Your opponent knows exactly where you'll be if you are purposely getting hit by something.
Since the enemy knows where you are going to be, he should be allowed to attack vs your flat-footed AC.
No, he shouldn't.
If a character gets hit by 3 different spells in 1 round, he can choose to voluntarily fail his save to his friend's spell while still resisting his enemies' spells.
He could not selectively lower his Spell Resistance.
This is a tricky area of the game, that leads to a slippery slope and other problems. Such as, if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things.
Why can't you reposition, bull rush, or use ANY other combat maneuver on an ally? Being an ally doesn't make you suddenly immune to these maneuvers. If my friend steps in front of a bus (a dangerous thing), I'm going to pull them back onto the curb (ie, reposition them).
Also, if you are saying you CAN'T use a combat maneuver on an ally, what happens if they are charmed by something, or believe an illusion, and are walking to their doom? You just have to stand there because they are not an enemy? What if they are tied up or otherwise unable to move? We just leave them? No. I'm not buying it. (As an aside, a CM against someone tied up or otherwise incapacitated automatically succeeds, core rulebook, page 199). Or, what if you consider them a friend, but they secretly hate you? The character relationship is irrelevant. Combat Maneuvers ARE possible on an ally. If it has a CMD, its fair game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your opponent knows exactly where you'll be if you are purposely getting hit by something.
Since the enemy knows where you are going to be, he should be allowed to attack vs your flat-footed AC.
Then is it that if two people are fighting a person can dodge all of their opponents punches, but a friend can grab them. Obviously it is because you get to judge who you don't want to touch you.
Now of course you might say the game is not real life so let's use your example with a cure spell, which means you have to be touched. Do you require the cleric to roll attack rolls? If not then the player has to be in a certain place to be touched. So they do lose AC for receiving a cure spell?
<waits for reply>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the original question... I say go for it.
EDIT: I had originally said you should be denied dex until your next turn, and went into the reasoning... However, WRAITHSTRIKE MADE A GREAT ARGUMENT. I am now convinced that a ranged "cure" bomb should not be treated differently than a "touch" cure. If you are not denied dex bonus on one, then you should not be denied dex bonus on the other.
Why can't you reposition, bull rush, or use ANY other combat maneuver on an ally? Being an ally doesn't make you suddenly immune to these maneuvers. If my friend steps in front of a bus (a dangerous thing), I'm going to pull them back onto the curb (ie, reposition them).
Also, if you are saying you CAN'T use a combat maneuver on an ally, what happens if they are charmed by something, or believe an illusion, and are walking to their doom? You just have to stand there because they are not an enemy? What if they are tied up or otherwise unable to move? We just leave them? No. I'm not buying it. (As an aside, a CM against someone tied up or otherwise incapacitated automatically succeeds, core rulebook, page 199). Or, what if you consider them a friend, but they secretly hate you? The character relationship is irrelevant. Combat Maneuvers ARE possible on an ally. If it has a CMD, its fair game.
Because if you allow cmabt maneuvers to apply to an ally it goes against the rules which said that you can do this maneuver against a foe... ;)
If an ally is charmed he is a foe not an ally so you can use this maneuver against him... (the word against is the key, these maneuver are not meant to be helping you but to hinder you, if you want to help you have to use a maneuver that is not descripted in the book...)
|
I agree with this. If you're going to stand still to let yourself be touched, you're going to be standing still for the orc who's trying to bash you with a mace.At the very least I would say that if you willingly lower your AC it last for an entire of combat, not just your turn or however long it takes to for you to be affected by what you desire. Remember that combat is an abstract, and though turns are all taken sequentially they all occur simultaneously within the same 6 second round. If you open yourself up to taken (beneficial) hits from an ally you open yourself up to taking harmful ones from an enemy.
And yet, touch spells used in combat do exactly this. It is written into the combat rules.
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Emphasis mine.
How would the OP's question be any different? Are you going to apply penalties for a heal delivered by a ranged touch that would never exist for a normal touch spell?
With a touch spell, the enemy doesn't know exactly how, when, and where your friend will touch you.
With a ranged touch, though, the enemy can see it coming and knows where you'll be, and when.
Because if you allow cmabt maneuvers to apply to an ally it goes against the rules which said that you can do this maneuver against a foe... ;)
If an ally is charmed he is a foe not an ally so you can use this maneuver against him... (the word against is the key, these maneuver are not meant to be helping you but to hinder you, if you want to help you have to use a maneuver that is not descripted in the book...)
