|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was reading the Attack of Opportunity rules, which I have presented in spoiler in their entirety:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
For the purpose of this thread, I would like to discuss this portion specifically:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
In these General rules, the way I understand them is that in order to trigger an attack of opportunity, the triggering character must of their own volition take some kind of action which falls into the pathfinder action economy. Of the available actions only certain kinds trigger, Movement (not 5' steps) that carries the character out of threatened territory; misc other stuff not pertinent to this post.
The question I have is, this leads me to believe that forced movement does not on its own provoke attacks of opportunity, am I correct in that assumption?
The reason I ask is that certain abilities (feats, spells, etc...) specifically call out that they do not cause the target to provoke when moved. Is this needless verbiage, or does it mean that forced movement does provoke whenever that specific text is absent (my vote is needless verbiage)?
Additionally:
Your bull rush attacks throw enemies off balance.
Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).
Normal: Creatures moved by bull rush do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Can this feat be used for bull rushes that are not initiated through the normal combat maneuver process? For example, with any spell etc that causes an opponent to be moved as though they were bull rushed (excluding Telekinesis which specifically says you can't).
If I understand what you're saying, your question is if you can force someone to move and trigger an attack of opportunity. I feel the answer is no. If the spell triggers a bull rush like effect, then it is treater as bull rush and doesn't get the AOO.
My vote is with your vote. Just extra verbiage. Forcing somebody else to move does not provoke unless otherwise specified (like greater bullrush).
i wouldn't use the normal entry in Greater Bullrush to prove that involuntary movement never provokes, because Bullrush specifically says it doesn't provoke:
An enemy being moved by a bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Bull Rush feat.
So that entry in Greater Bullrush is superfluous.
I guess you could make the argument that the Bullrush entry means Bullrush doesn't cause movement that wouldn't provoke normally to provoke (which is exactly what Greater does), but movement that would provoke anyway still provokes. However, the Normal entry puts paid to that; "Creatures moved ... do not proke" is about as clear as rules get.
About the only thing we know 100% for sure is that Bullrush'd movement doesn't cause the Bullrushee to provoke.
I'm going to guess this never got an official mention because the kind of person to cast Hydraulic Push isn't the kind to have the three feats needed to trigger an exception.
A part of me actually wouldn't mind if the feats to improve combat manoeuvres applied to spells that did the same thing, simply due to how many you're having to use, and for some taking a practically useless feat (Power Attack, and how many wizards bother with that?). A three feat tax to trigger the ability on a class that isn't really pointing that direction, doesn't seem too harsh.
But I'm also not able to imagine how this could be abused. I'm leaning towards 'It'd be OK if it doesn't get too cheesy'. Remember, the feats that trigger those attacks of opportunity on involuntary movement are towards the end of some feat trees.
|
I think the general design philosophy is that forced movement doesn't provoke unless explicitly called out. But the way this philosophy is implemented is to basically for every form of involuntary movement specify that it doesn't provoke ("unless").
So rather than establishing a rule and noting deviations, there's no general rule but specific rules for most if not all situations, with a general trend towards not provoking. So for any new unknown situations, I'd usually go with not provoking too.
By forced movement we mean "was pushed" and not "mind control", right?
|
|
By forced movement we mean "was pushed" and not "mind control", right?
Basically yes, What I mean specifically is Was moved by outside agency that does not take up any action economy the character so moved. A Dominated character commanded to move would do so at their own initiative step in the round, and using their own action economy, so for my purpose we would disregard that (and like scenarios).
I guess a simpler way to put it would be:
Does this:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Mean explicitly that this:
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Applies only to actions taken by the triggering character that count toward his action economy, or should it be applied to any moving out of a threatened space except where explicitly noted otherwise such as Bulrush or Telekinesis (which is really just the same as bulrush but with range)?
|
|
I'm going to guess this never got an official mention because the kind of person to cast Hydraulic Push isn't the kind to have the three feats needed to trigger an exception.
A part of me actually wouldn't mind if the feats to improve combat manoeuvres applied to spells that did the same thing, simply due to how many you're having to use, and for some taking a practically useless feat (Power Attack, and how many wizards bother with that?). A three feat tax to trigger the ability on a class that isn't really pointing that direction, doesn't seem too harsh.
