Attacks of Opportunity can be a little confusing. The current confusion in one of my groups is whether a creature performing an AoO needs to attack using one of the weapons it was threatening with. For instance, can a PC threatening a square with a shield bash when an enemy provokes an AoO use his (unimproved) unarmed strike with the other hand to make the AoO instead, or is he compelled to use the shield for the AoO?
Now imagine that the PC was wearing an activated Deliquescent Glove and therefore had a melee touch attack for 1d6 acid damage. This touch attack would also threaten squares and could also presumably be used to make an AoO. Could the PC use the option to deliver the touch attack via an unarmed strike, or would that not be a legal AoO since the unarmed strike itself doesn't threaten?
|
The PC can use whatever currently activated, held, or armed melee option they choose.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Deliquescent Glove just adds 1d6 I thought. Are you sure it makes your attacks a touch attack? That seems a little strong.
Edit: Nevermind! I missed that part on the gloves. If they did have a melee touch attack that was some kind of melee or ranged with the right feats, they could certainly do that.
I'll paste the description of the gloves to clarify what they do.
DELIQUESCENT GLOVES
Price 8,000 gp; Aura moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Weight1 lb.
These heavy leather gloves ripple and flows at the wearer's command, reshaping to fit any hand, claw, tentacle, or alien limb. The wearer's melee touch attacks with that hand deal 1d6 points of acid damage. If the wearer uses that hand to wield a weapon or make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon, that attack gains the corrosive weapon special ability.The wearer's gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strikes or natural attacks without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 4,000 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, acid arrow, summon monster V
I'm already comfortable with the fact that I can use the gloves to make a melee touch attack for 1d6 acid as an AoO. I'm also pretty sure that I can deliver the 1d6 acid damage on an unarmed strike (for 1d3+3 damage plus 1d6 acid damage). What I'm less sure of is whether I can do that as an AoO even though the unarmed strike itself doesn't threaten.
I also have some questions about the magic item itself such as whether the magic applies to both hands or just one. The item is called "gloves" , and the description refers to "gloves", but then it says "that hand" instead of "those hands". That might be best covered in another thread though I guess.
You are free to make an attack of opportunity with any weapon at your disposal, including weapons that do not, themselves, threaten, because it is creatures that threaten, not weapons, and they threaten when they have a weapon wielded. This is a fine distinction, but important nonetheless.
Threatened Squares: [u]You[/u] threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
This means that threatening with a shield gives you the option of attacking with that shield, a touch attack, an unarmed strike, or even a sunder or disarm attempt.
This does come with a slight caveat, however. Just because you get an AOO does not guarantee you immunity of any kind. Your attack could provoke an AOO itself, if you were making an unimproved combat maneuver, for example, or attacking with an unarmed strike.
A touch attack, however, is *not* an unarmed strike. You are considered armed at all times with those gloves. Please not that those gloves are ridiculous and stupidly underpriced. :)
As for your final question, the text on the gloves is explicit, but confusing. They are most definitely a pair of gloves. The only thing that makes logical sense is that the additional text was meant to say "If the wearer uses that one of those hands" rather than just "Hand," but the meaning is honestly the same. The only difference is as it comes to creatures with more than two arms, such as Mariliths. They still only get one glove slot, but not all weapons would benefit from these gloves - only the two held by gloved hands. For a basic humanoid PC, this will never come up.
Best of luck,
Brogue
I read it. I'm aware of it. I posted it, in fact. I don't see what point you're trying to make in regards to my post. Could you clarify, please?
Yes, yes, I'm aware of the line you pointed out. I don't see what you're attempting to imply, though. Everything I stated is correct, and you seem to be doing nothing but pointing out something I already pointed out, which is fairly pointless.
So if you feel you have a point that matters, could you perhaps clarify it, rather than simply copy-pasting? Because you've yet to make a point of any kind that invalidates what I've been saying.
Something we discussed briefly at the game was how my PC could presumably substitute a Trip for the AoO even though "Trip" isn't a weapon he threatens with. I guess maybe the idea is that you trip somebody with your weapon. This makes sense with a staff but seems a little weird with a melee touch attack which somehow manages to trip the enemy without harming him.
Of course tripping would be useless against a black pudding. I was just proposing it in an attempt to show that the AoO doesn't have to be made with a weapon, but perhaps if you threaten with a dagger and make a trip attempt then the trip attempt is presumed to be performed with the dagger even if lashing out with your foot makes much more thematic sense.
