Threatening Unarmed?

[Stalker0]

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

If you did that though, I would say you invoke TWF penatlies because you are using teh bow and your fists.

 

[Caliban]

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

You can't make an unarmed melee attack unless you are "wielding" both your unarmed attack and the bow or polearm.

That would effectively mean that you are wielding two weapons at once, and would have to take the two weapon fighting penalties on ALL your attacks in order to threaten with your fists while also wielding another weapon.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree that you threaten when unarmed, and that you can trip as AoO both when armed or unarmed (you're tripping with legs I guess).
But if you have a ranged weapon or reach weapon and therefore you don't threaten the adjacent squares, why can't you AoO-trip someone who's drinking a potion close to you? Or simply keep the bow/javelin/reachweapon with the left hand and strike with a fist as AoO?
Is it just a matter of choosing: this round I'm taking 2WF penalties so that I can make AoOs, next round I don't and won't be able to do AoOs? Can you actually take 2WF penalties with a bow?

BTW, just to be sure, does it say somewhere that a reach weapon threatens 10ft away but not 5ft away, or does it only say you can strike 10ft away but not 5ft away without mentioning threatening?

 

[Aaron2]

If you did that though, I would say you invoke TWF penatlies because you are using teh bow and your fists.

You don't get the TWF penalty unless you attack with both weapons at the same time (which doesn't apply in this case). For ex: when you make a single attack, such as a charge, with a weapon in each hand you don't get TWF penalties.

Also, the description of the reach weapons is consistant: "The weapon cannot be used against an adjacent foe." All it says is that you can't attack an adjacent foe with your longspear, not that you don't threaten 5ft away.

Finally, an unarmed attack doesn't have to be a punch. It can just as easily be a kick or headbutt.

Aaron

 

[Li Shenron]

self-quote:

BTW, just to be sure, does it say somewhere that a reach weapon threatens 10ft away but not 5ft away, or does it only say you can strike 10ft away but not 5ft away without mentioning threatening?

What I was trying to say is: could it be that with a reach weapon in hand, while on your turn you can strike only non-adjacent foes, you can instead make a trip unarmed attack as AoO against adjacent foes? And a non-trip unarmed attack (only with 2WF penalties?)?

 

[AuraSeer]

You don't get the TWF penalty unless you attack with both weapons at the same time (which doesn't apply in this case). For ex: when you make a single attack, such as a charge, with a weapon in each hand you don't get TWF penalties.

Not exactly. You get the TWF penalties when fighting with two weapons at the same time, even if you don't attack with both. Basically you can choose each round: either take the penalties and wield both weapons, or attack normally with one weapon and treat the other as dead weight.

In your example, you could choose to not take TWF penalties when charging, because you're only attacking with one weapon. However, if you do so, the other weapon is not counted as wielded. You cannot make AoOs with it this round; if it's a defending weapon, it doesn't add to your AC; etc.

 

[AuraSeer]

What I was trying to say is: could it be that with a reach weapon in hand, while on your turn you can strike only non-adjacent foes, you can instead make a trip unarmed attack as AoO against adjacent foes? And a non-trip unarmed attack (only with 2WF penalties?)?

If you decide to take TWF penalties, you can "wield" your unarmed strike in addition to the polearm. If you do not take the penalties, you cannot make the attacks.

Think of it this way: the weapon you wield determines your fighting stance, how your weight is balanced, and so on. By setting yourself to wield your polearm to best effect, you move out of position for kicking or tripping; if you tried to move your legs that way, you'd go off balance and fall over.

If you balance yourself such that you can either kick or swing the polearm, neither attack type will be at optimal effect, and that's where the TWF penalties come in. However, this would give you the option of making an unarmed AoO against an adjacent foe.

 

[Aaron2]

If you decide to take TWF penalties, you can "wield" your unarmed strike in addition to the polearm. If you do not take the penalties, you cannot make the attacks.

Ok. I can see where your coming from. However, I disagree with this ruling. You only take the TWF penalties if you use two weapons to gain an extra attack. For example, a character has both a whip and a short sword. He can make his normal attack with his whip and then make an AoO with his short sword w/o TWF penalties because he didn't make the extra off-hand attack. Likewise, if he has multiple attacks from BAB, he can attack with each weapons in the same round w/o penalties (except for the normal -5 for subsequent attacks) in the same way he can attack with his sword and follow that up with a grapple w/o penalties.

Think of Legolas. With a +6/+1 attack sequence he can stab an orc in the eye with an arrow as his first attack and then fire the arrow with his bow as his second attack. He's not really two-weapon fighting.

Its like Rapid Fire, you only get the penalty if you get the extra shot.


Aaron (on a tangent now)

 

[Balgus]

I feel that you should always be able to threaten the arean adjacent to you. The reason being you can always use an improvised weapon, granted you take a -4, a stick is still considered a weapon. heck- it is probably a better weapon than a sap.

Plus, you can consider your gauntlet a weapon, or your scarf, or even a quill. Did you see how the Joker killed the mayor in Batman?

 

[AuraSeer]

For example, a character has both a whip and a short sword. He can make his normal attack with his whip and then make an AoO with his short sword w/o TWF penalties because he didn't make the extra off-hand attack.

I do not think this is correct. Do you have a cite?