Ahoy! Just want to be sure I'm not missing something vital.
So, I have a non-monk character choosing to use the Shielded Gauntlet style feats. They opted to use basic gauntlets, not spiked gauntlets. The character wields a dagger in one hand. They do not have Improved Unarmed Strike.
The character chooses to make an attack with their gauntlet alone.
1) As this is an unarmed attack, do they still provoke AoO? Or, is the fact that they're otherwise holding a dagger (threatening spaces around them with it/considered armed) mean that they don't provoke AoO?
My opinion is that they don't provoke AoO.
It seems if they didn't have the dagger, they'd provoke AoO as it's considered an unarmed attack, and they have nothing equipped to suggest they're armed and threatening. Likewise, it seems they would provoke AoO if their melee weapon of choice was something two-handed or a weapon with reach.
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 the 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 (but 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 both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
-
=
-
2) The character is an Occultist and wishes to know whether to apply Legacy Weapon or Aegis (Effectively a weapon enhancement bonus or armor enhancement bonus) particularly for use with the Shielded Gauntlet Master feat, which uses this enhancement bonus for extra shield AC.
My opinion is that they use the weapon enhancement bonus.
However, I'm unsure if the armor enhancement bonus would work as well with regards to the feat. I'd be lenient and suggest that both work (without stacking), but thought I'd post the question here.
|
#1) A normal gauntlet only changes damage type from non-lethal to lethal. Still considered an unarmed strike and thus provoking an AOO on attack.
Having the dagger in hand changes nothing for attacks with the gauntlet itself and the fact of threatening an area around you has nothing to do with AOO you provoke. It just let's you make them against others.
A spiked gauntlet, however, is treated as an armed weapon and so you'd not provoke with them.
#2) While a gauntlet is part of an armor, by itself it is a weapon. You can't enchant it as an armor at all. While Shield Gauntlet Style let's you treat the gauntlet as a buckler (thus a shield) for feats and abilities, the gauntlet doesn't have a shield bonus at all and the shield bonus you get is from the feat, not the gauntlet. You can't use Aegis on the gauntlet.
Nevertheless, since it is a weapon, it is implicit that when the Shielded Gauntlet Master feat mentions "enhancement bonus" it is referring to "weapon enhancement bonus".
Thank you both for answers to part 2.
As for Part 1
A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. So attacking an armed foe provokes an AoO. The gauntlet bypasses the -4 for unarmed attack doing lethal damage.
As to whether he threatens it is kinda a pickle and the Spiked Gauntlet description argues "NO" for the regular gauntlet.AFAIK a weapon in either hand(primary or off) threatens within reach but in this case the two descriptions have the regular gauntlet at a disadvantage.
If they attack with the gauntlet and want the AC bonus it attacks as an off-hand weapon and provokes, otherwise normal and no AC bonus that round and it still provokes.
Having the dagger in hand changes nothing for attacks with the gauntlet itself and the fact of threatening an area around you has nothing to do with AOO you provoke. It just let's you make them against others.
"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 both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
I'd agree with you both in just about any other context of an action that provokes AoO while wielding a weapon. Having a quarterstaff wouldn't prevent a wizard from provoking AoO when casting a spell non-defensively, for example. An unarmed attack is clearly an action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
The reason I saw a gray area in this particular scenario is because of the wording under unarmed attacks; It seems to omit characters that are both armed and making unarmed attacks except for those specifically mentioned as "Armed" unarmed attacks. The section highlighted suggests that being armed includes one in the category of making "armed" unarmed attacks, which don't provoke. A natural weapon puts you into that category whether you use it or not, no?
It's a shame that any other weapon, even spiked gauntlets, is clearly categorized or has wording that makes the point moot, but it's still a relavent question if someone wants to throw a punch or kick a knee in the middle of a swordfight.
In retrospect, I'm perhaps reading too much intention into the rules. Weapon or no, Unarmed attacks provoke AoO, that is the RAW.
|
|
Your highlighted section is a clarification within the "Armed" Unarmed Attacks section. Removing the section from it and trying to apply it to other rules do not work.