The unarmed strike vs melee touch distinction seems like a pretty fine one since a PC with Improved Unarmed Strike could certainly make an AoO with an unarmed strike and thereby deliver the touch attack. I guess a similar situation might be if a Magus had a whip with a charge of shocking grasp in her "primary" hand and a spiked gauntlet on her "off" hand. Whips don't threaten any area, but spiked gauntlets do. If an enemy provokes an AoO can the Magus smack him with the whip? If so is that because the enemy was threatened by the gauntlet or because the whip has a threatening touch attack in it?
|
|
In the example, you have a shield, you're not unarmed. Shields are weapons.If you're unarmed, you don't threaten.
In the original example, the OP asked this:
"For instance, can a PC threatening a square with a shield bash when an enemy provokes an AoO use his (unimproved) unarmed strike with the other hand to make the AoO instead?"
That is what I was addressing.
Yes, yes, I'm aware of the line you pointed out. I don't see what you're attempting to imply, though. Everything I stated is correct, and you seem to be doing nothing but pointing out something I already pointed out, which is fairly pointless.So if you feel you have a point that matters, could you perhaps clarify it, rather than simply copy-pasting? Because you've yet to make a point of any kind that invalidates what I've been saying.
You're being a little hostile, so I'm going to leave it at this. Your original post implied you could threaten with an unarmed strike, which you cannot unless you have the feat. That is all I was pointing out. If that's what you meant, you weren't very clear at expressing it, so if we're in agreement, then there's nothing to argue about.
I'm going to hit everything here.
Something we discussed briefly at the game was how my PC could presumably substitute a Trip for the AoO even though "Trip" isn't a weapon he threatens with. I guess maybe the idea is that you trip somebody with your weapon. This makes sense with a staff but seems a little weird with a melee touch attack which somehow manages to trip the enemy without harming him.
You could make a trip attempt with your weapon, if you'd like, but you're not obligated to. The attack of opportunity gives you an attack - not an attack with a weapon that you are currently threatening. If you have quickdraw you could even, presumably, draw a new weapon and make an attack with that, as long as your GM isn't opposed to that (free actions are defined as being allowable with any other action, per GM permission).
Of course tripping would be useless against a black pudding. I was just proposing it in an attempt to show that the AoO doesn't have to be made with a weapon,
You are sort of correct. You don't have to make an AOO with a manufactured weapon, yes. You could use a natural weapon, an unarmed strike, a touch attack from an item or held spell, et cetera.
but perhaps if you threaten with a dagger
This is the part that is continually being missed. You *do not* threaten with a dagger. You threaten, as a creature, while *wielding* a dagger. There is a difference. A naked, prone, weaponless orc with the Toothy racial threatens at all times and is never considered unarmed (well, barring strange and toothless circumstances).
and make a trip attempt then the trip attempt is presumed to be performed with the dagger even if lashing out with your foot makes much more thematic sense.
Incorrect. Daggers are not trip weapons. Your trip attempt HAS TO BE with your foot or other miscellaneous body part / combination of body parts (such as a leverage throw). It is not necessary to make an attack of opportunity with the weapon you were threatening with. Period.
The unarmed strike vs melee touch distinction seems like a pretty fine one
It may seem that way, but once you get more used to the rules you'll start to see that they're fairly distinct.
since a PC with Improved Unarmed Strike could certainly make an AoO with an unarmed strike and thereby deliver the touch attack.
I'm... not actually sure you can do this. It's not something we've ever allowed, especially since there are so many abilities that give you the option to do this (like the cleric one that lets you deliver your domain stuff through unarmed strikes), and I looked through the rules on unarmed strikes, touch attacks, and holding the charge just now and I couldn't find it. Can you cite this?
[quote[I guess a similar situation might be if a Magus had a whip with a charge of shocking grasp in her "primary" hand and a spiked gauntlet on her "off" hand. Whips don't threaten any area, but spiked gauntlets do. If an enemy provokes an AoO can the Magus smack him with the whip?
Yes, 100% yes.
If so is that because the enemy was threatened by the gauntlet or because the whip has a threatening touch attack in it?
Neither. The enemy was threatened by the CREATURE, who threatens BECAUSE he is wielding weapons.
