Setup for the question is as follows. Four low-level characters (Valeros, Merisiel, Kyra, Ezren) are in a 5' wide hallway standing in front of a door, and already have initiatives set up to match their marching order (Valeros 1st, Ezren 4th).
Valeros opens the door and is affected by cause fear, making him frightened so he tries to run through all three other characters in an attempt to get away from what's beyond the door. Merisiel and Kyra let him go by, but Ezren tries to "stop him" from running away.
Ezren does not have Improved Grapple, and so elicits an attack of opportunity from Valeros. We ruled that Valeros would not attack him. Oddly enough, Ezren rolled really well on his grapple and managed to grapple Valeros. Valeros on his turn then breaks the grapple easily and proceeds to run away.
Okay, so my questions pertaining to this.
1) Can Ezren take an attack of opportunity as a friend runs through his square to try and "stop him" (in this case initiate a grapple)? Since it was still Valeros' turn (he had only moved 15' of his 80' move), I ruled it as an attack of opportunity for Ezren to try and stop him, otherwise Valeros would have been long gone before anybody got to do anything about it.
2) Should we just have assumed that Valeros was trying to Overrun his three comrades in his haste to get away? I know you can allow allies to move through your space, so we didn't think overrun was necessary.
3) How would you have handled it?
Thanks for any responses!
|
Setup for the question is as follows. Four low-level characters (Valeros, Merisiel, Kyra, Ezren) are in a 5' wide hallway standing in front of a door, and already have initiatives set up to match their marching order (Valeros 1st, Ezren 4th).
Valeros opens the door and is affected by cause fear, making him frightened so he tries to run through all three other characters in an attempt to get away from what's beyond the door. Merisiel and Kyra let him go by, but Ezren tries to "stop him" from running away.
Ezren does not have Improved Grapple, and so elicits an attack of opportunity from Valeros. We ruled that Valeros would not attack him. Oddly enough, Ezren rolled really well on his grapple and managed to grapple Valeros. Valeros on his turn then breaks the grapple easily and proceeds to run away.
Okay, so my questions pertaining to this.
1) Can Ezren take an attack of opportunity as a friend runs through his square to try and "stop him" (in this case initiate a grapple)? Since it was still Valeros' turn (he had only moved 15' of his 80' move), I ruled it as an attack of opportunity for Ezren to try and stop him, otherwise Valeros would have been long gone before anybody got to do anything about it.
2) Should we just have assumed that Valeros was trying to Overrun his three comrades in his haste to get away? I know you can allow allies to move through your space, so we didn't think overrun was necessary.
3) How would you have handled it?
Thanks for any responses!
1.) yes it "can" be done, but doesn'y have to be. Also, in this case, no he could not have as he was flat footed (without having combat reflexes). Also, the fear should have made him run on his turn. He had already moved in his turn (to get to the door) and used a second move or standard action (openning the door), so he really shouldn't have fled until his next turn, but not a big deal.
2.) no you can freely move thru friendly squares, but can not charge thru them.
3.) J/K, I would have let him run and than stepped up and closed that door. :) You did fine, fear and similar attacks are suppossed to be mean to players, or they would just be flavor. Some things to keep in mind, a player can purpossefully fail on any roll they want, so he could have "let" himself be grappled. It's a bit cheesey, but than again, he may not be scarred enough to abbandon his friends completely, just as long as they stand in front of him.
|
Were they in initiative? If not then the others would've been flatfooted to him and not able to try to stop him. If they were in initiative then it would be possible but I would require that they know that something had happened to Valeros, i.e. a spellcraft check or something, otherwise they would have to just assume the Valeros was doing a slightly odd movement or trying to escape from something dangerous.
If I saw the huge fighter-type in my group turn and run and I don't know that it is a mind-effecting spell or something, then I would be more inclined to think "Oh crap, something in that room is REALLY f~#$ing dangerous.....WAIT FOR ME!!" than to try to stop the fighter.
|
Tough part about initiative and grid play is that its awefully convenient to match one with the other, but this can cause some issues.
Really, if there was no combat, and Valeros opens door, a surprise round could occur at that point. It could have been resolved, and then regular initiative could commence. Most of this is just a technicality, but I find that it confuses players when the GM assigns init before combat begins. (just a side comment).
Tough part about initiative and grid play is that its awefully convenient to match one with the other, but this can cause some issues.
