Clarification of Tripping rules and a couple feats.

[niastri]

Tripping can only be done Unarmed or with a Weapon that *Specifically* states that it can be used to make trip attacks. True or False?

I imagine I am reading it correctly in stating that this is true, but I have heard comments here which seem to contradict this.

Even if that is true, can a character armed with a non tripping weapon (say a sword) still make a trip attack, and just have it be an unarmed attack? If so, does the character invoke an AoO by making a trip attack, even though armed with a non tripping weapon. Again I would guess so, but wanted further opinions/clarifictions. Also, what would the modifiers be in such a case?

Ok, now how about if the character has Improved Trip and Elusive Target? I am envisioning a character with a Two Handed Weapon sticking out his foot to take the trip attack allowed by Elusive target. Obviously, there wouldn't be an AoO as a result of the trip attempt (IT), but would there be a penalty as if using a second weapon (Two weapon fighting penalties, I am thinking)?

Also, if the trip attempt is successful, does the attack provided by Improved Trip have to be made using the same weapon that caused the trip? This is important in the case of the unarmed guy, but also a TWF who trips with his off hand and does greater damage with his main hand. The difference is much bigger if you are a two handed weapon fighter instead of a twf...

Obviously a non monk may as well just not attack at higher levels if he can't attack with his sword, and has to instead make a kick attack for 1d3+ str subdual. Barely worth it, and the risk of getting tripped yourself makes it worse, imo.

However, if he could use the bonus attack from IT with his sword....

So a few questions all around the same topic.

 

[UltimaGabe]

In order to trip, a character MUST use a trippable weapon- if he doesn't have one ready, he must use an Unarmed Strike. This invokes an Attack of Opportunity, since he's attacking unarmed- unless he has the Improved Trip feat, which allows him to make a Trip attack with an Unarmed Strike without incurring an Attack of Opportunity. In addition, the Improved Trip feat allows him to gain a free attack with a readied weapon, at the same bonus as the touch attack to make the trip in the first place.

If a character has a trippable weapon handy (such as a Flail) and doesn't have the Improved Trip feat, he doesn't incur an attack of opportunity, but he doesn't gain the additional attack.

Edit: Didn't see your other questions. Oops.

As far as I see it, making a Trip attack is the exception to a few rules. I don't believe the rules are too clear on this, but I'd say that you can make the additional attack with whatever weapon you have equipped- otherwise, who would benefit from the additional attack other than a high-level monk? Also, if you're wielding, say, a sword, it's kinda like you're just following up by swinging your sword at them as they fall.

Also, it's important to remember that just because you have to make an unarmed attack, it doesn't mean that it's a punch or anything with your hands. It's quite possibly a kick (or, rather, a "stick your foot in the way") attack. Thus, you wouldn't suffer any penalties if you were wielding a two-handed weapon.

Hope that helped.

Edit again: As for Elusive Target and TWF penalties, I don't think you would have any such penalties. After all, you incur the penalties for gaining an extra attack from a second weapon- if you've got Improved Unarmed Strike, a BAB of +6/+1, and you're wielding a Greatsword, as long as you don't use the Two-Handed Weapon, and you only try to get two unarmed attacks (one at +6 and one at +1) I don't see why you'd incur penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting.

My point is this- when you're using Improved Trip, you're not gaining an extra attack through Two-Weapon Fighting- you're gaining an extra attack through Improved Trip. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties shouldn't apply.

 

[niastri]

As far as I see it, making a Trip attack is the exception to a few rules. I don't believe the rules are too clear on this, but I'd say that you can make the additional attack with whatever weapon you have equipped- otherwise, who would benefit from the additional attack other than a high-level monk? Also, if you're wielding, say, a sword, it's kinda like you're just following up by swinging your sword at them as they fall.

Also, it's important to remember that just because you have to make an unarmed attack, it doesn't mean that it's a punch or anything with your hands. It's quite possibly a kick (or, rather, a "stick your foot in the way") attack. Thus, you wouldn't suffer any penalties if you were wielding a two-handed weapon.

Hope that helped.

Edit again: As for Elusive Target and TWF penalties, I don't think you would have any such penalties. After all, you incur the penalties for gaining an extra attack from a second weapon- if you've got Improved Unarmed Strike, a BAB of +6/+1, and you're wielding a Greatsword, as long as you don't use the Two-Handed Weapon, and you only try to get two unarmed attacks (one at +6 and one at +1) I don't see why you'd incur penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting.

My point is this- when you're using Improved Trip, you're not gaining an extra attack through Two-Weapon Fighting- you're gaining an extra attack through Improved Trip. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting penalties shouldn't apply.

Thanks for the clarification. I was worried that making an unarmed attack (even a trip), AFTER already having made attacks with another weapon would fall into Two Weapon territory.

More importantly, your opinion that the character should be able to make a trip (with lower iterative attacks, or bonus attacks from feats or AoO) attack at the full bonus appropriate, without penalties, THEN make the attack granted from Improved Trip using the primary weapon. The difference of 1d3+5 sub to 1d10+8 regular makes the feat combo go from useless to viable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In order to trip, a character MUST use a trippable weapon- if he doesn't have one ready, he must use an Unarmed Strike.

Nay, nay, nay - the trip be unarmed, but it be not with an unarmed strike.

An unarmed strike be not a trippin' weapon. The text says naught o' usin' it to trip, unlike all the other trippin' weapons.

It be why a flurryin' monk can trip with a kama, but not without one - all his attacks must be with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon, and a trip with no weapon be neither o' the two.

-Piratesmurf.

 

[niastri]

Nay, nay, nay - the trip be unarmed, but it be not with an unarmed strike.

An unarmed strike be not a trippin' weapon. The text says naught o' usin' it to trip, unlike all the other trippin' weapons.

It be why a flurryin' monk can trip with a kama, but not without one - all his attacks must be with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon, and a trip with no weapon be neither o' the two.

-Piratesmurf.

Does this affect my question?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does this affect my question?

Not in the slightest, lad.

-Piratesmurf.

 

[niastri]

Good, with the pirate talk, I wasn't quite sure....

You agree with the previous interpretation then?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Good, with the pirate talk, I wasn't quite sure....

You agree with the previous interpretation then?

Well, in the matter of whether wieldin' two weapons incurs TWF penalties, whether or not ye make the extra off-hand attack this allows, there be debate.

It all depends on how you read 'fighting in this way'.

Arrh.

-Piratesmurf.

 

[niastri]

Well, in the matter of whether wieldin' two weapons incurs TWF penalties, whether or not ye make the extra off-hand attack this allows, there be debate.

It all depends on how you read 'fighting in this way'.

Arrh.

-Piratesmurf.

Well, if it is open to debate, someone would be debating that EVERY two handed weapon fighter should get a twf penalty just because he *could* kick somebody as if fighting with two weapons... Same with a fighter with sword and board, cause he *could* shield bash.

So, being able to trip as an option definitely wouldn't cause TWF, but if you do... I would say no, unless you specifically use it to get an extra attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Same with a fighter with sword and board, cause he *could* shield bash.

Ah, but ye can hold yer shield, wi'out wielding yer shield.

If ye wish to threaten an area with it, then ye must wield it... at which point, ye be "wieldin' a second weapon in yer off hand". But if all ye do is use it for defence, then ye be not wieldin' it. It means that the shield be not available fer AoOs, but neither do ye take the penalties.

Unless ye do take the penalties, ye can't use the shield to bash with, for by eschewin' the penalties, ye effectively declare "I be not wieldin' a second weapon in me off hand".

-Piratesmurf.