Unarmed attacks while armed
- Thread starter Corwin
- Start date
Cl1mh4224rd
First Post
oh come on guys, all of you. why couldn't you just quote the one line from the phb that puts this to rest ...
just because you have a sword in your other hand doesn't mean you don't have to get close to punch him.
yes, you provoke an attack of opportunity.
just because you have a sword in your other hand doesn't mean you don't have to get close to punch him.
yes, you provoke an attack of opportunity.
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Because that line doesn't explain why somebody wearing a spiked gauntlet, or somebody making a touch attack, doesn't incur an AoO. You have to bring your body just as close.
The line has been quoted, and discussed.
-Hyp.
Zhure
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound "ranty" here.
It was after the release of S&F, as there was a question of whether a Duelist could dual wield with his unarmed attack and still gain a Canny Defense. Since canny defense requires the off-hand to be empty, the prerequisite of Ambidexterity isn't totally useless (since most often acquired with a level of Ranger, thus granting TWF as part of the package).
The concensus of the majority of the posters was it still provoked an AoO as the unarmed attack of someone without IUS, a held spell, or a natural claw or fang provokes an AoO, as has been mentioned several times. PHB, Page 140 spells it out quite clearly which conditions are necessary to avoid an AoO with an unarmed strike.
The additional consensus at the time was IUS was necessary for that particular Duelist trick. A logical extrapolation means it applies to everyone who wants to fight unarmed as their offhand "weapon."
While that thread is long gone and we can't resurrect it, examining the current opinions expressed in this thread, it again indicates the same thing.
Based on your posts on the subject, I can only assume you'll only be satisfied with the Sage's ruling. I wasn't able to locate a specific quote about unarmed attacks germane to this that isn't already covered in what we've mentioned.
It boils down to this: Because you are carrying a weapon in one hand, it doesn't mean your unarmed offhand acquires the cachet of being a threatening attack. You can't perform an AoO with it (save a Trip); you can't strike with it without opening yourself to an AoO for the same reason no one else can who lacks the requisite Feat or conditionals (touch-based spell, claws, etc).
Let's take a similar idea and compare them. Normally, attacking with a touch-based spell doesn't provoke an AoO. But here's what the FAQ says about that:
"Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike to deliver a spell with touch range?If so,how do you resolve the attack?
Yes,you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell.Since casting a spell is a standard action,you usually have to wait until your next turn to make the unarmed attack.Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the same way you resolve any other unarmed strike.The attacker has to beat the defender ’s Armor Class with all adjustments,including armor and shield,added in (the attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch the opponent).If the attacker doesn ’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat,the attack draws an attack of opportunity (striking for damage exposes the attacker to more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a spell).If the attack is a hit,the attacker deals
unarmed damage and discharges the spell.If the attack is a miss,the attacker is still holding the charge."
Note the similarity. In the FAQ example, the user has a touch-based spell and tries to use a strike to deliver it. Normally that would mean no AoO but since he lacks IUS, he provokes an AoO.
Similarly, the unarmed off-hand user is "armed" in one hand and attacks he delivers won't create an AoO, but as soon as he uses an unarmed attack, he will create an AoO situation.
I hope that's sufficient evidence, when added to the rest of the pertinent quotes in others' posts.
Hope that helps,
Greg
Corwin said:
I'm sorry, but that is awfully vague. When was this? Came up where? Who deemed it as such? The Sage? Anyone besides you?
Just curious.
It was after the release of S&F, as there was a question of whether a Duelist could dual wield with his unarmed attack and still gain a Canny Defense. Since canny defense requires the off-hand to be empty, the prerequisite of Ambidexterity isn't totally useless (since most often acquired with a level of Ranger, thus granting TWF as part of the package).
The concensus of the majority of the posters was it still provoked an AoO as the unarmed attack of someone without IUS, a held spell, or a natural claw or fang provokes an AoO, as has been mentioned several times. PHB, Page 140 spells it out quite clearly which conditions are necessary to avoid an AoO with an unarmed strike.
The additional consensus at the time was IUS was necessary for that particular Duelist trick. A logical extrapolation means it applies to everyone who wants to fight unarmed as their offhand "weapon."
While that thread is long gone and we can't resurrect it, examining the current opinions expressed in this thread, it again indicates the same thing.
Based on your posts on the subject, I can only assume you'll only be satisfied with the Sage's ruling. I wasn't able to locate a specific quote about unarmed attacks germane to this that isn't already covered in what we've mentioned.
It boils down to this: Because you are carrying a weapon in one hand, it doesn't mean your unarmed offhand acquires the cachet of being a threatening attack. You can't perform an AoO with it (save a Trip); you can't strike with it without opening yourself to an AoO for the same reason no one else can who lacks the requisite Feat or conditionals (touch-based spell, claws, etc).
Let's take a similar idea and compare them. Normally, attacking with a touch-based spell doesn't provoke an AoO. But here's what the FAQ says about that:
"Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike to deliver a spell with touch range?If so,how do you resolve the attack?