I'll respond to the second part first. Not all charms work that way. In fact, "charm person" says nothing about turning someone against their former friends. Nothing. And then there is the whole illusion argument, or incapacitated argument, or the enemy pretending to be a friend argument... Allowing it wholesale to all creatures is simpler.
Now, as to the first part... Yes, I read the mention of "foe" in the section introduction, but its only mentioned once, and that as part of an EXAMPLE of what is possible. I don't believe it is RAI. If you keep reading, it says "each character or creature...". There is no "friend forcefield" preventing me from dragging an incapacitated ally to safety, or pulling a friend back to the curb from the aforementioned bus. It not only doesn't make logical sense, its also not cinematic. I want the big bad evil guy to be able to shove minions out of his way, and I want the PCs to be able to pull villagers out of harms way. It makes rules sense, and makes better stories.
With a touch spell, the enemy doesn't know exactly how, when, and where your friend will touch you.
With a ranged touch, though, the enemy can see it coming and knows where you'll be, and when.
Actually if I am beside someone and try to touch a specific body part it is easier to tell than if I am far away.
If I point my finger at your face you dont know if I am aiming for your eyes or your nose and neither does someone you are fighting.
As a real life example if I am I try to touch your hair and you don;t like to having your hair touched it is easier for you to notice where my hand is going, and move out of the way.
Source:Real life experience.
PS: Your argument also is not based on the rules, but how you want something to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we're obviously in home-rule territory.
By RAW, if your friend wants to hit you with a ranged touch attack, they must hit your touch AC.
As for house-rules, it is reasonable that you could forgo your dex bonus voluntarily against a ranged attack. As another house rule, it would be reasonable that if you lowered your AC like this, your opponent could take advantage of it (as they would know where and when to strike.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually not only take their dex or dodge bonuses away, i apply them as modifiers to the attack roll if the character is aware of it(if he isn't then no change).
Well, we're obviously in home-rule territory.
By RAW, if your friend wants to hit you with a ranged touch attack, they must hit your touch AC.
As for house-rules, it is reasonable that you could forgo your dex bonus voluntarily against a ranged attack. As another house rule, it would be reasonable that if you lowered your AC like this, your opponent could take advantage of it (as they would know where and when to strike.)
Where does it say it is an attack as opposed to just a ranged touch?
I am sure the PDT won't make you lose your dex vs an enemy just because you are not dodging an ally's spell. Actually the only way to apply dex to AC is to be aware of the attack, and dex assumes you are trying to dodge the attack.
Since it is not an attack I am sure there are no houserules needed.
But if we are going to play the RAW vs RAI game.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people arguing that no roll is needed to hit someone with a healing bomb?
Because you need to make a roll to hit an empty square with a bomb. There's no way it's easier to hit an ally than to hit the square they're standing it.
To hit someone with a healing bomb, you clearly need to make an attack roll. And there is no mechanism by RAW to voluntarily lower your AC. Thus, by RAW you need to make a ranged touch attack vs the ally's touch AC.
Well, we're obviously in home-rule territory.
By RAW, if your friend wants to hit you with a ranged touch attack, they must hit your touch AC.
As for house-rules, it is reasonable that you could forgo your dex bonus voluntarily against a ranged attack. As another house rule, it would be reasonable that if you lowered your AC like this, your opponent could take advantage of it (as they would know where and when to strike.)
Not really, if you say that throwing a flask of Healing is a sort of Spalsh Weapon then you can have your player aim for a square and have a roll against a 5 AC, if he roll a 1 then it's a fumble and you roll where it lands... If you're unlucky it lands on your opponent if not it crash on the ground...
Now that's it for the throwing a Healing flask part...
For Reposition, Bullrush and Grab...
I'll respond to the second part first. Not all charms work that way. In fact, "charm person" says nothing about turning someone against their former friends. Nothing. And then there is the whole illusion argument, or incapacitated argument, or the enemy pretending to be a friend argument... Allowing it wholesale to all creatures is simpler.
Now, as to the first part... Yes, I read the mention of "foe" in the section introduction, but its only mentioned once, and that as part of an EXAMPLE of what is possible. I don't believe it is RAI. If you keep reading, it says "each character or creature...". There is no "friend forcefield" preventing me from dragging an incapacitated ally to safety, or pulling a friend back to the curb from the aforementioned bus. It not only doesn't make logical sense, its also not cinematic. I want the big bad evil guy to be able to shove minions out of his way, and I want the PCs to be able to pull villagers out of harms way. It makes rules sense, and makes better stories.
Uh ? Have you tried to cast charm person on a party character within your group ?
