Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Greyson 10-11-04, 01:18 PM	If a fighter using a trip weapon touch attack does not provoke an AoO, why then should a mong using a unarmed touch attack provoke one when in all other respects it is the same as the fighter's weapon. That's another good question, dark_poet, and one I was thinking about last night. If an unarmed character (any class) has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (and not Improved Trip) attempts to Trip an opponent, does he still provoke the AoO? Text in the Trip rule reads, "Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target" (bold added for emphasis). Then, it also reads that, "If you have the Improved Trip ... you do not provoke an [AoO] for making a trip attack." Do you think an unarmed character with Improved Unarmed Strike should also be allowed to avoid the AoO from the target? I do - but the text is only explicit about Improved Trip. I think it can be assumed that since it is an unarmed touch attack the above character can also avoid porvoking the AoO. I feel the same about a grapple. Why does an attempt to grapple provoke an AoO? Is it uniquely inherent to the grapple? Starting a Grapple text is not specific about the attempt being an unarmed attack. It only reads, "You make a melee touch attack to grab the target." If the same character above (whom has Improved Unarmed Strike, but not Improved Grapple) starts a grapple, does he provoke an AoO? I think he does not. I think it is assumed that an effort to start a grapple and make the "grab" is an unarmed attack, but it never reads that way in the Grapple rules - so I can be wrong. Is Improved Grapple the exclusive feat necessary to avoid an AoO when attempting to grapple? This topic is mirrored at the Equipment and Combat forum.
dr_who 10-11-04, 02:12 PM	Whew! For a while there I felt like I was taking crazy pills!
hustonjj 10-11-04, 05:27 PM	That's another good question, dark_poet, and one I was thinking about last night. I think the easiest way to answer your question is with the following series of questions: If I take Skill Focus (Diplomacy), should I receive a bonus to my Gather Information skill? If I am a 14th Level Fighter, and take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kama), should I receive the benefit of my already purchase Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats (though they were purchased for a different weapon)? One feat does not, ever, provide the benefits of a different feat unless it explicitly says that it does. When you are discussing "entry-level" feats (ones with no pre-requisites) or feats that have similar pre-requisites it shouldn't even be a question. You do not get a two-for-one on the feat purchase. Now, some 3rd party companies have put out feats that DO give the beneift of other feats explicitly in their description. The one's I am most familiar with, however, have a LONG chain of pre-requisites, and give you entry-level feat capabilities . . .. A BIG difference from what you're asking about. Also, that material is not applicable to the LG campaign, where this is posted. Again, as in the thread started by Dr_Who (Don't you love people with imagination?) I would recommend taking any issues you may have with this concept to the infinte Monkees list, so that thewy can explain exactly how it works in LG, and why. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Infinite_Monkeys Jeff Huston Spobody Necial
Greyson 10-11-04, 06:02 PM	... [this] material is not applicable to the LG campaign, where this is posted. I would recommend taking any issues you may have with this concept to the infinte Monkees list, so that they can explain exactly how it works in LG, and why. Hey, JJ, let the WizO's decide what we may post on the Living Greyhawk board - that's what they do. Not you, mate. You don't like our posts? That's okay. Ignore them; don't answer them; don't read them; report them to the moderator; etc. But don't assume you dictate the topic of discussions on this forum. This issue with grapple is a pressing matter in our group of LGers. So, as Salt Lake City members of the campaign, we feel it is important to discuss this and get counsel from as broad of a LG audience as possible. This is the RPGA's LG board. You may patronize some unknown and obscure Yahoo Group. But, we are comforatbale with discussing our LG issues right here. Back on topic - I hold to the statements I issued that started this thread. I have not seen a compelling argument from a respected LGer yet. That's my take, and it doesn't suck.
