Threatening Unarmed?

[Deset Gled]

The PHB doesn't say anything of the sort... with the exception of it being one of the results after a successful grappling attack.

After re-reading the section, I have found the bit that I thought stated an unarmed attack made the attacker move into the opponents square:

PHB p140:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed
attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, as shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent.

Now, I will admit that it does not state that an unarmed attacker moves into an opponents square. However, it does imply that you have to move the position of your body (bring your body close) in order to make the attack. Because of this, I don't believe that an AoO can be made, because a person making an AoO is not allowed to move as part of the attack (rather, an AoO takes place when someone moves in close to you). However, an AoO could be made from someone moving into the square you occupy, as you would then not have to move to make the attack.

The rules do seem ambiguous, but considering all information, I believe that unarmed characters do not threaten an aread. The main convincing point to me is the Sage's statements.

 

[dcollins]

You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent.

It does not say you need to move.
It does not say move into an occupied space.

It says that the thing hitting the opponent is your arm and not a weapon, and hence vulnerable. You move no more than when making an AOO with a dagger. At no point is this text saying to move your miniature into the opponent's space and move it back afterwards.

 

[Li Shenron]

Aaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh! I'm getting mad on this thread! ...and I thought I KNEW how to handle unarmed attacks...

Sorry to bother you, but I am really getting lost now. Can you please tell me at least if there is anything all of you think it's wrong in the way I play it:


I am unarmed, therefore:

if I attack a foe -> I provoke an AoO (if he has a melee weapon other than "unarmed strike")
i.e. "striking unarmed is an attack action that provokes AoO"

if someone does an AoO-provoking action while close to me -> he does not provoke an AoO from me because I don't have a melee weapon other than "unarmed strike"
i.e. "you can't make AoO with unarmed strikes"

About threatening area: is there any other thing (apart AoOs) that is influenced by having a threatened area or not? If not, why bother if threatened area when unarmed is 5ft or 0ft or none?

Then Monks: with Improved Unarmed Strike, they CAN make unarmed AoO if someone provokes any AND they DON'T provoke AoO when striking unarmed.

Why did it used to seem so simple to me long ago?

 

[Li Shenron]

And an extra note about "unarmed fights" (both unarmed): no AoOs at all.

Is it?

 

[Aaron2]

The main convincing point to me is the Sage's statements.

That particular Sage question is anything but convincing. Notice that the entire part about unarmed AoO was in the premise of the question, not in Sages answer ...

"I know an unarmed character doesn't threaten areas for AoOs ..."

Sage was answering a question about what is considered "armed", not about unarmed AoOs.


Aaron

 

[Aaron2]

And an extra note about "unarmed fights" (both unarmed): no AoOs at all.

Is it?

No. The ONLY restriction about being unarmed is that if your unarmed and attack someone who is armed you draw AoO. That's it!

Just think about the implication of having no unarmed AoO: If I drink a potion next to someone whose wearing gauntlets, he get to punch me. However, if I drink a potion next to someone without gauntlets, he doesn't get to punch me. If I drink a potion next to someone holding a sword, he can grapple me or kick me, but if he drops his sword, he can't do either. Does that make any sense?

Aaron

 

[Stalker0]

No. The ONLY restriction about being unarmed is that if your unarmed and attack someone who is armed you draw AoO. That's it!

Just think about the implication of having no unarmed AoO: If I drink a potion next to someone whose wearing gauntlets, he get to punch me. However, if I drink a potion next to someone without gauntlets, he doesn't get to punch me. If I drink a potion next to someone holding a sword, he can grapple me or kick me, but if he drops his sword, he can't do either. Does that make any sense?

Aaron

Never really considered it that way but Aaron's argument makes a lot of sense.

 

[Zerth]

Listen to Aaron, he's right about the Sage question. IMO, there is nothing in the rules, that even hints, that you don't get AoO's with untrained unarmed attacks. The Sage just missed the first part (which is BS) and answered the question.

Yes, you threaten the adjacent squares unarmed, even if you're not monk or don't have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

 

[BlackBart]

Listen to Aaron, he's right about the Sage question. IMO, there is nothing in the rules, that even hints, that you don't get AoO's with untrained unarmed attacks. The Sage just missed the first part (which is BS) and answered the question.

Yes, you threaten the adjacent squares unarmed, even if you're not monk or don't have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

There is an implication in the PHB that you do not get attacks of opportunity fighting unarmed, hence my original post: you threaten squares that you can make a melee attack into, melee attacks are listed separately from unarmed attacks, with melee attacks having the explicit characteristic of involving a weapon, ergo, it is not unreasonable to conclude that unarmed attack <> melee attack, thereby eliminating the possibility of threatening a square if unarmed. I'm not saying this correct, but a valid way of interpreting the information provided, since nothing is explicit in this case.

In fact, there is nothing that explicitly states that being "armed" while unarmed allows you to take any attacks of opportunity except those provoked by an unarmed attacker attempting an unarmed strike on you.

The strongest hint of intent that I was able to find is a number of creatures in the MM with natural attacks having the Combat Reflexes feat, which is next to useless if you don't threaten an area. Additionally, I think everyone on this board would think it ludicrous if creatures with natural attacks didn't actually threaten an area, yet according to the PHB text regarding "armed" unarmed combatants (which includes creatures with natural attacks) that isn't made entirely clear.

 

[AuraSeer]

There is an implication in the PHB that you do not get attacks of opportunity fighting unarmed[...]

IMO it's not even implied.

AFAICT, the only thing that could even hint at it is the phrase "melee weapon" in the AoO description, if you take the word 'weapon' as meaning something other than an unarmed strike. The rules don't make that distinction; an attack with an unarmed strike is treated exactly the same as an attack with any other melee weapon (except that it may provoke an additional AoO from the target).

Just to be clear:
You can make an AoO with an unarmed strike. There is nothing in the rules that indicates otherwise.