There is a difference between making an "armed" unarmed attack vs. being armed and making an unarmed attack. The clause about being "armed" (and thus being able to make AOO and not provoke them) is checked for each weapon you have in your possession, and is not a state that you either have as a whole or not.
An unarmed strike encompasses kicks, punches, knees, elbows, karate chops, slaps, stomps, headbutts and so on. Having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat turns all of them into "armed", which solves the issue. However, having a dagger in hand makes you armed while attacking with said dagger.
Without IUS, if you kick someone with your hands free, holding a dagger, or a pineapple, it changes nothing and you still provoke an AOO, because your opponents are taking advantage of you exposing a part of you that you are not specifically trained to protect.
The logic behind natural attacks are exactly the same. Take a bull (stats of an aurochs) as an example: the only attack stated is gore, which is clearly an armed attack. However, a bull could still kick someone with its hind hooves or stomp a fallen character, but these are not armed and would provoke AOOs as normal. Just because a bull has mighty horns, it doesn't mean his hind hooves are any more dangerous.
The logic behind natural attacks are exactly the same. Take a bull (stats of an aurochs) as an example: the only attack stated is gore, which is clearly an armed attack. However, a bull could still kick someone with its hind hooves or stomp a fallen character, but these are not armed and would provoke AOOs as normal. Just because a bull has mighty horns, it doesn't mean his hind hooves are any more dangerous.
That's.... huh. Okay, I think that opens up a whole other can of worms. I really thought it was cut and dry when it came to natural attacks.
"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).
Natural weapon? No AoO. There's nothing in there that suggests the character/creature needs to be making natural attacks, only that their unarmed attacks are considered "armed". I read one as an umbrella category of the other, the same way unarmed strikes are a kind of unarmed attack. This was only natural, since one could combine unarmed strikes and natural attacks together in one full attack.
When I looked up unarmed attacks previous to this post, there were a bunch of threads discussing the difference between the terms "unarmed attack" and "unarmed strike", especially with regards to monks and whether they could use gauntlets in certain ways, such as by enhancing their unarmed strikes with the gauntlet's materials or special abilities.
So... yeah. When a rogue with Catch Off-Guard attempts to flatfoot someone with a natural attack, they fail because the target is considered armed. If that target punches the rogue in the face for their efforts, that's an "Armed" unarmed attack, even if their natural attack is a bite.
If that's not the way it works, I'm utterly confused.
|
|
So... yeah. When a rogue with Catch Off-Guard attempts to flatfoot someone with a natural attack, they fail because the target is considered armed. If that target punches the rogue in the face for their efforts, that's an "Armed" unarmed attack, even if their natural attack is a bite.
Wrong.
Without the improved unarmed strike feat/monk/brawler/class ability I'm likely to miss, an unarmed strike provokes an AoO. Full stop.
Doesn't matter if you have more knives than an edgy 90s comic character, a bite, or anything else. If you aren't attacking with that weapon, it doesn't matter when it comes to that attack. Unarmed is unarmed, and thus provokes.
Having a different weapon at your disposal doesn't help the unarmed strike not provoke
If your example tries to punch the rogue, the rogue gets an AoO and the guy with a bite stands there embarrassed.
|
|
That's.... huh. Okay, I think that opens up a whole other can of worms. I really thought it was cut and dry when it came to natural attacks.
No, it doesn't. Your character has only a sword as his weapon and no IUS, so his attacks with the sword are armed and everything else is not. A bull has its horns as its weapon, so its gore attacks are armed and everything else is not.
Natural attacks are made with natural weapons and each creature has only the natural weapons stated on their sheets. Any other part of its body it eventually uses to attack is not a natural weapon and thus is not a natural attack. These can only be unarmed strikes and should provoke AOOs.
