Threatened squares and weapons in hand

[Aaron2]

How I saw it possible:
a) Character shoots with his bow
b) After shooting with his bow, the character gets in "punch-mode", ie holds his bow in his left hand, and gets ready to strike with his right (armed with a spiked gauntlet)
c) Next round, the character gets back into "death-from-afar" mode and shoots his round-allotment of arrows.
d) Goto a).

It has to do with the cyclical and continuous aspect of combat. For simplicity, the combat is turned-based, every one acting on a different initiative count, while, in fact, everything is happening pretty much simultaneously. There isn't really time between the end of your turn and the beginning of your next turn. That's why you can't be in two diffrent attack modes at the same time (be it projectile/melee or 10'-reach/5'-reach).

You can, however ...

a) Character shoots with his bow
b) After shooting with his bow, the character drops it and quick draws a sword
c) Next round, the character drops the sword, quick draws his backup bow and shoots his round-allotment of arrows.
d) Goto a).

Why this example works while the gauntlet doesn't makes no sense to me. It has nothing to do with "simultaneously" doing anything. That's just a cover story for a bad rule.


As to unarmed AoOs, my main beef is with a typical unarmed bar brawl or fistfight. Suddenly, you can casually stroll through a bar full of upset patrons and nobody can do anything about it. I'd like to see anyone try to stop and drink a potion in the middle of a boxing match.

Secondly, if I'm holding a dagger, I can use my AoO to grapple someone. By that logic, I can also use my AoO to make an unarmed strike (say, a kick). So, technically, I can make unarmed strikes during AoOs, but only if I'm holding another weapon. That's just silly.

Aaron

 

[Keith]

Sitting here at work laughing at your postscripts, Magic Slim. Very funny.

Great points, too. I think the thing with the sword vs bow comparison (I think you are likely right) could be that the archer is not shooting arrows the whole time, but just waiting for the wizard to maybe let down that guard. If not, the archer makes a regular attack anyway. One thing I could definitely get behind is the idea that if you did take a projectile AOO, then you would not have ammunition ready for one of your regular attacks (free action notwithstanding). I wonder if this isn’t what actually took the designers down the much simpler path of “no threat from guy with drawn bow pointed at the back of your head”.

 

[Magic Slim]

You can, however ...
(example)
Why this example works while the gauntlet doesn't makes no sense to me. It has nothing to do with "simultaneously" doing anything. That's just a cover story for a bad rule.

Well, that's what THEY told me when I asked if I could do it...

As to unarmed AoOs, my main beef is with a typical unarmed bar brawl or fistfight. Suddenly, you can casually stroll through a bar full of upset patrons and nobody can do anything about it. I'd like to see anyone try to stop and drink a potion in the middle of a boxing match.

Well, some of those patrons will be wielding broken beer bottles. They'll probably get a free stab. As for the others, they'll simply have to wait their turn in the initiative count to pound you...

Or, if they have a habit of getting into fistfights in bars, maybe they have picked up Improved Unarmed Strike, and thus, can make AoO's.

Secondly, if I'm holding a dagger, I can use my AoO to grapple someone. By that logic, I can also use my AoO to make an unarmed strike (say, a kick). So, technically, I can make unarmed strikes during AoOs, but only if I'm holding another weapon. That's just silly.

Can you really try to start a grapple as an AoO? Anyways, if you try to grapple, you provoke an AoO also...

I know that a trip you can do in an AoO. If you can trip with your weapon, no problem. If your weapon doesn't permit trips, you'll get an AoO (if your opponent provokes one), but you won't take it with the weapon you were threatening with.

I do think it's silly that you can't, say, try to trip someone (with your leg, for example) when an opponent passes you by.

Slim

 

[AuraSeer]

I'd like to see anyone try to stop and drink a potion in the middle of a boxing match.

Professional boxers have Improved Unarmed Strike.

 

[kreynolds]

What if you're holding a bow in one hand and an arrow in another?

Then you would threaten an area, I suppose. However, as a DM, I don't assume that you already have an arrow in your hand, and for good reason. If you always have an arrow in your hand while also holding a bow, then you have to drop or put away one of them to do anything else.

If you don't like that, use the ol' quick draw dagger trick.

Nope. If the only weapon you are holding is a ranged weapon, you don't threaten an area. If you don't threaten an area, people don't draw AoOs from you. If they don't draw an AoO from you, you can't use quick draw to draw a dagger because they didn't provoke anything from you in the first place.

Also, free actions generally can only be performed on your round, not someone elses. Some can though, like speaking and such.

I still think that "No AoO while unarmed" is the dumbest rule EVAR. Esp. since an unarmed attack is still a melee attack.

Yes, but you're unarmed, so I'm not sure what contradiction your speaking of.

 

[kreynolds]

Professional boxers have Improved Unarmed Strike.

LOL Dude! I almost lost my coffee!!!

 

[Keith]

AOO with empty hands/ no weapon?

Right in the FAQ:

"if you are already holding the charge
for a touch spell such as shocking grasp or you have a spell
such as produce flame running, you can use the touch attacks
these spells provide as attacks of opportunity."

Do you threaten in this case? Flank?

Also in the FAQ (the old one) is:
"but a foe armed with a ranged weapon doesn’t threaten you."

This statement is in the middle of nowhere, and not explained as part of the rules. I remain kind of stumped by the difficulty in fitting this rule in with the others.

Cheers

 

[Keith]

"Then you would threaten an area, I suppose. However, as a DM, I don't assume that you already have an arrow in your hand, and for good reason. If you always have an arrow in your hand while also holding a bow, then you have to drop or put away one of them to do anything else."

Other than shoot the arrow, presumably.

It is all seeming clearer to me now, thanks all. I would like to see the “range weapon doesn’t threaten” rule more front and center, given that I can’t find it more than alluded to in the FAQ so far. I don’t think it is a good rule, either, but that is not my point. I don’t think it is suitably featured in the rules. Everyone here seems to know it, but try noticing it as a casual player! Unless I have missed it. It is counter-intuitive, and not really explicitly stated (I think). This is the kind of thing I wish 3.5 had tidied a bit more.
Thanks for all the help. A couple of laughs, too.

 

[Aaron2]

Nope. If the only weapon you are holding is a ranged weapon, you don't threaten an area. If you don't threaten an area, people don't draw AoOs from you. If they don't draw an AoO from you, you can't use quick draw to draw a dagger because they didn't provoke anything from you in the first place.

Also, free actions generally can only be performed on your round, not someone elses.

I'm talking about using quick draw to draw a dagger or sword at the end of your round (after you've taking all your bow shots). Since you are now holding a melee weapon, you can take AoOs as normal. Then, as a free action at the beginning of your next round, drop the dagger and begin firing your bow. You drop one dagger per round but its no problem to carry a dozen or so.

Since you can draw an arrow as a free action now (3.0 was unclear on this point), this should also work with arrows as an improvised melee weapon. Sure, you have both hands full, but you can always drop the arrow as a free action so you haven't really lost anything (except the time it takes to pick up all the arrows you've tossed about).


Aaron

 

[kreynolds]

AOO with empty hands/ no weapon?

Right in the FAQ:

"if you are already holding the charge
for a touch spell such as shocking grasp or you have a spell
such as produce flame running, you can use the touch attacks
these spells provide as attacks of opportunity."

From the 3.5 PH, page 141...

"Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is oblight to take into account just as if it were a weapon."

Do you threaten in this case? Flank?

Not sure. Given the FAQ entry, I assume you threaten an area, but I don't know if you can flank. The PH says that the attack as treated as an armed attack or a weapon attack, but it doesn't say that you are treated as armed for other purposes.