Threatening Unarmed?

[dcollins]

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")?

PHB Table 8-4, "Miscellaneous Actions" has a note at the bottom which says disarms/grapples/trips can all be used as AOOs.

 

[Li Shenron]

PHB Table 8-4, "Miscellaneous Actions" has a note at the bottom which says disarms/grapples/trips can all be used as AOOs.

... I knew this. I meant: if she gets an AoO because I strike her unarmed, can she make the AoO with a trip, which is not made with a weapon, and therefore quite similar to an unarmed attack?

 

[BlackBart]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

Note: "Armed" also includes possession of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, which is really why Monk is applicable, as they obtain the feat for free. The only fundamental difference between a monk striking unarmed and any other character with IUS is that monks do real damage(and more of it).

 

[dcollins]

... I knew this. I meant: if she gets an AoO because I strike her unarmed, can she make the AoO with a trip, which is not made with a weapon, and therefore quite similar to an unarmed attack?

Any AOO can be a trip (Table 8-4).
Trips, even unarmed (the default), do not provoke AOOs (again per Table 8-4).

It's possible you may be working to make this more complicated than it really is.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's possible you may be working to make this more complicated than it really is.

I agree

I'm very sure you can trip as AoO when armed, but can you trip as AoO when unarmed?

 

[Caliban]

I agree

I'm very sure you can trip as AoO when armed, but can you trip as AoO when unarmed?

Why wouldn't you be?

 

[shilsen]

Why wouldn't you be?

I think Li Shenron meant that if a character doesn't threaten an area when unarmed, then he can't take an AoO for someone moving through it. But if he was armed, he would threaten an area, and could make a trip attempt (unarmed) as an AoO.

 

[Caliban]

I think Li Shenron meant that if a character doesn't threaten an area when unarmed, then he can't take an AoO for someone moving through it. But if he was armed, he would threaten an area, and could make a trip attempt (unarmed) as an AoO.

Which is one of the reasons why I do think you threaten an area when you are unarmed.

However, I also ruled that when wielding a ranged weapon or reach weapon you still don't threaten the area around you.

You aren't unarmed, because you are wielding a weapon. It's just that the weapon you are wielding doesn't threaten the area around you.

 

[dcollins]

However, I also ruled that when wielding a ranged weapon or reach weapon you still don't threaten the area around you.

Indeed, it would have been ideal if there was a more universal rule that whatever configuration you used to attack in the last round counted towards your AOOs. (i.e., a generalization of the Expertise/Power Attack rules). This would clean up a lot of mechanics around archers, reach weapons, two-weapon fighters, etc.

 

[Aaron2]

However, I also ruled that when wielding a ranged weapon or reach weapon you still don't threaten the area around you.

You aren't unarmed, because you are wielding a weapon. It's just that the weapon you are wielding doesn't threaten the area around you.

I don't agree with that either. You still threaten adjacent areas with bows or reach weapons because you can still make a melee attack. The restriction for reach weapons only limit you from attacking 5ft away -with that weapon-.


Aaron