| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
When you threaten a space and the opponent moves out of that space in any way other than a guarded step (see page 247) or withdraw action (see above), you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
Should I take this to mean that forced movement caused by an enemy (such as a bull rush or a solarian's various gravity powers) can cause me to provoke attacks of opportunity? I've seen this stated as being case by others here on the forum.
Or is the above passage written specifically within the the context of voluntary movement? It clearly states "in any way" but that could easily have been meant as a to reference to burrowing, climbing, flying, swimming, trick attacking, or some other form of nonstandard voluntary movement; rather than indicating that involuntary forced movement is supposed to provoke.
It could be easily interpreted either way, so I'm primarily looking to know the developers' intent on this one.
Just letting you know this is a duplicate question of a not so old thread:
|
After exhaustive examination of the relevant rules language, and because of no clarification yet, Reading AS Written RAW, forced movement *does* provoke an attack of opportunity reaction.
Rules are very specific about the three cases that provoke AO, and forced movement fits the definition of the rule you quoted.
Further, bull rush and other maneuvers have the potential also to allow this AO, even on your turn, as you CAN take reactions on your turn, and reactions reset at the beginning of your turn.
I may not like it, but it's what we're left with until a clarification. On the other hand, it you spend your actions to do bull rushes, and hit that high #, you've earned the AO, imho.
We've had clarifications for Pathfinder that forced movement doesn't provoke unless something specifically says that it does
Any idea where? I was looking for it the other day with no luck
but Starfinder isn't Pathfinder. "moves out of that space in any way" is a strong general statement that we are then given exceptions for.
A skittermander with extra leverage can boop an opponent 35 feet, probably through the parties entire melee collection while taking their own aoo (since the opponent left a space YOU threaten too...)
I also recall a clarification that forced movement doesn't provoke, but I can't remember where.
The issue with "forced movement" is that there is, fundamentally, a difference between moving and being moved. One involves an action, the other doesn't. Is it the repositioning that causes the AoO, or is it the taking an action *involving* repositioning, that causes the AoO?
Well, as far as english goes like a lot of things it's ambiguous. I don't know how it could have been phrased to distinguish between the two.
As far as realism goes, i think someone being bull rushed through my strike zone is at least as easy to whack as someone walking through it.
But this definitely needs a clarification, and I have no idea why they've been sitting on it so long.
|
After exhaustive examination of the relevant rules language, and because of no clarification yet, Reading AS Written RAW, forced movement *does* provoke an attack of opportunity reaction.
Rules are very specific about the three cases that provoke AO, and forced movement fits the definition of the rule you quoted.
Further, bull rush and other maneuvers have the potential also to allow this AO, even on your turn, as you CAN take reactions on your turn, and reactions reset at the beginning of your turn.
I may not like it, but it's what we're left with until a clarification. On the other hand, it you spend your actions to do bull rushes, and hit that high #, you've earned the AO, imho.
I don't think it's all that clear-cut. The book says:
When you threaten a space and the opponent moves out
of that space in any way other than a guarded step (see
page 247) or withdraw action (see above), you can use your
reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
It's written in the active form - "the opponent moves", and then immediately goes on to talk about two specific actions that don't provoke.
Everywhere else in the book, any ability of item that interacts with attacks of opportunity talks about attacks of opportunity provoked by someone doing something: "leaving a square", "making a ranged attack" etcetera. The one provoking the AoO is always the one doing something.
So while it's possible to read the passage on 248 as enabling AoOs for forced movement, that's not the only correct-English reading, and the circumstantial evidence all points to only active movement provoking.
(Also, we know Starfinder was a spinoff product based on preliminary research for PF2, where forced movement also doesn't provoke, and in PF1 it was also thought not to. So RAI is also fairly consistently against forced provocation.)
It's written in the active form - "the opponent moves", and then immediately goes on to talk about two specific actions that don't provoke.
That distinction simply is not there in the language.
Simple Present
Once a week, Tom cleans the house.
Once a week, the house is cleaned by Tom.
Yes, thats active and passive, but its voice. Its a difference in phrasing, not doing (Tom is still doing the cleaning either way)
You have to look at the context. Every ability, spell and item that interacts with AoOs is written as if it's the opponent actively doing something.
That's circular. This is written as if the opponent was actively doing something because its written as if the opponent was actively doing something.
Unless only BEING moved moved provoked there's no easy way to distinguish between the two. Moving includes both moving voluntarily and being moved The implication you're saying is there from the verbiage simply is not there.
Probably.
If it didn't, why would abilities such as Black Hole specify they don't?
"Creatures moved by this ability do not provoke attacks of opportunity from this movement".
But this obviously does not replace an official ruling.
--
Other than tossing an enemy through your allies threatened squares, doesn't seem as much of a strategy - not very “repeatable” in the same combat. But with the right feats and gear, you might get a character build out of it.
If it works, it wod be VERY easily repeatable when you have things like Armor Storm soldiers dealing unarmed strike damage when they bullrush, or Agile Wavelengths solarians (especially depending on how you handle the wildly unclear rules of how some maneuvers work at range, especially reposition).