Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4620289" data-attributes="member: 32740">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."</blockquote>

Verification