Really, if there was no combat, and Valeros opens door, a surprise round could occur at that point. It could have been resolved, and then regular initiative could commence. Most of this is just a technicality, but I find that it confuses players when the GM assigns init before combat begins. (just a side comment).
We do it the same as you suggest. I didnt even realise it was allowable to line up in initiative order. Our group regards it as more of a "how do you respond to the unexpected" measure. Not something you can plan out - sometimes the guy at the back responds to the situation quicker, even though the others are in the way.
We do it the same as you suggest. I didnt even realise it was allowable to line up in initiative order. Our group regards it as more of a "how do you respond to the unexpected" measure. Not something you can plan out - sometimes the guy at the back responds to the situation quicker, even though the others are in the way.
I just assumed the initiative order was a weird coincidence.
|
IMO,
1) Everyone is flat-footed at the beginning of combat until they act. You cannot make AoO when flat-footed. Furthermore, initiating a grapple is a standard action. You cannot attempt a grapple in place of a melee attack like disarm, sunder, or trip; so no grapple attempts as AoO.
2) Yes, Valeros was attempting to overrun his companions. It fell to the other three to choose to stop Valeros or move out of the way. If they choose to avoid Valeros, then no overrun check is necessary.
3) Ezren declares he does not intend to allow Valeros to pass him--or he intends to "stop" him. Valeros then must attempt to overrun Ezren. If Valeros fails, then he stops in the nearest unoccupied space in front of Ezren.
The mechanics are a little unintuitive. Since Ezren seems to be acting against Valeros, it seems like he should be the one to make the attack roll. However, it's actually Valeros that is trying to act against Ezren by pushing past him.
3) Ezren declares he does not intend to allow Valeros to pass him--or he intends to "stop" him. Valeros then must attempt to overrun Ezren. If Valeros fails, then he stops in the nearest unoccupied space in front of Ezren.
Which could be amusing if he has to move back to his starting space, past his other two companions.
I just assumed the initiative order was a weird coincidence.
You're correct. It was just a weird coincidence of the moment.
Thanks for all of the additional comments. Since the encounter in question was not intended to be a "combat" encounter I was less interested at the time in running it RAW and more going for a flavor effect.
It was quite clear to the group what had happened. This wasn't their first pass at the door (although nobody had succombed to the fear effect to this point). It seemed odd to me that nobody should get a chance to stop him as he ran past, so I allowed the wizard (Ezren) to make an attempt. My assumption was he would fail miserably, but in fact he managed to hold up Valeros...if only momentarily hehe.
3.) J/K, I would have let him run and than stepped up and closed that door. :) ...
That's exactly what Kyra did on her next initiative, to which Merisiel was kicking herself for not thinking of doing the same hehe. *grin*
You can't overrun friendly targets. This is different if he was mind-controlled by an opponent, which makes your teammate effectively non-friendly. Valeros was running through the squares of his teammates. (Only charging through teammate squares is not allowed.)
You can't make attacks of opportunity against friendly targets. By definition, you must threaten a target to make an attack of opportunity, and you don't threaten targets that are friendly.
Assuming everyone except Valeros was *was* flat-footed, he'd move away as quickly as possible. Since cause fear only causes a frightened condition, Valeros would move as far away to be out of hearing and visual range of the caster of cause fear.
If a teammate besides Valeros can react while he's in range, there are a few magic-based ways to stop the fear at level 1.
- Remove Fear (obvious choice)
- Silent Image (create a wall that makes escape look impossible, requires a disbelief save)
- Obscuring Mist (could work if the caster of cause fear makes no further sound, perhaps by being command-halted)
- Animate Rope (trip wire, only would stop him a round)
- Grease (possibly tripping, or at least slowing down)
A non-magical way to stop him would be bolas or a net. There are no rules for grappling friendly opponents, but since Valeros is trying to get away at top speed, a DM should cause him to try and escape grapples and get away.
You can't overrun friendly targets.
(...)
You can't make attacks of opportunity against friendly targets.
You have mistaken "are assumed not to" for "can't."
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.
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?
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?
If you question this, I don't think I have any way to argue my point. Let's leave it at "agree to disagree."
If Valeros is my teammate, but not in control of his actions and I attempt to stop him from doing something, would it be fair to say that I am attempting to oppose his actions? If I am opposing his actions, then would it not be fair to say that in regards to Valeros attempting to do the action I am his opponent in the matter?