hustonjj 10-11-04, 06:17 PM	Hey, JJ, let the WizO's decide what we may post on the Living Greyhawk board - that's what they do. Within limits, yes. A friendly reminder that you are in a campaign specific area while holding an apparantly general discussion is NOT an insult or out of line, unless you take it as one. That would be on you, not on the person pointing it out. This issue with grapple is a pressing matter in our group of LGers. So, as Salt Lake City members of the campaign, we feel it is important to discuss this and get counsel from as broad of a LG audience as possible. This is the RPGA's LG board. You may patronize some unknown and obscure Yahoo Group. But, we are comforatbale with discussing our LG issues right here. Back on topic - I hold to the statements I issued that started this thread. I have not seen a compelling argument from a respected LGer yet. That's my take, and it doesn't suck. Well, I think you just stepped on your own toes, "mate". My name is Jeff Huston. I have served as a Triad member for the Dyvers region. The fact that you don't know who I am does not make me a non-respected LGer. It just means you don't know who's talking to you. The fact that you choose to directly AND indirectly insult me during your post suggests that you aren't ACTUALLY open to a contrary viewpoint, but are just looking for justification for the position you WANT to have be correct. And the Inifinite Monkees list is NOT an obscure Yahoo Group. It was started by the people who were specifically identified by their Triads as the Rules Monkees responsible for providing rules clarifications and explanations that apply to the LG campaign. The whole point of that list existing is to discuss and answer questions like the one being discussed here. I think the reference is a lot more on topic than your insults to me for daring to point you at the experts. And you'll have to explain to me why you view my statements that when you "purchase" one feat, you get the benefits of exactly one feat is not a "compelling argument". Do you think that an intrinsic part of the internal game balance doesn't exist simply because it means your character gets to continue facing risks he hasn't specialized his way out of? When you are discussing rules, one of the first things you have to do is ignore the prejudice inherent in looking for advantages for your own character builds. That is a very hard step to learn, but is probably the most significant thing anyone can do (short of learning to read a technical document in English) towards learning what the rules really say. Jeff Huston Futher comments SHOULD be posed based on the idea that we are reasonable people interacting in a reasonable fashion.
dr_who 10-11-04, 07:57 PM	While a longtime gamer, I am relatively new to LG, and even newer to the discussion boards. Your sarcastic tone and superior attitude, Jeff, make me think twice about my participation in both. In almost every post on this and the related topic, everyone but you and smurf has expressed some flexibility and an understanding that we are all working together to figure out the rules. In a home campaign, the DM may rule as he/she sees fit. However, I know that LG judges are subject to some constraints. These constraints are important, but they are not really that strict according to what I've read in the LGCS. Thus, for something like this grappling issue, I just want to hear other people's ideas on the subject and how they, as an LG judge, would rule on the issue. Thank you, though, for your reference to the other group. I wonder why, if it consists of official LG rules-monkeys, there is no link to it from any official RPGA site I have seen? Can you give me the link?
dr_who 10-11-04, 08:10 PM	...Again, as in the thread started by Dr_Who (Don't you love people with imagination?)... Who is insulting whom here? I hope that you did not treat your players as a Triad member the way you treat complete strangers on the message board.
hustonjj 10-11-04, 08:27 PM	Can you give me the link? I have posted it twice, once to each thread, once in direct response to you. In this thread, it was in the third post in the thread. Are you reading what _I_ post? Sauce for the goose . . .. Who is insulting whom here? Hey, I've been around long enough that I'm comfortable with who I am. That's why my handle is a simple variant of my name. Your handle appears to be a fan-boy tribute to a fictional character. Asking about the level of imagination necessary for such a direct reference is only as insulting as you choose to read it. Generally, even fan-boy tributes tend to be less blatant, so that only those "in the know" catch the reference. I hope that you did not treat your players as a Triad member the way you treat complete strangers on the message board. If you would like to evaluate that yourself, I believe at least some traffic while I was in said position is still available in the archives of the Dyvers Yahoo group. Help yourself to forming an opinion based on as random a sampling as you would like. When I held the position, I DID sign my posts with the title, so you can tell the difference. That was from the summer of '02 through the fall of '03, IIRC. I wonder why, if it consists of official LG rules-monkeys, there is no link to it from any official RPGA site I have seen? And how many places do you see a hard reference to the CIRCLE's web site? It took more than a year for them to get WotC to reference THAT site. And, under the rules used by the RPGA, anything not hosted specificaly by the RPGA or campaign Management is not directly linked form a WotC approved site. No, I don't think that's written down anywhere, but ask your Triad if they think it is a misperception or misunderstading on my part. Your sarcastic tone and superior attitude, Jeff, make me think twice about my participation in both. In almost every post on this and the related