To consider every attack a creature could theoretically make with its body parts as a natural attack would cause each creature to make a huge amount of attacks each turn and that would be a huge can of worms.
It is important to remember that the same rules that apply to characters also apply to creatures.
Natural weapon? No AoO. There's nothing in there that suggests the character/creature needs to be making natural attacks, only that their unarmed attacks are considered "armed". I read one as an umbrella category of the other, the same way unarmed strikes are a kind of unarmed attack. This was only natural, since one could combine unarmed strikes and natural attacks together in one full attack.
Yes, a creature with any natural weapon is considered armed and can make AOOs.
But, again, the only thing that matters to determine if a creature will provoke an AOO when attacking is if the weapon being used is considered armed or not.
Both wolves and lions have teeth and claws, but wolves only have a bite attack, while lions have bite and claws attacks. What does this mean? This means that a wolf's claws is not considered a weapon, not like the lion's. If a wolf tried to make a "claw attack" it would follow the rules of an unarmed strike and provoke AOO.
...If that target punches the rogue in the face for their efforts, that's an "Armed" unarmed attack, even if their natural attack is a bite.
An armed creature isn't the same as an armed attack. Only armed attacks do not provoke AOOs. If you make an unarmed attack without IUS, you'll provoke AOO no matter what, even if you have a dagger in hand or a bite attack.
I'm still concerned.
I'm glad there's a good amount of agreement between others on what happens in an unarmed strike scenario without IUS. The natural attacks thing still concerns me. I don't see anything directly addressing the highlighted rules.
narmed 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 the 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 (but 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 both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
I'm not asking for more rhetoric. Let's go with the interpretation put forth by most here; If you're using an unarmed attack without IUS, without delivering a touch attack spell, it counts as regular unarmed attack and not an "Armed" unarmed attack. The gauntlet only modifies the damage dealt. The point has been very clearly made by, at least 3 people here, that it depends on what attack you are using, and not what else you have/are holding. As Name Violation says, "If you aren't attacking with that weapon, it doesn't matter when it comes to that attack. Unarmed is unarmed, and thus provokes."
So, help me out by quoting some rules to refute the following:
Give that attacker a natural weapon, a bite attack specifically. The player then argues that because they have a natural weapon, they don't provoke an AoO with an unarmed attack.
They quote specifically "a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed", and that "being armed counts for both offense and defense."
The rules are right there; They have a natural physical weapon. The rule doesn't say they need to be using said weapon to perform the attack, no matter what sense that makes; They simply count as being armed, and thus their unarmed attacks count as armed attacks as per the rules. You tell them:
An armed creature isn't the same as an armed attack. Only armed attacks do not provoke AOOs. If you make an unarmed attack without IUS, you'll provoke AOO no matter what, even if you have a dagger in hand or a bite attack.
...Except it specifically says "Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack", and it lists 'a creature with natural physical weapons' as a prerequisite. They reiterate that it says nowhere they need to be actively using their natural weapons. The only case where that's required is when it comes to delivering touch attacks; Those are explicitly armed attacks, stated elsewhere in the rules, and that's why you can't use 'Amulet of Mighty Fists' or the like to modify them.
If you try the IUS 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 when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack."
They point out that the wording doesn't suggest they'd provoke an AoO, as their character isn't unarmed. They have a natural weapon. They are making this unarmed attack while having natural weapons, thus it's an "Armed" unarmed attack. They aren't making an unarmed strike with their gauntlet either; The gauntlet attack is an unarmed attack, but not an unarmed strike. (That's a whole debate over several threads, AFAIK the consensus seems to be that that is the case.)
