Rule Lawyering

to kick off the topic:

can you make a unarmed trip attempt while being armed?
must it be a weaponsweep or a judothrow? Can't ya just trip impromptu with a legsweep or something?

think you can, but need to unarmed combat feat that you get when you take the monk class for example.
For then you train to not only hit better with your hands, but also with other limbs etc.
At least that is how i few the feat.
Keep in mind that enemies can make an attempt back should you fail the attempt!
And you cannot drop a weapon then to prevent that.

well untrained is always an option, but who wants an additonal -4 on a attack roll etc.
rulewise I dont know if it's allowed, untrained weapon trip.
I'd ask our Ronaldwiki for that.

from the SRD

TRIP
You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

(bolding mine)

This formulation shows that tripping unarmed is actually the default situation (which makes sense if you actually think about it).

This default status is confirmed (exceptio probat regulam) further on in the description:

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.
[...]
Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.

P.S.
Oh sweet jesus fucking christ, Martijn, please stick to Dutch. That hurts my eyes slightly less than this nigh incomprehensible mess.
Oh, and all combat styles teach you to fight with other limbs than your arms seen as though you learn to fight with your entire body, not just with your fists (ever tried to hit something/one using ONLY your fists?). Same goes for weapons.

ok, so what if you have spiked gauntlets on?
or gauntlets?
how about 1 spiked gauntlet and 1 normal one?
I though about it, and I'm just not sure...

and no, you cant attack people just by twisting your fist a bit, unless its a somatic component. But thats magic, and thrumphs most things. Cos its maaagic...

[spelling nazi] Zere is no h in trumps.[/spelling nazi]

Moving on to your question. As the text shows (comprehensive reading is an acquired skill), the weapon bit applies IF AND ONLY IF you are using a weapon that is indicated to be suitable for making trip attempts. Finding no such indication in the entry for (spiked) gauntlets, this means that you use an unarmed attack for the touch attack (provoking an attack of opportunity, unless you have improved trip) when making a trip attempt.

Now, upon rereading your OP, I realise I got distracted by the trainwrecks that are Martijn's posts. To answer your OP:

can you make a unarmed trip attempt while being armed?

Obviously you are not talking about using a "trip-capable weapon" so to speak, so I'll ignore that aspect.
You can make a trip attempt at anytime you could make an unarmed strike. Regarding your question, this means that it depends on whether your current armament (weapon(s) and/or shield) allows you to make an unarmed strike. Here things start to get shady, intuitively, I would say you'd need a free hand for this. However, since the rules state that unarmed strikes can consist of headbuts kicks and punches one could argue that one could make an unarmed strike even with both hands occupied and thus trip with both hands occupied. Come to think of it, this also has some basis in real life actually. I know of several styles where they initiate a trip(throw) by entangling the opponents weapon with your own weapon. Here, however, the initiation of the trip is done with the weapon, not an unarmed strike.
Interpreting RAW, I'd say the answer is yes, you can trip, even when both hands are occupied.

must it be a weaponsweep or a judothrow? Can't ya just trip impromptu with a legsweep or something?

Your confusion here stems from the false dilemma you make here.
1. The rules do not differentiate between different ways to trip (e.g. leg sweep, hip throw, shoulder throw etc.).
2. I believe that in judo legsweeps are actually a subclass of throws, like the abovementioned hip and shoulder throws. I stand ready to be corrected by the (ex-)judo practitioners though

2. I believe that in judo legsweeps are actually a subclass of throws, like the abovementioned hip and shoulder throws. I stand ready to be corrected by the (ex-)judo practitioners though Smile

Legsweeps are indeed a subclass of throws, however they can also be used for trips.

Ah, in kung fu, like in D&D, we do not differentiate that much between throws and trips (unless we're talking tripping the opponent up in his own legs), the end result being roughly the same: the opponent is on the floor and you are in charge

In the morning, without even any cafeïne in me....what do you expect? Hamlet? some poetry?
Good god man!
I was even amazed myself, to even remember a single rule.
As for hurting your eyes, well watch this! : ..........

ps: That's me furiously waving my finger at you *turns around and walks away with his nose held high*

I'd settle for literacy

guys guys.. calm down.. this is a family forum... for the love of god won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!!!

