Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="magnusmalkus" data-source="post: 6141907" data-attributes="member: 34915">The more I hear the more I'm understanding.  It looks like, for this gray area, that one must adjudicate based on the circumstances.The bull-rush maneuver+AoO management has been gone over with a fine toothed comb throughout the years. There's lots of information on the topic all over the place.  I don't think any precedent set in the Bull-Rush discussion applies to my specific scenario... or does it... hmmm.  I'll get back to that.The specific scenario that occurred in our our game was as such:The party was up against a Scorpion Swarm (Sandstorm, pg 185).  Everyone involved in this scenario was lined up in a single 5' wide path, 25' long with lots of empty space beyond them.  Starting at the left was a Druidess, in the next square was another PC (a Binder).  Occupying the same square as the Binder was 5' worth of the 20' long/5'wide scorpion swarm:Druidess - Binder/Scorpion Swarm - Scorpion Swarm - Scorpion Swarm - Scorpion Swarm The Druidess in the group used Gust of Wind to push the Swarm back targeting the square in front of her, where the Binder stood and the swarm began.  Being tiny creatures, the gust wound up pushing the Swarm back 30', leaving the medium sized humanoid in place, and consequently theoretically qualifying an AoO due to the technical occurrence that a portion (two portions to be precise) of the swarm moved out of a square the Binder threatened.  At the time to keep the game moving, I adjudicated that the Binder did get an AoO (he only qualified for one AoO a turn) but that I'd do some research before next session.  It just didn't seem right to me.  In light of these discussions, I'd say I ruled correctly in allowing it.  I think I've been swayed to the perspective that because the scorpion swarm was being tossed about in 50 MPH winds, that they were momentarily 'distracted' enough (ie, 'exposed' or else involuntarily forced to 'lower their defenses') to qualify to suffer the AoO.  After all, the spell also specifies that they end their movement prone.  But that was the rub... INVOLUNTARILY forced.  I like shidaku's statement that defenses do not go down if you are forced to move (the Withdrawal combat action gives precedent that it is possible to move and defend), and I want to apply that across the board, but what we are dissecting here is the difference between voluntarily moving and involuntary moving.  It looks like that in many cases, involuntary movement is often 'distracting' enough to qualify that someones defenses are lowered - and that must be the element that needs adjudicating in these gray areas.  I suppose this also means falling victims can also be AoO'd if a cliff-side combatant is somehow secured and can threaten a square the falling victim leaves, and be able to make an attack.Does this mean someone who is involuntarily forced to move is ALSO denied their Dex bonus to AC for the AoO?  Well, if the action specifically says they land prone (as in the Gust of Wind spell), then I guess - yes.   Speaking of which, can you apply sneak attack on an AoO?  /shrugAs for Bull-Rush... maybe it does set precedent to allow the AoO.  If we consider that theoretically it's the Druidess and the Scorpion Swarm that are enacting a Bull-Rush like maneuver with a Gust Of Wind spell, as in Bull-Rush, the victim IS moved and thus does provoke an AoO from combatants 'outside' of that maneuver. And, the Binder, in this case, is exactly that outside party!  That works for me.</blockquote>

Verification