heres one thats been a debate in our group.
- when you are unarmed only with fist an opponent with a weapons gets an attack of opportunity. But if you are a monk which is proficient with its fists (unarmed attack) your opponent doesn't get an attack of oppoortuntity.
- So if you are say a mage useing a bastard sword (which the mage isn't proficient with) would your attacker get an attack of opportunity as you are like the unarmed person who isn't proficient with his/her fists?
Trocky one I would like to hear peoples views on this, or rules written down if anyone has any
The attack of opportunity for using an unarmed strike has nothing to do with proficiency, and instead is because it's pretty darn hard to defend yourself against a sword when all you have is your hands.
So yes, the wizard with the bastard sword threatens - though of course he takes the -4 penalty on the AoO.
no i meant would the attacker get an attack of opportunity against the wizard as he isn't prpficient with a bastard sword, as if he was using his hands without unarmed combat profiency the attacker would get a free attack as he isn't profient. i think it would make sense that if you are not proficient with a weapon your attacker should get a free attack as because you are not proficient with the weapon how would you know how to defend yourself with it?
no i meant would the attacker get an attack of opportunity against the wizard as he isn't prpficient with a bastard sword, as if he was using his hands without unarmed combat profiency the attacker would get a free attack as he isn't profient. i think it would make sense that if you are not proficient with a weapon your attacker should get a free attack as because you are not proficient with the weapon how would you know how to defend yourself with it?
The attack of opportunity does not come from not being proficient with a weapon. It's just an inherent rule of attacking with an unarmed attack.
One could say the mechanics involved have to do with a fist being a tiny weapon and thus have a reach of less than 5 feet. An unarmed attack basically means the character has to move through the 5-foot threatened area to make the attack. Having Improved Unarmed Attack, which a 1st-level monk has, negates the attack of opportunity for moving through that threatened space.
No. The AoO for attacking unarmed without Improved Unarmed Strike has nothing to do with proficency as Zherog said. So, the mage attacking would not provoke an AoO. The unarmed AoO is not in any way related to proficency and only applies to unarmed, non-Improved Unarmed Strike attacks.
Hope this helps.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
it is what i thought but i was exploring other avenues.
we were thinking of puting it in as a house rule, that if you are using a weapon which you are not proficient with you provoke an attack of opportunity.
as we have a mage in the party with claw bracers without being proficient in them, and he only uses them to stop attacks of opportunity and thus he never has to put his weapon away to cast spells, and in a way it is power gaming on his side.
so we thought we would bring in the above house rule to stop him and any others doinf similar things
as we have a mage in the party with claw bracers without being proficient in them, and he only uses them to stop attacks of opportunity and thus he never has to put his weapon away to cast spells, and in a way it is power gaming on his side.
so we thought we would bring in the above house rule to stop him and any others doinf similar things
As a wizard with a -4 penalty to attack, it shouldn't be a problem. If the wizard is engaging in melee combat, he should be getting the tar beat out of him.
but when you have a mage that has a high concentration. and can do a defensive casting concentration check to ignore the free attack thats when it gets annoying that hes using claw bracers to ignore no weapon attack of opportunity?
Think about it like this though . . . in real life, even if I have never learned how to use a knife, and I am holding one, its dangerous for you to swing a fist at me. I guess I'm really not following your problem. If only unarmed characters are ever threatening the mage, thats a tactical mistake on his opponents part. Weapon or not though, if he is casting defensively, no AOO, if he isn't, there you go.
Also, Monks that don't use weapons still have their unarmed attacks count as armed attacks, as does anyone that has improved unarmed fighting. What are the claw bracers really helping the mage do? The only advantage I see is an AOO if an unarmed, untrained combatant tries to take a swing at him when he is casting, which still has a chance to ruin his spell and damage him, even if he gains an AOO.
but when you have a mage that has a high concentration. and can do a defensive casting concentration check to ignore the free attack thats when it gets annoying that hes using claw bracers to ignore no weapon attack of opportunity?
Technically, he only needs one hand free to cast spells with a somatic component. It would be no different if he always held a dagger in one hand.
it is what i thought but i was exploring other avenues.
we were thinking of puting it in as a house rule, that if you are using a weapon which you are not proficient with you provoke an attack of opportunity.
as we have a mage in the party with claw bracers without being proficient in them, and he only uses them to stop attacks of opportunity and thus he never has to put his weapon away to cast spells, and in a way it is power gaming on his side.
so we thought we would bring in the above house rule to stop him and any others doinf similar things
I don' know the details of your wizard, but changing the rules because one player wants to run his wizard like a fighter seems totally unfair. You're doubly screwing the player.
A wizard already has the worst Base Attack bonus of all the classes. Add to that a -4 non-proficiency penalty and he's not going to hit his enemies most of the time. Why he would chose to go this route considering he also has the lowest hit points of all the classes as well is beyond my comprehension. But if your player with the wizard with fighter envy wants to get up close and personal in combat, there ought to be plenty of opportunities to remind him why he shouldn't, assuming of course he lives long enough.
As far as attacks of opportunity go, being non-proficient with any type of weapon has no relevency to AoO's. Unarmed combat is a completely different ball of wax. I suggest you check out Skip Williams' article "Rules of the Game: Attacks of Opportunity" on the WoTC web site. A whole wealth of information about AoO's awaits you there written by one of the authors of the Dungeons & Dragons rules system.
I agree that proficiency/non-proficiency doesn't really factor into the whole AoO thing, but I think I understand your dilemna... your wizard has no intention of actually attacking with those claw bracers(weapon) in which he is not proficient, he wears them only to avoid the rule which states that unarmed attacks provoke AoOs - and a spell-caster wizard is technically "unarmed". Right? He/she is meta-gaming and you're trying to control it by coming up with a house rule that would logically trump the metagaming plan.