Right... I think I will try to apply some logic here and watch everybody twitch. To my mind, the difference between using a trip weapon and your hands/head/left nipple/whatever is that you have to enter the targets space at least partly to grab hold of him/her/it/small furry thing from alpha centauri. With a (trip) weapon you you do not need to. Keep also in mind that the SRD trip weapons have reach and/or a hook and/or a chain (to wrap around an ankle?) to allow you to trip without invading someone's personal space.

I'd say that piece of logic is sound and it is consistent with my interpretation of the rules, i.e. that you trip using the unarmed attack (which necessitates moving at least partly into the other's square, hence the attack of opportunity (AoO) version unless you have a special trip weapon.

What I feel is the shady part is the implication in the rules that you can make a trip attempt even if your hands are occupied with weapons/shields/potions/towels or all of the above.

I would say that it is entirely reasonable to assume you can initiate a trip attempt while wielding a weapon, even if the other hand is otherwise occupied. In my mind, this would be an example of entangling the opponent's weapon(s) in order to trip (tactics I've in medieval fencing). I shouldn't think it reasonable to assume you can do the same while hugging small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, at least not while continuing to hug said creatures.

Now, if you are allowed to initiate a trip attempt using a weapon, should you then be allowed to make use of any bonuses you normally have on an attack with that weapon? Not according to RAW.

If we have sunk so far that we are using logic, then I would say that a trip attempt itself should provoke an attack of opportunity for getting intimate with your opponent (and this would be the attack of opportunity negated by the improved trip feat or a trip weapon) and if you were to initiate the trip unarmed, the unarmed strike would provoke its own AoO (negatable by improved unarmed strike). This strikes me as draconian for the attacker, though. Perhaps the solution would be to limit the defender to one AoO.

weaponbonus you say?
now thats an interesting point. Does a +3 weapon add +3 to the touch attack?
makes sense. Does touching a foe with a flaming weapon hurt him, even though its not a normal attack?

ponder those

To be clear, this weapon bonus already applies if you use a "trip weapon", since in that case you make a melee touch attack with that weapon instead of an unarmed touch attack. And no, in such a case, there is no damage from a flaming weapon.

My point is, if you attempt a trip attempt while wielding a sword and shield for example, according to the rules you still make an unarmed touch attack. Now what are you touching the opponent with? Not your hand, both of them are occupied. However if we bring in real-world stuff (and that's stretch for D&D, I know), one could explain this using weapon binding techniques. But then we run into the problem of quantifying that technique as an unarmed touch attack, when it should be a melee touch attack (IF you accept the earlier premises.

Ok, so standing up from prone and a AoO trip. Can you really trip him as he gets up and foil his plan to get up, or does the AoO trigger before the he stands and you can't trip a prone enemy.

For an AoO to be triggered an action has to be initiated.
So if we are speaking of standing up from prone, he/she/it has to have started that action.
But before completion of said action you get your AoO, which if you make it a trip attempt can prevent that person from fully getting up.
But since the move action has been started that person is no longer considered prone (As far as I would think, maybe more like crouching or so since that's between prone and standing?).
The attack happens before completion or when looking from the perspective of the game, before the other action is done.
But it's the same with casting a spell, without casting it defensively.
How can a casting of a spell fail (should the AoO succeed of course) if the casting is not already started?
Basically, someone tries to get up by setting their hands against the floor and pushing themselves up and you pull for example one arm away, which causes that person to lose balance and crash down again.

And Ronald no nagging about my English, else I will throw you across my lap next time and spank you silly! Even it does cost me some broken ribs and limbs!.....well it will be tried....and well...argh your conscience will torment you should I fail!!!

ok, there are feats to throw a weapon midcharge and draw another weapon and meleehit at the end.