What else is there?
|
|
thats using orc logic.
by that i mean its like saying orcs are proficient with torches as weapons since they are "proficient with weapons with orc in their name"
its not how it works. im far from the best at explaining things, but i feel like you're trying to smash 2 different rules together to justify why you think it works
and since specific rules over ride general rules in pathfinder you could say the "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike" over rides the "Counts as armed" general rule (i know "normal" text isnt rule text, just reminder)
and if an attack isnt a strike against your opponent, what are you doing with it? aggressively caressing them?
thats using orc logic.
by that i mean its like saying orcs are proficient with torches as weapons since they are "proficient with weapons with orc in their name"
...
and since specific rules over ride general rules in pathfinder you could say the "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike" over rides the "Counts as armed" general rule (i know "normal" text isnt rule text, just reminder)
They're pretty clearly nested exceptions. Unarmed attacks are "like attacking with a melee weapon, except for" everything in that section. "Armed" unarmed attacks are the exception to the provoking AoO rule. So, yes, the "Armed" unarmed attack section is more specific than the general unarmed attack rules, even when directly referenced by the feat.
and if an attack isnt a strike against your opponent, what are you doing with it? aggressively caressing them?
Yeah, I fully sympathize with this. It's all a bit pedantic when it comes to unarmed stuff. Regarding gauntlets, there was an FAQ that was supposed to appear nearly a decade ago that seemingly never manifested or I've missed it. Then there were the questions regarding monks and gauntlets, and questions about weapon focus on gauntlets.
Apparently "Unarmed Strikes" are a separate term from "Unarmed Attacks", and that's important. Forgive the misleading title to this thread.
Quick Question - Gauntlets
Weapon focus: Gauntlet - should it exist?
Gauntlet to unarmed strike.
|
|
...The gauntlet only modifies the damage dealt. The point has been very clearly made by, at least 3 people here, that it depends on what attack you are using, and not what else you have/are holding. As Name Violation says, "If you aren't attacking with that weapon, it doesn't matter when it comes to that attack. Unarmed is unarmed, and thus provokes."...
I'm pretty happy you understood this. We are halfway through it!
Since you agree that having a dagger in your hand doesn't let you kick without provoking an AOO, why do you feel having a claw in said hand instead of the dagger allows you to do so?
They are the exact same scenario. They should work the same and they do!
Armed Character/Creature: They have any weapon with them. It could be a dagger, a claw or have the IUS feat. They can make AOOs.
Armed Attack: Making an attack with any weapon. It could be a dagger, a claw or a kick if you have the IUS feat. It doesn't provoke AOOs.
Unarmed Attack Making an attack with anything that is not a weapon. It provokes AOOs.
That is how it works. It is simple and it is logical. I don't believe I can explain this any more clear, so this is my last try. Anyway, happy gaming.
They are the exact same scenario. They should work the same and they do!
They're similar scenarios. I agree they should work the same way. That's why I pivoted towards natural attacks. They're not the same because one scenario is mentioned in the "Armed" unarmed attacks section, and the other is not, but might be implied due to language surrounding the term "armed".
Basically, if the natural attacks scenario is disproven, that settles the discussion for any kind of "armed".
Armed Character/Creature: They have any weapon with them. It could be a dagger, a claw or have the IUS feat. They can make AOOs.Armed Attack: Making an attack with any weapon. It could be a dagger, a claw or a kick if you have the IUS feat. It doesn't provoke AOOs.
Unarmed Attack Making an attack with anything that is not a weapon. It provokes AOOs.
Agreed on the first two, with a note that an unarmed strike using IUS is simultaneously an unarmed attack and an armed attack. Else, Amulet of Mighty Fists wouldn't apply to it. The feat makes you count as "armed", and the combat section under '"Armed" Unarmed Attacks" makes the attack count as an armed attack, yet it's still listed as an "Armed" unarmed attack.
The last point is also true. However, certain conditions make you count as "armed" for both offensive and defensive purposes, exempting you from provoking AoO.
... Yeah, 'simple and logical' goes out the door quite often when trying to play by the RAW. :P
Real scenario, with players on the table? Coming around, actually. No difference to me between a spiked gauntlet and a blunt one, realistically. Shielded Gauntlet Style feat tree sort of implies you can use gauntlets for Attacks of opportunity, even though the feats don't require IUS. You don't normally threaten with unarmed attacks unless you fall into that subcategory of being also "armed", like with IUS or a held spell. Combat rules around being 'armed' suggests it counts defensively and offensively. The character concept is cool, and allowing blunt gauntlets covers an additional damage type. So, yeah, I'd allow it.
