Can an AoO provoke an AoO?

[drnuncheon]

Just keep in mind that if you are wielding a ranged weapon, you aren't unarmed, and can't make an unarmed strike. (i.e. either you are wielding the bow or you aren't. If you just took a shot with your bow, you can't turn around and punch someone. ) Ranged weapons specifically don't allow you to threaten an area.

Actually, if you just took a shot with your shortbow or longbow, your primary hand (usually the one you draw the bow with) is completely free and not holding anything, and thus ought to be available for an unarmed AoO.

Crossbows and slings are a different story, although I can't see how having a sling in your hand would prevent you from punching someone.

The 'ranged weapons do not threaten' rule should simply prevent you from using the ranged weapon for the AoO.

J

 

[Mr.Binx]

Just keep in mind that if you are wielding a ranged weapon, you aren't unarmed, and can't make an unarmed strike. (i.e. either you are wielding the bow or you aren't. If you just took a shot with your bow, you can't turn around and punch someone. )

Ummm.... an unarmed strike doesn't have to be a punch. It can be anything from a kick to headbutt as long it's a feasible attack. The D&D FAQ even gives rules for making offhand unarmed attacks while weilding two-handed weapons (p.5, last praragraph, right column). It also gives rules on resolving a full round of unarmed attacks if your hands are preoccupied in the proceeding FAQ entry.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I think that the intention, even though it is not spelled out clearly, is that somebody who isn't armed does not threaten an area.
But I agree that it isn't explicit, nor hardly even implicit, in the book.

And Skip Williams (not in the role of the Sage this time), I and many others agree with you on that.

Here there the basic house rules on this:

1) An unarmed attack is not considered a melee attack unless you are armed, however it is still also considered an unarmed attack.
2) A trip attack is an unarmed attack which can also be performed with special trip weapons.
3) A disarm attack is both an unarmed and a melee attack.
4) A grapple is an unarmed attack which can be performed with a weapon in one hand.

 

[Caliban]

Ummm.... an unarmed strike doesn't have to be a punch. It can be anything from a kick to headbutt as long it's a feasible attack. The D&D FAQ even gives rules for making offhand unarmed attacks while weilding two-handed weapons (p.5, last praragraph, right column). It also gives rules on resolving a full round of unarmed attacks if your hands are preoccupied in the proceeding FAQ entry.

You are either weilding the ranged weapon or you are not. If you are wielding a ranged weapon (such as a whip or bow), you don't threaten the area around you and you can't make an AoO. This is in the core rules and the D&D FAQ.

It's just the way the rules work. I can easily see a feat that allows you to still threaten an area when using a ranged weapon, or a bow that is also enchanted to act as a club, and thus would allow you to threaten the area around you. But by the core rules, you don't threaten the area around you while wielding a ranged weapon. (Presumably you are to occupied with aiming and reloading the weapon to take advantage of any openings in your opponent's defense.)

As a DM, I only apply this limitation on rounds in which you are actually using the bow. If you don't us it, you can just hold it in your hand and threaten the area around you normally.

 

[drnuncheon]

But by the core rules, you don't threaten the area around you while wielding a ranged weapon. (Presumably you are to occupied with aiming and reloading the weapon to take advantage of any openings in your opponent's defense.)

Just out of curiosity, would you allow a human wizard to take an AoO with his staff in the same round that he cast a spell? The rules do not seem to prevent this. Remember, however, that a staff is a size L (two-handed) weapon, and he needs one hand free for the somatic components of the spell.

If you would allow the wizard to freely switch the staff from two hands (weilded) to one (held) and back again, why would you not do this for a bow?

I also can't find the specific rule you reference - that you do not threaten at all while weilding a ranged weapon. On page 122 I find that you threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack, and I find that an AoO must be a melee attack, but not that you do not threaten at all when weilding a ranged weapon.

