Again i have a question:
I want to perform a reposition combat maneuver on a friend to move him out of enemy reach during a surprise round. Can i do that and under what circumstances ? What CMD do we use etc.
The reposition description says :
You can attempt to reposition a foe to a different location as a standard action.
My friend isnt a "foe" so i cannot do it?
Yesterday we ruled it as a normal CMB vs. CMD check with AoO (friend dont use the AoE:) ) etc. . In my opinion a friend can lower his defence and i hit him automatically or at least easier. A healing touch attack is an example. I shouted something like "i protect you" so the friend was informed that i will try something that is good for his health..
Interesting situation and clever use of Reposition. You can attempt this even though it says "foe." You decide who your allies and foes are. However, RAW says you have to beat their regular CMD as you played it, and I would tend to agree with this ruling.
A character that uses Combat Expertise, Total Defense or similar abilities adjusts their defenses for at least one full round. This is the same for characters that take a penalty from charging or raging. Remember, while we take turns individually, everything in a round occurs during the same six seconds. For your ally to willing make himself vulnerable, I would rule that he would have to do it for a full round. This decision would generally have to be made on his turn. To me, your shout is moot as he has either already set his defenses or is flat-footed and thus cannot make a decision like that. If you shouted during his turn (free action that can be performed off turn), he could then make the choice to lower his defenses. Personally, I would allow him to take any penalty he wanted, but it would apply for one round. Now, whether that penalty applies only to Combat Maneuvers or all attacks is more up to the GM's discretion. I would rule maneuvers only, but an argument could be made for either. We are definitely outside the RAW here.
The comparison to a touch attack is not unfair, but all that really does is cause me to call into question if beneficial touch attacks should always succeed. I cannot actually find the ruling that says Touch spells don't require attack roles. For simplicity, I would not attempt to change that though. Anyway, this is all just my two copper.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The comparison to a touch attack is not unfair, but all that really does is cause me to call into question if beneficial touch attacks should always succeed. I cannot actually find the ruling that says Touch spells don't require attack roles. For simplicity, I would not attempt to change that though. Anyway, this is all just my two copper.
It's under "Touch Spells in Combat" in the Combat chapter of the Core Rules.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Using this as precedent, it seems reasonable to presume that you could "auto-succeed" a maneuver on a friend. The only trouble that comes in is when you use one whose effect is determined by how much you beat their CMD by (such as Reposition). Against a helpless target you would treat it as though you'd rolled a natural 20 - that feels extreme, but we also don't have any better precedents. The GM will have to make a call for situations like that.
It's under "Touch Spells in Combat" in the Combat chapter of the Core Rules.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Thanks, Jiggy. I have always played with this rule, but I couldn't find it. I would still stand by my ruling though. If allies always succeed on touch attacks and combat maneuvers, then the first attacks from a charmed ally or an NPC you believe to be on your side would be an automatic success. A combat maneuver is closer to a real attack then a touch attack too. At best, I would say a character would be considered flat-footed against a perceived ally's first attacks. Huh. This just makes me more dubious about touch attacks not requiring any type of roll. I am going to chalk that one up to magical BS. Again, just my two copper.