You can move through friendly squares because the person lets you. If they're already in position you can either A, go around them, or B move through them. If they won't let you you cannot move through them, but could bull-rush/overrun them.
But there's no reason to not let an ally through your square. He's not an enemy/opponent/foe by any measure. His mind is not being controlled and he is not threatening. You can see that the character is afraid. You're claiming that you become an opponent/enemy/foe to your ally because you're worried he's feared? There is no "choice" in this case -- we've already defined that he is an ally.
You can move through friendly squares because the person lets you. If they're already in position you can either A, go around them, or B move through them. If they won't let you you cannot move through them, but could bull-rush/overrun them.But there's no reason to not let an ally through your square. He's not an enemy/opponent/foe by any measure. His mind is not being controlled and he is not threatening. You can see that the character is afraid. You're claiming that you become an opponent/enemy/foe to your ally because you're worried he's feared? There is no "choice" in this case -- we've already defined that he is an ally.
There is a choice. If I'm pulling up rear guard, and Valeros is running away down a narrow corridor, I simply choose not to let him pass if I don't want to. He's in front for a reason, and that is where he will stay. I want to see the rule that says you can't overrun an ally or can't take attacks of opportunity on an ally. Can you get me a page number?
You have mistaken "are assumed not to" for "can't."You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.If someone is an ally, then a reasonable person would say they are not an opponent. You can't be both simultaneously *unless* mind-control is being used. This blurs the line between who is an enemy and who is an ally. In this case, it's not mind control. In game, the person would look frightened, not a menacing bull stomping over players.
By definition, you must threaten a target to make an attack of opportunity, and you don't threaten targets that are friendly.This is simply false. You threaten squares, not targets, and can make attacks of opportunity based on the actions of "enemies" in those squares.
There is no rule which states who is your enemy and who is your ally. You determine that for yourself, and you can change your mind at any time.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.Where the "usually" is referring to methods to avoid attacks of opportunity. You provoke from "threatening opponents" -- if someone is not a "threatening opponent", then there's no reason make an attack of opportunity.
You can pick who is your enemy and who is your ally, but how can you call someone a teammate (who is not under any mind control) and an enemy at the same time? Why would you try to stop him if you're suddenly his enemy -- when the point of this entire discussion is to stop an ally from running away in fear?
Again threatening refers to squares not attitude. So his ally would be a threatening opponent. And if his goal (running) is against mine (staying) he is my opponent.
You can move through friendly squares because the person lets you. If they're already in position you can either A, go around them, or B move through them. If they won't let you you cannot move through them, but could bull-rush/overrun them.But there's no reason to not let an ally through your square. He's not an enemy/opponent/foe by any measure. His mind is not being controlled and he is not threatening. You can see that the character is afraid. You're claiming that you become an opponent/enemy/foe to your ally because you're worried he's feared? There is no "choice" in this case -- we've already defined that he is an ally.
I wonder, do you accept or disagree with the fact that the rest of the party knows the fleeing ally was influenced by a spell? Would it make a difference to you? In my game generally if an enemy wizard casts a spell with verbal/somatic components (any experienced adventurer would then know he is casting a spell of some sort though not which spell without a spellcraft check) and an ally suddenly acts irractically, I dont think its metagaming for the players to think the ally is being influenced by the enemy mage.
At that point he is an opponent for the purpose of stoping him running away from the rest of the party's perspective. They arent trying to kill him, just stop him. So they will not let him through their squares (moving through allied squares only works because they allow you to). On the other hand, the feared character does not consider the party his enemies, he is just trying to get away, thefore he would not treat them as opponents untill perhaps they try to stop him.
I dont see why their isnt a 'choice'. If I try to tackle my best friend I can, and in game terms i would roll a grapple check against him, and try to pin. We might wrestle around, but when all is said and done we arent going to pull guns on eachother. You provoke attacks of opportunity because when walking right past someone they have a CHANCE to hit you. Allies simply IGNORE that chance, but certainly you can choose to take advantage of it. There is no difference in the behavior, just a difference in the choice of the ally. I really think you are being hyperspecific about the way the rules are worded. They arent using enemy or opponent to DEFINE who you can attack, it is just a word of convenience.
Interesting discussion! Just to clarify a bit...the "cause fear" effect was the result of a magic effect of the room beyond the door that Valeros opened. The party had encountered the effect previously but Merisiel had made her save (she looked distracted and perplexed for a moment, which the party took note of before pulling her back from the door and shutting it). When they later returned to the door in question, they knew they were in for a magic effect but they didn't know what caused it or what it did exactly.