RAW? That's why I'm here.
The reason I saw a gray area in this particular scenario is because of the wording under unarmed attacks; It seems to omit characters that are both armed and making unarmed attacks except for those specifically mentioned as "Armed" unarmed attacks. The section highlighted suggests that being armed includes one in the category of making "armed" unarmed attacks, which don't provoke. A natural weapon puts you into that category whether you use it or not, no?
In short, the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section is not ruletext, it has literally no effect on the game. It exists only to prevent people from wrongly believing "unarmed strikes provoke, and touch spells don't use a weapon just like unarmed strikes, so the attack must provoke, too!".
Basically, the relevant rules are these:
1) Unarmed strikes provoke AoOs and can't be used to make AoOs.
2) You are considered "Unarmed" for the sake of the Catch Off-Guard feat if you don't currently possess a means to make AoO.
That's it.
To my knowledge, the state or armedness being check is only ever done by Catch Off-Guard and nothing else. Only the actual "unarmed strike" option counts as such, nothing else (no natural attacks, no touch spells). The game consistently fails to make a distinction between "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack", but when you folow the above, you can simply treat them as the same.
2) The character is an Occultist and wishes to know whether to apply Legacy Weapon or Aegis (Effectively a weapon enhancement bonus or armor enhancement bonus) particularly for use with the Shielded Gauntlet Master feat, which uses this enhancement bonus for extra shield AC.
That is actually a very complicated matter... because a gauntlet isn't actually a weapon. Even if it is, you don't attack with it, and you attack with an unarmed strike, and nothing says you apply the gauntlet's enhancement bonus to the US.
|
|
They're similar scenarios. I agree they should work the same way.
I honestly do not see the point of arguing over an absurd interpretation of the rules that even you say they should not work as you've been insisting.
These rules are in the CRB, which have been released almost twenty years ago. Since then, I've never met anyone interpreting these rules the way you are insisting.
These rules are clear, simple and intuitive to anyone not trying to bend them in unreasonable ways. Who knows, perhaps you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Good luck convincing anyone else about your reading.
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the 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.
Let's break this down.
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed.
Does this mean making an attack without being armed provokes, or does it mean making an attack of a type that is not considered armed provokes? That *could* theoretically be read either way. But it is later clarified in the paragraph.
An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
Clearly here the provocation occurs for an attack that is unarmed (not for if the entire creature is 'armed' or not). And it only provokes from the target of said unarmed attack.
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).
These rules only clarify under what conditions an unarmed attack actullay counts as an armed attack. eg. Monk/IUS, touch attack spell, and [attacks with a] creatures natural physical weapons.
Further, The rules on natural attacks then describe primary, secondary, strength bonuses, etc. Then adds
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action. Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
No mention of unarmed strikes being an option to use in conjunction with their manufactured and natural weapon attacks.
And...
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.
The converse of that statement then is that creaturs with natural attacks cannot make unarmed strikes (else why bother pointing out that creatures without natural attacks can do so if all creatures can make unarmed attacks anyway).
If you want strict pedantic RAW, a creature with natural attacks isn't even allowed to make unarmed strikes. Only creatures without natural attacks are given that option. Making the idea that a creature is 'armed' or not with its natural attacks a moot point, since said creature can't use unarmed strikes anyway.
In fairness, I don't feel like the intent is that creatures with natural attacks cannot make unarmed strikes, but that the above is more an indication that even if a creature has no natural attacks doesn't mean it is completely helpless in defending itself. But if you want to insist on parsing the language very specifically and ignore all the surroudning context, them I'm going to insist on that approach across the rules, and not just selectively as a point of reductio ad absurdum.
