Threatened squares and weapons in hand

[AuraSeer]

Here's a variation on the theme: if a character is wearing spiked gauntlets [or armor spikes] while wielding a glaive [or any reachy polearm], would he/she threaten the adjacent squares? In that case, is the character effectively threatening with two different weapons [one near, one far]?

Some DMs do allow this. Note that you're wielding two weapons at once, so all your attacks will suffer the penalties for two-weapon fighting. (In any given round you can decide to focus on the polearm only, which removes the TWF penalty but prevents you from threatening with the gauntlets.)

Other DMs say a two-handed weapon always prevents TWF, even if your secondary weapon would not require an additional hand to use. This is arguably more in line with the TWF rules, which appear to assume a one-handed or light primary weapon.

Anyway, remember that wielding multiple weapons does not increase your number of allowed AoOs. If you don't have Combat Reflexes, you can take an AoO with either the polearm or the gauntlets, but not both.

 

[AuraSeer]

Double post? Where? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Magic Slim]

Here's a variation on the theme: if a character is wearing spiked gauntlets [or armor spikes] while wielding a glaive [or any reachy polearm], would he/she threaten the adjacent squares? In that case, is the character effectively threatening with two different weapons [one near, one far]?

Its not hard to imagine a fighter switching his grip on his polearm to punch something close with his spiked gauntlet.

I posted something similar a while back (Bow with spiked gauntlets) and everyone told me I couldn't do it. Even sent an email to the Sage / Customer Service, and they told me I couldn't.

How I saw it possible:
a) Character shoots with his bow
b) After shooting with his bow, the character gets in "punch-mode", ie holds his bow in his left hand, and gets ready to strike with his right (armed with a spiked gauntlet)
c) Next round, the character gets back into "death-from-afar" mode and shoots his round-allotment of arrows.
d) Goto a).

Why, in fact, it isn't possible (IIRC)
It has to do with the cyclical and continuous aspect of combat. For simplicity, the combat is turned-based, every one acting on a different initiative count, while, in fact, everything is happening pretty much simultaneously. There isn't really time between the end of your turn and the beginning of your next turn. That's why you can't be in two diffrent attack modes at the same time (be it projectile/melee or 10'-reach/5'-reach).

Slim

 

[Keith]

It means that the attacker must be able to make a melee attack into that square with his currently wielded weapon.

By “wielded” we are talking about “held in the hand” in this case, just to be clear; I think there are other interpretations. I do like both the simplicity and the tidiness of this explanation, and I think that it probably represents the best approach to adhering to the rules and ignoring the aspects that I think might be ambiguous.

At the same time, the SRD in front of me does not say anything about not taking a free action as part of an AOO, and frankly the definition of free action kind of suggests otherwise to me. Furthermore, given that Combat Reflexes allows a character to attack multiple foes in the same amount of time, I think eliminating a free action for other characters is not equitable. Surely they could drop something from one hand to make a two-handed AOO?

To me, it seems as though a character might be able to take an AOO even without a weapon in their hand before taking the attack, and thus they might (conceptually) be flanking with empty hands. I agree that the idea is a messy one, and also that “ If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity”, or flank. I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate, but not just to argue. I think this hard and fast rule may be ignoring the enormous variety of options in the game itself.

 

[Keith]

First, thanks, everyone, for the ideas.

Now, again, if someone with a bow swings it at an opponent, do people think that is a melee attack? I do. To me, since anyone holding a bow could swing it at someone (without the switching from bow to spiked gauntlets complication), it strikes me that they “can make a melee attack” on adjacent squares.
Not an impressive one, perhaps, but one that presents some threat. Thus, they threaten, and could flank or take an AOO. Except for the rule (which I can’t find at the moment, but don’t doubt is there) that says holding a bow means you don’t threaten adjacent squares (not just with an arrow, but at all, presumably). So how is it that you can actually make a melee attack with a bow, if you didn’t threaten in the first place?!

 

[AuraSeer]

By ?wielded? we are talking about ?held in the hand? in this case, just to be clear; I think there are other interpretations.

I believe "wielded" in D20 means the same as its regular English definition. When I have a weapon in a sheath at my belt, I am are carrying it but not wielding it.

If you find a rule that says otherwise, please post it. Otherwise there's no support for your position.

At the same time, the SRD in front of me does not say anything about not taking a free action as part of an AOO, and frankly the definition of free action kind of suggests otherwise to me.

This was clarified quite some time ago in the 3.0 FAQ, and nothing in 3.5 has changed it. You can only take free actions on your turn, not when someone has provoked AoO from you.

 

[Caliban]

First, thanks, everyone, for the ideas.

Now, again, if someone with a bow swings it at an opponent, do people think that is a melee attack? I do. To me, since anyone holding a bow could swing it at someone (without the switching from bow to spiked gauntlets complication), it strikes me that they “can make a melee attack” on adjacent squares.
Not an impressive one, perhaps, but one that presents some threat. Thus, they threaten, and could flank or take an AOO. Except for the rule (which I can’t find at the moment, but don’t doubt is there) that says holding a bow means you don’t threaten adjacent squares (not just with an arrow, but at all, presumably). So how is it that you can actually make a melee attack with a bow, if you didn’t threaten in the first place?!

Well, generally speaking a bow is not a melee weapon it's a ranged weapon. It's not meant to be used as a club, and you don't hold it like a club.

If you wanted to change your grip from the normal "bow stance" to that of a "club stance" then I would let you use it as an improvised weapon, and give you a chance of breaking it if you hit someone. I wouldn't let you do it as a free action, but as a Move action.

That being said, I have seen magic bows that were specifically enchanted to act as a club and as a bow, and allowed you to threaten as a melee weapon even when shooting.

 

[Magic Slim]

I have no idea why someone next to you with a bow is considered unthreatening in D&D, but I don’t expect that anyone can provide an explanation with verisimilitude. Just the facts is fine!

It's not that a projectile weapon is not threatening, it's more about how AoO's work. A fighter is constantly trying to hit the wizard during his round. Only a few (depending on BAB) attacks really have a chance of connecting. If the wizard takes his attention off the fighter (say, by casting a spell), there is a chance that an additional attack will have a chance to hurt the wizard.

If you change the sword into a bow, the example isn't valid anymore. An archer shoots his arrows on his turn. He isn't shooting arrows constantly at his target, the wizard. If the wizard lets his guard down, there isn't an arrow to strike him then...

I do wonder what is to be done if a character actually does take a bow in both hands and use it to make a melee attack. While not terribly effective, it is not all that much worse of an option than attacking an armored opponent with a quarterstaff. I wouldn’t want to catch a bowstaff in the face particularly. Would this be discounted as a melee attack?

I agree that getting hit in the face with any type of wooden stick will be an unpleasant experience. The thing is, IMO, that the archer holds his bow in one way to shoot arrows, and would need to wield it differently to strike someone with it. Its probably a free action to switch from shoot-mode to whack-mode, but you can only take free actions on your turn. Also, since a bow used as a melee weapon is an improvised weapon, you'd suffer a -4 penalty to hit.

Slim

(gah! been trying to post this since BEFORE my previous post!!!)

(this will probably end up being a googleple post)

(for the love of Crothian, pooooost!)

(6th attemps, at least)

(12th attempt)

(I am not soooo late in the debate it's not even funny)

(god, even the edit doesn't work!)

 

[Keith]

I believe "wielded" in D20 means the same as its regular English definition. When I have a weapon in a sheath at my belt, I am are carrying it but not wielding it.

If you find a rule that says otherwise, please post it. Otherwise there's no support for your position.


This was clarified quite some time ago in the 3.0 FAQ, and nothing in 3.5 has changed it. You can only take free actions on your turn, not when someone has provoked AoO from you.

Actually, AuraSeer, I didn't take any position based on the meaning in use; I just wanted to be sure. Wield is not synonymous with held, as you know; it has a variety of meanings in the area of possessing and using. With all the option available in D&D in that area, I wanted to be careful to agree with you that a weapon in hand was the topic at hand.

Thanks for the FAQ tip: that is interesting. I would argue that, on the contray, the old FAQ should be thrown out to avoid mix-ups, but I will look at it, and appreciate the pointer.

Cheers

 

[Keith]

I think what you say is totally sound, Caliban. I was rummaging around and found some related material.

I can’t find the reference for not threatening adjacent squares with ranged/projectile weapons. I’m sure it is there, but it is not easy to find in the SRD, at least for me.

I find that “Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee”, which is ambiguous to me, particularly since:

“Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.”

It doesn’t say whether you are threatening adjacent opponents when using a table leg, longbow, etc. Arrows are used as one example of the conversion process, though:

“Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier x2).” Presumably you can threaten with such a weapon.

The whip entry does say this: “ The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack.” That is certainly very clear. I wish the similar rules on bows and slings were as clear.

To bring the sling into it, nothing prevents a loaded sling from being used as a melee rather than range weapon. Again, seems threatening to me.

OK, I’m done rambling now. Really.