|
So here's a situation I encountered in my game that I'm GMing: the PCs had two NPCs with them that they'd been fighting alongside and using the benefits of their spells and attacks and special abilities as allies. One of the NPCs casts deeper darkness and one of the PCs suddenly declares he is going to take an AoO to attack the NPC to disrupt the spell. He claims he can choose who is an ally and who is an enemy on a case to case and swing to swing basis. I didn't argue because I really wasn't sure about it but it sounded metagamey because his PC wouldn't know wtf was going on and I seriously doubt he would generally take a hack at someone who'd been buffing him the round before (and the PC bard had been counting as an ally for performance purposes).
Here's what the PRD says about it:
The first part that is the bolded part is interesting because it says opponents. The second part, which seems much more relevant as the actual action that provoked, does not say opponents. I am not sure if this was considered but it was something I was perplexed about. It doesn't prohibit it, but does that go into GM fiat or is it that PCs can attack any being, enemy or ally, that moves out of a threatened square?
He just declared himself an opponent so, yes. Note: he can use a nonlethal attack to disrupt the spell.
- Gauss
|
|
He just declared himself an opponent so, yes.
- Gauss
I guess I just don't see the moment when he declared himself an opponent. The PC waited until he saw the effect of the spell then declared he got an AoO. Maybe I should have specified that part.
So Gauss, as an honest question: can the PCs declare an ally an opponent then call them an ally again later?
I think the situation where a PC is controlled by a BBEG or enemy is a different situation than this one but I guess you could apply it.
Yup. When you're blindsided you're blindsided.
Youtellatale,
The real life example is clear: if you and I are buddies, and I suddenly turn on you, I'd get the AoO as soon as you start casting.
However, AFTER the spell is cast, I would no longer get that AoO, because the AoO is caused by the casting itself. So if your player waited until after the effect, then no, there's no AoO. He can claim on on the next opportunity, though.
But if the player wants to claim on while the caster is casting, then yes, he can claim is even if he is an ally (because he's no longer an ally at that moment).
Think of it this way: if you had an enemy pretending to be their friend, wouldn't he still get an AoO when he decided to turn?
Well yes he could, it just seems very odd.
Considering the caster be casting deeper darkness and the other player identifies it as such, still the player has no idea where the caster is going to target the spell unless the other character told him in game.
At first glance it seems the attacking player filters through information that his character does not have, such as where he intends to cast the spell, to decide to attack him unless it is usually an untrustworthy ally in his character's eyes it seems odd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the NPCs casts deeper darkness and one of the PCs suddenly declares he is going to take an AoO to attack the NPC to disrupt the spell.
In that instant, I would require a spellcraft roll to determine the spell being cast. The character otherwise wouldn't know what spell was being cast in order to decide to stop the spell.
I guess I just don't see the moment when he declared himself an opponent. The PC waited until he saw the effect of the spell then declared he got an AoO. Maybe I should have specified that part.
I would only allow him to declare the NPC his opponent at the start of his turn. As he hadn't declared him an opponent previously, he would not get an AoO for the casting of the Deeper Darkness spell.
Recall that an AoO for spellcasting is gained in the first place because it's assumed that you've been trying to hit your foe continuously, so when the action that provokes happens, his guard is let down and one of these random blows has a chance to actually connect.
Your guy hasn't been trying to attack the NPC because he's considered him an ally. So no AoO.
So Gauss, as an honest question: can the PCs declare an ally an opponent then call them an ally again later?
Sure. Once a round, at the beginning of their turn. That said, the ally in question might have something to say to them, since while a "foe" they'd be trying to gut them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player may know you're casting Deeper Darkness, but did the NPC say to the PC "I'm going to cast a darkening spell, milord!"? The player should roll a Spellcraft check to identify the spell. If they can't identify it, then the PC has no reason to take the AoO other than meta-gaming unless the PC tends to disrupt any spellcaster in range, friend or foe.
Maybe the player needs reminded that just because the GM or other players say "I am casting X," that doesn't mean their characters are giving any sort of warning to those around them what spell they are casting.
|
|
Thanks for the responses. I understand the timing of the AoO rule, that he should have had to declare his AoO intent as soon as the spell was being cast. I was lenient about the timing in that instance and shouldn't have been. It was an OOG and after the fact knowledge the the player used and shouldn't have. It didn't hurt the story at all but did sort of ruffle my feathers a bit because even if his PC had rolled his spellcraft check and made it, as was stated about he wouldn't know where the target was or anything along those lines.