In short, the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section is not ruletext, it has literally no effect on the game.
I don't think I can accept that it's not ruletext. That seems like a completely arbitrary judgement. It's not like the 'basic description' of a feat, or the description of a race. It's right there in the combat section of the rulebook amidst rules that are clearly meant to be followed.
Yeah, Catch Off-Guard is the only other scenario that comes to mind that relates to armedness besides this section of the rulebook. However, I haven't found any clear examples where the terms "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are used in a way that contradicts one being a subset of the other. They're listed that way in the weapons table.
That is actually a very complicated matter... because a gauntlet isn't actually a weapon. Even if it is, you don't attack with it, and you attack with an unarmed strike, and nothing says you apply the gauntlet's enhancement bonus to the US.
Gauntlets are listed as simple weapons, are a form of unarmed attack. Their description includes the ability to allow unarmed strikes to deal lethal damage, and they are otherwise used for unarmed attacks. Amulet of Mighty Fists would apply to gauntlets. They can be selected for weapon focus, and that applies to their unarmed attacks but Not to unarmed strikes, as you say. In a previous post in the thread, I left 3 links to other threads. It's discussed there.
---
Thank you, bbangerter, for going through a tidy breakdown. This type of answer is exactly what I was looking for. However, I think you've overlooked some crucial sections of the rules.
Directly following your quoted section, it states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)", implying the above exempts one from provoking AoOs as well.
These rules only clarify under what conditions an unarmed attack actullay counts as an armed attack. eg. Monk/IUS, touch attack spell, and [attacks with a] creatures natural physical weapons.
No mention of unarmed strikes being an option to use in conjunction with their manufactured and natural weapon attacks.
The core rulebook states:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
...
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
So, yes, a pedantic reading of the rules allows for unarmed strikes used in conjunction with natural weapons, as long as you can throw a punch, kick, or head butt, and it's a different limb from the natural attack. That's covered. There are probably other guidelines and scenarios not covered explicitly by the rules, but this isn't one of them. Even if you were trying to make a point about picking out selected sections of the text, the effort made to respond is much appreciated.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack.
You are correct, I'd missed/forgotten this part.
Directly following your quoted section, it states "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)", implying the above exempts one from provoking AoOs as well.
I don't find this particularly relevant as I don't believe there is anything to suggest the defensive side of it is more open ended then the offensive side of it., but we can dig into it.
If I am armed with a dagger, and have my other hand free, and a creature provokes from me, can I
a) attack with the dagger?
b) attack with my unarmed fist?
I would strongly suggest A is the only correct answer here given the context of what it means to threaten and that allowing an AoO.
If you believe both are allowed, then you also allow a person with a boot blade to take AoOs with the longbow they are wielding because they threaten with the boot blade.
The ability to make an AoO only with the weapons with which you threaten fulfill the offense part of being armed.
There is no reason to suggest that the defensive side is less restrictive then the offensive side. The context for this paragraph is the same context for both offensive and defensive sides of the coin. If I can only take an AoO with an armed (and threatening) attack, then I can only prevent an AoO with an armed (and threatening) attack.
The ability to avoid an AoO (with an armed attack) fulfills the defensive side of the above. Thus both sides of that are sufficiently fulfilled even with the restrictions on what weapons you can take (or prevent) an AoO with.
That seems like a completely arbitrary judgement.
Not arbitrary at all. If it is ruletext, it has to have an effect on the game, otherwise, it does not fit the definition of rule text. So what does it change?
The Unarmed attack rules on pg 182 of the CRB says "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon". This defines what unarmed attacks are. Then later the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" rules say this: "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".
A touch attack is not a punch, kick, or headbutt, and thus isn't classified as a unarmed attack in the first place. A natural attack is not a punch, kick, or headbutt, and thus isn't classified as a unarmed attack in the first place. The rule that says "Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack" does not apply to either because they aren't classified as unarmed attacks to begin with, no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.
A Monk or character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat don't provoke AoOs because IUS says "you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed.", no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.