However, if you use the whip against him on your AOO, you will provoke an AOO from the enemy, because using a whip against an adjacent enemy provokes an AOO (presumably he is adjacent since you gave him the option to gauntlet him).
If the weapon doesn't threaten, why should you be able to use it for an AoO just because you're also wielding another weapon which does threaten?
Because the point of the threat is that it creates an issue that the defender (who provoked the AoO) needs to take into account in his behavior.
In a "realistic" combat, for example, I can use the knife in my hand to distract you momentarily while I stomp on your foot. Many martial arts, krav maga being a notable one, live and die by this kind of combination attack. Pathfinder, like D&D, doesn't go into that kind of detail (a good boxer can throw a half-dozen punches a second, and of course even a 20th level fighter can't get that kind of speed), and instead abstracts away most of the individual tricks, moves, and techniques in favor of an abstract "attack."
Shield bash lets you use a shield in such a way that you're a credible threat with it. This means that a combatant will be paying attention to your shield, and therefore less attention to what you're doing with your whip. Rather than doing some elaborate attack-parry-riposte-feint-counter-in-sexte routine (although Lace and Steel is great if you want that level of fencing detail), you simply roll to hit with what the ultimate aim of the combination is.
|
In the original example, the OP asked this:
"For instance, can a PC threatening a square with a shield bash when an enemy provokes an AoO use his (unimproved) unarmed strike with the other hand to make the AoO instead?"
That is what I was addressing.
In this example, he's not unarmed, since he's obviously proficient with using shields as weapons. Therefore, he's threatening. The statement "if you're unarmed, you don't threaten" doesn't apply, because you are armed, with a shield.
You seem to be trying to create a weird paradox where "I threaten squares because I can shield bash them, but when I take an attack of opportunity with one of the weapons I have at my disposal, I count as unarmed, so I don't threaten, so I can't take an attack of opportunity with one of the weapons I have at my disposal".
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
So, being able to make an attack of opportunity is a result of whether or not you threaten the square. To be able to threaten a square, you need to be able to make a melee attack into it. If you're unarmed, you can't threaten squares.
However, if you can shield bash into a square, you threaten that square, and can therefore make attacks of opportunity into it. The attack of opportunity is a melee attack; it doesn't say what kind of melee attack it is.
First off, I apologize if I'm coming off as hostile. I assure you I'm sitting here entirely non-hostile. I realize my typing style has a tendency to be a little cold, but I promise I'm not being derogatory at all; I just didn't understand what you were getting at.
Your original post implied you could threaten with an unarmed strike, which you cannot unless you have the feat. That is all I was pointing out. If that's what you meant, you weren't very clear at expressing it, so if we're in agreement, then there's nothing to argue about.
Close, but you missed a few points I made.
You are free to make an attack of opportunity with any weapon at your disposal, including weapons that do not, themselves, threaten, because it is creatures that threaten, not weapons, and they threaten when they have a weapon wielded.
This means that threatening with a shield gives you the option of attacking with that shield, a touch attack, an unarmed strike, or even a sunder or disarm attempt.
I had said that he could make his AOO with an unarmed strike if he so chose, not that the unarmed strike necessarily threatened. I also further clarified that doing so would provoke an AOO, as well.
If the weapon doesn't threaten, why should you be able to use it for an AoO just because you're also wielding another weapon which does threaten?Because the point of the threat is that it creates an issue that the defender (who provoked the AoO) needs to take into account in his behavior.
...
Thank you, Orfamay Quest. Well said.
but perhaps if you threaten with a daggerThis is the part that is continually being missed. You *do not* threaten with a dagger. You threaten, as a creature, while *wielding* a dagger. There is a difference. A naked, prone, weaponless orc with the Toothy racial threatens at all times and is never considered unarmed (well, barring strange and toothless circumstances).
and make a trip attempt then the trip attempt is presumed to be performed with the dagger even if lashing out with your foot makes much more thematic sense.Incorrect. Daggers are not trip weapons. Your trip attempt HAS TO BE with your foot or other miscellaneous body part / combination of body parts (such as a leverage throw). It is not necessary to make an attack of opportunity with the weapon you are threatening with.
Concur in part, dissent in part. You're right that you don't need to make an AoO with the weapon you are threatening with, and in fact, the phrase "the weapon you are threatening with" doesn't even make sense, since you are not threatening with a dagger, you are threatening because you are holding a dagger.
