Who can take an AoO's.

[Hypersmurf]

That may be what I had in mind.

If it were what you had in mind, then you'd be arguing against yourself - since an unarmed attack provokes an AoO, by that ruling (if it were accurate), it could not itself be used as an AoO.

Since neither do so, and other portions of the core rulebooks clearly state that unarmed characters threaten the area around them...

Specifically? Or the four-step logic chain you've already pointed out?

I'm not complaining about the logic chain. It works just fine. But I choose to accept the Sage's ruling as clarification of designer intent, that trumps a Core Rule that you have to build from four sections of the PHB.

I am going to assume that you're only argueing this point for the sake of argueing.

No, I'm arguing because I agree with the Sage...

I'm right. you're wrong. Deal with it.

See, that makes me want to argue for the sake of arguing.

-Hyp.

 

[thegreatbuddha]

One of my main problems with the rules as written is that it makes it really easy to stop a grapple. If anything (even your foot) can be used for an AoO, then it's very easy to stop a grapple attempt:

1) Gargantuan dragon tries to grab a pixie with it's claw (grapple check at -20)
2) Unarmed pixie makes an unarmed strike and hits for d4-6 subdual damage.
3) This does a minimum of 1 point and so foils the grapple.

As long as the dragon takes the Snatch feat, it gains the Improved Grab ability with its claws. Granted, it suffers a -20 on attempts to maintain the grapple, but that is usually offset by its size advanatage. A gargantuan dragon has a minimum grapple bonus of +32, with the -20 factored in. The Pixie has a grapple modifier of -6.

To put it in perspective, a Fighter 20 with a Str 30 will win the opposed grapple check with the dragon only 40% of the time, and the dragon is not considered grappled. If the dragon doesn't take the -20, the fighter needs a natural 20 to escape the dragon's grapple even if the dragon rolls a 2.

 

[hong]

I am going to assume that you're only argueing this point for the sake of argueing.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

I'm right. you're wrong.

... WABBIT season!

 

[Zhure]

PHB Page 140,
"UNARMED ATTACKS
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is like
attacking with a weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, as shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character or creature
attacks unarmed but still counts as 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. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk not provoke an attack of opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an unarmed attack against her."

This strongly implies when you are unarmed you cannot take an AoO because you aren't using an "armed" unarmed attack unless you're a monk or have IUS, etc.

Greg

 

[Destil]

One of my main problems with the rules as written is that it makes it really easy to stop a grapple. If anything (even your foot) can be used for an AoO, then it's very easy to stop a grapple attempt:

1) Gargantuan dragon tries to grab a pixie with it's claw (grapple check at -20)
2) Unarmed pixie makes an unarmed strike and hits for d4-6 subdual damage.
3) This does a minimum of 1 point and so foils the grapple.

A) Most (if not all) Gargantuan dragons have DR. Unless the pixie can overcome it somehow this is a non-issue.
B) Without improved unarmed strike, the pixi's attack provokes an AoO. This will most likely kill the pixi, anyway.
C) Even if the pixi makes a successfull attack and somehow survives the AoO, the dragon still can start a grapple with the other claw.

Grapples are hard to do with only one attack per round. Aside from that unless your opponent has Combat Reflexes it's almost non-issue.

Also - Be smart, dance around them a bit and have them use their AoO against your movement, so they can't take one when you start the grapple. There's a reason smart fighters don't always take an AoO.

 

[Destil]

PHB Page 140,
"UNARMED ATTACKS
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is like
attacking with a weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, as shooting a bow does, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe. You provoke the attack of opportunity because you have to bring your body close to your opponent.
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character or creature
attacks unarmed but still counts as 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. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense. Not only does a monk not provoke an attack of opportunity when attacking an armed foe, but you provoke an attack of opportunity from a monk if you make an unarmed attack against her."

This strongly implies when you are unarmed you cannot take an AoO because you aren't using an "armed" unarmed attack unless you're a monk or have IUS, etc.

Greg

I had no idea the rules were that hokey on the subject. I changed your emphsis here, Zhure, because I wanted to point something out here. According to this:

A) Atatcking unarmed is exactily like attacking armed, with some exceptions. Note that thretened area is not covered. You thus threten unarmed. Also note that we can ignore Improved Unarmed Strike, Monks and natural weapons for this discussion, the're effectivly using weapons and not considered unarmed in the least.

B) The reason you provoke the AoO is because you need to get close to an opponent. You provoke the AoO only againt the opponent you are attacking, but only if they are considered armed. If the're not, you don't.

Logicaly, it sounds like you don't threaten any area with an unarmed strike. The rules only cover reach within increments of 5', and this almost sounds like the're trying to define an attack with no reach that you don't need to enter your opponents square to use, but still provokes an AoO due to entering your opponents square to use it. . .

Yeah, that makes sesne. I'd have to agree with the sage, spirit of the rules says you don't threaten unarmed, dispite not needing to accualy enter an opponents space to make an unarmed attack. Letter of the rules is quite unclear.

 

[Zhure]

That's why I said "implies." It's unclear. But IME an unarmed attack can't be used to take an AoO because it doesn't threaten.

Greg

 

[Jens]

"Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following:..." So attacking unarmed is the same as attacking armed except for provoking an AoO from an armed defender.

To me, this (and the rest of the quote) strongly implies that you *do* in fact threaten the area around you when unarmed. The quote gives the exception to the rule armed = unarmed which is simply there to keep fist-fighting from setting off a series of AoOs.

In support of this, look at the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (from the SRD):

Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
Benefit: The character is considered to be armed even when unarmed-that is, armed opponents do not get attacks of opportunity when the character attacks them while unarmed. However, the character still gets an opportunity attack against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on the character.
Special: A monk fighting unarmed automatically gains the benefit of this feat.

... again, the only difference between being armed (with the feat) and unarmed is whether or not an armed opponent get an AoO when you punch him.

So since threatening the area around you is the norm, and the rules explaining the difference between being armed and unarmed makes no mention of it, *where* does it say that you do not threaten the area around you when unarmed?

 

[thegreatbuddha]

The only place any mention is made of unarmed characters not being able to make AoOs (Apart from the numerous threads on the topic here) is in a Sage ruling. Normally, that would be enough to solve the problem for most people, but in this case there are three problems:

1) Core Rulebooks go against the Sage's ruling multiple times.

2) Sage rulings aren't official

3) I strongly suspect that the Sage doesn't brush up on the topic before making a ruling.

 

[0-hr]

So just to be clear, one interpretation of the rules is that a person using a shield for AC cannot also use it for making AoOs.?And an unarmed person (with no feats) does not threaten an area?

I had assumed that these would both require blatant house rules to correct.