In that case we agree. I had to be more detailed to be sure we were not talking past each other and we were.
Having read through your posts again, it looks like I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Just to be sure, you'd let me punch the wizard in the face as an AoO, you wouldn't let me slap him with a CLW (with intent to heal) as an AoO touch attack.
If that is correct then yes we are in agreement. Personally I might allow the CLW to be used too (though not with rules support at that point), but I'd have to look at the situation closely and reserve right to revoke that use of it if it got cheesy.
Sorry, bbang,
Definition of enemy:
Quote:a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
It's not like I think this is wrong, but I need to ask: whose definition of "enemy" are you using?
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
I'm using the definition found from a quick google search, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by "whose". Can you clarify the question?
So all I have to do is decide you are my ally and you can't hurt me, right?
I mean if you are my ally, then I must be yours.
It is not quite that simple. You can treat him as an ally all you want, but he doesn't have to treat you that way.
You can cast a bless spell and include him in your list of allies affected. At the same time he could cast a bane spell and include you in the list of enemies. He gets to decide if he wants to harm/hinder you. You get to decide if you want to try and do something to benefit him.
If you both decide to be allies, then you are allies. If one of you does not, then usually you are treated as enemies, though as noted, things like a bless spell could still be used to 'bless' someone who is normally your enemy, if that is really what you want to do. You could even Aid Another on him to help him with an attack or AC boost. Declaring him an ally though cannot remove any options from choices he might make though (which saying he can no longer attack me does).
There really isn't any other interpretation that makes sense.I think an opponent who is against you, but also a team member is different than claiming someone is an enemy just so can use what is normally an attack as a helpful thing.
So far it seems like people are trying to pretend an ally is an opponent just to get free actions(not the game term).
If that is not the case they are explaining themselves well.I don't understand what you are saying so I will explain.
Let's say your party barbarian is dominated and decides to charge the party wizard. We will also assume he has pounce and if he is not stopped the party wizard will die. <-------Makes sense to see him as an enemy.
And you're going to use your AOO to slap a cure wounds spell on him? Which if you recall IS the context in which the prime question of this thread has been asked.
Practical implication would be an alchemist with poisoners gloves and infusion, delivering a beast shape infusion as the barbarian rampages past him.
Practical implication would be an alchemist with poisoners gloves and infusion, delivering a beast shape infusion as the barbarian rampages past him.
The mechanic for that is the readied action.
Practical implication would be an alchemist with poisoners gloves and infusion, delivering a beast shape infusion as the barbarian rampages past him.The mechanic for that is the readied action.
Yeah but they can also deliver via unarmed strike/natural attack. If they have those/can threaten an AOO would be a viable method to deliver the infusion.
|
So play chaotic jerk alignment and consider everyone an enemy?!?!
Distrustful more than chaotic.
If you do consider allies to be enemies, you must save against harmless spells, plus you will create lots of issues regarding AoO and threatened areas for your "allies."
Definitely not a PFS legal option, but an option for casual play if your GM allows it.
PS: You were probably just joking, though I decided to answer as if serious. Still, it is a good point, I think, and one worth addressing.
|
|
The point of this question is to allow a character to take their full turn and still achieve the results of a readied action without readying an action. Or perhaps to not have to move from their position and still cast a touch spell on a distant ally.
This can be allowed by a GM, but unless the case were dire I would not. It is cheesy to bend a rule that is designed to hinder an enemies movement and actions while in your threatened area into one that allows you to help an ally for no loss of action or position without that ability saying it breaks how AOOs normally function.
It is best to just say you must prepare an action or move to the other character and cast.
Or perhaps purchase a reach rod, which would turn your touch spell into a close spell.
In that case we agree. I had to be more detailed to be sure we were not talking past each other and we were.Having read through your posts again, it looks like I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Just to be sure, you'd let me punch the wizard in the face as an AoO, you wouldn't let me slap him with a CLW (with intent to heal) as an AoO touch attack.
If that is correct then yes we are in agreement. Personally I might allow the CLW to be used too (though not with rules support at that point), but I'd have to look at the situation closely and reserve right to revoke that use of it if it got cheesy.
This seems to me to be one of those "We expect the GM to resolve these situations with common sense" scenarios. So while allies generally don't provoke, there has to be room to allow you to act in your Wizard & the Mob scenario.
So basically, what are you trying to do with it? Shenanigans? No, allies don't provoke. Some really specific circumstance where leniency might be required because rules can't account for every situation? Sure, your ally could provoke, given the right circumstances.
But the general answer should probably be no.
