Does falling past someone provoke an AoO?

[supermonkeyjoe]

Simple question with hopefully a simple answer, but as this is 3.5 it's probably not.

As the topic title, would falling past someone provoke an Attack of Opportunity for moving out of a threatened space?

Unless it's stated definitely I can see two interpretations-

No, as seen by any number of other effects that force movement such as explosive spell

Yes, nothing directly contradicts the rule that moving out of a threatened square provokes AoO

[Sipex]

Difficult.

It could be argued that gravity is forcing the player out of the threatened square.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Difficult.

It could be argued that gravity is forcing the player out of the threatened square.

The only trouble I have with that interpretation is that it would be possible to withdraw from aerial combat by stopping flying and falling away with no AoOs.

[Cyrion]

I would say that yes, it does, based on the interpretation that you're leaving a threatened square and that most of the things that are exceptions (the Slide spell for instance) specifically state that they do not provoke AoOs.

However, there may be a spot check involved to notice that someone's about to fall past you. If you don't know they're coming, you're technically surprised and flat-footed, which denies you the AoO.

[Vangor]

Due to the rules for recovering from falling and such, I would as a DM say this does not provoke AoOs. Attempting to stall purposefully loses you 150 feet and requires a full round DC20 reflex save to recover before falling an additional 300 feet. Also, many of the ways a character is moved not under their own power mentions explicitly not provoking AoOs.

[Keld Denar]

I know its not quite the same, but consulting the rules for Bull Rushing...


Bull Rush Results
If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.

This seems to indicate that forced movement CAN provoke AoOs. Really, falling is just failing a bull rush check against the universe, right? :smallcool:

[Veyr]

RAW, I would say absolutely. Leaving a threatened square generally provokes AoOs; in the absence of a rule that says otherwise, it does. As Keld says, forced movement does not generally avoid AoOs, merely many specific forms of forced movement do. To the best of my knowledge, however, falling isn't one of them.

[supermonkeyjoe]

Another question, nefariously related to the previous. The description on conjuration spells states:

"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

Nowhere do i see that you cannot teleport an existing creature (say by a duskblade arcane channeling dimension hop/) into an empty space (say, 30' upwards where several levitating/flying nasties are waiting for some AoOs)

Is this a valid reading of the rules or is it clarified elsewhere?

[Cyrion]

Another question, nefariously related to the previous. The description on conjuration spells states:

"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

Nowhere do i see that you cannot teleport an existing creature (say by a duskblade arcane channeling dimension hop/) into an empty space (say, 30' upwards where several levitating/flying nasties are waiting for some AoOs)

Is this a valid reading of the rules or is it clarified elsewhere?

Most of your teleport spells specify that you can't teleport into thin air.

[Veyr]

"It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

30 ft. in the air is not a surface capable of supporting most things. If you're teleporting something that can fly, though, go ahead.

[Vangor]

I know its not quite the same, but consulting the rules for Bull Rushing...



This seems to indicate that forced movement CAN provoke AoOs. Really, falling is just failing a bull rush check against the universe, right? :smallcool:

Interesting, I was not aware bullrushed creatures provoked AoOs. Places a new light on the usefulness of bullrushing and the dungeoncrasher variant.

[supermonkeyjoe]

"It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

30 ft. in the air is not a surface capable of supporting most things. If you're teleporting something that can fly, though, go ahead.


Sorry should have specified;
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell from what I can see the creature is neither being brought into being or being transported to my location.

[Amphetryon]

"It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

30 ft. in the air is not a surface capable of supporting most things. If you're teleporting something that can fly, though, go ahead.

I find the notion of a Flight speed indicating that empty space can 'support' a target dubious, at best. It makes a fine houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW. The creature's the thing supporting itself at that point, not the non-existent 'surface'.

edit:

Sorry should have specified;
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell from what I can see the creature is neither being brought into being or being transported to my location.Teleportation spells do, in fact, transport things - or creatures - to their intended locations. Quibbling that level of detail over language appears to fall under the "rules don't say that I can't" line or reasoning, which way lies the "standing up and attacking after dead because the rules don't forbid it" style of play.

