| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Nevermind the reason to do so just wondering if it is possible to make an Attack of Opportunity on an ally if they perform an action/move that would normally draw a possible AoO? Rules seem very vague on this.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine. Doesn't seem to be any vagueness at all, RAW.
However, if you wanted to get into a philosophical/RAI debate about it, I guess you could discuss at what point after you decide to attack them they cease to be your ally and become your enemy. I doubt the intent of the rules is that the fact that someone doubts you will strike them in some way makes it easier to avoid your attacks. If anything, it's more likely they should not only provoke if you want to take the AoO, but quite reasonably could be considered flat-footed.
But if they're not truly becoming your enemy - let's say you're using your AoO to trip them to protect them from getting into a fight with a too-powerful opponent, for instance - RAW you don't get an AoO.
My humble opinion is that the use of the word enemy in this instance is just poor word choice and should have been "creature" or something like that instead.
Well, except that your character determines who are his enemies and allies since it is an entirely subjective description.
So, I would say yes, you can take an AoO if you decide you are hostile to them.
I would say it depends on the situation. Some examples:
If pc 1 anticipates pc 2 to kick som poor beggar in the street he could react to this trigger (unarmed attack without improved unarmed strike) and do something about it like tripping the wannabe kicker.
Or if pc1 notices the fear spell cast be the BBEG and pc2 tries to run away he could make an AOO to stop pc2.
If he does not notice the spell, why would he keep pc2 from moving away, on the other hand?
If an enemy casts beguiling gift on pc1 and hands him a potion of poison labled "healing potion" then pc2 could use an AOO to sunder the potion if he knows the spell and thinks it could be something harmful.
But I can't state hard rules about it. It's just how I would handle it and what I think is RAI.
MyTThor hit it right on. RAW, such capabilities can only be done to enemies, not allies. He's also correct in his interpretation of RAI, in that it should be applicable to all creatures who would provoke, not just enemies.
YMMV, though.
Of course you can take an AoO against an "ally." The second you decide to do so, they cease to be your ally and become an enemy. Or, at least, YOU become THEIR enemy.
The word "enemy" in the rules is just a placeholder, not a mechanical term. An enemy could be anybody you decide to be hostile toward, and deciding to be hostile is a non-action. That means that if an ally moves through a threatened square, and you have just now decided to make him an enemy, you can make an AoO against him.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from taking an AoO against somebody who has provoked, but your own conscience.
I shall state it again for clarification: RAW has nothing to do with it because the term "enemy" in that sentence is NOT a rules term.
I can actually see some weird corner cases with this logic.
I cast a cure spell and am holding the charge. My "Ally" moves up to me, then away, provoking an AoO. I attempt to attack him with my held spell (which is a threatening weapon, so I can). I make my attack roll - oops, I just healed my "enemy" on his turn.
Of course you can take an AoO against an "ally." The second you decide to do so, they cease to be your ally and become an enemy. Or, at least, YOU become THEIR enemy.
The word "enemy" in the rules is just a placeholder, not a mechanical term. An enemy could be anybody you decide to be hostile toward, and deciding to be hostile is a non-action. That means that if an ally moves through a threatened square, and you have just now decided to make him an enemy, you can make an AoO against him.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from taking an AoO against somebody who has provoked, but your own conscience.
I shall state it again for clarification: RAW has nothing to do with it because the term "enemy" in that sentence is NOT a rules term.
I agree with the idea that in this specific case, enemy is just a place holder.
However, the general rule is that if a word doesn't have a game-specific definition, then its real world definition applies via common sense. I don't really see how you can interpret the word "enemy" to mean "ally."
Your way of thinking means basically that every word not specifically defined by the game is therefore not a "rules term" and carries no meaning whatsoever?
I can actually see some weird corner cases with this logic.
I cast a cure spell and am holding the charge. My "Ally" moves up to me, then away, provoking an AoO. I attempt to attack him with my held spell (which is a threatening weapon, so I can). I make my attack roll - oops, I just healed my "enemy" on his turn.
And it's the weird corner cases that I am thinking of. The reasons to make such an attack of opportunity on an ally are few but I think worth considering, particularly if your character is based as a combat reflex character. The wording of enemy seems very subjective to me and to much is left to the interpretation of a GM (and I'm the GM on this one). I lean towards yes on the AoO on a friend. A lowered defense of a friend is still a lowered defense according to my view. The inputs here so far are great.