The last line of this rule subsection says "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)." But IUS says "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed" which already overrides the rule that makes you not be able to make AOOs with unarmed strikes ("If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity." CRB pg. 180, the AoO rules), no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.
It's not like the 'basic description' of a feat, or the description of a race. It's right there in the combat section of the rulebook amidst rules that are clearly meant to be followed.
Take Vital Strike as an example: It says "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus". But the attack action description already says "Making an attack is a standard action.", and nothing says the BAB is reduced for it, thus the "you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus" in the Vital Striek rule text does not change anything.
I could list countless other instances. Like how bonus feats say "These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels." (this one's form the Wizard) - that text completely superfluous because a bonus feat is in addition to others per definition of the word "bonus".
There are even more extreme examples where we outright need to ignore text if we go otuside of the (overly narrow) parameters the author assumed. The Animal Fury rage power says "If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian’s full base attack bonus –5." This is clearly meant to remind you that natural attack in combination with weapon attacks make the former secondary attacks which come with a -5 penalty, and is not meant to impose a penalty when you make the bite as part of a full attack consisting of only natural attacks. It makes no sense to view the text I quoted as rule text rather than mere reminder text that does not change things.
I haven't found any clear examples where the terms "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are used in a way that contradicts one being a subset of the other.
There's text in the cMonk description that says "unarmed attack" where it very clearly refers to unarmed strike only ("A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks"), although that was copied from DnD 3.5.
What you same seems to make sense, I'll have to look if that has any unwanted consequences.
Thank you, bbangerter and Derklord, sincerely. I really enjoy getting into the gritty details of the rules sometimes. ^_^
bbangerter's response is first, then Derklord following.
I don't find this particularly relevant as I don't believe there is anything to suggest the defensive side of it is more open ended then the offensive side of it., but we can dig into it.If I am armed with a dagger, and have my other hand free, and a creature provokes from me, can I
a) attack with the dagger?
b) attack with my unarmed fist?The ability to make an AoO only with the weapons with which you threaten fulfill the offense part of being armed.
Short answer: All the above as long as you are "Armed". A dagger, an unarmed strike (with or without IUS), or a bow (which also usually provokes an AoO itself- an AoO against your AoO). If the taget's adjacent, basically anything works but a reach weapon, which explicitly can't be used to attack adjacent squares.
So, woopsy from me; In answering Derklord, when I mentioned that I didn't know of any section of the rulebook that talked about being armed vs. unarmed in this way, I overlooked three sections: The Attacks of Opportunity section under Combat, Touch attack spells in Combat, and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat itself.
Fun fact; IUS doesn't say you can make AoOs with unarmed strikes or attacks.. It uses the same language of being "armed" vs "unarmed", and uses the Threatened Squares and "Armed" unarmed attack sections to fill in the rest. Here:
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 when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Threatened Squares: 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.
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 the 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 (but 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 both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
In short, I don't believe anything implies that you don't threaten with an unarmed attack EXCEPT when you're considered 'unarmed' and you cannot make attacks of opportunity in the first place. You can do an AoO with basically anything as long as you're armed. You can "threaten" with anything because the rules only concern themselves with "threatened squares" and who's threatening, not what you're using, as long as you're armed and there isn't a special exception.
Offensively, Ranged weapons would still provoke AoO despite the user being "armed" because there's no exemption made for them like there is for "Armed" unarmed attacks. Objects that you haven't yet wielded as Improvised Weapons are a bit of a gray area when it comes to armedness- after all, what objects can you not try to attack with? - but still, Improvised weapons count as melee attacks under the "Actions in Combat" table, and thus don't provoke AoO when used offensively.
I'll admit, I'm struggling to follow what you mean by the defensive side of AoOs being more 'open ended' than the offensive, but I hope this answer suffices.
Onwards to Derklord.
Not arbitrary at all. If it is ruletext, it has to have an effect on the game, otherwise, it does not fit the definition of rule text. So what does it change?