My initial thought was "just go ahead and consider the wizard still technically 'unarmed' with regards to provocation of AoO because his only weapon is one in which he is non-proficient" but then I got thinking ... I am a knife-wielding expert and get in a bar fight with an unarmed person. When my opponent tries to punch me, I get the opportunity to slash him with my knife. If my opponent is a black belt in karate he probably knows how to punch me so quickly or precisely that I don't have the opportunity to slash his approaching fist. (Thus the rules for AoOs and unarmed attack as they stand now). But what if my opponent smashes his beer bottle and tries to defend himself with it/attack with it. He might not be proficient with that bottle, and I am still an expert with my knife, but I probably won't have the chance to slash his approaching hand when it's holding a broken bottle I'm trying to avoid getting slashed by myself! So my first theory (of agreement with your "house rule") went flying out the window. So while I agree that you as a DM should discourage this player's attempts at meta-gaming, I'm not really sure what the best way is to go about that. (Sorry, not much help here!). Maybe you could just pull the player aside and explain your disapproval of his/her tactics. Maybe he/she will come up with a solution all their own.
|
I may be confused, but why is it a difficulty if your wizard wishes to have the opportunity to make AoO? I can't imagine, aside from two wizards w/ no Concentration ranks trying to "shiv" one another while they cast spells from only 5' away (Hardcore spell duels ;)), that the wizard's capacity to make AoO would be at all a benefit? I suppose if a lot of your NPCs are trying to grapple him w/o IUS and Improved Grapple (a good tactic vs. wizards) and he's pretty lucky.. or their ACs are abysmal, that he is benefitting here.
*shrug* IMHO, he'd be perfectly legitimate in just using a dagger, as others have said, but is instead hurting his own chances of making that AoO count by lowering his attack roll w/ non-proficiencies.
but when you have a mage that has a high concentration. and can do a defensive casting concentration check to ignore the free attack thats when it gets annoying that hes using claw bracers to ignore no weapon attack of opportunity?
I guess I'm not seeing your problem - it almost sounds like you have a problem with the wizard being able to cast defensively. But that has nothing to do with whether he's wearing claw bracers or not.
Is the wizard using the claw bracers to avoid an AoO for making touch attacks? Is that it? If so, he doesn't need to - as long as he's holding a charge from a spell, he's considered "armed" and doesn't provoke an AoO for trying to touch somebody with the spell.
your wizard has no intention of actually attacking with those claw bracers(weapon) in which he is not proficient, he wears them only to avoid the rule which states that unarmed attacks provoke AoOs - and a spell-caster wizard is technically "unarmed". Right? He/she is meta-gaming and you're trying to control it by coming up with a house rule that would logically trump the metagaming plan.
I've played wizards who purchase a +whatever dagger of defending. They pump the entire enhancement bonus into their AC, and still "threaten" with the dagger when necessary. As others have said, if your wizard is regularly in melee combat you probably have bigger problems than worrying about whether your unarmed attacks provoke.
yeah, i don't even carry weapons as a mage so i won't be tempted to get too close to the action ; )
i feel your annoyance at the metagaming going on there. did the player seriously want to carry a bastard sword? if the weapon is only being used as a deterance i might just give the player a spell failure chance equal to a similar sized shield. light weapon = buckler, one-hand = light shield, bastard sword = heavy shield. not by the book exactly but in the spirit if you didn't want to just say no.
Seriously, the wizard could just carry a dagger and have the same result.
Hey I think the problem isn't in that he has the claw bracers... the problem is that your group thinks that just because he has the claw bracers he cannot get an attack of opportunity made on him at all. The claw bracers only prevent AoO from happening if the wizard is actually attacking with them.
Sure he can cast defensively, so forget the AoO... flank him, shoot him with arrows, target him with enemy spells... he shouldn't have that high of an armor class. And if this is a high level game, the enemy's attack bonus should be able to hit a wizard no prob, with enough damage done to him (and at high levels or just high CR encounters the damage can get ridiculous) the wizard is going to miss his concentration check sometime, and most likely at the worst possible time.
Just remember that your wizard has to make lots of Concentration checks.
Seriously, the wizard could just carry a dagger and have the same result.
...But the wizard wold have to have the dagger already drawn to make the AoO.
Personally, if a mage I was running found himself in melee without a weapon in hand, I would consider myself as having already failed as a wizard... but that's just me.
M
...But the wizard wold have to have the dagger already drawn to make the AoO.
Personally, if a mage I was running found himself in melee without a weapon in hand, I would consider myself as having already failed as a wizard... but that's just me.
M
Easily fixed. "My character always has a dagger in his hands unless he is doing something that obviously would require him to remove the dagger from his hands."
Easily fixed. "My character always has a dagger in his hands unless he is doing something that obviously would require him to remove the dagger from his hands."...But the wizard wold have to have the dagger already drawn to make the AoO.
Personally, if a mage I was running found himself in melee without a weapon in hand, I would consider myself as having already failed as a wizard... but that's just me.
M
I agree with this tactic, only adding "When adventuring or doing some other risky business." Walking into a shop or bar with the dagger out might draw unwanted attention. The mage always carrying the drawn dagger when adventuring or expecting trouble, however, makes as much sense as a fighter carrying his weapon drawn, which is to say, a lot! :)
I also got the impression that the mage in question thought that wielding any weapon voided all AoO, which, as previously stated, isn't the case.