| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know this may sound silly, but if you have the ability to make a melee touch attack that could benefit your allies can your allies run past you and provoke an AOO allowing you to make this melee touch attack?
|
Only if you can convince your GM that your ally is an enemy.
Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.Threatened Squares: 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.
|
I'm not sure about delivering a touch spell/attack, but I've gotten away with using an AoO to trip a friendly that was running into danger before. Usually it's an NPC, but I've tripped a Frightened PC before to keep them from running too far away before someone could help them (with the player's permission, since it was PFS).
So play chaotic jerk alignment and consider everyone an enemy?!?!
There are abilities that force a creature to take opportunity attacks against friend and foe alike, so you can take an opportunity attack against an ally. However, I don't think you can cast a spell or the like for your opportunity attack, so you are basically left with tripping or otherwise interfering with a character's ability to run into worse danger.
I do remember one time having my Summoner take an opportunity attack against his magically confused eidolon. As I recall, I was hoping that an enemy would make the mistake of attacking it, but if none did, then the eidolon at least would be unable to attack any of my allies (since it would be dismissed as soon as it reduced the Summoner to unconsciousness). In hindsight, I probably would have been better off just dismissing it.
Well sure, outside of a small number of spells there's not much mechanical difference between allies and enemies, so you can certainly take AoOs against allies, and you can do anything you normally can do in those AoOs
I know this may sound silly, but if you have the ability to make a melee touch attack that could benefit your allies can your allies run past you and provoke an AOO allowing you to make this melee touch attack?
Activating an ability is usually a standard actions. An AoO is an attack. I believe they do this to prevent those type of silliness
What did you want to do?
Nope. Attacks are for enemies. Is this a party member who has been charmed or dominated?
|
|
I think what TPK is going for is a workaround for action economy. Say, you're able to cast a touch spell, like Cure Serious Wounds, but you can't move all the way to the character you want to target. If that character moves through one of your threatened squares on its turn, you'd then take an AoO to deliver the "attack" with the Cure Serious Wounds.
And I'm not sure that works. I'm not entirely sure that it doesn't, either.
EDIT: Of course, after typing that, I realized in that situation you could just move up first, then ready to cast the spell when they pass within touch range.
|
I know this may sound silly, but if you have the ability to make a melee touch attack that could benefit your allies can your allies run past you and provoke an AOO allowing you to make this melee touch attack?
It's so funny how many times people ask a rule question like this, but do not include the ability they are trying to use the rule with.
What ability are you trying to use?
.
.
As for the 'enemy' argument, it is not an uncommon theme to have a hidden traitor in the midst of the party. I do not see much of a difference between a PC running past an traitor versus a PC running past an ally. In both cases, the PC believes the person he is running past is an ally, so he would not take steps to guard against them. Why should the traitor be able to take an attack of opportunity but hte ally cannot. In both cases, the 'opportunity' is the same. In fact, I would even go so far as to call the PC flat-footed (unless the PC is already wary of his 'ally').
The rules do not specifically support this, but I don't think it is stretch by any means for another GM to come to a similar conclusion.
Nope. Attacks are for enemies. Is this a party member who has been charmed or dominated?
I'm not allowed to punch my friend Bob in the face if I feel like it?
Attacks are generally reserved for enemies, but there is no reason I can't take an aggressive action against an ally if my character feels like doing so.
Context, context, context. The game assumes players are bipedal humanoids, and the rules are written from that perspective. When that isn't the case the GM needs to make adjustments. Likewise the rules assume allies do not attack allies, but don't take that to mean that they are incapable of doing so.
(What's with the recent spate of people who I know to be intelligent, and have a good grasp of the rules as a whole, suddenly coming to these most bizarre and restrictive rulings that limit role-playing).
While others have mentioned the various rules on allies vs. enemies, one thing you also have to consider is the speed of the spell. If the spell is not a free, immediate, swift, or being held (IE already cast but not discharged) I'm not sure you can even use a spell as an attack of opportunity against even straight up enemies.
Only an immediate action spell would work here, free and swift actions can only be taken on your turn.
Casters who aren't wielding a melee weapon - or who don't have Improved Unarmed Strike aren't considered as threatening to the squares adjacent to them. You have to be threatening squares the for you to get an AoO.
Held charges of previously cast spells also allow you to threaten.
