Involuntary movement = AoO?
- Thread starter 0-hr
- Start date
kreynolds
First Post
IceBear said:
When you fall because of a trip, you fall within your own space, so true movement doesn't take place. Actually, if you move your opponent during a grapple, you can indeed subject yourselves to AoOs. So, this can of worms has been open for a while.
Anyways, I just searched the FAQ, and indeed there is information there that both supports and disproves your viewpoint.
This says two things. 1) Moving your opponent with you does indeed provoke AoOs. 2) Moving your opponent while you stand still does not subject your opponent to AoOs.
But wait, there's more...
Again, this shows us that forceably moving your opponent while you stand still does not subject your opponent to AoOs.
So, according to the FAQ, forceably moving your opponent while you stand still does not subject your opponent to AoOs. Forceably moving your opponent and moving with him subjects both of you to AoOs.
Yeah, I know the FAQ is the FAQ is the FAQ is the FAQ is the FAQ, but still.
Last edited:
IceBear
Explorer
When I talked about the trip not causing an AoO, it wasn't due to movement, it was in response to your idea that the bullrush AoO was because you were offbalance and unable to defend yourself. Since while you're falling down you are most definitely off balance (and most likely unable to defend yourself) if we allow the AoO for bull rush for anything other than movement we'd have to allow it for things such as trip and grapple.
With regards to the FAQ, it probably depends on when that question was answered, but since the PHB is the source of the Sage's answers I'm not surprised at this ruling (it pretty much says what I was using - AoO if you bullrush someone, none if you throw them). As you said, this is D&D so the FAQ is based on the PHB and since the PHB has that rule explicitly stated then the FAQ would have to support this (there has been no errata).
However, in my case, I'm going to house rule it to match the SRD as it's just cleaner.
IceBear
With regards to the FAQ, it probably depends on when that question was answered, but since the PHB is the source of the Sage's answers I'm not surprised at this ruling (it pretty much says what I was using - AoO if you bullrush someone, none if you throw them). As you said, this is D&D so the FAQ is based on the PHB and since the PHB has that rule explicitly stated then the FAQ would have to support this (there has been no errata).
However, in my case, I'm going to house rule it to match the SRD as it's just cleaner.
IceBear
0-hr
Starship Cartographer
So basically, if the pusher opens himself up to possible AoO's, then the victim is vulnerable as well. Stange, but I can live with it. I guess if you are stubling backwards alone you can still defend yourself, but if you are stumbling backwards with the pusher right in your face, then you cannot.
Still doesn't answer the 5ft question though. Also, I think (if it ever comes up), that I'll have to have forced movement count against a player's allowed move; first from the previous round, and then from the next round if there is that much movement. But I'll post the conundrum in a different thread...
Still doesn't answer the 5ft question though. Also, I think (if it ever comes up), that I'll have to have forced movement count against a player's allowed move; first from the previous round, and then from the next round if there is that much movement. But I'll post the conundrum in a different thread...
IceBear
Explorer
Ki Ryn said:
That just seems to awkward to me, and is the main reason I'm going to use the Bull Rush from the SRD and Star Wars (where there is no AoO due to forced movement).
Since 3E has come out, it's been my understanding of the 5ft adjustment as being something where you consciously give up the rest of your movement in order to defend yourself. I know that the general rule is "If the character's total movement for the round is 5ft you don't suffer an AoO", but I think this is just a general blanket statement to help people understand a 5ft adjustment. I don't think being pushed should be considered a character's movement, just like falling down a pit wouldn't, and so I don't think the benefits of the 5ft adjustment should apply to it.
IceBear
Rel
Liquid Awesome
This has been a very interesting thread all the way around.
For now, I still think that forced movement should cause AoO's, which I agree could get a bit messy at times. But I would argue that not having AoO's for forced movement could cause some equally wonky situations.
For example:
An Ogre manages to charge the party Wizard and the Wizard is now in a very tough spot. He can't afford to escape because doing so would cause an AoO due to movement. He can't afford to cast a spell because doing so would also cause an AoO and any single attack by the Ogre could kill him.
No problem. The Fighter in the party can just Bull Rush the Wizard out of the Ogre's threatened area. Sure the Ogre gets an AoO on the Fighter (just one though unless the Ogre has Combat Reflexes) but the Fighter probably has better AC and Hit Points than the Wizard and can take the hit a lot easier. Even if the DM doesn't allow the Wizard to "Take 0" on his opposed Strength check, the Fighter will outclass him on Strength by a big margin anyway.
If the Wizard is smart enough to Delay his action until the Fighter completes his Bull Rush, he can then move away and cast a spell that might end the Ogre threat for good.
In such a case, I can only imagine the poor Ogre looking at the camera and saying, "Bull Rush? More like Bull****!"
Of course the DM can always overrule this situation, but I don't like to do that. That's what rules are for.
For now, I still think that forced movement should cause AoO's, which I agree could get a bit messy at times. But I would argue that not having AoO's for forced movement could cause some equally wonky situations.
