11
\$\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
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells Please don't answer in the comments. Use them only for trying to clarify or improve the question. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 17:05

2 Answers 2

16
\$\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.

It may seem 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.

With the release of Eberron: Rising from the Last War nothing changes

This question was asked about a playtest UA version of the Artificer which has now been officially released in Eberron: Rising from the Last War. The wording of the artillerist turret has changed, it is called an eldritch cannon now. However, it is still an object:

The cannon is a magical object.

Therefore, this version of the artillerist cannon also does not provoke Opportunity Attacks, as explained previously in this answer.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 11:48
  • 1
    \$\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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 12:04
-5
\$\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
  • 2
    \$\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
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 13:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .