roll. You're just making an AoO with an arrow. The point of contention was that a bow should be treated as a melee weapon when it is being sundered, allowing you to make an opposed attack roll using the bow in an attempt to move it out of the way and avoid the sunder, which is not allowed by the rules.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I stand corrected. So, if I am understanding correctly when you attempt to sunder a ranged weapon you suffer no attack of oppurtunity and instead of the sunder rules you use strike an object rules instead.

Not how I would have ruled but thats what house rules are for.

I feel exactly the same. It's good to know the actual rule, but I'd never use this rule in my campaign. Bows are already ridiculously easy to sunder, without denying even the (often token) opposed roll as well. Don't think we'll be changing to the actual rule in the campaign I play in either, since the archer is the wife of the DM!