I think it's clear that you should know that your teammate is afraid. But let's say he's suddenly an opponent after becoming frightened. If you were to cast remove fear on Valeros, would he attempt to resist the harmless spell? If indeed he were an opponent, then he should (assuming he doesn't have spellcraft and doesn't know the spell is harmless). I don't think he would. From the team's perspective, if the party cleric cast bless and frightened Valeros was in the area of effect, would he gain the benefit as an ally? I think so.
I don't think fear effects make you into an opponent at any point, even if you oppose the feared character's actions -- and I certainly don't think the rules support fear effects making you an enemy instead of an ally. There is an argument that those retreating from battle in some cultures are effectively enemies. In that case, it would make more sense for the team to take actual attacks to kill the teammate instead of trying to stop him from running.
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?If you question this, I don't think I have any way to argue my point. Let's leave it at "agree to disagree."
So you think allies can be enemies at the same time? I'm pretty sure the game requires you to pick, even in issues where mind-controlling is a factor.
1) Can Ezren take an attack of opportunity as a friend runs through his square to try and "stop him" (in this case initiate a grapple)?
If it is the first round of combat Ezren can take an AoO only if he has already acted or has Combat Reflexes. Also Ezren must be armed or have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat in order to qualify for an AoO.
In order to stop Valeros Ezren can at best try to trip Valeros. He cannot grapple as an AoO since that requires a standard action.2) Should we just have assumed that Valeros was trying to Overrun his three comrades in his haste to get away? I know you can allow allies to move through your space, so we didn't think overrun was necessary.
If an ally atempts to block Valeros from fleing it is reasonable to assume that he will try to overrun someone trying to block his way, IF he has the actions for it. The frightened condition states that he will try to flee by all means at his disposition (remember that overrun is at -2 due to frightened condition).
3) How would you have handled it?
As I see it if Valeros already had spent a move action to open the door he would try to move away with a standard action. Without further actions at his disposal his move would automatically be blocked by Ezren. I would however require Ezren to make a Perception or Sense Motive check to discern what was going on, since it otherwise would make little sense for him to block Valeros path.
If however Valeros has a full round to get away. He could try to overrun Ezren if the wizard tries to block. As far as actively stoping Valeros Ezren's only option is to trip Valeros.
So you think allies can be enemies at the same time? I'm pretty sure the game requires you to pick, even in issues where mind-controlling is a factor.
I think enemy is shorthand for "someone you're opposing," and ally likewise for "someone you're cooperating with." And I see no reason this status can't change multiple times within a single round. It's subjective to the individual, and there's no reason any two characters even have to agree on who's who. Person A can choose treat person B as an ally, even as person B is attempting to kill person A.
So you think allies can be enemies at the same time? I'm pretty sure the game requires you to pick, even in issues where mind-controlling is a factor.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?If you question this, I don't think I have any way to argue my point. Let's leave it at "agree to disagree."
To me there is a huge diference between opponent and enemy as there is between target and enemy.
An opponent is someone in opposition to you. It can be peaceful opposition (like Ghandi) but often refers to actions.
Two characters can easily match their stregths one against the other. By means of an opposed strength check. That makes them opponents, but not enemies.
Enemy is a moral/idealistic dispute between subjects. Enemies can cooperate to achieve a common goal (like Germany and USSR invading Poland) thus they are no longer opponents.
In the same way Ezren can bring himself into opposition to Valeros. The two can still bee friends and team mates, but Ezren views Valeros actions as going against his own interests and can therefore oppose Valeros, while still being his friend.
Conversely even if frightened Valeros can still recognice Ezren as his friend and ally while being his opponent. That is why Valeros would try to overrun Ezren in stead of cutting him down outright.
Erratum needed: I think the term Opponent should be defined in the Common Terms section (p.11) of the PRPG.
...
I think enemy is shorthand for "someone you're opposing," and ally likewise for "someone you're cooperating with." And I see no reason this status can't change multiple times within a single round. It's subjective to the individual, and there's no reason any two characters even have to agree on who's who. Person A can choose treat person B as an ally, even as person B is attempting to kill person A.
That can be a source of confusion... Or maybe its the product of Confusion?
I'm using enemy and opponent interchangeably. As far as the game is concerned, there's no rules that clearly separate the two terms, as Grandfather pointed out. I think the problem from my perspective is that to make an attack of opportunity against an ally running from fear requires *simultaneously* being an opponent to that individual (attack of opportunity) as well as an ally (wanting to stop an ally running in fear).
