Threatening Unarmed?

[Caliban]

There is an implication in the PHB that you do not get attacks of opportunity fighting unarmed, hence my original post:

Where exactly is this implication? I haven't noticed it.

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.

Sorry, melee attacks do in fact include unarmed attacks.

(Besides, and unarmed attack is an attack made against a melee opponent, so how is it not a melee attack? It's certainly not a ranged attack.)

I'm not saying this correct, but a valid way of interpreting the information provided, since nothing is explicit in this case.

There is explicit text in the PHB that includes unarmed attacks under melee attacks. I don't have my PHB with me, but check the updated glossary from the WOTC website:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Glossary_Intro.asp

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.

Natural weapons (claws, horns, teeth, etc.) are different than Unarmed attacks. They are automatically "Armed". It's not relevent to the discussion of unarmed attacks.

 

[BlackBart]

There is explicit text in the PHB that includes unarmed attacks under melee attacks. I don't have my PHB with me, but check the updated glossary from the WOTC website:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Glossary_Intro.asp

Now, that is what I suppose I was looking for, as long as certain groups (eg, rpga) consider it canon. Agreed that this glossary specifically includes unarmed strikes, of all kinds, as melee attacks.

 

[Caliban]

Now, that is what I suppose I was looking for, as long as certain groups (eg, rpga) consider it canon. Agreed that this glossary specifically includes unarmed strikes, of all kinds, as melee attacks.

It depends on which RPGA campaign you play in. In Living Greyhawk, the D&D FAQ is considered Canon, and can override the core rules.

In other campaigns this is not the case.

Now that I'm at home, here is supporting text from the PHB itself:

PHB Glossary, page 279, melee attack: "A physical attack suitable for close combat."

Unarmed Attacks fit this definition.

PHB Glossary, page 282, Unarmed Attack: "A melee attack made with no weapon in hand."

An unarmed attack is by definition a melee attack.

 

[BlackBart]

It depends on which RPGA campaign you play in. In Living Greyhawk, the D&D FAQ is considered Canon, and can override the core rules.

In other campaigns this is not the case.

Now that I'm at home, here is supporting text from the PHB itself:

PHB Glossary, page 279, melee attack: "A physical attack suitable for close combat."

Unarmed Attacks fit this definition.

PHB Glossary, page 282, Unarmed Attack: "A melee attack made with no weapon in hand."

An unarmed attack is by definition a melee attack.

What's irritating is that this is in the glossary, rather in the text concerning the rules as discussed in the Combat section.

As a side note, this brings me to a new question (probably better suited to a new thread), but is it then not reasonable to conclude that an individual armed with a ranged weapon still threatens an area, as it is still possible to make an unarmed attack (kicking, headbutt, etc), and would therefore still assist in providing flanking, although he/she/it couldn't benefit from flanking when making its ranged attacks?

 

[Stalker0]

What's irritating is that this is in the glossary, rather in the text concerning the rules as discussed in the Combat section.

As a side note, this brings me to a new question (probably better suited to a new thread), but is it then not reasonable to conclude that an individual armed with a ranged weapon still threatens an area, as it is still possible to make an unarmed attack (kicking, headbutt, etc), and would therefore still assist in providing flanking, although he/she/it couldn't benefit from flanking when making its ranged attacks?

I would go with teh idea, that if your holding a ranged weapon, and wanting to "activate" your fists to threaten an area, that you suffer two weapon fighting penalties. It makes sense, and it will save you from a whole new set of problems.

 

[Gunslinger]

How can you threaten unarmed if taking your attack means provoking an AoA?

 

[Caliban]

How can you threaten unarmed if taking your attack means provoking an AoA?

Why would provoking an AoO mean that you don't threaten?

 

[Li Shenron]

So what happens in an unarmed fight, between two characters without Improved Unarmed Strike? They both threaten each other and they both provoke AoO from each other? Or They provoke AoO only if they drink a potion (or equivaelnt) but not when striking?

That is: if attacking unarmed provokes AoO from an "armed" foe, does it provoke AoO from an "unarmed foe"?

Auraseer's post is very convincing me that in such a fight if I drink a potion my foe should get an AoO; at the same time, attacking him doesn't seem to me he should get an AoO, otherwise I am never going to try strike first! I'd just delay and let him strike 1st, so I'd get the AoO before him...

 

[kreynolds]

So what happens in an unarmed fight, between two characters without Improved Unarmed Strike? They both threaten each other and they both provoke AoO from each other?

That is: if attacking unarmed provokes AoO from an "armed" foe, does it provoke AoO from an "unarmed foe"?

No. See page 140 of the PH, Unarmed Attacks: Attacks of Opportunity...

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.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

WHAT A FOOL! And I have studied English since I was 7!!!
I really did not get before that when unarmed you provoke AoO ONLY from THE foe you are attacking, but you don't provoke AoOs from other adjacent foes!

Sooo... my latest version:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if I strike unarmed, I provoke an AoO only from the foe I attack (but only if she's armed, i.e. she has a melee weapon other than "unarmed" OR she has natural weapons OR she is a Monk)

if I am unarmed, I CAN make AoO (except the ones provoked by an unarmed attack against me)

if I am a Monk, I never provoke AoOs for striking unarmed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings to me another question: if I strike unarmed and armed foe, can she make her AoO with a trip (without a "tripping weapon")?