For example:
An Ogre manages to charge the party Wizard and the Wizard is now in a very tough spot. He can't afford to escape because doing so would cause an AoO due to movement. He can't afford to cast a spell because doing so would also cause an AoO and any single attack by the Ogre could kill him.
No problem. The Fighter in the party can just Bull Rush the Wizard out of the Ogre's threatened area. Sure the Ogre gets an AoO on the Fighter (just one though unless the Ogre has Combat Reflexes) but the Fighter probably has better AC and Hit Points than the Wizard and can take the hit a lot easier. Even if the DM doesn't allow the Wizard to "Take 0" on his opposed Strength check, the Fighter will outclass him on Strength by a big margin anyway.
If the Wizard is smart enough to Delay his action until the Fighter completes his Bull Rush, he can then move away and cast a spell that might end the Ogre threat for good.
In such a case, I can only imagine the poor Ogre looking at the camera and saying, "Bull Rush? More like Bull****!"
Of course the DM can always overrule this situation, but I don't like to do that. That's what rules are for.
Last edited:
IceBear
Explorer
Good point.
This also brings up the fact that if someone had the Great Throw feat they could "throw" the wizard out of harms way and that wouldn't cause an AoO (at least not according to the FAQ or any of the rules that I've seen).
I know that you don't like doing so, but I tend to over ride the rules if someone is doing something because of a loophole in them. In the above case I would just say that since the ogre doesn't care if he hits either the fighter or the wizard he gets to take an AoO for the movement.
Hmmm - hard to decide what to do. Regardless of what I decided, pushing someone 5ft won't count as a 5ft adjustment in my game.
IceBear
This also brings up the fact that if someone had the Great Throw feat they could "throw" the wizard out of harms way and that wouldn't cause an AoO (at least not according to the FAQ or any of the rules that I've seen).
I know that you don't like doing so, but I tend to over ride the rules if someone is doing something because of a loophole in them. In the above case I would just say that since the ogre doesn't care if he hits either the fighter or the wizard he gets to take an AoO for the movement.
Hmmm - hard to decide what to do. Regardless of what I decided, pushing someone 5ft won't count as a 5ft adjustment in my game.
IceBear
A while back, as part of a discussion on the wotc boards, i wrote the sage.
I call it the piniata maneuver.
you use tk to grab an enemy and move him 20' down the line of your troops, allowing each to get an AoO for his moving by them.
lather, rinse, repeat.
Sage confirmed then that it was kosher. Movement is mobement and if it would provoke an AoO it does so.
its sage... for what its worth. since the rules do specifcy at least one case of involuntary movement causing aoo and does bot normally differentiate, i am fine with going with the sage's response.
ymmv
I call it the piniata maneuver.
you use tk to grab an enemy and move him 20' down the line of your troops, allowing each to get an AoO for his moving by them.
lather, rinse, repeat.
Sage confirmed then that it was kosher. Movement is mobement and if it would provoke an AoO it does so.
its sage... for what its worth. since the rules do specifcy at least one case of involuntary movement causing aoo and does bot normally differentiate, i am fine with going with the sage's response.
ymmv
Rel
Liquid Awesome
My final position on the matter is this:
The rules don't seem to refute the possibility of AoO's for forced movement. It makes logical sense to me that they could be allowed.
Bull Rushing someone also necessarily means that you give up an attack to do so (with the exception of a couple of feats that let you do it as part of an attack). It also gives your opponent an AoO on you most of the time. It also requires that you beat them in an opposed Strength check. Then, if you are sucessful, your allies who threaten the same opponent get to make an AoO (if they haven't already made one previously in the round) and if they hit, the opponent takes some amount of damage that may or may not be greater than what you would have inflicted if you had just hit them in the first place (and if you are going around Bull Rushing folks on a regular basis, you probably have enough Strength to do a fair amount of damage in the first place).
Nothing about that seems unbalanced to me.
The rules don't seem to refute the possibility of AoO's for forced movement. It makes logical sense to me that they could be allowed.
Bull Rushing someone also necessarily means that you give up an attack to do so (with the exception of a couple of feats that let you do it as part of an attack). It also gives your opponent an AoO on you most of the time. It also requires that you beat them in an opposed Strength check. Then, if you are sucessful, your allies who threaten the same opponent get to make an AoO (if they haven't already made one previously in the round) and if they hit, the opponent takes some amount of damage that may or may not be greater than what you would have inflicted if you had just hit them in the first place (and if you are going around Bull Rushing folks on a regular basis, you probably have enough Strength to do a fair amount of damage in the first place).
Nothing about that seems unbalanced to me.
IceBear
Explorer
I don't think that's really an issue. I agree that the PHB states that forced movement would generate an AoO (but for some reason all the other rulebooks and SRD have dropped that). The question becomes whether or not being forced back 5ft (with no other movement) is the same as a 5ft adjustment?
I think not, but others think it is.
IceBear
I think not, but others think it is.
IceBear
