After having played 3rd edition for awhile, there are some things I tend to look at in 2nd edition that don't make much sense.
One of those things is when an archer/ranged attacker fires at an adjacent opponent, there seems to be no penalties. In 3rd edition the opponent would get an AoO against them. Does anyone know of any rules (like in a supplemental 2nd edition book), or any good house rules that would fit to penalize archers from just continuing to use their bow when a melee opponent is right on them? I was thinking a -4 to hit, but this might be a little much. Thoughts? Thanks! :D
At best you can swing the crossbow, bow, etc. as a makeshift club with the risk of damaging or destroying the weapon since they are not designed to take that kind of abuse.
As with many a thing in the game, its really the DM's call...
I'd propably allow small thrown weapons, but at a -4 penalty.
If you can't find a rule that covers what you are looking:
1) There is a rule, but you can't find it. Older editions weren't the best organized. See step 2.
2) There isn't a rule for it. Rule as you see fit. -4 sounds reasonable, as does not allowing it or allowing a free attack.
That being said, as the othe two posters have said, it was always understood that you could not use range weapons once you were put into a melee situation in the pre 3.0 D&D games I played in and DM'd.
Before it was ruled players were frozen in thier own 5 foot space, and couldn't do anything other than an Attack of Opportunity until it was their "turn", it was always assumed that things were fluid and happenning simultaneously, at least by me and those I played with. With that in mind it seemed (and still seems to me) that even the stupidist nobody would be able to stop somebody standing right next to them from loading and pointing a bow (or any other range weapon) and getting a shot off at them. The same with thrown weapons since you could just step into their reach as they were attempting to launch the weapon.
As DM I did allow that a crossbow loaded by a character before they were put into melee could subsequently be fired in melee (and had we used guns I would have allowed the same with a gun), but that was all I allowed.
However using the above reasoning I don't see why you couldn't use thrown weapons in melee.
Within such abstract constraints, I'd err on saying no.
For classic D&D, where a round is only 10 seconds, I could see letting a readied bow fire, but not in an ongoing melee
Keep in mind that a minute reflects a series of thrusts and parries, or, for missile weapons, a series of discharged bolts or arrows, most of which will miss with little effect, as well as some carefull aiming, for a few effective shots.
You know I never thought of it but doesn't that kind of mess up keeping track of ammo?
You could always assume, I guess, that 1 arrow actually represents a handfull or some such.
Part of why we generally assumed a round is only 10 seconds (classic D&D style)
Keep in mind that a minute reflects a series of thrusts and parries...
True by the discription in the rules for 2nd edition.
...or, for missile weapons, a series of discharged bolts or arrows, most of which will miss with little effect, as well as some carefull aiming, for a few effective shots.
No. Not in 2nd edition. Rate of fire is how fast you can shoot an arrow, bolt, etc., in a round, per the rules. There are no additional arrows, bolts, etc., assumed to have been fired which are so poorly aimed that they go off into nothingness in the same round. Rate of fire for a bow is 2 per round. If you fire two arrows in a round, you reduce your total number of arrows on hand by two, not by five.
Ok, decided to DM some 2nd ed. D&D since it's been awhile.
After having played 3rd edition for awhile, there are some things I tend to look at in 2nd edition that don't make much sense.
One of those things is when an archer/ranged attacker fires at an adjacent opponent, there seems to be no penalties. In 3rd edition the opponent would get an AoO against them. Does anyone know of any rules (like in a supplemental 2nd edition book), or any good house rules that would fit to penalize archers from just continuing to use their bow when a melee opponent is right on them? I was thinking a -4 to hit, but this might be a little much. Thoughts? Thanks! :D
In 1st & 2ed it was assumed that common sense would be used. Playing 3.x for so long maybe we forget. If the the player uses a bow shot when the enemy is 5 ft away just have the guy attack and ruin the bow... This is what I mean.
That said, there are rules at least for firing into a melee in 2e...if one wants to allow that...of course that means there might be a chance of one shooting themselves I suppose if they are the ones in the melee...however much sense that makes.
Then again, for those who watch the Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy, Legolas seems to use his bow and arrows in melee quite a bit...so recreating that type of character I suppose could also be used.
Overall, depends on the DM and once again...common sense.
Effects of Specialization
Bow and crossbow specialists gain an additional range category: point blank. Point-blank range for bows is from six feet to 30 feet. Point-blank range for crossbows is from six feet to 60 feet. At point-blank range, the character gains a +2 modifier on attack rolls.
Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.
This implies a bow cannot usually be used for targets under 30 feet, and even a specialist can't use it for targets under 6 feet. Assume Legolas was a specialist and that explains his "point blank" shots in melee.
I've also used the argument that a bowman in melee does not get his DX adjustment to AC, since he has no weapon with which to defend himself. For example, you could stand there and take shots at more distant targets, but if someone is in striking range of you with a melee weapon, they're getting attacks against you as a sitting duck.
Also, melee and ranged combat is different. Melee combat is assumed to include feints and parries, but ranged combat is ready, aim, fire, and that takes as long. If you assumed you'd have extra "missed shots" in the mix, what if you were using daggers, or thrown hand axes? Worse yet, magical weapons, or that critical shot with the fabled Arrow of Orcus Slaying (of which you only have ONE). It has to be one for one.
Using Bows as Weapons
When archers wielding a bow are attacked in melee, they have little choice but to defend themselves with the bow. In the past, this typically spelled the destruction of the bow, but elves have learned how to deflect some of the force of a blow—thus making the bow reparable. Furthermore, elves have developed bows that are more resistant to this sort of damage.
Elves can attempt to turn aside the worst of crushing blows, and their bows are allowed to make a save vs. crushing blow (as thick wood) at +1. Piercing weapons are easily deflected as long as the elf succeeds in the parry, and they cause no damage to the bow. However, a parry against a slashing weapon is a sure way to destroy a wood bow.
More importantly, archers occasionally can't reach their melee weapons when someone engages them in close combat. In these cases, they must resort to using their bows as clubs against their attackers. The damage caused is 1d6 –1 against S or M creatures, 1d4 against L. If used in this way, a wood bow must save vs. crushing blows at –1.
Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.
That said, there are rules at least for firing into a melee in 2e...if one wants to allow that...of course that means there might be a chance of one shooting themselves I suppose if they are the ones in the melee...however much sense that makes.
The rules you are referring to are for firing INTO a melee - ie. the character is not in melee, but firing AT other combatants engaged in melee. So there is no chance of hitting oneself under these rules.
I agree that the rules for specialists imply that it is not possible to use a bow against a target closer than 6 feet.
We use common sense in our games - which dictates no missile attacks are possible while you are engaged in melee, regardless of who you want to shoot at.