Is disarm useless?

[Crothian]

Crothian. I can't find anything in the books that says you don't threaten an area when unarmed. Nothing at all. So, if you threaten an area while unarmed, you can make an AoO anyways.

Without improved unarmed strike, you aren't considered armed. If you aren't considered armed you don't threaten the area around you.

Or at least that's what I thought. I might be wrong as I can't find anything on that either.

 

[kreynolds]

Without improved unarmed strike, you aren't considered armed. If you aren't considered armed you don't threaten the area around you.

Or at least that's what I thought.

That's what I thought too, and the sage agrees with us.

I might be wrong as I can't find anything on that either.

There isn't anything, as far as I can tell.

 

[Mistwell]

How do you figure that? You can make an AoO when unarmed with the proper feat.

I fully admit I could be wrong, I just can't find anything in the rules that says an unarmed character cannot make an attack of opportunity. I mean, sure, without the proper feat you will do subdual damage, or suffer a -4 penalty to your attack. And you might provoke your own attack of opportunity for doing it. But you should be able to attack still. And you should be able to make that attack a trip attempt, or a grapple, both of which work well with an unarmed attack.

Maybe I am missing something. Which feat are you referring to? Maybe it will clarify the rule for me.

 

[Crothian]

Maybe I am missing something. Which feat are you referring to? Maybe it will clarify the rule for me.

I was refering to improved unarmed strike. My thinking is that if you are not considered armed, you don't threaten the area around you. If you don't threaten the area around you, you can't make AoO.

However, I can't find it in the book. I may be mistaken.

 

[IceBear]

I don't think this is officially stated anywhere, but was a clarification made by the Sage.

I think Artoomis's Ambiguous Rules page sums up the last debate (here's the URL if you don't have it: http://hometown.aol.com/westronic/DnD.html).

10. Threatening an area while unarmed. (Do you or don't you?)

My Best Advice: You don’t threaten an area or get attacks of opportunity if unarmed, unless you are a monk or have the Improved Unarmed Attack feat.

The Rules: You "threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack." (PHB p. 122). On table 8-1, "Attack (unarmed)" is a separate entry from "Attack (melee)." On p. 140, "striking for damage with a punches, kicks, and head butts is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following." Lack of threatening the area around is not listed here, or anywhere else in the rules.

The Sage: You don't threaten while unarmed unless you're "considered armed" (have Improved Unarmed Strike, are a monk, are a monster using 'natural weapons,' etc.)

Other WotC/former WotC opinions:

Argument For: It complicates combat, because then an archer might threaten the area around him with "kicks" and "head butts" which is just wrong. The rules are not clear on this as the "Argument Against" would suggest - otherwise this debate would not exist.

Argument Against: It's the rules and the Sage is off-base. Unarmed attacks are pretty wimpy anyway since they usually provoke AoOs and do tiny damage--so most people won't take them. Some AoO actions like "trip" or "grapple" are basically unarmed actions; it makes no sense that a holding a crossbow bolt in your off-hand would allow you to make grappling attempts and trips as AoOs, which you couldn't do unarmed. The book clearly states that you threaten an area whenever you can make a melee attack. Having an armed attack (such as a Melee Attack, an Improved Unarmed Strike, or a Touch Attack) or an unarmed attack (Unarmed Strike) is irrelevant. These are all melee attack forms.

IceBear

 

[Fade]

My DM let me take an 'enhanced disarm' feat that allows me to knock enemies' weapons flying when I disarm them. I haven't got to make an attack roll yet so I don't know how balanced it is.

 

[FANGO]

Yikes, I'm surprised I'm the only one here who seems to know this...

Even though I've never played a true monk before, and I don't actually have S&F, I'm pretty sure the rule is that if you use both hands to disarm you can treat your hands as a weapon of your size category. So a human gets to use both hands as a medium-size weapon. I'm not sure if this is only for monks, but I think it probably ought to be for everyone.

 

[Clumsy Bob]

This whole business of threataning areas while unarmed is confusing. Say a combatant is unarmed and attacks somebody drinking a potion, or beer. The attacker would draw an AoO for attacking unarmed, so somebody else unarmed attacks guy #1 again drawing an AoO and voila bar room brawl, sorry just messin around

 

[Destil]

[EDIT: Redundant post deleted, missed second page of thread]

 

[Chun-tzu]

Even though I've never played a true monk before, and I don't actually have S&F, I'm pretty sure the rule is that if you use both hands to disarm you can treat your hands as a weapon of your size category. So a human gets to use both hands as a medium-size weapon. I'm not sure if this is only for monks, but I think it probably ought to be for everyone.

This is correct. The rule variant is on page 69 of Sword and Fist, under "Double-Handed Disarm." It applies to anyone fighting unarmed, and it says nothing about being able to grab the weapon instead of it dropping to the ground.