J

 

[Plane Sailing]

But, in the end, it comes down to that I like not having to bother about the wizard with nothing but a wand in his hand attemping to kick the blackguard in full plate when he charges past, for 1d3 subdual.
.

Of course, if the wizard had an activated vampiric touch wand created by a 20th level caster, then running past him could be a VERY bad idea

 

[Caliban]

Just out of curiosity, would you allow a human wizard to take an AoO with his staff in the same round that he cast a spell?

Of course, unless he is casting a full round or longer spell.

The rules do not seem to prevent this.

They don't.

Remember, however, that a staff is a size L (two-handed) weapon, and he needs one hand free for the somatic components of the spell.

And? Spellcasting and shooting a bow are two completely different things.

Would you allow a wizard to make an attack with a staff and then cast a spell as an AoO, or shoot a bow as an AoO? Of course not. The rules don't allow it.

If you would allow the wizard to freely switch the staff from two hands (weilded) to one (held) and back again, why would you not do this for a bow?

I also can't find the specific rule you reference - that you do not threaten at all while weilding a ranged weapon. On page 122 I find that you threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack, and I find that an AoO must be a melee attack, but not that you do not threaten at all when weilding a ranged weapon.

J

The whole "ranged weapons aren't melee weapons" concept is confusing you or something? Unless you want to use Two Weapon Fighting rules, you can only wield one weapon at a time. If you are wielding a ranged weapon, you aren't wielding a melee weapon (except in the case of thrown weapons of course), and thus do not threaten the area around you. If you dropped the ranged weapon before the end of your turn, then I would allow you to make an unarmed AoO.

Also, a spell isn't a melee weapon, and it's not a ranged weapon. You can keep wielding your staff while casting the spell, you just don't have both hands on it.

Also see the D&D FAQ:

The whip is considered a ranged weapon. As far as I can
tell, that means that striking with a whip provokes an attack of opportunity! Surely that's not correct? I have a hard time believing that swinging a whip opens up my defenses that much more than, say, swinging a spiked chain. That also means than a whip wielder can't use the whip (as an attack of opportunity) to trip that orc when it tries to run past.

Using a whip indeed provokes an attack of opportunity. It
takes more time and effort to crank up a whip attack than it
does to, say, pull a crossbow trigger. (With the exception of the
sling, most ranged weapons are a tad handier and quicker than
a whip more than 15 feet long.) A spiked chain is a melee
weapon and considerably less ponderous that a whip (mostly
because it's much shorter).

No, you can't make an attack of opportunity with a whip, but
you could prepare a whip attack or delay attacking until a foe
comes within range.

 

[drnuncheon]

And? Spellcasting and shooting a bow are two completely different things.

Would you allow a wizard to make an attack with a staff and then cast a spell as an AoO, or shoot a bow as an AoO? Of course not. The rules don't allow it.

Then I think you're missing my point.

You're allowing the spellcaster to switch from weilding a weapon to holding it and back as a free action.

A size L weapon can only be weilded in two hands by a size M creature, barring feats. (PHB 97) If you're not using both hands, you're not weilding it - but you can be just holding it.

Why can't the bow-weilder switch from weilding the bow (2 hands) to just holding it in one hand? Then, he can 'weild' an unarmed attack and threaten the 5' area around him.

The whole "ranged weapons aren't melee weapons" concept is confusing you or something? Unless you want to use Two Weapon Fighting rules, you can only wield one weapon at a time.

Nobody is weilding more than one weapon at a time. They are changing from weilding one weapon (a bow) to 'weilding' another (a fist).

If you are wielding a ranged weapon, you aren't wielding a melee weapon (except in the case of thrown weapons of course), and thus do not threaten the area around you. If you dropped the ranged weapon before the end of your turn, then I would allow you to make an unarmed AoO.

Why does one have to drop the ranged weapon? Why not stop weilding the ranged weapon and simply hold it in your off-hand?

