Unusual AOO question

[razielskorp]

Ok, so scenario is this:
Open door, room with black pudding in it.
Master of many forms is a willo'wisp and is the front line due to ridiculous AC.
Directly behind MoMF is a warlock shooting the BP with eldritch blast.
As the BP can't hit the MoMF, it uses reach to attack the warlock.

My question is this: as the BP is attacking the warlock who is directly behind the MoMF and is therefore attacking THROUGH the MoMF's square, should that have provoked an AOO, as it is shoving a physical appendage through an enemies occupied square, or is it just counted as an attack?

I've tried looking online for an answer to this, but it all seems to be about using reach weapons to do an AOO, not a natural reach weapon provoking an AOO.

[KillianHawkeye]

Attacking with natural weapons doesn't normally provoke an AoO.

Using your natural reach to attack somebody standing behind somebody else also doesn't provoke, although the target of the attack will benefit from soft cover.

Also, there really aren't any rules for attacking a creature's limbs or extremities (despite how much sense it makes when you're dealing with a big monster with more reach than you), so getting a free attack when an enemy's limb passes by you just isn't supported by the game rules.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Player's Handbook page 151 has the answer.

When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

[...]

Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

[...]

Soft Cover: Creatures [...] can provide you with cover against ranged attacks [...]

The black pudding would make a melee attack (of opportunity) against a non-adjacent target, the warlock.
The warlock is behind another creature, the Master of Many forms, granting them soft cover.
The pudding's attack would use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Soft cover provides cover against ranged attacks only.
The warlock has cover against the black pudding's reach attacks.

Ergo, the pudding cannot make a reach attack of opportunity in this situation.

[jmax]

The pudding's attack would use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Why would it use rules for ranged attacks? Reach attacks are still melee attacks.
EDIT: I totally missed the non-bolded text in the PHB quote. Never mind.

[Anxe]

Why would it use rules for ranged attacks? Reach attacks are still melee attacks.

That's what the rule says? That's all I got.

[jmax]

That's what the rule says? That's all I got.

Derp, my bad. I totally missed the first line you quoted from PHB. My eyes jumped to the bold text. Sorry about that. Post edited.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Derp, my bad. I totally missed the first line you quoted from PHB. My eyes jumped to the bold text. Sorry about that. Post edited.

That part of the rules doesn't have an in-line subheader I can bold .

(the things one can worry about, sheesh)

[jmax]

That part of the rules doesn't have an in-line subheader I can bold .

(the things one can worry about, sheesh)

No worries.

[razielskorp]

Right, ok then, cheers guys, that seems to have cleared it up :)

[PrismCat21]

Ergo, the pudding cannot make a reach attack of opportunity in this situation.

I may have missed it, but I thought the question was about an AoO 'against' the Black Pudding, from the MoMF.

I don't have any relevant rules with me, I just want to clear up what the question is.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I may have missed it, but I thought the question was about an AoO 'against' the Black Pudding, from the MoMF.

I don't have any relevant rules with me, I just want to clear up what the question is.

The question is whether the black pudding, when it makes an AoO against the warlock, provokes an AoO from the MoMF, who is positioned between the pudding and the warlock.

The answer is that the pudding cannot make that AoO, therefore the question is moot.

[Pleh]

The question is whether the black pudding, when it makes an AoO against the warlock, provokes an AoO from the MoMF, who is positioned between the pudding and the warlock.

The answer is that the pudding cannot make that AoO, therefore the question is moot.

I don't see where the BP is making AOO. I thought it was just a normal attack and the question was if the PCs get to AoO against BP?

[Necroticplague]

My question is this: as the BP is attacking the warlock who is directly behind the MoMF and is therefore attacking THROUGH the MoMF's square, should that have provoked an AOO, as it is shoving a physical appendage through an enemies occupied square, or is it just counted as an attack?

No. Attacking through someone's square doesn't provoke an AoO, only outright moving through it does.

[PrismCat21]

You know, I believe that with the OP's specific situation, the Black Pudding would indeed provoke an AoO for the Master of Many Forms to take advantage of.

To use quotes from the Players Handbook above,

When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Soft Cover: Creatures [...] can provide you with cover against ranged attacks

The Black Pudding's reach attack against the Warlock(that has cover), is treated as a ranged attack concerning AoO.

Since ranged attacks provoke AoO's, and the cover rules say to treat a reach attack against the target with cover, as ranged, it provokes.

The MoMF would get an AoO.
I'm happy to have learned this :) It makes since and I will apply it to my games now.

[KillianHawkeye]

You know, I believe that with the OP's specific situation, the Black Pudding would indeed provoke an AoO for the Master of Many Forms to take advantage of.

To use quotes from the Players Handbook above,

When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Soft Cover: Creatures [...] can provide you with cover against ranged attacks

The Black Pudding's reach attack against the Warlock(that has cover), is treated as a ranged attack concerning AoO.

Since ranged attacks provoke AoO's, and the cover rules say to treat a reach attack against the target with cover, as ranged, it provokes.

You are incorrect. A reach weapon only determines the effects of cover as if it was a ranged weapon. This has no other effect, and it doesn't mean that attacking with a reach weapon suddenly provokes attacks of opportunity just like ranged weapons do. The attack is still a melee attack, as it says right there in the quoted text.

[Pleh]

You are incorrect. A reach weapon only determines the effects of cover as if it was a ranged weapon. This has no other effect, and it doesn't mean that attacking with a reach weapon suddenly provokes attacks of opportunity just like ranged weapons do. The attack is still a melee attack, as it says right there in the quoted text.

That isn't to say it couldn't be a houserule, though.

At my table (if I were house ruling), I'd probably say: if the creature makes a melee reach attack through occupied space with a natural attack (including unarmed strikes), it provokes AoO.

Reach weapons don't provoke this way because they are designed not to. The entire purpose of a cutting edge on a long stick is to attack from range without provoking counter attack.

By this logic, they might ask to AoO the Reach Weapon itself, which I might actually allow on the Rule of Cool (you strategically forced your enemy to place their weapon into a compromised position). Especially if the AoO provokee has built themselves to sunder enemy objects.

[Necroticplague]

The Black Pudding's reach attack against the Warlock(that has cover), is treated as a ranged attack concerning AoO.

The bolded portion is incorrect. It's only treated as a range attack for determining what enemies have cover to and from you, nothing more. The relevant section says absolutely nothing about AoOs.

Actually, i just realized something: since the Pudding in question is obviously at least Large (since it has reach), there's no need to attack 'through' the MoMF. You can draw a line from the top of the Pudding to the top of the Warlock without passing through the MoMF's cube, so the Warlock wouldn't even get soft cover. Essentially: why is this question relevant when the pudding can attack over the MoMF, instead of through it?

Reach weapons don't provoke this way because they are designed not to. The entire purpose of a cutting edge on a long stick is to attack from range without provoking counter attack.

Which is already represented by them having Reach in the first place. After all, someone with 5 foot reach 10 feet away from you can't counterattack, can they?

At my table (if I were house ruling), I'd probably say: if the creature makes a melee reach attack through occupied space with a natural attack (including unarmed strikes), it provokes AoO.

Great, just what this game needs: another FU to natural weapon users.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't see where the BP is making AOO. I thought it was just a normal attack and the question was if the PCs get to AoO against BP?

Oh, good point, I read that wrong. Doesn't change the argument, though. The same cover rules apply to regular melee attacks.

Edit: Actually, the BP was responding to the warlock's Eldritch Blast use, wasn't it? Now I'm confused!

Actually, i just realized something: since the Pudding in question is obviously at least Large (since it has reach), there's no need to attack 'through' the MoMF. You can draw a line from the top of the Pudding to the top of the Warlock without passing through the MoMF's cube, so the Warlock wouldn't even get soft cover. Essentially: why is this question relevant when the pudding can attack over the MoMF, instead of through it?

Hmm. Black puddings are huge, so you would think that, but this is in the rules:

Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

I think the MoMF counts as a low obstacle that the BP is not closer to than the warlock, hence the attack is still impossible.

[Pleh]

Actually, i just realized something: since the Pudding in question is obviously at least Large (since it has reach), there's no need to attack 'through' the MoMF. You can draw a line from the top of the Pudding to the top of the Warlock without passing through the MoMF's cube, so the Warlock wouldn't even get soft cover. Essentially: why is this question relevant when the pudding can attack over the MoMF, instead of through it?

That is an excellent point, except it's a little dependent on the creature.

I'd accept this argument in a heartbeat if we were talking about a Giant; a humanoid who is taller than wide can easily arc an attack around a smaller foe.

But this is an ooze. In addition to not having preference towards which way it's oriented, it's also Mindless, meaning it is likely to make whatever attack requires the least effort. If it bypasses the creature directly in front because it can't hit it, it probably wouldn't think to arc its attacks around the creature it couldn't hit. Granted, this is also an argument that the ooze probably isn't smart enough to realize its attacks were ineffective to begin with, but I feel it's fair to bring into consideration.

Which is already represented by them having Reach in the first place. After all, someone with 5 foot reach 10 feet away from you can't counterattack, can they?

No, but their 5ft reach ally standing 5ft closer to you still can, hence the applicability to this specific thread.

Great, just what this game needs: another FU to natural weapon users.

Psh. This is Natty Weapons dumped on by other melee combatants. Melee already couldn't have nice things. And if we argue Gish effects, Natty Weapons benefit from Gish just as much as any other beating stick.

