I don't know that this has ever been specifically addressed in Pathfinder, so largely it's up to your GM's interpretation unless someone can find a reference on this. However...
3.5 Rules compendium, Actions in Combat, Page 9: Footnote 29.
Does sundering an object provoke an attack of opportunity, "If the object is being held, carried, or worn by a creature, yes, but only from that creature. If not, no."
3.5 Rules compendium, Objects, Page 106: Attacking Objects.
AC of an unattended object = 10 - 5 (Effective dex 0) - 2 (circumstance bonus in this situation). Also if you line up a shot as a full-round action you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon or +5 to hit with a ranged weapon.
Edit: Don't forget you would also apply the size modifier for the weapon.
Hope that helps.
Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
In short, you hit and automatically do damage and you do not provoke an AoO.
It wouldn't be sunder. It's attacking an object, right?
I'm confused.
Are you trying to sunder the weapon you disarmed from him? If so you are way off the rails. You simply can't do that without a GM saying yes.
I completely disagree with this. What he's asking easily possible and it's up to the GM to determine how to adjudicate it.
Unless this is said in jest and I've completely missed it!
Did you remember to take the -4 to disarm for being unarmed? (Just asking)
As for CMD, I'd consider it an unattended object, so its AC.
It would not provoke from anyone.
Actually, the rules state that you can attempt to "sunder" an item being held or worn by your opponent. I think the reason why it only qualifies as a sunder when it is in the possession of another is because the sunder is a combat maneuver and is challenged by your opponent's CMD.
An object (including a weapon) does not have a CMD of its own. So this is not a sunder. It is attacking an object, as has been stated.
You may be trying to "sunder" it in the sense of the English language word, having to do with chopping or breaking a thing into pieces, but you are not sundering it by the game mechanic's terminology.
Now, the real question is, how do you adjudicate an "attack" against an object in your own hands? You might get an automatic attack against it, using your monk's unarmed attack damage, which would apply against the item's hardness and hit points. That's probably how I would do it.
As to AoO, yes, I can't help but to feel that trying to break a rather strong item with your bare hands might provoke. Improved Sunder would have nothing to do with it. I can see an argument against that, since attacking an object is an attack, per se. But to my mind this action distracts you at least for a moment (you are concentrating on what is in your hands). That's how I would rule, anyway.
Actually, the rules state that you can attempt to "sunder" an item being held or worn by your opponent. I think the reason why it only qualifies as a sunder when it is in the possession of another is because the sunder is a combat maneuver and is challenged by your opponent's CMD.
An object (including a weapon) does not have a CMD of its own. So this is not a sunder. It is attacking an object, as has been stated.
You may be trying to "sunder" it in the sense of the English language word, having to do with chopping or breaking a thing into pieces, but you are not sundering it by the game mechanic's terminology.
Now, the real question is, how do you adjudicate an "attack" against an object in your own hands? You might get an automatic attack against it, using your monk's unarmed attack damage, which would apply against the item's hardness and hit points. That's probably how I would do it.
As to AoO, yes, I can't help but to feel that trying to break a rather strong item with your bare hands might provoke. Improved Sunder would have nothing to do with it. I can see an argument against that, since attacking an object is an attack, per se. But to my mind this action distracts you at least for a moment (you are concentrating on what is in your hands). That's how I would rule, anyway.
Attacking an object is still done via sunder.
Did you remember to take the -4 to disarm for being unarmed? (Just asking)
As for CMD, I'd consider it an unattended object, so its AC.
It would not provoke from anyone.
As a monk, he is considered to be armed even when unarmed, thanks to Improved Unarmed Strike. He would not take any penalty for attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed.
Does sundering a weapon I am currently holding with an unarmed attack still provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone who is still threatening me? And since a sunder is normally against an opponent's CMD, what would I be rolling against to sunder this weapon?
In response to the OP, no, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone who is threatening you. Attempting to sunder the weapon would provoke an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver, which is either the weapon (an inanimate object) or yourself as the wielder. So you shouldn't worry about provoking an AoO, unless you're really considering attack yourself or are worried about intelligent items fighting back.
As for what you are rolling against, once the weapon was in your hands, you'd be making a combat maneuver check opposed by the object's AC of 3 (10 + 0 size modifier - 5 Dexterity modifier - 2 inanimate object penalty).
If successful, deal damage as normal, reduced by hardness (5 for a two-handed hafted weapon like a naginata, add +2 for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items).
If you can manage to deal damage equal to or greater than half the weapon's total hit points (10 hp for a two-handed weapon, add 10 hp for each +1 enhancement bonus of magic items), the weapon would gain the broken condition. If you reduce the weapon's hp to 0, it is ruined.
He'd take the penalty because his disarm is with his hands not a weapon, not because he's non-proficient. Sunder is used on all objects and of course Hydra heads.
He'd take the penalty because his disarm is with his hands not a weapon, not because he's non-proficient. Sunder is used on all objects and of course Hydra heads.
Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
You're right, nothing to do with proficiency. Key is being unarmed vs. armed.
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.
Monk gets IUS at level 1, is considered armed not unarmed, doesn't take penalty. Again, nothing to do with proficiency.
He'd take the penalty because his disarm is with his hands not a weapon, not because he's non-proficient. Sunder is used on all objects and of course Hydra heads.Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.You're right, nothing to do with proficiency. Key is being unarmed vs. armed.
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.Monk gets IUS at level 1, is considered armed not unarmed, doesn't take penalty. Again, nothing to do with proficiency.
Wow! That never occurred to me. I've been taking that penalty all this time for no reason.
Actually the penalty goes back to 3.5 and is due to the difference in weapon size.
Actually the penalty goes back to 3.5 and is due to the difference in weapon size.
In 3.5, that might matter. In Pathfinder, there is no mention of weapon size in the description of the Disarm combat maneuver. A Pathfinder monk is still not taking a -4 penalty for attempting to disarm while not wielding a weapon.
Monks still take the -4 penalty in my games (not really relevant, I know). I always assumed it was to balance being able to keep the disarmed weapon. Snatching the weapon away as opposed to just knocking it out of someone's hand.
Monks still take the -4 penalty in my games (not really relevant, I know). I always assumed it was to balance being able to keep the disarmed weapon. Snatching the weapon away as opposed to just knocking it out of someone's hand.
For a typical unarmed person, that balance is exactly what the penalty represents. For a monk or anyone else who has trained specifically in unarmed combat, meaning they have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, that's not balancing anything, that's penalizing them in spite of that character's focus on exactly that type of situation. Doubly so for a monk with the Improved Disarm feat, as in the OP's case.