That said, you don't need to be using a trip weapon to make a trip attack. All a trip weapon does is save you from a potential AoO yourself. Check the FAQs. I can "trip" someone with a beer bottle.
And, of course, the reason for that is because combat is so abstract that the idea of "attacking with a specific weapon" (as well as "one attack per round") is faintly ludicrous, but it's much more playable than the alternative. I can easily make a "trip" attack by taking a step, putting my foot behind yours and slashing the dagger at your eyes. You'll almost instinctively pull away from the knife (it takes a lot of training to avoid that reflex, hence BaB being part of CMD) and you're likely to pull back far enough to throw yourself off-balance and fall on your prat. (Yes, I did practice that move for years, why do you ask?)
Was that an attack with the knife, or with a foot? Yes, to both. Whatever. I'd rather roll the dice and figure out what happened than have a ten minute discussion about biomechanics that leads into a twenty minute discussion of the relative merits of the Hoo Flung Dung school versus the Samurai Tom Katsu school.
|
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Interesting. You are correct. FAQ has clarified that you can trip with any weapon. That's one of the hazards of Pathfinder, the copy paste. The Trip Weapon ability clearly states: "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped." meaning that non-trip weapons cannot trip, and while the Trip section states nothing on the subject, indicating that the equipment section's specificity declares the rule, there is a FAQ ruling on the subject.
"Q: The wording in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game for trip attempts seems to imply that you can now trip with any type of weapon unlike in 3.5. If you do use a trip weapon the benefit seems to be that one can drop the weapon to if one fails by ten where a non-trip weapon would cause you to be tripped?
A: (Official FAQ 3/15/11) Yes you may trip with any weapon unlike in 3.5 D&D. See the "official FAQ" for the full details."
Really a non-change, to be honest, as there's no difference other than theme about tripping with a nontrip weapon, considered the abstractness of Pathfinder combat (any single "attack" is really a combination of maneuvers that results in a single offensive result). Though I do wish they'd update the text properly.
Haha, I wrote the above before reading your final two paragraphs. Yes, agree completely, and, again, well-stated.
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Awesome, thanks, Flashohol. Don't know how I missed that. Twice.
Yeah, I saw that when I searched for that specific text. That was why I missed it. >.< I searched magic chapter for touch spells and combat for unarmed, heh. xD
Regarding the "gloves" vs "hand" issue, I notice that the item description points out that the gloves will adjust to fit "any hand, claw, tentacle, or alien limb". I think this gives more credence to Brogue's idea that maybe the text is just trying to point out that only the limbs wearing the gloves gain the acidic benefits. If both hands can make corrosive attacks that makes the item a great buy for TWF.
All this makes me wonder even more about the touch attacks though. Could you use TWF (with or without the feat) to deliver 2d6 acid damage in a single round? Also, if you've got a high enough BAB could you make iterative melee touch attacks for 1d6 acid? It would be sort of weird if the acid counts multiple times per round if you punch somebody but only once if you just slap them. I mean, the rules are a little weird sometimes, and I can live with that to some extent. I'm just not sure what's intended here. Of course this has very little to do with whether I can make AoOs with weapons which don't threaten (or allow me to threaten as Brogue might say), but I guess I'm free to hijack my own thread a bit...
Many martial arts, krav maga being a notable one, live and die by this kind of combination attack.
Coincidentally my PC looks just like Eugene Hutz, who is a friend of Madonna, who has studied krav maga. I'm not sure if this constitutes proof that my PC should be able to perform AoOs with his unarmed strike though, especially since studying krav maga seems a bit like taking the IUS feat.
Coincidentally my PC looks just like Eugene Hutz, who is a friend of Madonna, who has studied krav maga. I'm not sure if this constitutes proof that my PC should be able to perform AoOs with his unarmed strike though, especially since studying krav maga seems a bit like taking the IUS feat.
I would say that studying any form of martial arts is taking the IUS feat. Not so sure about looking like someone who is a friend of someone who studies any form of martial arts would count, though....
If you have quickdraw you could even, presumably, draw a new weapon and make an attack with that, as long as your GM isn't opposed to that (free actions are defined as being allowable with any other action, per GM permission).
Several problems with this. AoO's are not game defined actions which one could take a free action with (some GM's may allow it).
Free actions can only be done on your turn (with the specific example of speaking being called out as an exception). Of course some AoO's could be provoked on your turn such as through an AoO chain.
