Threatened squares and weapons in hand

[Keith]

Hello,

I have some questions about threatening squares in 3.5; I’d appreciate it if anyone could offer clarification, please. I only have the SRD text myself at the moment, as below, so if there is text in the new PHB that clarifies it…well, please be tolerant, basically.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

My questions are:
-do people interpret “can make a melee attack” as the character brandishing a melee weapon? Or would it be enough to be armed and evidently hostile? Given that an opponent might conceivable draw a weapon and strike at any moment. Or is that “unarmed” as well?
-do characters wielding bows threaten adjacent squares with that weapon (for the purpose of taking an AOO)? If not, does holding a bow preclude the possibility of making a melee attack and hence threatening a square, for the purpose of providing flanking, for example?

Greatly appreciate anyone’s thoughts on this. Thanks!

 

[kreynolds]

-do people interpret “can make a melee attack” as the character brandishing a melee weapon? Or would it be enough to be armed and evidently hostile? Given that an opponent might conceivable draw a weapon and strike at any moment. Or is that “unarmed” as well?

If you are unarmed, or if you are not otherwise treated as armed while unarmed (such as a monk, someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or someone with natural weapons), you do not threaten an area, thus no AoO's.

-do characters wielding bows threaten adjacent squares with that weapon (for the purpose of taking an AOO)?

No.

-If not, does holding a bow preclude the possibility of making a melee attack and hence threatening a square, for the purpose of providing flanking, for example?

Yes. You don't threaten with a ranged weapon, thus no AoO's, and no flanking.

 

[AuraSeer]

Hello,
-do people interpret ?can make a melee attack? as the character brandishing a melee weapon? Or would it be enough to be armed and evidently hostile? Given that an opponent might conceivable draw a weapon and strike at any moment. Or is that ?unarmed? as well?

In order to threaten a space you must have a weapon in hand, or have Improved Unarmed Strike (or be a monk). It is not enough just to have a sheathed weapon somewhere on your body, because when it's sheathed you cannot make an attack with it. (Even if you have the Quickdraw feat, you can only draw a weapon on your own turn.)

-do characters wielding bows threaten adjacent squares with that weapon (for the purpose of taking an AOO)?

No. Projectile weapons do not threaten any area.

If not, does holding a bow preclude the possibility of making a melee attack and hence threatening a square, for the purpose of providing flanking, for example?

If the only weapon you hold is a bow, you do not threaten any squares, and you cannot help an ally get a flanking bonus.

 

[Keith]

Thanks very much, folks! I will rummage around and find a reference to projectile weapons still not threatening. I was hoping it was gone.

I have no idea why someone next to you with a bow is considered unthreatening in D&D, but I don’t expect that anyone can provide an explanation with verisimilitude. Just the facts is fine!

I do wonder what is to be done if a character actually does take a bow in both hands and use it to make a melee attack. While not terribly effective, it is not all that much worse of an option than attacking an armored opponent with a quarterstaff. I wouldn’t want to catch a bowstaff in the face particularly. Would this be discounted as a melee attack?

 

[Aaron2]

You don't threaten with a ranged weapon, thus no AoO's, and no flanking.

What if you're holding a bow in one hand and an arrow in another? Since an arrow can be used as an improvised weapon, it can take an AoO. If you don't like that, use the ol' quick draw dagger trick.

I still think that "No AoO while unarmed" is the dumbest rule EVAR. Esp. since an unarmed attack is still a melee attack. So you have a rule that contradicts itself two sentences later.


Aaron

 

[Keith]

The Quickdraw point is well taken, but it strikes me that there are magical alternatives. A glove of storing could produce a melee weapon instantly, and the wielder could attack. A DM might allow other similar magical items, as well, but that is one that is not a house rule.
I suspect that in that case some might say that there is no overt threat, so no AOO or flank. This is the area that I find interesting: does “can make a melee attack” mean in general, at the lowest common denominator, or that specific person, or does it even mean implicitly “the opponent has to have reasonable fear of such an attack”?
I’m glad that people can apply this rule in a very black and white way; personally, I find it not so much confusing as unduly cut and dried.
Thanks again!

Edit: and I agree with Aaron2, basically.

Cheers

 

[Mallus]

Here's a variation on the theme: if a character is wearing spiked gauntlets [or armor spikes] while wielding a glaive [or any reachy polearm], would he/she threaten the adjacent squares? In that case, is the character effectively threatening with two different weapons [one near, one far]?

Its not hard to imagine a fighter switching his grip on his polearm to punch something close with his spiked gauntlet.

 

[Keith]

Mallus, get your own thread!

Kidding. Excellent point. I’m sure that it is easily dismissed using the letter of the rules (and this is the rules forum), but I agree whole-heartedly that there is a huge ambiguity in the idea of “threatening” brought on by the “one and only one weapon determines whether or not you threaten” approach. That approach is not really spelled out in the SRD, but I happily take the word of more experienced players that it is implied in the system.

Given the possibility that (in most D&D worlds) anyone standing next to you might at any time produce a weapon out of thin air and attack, I would think that proximity alone would be threatening! And the term “can make a melee attack” does not actually contradict this approach very explicitly.

 

[AuraSeer]

The Quickdraw point is well taken, but it strikes me that there are magical alternatives. A glove of storing could produce a melee weapon instantly, and the wielder could attack. A DM might allow other similar magical items, as well, but that is one that is not a house rule.

Activating a glove of storing is exactly equivalent to drawing a weapon with Quickdraw. Either way it's a free action which you can only take during your turn.

When someone takes an action that would provoke AoO, you can only attack. You cannot take a free action to activate the glove or Quickdraw a weapon, because it's still not your turn. If you can't draw the weapon you cannot attack with it. Since you could not attack, by definition you do not threaten an area.

I suspect that in that case some might say that there is no overt threat, so no AOO or flank. This is the area that I find interesting: does ?can make a melee attack? mean in general, at the lowest common denominator, or that specific person, or does it even mean implicitly ?the opponent has to have reasonable fear of such an attack??

It means that the attacker must be able to make a melee attack into that square with his currently wielded weapon. Talking about "reasonable fear" has nothing to do with it. An arthritic halfling grandmother with Str 1 and a wielded club does threaten an area. A Str 30 epic barbarian, with a vorpal greataxe in his glove of storing but no weapon in his hands, does not threaten an area.

 

[Rel]

I still think that "No AoO while unarmed" is the dumbest rule EVAR. Esp. since an unarmed attack is still a melee attack. So you have a rule that contradicts itself two sentences later.

One problem here is that attacking unarmed provokes an AoO from whoever you attack. So you get into a situation where they provoke an AoO from you, for whatever reason, and then when you try to punch them, they get an AoO against you. This is, at minimum, two more sets of attack and damage rolls to deal with. And, unless the combatants are very low level, the resulting damage is almost certainly not going to significantly alter the outcome of the battle.

If both opponents happen to have Combat Reflexes and high Dex, this can get real stupid, real fast. Better, I think, to just disallow AoO's by somebody who is unarmed.