[Veyr]

Sorry should have specified;
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell from what I can see the creature is neither being brought into being or being transported to my location.
I suppose you could make that argument. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it.


I find the notion of a Flight speed indicating that empty space can 'support' a target dubious, at best. It makes a fine houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW. The creature's the thing supporting itself at that point, not the non-existent 'surface'.
True, true. But the game becomes... silly if you don't make that houserule, and everyone's playing 200 ft. in the air, and now it's impossible to summon anything, even things that would be perfectly appropriate to the fight.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I find the notion of a Flight speed indicating that empty space can 'support' a target dubious, at best. It makes a fine houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW. The creature's the thing supporting itself at that point, not the non-existent 'surface'.

edit:
Teleportation spells do, in fact, transport things - or creatures - to their intended locations. Quibbling that level of detail over language appears to fall under the "rules don't say that I can't" line or reasoning, which way lies the "standing up and attacking after dead because the rules don't forbid it" style of play.


I would maintain that it's a poorly worded way of saying that summoning and calling spells can't summon or call something into an inhospitable environment. It states two explicit examples:

1. A creature or object brought into being by a conjuration spell.

2. A creature or object transported to your location by a conjuration spell.

Yes the creature is transported but it is not transported to you

[Amphetryon]

I would maintain that it's a poorly worded way of saying that summoning and calling spells can't summon or call something into an inhospitable environment. It states two explicit examples:

1. A creature or object brought into being by a conjuration spell.

2. A creature or object transported to your location by a conjuration spell.

Yes the creature is transported but it is not transported to you
At that point, armor isn't ever brought 'TO YOU' because it's not physically touching you, as proven by the lack of atomic explosion from colliding material, though. Do you see how this argument can quickly devolve?

[supermonkeyjoe]

At that point, armor isn't ever brought 'TO YOU' because it's not physically touching you, as proven by the lack of atomic explosion from colliding material, though. Do you see how this argument can quickly devolve?

No, if I touch someone with dimension hop and move them 40' away from me, that doesn't fit any definition of "transported to your location" I can think of. You seem to have it in your head that the clause about where objects can appear applies to all conjuration spells whereas I can't see any evidence that it is so.

In fact evidence to the contrary-

the clause in question states (as per the SRD): "a creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

So following on from your logic not only can a creature not be teleported into empty space, it also cannot be teleported inside another creature or object BUT WAIT! Dimension door has a clause stating what happens if you teleport into space occupied by a solid body.

If creatures cannot be teleported into empty space or appear inside another object or body, why do most teleportation spells either specify that you must appear in an empty space or what happens if you do not appear into an empty space?

[candycorn]

I find the notion of a Flight speed indicating that empty space can 'support' a target dubious, at best. It makes a fine houserule, but I wouldn't call it RAW. The creature's the thing supporting itself at that point, not the non-existent 'surface'.

Not to kill catgirls, but the air does support a creature that is flying naturally. Such a creature could not fly in a vacuum.

[Amphetryon]

Not to kill catgirls, but the air does support a creature that is flying naturally. Such a creature could not fly in a vacuum.
The act of flying is what's supporting that creature.

[Curmudgeon]

Not to kill catgirls, but the air does support a creature that is flying naturally.
That's the same argument as saying water supports someone wearing armor, if they could manage to avoid drowning by rolling a 20 for their Swim check. That is, support that only works sometimes isn't support.

[Veyr]

Something lighter than air (a zeppelin monster?) could presumably be summoned in mid-air, then, right?

[Boci]

That's the same argument as saying water supports someone wearing armor, if they could manage to avoid drowning by rolling a 20 for their Swim check. That is, support that only works sometimes isn't support.

Following that logic you can't summon a creature onto a wooden bridge bridge if the bridge is not study enough to support collosal creatures.

[Veyr]

I would think that would be the case, yes.

[Amphetryon]

Slippery slope? If it works for you, great.