But I'm also not able to imagine how this could be abused. I'm leaning towards 'It'd be OK if it doesn't get too cheesy'. Remember, the feats that trigger those attacks of opportunity on involuntary movement are towards the end of some feat trees.
A Magus might, and I bring this up because I have played in the old d20 star wars RPG which was broken by the fact that you could use the force to hurl your opponents out of your threat range and through that of your lightsaber wielding companions and everyone got free attacks on them. It is why when D&D released 4th edition, the attacks of opportunity expressly called out forced movement as not being a trigger.
In pathfinder, I think with a careful reading of the rule, you can come to the conclusion that it isn't possible except in very occasional circumstances (ie Greater Bullrush). However it is no where near as cut and dried as "Forced movement never triggers attack of opportunity." Which verbiage they would have plenty of room to fit in the book if they cut all the wasted text from bulrush and telekinesis.
If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
I'm not so sure about that. Could you provide a source or citation for this claim?
|
|
If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
Alex, Do you have a citation to support that? because the rules I've quoted above aren't the clearest, but lean heavily in the direction of AoO not being triggered by compulsory movement. If this is un true, it can be a total game changer for casters who have innumerable ways to force enemies to move out of the space they threaten or the space threatened by others.
For example A Magus with Force Punch would immediately get a free melee attack on his target if they fail their save. and with enough levels and the proper 5 foot step, he could grant it to his allies as well, allowing 1 or more of them to take AoO as the target flies past.
If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
That's not how the rules actually work without specific feats. Replace throw with reposition, bulrush, etc and without the appropriate feats forced movement from those maneuvers doesn't provoke.
What about a person riding on a wagon? He's taking no actions, just sitting there, as the wagon goes past you. Can you take an AoO as he goes by?
No.
Why? He didn't provoke, because provoking requires one of those two kinds of actions and he's taking no action.
You could ready an action to hit him as he goes by. Or you could take an AoO at the horse pulling the wagon as it moves past you (using its move action). But the passenger taking no actions never provokes.
Why does it work this way?
Because provoking at AoO means YOU do something that prevents you from defending yourself. I quote:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action.
That is pretty clear.
So the guy sitting in the wagon is NOT letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore he doesn't provoke. The guy getting bullrushed is NOT letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore he doesn't provoke. A guy who is picked up and thrown is not letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore, he doesn't provoke. A guy who is grappled and moved by his grappler is not letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore, he doesn't provoke. Etc.
So, the game mechanics pretty much imply, or even indirectly state, that people who are forced to move without taking their own action to do it are able to keep their guard up, not let down their defenses, and therefore avoid provoking an AoO. While it seems a bit odd to imagine a giant picking up a man and hurling him across the landscape while that man keeps up his defenses in mid-hurl, that is EXACTLY what the rules say happens.
It's worth mentioning that Grapple gives you two options to move your opponent. First you move him to an adjacent square when you successfully grapple:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
And in the second round you can move your opponent with a successful combat maneuver check:
You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you.
Note that unlike bull rush and reposition, the grapple rules do not call out that this movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I've even had a player argue that the first rules section, "move that creature to an adjacent square" means "move that creature to any adjacent square", meaning an Ogre can move an opponent 45 feet by making a successful grapple check. If the Ogre instead used a reposition maneuver, he'd have to beat the opponent's CMD by 40 to make the same move.
I'm not so sure about that. Could you provide a source or citation for this claim?If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
Sure.
Moving provokes. It never stipulates that you WANTED to move.
Overthinking it is just silly.
Would you argue that a dominated person being told to run past an enemy wouldn't provoke?
I'm not so sure about that. Could you provide a source or citation for this claim?If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
Sure.
Moving provokes. It never stipulates that you WANTED to move.
Overthinking it is just silly.
Would you argue that a dominated person being told to run past an enemy wouldn't provoke?
Of course not. The dominated guy absolutely provokes in this case.
The dominated person is using an action to run past the enemy. Actions provoke. It doesn't matter if the decision to make the action comes from the person or the dominator, it's still an action that provokes.
What doesn't provoke is movement without actions - movement that doesn't require you to lower your defenses, let your guard down, or be reckless while you do it because it's not even your action that moves you.
|
|
I'm not so sure about that. Could you provide a source or citation for this claim?If someone picks you up and throws you, you are moving.