What I probably should have done is what was suggested for having Ezren not allow Valeros to freely move through his square. That would have caused Valeros to try and acrobatics past which he may or may not have made. Good suggestion. Thanks!
|
You can move through friendly squares because the person lets you. If they're already in position you can either A, go around them, or B move through them. If they won't let you you cannot move through them, but could bull-rush/overrun them.But there's no reason to not let an ally through your square. He's not an enemy/opponent/foe by any measure. His mind is not being controlled and he is not threatening. You can see that the character is afraid. You're claiming that you become an opponent/enemy/foe to your ally because you're worried he's feared? There is no "choice" in this case -- we've already defined that he is an ally.
This is exactly the reason why you shouldn't stick to "real world" or dictionary definitions; I believe both 'enemy' and 'opponent' are used in game mechanics, yet it doesn't mean that an ability/spell/feat/magic item that applies to 'enemies' would not work on "mere" 'opponents' and vice versa. An ally or an enemy can be an opponent in a particular situation, such as a skill/ability check or when (s)he moves in your threatened area. You determine each time you select an action whether you treat someone as an ally or not. Ergo, you *can* take actions (even AoS) towards neutral or allied characters, if it is reasonable and logical. Likewise, you could still choose to affect even a dominated/charmed ally with a spell (for example, your bard could choose to treat such a character as an 'ally' for the purpose of his abilities).
Or how would you adjudicate these situations:
1) A Chaotic Neutral character sees a young street urchin steal a wealthy merchant's money purse, and incidentally the boy runs past the PC. Is the unarmed young boy treated as an 'opponent' or not? Could you make an AoO (let's assume the PC can act and has Imp. Unarmed Strike) against the boy to trip him, even if you don't think he's done morally anything wrong and is clearly not an 'enemy'?
2) An evil assassin PC has bluffed the rest of the party that he's actually neutral in alignment; at a particular combat he decides to kill to block an ally (NPC) from running to the melee from the rear, and then proceeds to kill him without the rest of the party seeing what happens. Is he allowed to do this? Can he take an AoO against this 'ally'? If the PC cleric actually happened to notice this, could he exclude the assassin PC from the spell (which affects 'allies') he's casting this round?
3) An evil wizard charms a flying PC wizard, and lures him to the top of the tower he's on. The wizard is still an ally, so could the fighter next to him take an AoO [as the wizard rises to air] to grapple him, or is the wizard allowed to fly through the whole party just because they're his allies? What if he's not even charmed, but rather (foolishly) answers the BBEG's challenge yet everyone would want to stop him?
4) Continuing the example above, let's assume the BBEG casts 'Dispel Magic' on the flying wizard just as he reaches the top. Consequently, the wizard drops like a stone. A PC fighter stands next to window, and could grab him, but has spent his actions and didn't ready for this. Could he take an AoO to grab the falling wizard, if he has his hands free? Or would he automatically "let him pass", i.e. fall to his death?
LOL,
I actually had this come up in a game. The duskblade held his action while fighting a dracolich. The paladin was frustrated (player was) and decided to use the magic Sword of Bahamut on the dracolich (even though he was fairly certain he needed to use it on the glowing green alter the dracolich was chained to). He moved up and raised the sword over his head to attack the dracolich, and the duskblade used his held action to cast Dimension Hop on the paladin and hopped him 15 feet forward so the sword came down on the alter instead. Now, the paladin really really wanted to attack the dracolich, not the altar. So the duskblade was doing something his 'ally' didn't want, but he made his attack roll to touch the Paladin and get his dimension hop off, so the paladin got teleported anyway. That was a situation where an ally forced another ally to do something they didn't want.
|
|
LOL,
I actually had this come up in a game. The duskblade held his action while fighting a dracolich. The paladin was frustrated (player was) and decided to use the magic Sword of Bahamut on the dracolich (even though he was fairly certain he needed to use it on the glowing green alter the dracolich was chained to). He moved up and raised the sword over his head to attack the dracolich, and the duskblade used his held action to cast Dimension Hop on the paladin and hopped him 15 feet forward so the sword came down on the alter instead. Now, the paladin really really wanted to attack the dracolich, not the altar. So the duskblade was doing something his 'ally' didn't want, but he made his attack roll to touch the Paladin and get his dimension hop off, so the paladin got teleported anyway. That was a situation where an ally forced another ally to do something they didn't want.