I'm just saying if my players wanted to use this idea to creatively counter a monster's attacks, I'd probably give it to them if they argued their case well. I'm just saying any fool sorry enough to build into Sunder deserves to have a few moments to actually enjoy what few abilities they have.

I would be less likely to make this same ruling against players and use NPCs making the same attacks, due in no small part to the excessively limited scope of PCs who make natural attacks with reach (as opposed to monsters that do) who happen to be fighting NPCs who specialize in sunder.

But generally, no. I don't particularly feel like I've done any injustice to natural attacks. It's just passing advantages between types of nonmagical melee attacks, who all got the short end of the beatstick in the first place.

[Necroticplague]

Hmm. Black puddings are huge, so you would think that, but this is in the rules:

I think the MoMF counts as a low obstacle that the BP is not closer to than the warlock, hence the attack is still impossible.

That's not how that works on two levels.

1.You can still attack through cover. It's only a +4 to AC. Even if he has cover, the attack's still possible.

2. That rule is only relevant if the lines you're required to make by this rule:

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

So that rule only applies if the line goes through such an obstacle. In this case, if its line for determining cover goes through a space with a low obstacle. however, the Pudding's great size allows it to easily draw line to all the four corner without any passing through the space with the MoMF in it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's not how that works on two levels.

1.You can still attack through cover. It's only a +4 to AC. Even if he has cover, the attack's still possible.

2. That rule is only relevant if the lines you're required to make by this rule:

So that rule only applies if the line goes through such an obstacle. In this case, if its line for determining cover goes through a space with a low obstacle. however, the Pudding's great size allows it to easily draw line to all the four corner without any passing through the space with the MoMF in it.

Good point, ugh, I'm still thinking of the BP AoO scenario, which has been a mistake from the start .

Edit: Actually, the BP was responding to the warlock's Eldritch Blast use, wasn't it? That AoO would definitely be impossible.

In an open area, the BP can pick a corner and get at the warlock without incurring the cover penalty (if the MoMF is not square in the middle of the BP's 15' side, but off to the side), but in the scenario described above, there might be a wall in the way, depending on how far the MoMF and warlock moved into the room. If the MoMF is just inside the room, and the warlock just outside it, the BP cannot avoid attacking through cover--the MoMF counts as a low obstacle (N.B. the cover rules require you to draw the lines from your base square, so unless the BP is hovering, it cannot attack over the MoMF).

[PrismCat21]

snip

You are incorrect. A reach weapon only determines the effects of cover as if it was a ranged weapon. This has no other effect, and it doesn't mean that attacking with a reach weapon suddenly provokes attacks of opportunity just like ranged weapons do. The attack is still a melee attack, as it says right there in the quoted text.

Yep, you're right. I was tired. The AoO argument got me confused.
To clarify though, it's not reach weapons, it's melee attacks against nonadjacent targets.
Not trying to be a jerk, others will read this and may get confused. The subject is about a monster with reach, and some reach weapons can attack adjacent targets.

The bolded portion is incorrect. It's only treated as a range attack for determining what enemies have cover to and from you, nothing more. The relevant section says absolutely nothing about AoOs.

Actually, i just realized something: since the Pudding in question is obviously at least Large (since it has reach), there's no need to attack 'through' the MoMF. You can draw a line from the top of the Pudding to the top of the Warlock without passing through the MoMF's cube, so the Warlock wouldn't even get soft cover. Essentially: why is this question relevant when the pudding can attack over the MoMF, instead of through it?

??? There are creatures smaller than Large size that have reach. Heck, a Choker is small size with reach.

Why are you changing the battle grid into a 3-dimensional format? The rules you're trying to use only work for a 2-D overhead view.

Spoiler: PH p.151 Big Creatures and Cover

Show

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

(See spoiler) Squares, not cubes. The relevant section says absolutely nothing about attacking over a creature.

Oh, good point, I read that wrong. Doesn't change the argument, though. The same cover rules apply to regular melee attacks.

Edit: Actually, the BP was responding to the warlock's Eldritch Blast use, wasn't it? Now I'm confused!

The BP was responding to both the MoMF and the Warlock. It couldn't hit the MoMF, so it tried to hit the Warlock since the Warlock was hurting it with Eldritch Blast. The only mention of AoO was if the BP provoked one from the MoMF, by attacking the Warlock with a natural weapon through the MoMF's square.

Hmm. Black puddings are huge, so you would think that, but this is in the rules:

I think the MoMF counts as a low obstacle that the BP is not closer to than the warlock, hence the attack is still impossible.

I agree the MoMF provides cover to 'both' the Warlock and the BP. With the OP's description I believe they may be in separate rooms as well.

That's not how that works on two levels.

1.You can still attack through cover. It's only a +4 to AC. Even if he has cover, the attack's still possible.

