Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jontherev" data-source="post: 47344" data-attributes="member: 1451">Re: Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound &quot;ranty&quot; here.Well, perhaps I over-reacted, but I did take slight offense to the perceived haughtiness that I found unnecessary in some of these statements:&nbsp; &quot;I'm not an amature here. I know the rules pretty damn well. Those are not the issues. This is not about &quot;how to smackdown a duelist&quot; either.&quot;&nbsp; Considering, that we were taking the time to reply to you and help out.&nbsp; Also, even considering your caveats.&nbsp; If I somehow misinterpreted that, then my bad.Unfortuneately, I researched this further and found we were both incorrect.&nbsp; Pg. 122 PHB, look at the chart.&nbsp; It says Unarmed Attacks may provoke AoOs.&nbsp; So now, on the next page, it refers you to page 140.&nbsp; Under the section of Unarmed Attacks on this page, in the subsection of Attack of Opportunity, after stating what it does in the SRD about how attacking unarmed provokes AoO's, it further details that &quot;You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent.&quot;So, being armed would not help you, because it's your body that is coming close to the foe that provokes the AoO.&nbsp; Your weapon won't help you.Also, in the next section, &quot;Armed&quot; Unarmed Attacks, it specifically details the instances where someone could, by the rules, make an unarmed attack but still count as being armed.&nbsp; &quot;A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 83), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed.&quot;&nbsp; So, it would've included in this list the one weapon fighter making an offhand unarmed strike if they counted as being armed for the purposes of avoiding an AoO while making an offhand unarmed attack.In short, by the rules, offhand unarmed strikes from a character weilding a weapon in his primary hand, still provoke AoO's from the foe he is striking.&nbsp; At least, that appears to be the only interpretation I can see, given the rules I've cited.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jontherev, post: 47344, member: 1451"] [b]Re: Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound "ranty" here.[/b] Well, perhaps I over-reacted, but I did take slight offense to the perceived haughtiness that I found unnecessary in some of these statements: "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." Considering, that we were taking the time to reply to you and help out. Also, even considering your caveats. If I somehow misinterpreted that, then my bad. Unfortuneately, I researched this further and found we were both incorrect. Pg. 122 PHB, look at the chart. It says Unarmed Attacks [i]may[/i] provoke AoOs. So now, on the next page, it refers you to page 140. Under the section of [b]Unarmed Attacks[/b] on this page, in the subsection of [i]Attack of Opportunity[/i], after stating what it does in the SRD about how attacking unarmed provokes AoO's, it further details that "You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent." So, being armed would not help you, because it's your body that is coming close to the foe that provokes the AoO. Your weapon won't help you. Also, in the next section, [b]"Armed" Unarmed Attacks[/b], it specifically details the instances where someone could, by the rules, make an unarmed attack but still count as being armed. "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 83), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed." So, it would've included in this list the one weapon fighter making an offhand unarmed strike if they counted as being armed for the purposes of avoiding an AoO while making an offhand unarmed attack. In short, by the rules, offhand unarmed strikes from a character weilding a weapon in his primary hand, still provoke AoO's from the foe he is striking. At least, that appears to be the only interpretation I can see, given the rules I've cited. [/QUOTE]

Verification