Threaten Area & AoO Case Studies

[Gizzard]

> This includes a clarification that says simply "You provoke an
> attack of opportunity when you move out of a threatened
> square.", and includes a pictorial example of such movement.

Hmm, ok. In our group we just take a 5' step back and cast our spells. Sometimes we take Move+Move in preparation for running away. Somehow I thought that a Move+Spell was OK too, but it looks like not. My bad.

Now, I do remember a discussion of this on these boards of the idea that its a quirky representation to say "Move+Move is OK, but Move+Attack is not." The quirk is that the guy who gets the AoA has to somehow know what you intend to do next when you take your first Move. (Often I dont quite know what I will do next, especially if I am moving to the edge of my torchlight!)

Quirky or no, the rules do seem clear. 10' moving Sorcerers get bonked, 5' moving Sorcerers are cool.

 

[Bagpuss]

And I'm afraid that's not correct, either. You may wish to see the new edition PH Inserts at WOTC, here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Bonus.asp

This includes a clarification that says simply "You provoke an attack of opportunity when you move out of a threatened square.", and includes a pictorial example of such movement.

Actually I think you will find you are the one thats got it wrong. Since if you look on the very next page

"Move-Only (“Disengaging”) - If all you do on your turn is move (not run, not move and ready an action, not move and do something else), the square you start in is not considered threatened. (It’s “safe.”) That means you don’t provoke any attacks of opportunity for leaving that square. (If you enter any other threatened squares, however, you provoke attacks of opportunity for leaving them, as normal.)"

 

[Bagpuss]

Here's another case study....


If you attempt to disarm someone with a reach weapon, do you suffer an AoO from them? (assuming you don't have the Improved Disarm Feat)

 

[The Sigil]

It depends...

Here's another case study....


If you attempt to disarm someone with a reach weapon, do you suffer an AoO from them? (assuming you don't have the Improved Disarm Feat)

I would rule that it depends. If they can threaten your square (i.e., they have a reach weapon also), I would say "yes." If not, I would say "no."

Precedent: Using a ranged weapons provokes AoOs, but obviously not from a distance. If you shoot an arrow at me from 50 feet away, I do not get an AoO on you with my longsword (5' reach does not let me reach you).

Similarly, if you attempt to disarm me from 10' away, I do not get an AoO with my longsword (5' reach does not let me reach you).

It seems obvious/reasonable to me that in order to make an AoO, you must have the reach to hit your opponent in the first place.

Also note that AoO's can only be made with melee weapons (certain special abilities could, I suppose, make exceptions, but this seems to be the hard and fast rule - you shooting a crossbow at me from 50' does not provoke an AoO with a crossbow from me). IMHO, this includes melee weapons with reach, but you cannot AoO someone whom you cannot threaten with your weapon.

--The Sigil

 

[Gizzard]

>If you attempt to disarm someone with a reach weapon,
>do you suffer an AoO from them? (assuming you don't
>have the Improved Disarm Feat)

This came up in GameStoppers #3 on the WotC site. Iconic Krusk tries to disarm a goblin with a whip and the DM says "Normally, you incur an attack of opportunity when you try to disarm someone, but since the goblin's whip is a ranged weapon, he cant do that." I think this is true, as there are other rules which say that you hit people with the haft of your ranged weapon if you somehow manage to hit them inside the 10' range (cover situations.)

Is it Spiked Chain that can be used as either a 10' weapon or a 5' weapon? I'd suppose you'd still get your AoO with the Spiked Chain, but then, of course, you wouldnt be using it as a reach weapon at that moment.

 

[Bagpuss]

>If you attempt to disarm someone with a reach weapon,
>do you suffer an AoO from them? (assuming you don't
>have the Improved Disarm Feat)

This came up in GameStoppers #3 on the WotC site. Iconic Krusk tries to disarm a goblin with a whip and the DM says "Normally, you incur an attack of opportunity when you try to disarm someone, but since the goblin's whip is a ranged weapon, he cant do that." I think this is true, as there are other rules which say that you hit people with the haft of your ranged weapon if you somehow manage to hit them inside the 10' range (cover situations.)

Is it Spiked Chain that can be used as either a 10' weapon or a 5' weapon? I'd suppose you'd still get your AoO with the Spiked Chain, but then, of course, you wouldnt be using it as a reach weapon at that moment.

Ah you read the question the opposite way round than I intended but I suppose it is valid either way.

You have normal weapon and someone with a reach weapon attempt to disarm you, from 10ft away. I figure you won't get an AoO since you don't threaten them.

 

[prodawg]

Actually I think you will find you are the one thats got it wrong. Since if you look on the very next page

"Move-Only (“Disengaging”) - If all you do on your turn is move (not run, not move and ready an action, not move and do something else), the square you start in is not considered threatened. (It’s “safe.”) That means you don’t provoke any attacks of opportunity for leaving that square. (If you enter any other threatened squares, however, you provoke attacks of opportunity for leaving them, as normal.)"

This is clearly not the case here. In my example, the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. He is not hasted, therefore, he is not disengaging. So that means the square that he starts off in is considered threatened and he is moving out of a threatened square (given that the cleric is armed with a melee weapon of course).
But what about my previous 4 examples? Any thoughts?

 

[dcollins]

Actually I think you will find you are the one thats got it wrong. Since if you look on the very next page... "Move-Only (“Disengaging”)...

The siuation in question is not one of "disengaging". If you look back at Gizzard's post, he's asserting that the sorcerer in case #1 provokes no attack, when moves back and casts a spell. That's not a "move-only" action, and it definitely provokes an AOO.

 

[Caliban]

Let's say that you have a unarmed cleric and an unarmed sorcerer. Both are medium size with 5 ft reach standing in adjacent squares. Both are unarmed, do not have unarmed attack feat, and not hasted. Please take a look at the following cases:
1. If the sorcerer moves back 10 ft and casts a spell. If the cleric is armed with a melee weapon (threating an area), she would be entitled to an AoO. Since she is not, no AoO takes place. Right?
]

Only if you assume that an unarmed person does not threaten an area around them.

Since a threatened area is defined as any area you can make a melee attack into, and an unarmed strike is a melee attack (whether or not you have Improved Unarmed Strike), then I believe that you still threaten the area within 5' of you even when unarmed. Thus an AoO would still be provoked.

2. Same case as number 1 except the cleric is armed with a crossbow. The result is the same because you do not threaten an area with a bow, so no AoO takes place as in case 1. Right?

Correct.

3. The cleric and sorcerer is standing 5 ft apart. The sorcerer tries to cast a spell without a concentration check (ie. not casting defensively). Is the unarmed cleric entitled to an AoO? The sorcerer is not in a threatened square, yet his spell casting triggers an AoO. I'm not too sure about this one. I have always thought that no AoO would take place because the cleric has nothing make a melee attack with. Right?

Since an unarmed strike is classified as a melee attack, I would say yes, and AoO is provoked. (PHB, page 282, Unarmed Attack, and PHB, page 140, Unarmed Attacks)

The Sage has stated that without the Improved Unarmed strike feat you don't threaten an area around you, but I haven't been able to find any support for that ruling in the PHB. Everything I have found in the PHB indicates that you do indeed threaten the area around with with an unarmed attack.

4. Same case as 3 except the cleric is armed with a crossbow. No AoO because AoO must be made with a melee weapon. Right?
Thanks for taking time to read this and to respond.

No AoO's with ranged weapons.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Threaten Area & AoO Case Studies

No AoO's with ranged weapons.

Would you allow the cleric to make an unarmed AoO with a kick (etc.)?