Trip question that's bothered me for years

[StreamOfTheSky]

And now for some reason, I feel the urge to ask about it.
Special Attacks :: d20srd.org

Look closely at the first sentence under Making a Trip Attack:
"Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks."

So then, by logic, anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike, including every single monk that exists, should be able to do unarmed trips without provoking an AoO. But nowhere in Improved Unarmed strike nor the trip rules does it explicitly say this. In fact, that they chose to leave it out when defining exactly how to avoid the AoO,
"Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack."
the writers basically enshrine as RAW that IUS does nothing to help you. This is one of those largely-inconsequential-yet-so-mind-bogglingly-stupid-that-I-can't-stop-thinking-about-it rules to me. I have NEVER been in a group (to my knowledge, it never actually came up with some DMs) where a more sensible ruling was used. It seems pretty accepted IME that you need a trip weapon or Improved Trip to avoid the AoO.

So, I just want to know why. Make it make sense to me that kicking someone in the knee for damage is threatening enough (with IUS, of course) to not provoke, yet kicking someone in the knee so they fall off-balance and hit the ground is not. Someone. Anyone.

 

[Dandu]

I'd just assume they made a slight editorial mistake and get on with your life.

I mean, you do not provoke an AoO for an unarmed attack "as normal" if you have Improved Unarmed Strike, so there's no reason to provoke while tripping.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So then, by logic, anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike, including every single monk that exists, should be able to do unarmed trips without provoking an AoO.

That's the most obvious (and reasonable) way to interpret that sentence, but it's possible to read it as simply: "This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks, or casting a spell, or anything else that provokes an attack of opportunity."

And since the rest of the special attack description makes it clear that the authors did not intend for IUS to allow non-provoking unarmed trip attacks, I'm with Dandu: it's just a minor editorial mistake.

 

[Dandu]

Excellent, so have we lain to rest the ghosts of the past?

 

[slwoyach]

It's obvious they did that on purpose, or they wouldn't specify that improved trip allows you to trip without provoking an AoO. It's of course fine if you deem that UAS prevents AoO's from all touch attacks at your table, but it is most definitely not RAW or RAI (rules as intended).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, I was thinking specifically trip, because of that text. I mean, Grappling may start with a melee touch attack, but also involves moving into the enemy's sqaure, so I think that should still provoke. None of the other combat maneuvers are quite a melee touch attack, either. Bull Rush you don't have to roll to touch, i's automatic, you just roll to see if you move them. Overrun is similar. Disarm is opposed attack rolls, no intital touch attack to make contact with the target of the disarm.

 

[Dandu]

It's obvious they did that on purpose, or they wouldn't specify that improved trip allows you to trip without provoking an AoO. It's of course fine if you deem that UAS prevents AoO's from all touch attacks at your table, but it is most definitely not RAW or RAI (rules as intended).

How do you know what RAI is?

 

[slwoyach]

How do you know what RAI is?

Because they spell it out in black and white and they didn't change it in 3.5 or in errata. For it to be an error they had to make an error there and multiple other places and not have a single person in the past 10 years notice that "hey, didn't we intend for touch attacks by a character with unarmed strike to not provoke an AoO?" It seems pretty far fetched to me.

 

[Dandu]

Because they spell it out in black and white and they didn't change it in 3.5 or in errata. For it to be an error they had to make an error there and multiple other places and not have a single person in the past 10 years notice that "hey, didn't we intend for touch attacks by a character with unarmed strike to not provoke an AoO?" It seems pretty far fetched to me.

And PHB errata never addressed the issue of why potions of Enlarge Person cost 250 gp when ordinary first level potions cost 50 gp.

In 3.0, Enlarge Person worked differently so I hear and it had to be cast (ie, potion had to be made) at CL 5 for some reason, but it stopped working that way in 3.5, so potions of it should cost 50 gp and nothing more.

There's also the interesting bit where Universal Solvent requires a CL 20 caster to make, despite doing simple things such as countering Sovereign Glue, and Tanglefoot bags.

Speaking of errata, I'm also reminded of how the Fiend Blooded prestige class intended for sorcerers requires 8 ranks in Knowledge: Planes despite this not being a class skill for sorcerers, yet all the example characters are Sorcerer 6/Fiend Blooded X with nothing that adds Knowledge: Planes as a class skill for sorcerers. The errata does not address this.

Complete Mage's Abjurant Champion increases the armor bonuses of Abjuration spells. The example character has this bonus applying to Shield and Mage Armor... despite the fact that Mage Armor is a Conjuration spell. Errata doesn't address this either.

ToB has a maneuver named Fire Snake whose spell text contradicts the spell description right above it. Don't bother checking the ToB errata for a fix, since it turns into Complete Mage errata halfway through.

 

[TheOverlord]

From the Source

No, I was thinking specifically trip, because of that text. I mean, Grappling may start with a melee touch attack, but also involves moving into the enemy's sqaure, so I think that should still provoke. None of the other combat maneuvers are quite a melee touch attack, either. Bull Rush you don't have to roll to touch, i's automatic, you just roll to see if you move them. Overrun is similar. Disarm is opposed attack rolls, no intital touch attack to make contact with the target of the disarm.

I see where you are going with this and while there has been a lot of speculation about interpretation, none of that is not necessary. I have a direct answer to your question from the horse's mouth. Trip attacks are addressed in this article by the man himself, Skip Williams. But there is one paragraph in particular that answers your question and dilemma very specifically.

"The rules don't come right out and say it, but you use your melee touch attack to get a purchase on your foe (so you can throw, push, or pull him down). The melee touch attack provokes an attack of opportunity from your foe." -- excerpt from Rules of the Game Article by Skip Williams​

The intent here is revealed in full. To get the leverage over your foe enough to actually trip they require a melee touch - not a melee attack.

The confusion comes from the pairing of the statement make a melee touch attack and then equating unarmed strikes...which by definition are not melee touches at all. No where do the rules state either in improved trip or trip attack that you can make a melee attack (unarmed or otherwise) to start the trip. In fact, it explicitly states that it must be a melee touch.

This to me seems very similar to why creatures need Improved Grab to land a melee attack and start a grapple instead of a melee touch.

However, there is no such option for tripping. Your options include using a weapon to make the melee touch which is a workaround for the sole purpose of avoiding the AoO. Or taking the feat which is the other explicit work around. The Improved Unarmed Strike feat does not allow you start a grapple without provoking an attack of opportunity even though you are considered armed b/c a melee touch is not "unarmed strike" it is just a melee touch which is its own creature entirely.