Who can take an AoO's.

[kreynolds]

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.?

Sounds good to me. If they already set their shield for defense, its too late to change their mind. They can only do that on their next action.

And an unarmed person (with no feats) does not threaten an area?

Officially? I don't think so, but its been awhile since I've even thought about this so its very likely that I'm wrong.

 

[kreynolds]

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

Unless he's addressed this topic before, other times are irrelevant. We aren't talking about speed weapons going against a mindblanked person here. This topic is relevant. Nothing else.

2) Sage rulings aren't official

Neither are yours or mine. What's your point?

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

The same could be said for any of us at times, and that's the humble truth. Can't we just dispense with the Sage Bashing and have a discussion here? Please?

 

[thegreatbuddha]

Unless he's addressed this topic before, other times are irrelevant. We aren't talking about speed weapons going against a mindblanked person here. This topic is relevant. Nothing else.

I was referring to the fact that the PHB disputes the Sage's ruling a minimum of two times. I think that that is completely relevant to the topic at hand.

Neither are yours or mine. What's your point?

True, but I am not making a ruling. I am citing text from a core rulebook that states that unarmed charcters threaten the area around them. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: External logic holds no place in interpreting rules.

The same could be said for any of us at times, and that's the humble truth. Can't we just dispense with the Sage Bashing and have a discussion here? Please?

True. the Sage bashing wasn't really called for, but then again, neither the Sage nor his rulings have any place in this discussion, since it is asking whether or not the current rules as written support the ability of unarmed characters to make attacks of opportunity. Until WotC decides to make the Sage's ruling on this subject official, said ruling has absolutely no place in this discussion, since it is not part of the current rules, as written. If someone can show me where exactly the afore-mentioned Sage ruling is in the SRD, I will conceed on all points. Until then, there is absolutely nothing to discuss, since the current rules as written support unarmed characters making AoOs.

 

[0-hr]

neither the Sage nor his rulings have any place in this discussion, since it is asking whether or not the current rules as written support the ability of unarmed characters to make attacks of opportunity. Until WotC decides to make the Sage's ruling on this subject official, said ruling has absolutely no place in this discussion,

Sorry guy, but I asked the original question and I respect the Sage's advice. You are reading more into my question than is called for. As the author of this thread, I am very interested in the what is written in the books, in the FAQ, in the erratta, and in any emails from the Sage or even WotC cutomer support. I'd even be interested in Monte's or Sean K's opinions on the matter.

I want a complete view of the rules in question and I'm not going to ignore selected sources just because they don't say what I want them to.

In the future I'll be sure to use the phrase "prevailing wisdom" rather than "rules as written" so that narrow-minded rules lawyers won't be confused.

 

[kreynolds]

another take on the rules...

Ki Ryn. I thought you might find this interesting. This little snip is from D20 Modern, from the Combat Martial Arts feat (a cooler version of Improved Unarmed Strike)...

Unarmed attacks normally provoke attacks of opportunity, and unarmed combatants cannot normally make attacks of opportunity.

 

[thegreatbuddha]

If you don't want a rules-lawyer answer, don't ask a rules question.

 

[hong]

neither the Sage nor his rulings have any place in this discussion,

Can I quote you on that?