Trip attacks don't provoke AoO if you're expert

[IceBear]

But I thought you were considered "armed" when you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
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.
Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.
A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

I noticed this in the Charging vs Tripping thread. I always remembered the 3E rules on tripping saying you suffered an AoO if you attempted a trip period. The 3.5 rules seem to be saying it's the unarmed attack that causes the AoO, not the trip itself.

I guess the decision is whether the trip attempt without a weapon is the same as an unarmed stike, and I don't see how that is "self evident". I'm a monk and I kick you in the leg for 1d6 points of damage or I'm a monk and I do a circle leg sweep to trip you aren't really that different vs I'm a wizard and I awkwardly try to kick you and I'm a wizard and I awkwardly try to trip you. I concede that a blow to do damage is different from one to trip, but the training and skill required is the same.

I personally like the flavour of it, but I haven't decided if this gives too much to Improved Unarmed Strike and takes too much away from Improved Trip (though Improved Trip offers more bonuses too). But I'll probably just use the old 3E interpretation - Tripping "unarmed" will cause an AoO unless you have Improved Trip

 

[Caliban]

The rules are pretty clear.

Tripping is an unarmed attack.

Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to be "armed" when attacking unarmed. It does not limit itself to unarmed strikes.

Improved Unarmed Strike will allow you to make an unarmed trip attack without provokin an AoO.

Improved Trip will allow you to make an unarmed trip attack without provoking an AoO, and gives you +4 on the trip attempt.

 

[Kemrain]

The rules are pretty clear.

Tripping is an unarmed attack.

Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to be "armed" when attacking unarmed. It does not limit itself to unarmed strikes.

Improved Unarmed Strike will allow you to make an unarmed trip attack without provokin an AoO.

Improved Trip will allow you to make an unarmed trip attack without provoking an AoO, and gives you +4 on the trip attempt.

I'm inclined to agree. If they took out the "as normal for unarmed attacks" part of the second line under Making a Trip Attack header, it would be quite clear that Tripping provoked. It's inclusion is for clarification, and it doesn't make sense to clarafy that unarmed attacks provoke if this doesn't follow all the rules for an unarmed attack.

This doesn't make Improved Trip useless at all. IT still gives you a +4 bonus, an extra attack once your opponent is down, and it takes away his ability to countertrip- a big part of the reason many people never trip.

Hmm, that is all from memory, so it may be wrong, but if it is I'm sure I'll be corrected, and I can eat my words then.

- Kemrain the Prone.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I always remembered the 3E rules on tripping saying you suffered an AoO if you attempted a trip period.

Other way around.

In 3E, Trip was AoO: No.

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

Other way around.

In 3E, Trip was AoO: No.

-Hyp.

Really? God, I've got to play more, I've forgotten everything

 

[Thanee]

...and it takes away his ability to countertrip...

This is not correct. It doesn't take away that ability.
If you want to be safe, trip with a weapon. A replacement weapon might be handy, tho.

And on the countertrip your +4 bonus from the feat also doesn't count.

Bye
Thanee