Improved Grab and AOO

[Infiniti2000]

The victim isn't the one acting.

Right, but the assailant is acting, causing the movement, and for improved grab that act explicitly does not provoke an AoO.

If I cast a Quickened Telekinesis and use it to Bull Rush someone, their movement might provoke an AoO, even though the act of casting a Quickened spell does not provoke an AoO.

Why does their movement provoke an AoO? "Resolve these attempts as normal, except that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity..." The attempt doesn't, as explicitly stated, but then the results following the attempt must be looked up in the appropriate rules for bull rush. That's a lot different than the situation with Improved Grab so this analogy is wholly inappropriate. This analogy would only be valid if the act in question referenced, say, an "inverted bull rush". But, it doesn't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The attempt doesn't, as explicitly stated, but then the results following the attempt must be looked up in the appropriate rules for bull rush.

Right. And the act of dragging someone into your space doesn't, but the results of leaving a threatened square must be looked up...

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Right. And the act of dragging someone into your space doesn't, but the results of leaving a threatened square must be looked up...

-Hyp.

No, they don't. The looking up stops with the next sentence: "This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, they don't. The looking up stops with the next sentence: "This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

But the act is "dragging the opponent into your space". My opponent is not "dragging the opponent into your space". He's leaving a threatened square.

Remember footnote 1 to Table 8-2:
Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

It's perfectly possible for an action not to provoke an AoO, yet movement out of a threatened square resulting from that action to provoke an AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But the act is "dragging the opponent into your space". My opponent is not "dragging the opponent into your space". He's leaving a threatened square.

Remember footnote 1 to Table 8-2:
Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

It's perfectly possible for an action not to provoke an AoO, yet movement out of a threatened square resulting from that action to provoke an AoO.

But, you (the victim) are not performing an "action". Therefore you do not provoke an AoO unless the rule that permits you to move (as an action or not, e.g. in reaction to a blade barrier) says you provoke an AoO. In this case, it explicitly says you do not provoke an AoO by virtue of the action taken by your assailant.

Does someone who avoids a blade barrier by moving provoke an AoO? I say not.

 

[Artoomis]

...Does someone who avoids a blade barrier by moving provoke an AoO? I say not.

Certainly they do.

 

[werk]

But, you (the victim) are not performing an "action".

Here's the applicable from BullRush:

"Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved."

He's not performing an action, either.

I can't really find any other effect that pulls defenders toward attackers, but every effect that I am finding that pushes defenders defers to BullRush as the primary mechanic. I think it is reasonable to apply those mechanics to any involuntary movement perpetrated upon a defender.

 

[Dracorat]

And I dont. It is a specific notation on a specific combat action.

Additionally, as I stated above, the rules for movement and AoOs state that it occurs when the person moving took a movement action, which they didn't if they are being manipulated.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Dracorat, I disagree. The footnote states "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square..."

not --> "Regardless of the action, if you take a move action to move out of a threatened square ..."

The Bull-rush rule sets precedence for drawing an AoO when someone else forces you to move through a threatened zone. This rule is refered to in a number of other similar situations.

Sure, WOTC should have written this a bit better, but IMHO the RAW clearly states that when a character physically is transported out of a square that is threatened, whether by thier own motivation or by bull-rush/TK/Imp Grab/Carriage/whatever, they draw an AoO.

5'steps and special feats like Spring attack make exceptions to this rule.



Interesting discussion so far tho..not often Hyp and I are on the same page

 

[Infiniti2000]

He's not performing an action, either.

Right, which is why I said "unless the rule that permits you to move says you provoke an AoO."

I can't really find any other effect that pulls defenders toward attackers, but every effect that I am finding that pushes defenders defers to BullRush as the primary mechanic. I think it is reasonable to apply those mechanics to any involuntary movement perpetrated upon a defender.

I say that would be a fine choice without additional statements to the contrary like the sentence in Improved Grab that says it does not provoke an AoO.

Let's understand your reference to bull rush. Improved Grab, under your interpretation, makes no mention of the AoO for being moved. It is assumed that the movement provokes an AoO based entirely upon the normal rules for movement and that the rule I quote is undeniably only for the pulling action (separating the victim's move from the assailant's pull). However, you then reference bull rush which does not rely upon this same implicit rule. If it did, then no mention in bull rush would be necessary. Yet, bull rush mentions the AoO and Improved Grab (and blade barrier) does not. Please explain this inconsistency, especially in the face of my arguments.