5
\$\begingroup\$

With the recent addition of the revisited artificer class to 5e, I did a quick playthrough with a level 3 artillerist. The artillerist can summon a turret; an object (not a construct) with a speed of 15 and they can command the turret to move as part of a bonus action. When I attempted to move the turret out of melee range of an enemy NPC, the DM tried to make an attack of opportunity against it. I pointed out to him that opportunity attacks are made against creatures, and the turret is not a creature.

This got me thinking about whether or not you can make opportunity attacks against other objects that move, such as a vehicle or even a rolling stone.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells Please don't answer in the comments. Use them only for trying to clarify or improve the question. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Mar 4 at 17:05
10
\$\begingroup\$

Objects do not trigger Opportunity Attacks

Your assessment is correct. The rules for OA state that (emphasis mine):

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.

As you can see the rules are very clear. Unless something is a creature it can't provoke an OA.

Further, the turret created by the artillerist is not a creature but an object. From the UA:

The turret is a magical object that occupies its space and that has crablike legs

Thus, the turret also can't provoke an Opportunity Attack.

This new version of the Artificer is still playtest material

As usual with all UA content, it is important to keep in mind the disclaimer appearing at the start. This class is not official and the rules may be unpolished.

As such, it may also be reasonable for a DM to want to change the Artificer turret to a creature (likely a construct is appropriate). However, do keep in mind that this changes a lot more than just Opportunity Attacks. There are a number of spells and abilities that can only affect either creatures or objects or work differently with them.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I totally agree that this is correct interpretation of RAW (and I have upvoted for this reason). However common sense strongly suggests that it should actually be a construct type and thus subject to OAs. and this represents yet another flaw in the 2019 Artificer class. If I was going to allow the Artificer in a game I ran (which I won't) this would be a house rule. \$\endgroup\$ – Protonflux Mar 4 at 10:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree that this is the correct interpretation of RAW, but it is such an illogical conclusion that I can't bring myself to upvote. This would be improved if you add something about how a sensible DM would likely rule it. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri Mar 4 at 11:26
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri I added a note to that effect but I do feel that changing something from object to creature is a very drastic change and should be done with care. \$\endgroup\$ – Sdjz Mar 4 at 11:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sdjz It isn't so much changing the type (I wouldn't even give that a second thought actually), but that an opportunity attack represents taking a swing at something moving away from you, and having that something have to be of a specific type is a bit arbitrary to me. If the ground gave way and my players wanted to swing at it I would let them. Got my +1 though. \$\endgroup\$ – SeriousBri Mar 4 at 11:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri I'm not sure I'd allow OAs in such a circumstance since you also have to be using your own action/movement but not when one is pushed which to me suggests that intentionally moving (carelessly) is what provides the opening for OAs. This is, however, entirely a matter of opinion on how to interpret this. \$\endgroup\$ – Sdjz Mar 4 at 12:04
-4
\$\begingroup\$

I agree that Attacks of Opportunity is on creatures, but that said, you did mention a vehicle. If manned by an animal, then an AoO can be dealt as the beast is passing by. However, if unmanned, then I guess possibly a Mount of Opportunity could be attempted?

I don't know if it's stated, but I'd sure try to jump an on an unmanned enemy vehicle and take control.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Theoretically, let's say that a large cart pulled by a large horse takes up 20x40 feet You start the horse's turn near the rear end of the cart: unless you have a 40 foot reach for a melee attack, the horse isn't exiting your reach even though the vehicle is. \$\endgroup\$ – Max Mar 4 at 10:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, if you're standing at the back of the cart, the horse pulling it will not be an attack of opportunity, however, if you have a horse that's 20 feet across, you have more issued that the attack to worry about... Warhorses are the strongest horse and even they cannot pull a yoke 20 feet wide. You'd need multiple horses, which means less finness in driving (hence why one horse carts were more popular than 4 horse carts back in the day) \$\endgroup\$ – Victor B Mar 4 at 11:02
-4
\$\begingroup\$

Whilst RAW you are correct, there are items that can mess this rule up (Apparatus of the crab/Kawlish). This puts the player/enemy in a vehicle meaning you can't target it. How I would rule it as a DM, is any vehicle that has a player in it, can be targetted with an AoO, however your example of a turret cannot. If you stuck to the rules as written, could you specify that a Golem was a construct and not a creature, therefore could not AoO against them???

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance. Constructs are a type of creature, not objects. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mar 4 at 13:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.