Threaten Area & AoO Case Studies

[prodawg]

Let's say that you have a unarmed cleric and an unarmed sorcerer. Both are medium size with 5 ft reach standing in adjacent squares. Both are unarmed, do not have unarmed attack feat, and not hasted. Please take a look at the following cases:
1. If the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. If the cleric is armed with a melee weapon (threating an area), she would be entitled to an AoO. Since she is not, no AoO takes place. Right?
2. Same case as number 1 except the cleric is armed with a crossbow. The result is the same because you do not threaten an area with a bow, so no AoO takes place as in case 1. Right?
3. The cleric and sorcerer is standing 5 ft apart. The sorcerer tries to cast a spell without a concentration check (ie. not casting defensively). Is the unarmed cleric entitled to an AoO? The sorcerer is not in a threatened square, yet his spell casting triggers an AoO. I'm not too sure about this one. I have always thought that no AoO would take place because the cleric has nothing make a melee attack with. Right?
4. Same case as 3 except the cleric is armed with a crossbow. No AoO because AoO must be made with a melee weapon. Right?
Thanks for taking time to read this and to respond.

*Edit: 5 ft apart & no unarmed strike

 

[dcollins]

Well, that's not that long. First, I assume that for all cases 1-4, you mean that the two characters start out in adjacent squares (5 ft. apart).

Basically your analysis is correct -- under the assumption that people do not threaten areas with unarmed attacks. That is how the Sage recently ruled on the matter. That is not how a great many (I think a majority) of people on these boards read the rulebook. The note to the table on PH p. 128 specifically says that weaponless attacks -- disarm, grapple, and trip -- can be used in attacks-of-opportunity (see Table 8-4, second-to-last note).

Reading the book closely at this point, I would therefore have to disagree with the Sage. I think that unarmed people do threaten a space, and hence AOOs should be allowed in your cases #1 & #3. Some people also always allow unarmed attacks while at the same time wielding a bow -- personally, I do not (so "no AOO" in cases #2 & #4).

Your main concern in #3, you have correct again. If a person truly does not threaten a space (however you adjudicate that), then they cannot take advantage of any AOO provocations.

 

[Limper]

In case three, if the cleric attacks and doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike I think HE'D provoke an attack of opportunity for trying to make one.

But I think you've got the rest, I agree you threaten with or without weapons BUT without the right feats doing so would provoke.

 

[Number47]

This is my best reasoning for not allowing an unarmed strike when making an AoO, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike:

Sorceror tries to cast a spell, provoking an AoO. Cleric makes an unarmed strike at the sorceror, provoking an AoO. Sorceror then makes an unarmed strike at cleric, provoking an AoO, ad infinitum.

My simple rule is: you may not do any action as an AoO that would draw an AoO.

 

[prodawg]

This is a flaw in that unarmed attack draws AoO, thus the sorcerer attempts an unarmed attack, and thus creating an infinent loop. Let's say that a fighter is fighting another fighter. The first attacks, fumbles and rolls a natural 1, drawing an AoO. The second fighter takes advantage of this and attacks. He fumbles and rolls a natural 1. Fighter 1 cannot make a AoO based on fighter 2's AoO fumble. So, I really don't see how that resolves the issue.

*Edit: Plus PHB pg 140 "Attacking unarmed provokes an AoO from the character you attack, provided she is armed." So your case does not really apply.

 

[Gizzard]

>1. If the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. If the
> cleric is armed with a melee weapon (threating an area),
> she would be entitled to an AoO. Since she is not, no
>AoO takes place. Right?

According to my understanding, even if the Cleric had a weapon, moving back would not provoke an AoA. The Sorcerer starts in a threatened square, but if he moves away from the Cleric he never moves *through* a threatened square and thus never provokes an AoA. You can move into (as when you step up to attack) or out of (as when you disengage), but you cant move through a threatened square.

[edit] This is tangential to the point of the discussion, but I thought I should mention it anyway.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is a flaw in that unarmed attack draws AoO, thus the sorcerer attempts an unarmed attack, and thus creating an infinent loop. Let's say that a fighter is fighting another fighter. The first attacks, fumbles and rolls a natural 1, drawing an AoO. The second fighter takes advantage of this and attacks. He fumbles and rolls a natural 1. Fighter 1 cannot make a AoO based on fighter 2's AoO fumble. So, I really don't see how that resolves the issue.

Fumbling on a natural 1 (and provoking an AoO as a result) is a house rule.

 

[prodawg]

Fumbling on a natural 1 (and provoking an AoO as a result) is a house rule.

Oh is it? Been playing with it since level 1, guess I forgot about that.

 

[prodawg]

>1. If the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. If the
> cleric is armed with a melee weapon (threating an area),
> she would be entitled to an AoO. Since she is not, no
>AoO takes place. Right?

According to my understanding, even if the Cleric had a weapon, moving back would not provoke an AoA. The Sorcerer starts in a threatened square, but if he moves away from the Cleric he never moves *through* a threatened square and thus never provokes an AoA. You can move into (as when you step up to attack) or out of (as when you disengage), but you cant move through a threatened square.

[edit] This is tangential to the point of the discussion, but I thought I should mention it anyway.

Well, no exactly. PHB pg 122 "If you move within or out of a threatened area, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. If all you do is move (nor run) during your turn, the space you start out is not considered threatened..."
So if the cleric has a mace and the sorcerer is standing next to the cleric to start with, the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. The sorcerer is moving out of a threatened area and thus provoking an AoO.

 

[dcollins]

In case three, if the cleric attacks and doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike I think HE'D provoke an attack of opportunity for trying to make one.

According to my understanding, even if the Cleric had a weapon, moving back would not provoke an AoA. The Sorcerer starts in a threatened square, but if he moves away from the Cleric he never moves *through* a threatened square and thus never provokes an AoA. You can move into (as when you step up to attack) or out of (as when you disengage), but you cant move through a threatened square.

And I'm afraid that's not correct, either. You may wish to see the new edition PH Inserts at WOTC, here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Bonus.asp

This includes a clarification that says simply "You provoke an attack of opportunity when you move out of a threatened square.", and includes a pictorial example of such movement.