The use of "opponent vs. ally" versus "enemy vs. ally" versus "foe vs. ally" (as used in prayer) is difficult to separate in terms of game rules. Is a foe an enemy? Is a foe an opponent? Maybe an opponent is a superset and enemies and foes are subsets?
If you look in the combat section, the term "enemy" and the term "opponent" are used in what appears to be an interchangeable manner.
A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Given the number of examples where the wording shifts between the two words in the combat section, I'm pretty sure they're the same thing.
I would assume the rules write "enemy" and "opponent" because that's the word you would most normally use about someone you were attacking.
I don't read the rules to mean you can only attack someone you personally consider to be an enemy or an opponent. If you desperately want to attack your friends or allies, the rules don't stand in your way. Otherwise, bar brawls between comrades could never happen, yet they do all the time :)
SRD:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.
Kind of a long post...
A) Opponent vs Enemy. You can't say a teammate can't be an opponent, it opens up a logical can of worms. Let's say you strictly enforce the opponent = enemy logic. That means you can never train with your teammates, they are never enemies, and you can't perform trips/grapples/etc in training because they aren't enemies. That's obviously absurd. An opponent is anyone you are attempting to stop/attack/force to do something. That opponent can be an enemy or an ally. Think of a Paladin trying to stop his rogue teammate from killing someone who has surrendered? Are the Paladin and rogue enemies? No. Are they opponents? Absolutely. They are striving against each other with opposed aims, one to keep the enemy alive, the other to kill the enemy.
B) Surprise round in dungeons. It is unreasonable to say that they have a surprise round when everyone is getting ready for combat before opening a door in the dungeon. "Duh, let's open this door Fred. Oh darn, a monster, I wish we'd considered there might be a monster there, I guess we was just stupid huh Fred?" Surprise is when you are not expecting combat. If you are readying for combat and then opening a door, you are not surprised if there is something on the other side of the door. Now, they might be surprised that Valeros ran. I'd make it a reflex save at that point to respond to it. It's an unexpected complication in combat, like stepping on a trap.
C) Moving through friends spaces. It get's really weird when you are moving through spaces. Every one of his friends could have opposed his moving through their spaces. If the first one did, Valeros would have to make an acrobatics check to tumble through his friends space. You can ALLOW an ally through your space, but there is no rule that says you MUST allow one through. If not, there is only one way to get through, you have to either overrun or tumble through. He couldn't overrun (no room to charge), so he could only tumble through. Additionally, if all 3 are trying to stop him, he has to make 3 checks, all with penalties to the DC (Square A contains first ally and is threatened by ally 2 (+5), Square B contains ally 2 and is threatened by ally 3 and ally 1 (+10), and Square C contains ally 3 and is threatened by ally 2). Alternately, you can use the rules for moving past multiple threatening opponents and multiple squares of threatened space. That's Square A, B, C, and D (Behind Ally 3) and is 4 spaces of threatened ground and 3 'opponents'. And if he fails he stays in his own space (which logically more consistent than having him fail the second tumble through an ally's square and being sent back to his starting point).
D) Grapple check. Can't grapple as an AoO. You can just stop the person from moving through your occupied square, no need for an AoO, either they can or they can't based on their tumble check. You have to tumble through an occupied square, and if you fail, you don't do it. Simple as that. Of course, the feared person will keep trying, or may in their fear decide to cut down the person stopping them (it does say, by any means necessary, and someone irrationally fearful will hurt or kill even close friends, if you don't believe that, check on how many people who are drowning end up almost killing the people trying to save them in their panic).
You can't overrun friendly targets.
(...)
You can't make attacks of opportunity against friendly targets.You have mistaken "are assumed not to" for "can't."
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.
I don't read the rules to mean you can only attack someone you personally consider to be an enemy or an opponent. If you desperately want to attack your friends or allies, the rules don't stand in your way. Otherwise, bar brawls between comrades could never happen, yet they do all the time :)
Yes, but for the purposes of one action (which this discussion is about), for the purposes of game rules, you can't simultaneously declare someone an enemy/opponent/foe *AND* an ally/friend/teammate at the same time. Clearly Valeros is an ally -- the fear effect doesn't make him an opponent/enemy/foe. To provoke an attack of opportunity, by the rules, it must be an enemy/opponent/foe. It can't be both at the same moment *by the rules*. The rules for attacks of opportunity assume they're done as you focus on a opponent/enemy/foe in a threatened square. While you read the rules as saying that:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent or an ally on your turn in a round.