@Lord Pendragon: I like your idea about declaring at the beginning of a round. The problem I could see arising is if there are more than two groups fighting and two groups don't see eye to eye on how to deal with another group. That's a rare problem though and I can GM around that for sure.
I guess I just don't see the moment when he declared himself an opponent. The PC waited until he saw the effect of the spell then declared he got an AoO. Maybe I should have specified that part.So Gauss, as an honest question: can the PCs declare an ally an opponent then call them an ally again later?
I think the situation where a PC is controlled by a BBEG or enemy is a different situation than this one but I guess you could apply it.
The sequence is wrong for him to use an AoO. He couldn't decide the caster was an opponent without knowing what the spell was while it was being cast and before it took effect. I think bookrat nailed it. He would need to decide before seeing the effect; once the spell is cast it's too late to disrupt the casting of it. He would need a Spellcraft check or verbal information from the NPC caster to know he wanted to disrupt the spell before it was cast. If he wanted to attack the caster next round he would have to deal with the darkness, well, that and being a jerk.
*edit* Ninja'd while getting a soda. Multiple times...
|
IMO, since the NPC wasn't being threatened when he started casting the spell there is no AoO. If the PC wants to declare the NPC an enemy after that is their call. However, at that point the NPC would probably treat the PC as hostile too and would stay so until convinced otherwise. The PC should not be able to flipflop at will as long as the NPC has a mind of its own.
It takes two to tango at being allies.
|
|
Basically it seems as though my thoughts were confirmed. In the context of the battle it didn't make a huge difference, the NPCs were "kidnapped" and the PCs were returning them home. There's plenty more behind the story but I won't get into it, that's the gist of it. One NPC five foot steps and casts a spell, I get my marker and outline the area and knowing what color I use for darkness/deeper darkness spells the player figured it out and declared "he meant to use an AoO". This isn't a goofball, absent minded guy either, he's an experienced GM and player so I knew it was metagamey and cheese-tastic but like I said, it didn't disrupt the battle really in a bad way and didn't hurt the story. Plus, I didn't know any actual rule where he couldn't attack an ally, so ignoring timing I allowed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe he can make an AoO against whoever provokes that AoO from him.
Like, I'd not usually attack one of my allies, but there is no rule saying I can't.
It's meta-game to know what the NPC was casting (and consequentelly, decide to interrupt it), but the AoO itself is not against the rule.
The way I see, "opponent" is not a character status or condition. It's just whoever is in on the receiving end of a hostile action (like an AoO).
I'd allow the AoO. But I'd warn the player to avoid meta-gaming again, and would also make sure the NPC shows his displeasure.
Also, next time, try just saying "You see Bob-The-NPC saying strange words and gesticulating, it seems he's casting a spell", the player can roll a Spellcraft check if he wants to know what spell is being cast.
I'd even allow characters to exclude allies from "allies only" effects. After all, if a bard can choose not to inspire the fire-breathing monster, why can't he choose not to inspire the dude in full plate or the squishy old man? Sure, it's kinda douchy, but not against the rules.
Obviously, this does not apply to effects that affect all creatures within range, friend or foe, in the same manner, such as a Fireball spell or a Cleric's Channel Energy. There are feats for that.
I agree with everyone who says he needs to know what the spell is being cast before he can react to it.
However I disagree with the people who say you have to 'announce' who is your enemy ONLY at the beginning of your turn.. That just doesn't make sense.
Scenario 1
BBEG: Cast dominate person on player two. Tells to attack his allies.
Player one, Cast spell...
Player one, Gets AOO.
He's switched sides, and it was nowhere NEAR his turn yet. However, an 'enemy' was provoking so he gets his attack.
After all... AoO's are ALL about attacking out of turn.
Scenario 2
Player one, fights bad guy... takes serious damage.
Player two, Casts Meteor storm..
Player one realizes what he's doing...(either becasue P1 Announces it, or through Spellcraft) And slams into his buddy doing nonlethal damage.