If, in your travels, you pass an opponent, they are entitled to an AoO if able to attack/threaten.
Sure.
Moving provokes. It never stipulates that you WANTED to move.
Overthinking it is just silly.
Would you argue that a dominated person being told to run past an enemy wouldn't provoke?
This is not a citation. Feel free to look at the OP to see what citations look like.
The text of the rule says that there are two types of actions[emphasis mine] that provoke attacks of opportunity; moving, and performing a distracting attack.
It then goes on tobe how the action of moving, and the action of performing a distracting action cause the AoO to be triggered.
My understanding is that the only time character movement constitutes an action per the rules, is if it uses up the action economy of their turn. Forced movement does not do this. In your example of Dominate, is a little different in that when dominated, the character follows your orders on his initiative and using his own action economy. Dominate and similar effects are not at issue, and are not relevant to the discussion.
So alex, by your logic: Even though every form of CMB check that causes movement specifies that it does not provoke an AoO without a certain feat, you can move an opponent and provoke an AoO? You seem to have a lot of RAW contradicting you and none supporting you.
So a paralyzed person, tied to a stick, being carried past a group armed with swords cannot provoke AoO, because they aren't expending actions...
But if that same person regains the use of their limbs, and gets free... passing that same group provokes attacks now.
Got it. Perfect way to prevent AoO on your injured wizard is to knock him out with nonlethal and carry him away. No AoO allowed on the wizard, as the rules don't support it. 100% success on survival (at least vs AoE).
How does that work with people on mounts? The mount is moving, not the rider, so does that also not provoke? I mean, I guess the mount can be attacked, but not the rider.
Right?
Also, lets assume that the mount is another PC, say... a centaur. No ride checks or actions being used by the rider to control his buddy.
Seems a bit silly to me, how about you guys?
I guess if I'm going against RAW, then so be it...
So alex, by your logic: Even though every form of CMB check that causes movement specifies that it does not provoke an AoO without a certain feat, you can move an opponent and provoke an AoO? You seem to have a lot of RAW contradicting you and none supporting you.
I believe the bolded section is false. Like I quoted above, Grappling can enforce movement in two different ways, neither one specifies that it does not provoke an AoO.
|
By forced movement we mean "was pushed" and not "mind control", right?
Depending on the form of the mind control it could trigger a new save, the command "come and stand beside me" might not be obeyed, or require a save, if coming over to you would require them to swim through a volcano caldera or walk down a hall of Maraliths itching to use their 6 swords.
The later cited since it would entail moving through threatened squares and provoke AOs.
So alex, by your logic: Even though every form of CMB check that causes movement specifies that it does not provoke an AoO without a certain feat, you can move an opponent and provoke an AoO? You seem to have a lot of RAW contradicting you and none supporting you.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I like to choose what goes in there.
Likewise, you just set up a very poor strawman. I am not attempting to strawman your argument, I am seeking to understand it, because I do not understand how you reached that conclusion.
In both of those circumstances, paralyzed or not, there is no AoO as the creature is not expending actions.
Moving a mount is different than being forcibly moved by another creature. As shown in mounted combat, a mount moving prevents you from doing things like taking a full attack because you are the one directing them in combat. That is you making the action to tell your horse to go forward.
The centaur example is a corner case. I would need to know more about the situation before making a ruling, but I agree it wouldn't be very clear either way.
|
|
What about a person riding on a wagon? He's taking no actions, just sitting there, as the wagon goes past you. Can you take an AoO as he goes by?
No.
Why? He didn't provoke, because provoking requires one of those two kinds of actions and he's taking no action.
You could ready an action to hit him as he goes by. Or you could take an AoO at the horse pulling the wagon as it moves past you (using its move action). But the passenger taking no actions never provokes.
Why does it work this way?
Because provoking at AoO means YOU do something that prevents you from defending yourself. I quote:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action.That is pretty clear.
So the guy sitting in the wagon is NOT letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore he doesn't provoke. The guy getting bullrushed is NOT letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore he doesn't provoke. A guy who is picked up and thrown is not letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore, he doesn't provoke. A guy who is grappled and moved by his grappler is not letting his guard down or taking a reckless action. Therefore, he doesn't provoke. Etc.
