|
I was running a game yesterday, and the tables summoner was repositioning his Eidolon all over the place. I let it fly since it wasn't terribly wrecking any mechanics and I didn't want to start an argument. How does repositioning work on fellow players and/or pets? Can you do it at all? Does it require some sort of CMB check? If so can the other player artificially lower their CMD?
There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to argue against this tactic. When I think of all the things a summoner could be doing instead, this doesn't seem all that overwhelming.
I would assume that the defender could reduce his CMD by whatever amount he gets from DEX or Dodge bonuses by choosing not to avoid the attack - the rest of the CMD would still apply. I can't support that by RAW.
Furthermore, as a GM, I would say that normally a reposition maneuver doesn't cause the defender to provoke because of its unwanted movement, but if it is willingly allowing itself to be moved then it should still provoke, just exactly like it would provoke if it willingly moved itself through the same squares. In other words, allowing someone else to push you into battle doesn't give you immunity from AoOs that would happen if you moved yourself into battle. Again, not RAW, but I couldn't support a game mechanic that lets someone else move you safely through squares that you cannot move through safely on your own.
yea. you can lower your defenses to any attack. case in point. cure spells have a save attached. you can choose to fail any skill or lower defenses (in most cases) so i see no reason you could not reposition a willing ally. To reposition:
An enemy being moved by a reposition does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement unless you possess the Greater Reposition feat. You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle.
emphasis mine.
so your eidolon/fighter/wizard/pillow would provoke from enemies that it moved through since is not an enemy (otherwise there is no reason it should not attack you as per the rules.)
If you want to use that as your standard action... do dont see how it would be useful... if unwilling then they still ahve to hit, cmb v cmd, etc. and like any opportunity to take an AoO, you do not have to.
I had the same problem and asked the forum. I got three possible solutions:
A) Dont allow it.
B) Follow strictly the combat maneuver RAW and dont differentiate between friend or foe.
C) Create some houserules (target can lower defenses, AoO for a friendly target,...)
I talked with my players and we prefer B on my table.
-edit-
Maybe we have a fourth solution discovered by IejirIsk
D) Follow strictly the combat maneuver RAW and differentiate between friend or foe.
But ... what defense hits the AoO? The lowered or the normale one?
Mh where are the "defense lowering" RAWs?
you can always choose to not hit an AoO. sorry, i may have been misclear, just finished a module and went immediately to work.. that was ~10 hr ago...
you can always choose to be hit by an attack. when was the last time you saved vs CL*, or used SR vs it? while charmed dominated perhaps? not to mention, you still have to touch so is another thing you have to lower. if you ran you cannot lower a defence... then a healer needs to roll to hit, and caster check, plus you get a will save for 1/2 healing... >.<
but, if you moving an ally through threatened squares as a way to avoid AoO... (not to mention the rolls v CMD determines how far... i'd say 5 is simple, while more requires check) Also, remember, there is not seperate general rules for npcs and pcs... if they are claiming you can reposition in combat... so can they... imagine ye kolbold groups... orcs flinging goblins into midst of the casters with alchemists bombs... (repositioning wizard so he can cast... repositioning wizard so he is a shield...)
what do you mean, what defence hits the AoO?
You lower your defense to be an easy target for a friendly repositioning maneuver. The repositioning starts and you get an AoO.
What is my AC for the AoO?
if i chose to hit you (not that i would be very friendly) but your AC would be unchanged... assuming you did not want to be hit. But if you swing me around so I am moving from a threatened square, then that should provoke, as I believe drag does (though did not look its late and I tired).
Now, if I did not want to move, I could resist the attack, and then i would have reason to AoO to lower your chances...
However if I choose to be attacked by your attack, I do not need to do more than nod. Technically you would provoke from me whether I accepted or not. (look at overrun for similar instance with allowing someone to pass by your square).
However just because I lowered my defence for that attack, does not mean it is lowered all turn (though to be fair i thnk SR does do something like...) but has no bearing on your defence/saves. Any time you roll a die, you can take the minumum result. Should you? not often... but sometimes you really DO wanna be hit by fireball.
CL* series portrays this best, I think. And technically if you go to touch me, with a spell it would not provoke, but if you went to grab me, it would. And now I am rambling...
I think it was BlackbloodTroll (correct me if I'm wrong) who pointed out the RAW logic behind why this works:
You can attack an ally. Any time that you can take an attack action against a target, you can instead substitute a combat maneuver. Therefore, you can use combat maneuvers against an ally.
The real question is whether or not using a combat maneuver against an ally requires a roll, and what the DC for that roll would be.
Sure it requires a roll. Maybe, if there is no combat, the ally could treat himself as helpless, allowing a coup de grace from his own ally if he wants (and trusting that it won't happen). But I think that's a bit much for someone who is also in a battle with actual enemies.
