|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's the situation:
Round 1:
Monk: grapples Baddy
Baddy: Attempts to break grapple, Monk giggles
Round 2:
Monk: Makes his grapple check against Baddy, chooses to 'move'. The path of movement takes Baddy through squares threatened by Fighter who is an ally of Monk.
Baddy: Attempts his escape check with +4 bonus for being moved through a dangerous situation, Monk giggles again
Here's the question:
Does Fighter get an attack of opportunity?
The Argument for an AoO: Baddy has moved through Fighter's threatened square and so provokes an AoO. It is fair since Monk spent two round setting up this little dance and Baddy got two opportunities to resist.
The Argument against an AoO: Baddy has taken no actions that provoke AoOs. He was moved through threatened squares but took no actions of his own and cannot provoke AoOs unless the rules say otherwise (greater trip etc). It is unfair since it makes greater reposition somewhat redundant.
The grapple rules are decidedly vague on this point
Move:
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. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
|
In PF, AoOs are not triggered by actions, they are triggered by opportunities. However, the standard in PF is that AoOs are not triggered by involuntary movement. I don't think this is spelled out in the rules, but is spelled out by designer posts and the design of the relevant portions of the game that trigger involuntary movement in the absense of feats or other rules resources that state otherwise.
Baddy should not get a +4 for the grapple that moves him. It doesn't provoke an AoO from the fighter, so isn't dangerous in that regard. In addition, the +4 on a grapple for a dangerous situation relates to placing the grappled character in a hazardous location, which has not taken place. I understand this placing him in a situation, after the move, that is immanently dangerous, such as the examples described. Moving him through a wall of fire such that immanent harm applies should likely also trigger this within the spirit of rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Movement provokes, you don't have to be taking an action for the movement for it to do so:
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.
Most rules that force movement on the part of the opponent say that the movement does NOT provoke (bull rush is a notable example), but the rules in the grapple section section (as you quoted them) seem to be missing this. I'd be inclined to believe that the "way out" for the bad guy was the free escape attempt rather than negation of an AoO opportunity.
EDIT: You can cause involuntary movement to provoke via the Greater combat maneuver feats.
Nothing says moving as a grapple does not provoke an AoO. So yes, the baddy would provoke an AoO from the fighter once he left a threatened square. At best this could provoke one per turn however.
|
|
Here's the answer: An enemy being moved by a reposition does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Reposition feat. You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle.
But this isn't a reposition, it's a special use of grapple.
|
Ah I see now. I would personally rule it to be the same as a Reposition, my main logic being that the movement is not voluntary and from a logic stand point if you're close enough to be grappling someone as you're moving them an ally would not be able to safely attack your opponent without risk of hitting you instead. Otherwise the potential for abuse is also high, you could move past 5 allies and they would all get AOO's, doesn't sound right to me.
|
|
Here's the answer: An enemy being moved by a reposition does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Reposition feat. You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle.But this isn't a reposition, it's a special use of grapple.
I think their point was similar to mine: Other combat maneuvers have to make special mention that they do NOT provoke AoOs from the movement, and grapple does not have this special mention. Therefor it is strongly implied that they would provoke AoOs from movement.
I believe Bull Rush, Drag and Reposition all have this line, but will provoke AoOs if you possess the greater combat maneuver feat for them (with the restriction that YOU do not get to take the AoO, but anyone else can).
EDIT: I guess their point was different than mine.
|
|
Ah I see now. I would personally rule it to be the same as a Reposition, my main logic being that the movement is not voluntary and from a logic stand point if you're close enough to be grappling someone as you're moving them an ally would not be able to safely attack your opponent without risk of hitting you instead. Otherwise the potential for abuse is also high, you could move past 5 allies and they would all get AOO's, doesn't sound right to me.
That's basically my concern.
Stabbity: I generally agree with you. The other maneuvers spell it out very nicely when they do and do not provoke. Also, the spells that I can find that move enemies around the battle field make combat maneuvers, so the issues are generally the same.
From the SRD
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.
Baddy is obviously not performing a 'certain action' (like casting a spell), so doesn't meet criteria #2. Criteria #1 gets a bit hazy again. He's not taking an action to leave the square so that takes us out of the common use of this rule.
Two similar examples jump to mind where a character is moving without acting.
First is falling: Say fighter is flying 60' in the air, 30' below Baddy on a flying carpet. Baddy's carpet gets hit with disjunction and now he's falling. Will he provoke an AoO from Fighter if the path of his fall takes him through Fighter's threatened square?
Second is being grappled by a large creature: Baddy is adjacent to Fighter. Monk (who is large for this example) flanks Baddy with Fighter and successfully initiates a grapple. Grapple rules say that Baddy is moved adjacent to Monk, does this movement provoke an AoO?
It would be nice if the grappling rules were as clear as the other maneuvers, which interpretation stays closest to RaI?
|
|
I think as per the RAW the movement out of the threatened square would provoke an AoO, but to me this doesn't make a great deal of sense when you look at the other special combat manoeuvres and logically it would be difficult to pull off, even for a trained fighter.
I actually think the system would have been more realistic if the forced movement provoked. Remember that movement has to be very careful in order to *not* provoke (5ft, full withdraw nets you one square, acrobatics), and getting thrown back 20ft isn't exactly careful movement. Yet, because it's a Bull Rush, it does not provoke.
I think the "it doesn't provoke" stuff was a purely mechanical thing. Saying "it doesn't provoke from the instigator of the maneuver" would be fair since you're obviously mid-swing during the opportunity.
Similar to how Reposition does not allow you to put someone into an inherently dangerous spot, but Bull Rush does -- it's all for balance.
All that said, movement provokes unless stated otherwise; this is movement that does not state otherwise and thus it should provoke. Denying an AoO from the one forcing the movement would be fair (and in line to what bull rush and others do with similarly forced movement, though they require a couple feats to get there).
|
|
In PF, AoOs are not triggered by actions, they are triggered by opportunities. However, the standard in PF is that AoOs are not triggered by involuntary movement. I don't think this is spelled out in the rules, but is spelled out by designer posts and the design of the relevant portions of the game that trigger involuntary movement in the absense of feats or other rules resources that state otherwise.
I agree with the +4 thing, if it's not dangerous, he doesn't get it. Do you have any citations for the designer posts or other design elements?
|
|
I agree with the +4 thing, if it's not dangerous, he doesn't get it. Do you have any citations for the designer posts or other design elements?In PF, AoOs are not triggered by actions, they are triggered by opportunities. However, the standard in PF is that AoOs are not triggered by involuntary movement. I don't think this is spelled out in the rules, but is spelled out by designer posts and the design of the relevant portions of the game that trigger involuntary movement in the absense of feats or other rules resources that state otherwise.
From Bull Rush: "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."
From Drag: "An enemy being moved by a drag does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Drag feat.
From Reposition: "An enemy being moved by a reposition does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Reposition feat."
Some might see this as the exclusion of Grapple from that list as indicating it does provoke, others might see it as indicating a general idea that got left out of grapple due to space or as an oversight. On the basis of those as the only evidence, I can certainly see it being ruled either way.
I tried to search the forums for the developer comment on the subject without success. I did find a bunch of my posts mentioning that it depends on how your GM rules on involuntary movement. Maybe someone with better search fu can find the developer post; I'm pretty sure it was by SKR, but not positive.