Yuku free message boards

Sorry to just butt in… but this is an issue that still causes my head to hurt! The way I see it, provoking an AoO by making an unarmed attack is a special case in terms of AoO's. You only provoke an AoO from the (armed) person you are attacking (while unarmed). And in this case, only armed characters may take advantage of the attack of opportunity. (This is stated here because it is the exception to the rule… not the rule.)

The only requirement for you to threaten an area, is the ability to make a melee attack. If you had to be armed to threaten an area, it would have been (or should have been) stated that only armed characters (or those considered armed) threaten the area around them.

Quote:

---

From the SRD:
Threatened Area

A combatant threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a combatant's action. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a combatant. A combatant normally threatens all adjacent spaces. "Reach weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.

---

Please note, this is copied exactly as it appears, and no where in this does it state that you must be armed. You must only have the ability to make a melee attack.

Now lets look at IUS:

Quote:

---

From the SRD:
Improved Unarmed Strike [General]

Benefit: The character is considered to be armed even when unarmed - that is, armed opponents do not get attacks of opportunity when the character attacks them while unarmed. However, the character still gets an opportunity attack against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on the character.

---

The purpose of this feat is to prevent an unarmed character from suffering an AoO when attacking an armed character. It also allows AoO's to be made, in the one situation they were denied, against another unarmed opponent.

The special rule that unarmed characters do not provoke AoO's from other unarmed characters was done to prevent sheer craziness when two characters decided to 'duke it out'.

A little common sense can be applied here as well. Doesn't it seem silly that I can use my AoO to grapple or trip an opponent if I have a dagger in my hand (read: armed), but can not do this without the dagger in my hand?

The way I see it, if an opportunity presents itself, and you can make some form of melee attack, then you can take your AoO. (The only time this is denied, is when two unarmed opponents are fighting.)

-----

All that said, I believe that the sage said you have to be armed. (Am I the only moron who thinks he is wrong?) Also, in a DM poll I did sometime back, Monte Cook said the same thing. (That the character must be armed or considered armed (as with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) to make AoOs.)

Who am I to argue with the man who wrote the DMG? I'm nobody. Still, for what it is worth, I don't agree.