stupid AoO's

[fl8m]

in 3 years of playing this is the first time it's come up.
a bad guy runs past the crossbow wielding wizard provoking an AoO. however the crossbow is empty so the wizard tries to punch the bad guy. the wizard (oddly enough) doesn't have improved unarmed combat and provokes an AoO for attacking unarmed. so can you provoke an attack of opportunity while acting on an attack of opportunity?

also if the wizard had a wand in his hand could he use the wand to cast a spell in reaction to the AoO?

 

[Evilhalfling]

from phb 137
"If your are unarmed you do not threaten adjacent squares (but see Unarmed attacks pg 139) " The rest of the refrenece goes on to say that monks or people with unarmed strike, creatures with claws etc. are always considered armed.

Also it is defined as a melee attack, thus no wand or spell use.

otherwise imagine 2 high dex people with combat reflexes, but not unarmed strike in a boxing match

 

[drunkmoogle]

First error: Ranged weapons don't threaten an area. The wizard should not have gotten an AoO. Unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you don't threaten the squares around you.

Question 1) Yes, you could provoke an AoO doing an action triggered by an AoO.
Question 2) No; a spell is a Standard Action. AoOs give you an Attack action.

There's no reason (game mechanics-wise) anybody should be without a spiked gauntlet or armor spikes, if only for threatening an area while unarmed.

 

['o Skoteinos]

Can't the wizard just hit with the crossbow as an improvised weapon? I once did that and killed a goblin (with a critical hit, but hey, such an action deserves a little back up from dice )

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'd allow the character to attack with the crossbow, paying the penalty for attacking without a proficiency. I would also deal the crossbow damage equal to what it dealt the creature (1d4 probably). It's really not designed to be used that way.