Anyway, this was inspired by the other thread on core feat combos, which had gotten a little distracted because of a question about tripping (tripping can often be distracting, or so I have heard). Reading that thread, I realized that many different interpretations of Attacks of Opportunity exist and many different rules and feats affect it and are affected by it.
I have a specific situation which I would like an opinion on, but I would also like to hear more discussion on and friendly debate over the nuances of this particular facet of the game.
My question is: Are attacks of opportunity never possible when unarmed? The SRD leaves the door open with this:
If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
It says normally, implying there are exceptions.
The other day, I had a fighter NPC who kept getting disarmed and tripped, reducing his effectiveness dramatically. He was standing there when the chain wielding Fighter in the party moved past him and began climbing up the side of a slippery stone flight of stairs. I wanted to rule that, because the Chain wielding Fighter is essentially helpless while climbing, I could punch him as an AoO (he doesn't get an AoO against me because he is climbing)...or use my shield as an improvised weapon for the attack. Climbing is one of those special situations, where a creature is virtually completely helpless, and I thought in fairness, that I was entitled to the AoO.
The player objected and started getting rules-lawyery on me, so to avert crisis in what was otherwise an excellently smooth and conflict free session, I simply moved on. I feel I cheated myself though, and I realize I could have forced the issue, but I am not that kind of DM (usually). Even with a penalty (which I would have been happy to apply), a free shot is just that, a free shot. And at the very least, he should have been able to use the shield. Lord knows Spiky McChain Boy would have taken every last combat reflexes feuled AoO on my guy, had he tried the same maneuver.
I highly doubt a trained (8th level) fighter would have just stood by and let the other guy go up the stairs towards his friends without at least a swipe. The player's cockiness is part of the problem, as he sees this character as untouchable (ironic because he has died three times, three times more than anyone else in the campaign) and superior in build to the other player's characters.
|
The usual exceptions are a caster holding a touch spell and a character with Improved Unarmed Attack, both of whom are considered armed for purposes of threatening an area.
From the SRD, I don't see anything that would preclude the use of a shield to threaten a space, since it's considered a weapon when used to attack. Perhaps I've missed something.
The usual exceptions are a caster holding a touch spell and a character with Improved Unarmed Attack, both of whom are considered armed for purposes of threatening an area.
From the SRD, I don't see anything that would preclude the use of a shield to threaten a space, since it's considered a weapon when used to attack. Perhaps I've missed something.
Thanks for the input, Doug. Those two seem like exactly what they meant by the wording of that phrase. I guess I am guilty of a little rules lawyering myself trying to create a special situation in which it might be permissible. He argued against the shield on a proficiency basis (IE: NPC had no shield bash feat or anything else that allowed him to use it as a weapon) but there is nothing to prevent a player from using it as an improvised weapon at a penalty, right?
If a single class human wizard without any special proficiencies was standing there holding, say the Barbarian's bastard sword, he would be entitled to an AoO even with the unfamiliar weapon (a -4, right?) correct? Now to take it one step further, if he was holding a table leg, he'd still be able to attack with an improvised weapon as well, correct? I just find it hard to imagine that a trained combat ready fighter of 8th level would stand there and do nothing while a guy who had just hit him for 40+ damage over the last three rounds scampered up a slippery wall right next to him exposing his back to him while he was unarmed and basically hors de combat. In a way it just seemed a little too much like a taunt to the DM, which we all know can get you eaten by something big if you don't watch it. Then again, maybe I am letting my emotions get the best of me. I should be more dispassionate about my mooks.
On the one hand I want to encourage his use of his selected feats, but I don't have many options to resist disarm without building NPC's specifically to thwart him. See my dilemma? Anyway, I would still love to see anecdotes which illustrate the process better, and perhaps some feedback on wether this very central game concept is loved/hated or both. I have both in my group. At least one person has suggested doing away with Attacks of Opportunity entirely. I can't say I support that, but I see where they are coming from. I think it adds a touch of "realism" and is significant tactically. Would the game suffer from its omission? I would like to hear y'alls opinions.
I think your in something of a grey area. at least I don't recall seeing a FAQ or anything on it. Essentially you have two pretty much equally plausible interpretations of the rules. Essentially a player can make an attack with an improvised weapon (at a penalty). If you see those armed with improvised weapons as representing 'armed' for purposes of an AoO then your kosher. However there is a legitimate argument to be made that this is beyond the spirit of how AoO works and characters in such situations should count as unarmed. But I think that at most one could say this is against the spirit of the rules – by a strict reading I'd tend to think that an improvised weapon is a weapon nonetheless.
Personally in my campaign I allow AoO's with improvised weapons. This comes up mostly with mages whacking people with thier light crossbows.
|
|
Thanks for the input, Doug. Those two seem like exactly what they meant by the wording of that phrase. I guess I am guilty of a little rules lawyering myself trying to create a special situation in which it might be permissible. He argued against the shield on a proficiency basis (IE: NPC had no shield bash feat or anything else that allowed him to use it as a weapon) but there is nothing to prevent a player from using it as an improvised weapon at a penalty, right?