That's a very good example; a similar situation arose in our group, too. The whole party was charmed by a Beholder in a dungeon, and sent to retrieve a magical item from another part of the complex (a long story, so I'm not going there). As the PCs explored the rooms, they all -- except for the cleric -- entered a room with glowing lights. These lights dispelled the Charm effect on the rest of the party, but the cleric was dubious of their nature, and refused to enter. At first the other PCs (realizing that they had been charmed, and the effect was still active on the cleric) tried to lure him into the room. The cleric used Sense Motive and discerned that something felt "fishy" about the way they acted (their creepy IC comments like "Come into the light! Let it wash over you! It will feel GOOD!" didn't really help! ;)).
As it didn't work, they moved into more direct action, i.e. tried to flank and subdue him -- again he realized they're up to something, but incorrectly assumed that the lights had done something to "twist" their minds. Thus he took an AoO with his sword (to deal non-lethal damage) against another PC who moved in his threatened area, and in the end fought against the rest of the party (everyone still only dealing non-lethal damage). Eventually they gave up (the cleric had the best AC in the party) and decided to deal with the matter later, managing to convince him that they had been overcome with temporary "madness", and this everyone became (wary) allies once again.
So, no one agrees that this is an exploitation? Really? There's not a single person here who feels that Attacks of Opportunity are designed to be used strictly against enemies/foes/opponents/bad guys/the other side/the naughty boys/etc. and not to be used as a freebie action to help out a bud when he's in trouble? You all really regard someone you want to help as also someone you want dead/unconscious? Does *anyone* see that's ridiculous reasoning, regardless of the fact that the RAW doesn't support it either?
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.
Becomes:
Sometimes a combatant or an ally you want to help in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants or allies near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her or help her for free. These free attacks or helping actions are called attacks of opportunity.
Also,
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless.
Becomes:
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging or that character doesn't want you to move through your square. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent or a friendly character that doesn't want to move through your square unless the opponent/friendly character is helpless.
Does anyone also see, despite the flaws of reasoning, that it's also egregious metagaming to freely shift between states of ally and opponent/enemy/bad guy (even though in game, no actual shift has taken place) to take advantage of the "opponent" game state to take freebie "attacks" of opportunity? Yes, a shift from ally to enemy and vice versa does happen from time to time -- no one argues that. But it's not common, and a fear effect in this case certainly doesn't justify such a shift.
It's a narrow case that usually doesn't pop up too often. It's also easy to confuse this situation with others that are similar but not the same. I find it quite interesting that everyone feels this way.
So, no one agrees that this is an exploitation? Really? There's not a single person here who feels that Attacks of Opportunity are designed to be used strictly against enemies/foes/opponents/bad guys/the other side/the naughty boys/etc.
This may be an indication to you that you may be interpreting the rules, both RAW and RAI, incorectly. And perhaps real life as well, depending on your history and activities.
I don't see a problem with the AoO bit because it almost never helps. Your hypothetical heal weapon is, really, not allowed. As someone else pointed out, it would work outside of AoO situations anyway, and seeing as it would replace the need for a wand of Cure Light Wounds or something similar, clearly it's not an appropriate item.
Now, if someone had a charged touch CLW ready and wanted to make a touch AoO as their buddy ran by, I'd allow it. And remember that the buddy can automatically allow the attack to succeed (just high five as he runs by).
It's not unbalancing because beneficial effects are almost always standard actions. You still have to cast the CLW on your own turn. Allowing grapples to prevent your friend from doing something stupid is a (hopefully) rare situation. Not allowing them because they aren't an opponent or enemy is some really tortured reasoning.
Same with moving through occupied squares. You can move through the squares occupied by your friends because it is assumed they will not act to prevent it, and probably will specifically aid in the maneuver (shifting over within their square for a moment, for instance). If they don't want to let you through, then you need to make an acrobatics roll to tumble by. This happens all the time with my friends. A good example is when we play basketball. We call it "playing defense." We're not suddenly enemies, though we are, by definition, opponents. If I have a teammate, I guess that counts as an ally. If I'm playing 1 on 1 on 1 and I'm defending with an opponent against another opponent, we're working cooperatively (flanking bonuses to attack at the ball) but I still want to win, so aiding my opponent is beneficial for that moment, but if he grabs the ball I will still immediately try to get it from him and count on the aid of the guy I just helped lose the ball.