So, the game mechanics pretty much imply, or even indirectly state, that people who are forced to move without taking their own action to do it are able to keep their guard up, not let down their defenses, and therefore avoid provoking an AoO. While it seems a bit odd to imagine a giant picking up a man and hurling him across the landscape while that man keeps up his defenses in mid-hurl, that is EXACTLY what the rules say happens.
Replace wagon with horse. Does he provoke now? Does the horse? If so, why doesn't the wagon provoke?
So a paralyzed person, tied to a stick, being carried past a group armed with swords cannot provoke AoO, because they aren't expending actions...
But if that same person regains the use of their limbs, and gets free... passing that same group provokes attacks now.
You're right! By golly, you've cracked the code! You've broken Pathfinder! I'll shout it really big so everyone will know:
How does that work with people on mounts? The mount is moving, not the rider, so does that also not provoke? I mean, I guess the mount can be attacked, but not the rider.
Right?
Wrong. You and the mount move together. You both provoke.
Also, lets assume that the mount is another PC, say... a centaur. No ride checks or actions being used by the rider to control his buddy.
Now, this is a decent corner case that, to my knowledge, is handled poorly in the rules. Likewise, without even needing a non-standard monster race PC, you could just ride a wagon with a cohort (or hireling) driver. Technically, since the passenger is not using actions, he's not provoking with movement. That's RAW.
Again, I suggest Rule 0 might be applicable - if that passenger is spending an action casting, distribute his location across the path of his centaur and/or wagon and let everyone that threatens that portion of the path make their AoO.
Or just have the enemies ready an action instead.
Rule 0 for the win.
Seems a bit silly to me, how about you guys?
Yep, your suggestions do seem silly (really, paralyzed guy on a stick???) but that is, after all, what you were going for, right?
Replace wagon with horse. Does he provoke now? Does the horse? If so, why doesn't the wagon provoke?
The rider and the horse provoke. The horse is doing the movement, but your actions are guiding it too.
This is an extrapolation from the mounted combat Charge rules where you and the mount get the penalties/bonuses for charging even though the mount is doing all the charging. If THAT applies simultaneously to both the rider and the mount, then other combat effects should too, though that's not explicitly stated.
Since it's not explicitly stated, it's up to the GM. Rule 0. Do as you please.
But it seems clear to me that both are moving, so both provoke. Unless, as we've just learned, the rider is paralyzed and tied to a stick, in which case he breaks Pathfinder combat.
|
|
Replace wagon with horse. Does he provoke now? Does the horse? If so, why doesn't the wagon provoke?The rider and the horse provoke. The horse is doing the movement, but your actions are guiding it too.
This is an extrapolation from the mounted combat Charge rules where you and the mount get the penalties/bonuses for charging even though the mount is doing all the charging. If THAT applies simultaneously to both the rider and the mount, then other combat effects should too, though that's not explicitly stated.
Since it's not explicitly stated, it's up to the GM. Rule 0. Do as you please.
But it seems clear to me that both are moving, so both provoke. Unless, as we've just learned, the rider is paralyzed and tied to a stick, in which case he breaks Pathfinder combat.
What if I'm not using an action? What's if it's an intelligent horse and I'm simply letting it carry me via sitting in the saddle?
What if I'm using my actions to drive the wagon?
Replace wagon with horse. Does he provoke now? Does the horse? If so, why doesn't the wagon provoke?The rider and the horse provoke. The horse is doing the movement, but your actions are guiding it too.
This is an extrapolation from the mounted combat Charge rules where you and the mount get the penalties/bonuses for charging even though the mount is doing all the charging. If THAT applies simultaneously to both the rider and the mount, then other combat effects should too, though that's not explicitly stated.
Since it's not explicitly stated, it's up to the GM. Rule 0. Do as you please.
But it seems clear to me that both are moving, so both provoke. Unless, as we've just learned, the rider is paralyzed and tied to a stick, in which case he breaks Pathfinder combat.
What if I'm not using an action? What's if it's an intelligent horse and I'm simply letting it carry me via sitting in the saddle?
What if I'm using my actions to drive the wagon?
I hope you brought some popcorn to eat in the peanut gallery.