2. That rule is only relevant if the lines you're required to make by this rule:

I believe they were referencing an AoO from the BP, which cover explicitly doesn't not allow.

So that rule only applies if the line goes through such an obstacle. In this case, if its line for determining cover goes through a space with a low obstacle. however, the Pudding's great size allows it to easily draw line to all the four corner without any passing through the space with the MoMF in it.

Which four corners are you talking about? The Warlock is directly behind the MoMF, it is impossible on a 2-D grid for all four corners to have a clear path to 'any one' corner of the BP. Unless of course you're using a cubes to represent the areas again, but then you'd need to use completely different rules.
Even using the same rules there is no 'one' corner of the BP's cube that would have a clear path to all 'eight' corners of the Warlock's cube.

Edit: Actually, the BP was responding to the warlock's Eldritch Blast use, wasn't it? That AoO would definitely be impossible.

Responding to the attack, yes. But not by a provoked AoO. The Warlock was just attacking regularly and seemed an easier threat to deal with then the MoMF'

In an open area, the BP can pick a corner and get at the warlock without incurring the cover penalty (if the MoMF is not square in the middle of the BP's 15' side, but off to the side), but in the scenario described above, there might be a wall in the way, depending on how far the MoMF and warlock moved into the room. If the MoMF is just inside the room, and the warlock just outside it, the BP cannot avoid attacking through cover--the MoMF counts as a low obstacle (N.B. the cover rules require you to draw the lines from your base square, so unless the BP is hovering, it cannot attack over the MoMF).

Even with the BP off to the side, there's is no corner of it's square that has an uninterrupted line to all four corners of the Warlock's square. At least one will go through the MoMF's square, granting cover.
(Quick representation of potential battlemap)
000W0 00W00 Warlock
000MO 00M00 MoMF
BBBOO 0BBB0 Black Pudding
BBBOO 0BBB0 "
BBBOO 0BBB0 "

[Necroticplague]

??? There are creatures smaller than Large size that have reach. Heck, a Choker is small size with reach.

Fair enough. However, a black pudding, being Huge, is not one such exception.

Why are you changing the battle grid into a 3-dimensional format?

Because the actual world of DnD is three-dimensional. There's Climbing, Flying, Swimming, Jumping to prove this.

Which four corners are you talking about? The Warlock is directly behind the MoMF, it is impossible on a 2-D grid for all four corners to have a clear path to 'any one' corner of the BP. Unless of course you're using a cubes to represent the areas again, but then you'd need to use completely different rules.

I am using cubes for the area because DnD is not two-dimensional.That black pudding isn't a 3x3 space block on a flat plane, it's a 3x3x3 cube in space

Even using the same rules there is no 'one' corner of the BP's cube that would have a clear path to all 'eight' corners of the Warlock's cube.

By that logic, it's literally impossible to not have soft cover, because it's impossible to have a clear path to all 8 corners, because the creature itself would be in the way of at least 4 of them, thus granting itself soft cover.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Responding to the attack, yes. But not by a provoked AoO. The Warlock was just attacking regularly and seemed an easier threat to deal with then the MoMF'

Right, hmm. From the text of the OP, I read the following:

- Door opens, MoMF steps inside, meets BP.
- MoMF does something that provokes.
- BP does not make AoO (saves it for later, cause of high MoMF AC).
- Warlock eldritch blasts BP.
- Using EB provokes (SLA).
- Pudding AoOs warlock.
- OP's question arises.

All these questions confused me about why I thought the BP was AoOing, but I knew it made sense somewhere...

Even with the BP off to the side, there's is no corner of it's square that has an uninterrupted line to all four corners of the Warlock's square. At least one will go through the MoMF's square, granting cover.

Yep yep, my bad.

By that logic, it's literally impossible to not have soft cover, because it's impossible to have a clear path to all 8 corners, because the creature itself would be in the way of at least 4 of them, thus granting itself soft cover.

This is a silly argument in this context, because the same applies to squares. However, a close reading of the rules on page 150-151 of the PHB does suggest you could grant yourself soft cover at all times. Pretty nifty!

[razielskorp]

Good lord, this provoked a discussion!
Wow, thanks guys, this has brought a lot to the table.
Sorry, I haven't been on to clarify some issues, but life.
Anyhoo, during the game, we missed the potential AoO on the warlock by the BP, so that's one to bear in mind for future.
The main thrust of the question was whether the BP attacking through the MoMF's square would provoke an AoO from the MoMF on the BP.
The MoMF is standing in a 5" doorway with the warlock directly behind, so the pseudopod would go right past the MoMF.
MoMF didn't provoke an AoO from the BP as it went to initiatives and the MoMF went first.

Pretty sure I can pick the bones and get the gist, so thanks guys, much appreciated. :)