Unarmed attacks while armed

[Corwin]

So his my proposal:

Let's say I am fighting with a one-handed weapon and nothing in the other hand (basically a duelist/swashbuckler type). Now, let us presume that I want to make an off-hand attack with my emply hand. I do not possess the Improved Unarmed feat or monk levels. I do not have a gauntlet, etc. The associated attack penalties (with or without ambidexterity/2-weapon) are not the issue here.

Would the opponent get an AoO? The quandry lies with the fact that I am still armed. Normally, I would suffer an AoO when I am unarmed. But that is not the case here.

What say you?

I picture the typical cinimatic style of pinning the opponent's weapon out of the way and punching him. Or drawing him off by forcing him to parry and then getting a kick in. Stuff like that.

 

[Zhure]

Yes, you'd still draw an AoO because you lack IUS/guantlet.

To overcome this, perhaps Disarm them first? Or use a variant of Disarm to "pin" their weapon? See the Pin Shield Feat in S&F for a similar mechanic.

Greg

 

[jontherev]

So his my proposal:

Let's say I am fighting with a one-handed weapon and nothing in the other hand (basically a duelist/swashbuckler type). Now, let us presume that I want to make an off-hand attack with my emply hand. I do not possess the Improved Unarmed feat or monk levels. I do not have a gauntlet, etc. The associated attack penalties (with or without ambidexterity/2-weapon) are not the issue here.

Would the opponent get an AoO? The quandry lies with the fact that I am still armed. Normally, I would suffer an AoO when I am unarmed. But that is not the case here.

What say you?

I picture the typical cinimatic style of pinning the opponent's weapon out of the way and punching him. Or drawing him off by forcing him to parry and then getting a kick in. Stuff like that.

No you wouldn't suffer an AoO since you are still armed in your primary hand. It isn't the ACTION itself (attacking unarmed) that provokes the AoO. It is the fact that are unarmed that provokes the AoO.

However, for your approach, it seems like you want to disarm your foe first, as there is no rule for pinning weapons. You might want to look at the feat in Sword and Fist that lets you pin someone's shield, rendering it ineffective. Perhaps you could transform that into a weapon pinning feat and show it to your DM.

 

[Artoomis]

I think you provoke an AoO because you making an unarmed attack.

It's really even worse than that, for you are attacking with your off-hand, so appropriate penalties apply for that, as well.

You can do it, though, but's it hard to be totally successful.

 

[Corwin]

OK, I really don't want to sound "ranty" here.

First I want to clarify that I am not going off on anyone with this reply. I am not ranting. I just want to be clear about some of the direction you are going in your responses.

Yeah, I realize the whole off-hand thing and ability to disarm, etc. I already know all the feats in all the splat books. I'm not an amature here. I know the rules pretty damn well. Those are not the issues. This is not about "how to smackdown a duelist" either.

This is a debate strictly about the rule on AoOs agains unarmed attackers, how they interface when still armed and what seems fair as a ruling on this situation.

Not disarming, S&F feats, or disarming.

The last part of my first post was about flavor text and in-character reference to how I picture this type of thing happening. That was it. If you don't recieve an AoO because you are armed when doing it, the flavor text I gave was an effort to describe the reasons for it. If that confused some of you, I am sorry.

Sorry if any of this sounds chiding. I am just trying to keep the discussion on target here.

Thanx so far for your responses.

 

[Corwin]

Quick aside...

Just to be complete, here is the SRD:

If the combatant is attacking an armed opponent while unarmed, the combatant provokes an immediate attack of opportunity from the target which is resolved before the combatant's attack. Note that under certain circumstances, a combatant attacking without a weapon is still considered "armed".

 

[Zhure]

Oh. In that case just change my answer to "Yes, you draw AoO."

 

[Vaxalon]

Given what is in the SRD, I'd say that holding a sword in your hand makes you "armed" and therefore making an unarmed attack would not provoke an AoO, even though you're not using it.

I say no AoO.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I say you provoke an AoO.

Trying to punch someone while they are wielding a sword is a bad idea, whether-or-not you are also wielding a sword.

Think about two fencers. What would happen if one tried to punch the other.

But then again, by a strict interpretation of the SRD, no, you wouldn't provoke an AoO.

--Wrong Spikey

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Interesting question, and from what you quoted I think that you would be safe (no AoO) by the letter of the rules. However, I believe that they meant for you to take an AoO even if you have a weaponin your other hand. As evidence of this, I present the following excerpt from the Improved Unarmed feat:

the character still gets an opportunity attack against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on the character.

To me, this indicates that anyone who is armed is allowed an Attack of Opportunity against anyone who makes an unarmed attack on them. Doesn't matter what is in their other hand when they swing their fist.