Attack of Opportunity vs Rider

[aeauseth]

We have a rules argument today in our game. A character was being chased by a huge fire elemental. The character picked up a small child. The fire elemental closed the distance and attacked the character. The character (had fly ability) flew away, carrying the child.

I (being a mean and nasty DM) took an AOO against the character (obvious by rules). The fire elemental had combat reflexes, so the fire elemental also took an AOO against the small child. The party rose up against me and cried foul. Mostly because it took some effort to save the child, they all got excited they were going to succeed, and now the DM was going to take a cheap shot at this poor defenseless child. I took a quick look over the rules and they seemed unclear, so when in doubt I give the players the benefit, the child lived.

Now I'd like to get your opinion, and hopefully a link to an official rule about attacks of opportunities in these types of situations.


Character has a horse. Horse + rider move away (using horses move action). Can foe take AOO against rider? Mounted combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat) seems silent on this issue.
Character is sitting (prone) on the floor with rope tied around his waist. A friendly ally pulls on the rope (using allies move action) to draw the endangered sitting character away. Does foe get AOO against the character being dragged? Technically the dragged player isn't crawling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#move).
Finally, if I'm carrying a small child, does foe get AOO when I move away? The child isn't moving, I am.


The official WoTC rules are fairly simple, almost too much so and lacks some specificity:


Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent.

My Take: So the scenarios above have people moving out of a threatened area, they just aren't using a MOVE action to do it. They are using someone else's move action.

[cakellene]

I would treat the child as a noncombatant and leave it alone.

[Totema]

You're absolutely right in your AoO reasoning; bull rushing an opponent out of a threatened square is a great way to get a cheap AoO. Making a move action is totally not necessary for that, and any movement at all would trigger it. I would argue that you're in the right here.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think most players would prefer their character be targeted rather than their horse, since most mounted warriors are likely to have a much higher AC than that of the mount. Make of that what you will.

[XionUnborn01]

I don't know about RAW answers but I would imagine that in the scenario the child probably was pretty well hidden from the fire elemental and had some sort of cover, if that makes any kind of difference.

I don't know the exact character positioning or the size of the child vs that of the PC, so take this with a grain of salt.

[aeauseth]

You're absolutely right in your AoO reasoning; bull rushing an opponent out of a threatened square is a great way to get a cheap AoO. Making a move action is totally not necessary for that, and any movement at all would trigger it. I would argue that you're in the right here.

I went back and read bull rush and:


The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved.

would indeed tend to support my position that a rider + carried child would provoke AOO if they are moved.

[TuggyNE]

AoOs are only provoked in a defined set of circumstances, and "your body happens to move" is not a general rule that forces provocation. Instead, using an action to move, being forced backward by certain combat maneuvers, and various sorts of distracting actions provoke.

Fluff-wise, this is because an AoO represents a vulnerability that only comes by focusing on some other action at the expense of your positioning and situational awareness. Crunch-wise, this is because D&D goes to considerable lengths to avoid letting things happen unless there is some explicit rule somewhere that says it happens.


Character has a horse. Horse + rider move away (using horses move action). Can foe take AOO against rider? Mounted combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat) seems silent on this issue.
Character is sitting (prone) on the floor with rope tied around his waist. A friendly ally pulls on the rope (using allies move action) to draw the endangered sitting character away. Does foe get AOO against the character being dragged? Technically the dragged player isn't crawling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#move).
Finally, if I'm carrying a small child, does foe get AOO when I move away? The child isn't moving, I am.


No to all of these, with the possible exception of being dragged, since there is considerably reduced chance of dodging etc. RAW-wise, none of these provoke, I think.


The official WoTC rules are fairly simple, almost too much so and lacks some specificity:

That's not even close to the full rules on provocation. These (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableMoveActions) tables (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableStandardActions) comprise (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableFreeActions) most (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableFullRoundCombat) of them (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#tableMiscellaneousActions), but there are others.


My Take: So the scenarios above have people moving out of a threatened area, they just aren't using a MOVE action to do it. They are using someone else's move action.

That's not the right way to look at it; it's not the fact that they are moving that causes the problem, or else 5' steps and withdrawal would provoke. Instead, it's the fact that they are (or are not) moving in a way that distracts them from proper fighting form. In most or all of these scenarios, they are not reasonably distracted and so do not provoke.

In the specific case of being bull rushed, RAW-wise it's clear that it must be called out as such specifically: there is no general rule that would apply to bull rushes otherwise that would make them provoke, and thus no general rule that would apply to the case in question. And that makes sense, because when you're being bull rushed, you're being distracted by trying to keep your balance and shoved around in a way that is extremely forceful and very sudden; provoking for that, and only for that, is logical.

[Greenish]

That's not the right way to look at it; it's not the fact that they are moving that causes the problem, or else 5' steps and withdrawal would provoke.5' steps specifically say that they don't provoke; they're an exception to the rule. Withdraw action provokes for all the movement from threatened squares (it merely allows you to consider the first square you leave as not threatened).

[TuggyNE]

5' steps specifically say that they don't provoke; they're an exception to the rule. Withdraw action provokes for all the movement from threatened squares (it merely allows you to consider the first square you leave as not threatened).

An exception to what rule, though? You might reasonably say "moving with an action", which is probably true, though not explicitly stated at that level of generality; "moving in general", though, doesn't seem to be, except by inference.

And I meant fluff-wise, not RAW-wise. Edit: That is, if (what I perceive as) the OP's idea of what provokes was correct, it should be impossible to make non-provoking 5' steps or withdraw without provoking, because however careful you are, you are of course still moving.

[Fitz10019]

Remember that moving through multiple threatened squares only provokes once, regardless of Combat Reflexes. I would rule that one movement provokes once, and the threatener/AoO-taker can choose between attacking the mount or the rider.

In the child scenario, if the child had a spot in the initiative order all along, I would treat him as a rider, and he would have a chance to choose full defense on his turn, and to choose to use his mount (the PC) as cover when attacked (or if he's really tiny, the PC/mount would automatically be cover). If the child had no spot in the initiative, I would treat him as an attended object, and the AoO could be against the PC/mount or the child/object, using the attended object rules.

[Greenish]

An exception to what rule, though? You might reasonably say "moving with an action", which is probably true, though not explicitly stated at that level of generality; "moving in general", though, doesn't seem to be, except by inference.

And I meant fluff-wise, not RAW-wise. Edit: That is, if (what I perceive as) the OP's idea of what provokes was correct, it should be impossible to make non-provoking 5' steps or withdraw without provoking, because however careful you are, you are of course still moving.I'm not sure I follow. Moving carefully enough not to provoke AoO is well established in 5' step, withdraw, tumble skill, and makes sense. Getting dragged around (via someone carrying you, or being bull rushed) doesn't give much opportunity to be careful, though. Now, how tumbling works with mounted combat by RAW, I don't know, but I imagine you could be careful and use tumble to avoid AoO.

I'd probably allow the tumble to avoid AoO against people you carry, too (though obviously encumbrance could prevent you from tumbling).

[TuggyNE]

I'm not sure I follow. Moving carefully enough not to provoke AoO is well established in 5' step, withdraw, tumble skill, and makes sense. Getting dragged around (via someone carrying you, or being bull rushed) doesn't give much opportunity to be careful, though.

Ah. I disagree that being carried is substantially similar to being bull-rushed, since (among other things), while your range of movement is indeed somewhat limited, there is no surprise involved and no hostile mover to throw you off balance. (Well, unless you're being carried off by That Crab or something.)

At any rate, RAW-wise it seems fairly clear that no such provocation occurs; common sense is divided, but not clearly in favor of provoking; and, for game purposes, it seems desirable to avoid this sort of provocation if practical.

[Slipperychicken]

I think that the elemental should have gotten a shot at either child or PC, but not both, because one can only get one AoO for a given provocation.

To get my reasoning, mentally replace the child with a sack of potatoes. It's a carried item. The elemental might be able to use its one AoO to sunder it, but carrying a sack while you're moving doesn't give the elemental a second AoO against it.

[Zirconia]

Argument for;
One could argue that the child was "grappled", and in the grapple rules it sounds like moving around while grappling provokes AoOs "as normal". Of course, in a normal grapple both grappling foes are fighting and distracted and prevented from doing normal melee, in this case neither "grappler" was being distracted by fighting each other.

Arguments against;
On PHB page 151 it mentions that any cover prevents an Attack of Opportunity. The PC moving could certainly try to provide cover for the small child, as the rules make it clear that you normally know when you are doing something that would provoke an AoO (some feats may override that, but it doesn't sound like that was involved here). The Ride skill has rules for using your mount as cover, for example, and says it can be done "instantly", it does not even count as an action.

As mentioned with the sack of potatoes example, moving away from a foe doesn't let it get AoOs on everything you are carrying as well as you. For example, having your familiar resting on your shoulder is not normally considered to make it vulnerable to an AoO when you move around. If the familiar is flying around in your square, though, and you both move away it could be vulnerable.

I would probably say the balance of the argument favors not allowing an AoO. The Fire Elemental could have used the rules for trying to hit a carried object, perhaps, but as a standard action, not an AoO I would think.

[lsfreak]

I think that the elemental should have gotten a shot at either child or PC, but not both, because one can only get one AoO for a given provocation.

This would likely be my ruling as well, even though I'm not sure it's supported by RAW (both people in a bull rush, for example, provoke, even though you're only likely to take the AoO against the one that's your enemy; same with grapple). Possibly with the addition of a chance of targeting the wrong person 25% of the time, as is the case with a few other instances of two people occupying the same square.

[aeauseth]

On PHB page 151 it mentions that any cover prevents an Attack of Opportunity. The PC moving could certainly try to provide cover for the small child, as the rules make it clear that you normally know when you are doing something that would provoke an AoO (some feats may override that, but it doesn't sound like that was involved here). The Ride skill has rules for using your mount as cover, for example, and says it can be done "instantly", it does not even count as an action.

I'm liking this response. The fire elemental can't take AOO against small child because the character is providing the child cover. Excellent use of the rules! Zirconia even cites a WoTC rule.

As for the mount + rider scenario, both should provoke AOO when the mount moves away, but a DC 15 ride check can provide the rider cover. Again excellent use of the rules + cite.

The rope trick (dragging player) should provoke AOO, but no rules seem to handle this situation. Although this is a very unusual situation.