Yeah, I feel it's perfectly appropriate to consider whether someone is an ally/friend/enemy/opponent on a case-by-case basis when adjudicating rule effects, even if they change from one effect to the other within the same round.
Someone else brought up the training example. Sparring with blunted weapons should not prevent AoO situations just because they aren't actually trying to kill each other. If somehow they screw up and someone gets hurt, their priorities won't somehow prevent one healing the other.
Frankly, tripping a friend who's running headlong into danger because of a magical fear effect is probably a good thin to do for your frend an still something best adjudicated by the combat system. But as mentioned, tripping is unnecessary because you can choose to stop him anyway (unless he tumbles, successfully, preventing both the block and the AoO trip).
So until some seriously degenerate AoO exploits against friends/allies/party members/ whatever are presented that don't require magic items that aren't allowed (by being exploitative/unbalanced in any situation) I really don't see what the fuss is.
As for regarding the people you want to help as dead/unconscious, I'd say you're doing that by preventing the party members from interfering. Anywone can choose to not defend, but they can also choose to defend (if they are aware of the attack).
Also, the bit quoted earlier about "threatening opponents" refers specifically to the concept of threatening squares aroud you, which is only loosely related to being perceived as threatening. That logic quickly breaks down when you consider the implications. And you could argue that someone with a charged heal spell doesn't qualify for an AoO since it's not an "attack spell" and thus a very literal interpretation of RAW means you don't threaten (unless you're wearing a spiked gauntlet or something) but whatever. I'd allow a high-five as they run by as an AoO (primarily to eat the AoO use for the caster) if both are willing, and a touch attack role for the AoO if the target isn't willing.
Again, heals are generally no easier than spell-trigger items, and that's where the balance comes in. Use-activated weapons are not intended for healing no matter whose turn it is.
Edit: Forgive the typos. Editing on the iPhone is painful.
So, no one agrees that this is an exploitation? Really? There's not a single person here who feels that Attacks of Opportunity are designed to be used strictly against enemies/foes/opponents/bad guys/the other side/the naughty boys/etc. and not to be used as a freebie action to help out a bud when he's in trouble? You all really regard someone you want to help as also someone you want dead/unconscious? Does *anyone* see that's ridiculous reasoning, regardless of the fact that the RAW doesn't support it either?
No i dont see it as an exploitation, and I think you are being hyper specific about the words that are used in the rules instead of what the words intended to mean. The fact that real world applications of what the rules are trying to represent strongly favor being able to switch back and forth, I'd say that you are on your own there meabolex.
Does anyone also see, despite the flaws of reasoning, that it's also egregious metagaming to freely shift between states of ally and opponent/enemy/bad guy (even though in game, no actual shift has taken place) to take advantage of the "opponent" game state to take freebie "attacks" of opportunity? Yes, a shift from ally to enemy and vice versa does happen from time to time -- no one argues that. But it's not common, and a fear effect in this case certainly doesn't justify such a shift.It's a narrow case that usually doesn't pop up too often. It's also easy to confuse this situation with others that are similar but not the same. I find it quite interesting that everyone feels this way.
I already said the allies should have some in game reason for taking the attack (IE recognizing the spell effect or making the appropriate knowledge roll to realize whats going on, we also in my group have whats called a gut check for things not normally covered in knowledge rolls or other skills). In which case, if the action is based on what the character KNOWS i dont see it as metagaming at all. And I also dont see it as a 'freebie attack'. Since An Attack of Oportunity is provoked by the behavior of the target, not the attacker, so I see it as you dont attack your allies because you choose not to, not because you cant.
Given I grew up in a group of friends prone to sudden and unexpected roughhousing, the concept makes perfect sense to me, maybe im biased but Again I think you are on your own.
Lots of good stuff...
More good stuff...
Can't really add to either of these meaningfully, other than to agree with both. Honestly Meabolex, perhaps the fact no one has agreed with you should be a pause for thought? I've had everyone disagree with me before on a post on here. Sometimes I reconsider and concede the point, sometimes I don't. But, I usually at least think it over in a fresh light when nobody agrees with me.
I think we would lose an important dimension to the game if every individual within the game had to be an opponent OR an ally.
