Does anyone else have a problem with D20 missile?

[Celebrim]

I'm beginning to have a little bit of a problem with the way that D20 handles missile weapons.

Maybe I'm missing something but...

Suppose relatively low level fighters engage in combat. One is armed with a melee weapon, and the other with a bow. In general, what we should expect (and desire if what we desire is realism of some sort) is that the fighter with the bow has an extreme advantage at any range beyond the reach of the fighter with the melee weapon, and vica versa, the fighter with the melee weapon has an extreme advantage once he gets his opponent within his reach.

But, that does not seem to be the situation that we have.

As the only party that can attack, the archer does have an extreme (indeed absolute) advantage beyond reach, BUT, once the fighter with the melee weapon closes, the archer is under no real pressure (that I can see) to drop his bow and switch over to a melee weapon.

Suppose the swordsman takes a swing at the archer on his turn. The archer then, on his turn, takes a full attack action and a 5' step. The 5' adjustment - which doesn't provoke an AoO - brings him out of the reach of the swordsman and he can now attack without provoking an AoO. Thus, we have 1 attack per 1 attack (or at higher levels equivalent iterative attacks). And, because you can equip yourself with a bow that allows you to add you strength bonus to your damage, neither fighter has a significant advantage in average damage per attack. Granted, the swordsman could be using a two handed weapon or a shield to gain a minor advantage over the archer, BUT, the archer for his part could be using both masterwork arrows and a masterwork bow (whose enhancement bonuses stack) or at higher levels both magical arrows and magical bows to mitigate or elimenate the advantage of the swordsman. And, if you add to this the readily available feat Rapid Shot to the list of advantages that the archer has, you rapidly reach a point where the advantage of the swordsman in melee is insufficiently large. In fact, it is so small, that I can scarcely see a reason to heavily invest in melee feats when archery feats are so much more generally applicable to any combat situation - especially at low levels before Power Attack becomes really nasty.

One might object that the archer has a -4 penalty to hit a target engaged in melee, but a close reading of the rules on page 124 of the PH will show that for these purposes a target engaged with you (and only with you) is not engaged in melee, and that the rule doesn't apply. Even if it did, -4 to hit seems a small price to pay for being able to let off a barrage of arrows while a guy hacks at you at will, and of course the Precise Shot feat would take care of the problem.

I don't mind having archers opporating from a support role, even a lethal and decisive one, but the idea of a group of archers engaging in melee combat bugs the heck out of me.

I'm considering implementing house rules as follows:

1) If you have been attacked by a melee weapon since your last action, you have a -4 penalty to hit with a missile weapon -whether you were struck or not - if your attacker is not at the time of your attack helpless. (This reflects the fact that you must bob and weave, and must have been bobbing and weaving, to maintain a defence. It remains true even if you step away, because the turn based nature of the game is an abstraction of the real time underlying reality. In this reality, you do not step away while your attacker remains stationary, and then your attacker follows while you remain stationary, but you and he move away together like two fencers moving back and forth.)

2) Someone that is engaged in melee with you is engaged in melee per the rules on page 124 of the PH. This penalty stacks with the penalty from 1 above. Since the Precise Shot feat only elimenates the penalty if you are shooting at a enemy engaged with your ally, it does not elimenate either this penalty or the penalty from 1. This penalty reflects that if you are in reach of an opponent, he can more easily ward off, deflect, or block a missile attack than a series of melee moves leading to an attack. (For proof, try it yourself.)

3) You have a +2 bonus to hit an opponent in melee who has a readied missile weapon, unless that opponent has taken a full defensive action (ie is not attacking with the weapon). (This reflects the fact that a readied melee weapon is in fact defensive as well as offensive, and is used to threaten and parry. Presumably, the archer could forgo this penalty but at the cost of allowing his melee attacker a free attack on his (quite fragile) weapon.)

What do you think?

 

[RogueJK]

Keep in mind that the fighter using the ranged weapon already has several other disadvantages.

1. He doesn't threaten an area. Therefore, he can't flank, and people who move through his (nonexistant) threatened area don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

2. He can't make attack of opportunity with a ranged weapon. Enemies can freely try to grapple him. Enemy spellcasters can cast spells around him without worrying about AoOs.

3. The 5-foot adjustment doesn't help him when he is fighting a creature with reach, or an enemy using a reach weapon like the Duom or Spiked Chain. A 5-foot step would still leave him within their threatened area, so he would provoke AoOs if he tried to use his bow. The 5 foot adjustment also doesn't help when he is fighting more than one enemy at a time. He could take a 5 foot step and still be within the threatened area of at least one other enemy.


If anything, I would go with your third option. This rule seems pretty familiar, though I can't seem to recall where I've seen it before. It makes sense that a bow can't be used to parry as well as a sword or other melee weapon.

 

[ogre]

another point:
your senario assumes the melee fighter ins't readying his action. He could state "I move up and attack after the archer steps back 5' feet" Then the melee fighter attacks first, and then again with an AoO, after the archer shoots his bow, since he is now in the melee fighters threat range.

 

[Crothian]

And any melee fighter would sunder the bow as soon as he realized the archer was not going to drop it.

 

[starwolf]

No, I find that a D20 makes a wonderful missile for short range attacks upon the DM, although a D4 does tend to do more damage

 

[Crothian]

No, I find that a D20 makes a wonderful missile for short range attacks upon the DM, although a D4 does tend to do more damage

The d20 is good for throwing, only the d30 and d100 are better. The d4 is for ambushes, you set them as caltrops.

 

[Celebrim]

Some of this I have already considered, and though it is good to see it all laid out, I still don't think anyone is adressing the underlying question. Yes, there are some things that some creatures can do in some circumstances in responce to an attacker using missile weapons in melee, BUT are those things really sufficient? I conceed that the swordsman can get a slight advantage, but is the advantage of a melee weapon in melee combat - ESPECIALLY AT LOW LEVELS - really as high as we would like it to be?

- Not everyone is going to have reach.

- Grapples are not always practical.

- Sundering the bow requires an opposed attack roll, 50/50 chance of hitting at best as the rules are written, unless you want to add in some rule that modifies the opposed attack roll in some manner if the target is missile weapon. And, if you miss, you are subject to attacks. Even if you hit, it is not certain you as a low level creature will smash the bow (unless the DM rules bows more fragile than the rules would seem to indicate). And, even if you did, drawing a weapon is a move equivalent action that does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity. At best you have used an attack to get an attack in return, and at worst the twinkish archer pulls his 'back up bow' and keeps plugging you. Also note that the rules as written could be literally interpreted to state that you can't sunder a longbow with a handaxe, short sword, or dagger. If we are going to alter that with a house rule or errata, then why not house rules to cover the more general problem? And, what if we are dealing with an Orc trying to sunder the PC's +1 bow?

-Ogre, thanks for reminding me that you can take a 5' step with a partial attack, I'd forgotten. But, even so, your plan has several problems with it. First, if you ready the partial action 'I'll take a 5' step and attack the archer' with the condiation 'If the archer takes a 5' step away from me', then literally by the rules, if the archer doesn't take a 5' step from you, then you lose the action. So, my twinked up archer might just say, 'Ok, I won't step away, I'll take my full attack action here.', in which case we are back to 1 attack (the AoO) per 1 attack (or 2 with rapid shot). And, at high levels your plan runs up into the problem that you can only read partial actions, so even if the archer complied with your desires it would be 2 attacks vs. his full comlement of attacks, or if he stayed where he was 1 attack (the AoO) vs. his full complement of attacks.

But, I still say that that really isn't the point. The point ought not to be that there are within the rules some minor advantages of using a melee weapon in melee. The point is that it ought to be just sort of insanely difficult to fire arrows at someone 4 or 5 feet away from you slashing at you with a sword, so much so, that most people would opt for a melee weapon if they could.

 

[Zhure]

I think the key issue is the archer doesn't threaten a square.

The bow can be sundered without provoking an AoO. Sure it's an opposed roll, but there's no penalty for failing the opposed roll so it's a 50-50 shot. Keep trying and you will succeed in about two tries.

In a similar vein, attacking the quiver might be easier if the bow is magical. Stooping to pick up the quiver is a MEA and provokes an AoO.

The archer can be grappled without provoking an AoO. Again no penalty for trying.

The archer can be surrounded or herded into a corner quite easily since a melee character can just walk around him with impunity.

All of these apply to a lesser extent to a spellcaster, except they often have a dagger in one hand. I'd much rather face an archer in melee than a spellcaster.
Greg

 

[Xarlen]

What about disarming and tripping?

If you Trip the dude, he can't shoot his bow while prone. And, he has to stand up before he can move, right?

A simple disarm attempt will pop that bow out of his hand.

 

[Al]

Why not ready actions?
As in 'If he tries to attack me with any weapon, I will attack him first, 5' stepping if necessary'.
This covers all bases.
If he switches to melee and tries to attack you, you get the attack.
If he 5' steps back and tries to shoot you, you 5' step, attack him and then attack him again if he still tries to shoot you.

And then, as mentioned, there's the problem of not threatening an area, reach weapons, sundering, disarming, grappling, having a worse AC and not having access to the melee feats (which are probably better than the missile weapon feats for a straight hacking match).