I disagree with your assertion that it is you that threatens and thus granting you the option to use any weapon at your disposal.
If you have a weapon with reach, say a dwarven longaxe and a critter moves around you at 10' distance. You threaten those squares and thus can make an AoO. But, you cannot choose to use a different weapon to do so. Including the use of Quickdraw which is fundamentally limited to only being available on your own turn.
I disagree with your assertion that it is you that threatens and thus granting you the option to use any weapon at your disposal.
....
I am with you. TWF with a a one-handed reach weapon (lets say a whip with imp. whip mastery) and a bastard sword dont qualify for 1d10 reach attacks in a 10ft radius.
It sounds almost as if the OP has people actively using actions to threaten spaces. If so, that's not correct. When armed, you automatically threaten spaces you can reach.
If you have a reach weapon in one hand (not practical but for the sake of argument let's say that it's a one-handed reach weapon) and a non-reach weapon in the other hand, that's the only time you would threaten with only one weapon I can imagine.
I disagree with your assertion that it is you that threatens and thus granting you the option to use any weapon at your disposal.
If you have a weapon with reach, say a dwarven longaxe and a critter moves around you at 10' distance. You threaten those squares and thus can make an AoO. But, you cannot choose to use a different weapon to do so.
Good point. But I draw a different conclusion. You can choose any weapon you like to attack with, subject to all the normal rules for that weapon -- e.g., you can't attack with a weapon at greater than its range. Similarly, you can take any action you could take "in place of a melee attack" or "instead of an attack of opportunity," again subject to the usual limitations.
Quickdraw is a red herring. You can't use the Quickdraw feat during an AoO because it lets you draw a weapon as a free action, something you can't do when it's not your turn. (That's what immediate actions are for; a feat that let you draw a weapon as an immediate action would indeed let you change weapons for an AoO).
But, for example, I could use the Lunge feat to extend my reach, because that doesn't cost an action.
Free actions can only be done on your turn (with the specific example of speaking being called out as an exception). Of course some AoO's could be provoked on your turn such as through an AoO chain.Source. This sets precedent that you can use a free action in conjunction with an AoO, such as changing grip on your weapon or quick-drawing a weapon.Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
No, it sets a precedent that the Snap Shot feat should actually work the way it was intended to work (as opposed to not actually working at all), and that it should work in conjunction with other feats that effect AoO's as well.
See also Flashohol's point.
What kind of action is it to draw and nock and arrow? It is a 'not an action'.
Search for arrow in the combat section of the prd. Its not a free action. It's a "not an action"Yes, but this means a musket master gunslinger of level 3 or above, with the snap shot and combat reflexes feat, could take multiple AoOs in a single round. And reloading the musket would require a free action. So there's your precedent for using free actions when it's not your turn.
The general rule for taking a free action is that it can only be done on your turn.
The rules on taking an AoO do not alter this in any way, shape or fashion.
The rules on snap shot say nothing about altering this.
The FAQ on snap shot says that yes, you can make multiple shots if you have combat reflexes.
This isn't precedent setting for how an AoO works. This is a specific overrides general. The specific being, when you have the snap shot feat you can actually use with your ranged weapon AoO's in conjunction with combat reflexes.
@Kazann, are you actually reading my posts? My last post has nothing to do with bows.
My first response was in the context of bows (error on my part) - my last one was not.
Snap shot specifically allows taking a free action to reload a ranged weapon. This isn't a precedent of you can take free actions during an AoO. This is specifically you can take the specific free action of reloading your weapon for purposes of the snap shot feat working with combat reflexes. It does not say you can take any free action you want during any kind of AoO you are making.
Lunge is specifically not normally available on AoO's. You may only lunge during your turn; although, the penalty lasts for the entire round. And, there are some weird combination of events which might allow you to AoO while it is actually your turn, but not normally speaking.
My original question didn't have anything to do with reach or ranged weapons. I just added some thoughts about a Magus with a whip to a later post in an attempt to give a somewhat similar situation where you have a weapon which doesn't threaten (the whip) and might want to use it to perform an AoO you earned because somebody performed an AoO generating action in one of your threatened squares.
Upon further reflection I guess the thing which really confused the matter for me is the fact that the AoO would be made with the same hand whether I'm using a melee touch attack or an unarmed strike. I suppose the idea that you can only perform an AoO with a weapon you threaten with might make a certain amount of sense, but it seems pretty weird when the same hand is two different "weapons".