It doesn't say that. For that attack, the ally becomes an opponent.
That opponent can be an enemy or an ally.
So if an opponent can be an enemy or an ally, then the semantic meaning of a large part of the combat chapter is very different. In fact, many statements now mean different things. Would you reasonably accept the following things have different meanings based on an opponent being an enemy or an ally?
Agreed
Actually, Belkar's and Yikyik's actions prove my point exactly. No one would agree that what is going on in the OotS comic makes sense using the actual AoO rules. The joke is that Belkar and Yikyik are allies, but they don't like each other. But if this played out in actual D&D, a few things would happen that don't happen in the comic strip. . .
OK, so if allies can provoke attacks of opportunity from you *whenever you feel like it*, what happens if someone creates a weapon that heals you when it strikes? Would this mean a cleric can take Combat Reflexes and bonk his teammates with the healing scythe as they move by?
OK, so if allies can provoke attacks of opportunity from you *whenever you feel like it*, what happens if someone creates a weapon that heals you when it strikes? Would this mean a cleric can take Combat Reflexes and bonk his teammates with the healing scythe as they move by?
Yep, I would say they could. It would follow all the normal rules of AoO. You have to hit their AC (could miss), etc. If the ally wants to lower his AC, he's lowering it for everyone, not just his ally. Unless you have combat reflexes, you aren't doing that more than once a round.
OK, so if allies can provoke attacks of opportunity from you *whenever you feel like it*, what happens if someone creates a weapon that heals you when it strikes? Would this mean a cleric can take Combat Reflexes and bonk his teammates with the healing scythe as they move by?
That would be awesome :)
OK, so if allies can provoke attacks of opportunity from you *whenever you feel like it*, what happens if someone creates a weapon that heals you when it strikes? Would this mean a cleric can take Combat Reflexes and bonk his teammates with the healing scythe as they move by?That would be awesome :)
Not really. I mean, think about it. Let's say you enchant a mace to heal instead of harm on a hit. So that's 1d8 'undamage'. I'll even give you str as 'undamage'. If you give it to a fighter, he can hit with it 1-5 times, that's just 5d8 plus 1 to 25. Not much in a fight.
I wouldn't allow it in my game though, as it does away with the need for clerics and healers. Just bop your friends outside of combat a dozen times after each fight.
Not really. I mean, think about it. Let's say you enchant a mace to heal instead of harm on a hit. So that's 1d8 'undamage'. I'll even give you str as 'undamage'. If you give it to a fighter, he can hit with it 1-5 times, that's just 5d8 plus 1 to 25. Not much in a fight.
I wouldn't allow it in my game though, as it does away with the need for clerics and healers. Just bop your friends outside of combat a dozen times after each fight.
Dude, that's just relaxation after an idiot on your own side shoots you in the back.
*sigh* -- I think if the RPG Superstar contest ever requires me to make a magical weapon, I think I know what it's going to be. . . it can't function at will, but charges/day seems reasonable.
Dude, that's just relaxation after an idiot on your own side shoots you in the back.Not really. I mean, think about it. Let's say you enchant a mace to heal instead of harm on a hit. So that's 1d8 'undamage'. I'll even give you str as 'undamage'. If you give it to a fighter, he can hit with it 1-5 times, that's just 5d8 plus 1 to 25. Not much in a fight.
I wouldn't allow it in my game though, as it does away with the need for clerics and healers. Just bop your friends outside of combat a dozen times after each fight.
Not my fault, I warned him.
Not my fault, I warned him.
I didn't blame you, I blamed him.
What's the bonus cost for a Mercy weapon?
*grin*
Yes, but for the purposes of one action (which this discussion is about), for the purposes of game rules, you can't simultaneously declare someone an enemy/opponent/foe *AND* an ally/friend/teammate at the same time. Clearly Valeros is an ally -- the fear effect doesn't make him an opponent/enemy/foe. To provoke an attack of opportunity, by the rules, it must be an enemy/opponent/foe. It can't be both at the same moment *by the rules*. The rules for attacks of opportunity assume they're done as you focus on a opponent/enemy/foe in a threatened square.
I believe that your ally can be an opponent.