While there is no RAW, I could very easily see that lowering your defenses should apply for a whole round to everyone that attacks you. There is precedent for it with Charge and Cleave, and for the opposite with Fighting Defensively and Total Defense - things you do that alter your AC last until the start of your next turn.
Therefore, lowering your defenses to allow an ally to reposition you more easily should lower your defenses against all attacks for the whole round.
Of course, if done correctly with precise teamwork, the Eidolon would delay its turn until right before the Summoner, lower its defenses, get repositioned, then its turn would start and its defenses would return to normal because it is the start of its turn. Slick.
But, being repositioned willingly should provoke AoOs as I stated in my previous post on this thread, and at that moment, the defenses are still lowered.
On a side note, some defenses can't be lowered, such as armor or natural armor or continuous deflection bonus, or the 10 that is part of everything's AC. So really, only DEX, Dodge, and Shield AC seem like viable candidates for lowering defenses.
So calculate the CMD and the AC of the Eidolon according to any reduction of those AC modifiers, do the reposition, provoke any AoOs and then resolve them, then let the Eidolon act from his new position, if it's still alive.
Seems reasonable to and doesn't actually break any RAW.
DM_Blake, I pretty much agree with all of that, but... There's just one thing that's been nagging me from upthread...
I didn't find the Cure Light Wounds example that compelling, because Cure Light Wound's save and spell resistance both EXPLICITLY call themselves out as "harmless". That could be a special function of the magic, not the defender making any call as to whether they will "lower defenses".
Except for one thing. The target must be touched. This would normally require a melee touch attack. The touch line does NOT specifically call out that the touch is harmless, like the saves and SR lines do.
This implies any character at any time can lower their Touch AC to Zero. Not 10, as the touch is automatic and cannot fail.
But then take it further. The touch cannot fail, ever. Not even a natural 1 can cause you to miss touching your ally with cure light. This further implies that any character can completely ignore their Touch AC to allow an incoming touch.
I'm not sure what this implies on combat maneuvers... Just thought it might be interesting to see if anyone could extrapolate from this.
It's an interesting argument. I see a big difference between being touched by an ally and being repositioned by an ally. Also, there is no need to actually determine the results of the healer's touch - his spell will heal a certain amount of HP no matter how high or how low he rolls on his touch attack, even if he doesn't roll at all. But, reposition requires a CMB roll to figure out if it works at all, and by how much (rolling higher moves the target farther).
So, mechanically speaking, an ogre in hide armor can only move himself 20 feet. But if you allow that ogre to lower his CMB to zero, anyone with a halfway decent CMB could move him much farther than 20 feet with a Reposition maneuver. Seems to me that this would be violating the spirit of the rule as well as being mechanically ill-advised.
Maybe this is why we don't need touch attacks for friendly/harmless spells cast on our allies:
CRB, Spells, Range: "You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell."
And:
CRB, Combat, Touch Attacks: "Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus."
From those two quotes, it's clear that touching willing allies is not a "touch attack" since nobody gets 6 attacks in a round without lots of feats or magic or being a high-level monk. It's also clear that you only need to make a touch attack roll when you are an attacker touching a foe with a touch attack.
So there really is no need to make touch rolls or to lower defenses to receive healing or buffs from an ally.
There is no such wording for combat maneuvers that I know of, so making the roll still seems necessary to me, especially since determining the effects requires rolling the CMB vs. CMD.
Aah, good point on the 6 touches/per spell thing. I was completely unaware of that rule. In that case, yeah, it's explicitly something different than an "auto-hit touch attack".
One problem is that an AoO occurs before the action that triggers it. The repositionees should therefore have the benefit of their full AC, before lowering it to allow the Combat Manoeuvre.
Assuming lowering your AC is a Free Action of course.
One problem is that an AoO occurs before the action that triggers it. The repositionees should therefore have the benefit of their full AC, before lowering it to allow the Combat Manoeuvre.
Assuming lowering your AC is a Free Action of course.
Not true. That's a misconception I sometimes see, most commonly from CCG players.
CRB, AoO: "An attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn)."
Notice that it says "If an attack of opportunity is provoked", not "is about to be provoked". Also note that it says "then continue" rather than "then start". So the AoO interrupts an action that is already happening.
It's simulationistically inconceivable that an AoO happens before the action that triggers it:
Conan: I think that guy is going to move. I swing at him.
GM: It's not your turn.
Conan: Yeah, I'm taking an AoO that he is about to provoke.
GM: He hasn't moved. What are you talking about?
Conan: When you provoke an AoO, I get to act before you even start the action that provokes it. He's about to move, so he provoked my AoO. Does a 23 hit his AC?
