Disarm and AOO

[Destil]

I'd agree with Caliban, as that's a very reasonable approach, even if not directly supported in the rules.

How about throwin this kink into the logic:

Replace the reach-weapon wielder with an ogre using an unarmed strike. Can you take an AoO to damage them, by striking at their arm?

 

[Kemrain]

Now that's a touchey subject there.

Personally, I'd allow it, but for half damage and at a to-hit penalty, because it's basically a called shot to a limb, but I have no idea what the rules would say in this situation.

- Kemrain the Attacker of Opportunity

 

[Hypersmurf]

Replace the reach-weapon wielder with an ogre using an unarmed strike. Can you take an AoO to damage them, by striking at their arm?

The FAQ entry on touch attacks (whether it's relevant or not ), while disallowing touch attacks directed against a Reach Weapon, does allow a touch attack against a natural weapon with reach.

For whatever that's worth.

-Hyp.

 

[nimisgod]

IMO, you'd be nerfing the power of a reach weapon and of reach itself. You know, there's a mechanical reason why a glaive only does 1d10 while a greataxe deals 1d12.

IMC, if an ogre made an unarmed attack while 10 feet away, I'd let him go free of AoOs. Why? The reason I think you get an AoO when attacking unarmed is bec. of your lack of reach.

Imagine that someone had a sword and you tried to punch or kick him. Without any kind of martial art training, you'd get skewered before you could get to him.

How about an ogre? He has longer arms.

Its the same when a human punches a tiny creature. The creature doesn't have any kind of reach (can only attack his own square) so the human wouldn't get an AoO.

Well... whatever. Realism examples don't matter too much. Its your game after all. I suppose, the important thing is that you have fun.

Cheers.