What are the biggest rules debates?

[atom crash]

I disagree. I can use an unarmed strike for an AoO... but only if the AoO is provoked. It's not provoked if I don't threaten. But if I do, the option is available.

Same with a grapple.

When you make an attack of opportunity, it does not expressly say you have to make the attack with whatever weapon you're threatening with. It also does not expressly say otherwise, but the fact that you can choose to make a grapple as an attack of opportunity implies that you can.

Is this correct?

So I can choose to disarm or trip or grapple even if in order to do so I must make an unarmed attack and I don't have improved unarmed strike? Right?

Or is the implication that in order to make that grapple, disarm or trip attempt I must be armed somehow and therefore threaten with such an attack?

 

[Infiniti2000]

You must threaten in order to gain an AoO. There is no stipulation as to what sort of attack you make, however, whether it be with the weapon you threaten with or not. Some people houserule it to be with the weapon you threaten with (or one of them) and would disallow a trip, say, if you only threatened with a dagger.

 

[Hypersmurf]

When you make an attack of opportunity, it does not expressly say you have to make the attack with whatever weapon you're threatening with. It also does not expressly say otherwise, but the fact that you can choose to make a grapple as an attack of opportunity implies that you can.

Well, to use a 3.5 example, if I have a whip in hand, and you walk past me, I can't make an AoO with the whip - the whip doesn't threaten an area, and so no AoO is provoked.

If I have a whip and a dagger in hand, and you walk past me, you provoke an AoO, since (with the dagger) I now threaten an area. Can I make an AoO with the whip, or not?

-Hyp.

 

[Philip]

You must threaten in order to gain an AoO. There is no stipulation as to what sort of attack you make, however, whether it be with the weapon you threaten with or not. Some people houserule it to be with the weapon you threaten with (or one of them) and would disallow a trip, say, if you only threatened with a dagger.

Which seems rather sensible, since otherwise you get people attacking with reach weapons in spaces they cannot reach normally, shooting crossbows as AoO, etc. etc.

 

[dcollins]

As a simple example, take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You're now considered armed.

That doesn't change your state of threatening one way or the other. "Being armed" has nothing to do with the definition of threatening.

I can use an unarmed strike for an AoO... but only if the AoO is provoked. It's not provoked if I don't threaten.

Not so. The rule under Unarmed Attacks is that the opponent must be "armed" for an AOO to be provoked. Threatening is not mentioned there. Again, that is a separate and distinct condition.


Therefore I still don't see any way to use a grapple as an AOO unless you threaten unarmed. Which also, happily, matches the definition of "threatening" under 3.0 core rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not so. The rule under Unarmed Attacks is that the opponent must be "armed" for an AOO to be provoked. Threatening is not mentioned there. Again, that is a separate and distinct condition.

I'm talking about in general.

"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a character."

"If a character moves through (not simply into) or out of a threatened area, a character usually provokes an attack of opportunity."

If you're not threatened, no AoO is provoked.

----

Assuming I'm a first level halfling commoner with the Skill Focus: Profession: Farmer feat, and you move past me, can I punch you as an AoO?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which seems rather sensible, since otherwise you get people attacking with reach weapons in spaces they cannot reach normally, shooting crossbows as AoO, etc. etc.

An AoO is defined as a melee attack. No shooting.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Therefore I still don't see any way to use a grapple as an AOO unless you threaten unarmed.

Why do you need to be unarmed to grapple?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Why do you need to be unarmed to grapple?

Because "Grappling means wrestling and struggling hand-to-hand." (3.0 PHB p. 137)

Assuming I'm a first level halfling commoner with the Skill Focus: Profession: Farmer feat, and you move past me, can I punch you as an AoO?

Yes. You can make a melee attack (unarmed strike). Which satisfies the definition of threatening. So the AOO is provoked.

Do you agree that the line "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity" was added in 3.5, and does not exist in the 3.0 core rules?

Do you agree that unarmed attacks satisfy the 3.0 core rules definition of "threaten"?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because "Grappling means wrestling and struggling hand-to-hand." (3.0 PHB p. 137)

Are there or are there not rules for attacking with a light weapon while in a grapple? If you can do that, then you don't need to be unarmed in order to grapple.