Would someone need to explicitly say "I fire an arrow. I then stop weilding the bow as a free action and hold it in my left hand. I now weild my Improved Unarmed Strike as a free action and threaten the 5' area around me. I wait. It's my turn again? I stop weilding my Improved Unarmed Strike as a free action and begin weilding my bow as a free action. I fire an arrow..."

Is this confusing you or something?

Also, a spell isn't a melee weapon, and it's not a ranged weapon. You can keep wielding your staff while casting the spell, you just don't have both hands on it.

See above. If you don't have two hands on the staff, you can't use it and therefore you're obviously not weilding it. While you are casting the spell, you are not weilding the staff, you are merely holding it.

Also see the D&D FAQ:

The quote is completely irrelevant. Nobody is attempting to make an attack of opportunity with a whip or any other ranged weapon.

J

 

[Ristamar]

Then I think you're missing my point.

You're allowing the spellcaster to switch from weilding a weapon to holding it and back as a free action.

A size L weapon can only be weilded in two hands by a size M creature, barring feats. (PHB 97) If you're not using both hands, you're not weilding it - but you can be just holding it.

Why can't the bow-weilder switch from weilding the bow (2 hands) to just holding it in one hand? Then, he can 'weild' an unarmed attack and threaten the 5' area around him.

Nobody is weilding more than one weapon at a time. They are changing from weilding one weapon (a bow) to 'weilding' another (a fist).

Why does one have to drop the ranged weapon? Why not stop weilding the ranged weapon and simply hold it in your off-hand?

Would someone need to explicitly say "I fire an arrow. I then stop weilding the bow as a free action and hold it in my left hand. I now weild my Improved Unarmed Strike as a free action and threaten the 5' area around me. I wait. It's my turn again? I stop weilding my Improved Unarmed Strike as a free action and begin weilding my bow as a free action. I fire an arrow..."

Is this confusing you or something?



See above. If you don't have two hands on the staff, you can't use it and therefore you're obviously not weilding it. While you are casting the spell, you are not weilding the staff, you are merely holding it.



The quote is completely irrelevant. Nobody is attempting to make an attack of opportunity with a whip or any other ranged weapon.

J

It's situations like this that bring out the wonkiness in D&D.

Anyway, by the rules, if you wield a bow and attack with a fist (regardless of whether the attack is an AoO or not), you will incur two-weapon fighting penalties.

Of course, you don't know if you're going to need that unarmed strike to make an AoO. That's the problem. Let's say you attack with the bow, then later an enemy makes a move that could potentially provoke an AoO. If you choose to strike with your fist, you're incurring the TWF penalties, and would have to retroactively adjust the roll to the attack with the bow you made earlier. Unfortunately, you can't do that, so you have to either:

A) Suck up the penalties before hand, if you think there's a chance someone may provoke an AoO.

B) Avoid the penalties, but forfeit your chance for AoO. IMO, it's generally best (and the assumed default) to forfeit the opportunity for AoO, and leave the squares around you unthreatened.

 

[drnuncheon]

It's situations like this that bring out the wonkiness in D&D.

Anyway, by the rules, if you wield a bow and attack with a fist (regardless of whether the attack is an AoO or not), you will incur two-weapon fighting penalties.

That is simply not true. One only incurs multiple-weapon penalties if one is trying to get more than the usual numbers of attacks.

If I am a 20th level fighter and I throw 4 knives, I don't take two-weapon fighting penalties, even though I'm using two (more than two!) weapons. If I am a 20th level fighter and I throw 3 knives then draw my sword and attack, I also do not take two-weapon fighting penalties.

If I am a 20th level ambidextrous fighter with a sword in each hand, and I only take 4 attacks, I do not take any penalties - it doesn't matter which sword I use for a particular strike. If I later take an AoO, I do not get any penalties. It is only if I try to get a 5th attack - an extra attack with the second weapon that I could not normally get - it is only then that I take a -2 penalty to all my attacks.

J