Trip Attacks and holding a non-tripping weapon... seeking justification.

[Epicurus88]

Making a trip attack involves making an unarmed attack. What if the person making the trip attack is armed? Do they need to drop their weapon? OR, can you justify the unarmed attack portion of the trip attack as perhaps being make with their legs/feet while still remaining armed?

The attackers class in question is fighter, and has no feats, equipment or special abilities that involve tripping.

 

[Thanee]

I think tripping with legs should work fine, while having both hands full.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Epicurus88]

I'm seeing a possibly slippery slope here. If we're willing to accept that legs can be used for the purpose unarmed attacks while 'armed'...

What happens if a characer is holding a weapon that doesn't threaten any squares, like a ranged weapon? Can that kind of character in that kind of situation make a trip attack with their legs?

And then the slope gets even more slippery. Does simply having legs free for unarmed attacks mean you always threaten squares around you? I mean, normally anyone can make an unarmed attack if they're willing to accept whatever penalties there may be.

(Keep in mind that the character in question has no feats, equipment, or abilities associated with this type of action.)

 

[Thanee]

You do not need a threatened area to make a melee or unarmed attack.

And yes, with Improved Unarmed Strike you should even threaten within 5 ft. even if you are carrying a television set... not that they have television in D&D...

Bye
Thanee

 

[drnuncheon]

You can certainly trip without your hands, but it generally involves getting very close to your opponent. Don't necessarily think of a videogame leg-sweep - instead picture the armored fighter mucling up to his foe, stepping behind them with one leg, and giving them a good shove with his shoulder to send them to the ground. You're not using just your leg, you're using your entire body.

To answer the second question, remember that the ability to attack unarmed is not equivalent to the ability to threaten - if you are unarmed and don't have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you don't threaten the area around you.

J

 

[Sejs]

An unarmed strike isn't just a punch, it's any unarmed attack - kick, headbutt, knee to the groin, elbow, etc. And as stated above, you don't threaten an area unarmed unless you're a monk, or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

The slope isn't that slippery.

 

[Quasqueton]

You can certainly trip without your hands, but it generally involves getting very close to your opponent.

Perhaps this is part of why making a trip attack (and a grapple, and a disarm) provokes an AoO --- momentarily leaving the opponent's threatened area, into his square to make the attack.

Quasqueton

 

[FireLance]

I think there's a bit of a slippery slope, but not for the reason mentioned by Epicurus88.

Suppose a character has Improved Unarmed Strike and is also fighting with a reach weapon (say, a glaive). During his turn, he attacks a spellcaster with the glaive. On the spellcaster's turn, he takes a 5-foot step towards him and casts a spell (maybe he's already in a corner and it appears to be the only non-threatened square he can reach).

Can the character make an AOO with his unarmed strike?
Should he do so at a penalty?
Can he continue to attack with his glaive in his next turn?
Should he do so at a penalty?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

According to Hypersmurf, he can't attack with his unarmed strike until his next turn, as he isn't wielding it. (If he wanted to be considered wielding it, he would have had to take the TWF penalties on his glaive attack.)

I rule differently, however.

Just as monks may freely intersperse any monk weapon they are holding with their unarmed strikes when attacking, other characters may freely intersperse any weapon they are holding whenever they get a chance to attack. TWF penalties apply "when fighting in this manner," which I believe means "when using the Full Attack Action, and using the TWF rules to gain extra attacks."

Thus, there's no real slippery slope here, since everyone is treated the same.

 

[Philip]

Thus, there's no real slippery slope here, since everyone is treated the same.

Maybe that's why I am seeing many monks wielding reach weapons (just for the potential AoO's) lately, despite never using them to attack anyone outside of AoO's, and going for the unarmed strikes on their regular attacks.