Let's try a different approach to explaining it. You have a team mate that wants to kill the downed and stabilized BBG. The Paladin refuses to murder the BBG or all them to be murdered. The Paladin steps over the body at the begining of the discussion to make sure that the team mate doesn't take out the BBG during the dicussion. So, if the team mate wants to do a coup-de-gras, they will have to deal with the Paladin. So, would the team mate be considered an opponent and ally if they attacked the downed and protected BBG?
Let's try a different approach to explaining it. You have a team mate that wants to kill the downed and stabilized BBG. The Paladin refuses to murder the BBG or all them to be murdered. The Paladin steps over the body at the begining of the discussion to make sure that the team mate doesn't take out the BBG during the dicussion. So, if the team mate wants to do a coup-de-gras, they will have to deal with the Paladin. So, would the team mate be considered an opponent and ally if they attacked the downed and protected BBG?
But in this situation, it is clear the paladin is no longer the ally of the party -- he clearly disagrees with the party and has made the choice that he is no longer an ally of the party. For all actions involving killing BBG, the paladin will respond as an opponent/enemy/foe to the party.
In the situation above, *no one denies* that Valeros is an ally. He didn't suddenly become an enemy of the party by becoming feared.
Let's try a different approach to explaining it. You have a team mate that wants to kill the downed and stabilized BBG. The Paladin refuses to murder the BBG or all them to be murdered. The Paladin steps over the body at the begining of the discussion to make sure that the team mate doesn't take out the BBG during the dicussion. So, if the team mate wants to do a coup-de-gras, they will have to deal with the Paladin. So, would the team mate be considered an opponent and ally if they attacked the downed and protected BBG?But in this situation, it is clear the paladin is no longer the ally of the party -- he clearly disagrees with the party and has made the choice that he is no longer an ally of the party. For all actions involving killing BBG, the paladin will respond as an opponent/enemy/foe to the party.
In the situation above, *no one denies* that Valeros is an ally. He didn't suddenly become an enemy of the party by becoming feared.
You're argueing that Valeros can move past someone without them letting him if hte person dosen't want him to :)
But in this situation, it is clear the paladin is no longer the ally of the party -- he clearly disagrees with the party and has made the choice that he is no longer an ally of the party. For all actions involving killing BBG, the paladin will respond as an opponent/enemy/foe to the party.
In the situation above, *no one denies* that Valeros is an ally. He didn't suddenly become an enemy of the party by becoming feared.
OK, then how about, I am not letting that coward Valeros flee and leave us to face the creature that put the fear of the gods into him. I will stop him and make him face things like a real man!!!
Would that interpretation work in allowing you to get an attack of opportunity on a team mate who is currently an opponent?
OK, then how about, I am not letting that coward Valeros flee and leave us to face the creature that put the fear of the gods into him. I will stop him and make him face things like a real man!!!
Would that interpretation work in allowing you to get an attack of opportunity on a team mate who is currently an opponent?
I mentioned this case earlier in the thread:
There is an argument that those retreating from battle in some cultures are effectively enemies. In that case, it would make more sense for the team to take actual attacks to kill the teammate instead of trying to stop him from running.
So yes, if a teammate wanted to kill/maim/smash a coward running from battle, indeed a teammate could make an attack on Valeros within the framework of the rules. In this case, Valeros would greatly be aided by his blood-thirsty teammate. He would be unable to move through his opponent's space and thus would be prevented from running away.
But a friendly ally moving through your squares doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity, even if you want it to.
But a friendly ally moving through your squares doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity, even if you want it to.
We will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
After 27 years of gaming... here's how I handle p2p attacks.
At my table, if you lay a hand on another player you are subject to initiative and all the facets that would protect playes from monster threats if the situation were different.
Originally, I did this to keep immature players from doing mean things to the kender, or to keep folks from refraining from throwing the dwarf. LOL
Nowadays this does come up. Usually though, I provide an RP solution to the same occurrence:
Valeros: Runs away with a look of fear on his eyes.
Ezren: Holds up his hands saying, stay with us! We need you here! Stay and fight!
Valeros: Says nothing but continues to push past.
Ezren: Tries to stop him.
DM: Roll for initiative, Ezren! (or roll to grab him as he runs past)
>> Situations where is p on p, you gotta tell the story of why a player is laying a hand on another. And the GM can use whatever discrection she wishes to augment, or disregard the rules as desired.
This is totally within the purview of the GM, as sometimes player on player confrontations enhance the story, atmosphere, or dramatic moment!