You can but it will do nithing wince Charm Person state : "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)".So now you treat the charmed person as an ally... and through my rules you can't reposition or bull rush him... What's the inconsticency ?
And don't put in my mouth what I have'nt told, you CAN drag an incapicited ally or everything that you have pointed out but not with using the Drag or Reposition Maneuver rule the guy you try to Drag or Reposition is still subject to AoO if the opponent want to that's all...
Well, we're obviously in home-rule territory.
By RAW, if your friend wants to hit you with a ranged touch attack, they must hit your touch AC.
As for house-rules, it is reasonable that you could forgo your dex bonus voluntarily against a ranged attack. As another house rule, it would be reasonable that if you lowered your AC like this, your opponent could take advantage of it (as they would know where and when to strike.)
Not really, if you say that throwing a flask of Healing is a sort of Splash Weapon then you can have your player aim for a square and have a roll against a 5 AC, if he roll a 1 then it's a fumble and you roll where it lands... If you're unlucky it lands on your opponent and heals him, if not it crash on the ground...
Now that's it for the throwing a Healing flask part...
For Reposition, Bullrush and Grab...
I'll respond to the second part first. Not all charms work that way. In fact, "charm person" says nothing about turning someone against their former friends. Nothing. And then there is the whole illusion argument, or incapacitated argument, or the enemy pretending to be a friend argument... Allowing it wholesale to all creatures is simpler.
Now, as to the first part... Yes, I read the mention of "foe" in the section introduction, but its only mentioned once, and that as part of an EXAMPLE of what is possible. I don't believe it is RAI. If you keep reading, it says "each character or creature...". There is no "friend forcefield" preventing me from dragging an incapacitated ally to safety, or pulling a friend back to the curb from the aforementioned bus. It not only doesn't make logical sense, its also not cinematic. I want the big bad evil guy to be able to shove minions out of his way, and I want the PCs to be able to pull villagers out of harms way. It makes rules sense, and makes better stories.
Uh ? Have you tried to cast charm person on a party character within your group ?
You can but it will...
I don't think so. If that were true then Words of Power would be completely terrible for buffing since you have to land ranged touch attacks on all your allies first. Judging by the way these effect words have you use ranged touch attacks to buff allies, it is assumed that allies can intentionally get hit and forgo the attack roll.
This is just one of those cases where the rules aren't explicitly written because these things are obviously within one's abilities.
You know there's no precise rules for this ? Once again I think that since there's no rules th DM should go by guts and approve what you said but some DM wan rule against it...
If you're playing PFS ask the DM, if you're playing your own tabletop game ask your DM before it comes into play so that you can smoothly going on and not stop the game for half an hour because of your interpretation of the rule (remember : DM is always right until you can convince otherwise but when you are in play never try to discuss a DM ruling, discuss it later when it soen't wreck the flow of the game... ;) )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if an alchemist wants to throw a bomb 100 ft at a square, he has to make an attack roll at a -8 to hit that square.
But if an ally is standing in that square 100 ft away, the alchemist can automatically hit that square every time?
Does that make sense to you?
So if an alchemist wants to throw a bomb 100 ft at a square, he has to make an attack roll at a -8 to hit that square.
But if an ally is standing in that square 100 ft away, the alchemist can automatically hit that square every time?
Does that make sense to you?
Uhh ? Who are you replying to ? Not me I hope... ;)
Lots of good posts here.
To answer the OP, I would say that yes, you could selectively choose to lower your AC to receive an incoming bomb. Maybe instead of standing perfectly still to receive the bomb on the chin, couldn't it just as easily be explained as intentionally throwing a limb in the direction of the bomb at the last second?
In my game I would rule it as AC 10+environmental mods, i.e. cover etc.
I feel the strongest argument in support of this would be that people are not expected to dodge touch healing spells, why would a ranged heal be any different?
Especially since the Alchemist could just even have a code word with his friend, if more verisimilitude was required.
Also, earlier it was mentioned that various combat maneuvers could be used against your friends to gain benefits.
I believe that these are all strictly the purview of DM judgement.
I think all combat feat benefits can be turned off and on at will, but the nature of the rule must be preserved. To give an example, I'll use bullrush.
Normal bullrushing, an opponent does get an AOO, but if your friend is bullrushing you with your consent, then no AOO has to take place.
Now, the reason why a normal or improved Bullrush's movement does't provoke AOO is purely a game mechanic to make Greater Bullrush more rewarding and allow the feat chain to become more viable offensively. (Really, how much different would a rush be that it would provoke vs not provoke? Maybe this is a failure of my imagination.)