Yes,you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell.Since casting a spell is a standard action,you usually have to wait until your next turn to make the unarmed attack.Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the same way you resolve any other unarmed strike.The attacker has to beat the defender ’s Armor Class with all adjustments,including armor and shield,added in (the attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch the opponent).If the attacker doesn ’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat,the attack draws an attack of opportunity (striking for damage exposes the attacker to more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a spell).If the attack is a hit,the attacker deals
unarmed damage and discharges the spell.If the attack is a miss,the attacker is still holding the charge."
Note the similarity. In the FAQ example, the user has a touch-based spell and tries to use a strike to deliver it. Normally that would mean no AoO but since he lacks IUS, he provokes an AoO.
Similarly, the unarmed off-hand user is "armed" in one hand and attacks he delivers won't create an AoO, but as soon as he uses an unarmed attack, he will create an AoO situation.
I hope that's sufficient evidence, when added to the rest of the pertinent quotes in others' posts.
Hope that helps,
Greg
Cl1mh4224rd
First Post
Hypersmurf said:
[sigh] does everyone here have attention deficit disorder? seriously ...
this thread isn't about gauntlets or touch attacks, now is it? those are for another thread. this one was pretty specific. there's no need to dilute it.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
An untrained character making an unarmed strike has to bring his body close to his opponent.
An character with Improved Unarmed Strike making an unarmed strike has to bring his body close to his opponent.
An character making an attack with a touch spell has to bring his body close to his opponent.
An character making an attack with a spiked gauntlet has to bring his body close to his opponent.
Only one of these draws an AoO. The other three do not.
This entire thread is devoted to deciding whether a fifth situation - a character making an unarmed attack while holding a dangerous weapon in his other hand - fits in column A or column B.
Insulting us doesn't change the fact that the line you quoted has already been brought up, and some people felt it cleared things up, and others didn't.
-Hyp.
RigaMortus
Explorer
For what it is worth, I think I know "legal" way (legal as by the rules) to do what you are trying to do...
First round, have your character Feint in combat (Bluff vs. Sense Motive)... If successful, next round you can 1) use your primary attack (with your melee weapon) for the "weapon pin" effect you are looking for and then 2) use your secondary attack (your unarmed hand) to snatch, disarm, do-what-you-will to your opponents weapon without getting an AoO. Why no AoO you might ask? Well, you know the rules so I am sure you can figure that answer out...
Actually, this isn't entirely "legal" either... You would technically have to make your first attack with the off-hand. But since combat is fluid, does the order really matter as long as the result is the same? Bleh...
First round, have your character Feint in combat (Bluff vs. Sense Motive)... If successful, next round you can 1) use your primary attack (with your melee weapon) for the "weapon pin" effect you are looking for and then 2) use your secondary attack (your unarmed hand) to snatch, disarm, do-what-you-will to your opponents weapon without getting an AoO. Why no AoO you might ask? Well, you know the rules so I am sure you can figure that answer out...
Actually, this isn't entirely "legal" either... You would technically have to make your first attack with the off-hand. But since combat is fluid, does the order really matter as long as the result is the same? Bleh...
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
First Post
Hypersmurf said:
well, let's look at what's involved here:
1) the character is holding a one-handed weapon. he's considered armed.
2) the character is making an unarmed attack with his other hand (the one not holding the weapon).
3) the character does not have improved unarmed strike.
4) there character is not holding the charge of a touch spell.
5) the character is not wearing gauntlets.
the reason those 3 (of 4) situations you mentioned do not provoke an aoo is because, for whatever reason, the character is still considered a credible threat.
with this situation, however, moving in close to pop the baddie in the jaw pretty much takes the threat of the held weapon out of the picture. of course, this opens up a whole can of "what about with this weapon?" arguments. those are invalidated due to the abstractness of the combat system (a dagger has the same threat range as a greatsword).
the fact remains that you are making an unarmed attack without a touch spell, without the appropriate feat, without wearing gauntlets, and without being a monk. it just so happens that you're holding a weapon in the other hand.
of course, maybe i'm just putting too fine a resolution on the armed/unarmed thing by taking it down to the "left-hand/right-hand" and "per attack" level. [shrug]
in this situation, to be honest, i would probably rule it on a weapon size basis. if the weapon you're weilding is one size category smaller than you, you do not provoke an aoo, because it's small enough to be brought in that close.
Just wear boots that are as thick and hard as gauntlets and kick them.
Since gauntlets are weapons, anyone wearing thick hard leather boots (possibly steel toe) should be considered to have "weapons" too.
It seems reasonable to require a balance check to retain your dex bonus to your AC though, since you're supposed to be standing on your feet. Also I would require either improved unarmed strike or martial weapons proficency to avoid the no proficency penalty.
Since gauntlets are weapons, anyone wearing thick hard leather boots (possibly steel toe) should be considered to have "weapons" too.
It seems reasonable to require a balance check to retain your dex bonus to your AC though, since you're supposed to be standing on your feet. Also I would require either improved unarmed strike or martial weapons proficency to avoid the no proficency penalty.
Similar Threads
