D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Opportunity Attacks/Threaten with no melee weaponry?
A situation that has come up several times already:
A ranger with a bow, a Warlock with two rods, etc etc
Can these characters still trigger opportunity attacks? It seems they could still kick an enemy (that is, be considered to be armed with the "unarmed" weapon) and thus trigger an opportunity attack if an enemy tries to move past them (or use a ranged power while adjacent and so on).
This seems... dubious... somehow? Isn't part of the price you pay when filling both your hand slots with other items than weaponry supposed to be the lack of being able to threaten squares around you?
An unarmed attack is the worst melee attack that almost any character will have - 2 points lower on attack and the lowest available damage - and characters who have to resort to the tactic you mention are unlikely to be good at melee to begin with. Very few attacks of opportunity now abort the action that they interrupt, unless you're a fighter (in which case you should be armed for melee anyway). It's only a threat to a minion and not much of one.
Some monsters can do bad things to you if you attack them, particularly if you knock them from just-over-bloodied to bloodied without doing enough damage to make any real contribution to their defeat.
Having said all that, I think it's a weaselly annoying tactic and a house rule to exclude it can only simplify and improve the game.
Having said all that, I think it's a weaselly annoying tactic and a house rule to exclude it can only simplify and improve the game.
Thank you for not only responding, but showing understanding of my viewpoint too! :-)
My feeling is that unarmed opportunity attacks should require an empty hand. Monks, when that class goes online, should do that all the time.
But where exactly does it say you are allowed opportunity attacks with your feet? Are feet acknowledged as attack tools at all? Doesn't the rules discuss hand slots only for the purposes of making (opportunity) attacks?
Or could you make an OA even with both hands and feet bound?
I'm just asking - if the game isn't trying for verisimiliditude (you can attack with your hand, but not if that hand holds a nice heavy object such as a rod...) perhaps we shouldn't add into the rules that OAs are made with something at all. Just use the "unarmed" attack mode and be happy...?
A situation that has come up several times already:
A ranger with a bow, a Warlock with two rods, etc etc
Can these characters still trigger opportunity attacks?
Yes, although their unarmed basic attack sucks.
Quote:
Or could you make an OA even with both hands and feet bound?
Still yes.
"When you punch, kick, elbow, knee, or even head butt an opponent, you’re making an unarmed strike." (PHB page 216)
Even if they didn't they could still whack the enemy over the head with their rod or bow as an improvised weapon.
They also still count for flanking. And would still if you introduce a house rule to not allow unarmed or improvised attacks, since to flank you only need to be able to attack, not make a melee attack.
Even if you decide that an unarmed attack requires a free hand, the archer could just let go of the bow with one hand as (almost certainly, although not explicitly) a free action and have a hand free for the OA.
That said, it'll probably miss and even if it does hit, it'll do some trivial amount of damage. So it's not like a non-minion really has to be worried about the archer's unarmed OA anyway.
(This doesn't address the case of a warlock with two rods, but pistol whipping someone with a magic rod seems not totally inappropriate.)
- Don't have NPCs try to move past these PCs but engage them instead.
- Have minions igmore damage from unarmed attacks (this is just a little mean).
- Drop in a few creatures with abilities that trigger of OAs (blow up, stick to PC, aura damage, etc.)
__________________ Not So Evil DM - A RBDM in training
This seems... dubious... somehow? Isn't part of the price you pay when filling both your hand slots with other items than weaponry supposed to be the lack of being able to threaten squares around you?
Do you believe you would hold this opinion if 4e was the first time you'd encountered Opportunity Attack rules, or is this purely a holdover from 3.xe?
4e has done much to limit the Opportunity Attacks system - a far smaller list of actions provoke OAs compared to 3.xe, and OAs at reach are difficult to achieve.
In return, some of the other limitations on OAs have been lifted. Cover no longer affects whether you can make an OA, and unarmed attacks are easier to make and no longer treated differently from other melee attacks in regard to OAs.
The result is an OA system which is distinct from that of 3.xe, and yet still reasonably well balanced. If you genuinely think that the system, taken as a whole, needs adjustment, then of course you should do so - but don't do it simply because one particular aspect of that system is less limited than that same small part of the system was in 3.xe.
My concern is that allowing unarmed (non-Monk) OAs only slows down gameplay, with no significant bonus to play balance.
Also, it seems somehow "right" that if a Ranger or Warlock chooses to not wield a melee weapon, they would surrender their rights to OAs. In the sense that they otherwise would both get to keep and eat their cake.
One option - for the Warlock - would of course be to rule that Rods work like Clubs (much like Staffs work like Quarterstaffs).
My main question is: why even bother with the d4 unarmed attack? Why not simply say - "if you have nothing better, you just don't get to make the attack"? Can you see any significant balance issues with this?
Is it a waste of the player's time to roll dice and maybe get that hit in? They might not feel so. Also, often Warlocks have a weapon... a pact knife is very handy in their hands for reasons other than being a weapon. Wizards like Staves for the same reason.
Besides that, having artillery use ranged attacks right beside -other- artillery happens so rarely that there's no slow down in the rolling. How can there be?
My concern is that allowing unarmed (non-Monk) OAs only slows down gameplay, with no significant bonus to play balance.
Also, it seems somehow "right" that if a Ranger or Warlock chooses to not wield a melee weapon, they would surrender their rights to OAs. In the sense that they otherwise would both get to keep and eat their cake.
One option - for the Warlock - would of course be to rule that Rods work like Clubs (much like Staffs work like Quarterstaffs).
My main question is: why even bother with the d4 unarmed attack? Why not simply say - "if you have nothing better, you just don't get to make the attack"? Can you see any significant balance issues with this?
Thanks,
Z
As with OAs in general, the balancing factor is not in the carrying out of the OA, but in the threat of one. The fact that you risk being subjected to an OA when you make a ranged attack or move whilst adjacent to an opponent is a deterrent against taking those actions.
With a character who lacks an armed melee attack, that deterrent is much reduced, but it is still there. That character still provides some degree of discouragement against enemies pushing past them or making ranged attacks whilst engaged with them.
If you remove that, you do somewhat change the balance of the battlefield. Not necessarily for the worse, but you are removing part of ranged characters' ability to tactically control the movement of the opposition.
I allow it the unarmed OA. Don't see a problem with it. And a fighter (if he is using a bow or something) actually might have a fair chance of hitting and certainly causes some interesting effects (stopping the opponent's move being the biggy).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
