Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 481619" data-attributes="member: 5889">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 481619, member: 5889"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification