Does a limb provoke/take an AOO?

[dcollins]

Oh, and dcollins, I'd appreciate your changing your .sig line, since it doesn't reflect the board's policy: we allow folks to put questions about pricing magic items in this forum, and your request will result in more work for us as we have to move threads about magic items back to this forum.

I've had this .sig line for over a year. It is a specific request to the moderators to reconsider their position on the matter. Is this now no longer acceptable, at the point where you're disagreeing with me in a separate rules matter?

 

[Pielorinho]

I've had this .sig line for over a year. It is a specific request to the moderators to reconsider their position on the matter. Is this now no longer acceptable, at the point where you're disagreeing with me in a separate rules matter?

I'm not going to force you to change it, but I'd appreciate your changing it, since its only effect is going to be to create more work for us as people see it and mistakenly decide to place such questions in house rules. If you'd like to see a change in this organizational structure, please start a thread in Meta instead.

I'm asking you as a favor, not demanding as a mod.

Daniel

 

[werk]

1) First of all, do you have to be large to do this? Could a medium creature reach into a square ahead of his own?

2) Does this action provoke an AOO?

3) Can the player actually damage the creature with his AOO by hitting the limb?

I've been giving this one a lot of thought, good question. I think about the only way to make this fall under the standard RAW is to rule that you can only pick up an item in your own square(s). Is there anything saying otherwise?

so...
1) no
2) yes
3) yes, they do not attack the limb, they attack the creature.

 

[Staffan]

On the other hand, I would say this just means that when it comes to fighting huge creatures, its a no-brainer to just STAY THE HECK OUT OF THEIR REACH. I mean honestly, if your fighter walks up to a purple worm to hit it with a pointy stick, he should EXPECT to get eaten.

This is shown in an old Swedish gaming comic:

 

[Infiniti2000]

1) no
2) yes
3) yes, they do not attack the limb, they attack the creature.

Hey, whasamaddawityou? That's the exact opposite of the way I answered it. Don't you like my answers?

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure what you mean because WotC specifically said you can't do this. So, how is that back-dooring called shots?

It's back-door called shots because the disarmed creature is only reaching in with his hand and arm to retrieve the weapon.
I think you should only get an AoO if the creature is actually in your own threatened area. Sure, it makes reach pretty useful. But shouldn't it be? It also means that medium-sized PCs trying to fight against giants while still being at reach range are fools. They should either stand well back and use missiles or get in close to bring their own weapons to bear at best advantage.

 

[Dakhran the Dark]

Personally, I'd rule that a creature can only bend down and pick up an item in its square (or one of its squares for Large or bigger), at least with any ease. If a character really wanted to pull some sort of tricky reach-and-grab from an adjacent square (within unarmed Reach), I'd make them perform some sort of check, probably DEX at 15 or 20, or fall prone in that square and become subject to AoO from opponents threatening that square.

However, any object at waist height or higher (within arm's reach of course) wouldn't be as much trouble, as it does not involve crouching or kneeling. That I would rule as being within a creature's Reach without requiring a check.

At any rate, I wouldn't give opponents an AoO unless the creature either fell prone, or was attempting to reach into an opponnent's square.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's back-door called shots because the disarmed creature is only reaching in with his hand and arm to retrieve the weapon.
I think you should only get an AoO if the creature is actually in your own threatened area.

I agree and my point was that WotC agrees. So, isn't the opposite interpretation and us and WotC "back-dooring called shots?" Yet, HeapThaumaturgist seems to think that requiring one to attack a creature's space is back-dooring called shots.

 

[werk]

Hey, whasamaddawityou? That's the exact opposite of the way I answered it. Don't you like my answers?

Yeah, I've been making bad calls lately...

But I'll stick by this one. You are a medium creature. Move 5' away (at least) from a wall. Now you can attack that wall without closing the distance, largely by using kicks, fine. But you can't pick up an object on the floor next to the wall without bending over and into that area.

Picking up is a lot different than attacking into IMO, and reach regards attacking.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yeah, I've been making bad calls lately...

But I'll stick by this one.

Are you very sure about that?

At the least, you should change your first answer to yes. If your first answer is no, then your next two answers are necessarily "Not Applicable".

Other than that, I'm not gonna argue it are try to dissuade your opinion. It's a perfectly fine choice.