Threatening Unarmed?

[Caliban]

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.

If that's what your character did, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (Although I might asses a -4 "off-hand weapon" penalty unless you have Ambidexterity.)

What I have a problem with is people who want to be able to take an AoO with either the reach weapon or the polearm on the same turn (this assumes they have combat reflexes, or that someone was within 5' of them and did something that provoked an AoO).

I don't even have a problem with someone who wants to Quickdraw an arrow after they are done making their bow attacks, so that they can threaten the area around them with it. It cost you a feat to be able to do that, and you still have a -4 attack penalty.

 

[Stalker0]

You know, there was once a happy time, long ago. When monks made AOO with their fists, and no one else did. Where bowsman would watch a bloody maurader go screaming past him, and give a friendly wave, confident that there was nothing he could do to stop him. Those were the good old days...


Anyway, this post is getting way out of control. Calm down on the personal attacks, guys. I know this is getting heated, but I think its because this post has been changing a lot of people's thinking on how unarmed attacks are really done.


Personally, I'm ready to give that you can threaten with an unarmed strike. I'm not going to play it that way, been playing it too long the other way, but I'll concede it.


But when it comes to having another weapon and using your fists for unarmed attacks, I think its time to look at the what the book doesn't say instead of what it does.

It says that a person with a ranged weapon doesn't threaten. It doesn't give exceptions to this. It gives no examples of how it could threaten otherwise. And the statement is made many times throughout the core rules. We can go through all the play and dance you guys want, but the fact of the matter is the designers never thought of any of this stuff about threatening with your fist while holding another weapon, which means they didn't intend it. They did not want people being able to threaten with a bow probably under ANY circumstances, and at least not without a large penalty.

If someone really wants to debate this claim go ahead. But sometimes you just have to look at how the game was designed to work, and play the rules to make that work.

 

[mkletch]

But when it comes to having another weapon and using your fists for unarmed attacks, I think its time to look at the what the book doesn't say instead of what it does.

It says that a person with a ranged weapon doesn't threaten. It doesn't give exceptions to this. It gives no examples of how it could threaten otherwise. And the statement is made many times throughout the core rules. We can go through all the play and dance you guys want, but the fact of the matter is the designers never thought of any of this stuff about threatening with your fist while holding another weapon, which means they didn't intend it. They did not want people being able to threaten with a bow probably under ANY circumstances, and at least not without a large penalty.

If someone really wants to debate this claim go ahead. But sometimes you just have to look at how the game was designed to work, and play the rules to make that work.

OK, I'll bite.

* Character has short sword in one hand, hand crossbow in the other. Does he threaten? I would say yes, with the short sword.

* Drop the sword. Does he threaten with the unarmed strike? If he would without the hand crossbow (the original point of this thread), he would with.

* Switch the hand crossbow for a light crossbow. It has rules for firing one handed at a penalty. Can he threaten with the unarmed fist? Still yes.

* Switch the light crossbow for a heavy crossbow. You can hold it in one hand if you are not going to use it. Still threaten with the unarmed fist. Yes.

* Switch the heavy crossbow with any object the character can hold in one hand (e.g. a bow or reach weapon, a small statue, a wand, a parakeet). Does he threaten with the unarmed fist? Yes.

* Switch back from the parakeet to the hand crossbow. No change.

* Pick up the sword. Still no change.

Does this really change my campaign in any measurable way? No, it really does not. but it is all consistent with the rules, AFAIK. I hope this sub-thread is over now. The lines are drawn, and the sides settled.

-Fletch!

 

[NPC]

Convincing argument mkletch, except for the fact that you're not stating if the character in your examples has done anything that round.

If you have attacked with a reach weapon or a ranged weapon using both your hands, then IMO you don't get to threaten with your other hand.

If, before you attack, you say, "I'm attacking one-handed" then you have a hand "free" and can threaten.

 

[dcollins]

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.

I don't see any significant change in those rules. They've even maintained the exact same following note at the bottom of "Table: Actions in Combat" from the d20 Modern SRD (referring to disarms/grapples/trips):

4 These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity.

Also from the d20 Modern SRD on "Combat":

Melee Attacks
With a normal melee weapon, a character can strike any enemy within 5 feet. (Enemies within 5 feet are considered adjacent to the character.)...

Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light melee weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Pretty much identical to the D&D core rules.

 

[Deset Gled]

Personally, I'm ready to give that you can threaten with an unarmed strike. I'm not going to play it that way, been playing it too long the other way, but I'll concede it.

I am not ready to concede quite yet. So, just for the sake of endless discussion, here's two more cents worth:

It really just seems to me that the idea of threatening with an unarmed strike goes against the spirit of the core rules in general. From the examples people have brought up using unarmed threatening, it seems that it allows characters to do things that simply are against what the rules say (threatening with a crossbow, threatening up close with a range weapon, etc). It also takes away a lot from disarming an enemy. Also, I was always kind of under the impression that the reason so many monsters have natural weapons is so that they could threaten an area.

There seems to be many quotes and citations people have given that all seem to jive with the concept of unarmed attacks not threatening (and that seem to not work very well if the they did) that I am very reluctant to go against it due to rules lawyering (which I haven't found to be very convincing in this case, anyway).

The rules have some harsh punishments for attacking unarmed unless you're specifically trained in it. Whether or not people think they all make sense in real life, I think they are very important for balancing out countless battle situations.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mah... I wouldn't try too much to extrapolate rules from reality, it has brought me to serious mistakes in adjudicating rules in my first days of DMing (sometimes now too ).

[bad example]
I COULD say that it's absolutely fair to think that if you stroll around and between two foes with loaded crossbows, put yourself in the middle and drink a potion, you should provoke AoOs; after all, why should it be so difficult for them to quickly pull the crossbow trigger? They don't really need to carefully aim to hit me 5ft away!
[/bad example]

I really don't know much about "real fighting", but let's try not to go overboard with justifying rules with reality: they are probably reasonable, and written with realism in mind, but we can go almost anywhere with it, just like in my example above

 

[mkletch]

It really just seems to me that the idea of threatening with an unarmed strike goes against the spirit of the core rules in general. From the examples people have brought up using unarmed threatening, it seems that it allows characters to do things that simply are against what the rules say (threatening with a crossbow, threatening up close with a range weapon, etc). It also takes away a lot from disarming an enemy. Also, I was always kind of under the impression that the reason so many monsters have natural weapons is so that they could threaten an area.

[...]

The rules have some harsh punishments for attacking unarmed unless you're specifically trained in it. Whether or not people think they all make sense in real life, I think they are very important for balancing out countless battle situations.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think it really matters. If you have spent the feats or class levels on unarmed combat, you probably don't have a great attachment to a particular reach weapon or ranged weapon. If you have focused with a reach or ranged weapon, you are going to get smacked down if you try the unarmed AoO anyway. So how often is this going to happen? It is an interesting theoretical discussion, but not of much practical use. So if it bends the rules, one way or another, who will be impacted (pun intended).

-Fletch!

 

[IceBear]

Dcollins, look at these two passages in the D20 Modern SRD:

Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light melee weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on). The following exceptions to normal melee rules apply to unarmed attacks.
Attacks of Opportunity: Making an unarmed attack against an armed opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from the character attacked. The attack of opportunity comes before the character’s attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character or creature attacks unarmed but the attack still counts as armed. A creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons, for example, counts as armed. Being armed counts for both offense and defense—not only does a creature not provoke an attack of opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but a character provokes an attack of opportunity from that creature if the character makes an unarmed attack against it. The Combat Martial Arts feat makes a character’s unarmed attacks count as armed.

(emphasis mine)

and

A character can use a melee weapon to make attacks of opportunity whenever the conditions for such an attack are met (see Provoking an Attack of Opportunity, below). In addition, a character can make attacks of opportunity with unarmed attacks if the character’s unarmed attacks count as armed (see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks).

(emphasis mine)

So, from reading this, it appears they've adopted the Sage's ruling - no AoO with unarmed attacks unless you have IUS.

IceBear

 

[dcollins]

IceBear: Your first quote is fundamentally the same as the D&D SRD.

However, your second quote is more telling and something I did not find on my first perusal. That, plus the description of the Combat Martial Arts feat, definitely looks like you are correct about the d20 Modern ruling on the issue.