I like the cut of your jib! ^-^ Lovely examples, thorough walkthrough of the text. I'll be honest, I've never read a debate or clarification anywhere concerning what does and doesn't constitute "ruletext", particularly if an excerpt is "reminder text" or a redundant retelling of the rules. And, I'll be honest, I'd side with the Animal Fury example being ruled as a -5 penalty in Any full attack if one solely considered the RAW, and in need of an errata, although I wouldn't use it that way in a real game.
I'll assume you are correct about "ruletext".
My first and immediate response is that the section is not highlighting instances of unarmed attacks; it is listing instances during which a character is considered "armed". Thus, its usefulness is not contingent on whether the examples given are unarmed attacks. See above in the answer to bbangerter why it's important to note that being armed counts for both offense and defense- particularly for attacks of opportunity.
The section covering touch attack spells also clarifies when you are armed, and when you are not (holding the charge, making a regular unarmed attack) during the attack. That is redundant, and favors your view.
The IUS feat uses the same wording, but does not emphasize that this counts both offensively and defensively. However, as seen above, the feat says you are armed and the Threatened Square subsection under Attacks of Opportunity covers what happens when you're unarmed. You've covered the rest. So, redundant once again.
That leaves natural weapons, and it's interesting.
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.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
It's a bit baffling when rereading it, but nothing else suggests you are armed when you have natural weapons, except for the "Armed" unarmed attacks section.
The "Holding the Charge" subsection brings into question whether you normally provoke an attack of opportunity with your unarmed attack or natural weapon. That question is answered in the "Armed" unarmed attacks section; when you have natural physical weapons, you are "armed". I can find nowhere else in the book that considers you "armed" from natural weapons alone, allowing you to make attacks of opportunity while possessing them.
That leaves the "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense" exerpt. As far as I know, that's covered basically everywhere else with the sole exception of gauntlet attacks or similar unarmed attacks (if any) that aren't unarmed strikes.
... THAT SAID.
Your point is not entirely refuted. Technically speaking, I've found nothing in the equipment or combat sections of the book says a character wielding a manufactured weapon is 'armed', nor an improvised weapon. It's like your bonus feat example; It's kind of assumed that the act of wielding a weapon makes you 'armed', and they make the exception for unarmed attacks alone under its own section. What I've shown is the only instance where it calls into question whether you can normally use natural attacks without provoking; nothing questions whether you provoke with any other kind of melee attack, except for unarmed attacks and certain reach weapons like the whip. I also can't think of any natural weapon that isn't "physical", making that particular word irrelevant. Perhaps an incorporeal one might count?
If you solely want to base your point on whether the section has an effect on the game, it's your own judgement call as to whether it should be assumed that a natural weapon user is assumed to be armed, and whether unarmed attacks are synonymous to unarmed strikes in this instance. I've shown that natural weapons are brought into question once, and answered in that section. I've also shown a few referencial threads and one example in the equipment section in the book that makes 'unarmed attack' a category that unarmed strikes fall into.
I'd love if you showed me something concrete to differentiate between what is 'ruletext' and what is not. It sounds like a rational and good argument; I just haven't found anything in my brief search. If it's included somewhere, and you happen to respond to this thread again, please let me know!
Small addendum; I was dumb and suggested you could make a ranged attack as an AoO regularly. You cannot; melee only. Further, the "normal" section of the snap shot feat implies I'm wrong about being able to threaten while wielding a ranged weapon specifically, without mention of being armed.
Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.
This is the only place I've found this clarification so far, and it's the "normal" section of a feat only. People do it regularly with armor spikes, anyways. Functionally, the feat includes all benefits of being "armed" with a ranged weapon for both offense and defense, and adds the capability of making a ranged attack AoO on top of the normally allowed melee attacks.
While I don't think it detracts from my points made, it was silly of me to overlook, and I mention it now in case someone wants to build further argument on it or is inspired to find other examples.