But how about charging 40 or 60 feet and throwing a javalin or whatever at the end?
standard chargerules except you throw something?

also, the opposed tumble thing might be in song and silence, dont have the book here so cant check

I don't remember anything about such things in the books.
But as I would see it, it would count the same as a charge;
You run max double move and make an attack at +2 while lowering your defences with -2.
A running start to get some more power behind a throw sounds believable for me.
The only thing I would change would rather be that the +2 goes on damage instead of attack.
For with a running start you'd put more power in the throw, not more accuracy, at least that is my opinion.
But still keeping the -2 on AC.

I found that adding more power behind a throw helps focus it actually.

Standing up from being prone is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. You can crawl 5 feet as a move action without getting up, but doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. SeeRules of the Game: All About Movement for details.

It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, you can't be tripped while getting up from prone, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. Since you're still prone when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity can't trip you.

Your foes still can use trip attacks to keep you down when you're prone, however. A foe can use the ready action to prepare a trip attack against you when you stand up.

Source

That settles the question of tripping the guy getting up, I always thought there was something fishy about that.

On the subject of the opposed tumble checks, you were close Toni. It's actually from Sword and Fist (though Song and Silence devotes some attention to the subject as well). However, the opposed tumble rule you refer to is listed in a section dedicated to variant rules, (same goes for the section on tumble in S&S) it is therefore not applicable unless incorporated by the DM.
Any way, my personal opinion is that an opposed tumble check for this is stupid. How does your ability to tumble assist you in hitting someone who is tumbling? Are you tumbling with him to maintain relative positions? Seriously? S&S has a much more sensible rule: the threatening character (or monster) can attempt a reflex save with the DC equal to the tumble check. Hitting someone who is tumbling has more to do with reacting swiftly and appropriately (hence the refelx save).
Another alternative is something I came up with in a previous discussion about the ridiculous ease of tumbling through a threatened area once you reach lvl 7 or so. My suggestion at the time was that if you are an experienced combatant, you might be able to anticipate the tumbling and react appropriately. This would translate into a rule along the lines of:
The tumble DC to move half your speed through a threatened area is 15 or 10 + the opponent's base attack bonus, whichever is higher.
If it's opposed rolls you want, you could just replace the 10 with a d20 roll and maybe ditch the standard 15. On second thought you could just do this:
The tumble DC to move half your speed through a threatened area is 1d20 + 5 or the opponent's base attack bonus whichever is higher

On to charging and throwing. I'm not sure which feats Toni is referring to, so I wouldn't know how they would apply to such a situation. I feel I can, however, comment on the core rules standpoint on this. Which is to say, there are no provisions for the described situation in the core rules (that I know of).
Now, as a DM, I'm not sure such rules are needed.
First of all there is a provision for moving and throwing (a move followed by an ranged attack action, duh).
Second, I think the main reason javelin throwers use a running start is neither accuracy nor impact, it's about range. I would guestimate that the extra speed that you can apply by running first is insignificant in the calculation of impact. This is based in part on my belief that javelins are usually thrown in ballistic fashion. I also agree with Martijn that adding power in this way would hardly benefit your accuracy.
I would at most allow a character to use a full round action to move 30 ft and throw it one range increment further than normally allowed (i.e. throw a javelin up to 180 ft with a -12 penalty to attack).
Wartime use of the javelin was usually about throwing them into a formation anyway, so accuracy wasn't really an issue.

Generally adding power makes anything ranged less susceptible to interfering factors, however, there is also the way in which you add power. the power might focus it , the power delivery might unbalance it even more. This is what happens when you use a running start, I believe. At least this is my experience.

Beter brak nederlands dan brakker engels denk ik dan

Het voorgaande heeft toch geen betrekking op de Engelse tekst van mijn hand?!

well, the idea is that someone that knows hows to tumble knows how tumbling is done. And so could put himself in the others shoes and figure how he is likely to move and react to it anyways. More experience better anticipation.
Like an expert swordfighter know to parry better and such.
A fighter usually know little about the finer points of movement besides tactical positioning and is usually rather rigid in its own movements (armor check, lack of dex) that hitting someone that is expertly tumbling away from him doesnt make sense imo. And so a dc 15 should do.
The rigidness is also shown in lack of ref save, so that too has some merit

I think the feats for throwing charges are the hurling charge line of feats