I wasn't aware of that - can you list/link the source for that. What about non-attack/debuff spells (IE beneficial spells)? Can they be used to threaten? IE, I cast Cure Light Wounds and hold the charge, then an non-Undead enemy moves past/away from me, am I really threatening him with a Cure spell even if it wouldn't harm him and instead heal him?Also, even you are right about being able to threaten with a held charge, I'd assume that only applies to touch spells - cause if it applied to ranged spells, I would go around with my ranger saying 'I notch an arrow in my composite longbow, I'm now threatening any creature I can see within the range of my bow! Mawahahaha!' <- obviously no GM would ever allow this.
Edit: I checked the CRB under the Holding the Charge section and there is no mention of being able to threaten with it. It does say you can attack with unarmed/natural weapons, and if you hit the spell discharges. So if I reading this right, you still can't threaten with held charges, but you can threaten with natural attacks/improved unarmed, and if you manage to hit someone that is provoking AoO with your held charge, that spell discharges on them.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below)."Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
A held charge makes you armed.
Yes, you are threatening him, It makes a bit more sense when you realize that he likely doesn't know what spell you're holding on to. Almost no one other than another caster is going to have ranks in spellcraft.
Nope. Attacks are for enemies. Is this a party member who has been charmed or dominated?I'm not allowed to punch my friend Bob in the face if I feel like it?
Attacks are generally reserved for enemies, but there is no reason I can't take an aggressive action against an ally if my character feels like doing so.
Context, context, context. The game assumes players are bipedal humanoids, and the rules are written from that perspective. When that isn't the case the GM needs to make adjustments. Likewise the rules assume allies do not attack allies, but don't take that to mean that they are incapable of doing so.
(What's with the recent spate of people who I know to be intelligent, and have a good grasp of the rules as a whole, suddenly coming to these most bizarre and restrictive rulings that limit role-playing).
The game has certain assumptions, and the game limits your actions to do certain things. Attacks of opportunities were meant to harm/hinder people. You generally have to wait until your turn to help an ally unless you have an immediate action ability.
So no you can not punch random people in face when it is not your turn anymore than you could just reach out and touch someone with an already cast cure spell.
So you are wrong, there are reasons you can do certain things whenver you want.
If the game wanted to allow you to hit an ally then no attack of opportunity would be needed. They would just have a rule saying you can grant a beneficial touch ability to an ally.
That is however not the case. You are restricted as to when you can do certain things.
PS: Yes, even a trip(normally an attack) can be beneficial if it keeps your ally out of danger.
Yes, I have allowed this(the friendly trip) in my games, but that does not make it a rule.
edit:
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.
The game has certain assumptions, and the game limits your actions to do certain things. Attacks of opportunities were meant to harm/hinder people. You generally have to wait until your turn to help an ally unless you have an immediate action ability.
No, they are designed to allow you to attack people who have let their guard down. The game assumes this will be used on enemies. As you point out, the rules even say enemies, but the rules do not define who your enemies are - that is a character perception issue and may change from moment to moment.
Whether you can use an AoO to apply a beneficial effect is a different discussion. With few exceptions (CLW) beneficial effects cannot be held charges, so it is largely a moot point. For something like CLW, why do you even have a held charge of it? You could have just touched your ally when you cast the spell in the first place.
I'd be interested in the OP's intended use of this mechanic, it may very well smell of cheese.
So no you can not punch random people in face when it is not your turn...
Remember the context here is making an AoO. If they do something to let their guard down, they provoke an AoO - and if I'm in a position to take advantage of that I get to. And if it is my turn, I'm not required to only attack enemies, I can attack allies if that is what I want to do.
If the game wanted to allow you to hit an ally then no attack of opportunity would be needed. They would just have a rule saying you can grant a beneficial touch ability to an ally.
Does the ally who has been feared want to be tripped? The player might, but the character certainly doesn't. He wants to run away, and being tripped prevents that. He'd certainly treat anyone trying to trip him as an enemy for purposes of trying to avoid being tripped, so no, the attacker trying to trip him would not get to auto-trip him because they are technically allies.
We could apply the same logic to things like a confusion spell and someone trying to do something that disables the confused ally.
Or any number of other circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question betrays an important misunderstanding about what AOO's are.
AOO's aren't meditated actions created by either the person provoking them or the person taking them.
The abstraction of turn-based combat assumes that opponents are in contest with each other constantly probing for openings in defenses, and will generally get one or more opportunities a round to strike true.
AOO's are created when the opponent lowers their defense by engaging in an action, either by movement or an activity that lowers defense.
Allies can not provoke an AOO, because they are not in a situation where they are defending themselves in combat against you, and you are not trying to kill them.