Go with what feels right in the moment.
No matter what rules you're looking for, provided you've got the jump on your target (be they friend or foe) you can cause something to happen.... stop them, kick them, etc.
This is kind of silly. The concept is ridiculous. What is being said is me and my friend are standing in a room, and my friend wants to go through a door into another room. I don't want him to go into the other room. (for whatever reason) So I stand in his way.
Which you can ready an action to do. I think most reasonable DMs would even allow a reflex save to grab him, but that's not defined in the rules.
You are actually arguing that because he's my friend it is impossible for him to push me out of the way.
No. I'm arguing that you don't get an attack of opportunity against him. Attack of opportunity is a defined game term. You can't just take them whenever you feel like -- only certain conditions can allow you to take an attack of opportunity.
However if Captain Evil my nemesis were there, he could push past me, because the magical forcefield of friedship wouldn't stay his hand.
Opponents provoke attacks of opportunity. Not allies.
Nowadays this does come up. Usually though, I provide an RP solution to the same occurrence:
Valeros: Runs away with a look of fear on his eyes.
Ezren: Holds up his hands saying, stay with us! We need you here! Stay and fight!
Valeros: Says nothing but continues to push past.
Ezren: Tries to stop him.DM: Roll for initiative, Ezren! (or roll to grab him as he runs past)
>> Situations where is p on p, you gotta tell the story of why a player is laying a hand on another. And the GM can use whatever discrection she wishes to augment, or disregard the rules as desired.
This is totally within the purview of the GM, as sometimes player on player confrontations enhance the story, atmosphere, or dramatic moment!
Go with what feels right in the moment.No matter what rules you're looking for, provided you've got the jump on your target (be they friend or foe) you can cause something to happen.... stop them, kick them, etc.
I completely agree with the situation you've presented (minus the part where you can grab him before you actually go, which is the core issue with this thread). In the case of this thread, most people are ignoring the fact that Valeros (the feared guy) got to go first. He was able to react before everyone else. What people are trying to do is use things like Combat Reflexes to take actions before their initiative order allows them to act. By letting attacks of opportunity give "freebie" actions, people are ignoring the fact that you can't make an AoO against an ally.
If another ally of Valeros got to go before him, he could spend an action to grapple/trip/bull rush/etc. the feared Valeros. But they didn't, so they shouldn't be able to act.
Opponents provoke attacks of opportunity. Not allies.
By your logic, if there is a neutral party A on the field that is intent on killing another neutral party B, your character can't make an AoO to stop A from running past him to stab the B. Because A is not your opponent. That's kind of absurd really. Same goes if A is your ally but he's CN and you are LG and he wants to kill B, a neutral party. Again, you are using the term opponent in a way that is hard-coding it to be people you are fighting. An opponent is anyone you designate as an opponent, be they ally or neutral party.
An opponent is anyone designated as an opponent by your character. It can be very fluid. If I choose to designate an ally as an opponent, because he's running away in fear, or because he's trying to kill an innocent bystander, or because he's being a jerk in character, then he's an opponent. If I want to designate someone as an ally, I can, regardless of whether he considers me to be an ally or not. For example, two people are fighting. I don't know A, but I know B and I hate him. I can designate B as an opponent and A as an Ally. I then flank B with A, and both of us get flanking bonuses, whether A considers me an Ally or not. Now, A can cast 'Cure Light Wounds, Mass' and not affect me if he chooses not to consider me an ally in return, because whether I am his Ally is his decision. He could just as easily take an attack of opportunity against me as I move past him to attack A, because he doesn't consider me an Ally, he considers me an opponent.
The game defines opponent vs ally, it doesn't limit who you choose as either, nor does it say 'You must designate them ahead of time'. Please point to a paragraph in the book, or even a single sentence, that specifies you cannot designate an ally as an opponent at any time.
Please point to a paragraph in the book, or even a single sentence, that specifies you cannot designate an ally as an opponent at any time.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't be an ally and an opponent at the same time for the purposes of an attack of opportunity.
Please point to a paragraph in the book, or even a single sentence, that specifies you cannot designate an ally as an opponent at any time.That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't be an ally and an opponent at the same time for the purposes of an attack of opportunity.
This thread gave me the idea to create a rogue who uses bluff and sleight of hand to make it appear as if he doesn't backstab his own partie's fighter on the way into battle. There's less shares of the treasure that way..
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.