Threatening Unarmed?

[mkletch]

OH! I just rememebered in D20 Modern, there is a diagram with AoO, and they show the MARTIAL ARTIST holding a gun and someone moving through her threat zone and they specially point out that she DOESN'T get an AoO. Even more proof that this is how the rules were intended to me.

OK, that I'll buy. I don't have d20M in hardcover, so I haven't seen that diagram. I disagree with it, obviously, but the "no unarmed AoO while using a missile weapon" has a bit more weight.

Could the bow/crossbow/pistol be used as an improvised weapon for an AoO?

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

I'm with IceBear and Calliban on this one.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What is the point of cake if I can't eat it. It's a ranged weapon, and I can't make an AoO with it...

If you want to use a ranged weapon or a reach weapon then you don't threaten the 5 foot area around you. I think that's the intent of the Core Rules.

I don't like to parse the combat round so closely that we start worrying about which hand the polearm is in when you draw your arrow to poke someone while holding the bow with your foot and readying an action to shoot your mouth dart. Blech.

But if you can draw an arrow and use it for an AoO, why is an empty hand less viable. Not from a 'picture it this way' point of view, but from the 'what the rules say' point of view. So you don't threaten the area around you with a ranged weapon. I acknowledge that. But what about some improvised alternative, like using the bow or crossbow as a club, or making an AoO unarmed? None of these are using a ranged weapon. The fact that you are holding one is irrelevant. You do not draw an AoO for holding a potion, just drinking one. This is the same circumstance. Just because I'm holding a crossbow does not mean I don't have other, less favorable options at my disposal.

-Fletch!

 

[Caliban]

It was IceBear's estimation that I was using 'real life', but what other example do you want?

Then don't "chide" me for something you yourself brought up. Like I said, you are being a hypycrite.

Some other posters have laid out logical arguments, quoting sections of the rules, and demonstrating how they interlock to say "AoOs while unarmed are OK".

Yes, I'm one of them, in case you missed it.

Yet others have simply decried these logical presentations, calling names, ranting and raving, but not offering anything useful in return. These are the posts that are without value.

Yes, that's what I said. After your personal attacks, I now put your posts in this category.

By the way, from your own post:

From the SRD, Combat Basics

A combatant normally threatens all adjacent spaces.each weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.

There you go, in black and white. Reach weapons can change your threatened area. You no longer threaten the squares 5' around you.

 

[IceBear]

I need to review that diagram when I get home to make sure that I'm not dreaming it, but as you see from the D20 Modern SRD they've cleaned up the language a lot and basically if you don't have Improved Unarmed Attack (or Martial Arts as it's called), you don't get to make AoO at all. As I stated, I don't believe that's how the D&D Core Rules were originally written, but I think they've evolved to this at this point.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

What is the point of cake if I can't eat it. It's a ranged weapon, and I can't make an AoO with it...



But if you can draw an arrow and use it for an AoO, why is an empty hand less viable. Not from a 'picture it this way' point of view, but from the 'what the rules say' point of view. So you don't threaten the area around you with a ranged weapon. I acknowledge that. But what about some improvised alternative, like using the bow or crossbow as a club, or making an AoO unarmed? None of these are using a ranged weapon. The fact that you are holding one is irrelevant. You do not draw an AoO for holding a potion, just drinking one. This is the same circumstance. Just because I'm holding a crossbow does not mean I don't have other, less favorable options at my disposal.

-Fletch!

And it was this improvised alternative that my previous posts about being "armed" or "unarmed" with a shortbow was trying to do - bridge the gap. That's why I was saying "switching" back to the bow was a move eq (when I know it would be a free action); just to make the "improvised alternative" less useful than what you want, but more useful than what the rules allow.

IceBear

 

[mkletch]

Yes, I'm one of them, in case you missed it.

No, I did not.

After your personal attacks, I now put your posts in this category.

I have not called anybody hypocrite or called their posts valueless, regardless of what opinions I may hold about them. Other than a text scolding (hardly a violent attack by any measure), I have not attacked you or anybody else this day. That I defend my position vigorously is another matter entirely, but I do not confuse the two.

There you go, in black and white. Reach weapons can change your threatened area. You no longer threaten the squares 5' around you.

You no longer threathen the area around you ... with that reach weapon. That is the distinction I am making. That section is talking about the reach weapons, and AoOs. If I forsake the reach weapon between actions ("Until my next turn, I am merely holding the longspear and will use unarmed attacks for AoOs"), I am giving up one thing (reach and a high-damage weapon) for a different thing (a low damage weapon, the use of which will provoke an AoO against me should I choose to use it) that is more valuable to me at the moment.

That is the nature of most decisions in this game: what is best for me at the moment. I have seen very, very few reach weapons used, because the trade-offs are generally too high. As a DM, I have given out artifact-level reach weapons to characters, and they go unused. Why is this?

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

And it was this improvised alternative that my previous posts about being "armed" or "unarmed" with a shortbow was trying to do - bridge the gap. That's why I was saying "switching" back to the bow was a move eq (when I know it would be a free action); just to make the "improvised alternative" less useful than what you want, but more useful than what the rules allow.

I see the MEA as being too high a cost. It will never be used. Why have an option if it is useless? Even the DnD FAQ says that Refocus is almost always useless. Why even include it? A useless option is no option at all. A buddy needs to make a call on a pay phone, but has no change. You hand him a penny. What good is that? That is the option you present, something that is 'legal', but not viable.

-Fletch!

 

[Caliban]

I have not called anybody hypocrite or called their posts valueless, regardless of what opinions I may hold about them.

*shrug* I haven't been a hypocrite.

Other than a text scolding (hardly a violent attack by any measure), I have not attacked you or anybody else this day. That I defend my position vigorously is another matter entirely, but I do not confuse the two.

"Scolding" me for something that you yourself are doing is a personal attack, and it is the definition of hypocritical.

I really have no interest in anything else you have to say, unless it's an apology.

 

[mkletch]

I really have no interest in anything else you have to say, unless it's an apology.

Sorry, then. Hey, I'm here to discuss rules, not intent. When we have different goals, we'll never reach them together.

-Fletch!

 

[Caliban]

Sorry, then. Hey, I'm here to discuss rules, not intent. When we have different goals, we'll never reach them together.

-Fletch!

You can't get away from intent when discussing the rules, because the rules are rarely completely unambiguous. Discussing "only the rules" will lead to some very strange conclusions if you take it far enough.

I have seen very, very few reach weapons used, because the trade-offs are generally too high. As a DM, I have given out artifact-level reach weapons to characters, and they go unused. Why is this?

Apparently your players have never really looked at reach weapons the right way, because reach weapons can be incredibly effective in the hands of a character built to use them.

I've seen several characters built around reach weapons, or who use them when the situation is appropriate. Just taking Quickdraw gets you around the major limitations of most reach weapons.