D&D 5E Opportunity Attacks and Spells

[Li Shenron]

Not only does the spell say it causes an AoO

Why are we even discussing it?

 

[Tormyr]

This is tricky...

I think it says somewhere that forced movement doesn't cause OA. Is this forced movement for this purpose?

OTOH "You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction." Why specifying it if it's not important? And yet I seem to remember that Mearls said that the intention was in general to make it not possible to "force provoking an OA".

Honestly, in this case I would rule that the Bard doesn't get an OA.

BTW, it just occured to me that this spell sounds like possibly bad design... if the target has already used his reaction, the spell fails? IMHO this is the kind of design that easily makes a designer feel "smart" for using the combat rules framework and its keywords, but very often leads to unwanted consequences because it's very hard to remember or predict how it will interact with other parts of such framework.

The requirement is that you have to use your movement. If something else moves you without using your movement, action or reaction, then they do not get an opportunity attack. I would have to see the spell to be sure, but in this case, it seems that the bard gets an opportunity attack since the enemy used its reaction and movement. Another question would be if the enemy had to follow the command if it knew it would be harmful to do so.

EDIT: Case closed.

 

[aramis erak]

The rules say the specific case rules for spells and features override the more general rules in those specific cases.
So, unless the spell or power says it triggers an AoO, moving someone else doesn't provoke an AoA. And the Spell Dissonant Whispers says it does, so it does, while a shove attack doesn't.

 

[Scorpio616]

So, unless the spell or power says it triggers an AoO, moving someone else doesn't provoke an AoO.

A more interesting conundrum is the Command spell, which can require the victim to use their movement and action (Flee), BUT also has "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it."

Is letting someone take a stab at you directly harmful?

 

[trentonjoe]

The rules say the specific case rules for spells and features override the more general rules in those specific cases.
So, unless the spell or power says it triggers an AoO, moving someone else doesn't provoke an AoA. And the Spell Dissonant Whispers says it does, so it does, while a shove attack doesn't.

Dissonant Whispers don't mention AoO.

 

[Scorpio616]

Dissonant Whispers don't mention AoO.

Add considering that this edition refers to them as Opportunity Attacks rather than Attacks Of Opportunity, the abbreviation should have tipped somebody off.

But DW still does cause OA's since it uses the target's reaction to perform the movement satisfying the "using your movement, action, or reaction" proviso.

 

[aramis erak]

A more interesting conundrum is the Command spell, which can require the victim to use their movement and action (Flee), BUT also has "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it."

Is letting someone take a stab at you directly harmful?

Yes. In the very same way as "here, drink all of this..." and the cup smells of bitter almonds or wintergreen...

 

[aramis erak]

Add considering that this edition refers to them as Opportunity Attacks rather than Attacks Of Opportunity, the abbreviation should have tipped somebody off.

I'm dyslexic enough to not notice such things.

 

[TDarien]

A more interesting conundrum is the Command spell, which can require the victim to use their movement and action (Flee), BUT also has "The spell has no effect if the target is undead, if it doesn't understand your language, or if your command is directly harmful to it."

Is letting someone take a stab at you directly harmful?

The word "directly" here is the key. The command itself isn't directly harmful. You're only commanding it to move, which isn't harmful of itself. Provoking an OA is an indirect consequence of the command, so I would allow it.

That said, I see nothing in the "Flee" command that wouldn't allow the target to take the Disengage action, unless you feel that "fastest available means" requires taking the Dash action.

 

[Scorpio616]

That said, I see nothing in the "Flee" command that wouldn't allow the target to take the Disengage action, unless you feel that "fastest available means" requires taking the Dash action.

How the hell wouldn't it?