Involuntary movement = AoO?

[Rel]

Anyway, I just say that the move from a bullrush is something else completely. If the character had moved 30ft that round and then was bullrushed another 5ft I wouldn't say that he couldn't be moved because he has no movement left for that round. It's just something "extra" and I wouldn't count it as a 5ft adjustment.

IceBear

Eloquently put, IceBear. I feel that the involuntary movement due to being Bull Rushed falls outside the normal movement rules and falls within the "you (through no fault of your own) are in a position where you cannot defend yourself properly and are subject to attack by those who threaten you" category.

 

[kreynolds]

True, but they are semantically different things. A 5ft step isn't a 5-ft adjustment unless declared as such. Sure at the END of the round, if all the player did was move the 5ft he could say it was a 5ft adjustment, but at the beginning of the round he might have meant just a 5ft move (this was relevant in a discussion in the past - maybe something to do with haste?)

Anyway, I just say that the move from a bullrush is something else completely. If the character had moved 30ft that round and then was bullrushed another 5ft I wouldn't say that he couldn't be moved because he has no movement left for that round. It's just something "extra" and I wouldn't count it as a 5ft adjustment.

IceBear

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you have already moved more than 5-feet within a threatened area, it doesn't matter whether you took a 5-foot step (adjustment) or a 5-foot move. If you get bull-rushed later in that same round, you have moved more than 5-feet within a threatened area, so you provoke AoOs.

The semantics of a 5-foot step/move are irrelevant in this particular case. If you move more than 5-feet in a threatened area in a round, you provoke AoOs from those that threaten you. That's what I was saying.

 

[Corwin]

I feel that the involuntary movement due to being Bull Rushed falls outside the normal movement rules and falls within the "you (through no fault of your own) are in a position where you cannot defend yourself properly and are subject to attack by those who threaten you" category.

So do you plan on allowing AoOs on the targets of grapples as well? I can't imagine being able to properly defend yourself from others when you've got someone grabbing you and trying to put you into a full nelson.

So, can I have an AoO on you as you slide down this slippery slope?

 

[IceBear]

That's true. It makes sense to allow AoO when you're grappled doesn't it? I'd give a chance of hitting the person grappling him though. Anyway, that's in the realm of house rules.

As I've stated, if you've used up all your movement for the round you can still be moved by a bull's rush. Thus, you're moving, but not of your own will and power, and thus, you can't make that movement a 5ft adjustment.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

As I've stated, if you've used up all your movement for the round you can still be moved by a bull's rush.

I never said you couldn't.

Thus, you're moving, but not of your own will and power, and thus, you can't make that movement a 5ft adjustment.

I didn't say this either. Where are you getting this from?

 

[IceBear]

Em - that was in response to Corwin, as I got the impression (maybe wrong) that he wouldn't allow a AoO on someone that was bullrushed for only 5ft.

IceBear

 

[Rel]

The semantics of a 5-foot step/move are irrelevant in this particular case. If you move more than 5-feet in a threatened area in a round, you provoke AoOs from those that threaten you. That's what I was saying.

I understood what you were saying, kreynolds. I just disagree in that I don't believe that a combatant who didn't voluntarily move 5 feet on his turn should be immune to an AoO resulting from a Bull Rush while a combatant who did voluntarily move 5 feet on his turn is subject to the same AoO.

The rules are not specific about this but I think that Bull Rush forces you to move "within or out of a threatened area" and is, by definition, not a 5 foot step. As I said before, this is just my interpretation and others may disagree but I don't think it is refuted by any of the written rules I've seen so far.

In response to your comment, Corwin, there is already a rules mechanic for having a reduced capacity for defending yourself while grappling or being grappled. So no AoO's are intimated or required to adjudicate that situation. Ergo, no slippery slope from where I'm sitting.

 

[Corwin]

Interestingly, I don't see anywhere in the description of Bull Rush, that "post-contact" movement has any kind of special AoO rules attached. The 25% rule is in regards to the initialization of the attack.

Here, from the SRD:

"Bull rush [Standard][AoO: Yes]

Description: A combatant can bull rush as an attack action or a charge action.

When a combatant bull rushes, the combatant attempts to push an opponent straight back instead of attacking him. A combatant can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than the combatant, the same size, or smaller.

Initiating a Bull Rush: First, the combatant moves into the defender's space. Moving in this way provokes an attack of opportunity from each foe that threatens the combatant, probably including the defender. Any attack of opportunity made by anyone other than the defender against the combatant during a bull rush has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the defender instead, and any attack of opportunity by anyone other than the combatant against the defender likewise has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the combatant.

Second, the combatant and the defender make opposed Strength checks. The combatant adds a +4 bonus for each size category that the combatant is above Medium-size or a -4 penalty for each size category that the combatant is below Medium-size. The combatant gets a +2 charge bonus if the Bull Rush is attempted at the end of a Charge. The defender gets a +4 stability bonus if he has more than two legs or is otherwise exceptionally stable.

Bull Rush Results: If the combatant beat the defender, the combatant pushes the defender back 5 feet. If the combatant wishes to move with the defender, the combatant can push the defender back up to a distance of an additional 1 foot for each point by which the combatant exceeded the defender's check result. A combatant can't, however, exceed his or her normal movement limit.

If the combatant fails to beat the defender's Strength check, the combatant moves 5 feet straight back. If that space is occupied, the combatant falls prone in that space."

-----

I will say that I'd tend to rule: No. Pushing someone back only 5 feet would not draw additional AoOs based on movement. Only because that seems excessive to me. Especially since the attacker doesn't have to follow through. So it becomes a cheesy way of forcing a bunch of AoOs on someone. That, and the Shield Bash feat becomes a whole lotta wholesome goodness.

 

[Corwin]

In response to your comment, Corwin, there is already a rules mechanic for having a reduced capacity for defending yourself while grappling or being grappled. So no AoO's are intimated or required to adjudicate that situation. Ergo, no slippery slope from where I'm sitting.

Except that you were speicifically agreeing with IceBear as to why you rule the way you do. In that the defender is less able to defend themselves. Using that as a criteria, grappled opponents should indeed be subject to AoOs. Not threatening areas around you, and losing your Dex bonus to AC, being beside the point.

 

[0-hr]

Does that SRD quote agree with the PHB (either printing)? I have a vauge recollection of wording that indicated AoO occuring as normal for the forced movement, but I don't have a book handy.