Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 47358" data-attributes="member: 1560">Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound &quot;ranty&quot; here.Real quick, before I get into the meat of your post, I want to comment on the &quot;precieved haughtiness&quot; you mentioned. It's interesting because that was the perception I got from your first post as well. You seemed to be coming across with a &quot;there are rules for disarming you may want to read and there is a book called Sword and Fist that has a few feats you should look into&quot; attitude. Basically, it was like you were assuming I had no clue. Again, perceptions what they are on the internet, that was the feeling I got. That was precisely why I wanted to put a halt to that particular frame of post early and explain that I wasn't looking at those things. Anyway, on with the discussion...I am inclined to catagorize this part of the PHB as &quot;flavor text&quot;. Though it's technically more a victim of &quot;sloppiness&quot;. The problem with it is that it assumes that the [/i]reason[/i] you are drawing the AoO is because you have to get close. But do you not have to get just as close to deliver a touch attack? Same with natural attacks forms (like claws). And does the length of a small knife (or ridges of a spiked gauntlet) really mean the difference beween the AoO or not?I completely agree that an unarmed character draws an AoO. But if that same character is armed, I don't see it as quite the same thing. With that weapon in hand, the character can do all the things I have previously described: parry, distract, etc. to ally him to get in close long enough to pop the guy in the face (or whatever).I guess, what it really comes down to, is a matter of judging it for game-balance/rules-fairness. You are taking a minimum of a -2/-2 penalty to your attacks (assuming all the necessary feats) for an additional 1d3 subdual damage. I was originally looking at it from a &quot;cool/style&quot; angle of cinematic fighting. If the PC wants to do it, I think that's alright with me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 47358, member: 1560"] [b]Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound "ranty" here.[/b] Real quick, before I get into the meat of your post, I want to comment on the "precieved haughtiness" you mentioned. It's interesting because that was the perception I got from your first post as well. You seemed to be coming across with a "there are rules for disarming you may want to read and there is a book called Sword and Fist that has a few feats you should look into" attitude. Basically, it was like you were assuming I had no clue. Again, perceptions what they are on the internet, that was the feeling [i]I[/i] got. That was precisely why I wanted to put a halt to that particular frame of post early and explain that I wasn't looking at those things. Anyway, on with the discussion... I am inclined to catagorize this part of the PHB as "flavor text". Though it's technically more a victim of "sloppiness". The problem with it is that it assumes that the [/i]reason[/i] you are drawing the AoO is [i]because[/i] you have to get close. But do you not have to get just as close to deliver a touch attack? Same with natural attacks forms (like claws). And does the length of a small knife (or ridges of a spiked gauntlet) really mean the difference beween the AoO or not? I completely agree that an unarmed character draws an AoO. But if that same character is armed, I don't see it as quite the same thing. With that weapon in hand, the character can do all the things I have previously described: parry, distract, etc. to ally him to get in close long enough to pop the guy in the face (or whatever). I guess, what it really comes down to, is a matter of judging it for game-balance/rules-fairness. You are taking a [b]minimum[/b] of a -2/-2 penalty to your attacks (assuming all the necessary feats) for an additional 1d3 subdual damage. I was originally looking at it from a "cool/style" angle of cinematic fighting. If the PC wants to do it, I think that's alright with me. [/QUOTE]

Verification