This came up in my game this week, I made a tabletop ruling, and I'm following up...
Suppose a character with Improved Unarmed Strike is using a two-handed ranged weapon (in this case, a longbow). Does the character threaten adjacent squares with an unarmed strike?
If, instead of Improved Unarmed Strike, the character had a natural claw attack. Would this be a different situation?
My tabletop ruling was "no, does not threaten" which was to the party's advantage, but I can't figure out how the RAW handle this situation.
[Note: My players kind of metagamed it, and assumed that an enemy holding a two-handed ranged weapon would not threaten adjacent squares, and deliberately moved through them, confident that they wouldn't be subject to an AOO.]
Thanks!
For Improved Unarmed Strike, they can attack with their feet, so yes they threaten. It is different for claws. If the creature has claws on his hands, then he has to choose to not wield his bow at the end of his turn. This frees up one hand while the other merely holds the bow. If he has claws on his feet, then he can wield the bow and threaten at the same time.
|
[Note: My players kind of metagamed it, and assumed that an enemy holding a two-handed ranged weapon would not threaten adjacent squares, and deliberately moved through them, confident that they wouldn't be subject to an AOO.]
This isn't metagaming. This is making an assumption that most archers are not prepared to strike in melee.
Thanks folks.
|
It depends on if the character with the bow is a monk with improved unarmed strike or not.
According to RAW:
Unarmed Strike (Monk):
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Unarmed Strike (Feat):
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when
unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when
you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can
deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed
After reading all of the unarmed strike stuff, I do find these to be two different cases. A character with improved unarmed strike has been trained to fight with his hands, while a monk has been trained to use his whole body since it's specifically spelled out in the monk entry (and not in improved unarmed strike)
But either way since most 'it doesn't say I can't' players will oppose this call I imagine then it will still be left to the GM.
It depends on if the character with the bow is a monk with improved unarmed strike or not.
According to RAW:
Unarmed Strike (Monk):
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.Unarmed Strike (Feat):
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when
unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when
you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can
deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmedAfter reading all of the unarmed strike stuff, I do find these to be two different cases. A character with improved unarmed strike has been trained to fight with his hands, while a monk has been trained to use his whole body since it's specifically spelled out in the monk entry (and not in improved unarmed strike)
But either way since most 'it doesn't say I can't' players will oppose this call I imagine then it will still be left to the GM.
Ah, but look in the Combat section under Unarmed Attacks.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from teh 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, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below)."Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, whether or not he is a monk, can make attacks of opportunity with unarmed strikes (or attacks). He can make those attacks with his punches, kicks, and headbutts.
So, yes, a Longbowman with IUS, threatens in 5' radius (provided that the is a Medium or Small humanoid), even when wielding his bow.
Master Arminas
|
|
I did see that, and nowhere under that does it say someone with improved unarmed strike (the feat) can use kicks, headbutts, etc. It just say that striking with a punch(everyone can do), kicks(monk), headbutts(monk) is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except the following:
absent is the text that says "A 'character with improved unarmed strike' attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a 'character with improved unarmed strike' may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
only says it under monk. A MONKS' attack's...(insert rest)
but as I said, this falls under the 'it doesn't say you can't vs. it doesn't say you can' and as I am usually on the 'it doesn't say you can' side.
Edit: I am not arguing that it provokes, it does provoke. But you can't do anything with a bow in your hands unless you are a monk. (they can kick and headbutt, but you lack to training required to move around on the battlefield maintaining normal combat efficiency while leaving all of your limbs available with a weapon.)
Now I have a silly image in my head of an archer trying to fire accurately whilst kicking someone. :)
|
|
I did see that, and nowhere under that does it say someone with improved unarmed strike (the feat) can use kicks, headbutts, etc. It just say that striking with a punch(everyone can do), kicks(monk), headbutts(monk) is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except the following:
absent is the text that says "A 'character with improved unarmed strike' attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a 'character with improved unarmed strike' may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
only says it under monk. A MONKS' attack's...(insert rest)
but as I said, this falls under the 'it doesn't say you can't vs. it doesn't say you can' and as I am usually on the 'it doesn't say you can' side.
Edit: I am not arguing that it provokes, it does provoke. But you can't do anything with a bow in your hands unless you are a monk. (they can kick and headbutt, but you lack to training required to move around on the battlefield maintaining normal combat efficiency while leaving all of your limbs available with a weapon.)
Now I have a silly image in my head of an archer trying to fire accurately whilst kicking someone. :)
Under that logic IUS is useless, because it doesn't say you can punch either.
It never makes an exception in that text that says only X can do Y types of attacks, it just says "Unarmed attacks are this" and "These people can do unarmed attacks".
The text under the monk description is meant as clarification, not redefinition (with the exception of the "no offhand attacks" bit). Why the clarification? To prevent stickler DMs such as yourself from restricting the monk unfairly, and also to evoke images of how a monk might fight.
I did see that, and nowhere under that does it say someone with improved unarmed strike (the feat) can use kicks, headbutts, etc. It just say that striking with a punch(everyone can do), kicks(monk), headbutts(monk) is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except the following:
absent is the text that says "A 'character with improved unarmed strike' attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a 'character with improved unarmed strike' may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
only says it under monk. A MONKS' attack's...(insert rest)
but as I said, this falls under the 'it doesn't say you can't vs. it doesn't say you can' and as I am usually on the 'it doesn't say you can' side.
Edit: I am not arguing that it provokes, it does provoke. But you can't do anything with a bow in your hands unless you are a monk. (they can kick and headbutt, but you lack to training required to move around on the battlefield maintaining normal combat efficiency while leaving all of your limbs available with a weapon.)
Now I have a silly image in my head of an archer trying to fire accurately whilst kicking someone. :)
Even if, for the sake of argument, things worked how you are apparently assuming they do (which I do not believe), a Longbowman would still get his attacks of opportunity. Why? Because, attacks of opportunity are actions taken outside the sequence of your normal turn.
For example:
Longbowman goes on initiative count 17. He's a 7th level ranger with the archery style and the feats Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot (from ranger style) and Rapid Shot (from his normal feats). He gets three attacks at +5/+5/+0 (before ability scores and magic and weapon focus). He makes three attacks as a full-attack action. Before his turn ends, he ceases wielding his longbow in both hands and instead holds it in one.
Mook A goes on inititive count 16. He decides to get around the Longbowman that so that he and Mook B can flank. Entering the Lowbowman's threatened space doesn't provoke, but he moves into the next adjacent square which DOES. Longbowman punches Mook A with his free hand, and since he has IUS, doesn't receive an attack of opportunity in reply. Does a bit of damage.
And so on, and so forth. So, even if your interpretation holds (which I don't think it does), the Longbowman can still get an AoO with an unarmed strike. IF he has the feat Improved Unarmed Strike.
Master Arminas
I disagreed with blackbloodtroll and LearnTheRules in the discussion about natural attacks plus unarmed strikes, but in this case, I completely agree (except perhaps with bbt's last statement about "any creature with a physical body," but there's no need to go in to that now).
An archer wielding a ranged weapon in two hands can still threaten and take attacks of opportunity with unarmed strikes if he has IUS.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that archers don't ever have two hands on their bows. They only use the second hand for firing. Once you're not firing, there's zero reason for your hand not to be free.
If I'm at a table and the GM "rules" that both hands are on the bow when not firing, then I'll be pantomiming it the whole time just to make sure everyone knows how incredibly silly all that GM's archers look.