One thing I would never let you do is treat someone as both your ally and your enemy at the same time. If you want to take an AoO against an ally, you (at least temporarily) have to treat them as your enemy. If you have any abilities that rely on your allies, they no longer function in regards to that particular ally. The ally no longer provide cover for you from other AoOs, teamwork feats don't function, you no longer benefit for your ally's bardic performance, benevolent armor, guarding shield, etc. Spells with targets of "ally" would end their effects, and arguably, spells like Prayer would reverse effect and start giving you the penalty instead of the bonus.
So if you are holding a charge of a touch spell and want to make an AoO against a moving ally, you first have to define them as your enemy. So now you need to succeed at a touch attack, the ex-ally gets a saving throw against it, and if that ex-ally has spell resistance, you have to beat it, etc.
Then you have an interesting question:
How long does the enemy designation last? At a minimum, I would say it must last for an entire round, and it might make more sense to make it last for the remainder of the combat, until you get a chance to explain your actions.
So if you are holding a charge of a touch spell and want to make an AoO against a moving ally, you first have to define them as your enemy. So now you need to succeed at a touch attack, the ex-ally gets a saving throw against it, and if that ex-ally has spell resistance, you have to beat it, etc.
For spells that allow saving throws a target character always has the choice of either rolling, or auto-failing. For SR, unless you target yourself with a spell, it always applies (even for beneficial spells).
I probably would not reverse a prayer spell, that decision was made when the spell was cast. If the caster of prayer got dominated would you reverse its effects on all participants in the combat?
For a bardic performance though, the maintaining it each round would justify removing its benefits on the bards next turn IMO if the bard wants to start treating the other person as an enemy. Whether they should or not I think is more of a role-playing issue than a rules issue. The duration for any such switching of benefits is, IMO, also role-play territory more than rules territory.
Of course none of those situations are covered by the rules, so GM's would have to adjudicate as they see fit in that scenario.
The definiton of Enemies and Allies should be irrelevant, since anybody can hit a friend in the face if they so desire (a Flat-Footed friend at that). What should matter are what spells and abilities affect every creature in the area, regardless of you considering them friend or foe, and what spells allow you to chose who you can target and who you can exclude. If the creature is a Ally or an Enemy, that's entirely up to you.
Having said that, even though a strick readig of the rules would allow you to AoO an ally, you should also be able to understand that the mechanics behind AoO make them a form of retaliation in response to some actions, and using them in a clever way to gain extra actions is not what they were intended for.
So, if you're playing "Game the System", you WIN!
If you're playing "The Game as the Devs alegendly intended to", it would be expected of you to try not to do such a thing.
The definiton of Enemies and Allies should be irrelevant, since anybody can hit a friend in the face if they so desire (a Flat-Footed friend at that). What should matter are what spells and abilities affect every creature in the area, regardless of you considering them friend or foe, and what spells allow you to chose who you can target and who you can exclude. If the creature is a Ally or an Enemy, that's entirely up to you.
The definition of enemy and ally is very relevant. Several spells and supernatural abilities have targets of "allies in X area" or "enemies in X area"--if there is no definition of "ally" then how do you adjudicate those spells? For example, if the designation of ally is irrelevant, then a bard would have to select targets for Inspire Courage, but he can't select an invisible ally, so now Inspire Courage can't work for invisible creatures.
Teamwork feats only function with "an ally who also this feat"--with no designation between enemy and ally, how do you know whether your teamwork feat works?
There is also an entire category of feats called Betrayal feats that bend the definition of ally and introduce new terms to cover "allies who are about to screw you over".
Having said that, even though a strick readig of the rules would allow you to AoO an ally, you should also be able to understand that the mechanics behind AoO make them a form of retaliation in response to some actions, and using them in a clever way to gain extra actions is not what they were intended for.
I disagree. The AoO rules talk about what happens when an enemy takes specific actions. By a strict reading of the rules, you can only AoO an enemy: by definition, allies cannot provoke AoOs.
|
When I first seen the title of the thread, I was thinking of Combat Maneuvers. I have a Monk that can Trip an opponent, Ki Throw him and Viciious Stomp him afterward. This will provoke AoO's from me and my Allies (From the Trip Feats) from the square that I threw the opponent to.
Of course, OP wanted to do this with a Spell. To do this, I would delay until the character went by me, doing the action I intend to do when coming out of delay. I have often done this with Cure spells, buff spells and the like. You can also hold the charge to effect one in the next round.
This is usually done "on the cuff" when shtuff has hit the fan.