Threatening while holding a bow

[Vaxalon]

The trick is to get the DM to allow you two free actions from the glove per round. With that, you can both produce and store the sword in the same round.

Given that the DM has the ability to limit free actions, don't count on this.

As has been said before, the inability of ranged attacks to deal with AoO's is an important drawback for ranged attacks. Suck it up and enjoy your offensive firepower, and stop sweating the AoO's.

 

[kreynolds]

As has been said before, the inability of ranged attacks to deal with AoO's is an important drawback for ranged attacks.

And that inability still applies, even if you have GoS. The only thing the gloves help you with is melee AoOs. I think it represents an interesting fighting style, and since the gloves don't let you make ranged AoOs, it seems to fit within the rules quite well.

 

[Quasqueton]

As has been said before, the inability of ranged attacks to deal with AoO's is an important drawback for ranged attacks. Suck it up and enjoy your offensive firepower, and stop sweating the AoO's.

And. . .

Rounds don't go like this:
wait. . .wait. . .wait. . .fire bow. . .wait. . .wait. . .

When you are wielding a bow you are 'using' it all during the round. Draw arrow, nock arrow, scan for targets, draw string, check for threats, fire arrow, recover from shot, check for threats, draw arrow, nock arrow, scan for targets. . .etc.

It's just like if you are trying to reach an enemy 80', you don't charge 60', then stand still cleaning your nails while everyone else does stuff, then resume your movement. You are effectively moving through the entire round. It's just that the game mechanics have to break it down into sequenced actions.

Technically in game mechanic terms, you can fire the bow, then claim a free action to switch to the spiked gauntlet so you threaten, but really that's just a cheesy abuse of the rules.

Quasqueton

 

[kreynolds]

Technically, you can fire the bow, then claim a free action to switch to the spiked gauntlet so you threaten...

Technically, you don't even have to do that. After a shot and before you grab your next arrow, you have one hand free, and if that free hand has a spiked gauntlet on it, you can swing it at somebody.

...but really that's just a cheesy abuse of the rules.

I can understand how it can look like that, but really, it doesn't seem illogical.

 

[zyzzyr]

I know that technically the rules say that you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon, but the rules ALSO state that you can use the arrow itself as a melee weapon, at a -4 to hit (you're not proficient with it). Can't remember what the damage should be.

Anyhow, I see no reason why you couldn't use your arrow to threaten the squares. If you want to jazz it up, take a 50% chance that you have an arrow in your hand at that particular moment.

And sorry, am I to understand that the Sage ruled that there is such a thing as "Gauntlet mode" and "Bow mode"? Is he deliberately trying to devolve the game into a CRPG?

zyzzyr

 

[Darklone]

Why using a bow when you are threatened in melee? Just switch to throwing axes or knives and get an extra shot out from Ambidexterity (You'll need Quickdraw). And you'll always have weapons in your hands.

This seriously hampers archer specialists who have one big ubermagic bow, but it is ok for low level dudes with a simple Mighty composite bow.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Technically, you don't even have to do that. After a shot and before you grab your next arrow, you have one hand free, and if that free hand has a spiked gauntlet on it, you can swing it at somebody.

I'm certain I've seen it stated otherwise somewhere. The FAQ example uses a longspear, which is more intuitive, but it's been stated somewhere that having a bow ready for use requires two hands, even though you're only holding it in one, and that you do not threaten an area while your bow, as a ranged weapon, is ready.

If the OotBI wants to make use of his "Free Shot" ability when one of his allies makes an AoO, he has to give up his gauntlet-zone.

-Hyp.

 

[Belbarrus]

?

I'm not sure I understand the complication. Just because a character is holding a bow, why wouldnt they threaten an area? Can someone point me to the page that specifically states this? The person can still make an AOO (melee attack) by punching (unarmed) or whacking with the bow itself. Do the rules say otherwise?

Thanks,

Belbarrus

 

[Zenon]

Re: ?

Do the rules say otherwise

Here is part of a quote from the MainFAQ112202 that addresses it (but not directly):

Striking a foe's weapon is often less troublesome, and if you break it, you won't need to worry about ranged attacks. Normally you need to make an opposed attack roll to strike a foe's weapon or shield, but if the item you're striking is not a melee weapon or a shield, just use the rules for striking a held, carried, or worn object (pages 135 and 136 in the Player's Handbook). Again, you'd normally trigger an attack of opportunity for striking the foe's equipment, but a foe armed with a ranged weapon doesn't threaten you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the FAQ:

Also, don’t forget grappling or striking the foe’s weapon.
Most spellcasters won’t be holding a weapon, and foes holding
ranged weapons don’t threaten you, so you don’t have to worry
about triggering an attack of opportunity when using either
tactic. Foes you’ve grappled can’t step away from you until
they escape your hold. Striking a foe’s weapon is often less
troublesome, and if you break it, you won’t need to worry
about ranged attacks. Normally you need to make an opposed
attack roll to strike a foe’s weapon or shield, but if the item
you’re striking is not a melee weapon or a shield, just use the
rules for striking a held, carried, or worn object (pages 135 and
136 in the Player’s Handbook). Again, you’d normally trigger
an attack of opportunity for striking the foe’s equipment, but a
foe armed with a ranged weapon doesn’t threaten you.

-Hyp.