topic, everyone but you and smurf has expressed some flexibility and an understanding that we are all working together to figure out the rules. Hmmm . . .. Well, so far you have refused to accept even the litlest comment I've made, demanding that there is no basis to my position. Then you expect me to treat you with LESS disdain? While I have nt moved from my position, I DID refer you to the proper source fo rthe answer you claim to be seeking. I did not state they would give you my answer, nor did I say they would refute my answer, I simply said they were the people who would give you the RIGHT one. You'll have to explain to me how that is detracting from people who are trying to figure out what the right answer actually is. AND I'm getting attacked for even offering the reference to the experts. Do not expect kind, respectful interaction with someone being abused. That is more folly than trying to role-play through an LG special dungeon crawl. Jeff Huston
smerwin29 10-11-04, 09:22 PM	Let me try to wrestle this thread (pun intended) back around to being about grappling/tripping again. The Improved Unarmed Strike feat only prevents AoOs when striking with normal unarmed attacks. The reason? There is a difference between an unarmed melee attack and an unarmed melee touch attack. One is punching or kicking (or headbutting or otherwise striking a physical blow). The others are different in their own ways: moving into the opponent's square to engage with him for a grapple, and focusing on a specific part of the opponent's anatomy rather than truly defending yourself for a trip (and a grapple also). I can see how wishful thinking helps people claim that the wording of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat means any attack made unarmed. The claim that the feat prevents the AoO in a grapple is right out, as the wording for grappling in the PHB is clear that the AoO takes place. The tripping rules are twisted more easily, but they are still clear and precise when you look hard enough: "If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon, you don't provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack." Nowhere is Improved Unarmed Strike mentioned. Now the text of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat says you are considered armed when attacking unarmed. Nowhere does it say that your unarmed strike is a weapon. This looks like one of those situations where people are going to read into the rules what they want to read, and nothing short of a question to Sage Advice is going to settle it. Regards, Shawn
CruelDM 10-11-04, 10:17 PM	There is a difference between an unarmed melee attack and an unarmed melee touch attack. The most obvious and pertenant difference being that an unarmed melee attack is an attack, without a melee weapon, that attempts to bypass or overcome an opponants armor, shield, dex, natural and magical defences to deal damage. An unarmed melee TOUCH attack is an attempt to TOUCH an opponant, disregarding almost all of the above defenses, because armor, shields and natural armor dont do anything to hinder being touched. I do agree that you dont get 2 for 1 on any feat, and that a feat states its benefits and you cannot assume it gives any other benefits other than what it states. Text in the Trip rule reads, "Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target" (bold added for emphasis). Then, it also reads that, "If you have the Improved Trip ... you do not provoke an [AoO] for making a trip attack." Do you think an unarmed character with Improved Unarmed Strike should also be allowed to avoid the AoO from the target? Are you asking if an unarmed character makes a TRIP attempt? If he has Improved Trip I would say he does not provoke an AoO, if he does not have that feat I would say he does provoke an AoO. I do not think Improved Unarmed Strike feat grants the Improved Trip feat if thats what you are asking.
dr_who 10-11-04, 10:37 PM	The tripping rules are twisted more easily, but they are still clear and precise when you look hard enough: "If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon, you don't provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack." Nowhere is Improved Unarmed Strike mentioned. Now the text of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat says you are considered armed when attacking unarmed. Nowhere does it say that your unarmed strike is a weapon. This looks like one of those situations where people are going to read into the rules what they want to read, and nothing short of a question to Sage Advice is going to settle it. Regards, Shawn I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for successfully grappling the discussion (heh, heh). Hopefully we will get some sort of official statement one day, since, in my experience, this is most certainly a Frequently Asked Question!
dark_poet 10-13-04, 08:03 AM	I am just gonna counter my own argument (of comparing a touch from an unarmed attack with that of a tripping weapon) by clearly stating that since a tripping weapon is a weapon meant to perform a trip and thus can't be compared with a regular unarmed strike. Haha that's what happens when I try and get involved in a rules debate. I usually can't be bothered with the hooha and huffpuff and just accept what the judges and infinite monkeys say. Go with the flow :D The fun is in the butt kicking eh? Btw, Huston...aside from being a dyvers triad member are you some unofficial advertiser of Infinite Monkeys? ;) But yah...it is a good source to refer to. EDIT: Dr Who, just wanted to point out that I believe that the was an article on the RPGA website stating that the power of various rules sources are as follows: 1) LGCS 2) Core Rulebooks and FAQ so basically if you want to get the ruling in you favour you could try asking the FAQ guys about it (is it still Skip?) and hopefully it is included in the FAQ.