So in keeping with that spirit, I'd rule that yes if you are rushing your ally along, both of you would provoke AOO from your enemies. Improved Bullrush or Greater.
I cannot support clear reasons why in the rules this would be allowed, but it would in my mind it somehow preserves the balance.
That's why Pathfinder does not need exhaustive FAQs, or piles and piles of in play examples, balance is preserved by DM Fiat with a healthy dose of common sense.
The rule books get to be the reasonable size they are because we have a human brain to fill in the gaps.
Plus, I'd find it extremely entertaining to imagine just how these co-operative maneuvers would play out. You can flavor it in so many ways! The ally could be shoved out of the way, barely escaping harm, to a roaring warrior using the momentum of his ally's strong push to launch a devastating charge/pouncing attack. (not referencing the action or special ability here, just description.)
Thanks for reading.
The rules make it explicit that you can touch a friend without a check with a touch spell. However, there is NOT anything that says you can make ranged touch attacks without a check.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
It makes no sense that you could hit a friend when you wouldn't be able to hit the square they're standing in. There's also no provision in the rules for voluntarily lowering your AC.
As a house rule, it's reasonable to say that you could do something like subtract (instead of add) your Dex and dodge bonuses from you touch AC, if you want to "dodge into the way". But that would be a house rule. By RAW, if you want to hit someone with ranged touch (including if you used Reach Spell on a healing spell) you have to roll vs their touch AC.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a tricky area of the game, that leads to a slippery slope and other problems. Such as, if you can willingly reduce your AC by giving up your dodge can you make yourself a willing target for your friends to perform combat maneuvers like reposition or bullrush to move you out of the way of dangerous things.
Isn't this what the secret service does in the movies when someone tries to shoot the president? Or what the hero does when he sees a child about to get hit by a car?
Seems legit. I'd allow it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I don't know where I'd go with the AC being still on vs enemies or not. Looking at combat stuff, it seems like it should stay lowered - you're standing still, after all. Looking at spells, it seems like it shouldn't. Meh, silly caster/martial imbalance.
Combat stuff has precedent going the other way too. Take feint for example.
If somebody feints you, they're basically tricking you into standing still for an attack. You lose Dex and Dodge, but only for that one attack. They have to be super-mega-badasses (Read: Have lots of feats and BAB) to feint you into standing still for an entire round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I don't think there is a single GM on this planet that would tell you no and that you're forced to dodge against your will.
Oh, you'd be surprised.
Anyway here is rule for climb:
Catch a Falling Character While Climbing
If someone climbing above you or adjacent to you falls, you can attempt to catch the falling character if he or she is within your reach. Doing so requires a successful melee touch attack against the falling character (though he or she can voluntarily forgo any Dexterity bonus to AC if desired). If you hit, you must immediately attempt a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 10). Success indicates that you catch the falling character, but his total weight, including equipment, cannot exceed your heavy load limit or you automatically fall. If you fail your Climb check by 4 or less, you fail to stop the character’s fall but don’t lose your grip on the wall. If you fail by 5 or more, you fail to stop the character’s fall and begin falling as well.
If you can forgo Dex bonus while falling from the the sky i dont see a problem why you cant do it while standing still.
|
And don't put in my mouth what I have'nt told, you CAN drag an incapicited ally or everything that you have pointed out but not with using the Drag or Reposition Maneuver rule the guy you try to Drag or Reposition is still subject to AoO if the opponent want to that's all...
So you're saying performing a maneuver on an ally provokes AoOs for the movement part, because the text uses the word enemy instead of creature?
|
|
So if an alchemist wants to throw a bomb 100 ft at a square, he has to make an attack roll at a -8 to hit that square.
But if an ally is standing in that square 100 ft away, the alchemist can automatically hit that square every time?
Does that make sense to you?
If you expect all the rules to make sense, you are playing the wrong game. Many rules are abstracted and simplified for east of use, not real world consistency.
|
|
I have always used the precedent set by Spell resistance to adjudicate this sort of question. You can willingly lower spell resistance (and infact must do so or risk foiling healing spells), there fore you can willingly reduce AC, but it functions the same way.
A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of being on the receiving end of a healing bomb, I'd say that it sounds to me like catching a football. The amount of Dodge/Dex that you lower in order to catch it should count inversely to the chances of an enemy hitting you, since you're concentrating on catching. Different from a ray, but not much different.
Does that make sense?
It seems to me that DarkPhoenixx's post answered the base question definitively.
I also like rule proposed by Banw2 and joeyfixit, as the character is either not avoiding or actively attempting to intercept the projectile.