I think Jeremy's point about improvised weapons or using weapons without proficiency is a reasonable one, though I'm not as skeptical about their use for AoOs as he seems to be. If you turn your back on a commoner with a sword in hand, he may well be able to stick it in your back.
But there is one point that rather moots* that argument as regards a fighter attacking with a shield:
You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.... Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
Since a shield is a martial weapon, a fighter is proficient without any other training. Not that I would have thought about this without you asking the question. 8-)
Maybe this is another advantage of sword and board.
* "Moots" in the American sense, not the British sense.
Thanks for the input and clarification. I can approach the table with more confidence for the remainder of the adventure in question (the party is defending a museum from incursion by enemy agents) which has several more of the fighter types I used in the example above. Their shields will not go to waste.
One of the reasons I see this improvised weapon thing as feasible is that I myself, in real life have fought with many weapons (mostly training/sparring weapons) with which I have varying degrees of proficiency. I am 6'3" and while I can't wield a greatsword very deftly at all despite my size, if I was not being threatened at all with any weapon, I could whack the mess out of someone with one. If I didn't have to think about protecting myself, I wouldn't have to worry about simply grabbing the weapon with both hands and swinging as hard as possible. Accurate? hardly. Effective? If it hits, oh yeah.
I always caution against the intrusion of real life science into D&D, but this is one case where everyone would understand the example.
In regards to improvised weapons, I have allowed the very situation Jeremy MacDonald described where a player could make an attack of opportunity with a crossbow, so I don't think I am being unfair using a shield in the least.
By the way, thanks for your "moot" clarification, Doug. I myself am bi-continental (born British, moved to America)and accept both definitions for "moot" and "tabled", but it helps to know which one *g*
I would have allowed that NPC an AoO. Better I would probably have him do a grapple against that PC with an exposed back (with some bonus and the PC without his strength bonus as his strength is used in climbing).
That player won his meta-intimidate check against you the DM.
THere's rule zero for that and while it should be used sparingly with lots of restraints, it was invented to counter the rules-lawyer as they disrupt the flow by definition.
I think Jeremy's point about improvised weapons or using weapons without proficiency is a reasonable one, though I'm not as skeptical about their use for AoOs as he seems to be. If you turn your back on a commoner with a sword in hand, he may well be able to stick it in your back.
The reason I think it may be against the spirit of the rules is because there are, I'm fairly sure, explicit statements along the lines of 'one can't use a ranged weapon to make an Attack of Opportunity'. Now we all agree that one can't shoot a bow as an Attack of Opportunity but the example in question does not indicate that one can use their range weapon as an improvised weapon. I think that if the spirit of the rule was that one could hit people over the head with their Long Bow the possibility would be mentioned. Once one starts allowing improvised weapons to be used in AoO then characters are almost never 'unarmed' - anything can be an improvised weapon. Furthermore improvised weapons are never mentioned being used in attacks of opportunity anywhere that I am aware of.
However under the vast majority of circumstances just because anything can be used as an improvised weapon it does not follow that they make good weapons. I think the effect in play in terms of play balance would be minimal - certainly I allow it and the mages have yet to inspire me with dread regarding their ability to whack people with their light crossbows - in fact it's almost a waste of time they are so ineffective - but it makes the players happy so I figure its worth the slight slow down in play.
I see a slight distinction between improvised weapons (such as a table leg, or haft of a crossbow) and non-proficient weapons, although both incur a negative 4 penalty if I recall correctly, and the latter is considered the former, in a squares and rectangles sort of way. I think a peasant with a sword is every bit as lethal as a seasoned warrior, just not as skilled. I think if the warrior were charging past him to attack his family, he would not hesitate to swing (AoO) in defense and desperation.
The bows are another matter, having just read the Dragon mag with all the ranged weapons, I am verging on reconsidering "ranged weapon" AoO's with anything but guns (which are heavy and solid) and ranged weapons specifically designed to be used for close quarters combat such as a bladed X-bow or the longbow mentioned in the article.
I am still having trouble dealing with the rules lawyering and sheer level of spotlight hogging this player still indulges in, despite repeated warnings and a written reminder of rule zero directly behind my head. We had a very similar situation with him and the DM who was running the show last night.
Interestingly enough, he does it less when I am running from prepared material, such as Dungeon adventures. I take this as a personal insult in a way, even though I don't consider myself in a league with Logue (or any of those guys; "league with logue" just had a zippiness, no?) I would like a similar level of trust and respect as shown to prefab material even from this troublemaking player. Anyway this is in danger of turning into a rant, and I apologize.
Thanks again for the excellent input and suggestions. I heartily appreciate it for education, edification and morale.
sorry for coming in late, but was your NPC fighter wearing medium or heavier armor? If so, he had gauntlets, and was there fore armed. And the shield attack idea was spot on.
sorry for coming in late, but was your NPC fighter wearing medium or heavier armor? If so, he had gauntlets, and was there fore armed. And the shield attack idea was spot on.
Yes, he was wearing masterwork chain mail. Thanks for that. As I said, I am not done hurling mooks at the party and I will have the opportunity to use the same NPC again (not literally the same, but part of the same faceless army) with these pointers, so you are definitely not too late, and the input is well taken and appreciated. Thanks all! Next time chain boy will not be so cocky when I am done with him *g*