Improved Disarm while unarmed

[Mephestopheles]

I was rereading the Improved Disarm and I started to think about RAI vs RAW for this feat while unarmed. Just to clarify, when I say "unarmed", I mean without Improved Unarmed Strike.

For example, let's say that Frank the Fighter has the feat Improved Disarm. He is facing off against Harold the Hobgoblin (who, for the sake of the story, is armed with a longsword) and for whatever unexplained reason Frank does not have any weapon. Frank attempts to disarm Harold and...

Here is where I start to wonder. Does Harold get an AoO against Frank or not?

Disarm states:
"You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."

However, Unarmed Attack states:
"...Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack."

I think that RAW states that Harold the Hobgoblin doesn't get an AoO. But so the RAI suggest that he should? Wouldn't it be just as easy if not easier for someone to take an AoO against an unarmed opponent who is trying to grab their weapon compared to trying to punch them? Or does Improved Disarm cover the training needed to be able to snatch someones weapon away without risking an AoO.

As I write this I begin to think that RAI and RAW may be the same in this case, but I would still appreciate your thoughts on this subject?

-M

[Snapshot]

OP :

Mephestopheles wrote:

I was rereading the Improved Disarm and I started to think about RAI vs RAW for this feat while unarmed. Just to clarify, when I say "unarmed", I mean without Improved Unarmed Strike.

For example, let's say that Frank the Fighter has the feat Improved Disarm. He is facing off against Harold the Hobgoblin (who, for the sake of the story, is armed with a longsword) and for whatever unexplained reason Frank does not have any weapon. Frank attempts to disarm Harold and...

Here is where I start to wonder. Does Harold get an AoO against Frank or not?

Disarm states:
"You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."

However, Unarmed Attack states:
"...Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack."

I think that RAW states that Harold the Hobgoblin doesn't get an AoO. But so the RAI suggest that he should? Wouldn't it be just as easy if not easier for someone to take an AoO against an unarmed opponent who is trying to grab their weapon compared to trying to punch them? Or does Improved Disarm cover the training needed to be able to snatch someones weapon away without risking an AoO.

As I write this I begin to think that RAI and RAW may be the same in this case, but I would still appreciate your thoughts on this subject?

-M

Your error is in thinking that Disarm is an unarmed attack in this instance. It is not, it is a Combat Maneuver and not subject to the Unarmed Attack rule.
You need only read the Disarm and Improved Disarm entries.
In this case Frank would not provoke an AoO from Harold.

[Jiggy]

Determining in which ways a maneuver is treated as an ordinary attack and in which ways it is not... This is one of the more delicate arts in rules interpretation. ;)

In this case, I agree with Snapshot. Remember, too, that there's already a built-in -4 penalty for a weaponless disarm, so they've already got that extra difficulty covered.

[Mephestopheles]

Thanks for the info. :)

"Determining in which ways a maneuver is treated as an ordinary attack and in which ways it is not... This is one of the more delicate arts in rules interpretation. ;)" - Jiggy

So true!