AoO for Unanticipated Movement?

[Jeff Wilder]

An AoO is generated when you "move out" of a threatened square not when using the "move action" - which is what is the mechanic for "movement".

So when my half-ogre with Awesome Blow knocks an adjacent opponent flying back 10 feet, my half-ogre also gets an AoO on the guy? That rocks. Boy, do I wish you were my DM!

Wait ... except that so does the Gargantuan dragon with Snatch when he flings my PC away. Uh-oh.

Those of you clinging to this argument seriously need to rethink it.

 

[Corsair]

So when my half-ogre with Awesome Blow knocks an adjacent opponent flying back 10 feet, my half-ogre also gets an AoO on the guy? That rocks. Boy, do I wish you were my DM!

Wait ... except that so does the Gargantuan dragon with Snatch when he flings my PC away. Uh-oh.

Those of you clinging to this argument seriously need to rethink it.

Why? Sucks to be small and move though threatened spaces. So what?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Why? Sucks to be small and move though threatened spaces. So what?

Neither of my examples had anything to do with being Small or choosing to move through a threatened square.

And that's the point: Giving somebody an AoO is a consequence of choosing to perform an action. Extending that concept to involuntary stuff has pretty unbalancing effects.

Awesome Blow is balanced by giving the attacker only one attack for the round ... giving the attacker an automatic second attack (at full attack bonus, no less!) is huge.

But never mind. If y'all don't get it by now, my guess is you won't. Have fun.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Neither of my examples had anything to do with being Small...

Why did you capitalize "small" when Corsair did not? Obviously, he wasn't talking about being Small. He was talking about being small...like a Medium human compared to a Gargantuan dragon.

As he said, it sucks to be small(er than your opponent). So what?

 

[irdeggman]

Neither of my examples had anything to do with being Small or choosing to move through a threatened square.

And that's the point: Giving somebody an AoO is a consequence of choosing to perform an action. Extending that concept to involuntary stuff has pretty unbalancing effects.

Awesome Blow is balanced by giving the attacker only one attack for the round ... giving the attacker an automatic second attack (at full attack bonus, no less!) is huge.

But never mind. If y'all don't get it by now, my guess is you won't. Have fun.

Yup I guess that is true.

The correllary is the infamous AoO chain that starts when someone does an attack as their AoO that in turn generates an AoO from their target and that target does an attack that in turn generates an AoO from that target.


For example tripping without the improved trip feat would start this chain.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"Moving" and "being moved" are not the same thing. As a general rule, moving provokes AoOs. Being moved involuntarily, generally speaking, does not. (And when it does, it is specified. It's specified because it is the exception.)

Falling does not provokes AoOs. Awesome Blow does not provoke AoOs. Choosing one side or the other of a wall of fire does not provoke AoOs. Being flung as a victim of the Snatch feat does not provoke AoOs.

Being bull rushed provokes AoOs. Why? Because bull rush specifies that it does.

AoOs are, within the game, justified as representing the PC dropping his guard, as a consequence of voluntarily doing something that requires it. Drinking a potion provokes an AoO. Feeding a potion to an unconscious character provokes an AoO ... for the person doing the feeding voluntarily, not for the person who is involuntarily ingesting it.

Moving voluntarily provokes AoOs. Moving involuntarily does not ... unless the specific rule controlling that involuntary movement says so.

I have to agree.

3.5 PH, p. 137, under Provoking a Attack of Opportunity: "Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square." There's also the Glossary definition: "A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity." These are provocations - voluntary actions taken by a character and not results of someone elses actions. Now, that CAN happen as well, as has been noted, but then it's specified when someone elses actions can cause YOU to be subject to an AoO. The basic purpose and intent of AoO is to be a penalty to you for actions YOU take, not (generally) as a further penalty to be inflicted upon you for involuntary movement, except where specified.

DM's should obviously rule on individual circumstances as they see fit, but IMO, the circumstances of the OP do NOT call for an AoO, and none is needed or deserved.
...
In fact, with just a litte further thought, any rule that exceeds the basic premise given in the PH as I quoted should probably be viewed as being not well-written because it DOES pervert the function and intent of AoO. Bull Rush, to take a previous example should probably be noted as not being well-written because it attempts to claim that an AoO is generated BECAUSE a defender gets pushed back when the rules for AoO themselves give indications quite to the contrary. Bull Rush should instead say that being pushed back invites those who threaten the defender to simply make a free attack as a further consequence of a successful Bull Rush and not mention attacks of opportunity at all.

Either that or the the "definition" of what an Attack of Opportunity is and how it is provoked should have been extensively rewritten to something akin to, "The so-called rule is this, but we use the term to indicate free or bonus attacks in general in a lot of places."