I don't see any reason why an erstwhile friend and companion couldn't become an opponent in any number of matters. If, in the example stated above, the 'brave fighter' and possible defender of the group decided to run away for whatever reason I see no reason that an ally of his wouldn't resort to physical force to restrain him. I also see no reason for not allowing a character to control his own space, limiting who or what can go through it.
On the subject of Attacks of Opportunity, I have always assumed them to be an attack into a threatened area whenever the opportunity prevents. I don't see why you would be restricted as to who you could attack. It seems metagamey to me to say that I can take advantage of a distracted enemy to get a knife in, but not to attack a team mate whom I have decided, for whatever reason, to attack.
A combatant is any participant in a combat. So the sentence:
'Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.'
does not rule out attacking an ally.
Similiarly you are assuming that the use of opponent in this sentence is exclusive and I don't think that that is the intention:
'You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.'
It's perfectly, understandable, I think, to assume the term opponent was used because that's the situation that most commonly comes to mind but it doesn't have to be used in any exclusive sense.
Otherwise it would be like me saying 'if my car is broken I can get it fixed', and you reaching the conclusion that only 'my car' can ever be broken.
The game is supposed to be broad and open to a variety of real life situations. Why would it limit a potentially relevant part of any adventure?
I think anyone who doesn't understand the potential to want to physically harm a loved one, at a moments notice, must be an only child.
I think anyone who doesn't understand the potential to want to physically harm a loved one, at a moments notice, must be an only child.
Someone had a bothersome brother growing up...No worries, I had one too, and it was the cause of many broken doors, tvs, locks, trips to the emergency room. Nothing says I love you bro like a 9 iron i always say.
Then we have a community consensus. I'm willing to accept that, as there have been many things determined by community consensus in D&D. If everyone disagrees with someone, then it's highly unlikely for that person to be correct.
I've been through the 3.5/3.0 FAQs as well as the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles and I can't find anything either way. The rules are silent on many issues in this thread -- meaning they're open to DM interpretation. This either never happens in playtesting, or it's always been assumed the rules function a way that isn't notated.
I do agree that the case is marginal enough that rules-wise it should be rather rare. I think it's good that it's rare -- hopefully we can all agree to that (:
Then we have a community consensus. I'm willing to accept that, as there have been many things determined by community consensus in D&D. If everyone disagrees with someone, then it's highly unlikely for that person to be correct.
I've been through the 3.5/3.0 FAQs as well as the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles and I can't find anything either way. The rules are silent on many issues in this thread -- meaning they're open to DM interpretation. This either never happens in playtesting, or it's always been assumed the rules function a way that isn't notated.
I do agree that the case is marginal enough that rules-wise it should be rather rare. I think it's good that it's rare -- hopefully we can all agree to that (:
It is definately rare, I think i've seen it come up like a handfull of times in two decades of gaming.
It is definately rare, I think i've seen it come up like a handfull of times in two decades of gaming.
Intra-party conflict is rare in my games as well. Perhaps not as rare as your own experiences, but still rare enough that it becomes an interesting side encounter without taking over the adventure.
Then we have a community consensus. I'm willing to accept that, as there have been many things determined by community consensus in D&D. If everyone disagrees with someone, then it's highly unlikely for that person to be correct.
I've been through the 3.5/3.0 FAQs as well as the 3.5 Rules of the Game articles and I can't find anything either way. The rules are silent on many issues in this thread -- meaning they're open to DM interpretation. This either never happens in playtesting, or it's always been assumed the rules function a way that isn't notated.
I do agree that the case is marginal enough that rules-wise it should be rather rare. I think it's good that it's rare -- hopefully we can all agree to that (:
That's a very mature stance. I think what you're thinking is how it's usually played, but not that it can't be played any other way. If my cleric of Asmodeus is traveling with a paladin to defeat a common foe, and I know that when the mission is over, he's going to come after me, and he gets knocked unconscious against our common enemy, do I as his ally against a common foe A) heal him so he can help me kill this enemy and make him swear me and Asmodeus a favor for saving him (honorably bound most likely) B) Channel negative energy and hope to kill them both, or C) cast death knell on him and hope my newfound strength helps me defeat my enemy or D) none of the above.
If you take AoO's on your ally's, they're probably not going to be your ally much longer (without proper bluff checks, and that too has limits), but any time someone's doing something distracting that provokes an AoO anyone can technically take advantage of them, it's just typically a bad idea.