GM: He DID NOT MOVE. It's not even his TURN yet.
Conan: Oh, but I predict he's going to move. So did I hit?
So what happens is:
A) Combatant Fred begins taking an action that provokes an AoO.
B) Enemy George sees that action begin, realizes that Fred's action means he let his guard down a little, so George takes a quick shot at Fred - during Fred's action.
C) If Fred is still alive and capable of continuing his action, he may do so.
DM_Blake
Except it DOES work like that. Namely with trips and getting up from prone.
You get tripped, you stand up from prone, you provoke an AoO.
Can the opponent substitute his melee attack on the AoO with another trip attempt?
...Well, yes, he could, but there would be no point. You are already on the ground, prone, and tripping you would do nothing.
So he wastes his AoO on trip attempt against an already prone target.
Then you stand up.
Conan: I think that guy is going to stand up. I swing at his legs to trip him again.
GM: But he hasn't stood up yet.
Conan: But standing provokes an AoO. So then I trip him.
GM: But he provokes before actually standing up, so you're trying to trip a guy already on his back.
Conan: So when you provoke an AoO, I get to act before you even start the action that provokes it? Does that mean I get the +4 bonus for attacking a prone target if he provokes before standing?
GM: Yup!
Conan: I think that guy is going to stand up. I swing at his legs to trip him again.
GM: But he hasn't stood up yet.
Conan: But standing provokes an AoO. So then I trip him.
GM: But he provokes before actually standing up, so you're trying to trip a guy already on his back.
Conan: So when you provoke an AoO, I get to act before you even start the action that provokes it? Does that mean I get the +4 bonus for attacking a prone target if he provokes before standing?
GM: Yup!
It has nothing to do with prediction.
GM: The guy on the ground moves his hands to the ground and moves his concentration to a standing up move.
Conan: I use his lack of concentration for an attack ..
You see that the enemy starts something that uses his attention. This fact you use for an AoO.
It is not only 'before' and 'after' an action. There is also 'during' an action. Take an AoO provoked by a move action as example.
Hmmm, now I'm tortured! They both make sense in the examples give!
Conan: I think that guy is going to stand up. I swing at his legs to trip him again.
GM: But he hasn't stood up yet.
Conan: But standing provokes an AoO. So then I trip him.
GM: But he provokes before actually standing up, so you're trying to trip a guy already on his back.
Conan: So when you provoke an AoO, I get to act before you even start the action that provokes it? Does that mean I get the +4 bonus for attacking a prone target if he provokes before standing?
GM: Yup!It has nothing to do with prediction.
GM: The guy on the ground moves his hands to the ground and moves his concentration to a standing up move.
Conan: I use his lack of concentration for an attack ..You see that the enemy starts something that uses his attention. This fact you use for an AoO.
It is not only 'before' and 'after' an action. There is also 'during' an action. Take an AoO provoked by a move action as example.
Your description is how it is fluffed, but I suspect you can't find rule support for AoO's occurring during rather than before the action they interrupt.
Maybe he can't, but I can!
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
Maybe it's a specific exception, but a person can't say "attacks of opportunity never occur during the triggering action."
DM_Blake
Except it DOES work like that. Namely with trips and getting up from prone.
You get tripped, you stand up from prone, you provoke an AoO.
Can the opponent substitute his melee attack on the AoO with another trip attempt?
...Well, yes, he could, but there would be no point. You are already on the ground, prone, and tripping you would do nothing.
So he wastes his AoO on trip attempt against an already prone target.
Then you stand up.
Conan: I think that guy is going to stand up. I swing at his legs to trip him again.
GM: But he hasn't stood up yet.
Conan: But standing provokes an AoO. So then I trip him.
GM: But he provokes before actually standing up, so you're trying to trip a guy already on his back.
Conan: So when you provoke an AoO, I get to act before you even start the action that provokes it? Does that mean I get the +4 bonus for attacking a prone target if he provokes before standing?
GM: Yup!
It is not "before he starts to stand" but "before he finishes standing." Much like an AoO for moving out of a threatened square happens after you start your movement, but before you leave the square.
Since he hasn't stood up yet, he still has the prone condition, so you get +4 on the swing as he stands. If you wanted to trip him however, you would apply the prone condition, which he already has, then his stand action would finish, removing the prone condition. Making the trip attempt worthless.
Maybe he can't, but I can!
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).Maybe it's a specific exception, but a person can't say "attacks of opportunity never occur during the triggering action."
I believe that's specifically worded to avoid your interpretation.
The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more)
OR
if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action)
The former is indeed during, which would be the case in 1 round or more spellcasting time.
The latter is provided as an alternative to that, when it doesn't come between the time you start and the time you finish, so not 'during'. And this 'not during' aspect is the one concerned with AoOs.