D&D 5E Opportunity Attacks and Spells

[trentonjoe]

Last night our bard cast a spell (the name escapes me) that caused his opponent to use his reaction and run away from him. He started in base to base contact, does the bard get to take an Attack of Opportunity against the fleeing opponent?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would say yes. Any movement that isn't a disengage or influenced by an ability to avoid AoO would prompt one, IMO.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Dont have my PHB on me to confirm, but unless the spell says "target disengadges" then yes, I would rule the bard (as long as he had a reaction available) could take the attack of opportunity.

 

[Li Shenron]

Last night our bard cast a spell (the name escapes me) that caused his opponent to use his reaction and run away from him. He started in base to base contact, does the bard get to take an Attack of Opportunity against the fleeing opponent?

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.

 

[trentonjoe]

This is tricky...

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

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

It does say that, somewhere. What we didn't know was what counts as forced movement? Is it something like a shove where someone elses action cause the movement or something like the fear spell counts. Is there a mechanical difference?

 

[Li Shenron]

It does say that, somewhere. What we didn't know was what counts as forced movement? Is it something like a shove where someone elses action cause the movement or something like the fear spell counts. Is there a mechanical difference?

Sorry I was still editing when you replied... now I added a reference that mentions actions types.

 

[trentonjoe]

This is tricky...


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.

Dissonant Whispers

WIS SAVE
3d6 and use reaction to run away (and cause AoO!)

 

[Li Shenron]

Dissonant Whispers

WIS SAVE
3d6 and use reaction to run away (and cause AoO!)

If the spell explicitly says so, then just go with it.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Last night our bard cast a spell (the name escapes me) that caused his opponent to use his reaction and run away from him. He started in base to base contact, does the bard get to take an Attack of Opportunity against the fleeing opponent?

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.

While the "hidden intent" or desire may be to not allow an OA, this case pretty clear cut...

You're always allowed to change the rules as you see fit - and IMO, this is definitely a situation where you would be changing the rules (if you don't allow AO).

 

[Astrosicebear]

Not only does the spell say it causes an AoO, but it also says it uses the target's reaction. Which is not forced movement.