indel2001 10-16-04, 10:13 AM	Just wanted to note that Mssr. Merwin is a former Triad member of the Keoland region, as well as the author of several RPGA mods. Mentioned in case anyone wonders about his expertise and game experience. :)
Greyson 10-18-04, 01:42 PM	This looks like one of those situations where people are going to read into the rules what they want to read, and nothing short of a question to Sage Advice is going to settle it. Regrettably, you are right about that. A table regarding Unarmed Attacks and Grappling, very much in the spirit and design of Table 8-2: Actions in Combat (PHb page 141) would be very helpful. Perhaps sometime in the future - 4th Edition, maybe? ;)
Shadowtiger 10-18-04, 03:46 PM	This area really isn't all that grey - the answer is pretty clearly stated in the PHB, if you look at the other "related" feats (quoted from the SRD): "IMPROVED DISARM [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise. Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to disarm an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to disarm you" "IMPROVED SUNDER [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. Benefit: When you strike at an object held or carried by an opponent (such as a weapon or shield), you do not provoke an attack of opportunity." If you allow Improved Unarmed Strike to stand in for Improved Trip, than it seems that you would have to allow an unarmed monk to Sunder and Disarm w/o drawing AoOs, too. Clearly, this is not the intent of the IUS feat. On the other hand, several of the combatants in this thread seem bent on taking free attacks at every opportunity. It sure is nice to see everybody working together in such a peaceful manner. ;)
oroborous 10-18-04, 10:40 PM	With respect to all the above arguements: Why would there be an Improved Trip feat if Improved Unarmed Strike actually allowed a trip attack without an AoO?
CruelDM 10-19-04, 12:13 AM	And, more importantly, why would the monk get Improved Trip as a bonus feat at 6th level when he has had IUS from level 1 if IUS granted Improved Trip advantages already?
smerwin29 10-19-04, 08:34 AM	With respect to all the above arguements: Why would there be an Improved Trip feat if Improved Unarmed Strike actually allowed a trip attack without an AoO? First of all, I agree with you. I think it is pretty darn clear that IUS only applies to actual melee attacks, not disarms or trips or grapples. To argue the other side based strictly on the text, Improved Trip also gives you a +4 to your trip check and the ability to attack normally after a successful trip. THAT is why there could be an Improved Trip feat even if IUS granted the "no AoO" benefit for trip attacks. Here's the deal. The people who believe IUS negates AoOs for disarming, grappling, and tripping are ignoring all the other text and logic about the discussion, and focusing on just one phrase in the IUS feat text: "you do not provoke attacks [of] opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them unarmed." They are reading just this one piece (which itself is simply a clarification of the previous text) and contending that this means having this feat means never getting an AoO when doing any type of unarmed attacks. They are ignoring the fact that this is referring to unarmed attacks such as punching or kicking (hence the mention of the "armed opponent"), and they are trying to apply it more broadly than it is meant to be. All of the people I have every played with or judged--including Circle members, Triad members, module authors, and rules experts--have agreed that IUS only covers hitting and not tripping, grappling or disarming. But as with any rule, people are going to take any loophole or unclear language they can find to twist it to get the result they want. All of the tables I judge are going to play it correctly, but you may run into a judge or a player who, for whatever reasons, wants to play it his way. Unless we get an official FAQ or errata ruling that spells it out so clearly that people can't twist this language in the feat, we are just going to have to keep running it correctly and dealing with those who run it incorrectly on a case-by-case basis. Regards, Shawn
King Kashue 10-27-04, 12:13 AM	The IUS text reads "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed - that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from unarmed opponents when you attack them while unarmed"... Even with IUS you are STILL UNARMED, your unarmed strike may threaten like a normal weapon, however it is still an unarmed attack... Therefore, when attempting to trip (or grapple, or disarm, or bull rush), you are still unarmed... The section on tripping reads: "Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat or if you are tripping with a weapon, you don't provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack"...With only IUS, neither is the case, you do not have a weapon, nor do you have Improved Trip...You have an improved unarmed strike, which as the feat's name clearly states is an UNARMED attack... This is true even for monks, since their unarmed attack is "treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"...Which is why monks can get improved trip and disarm as bonus feats... None of this applies to Grappling however, for nothing in the grapple description says anything about armed or unarmed being the cause of the grapple...It merely says "certain monesters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the improved grapple feat)... A final note, if you want to get around the Improved trip issues, get spiked gauntlets...Unlike the IUS feat or normal gauntlets (which state "a strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack") the spiked gauntlets specifically state "An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack"...Thus, when you try to Disarm or to Trip, your attacks are considered armed...Even monks can use this, as an unarmed strike can be with anything...Wear one gauntlet when attempting to trip or disarm, and headbut or kick for your normal attacks...