"DUDE!!! I can't survive that!!! Pick something ELSE!!!" Player one realizes the mistake and picks a better spell next time...
no harm no foul.
I can see side switching both by RAW and by RP, so I'd say it's pretty legit. As long as it's a RARITY... This should NOT be regular occurance, but it looks legit to me.
I think this is one of those situations where actually having clear game rules makes it harder to work out. My general rule of thumb is that where the rules use "ally", "enemy" or "opponent", the individual character (sometimes varied by ongoing charms and compulsions) gets to choose what other characters fit into what category. There is a side-order of Wheaton's Law to it, too, so that players don't do things to screw with other players for the hell of it. They don't have to declare in advance, but if they want to specify a previous "ally" as an "enemy" or "opponent", they need a reason to back it up.
The only possibilities to switch from ally to enemy or visa versa by RAW are :
- Diplomacy
- Indimidate
- Spells/Su/Ex/Sp (e.g. domination or charm spells)
- Role playing (= GM decision)
You cant switch between enemy or ally as you like by RAW.
An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
If you use an AoO against an ally by role playing (= GM decision) it has some more side effects. First some spells stop working (like bless). Secondly your ally is maybe flanked by you and an "real" enemy because you are threatening him. Thirdly you will get a lot of role play problems with other allies as soon as you start attacking a friend :)
You only gain an AoO if you threaten the person (ie; you actually present a threat to them). So, the spellcaster would have known beforehand that he was threatened by the PC, and would have had the option to cast defensively. I would not grant the AoO without also granting the NPC the option to cast defensively.
Since you're already far into backtrack-land with the PC declaring the AoO after knowing the spell effect, you could have backtracked slightly longer and allowed the NPC to cast defensively (or even to not cast at all; if his friends suddenly threaten him, he would likely have tried to get the hell away instead of standing around to cast a spell).
Yes, you can choose to expend an AoO against an ally, but your player did so with metagame knowledge.
At that point, I would have told the player to make a spellcraft check retroactively (without the benefit of any optional bonuses from Hero Points and such, since it's already known). If the PC made the check, then I would allow the attack. If not, he's out of luck.
There is no magical force floating around PCs and NPCs that only allows you to attack one or the other. It isn't an MMO where you have to flag yourself for PVP. From a simulation perspective, your character would hear magic being cast and either know what was going on and react to it, or be clueless and keep doing what he's doing.
The most common reaction should not be to physically attack an ally, but to tell them to stop. Talking is a free action, and if you "threaten" that ally, then you are well within earshot. So while it is certainly 'legal' it is a bit of a dick move.
So here's a situation I encountered in my game that I'm GMing: the PCs had two NPCs with them that they'd been fighting alongside and using the benefits of their spells and attacks and special abilities as allies. One of the NPCs casts deeper darkness and one of the PCs suddenly declares he is going to take an AoO to attack the NPC to disrupt the spell. He claims he can choose who is an ally and who is an enemy on a case to case and swing to swing basis. I didn't argue because I really wasn't sure about it but it sounded metagamey because his PC wouldn't know wtf was going on and I seriously doubt he would generally take a hack at someone who'd been buffing him the round before (and the PC bard had been counting as an ally for performance purposes).
At the point where your PC is using an attack of opportunity on a spellcaster he's not really an ally anymore which would instantly cancel any beneficial bard-like abilities. The question you had about meta-gaming is legit too. How did the PC come to know what spell he was casting? Was there a Perception check to notice the spell was even being cast? Was there a knowledge: arcana or spellcraft check involved? If not, then I'd tell the PC to shut his pie hole and enjoy the deeper darkness. If so I'd have that NPC refuse to cast a beneficial spell ever again. Attacking a friendly NPC -even with non-lethal damage- is a good way of turning a friendly NPC into an unfriendly one... doing so in the middle of combat is also a really bad idea.
The targeted area of the spell is also relevant (as pointed out by someone else on this thread). How did the PC know where the Deeper Darkness was going to be cast or that it was going to be cast in an objectionable spot?
Yeah I'd say this was all meta-gaming on your PC's part. He *could* have made the AoO if he had known the specifics. Since it's not really feasible that he did, I'd say he wouldn't have, should shut his pie hole and enjoy the deeper darkness.
imo.