The game has certain assumptions, and the game limits your actions to do certain things. Attacks of opportunities were meant to harm/hinder people. You generally have to wait until your turn to help an ally unless you have an immediate action ability.
No, they are designed to allow you to attack people who have let their guard down. The game assumes this will be used on enemies. As you point out, the rules even say enemies, but the rules do not define who your enemies are - that is a character perception issue and may change from moment to moment.
Whether you can use an AoO to apply a beneficial effect is a different discussion. With few exceptions (CLW) beneficial effects cannot be held charges, so it is largely a moot point. For something like CLW, why do you even have a held charge of it? You could have just touched your ally when you cast the spell in the first place.
I'd be interested in the OP's intended use of this mechanic, it may very well smell of cheese.
So no you can not punch random people in face when it is not your turn...
Remember the context here is making an AoO. If they do something to let their guard down, they provoke an AoO - and if I'm in a position to take advantage of that I get to. And if it is my turn, I'm not required to only attack enemies, I can attack allies if that is what I want to do.
If the game wanted to allow you to hit an ally then no attack of opportunity would be needed. They would just have a rule saying you can grant a beneficial touch ability to an ally.
Does the ally who has been feared want to be tripped? The player might, but the character certainly doesn't. He wants to run away, and being tripped prevents that. He'd certainly treat anyone trying to trip him as an enemy for purposes of trying to avoid being tripped, so no, the attacker trying to trip him would not get to auto-trip him because they are technically allies.
We could apply the same logic to things like a...
You might have missed my quote from the PRD, but it does call out "enemies" with regard to AoO's. By the rules you are not making them against an ally.
You might have missed my quote from the PRD, but it does call out "enemies" with regard to AoO's. By the rules you are not making them against an ally.
I didn't.
No, they are designed to allow you to attack people who have let their guard down. The game assumes this will be used on enemies. As you point out, the rules even say enemies, but the rules do not define who your enemies are - that is a character perception issue and may change from moment to moment.
I just challenge you to provide the rules that define who my allies are. :)
EDIT: Let me provide an example.
Me and my wizard buddy are in a village. The villagers are annoying, and I'd just as soon kill them all, except I'd rather not deal with the local law enforcement that would bring down on us. I realize my wizard buddy is thinking the same thing, but without the restraint or concern for the local law enforcement.
Surprise round, we both get to act. I beat his init, but take no actions except to say, "Don't do it."
He proceeds to begin casting fireball. Do the rules prevent me from punching him in the face with my armed gauntleted fist to disrupt his spell?
The question betrays an important misunderstanding about what AOO's are.
AOO's aren't meditated actions created by either the person provoking them or the person taking them.
The abstraction of turn-based combat assumes that opponents are in contest with each other constantly probing for openings in defenses, and will generally get one or more opportunities a round to strike true.
AOO's are created when the opponent lowers their defense by engaging in an action, either by movement or an activity that lowers defense.
Allies can not provoke an AOO, because they are not in a situation where they are defending themselves in combat against you, and you are not trying to kill them.
Not really. Consider the character fighting several orcs, when suddenly another orc that was no where near him charges across the room and moves past the character? At no point were the two probing for openings in the defenses from each other.
Not really. Consider the character fighting several orcs, when suddenly another orc that was no where near him charges across the room and moves past the character? At no point were the two probing for openings in the defenses from each other.The question betrays an important misunderstanding about what AOO's are.
AOO's aren't meditated actions created by either the person provoking them or the person taking them.
The abstraction of turn-based combat assumes that opponents are in contest with each other constantly probing for openings in defenses, and will generally get one or more opportunities a round to strike true.
AOO's are created when the opponent lowers their defense by engaging in an action, either by movement or an activity that lowers defense.
Allies can not provoke an AOO, because they are not in a situation where they are defending themselves in combat against you, and you are not trying to kill them.
By moving into that square the orc put himself in threat, he's mixing in the combat and became an eligible target.
As anyone who's ever had a GM gleefully dictate just who your sword ended up in after that attack roll ended up a 1 can attest, allies do need to guard against each other, even by accident. Honestly, if you're walking up on someone who's trading sword strikes with an angry monster, you'd better be wary.
In addition, sometimes you do end up turning against an ally mid-battle. Like in the example of tripping a fleeing friend so she stays put instead of legging it halfway to Egorian. Or putting some subdual damage on that wizard who tends to enjoy Fireball too often downtown.
So between all of these, I'd say you PROVOKE, but your allies are choosing to not TAKE, the attacks of opportunity.
I just challenge you to provide the rules that define who my allies are. :)
EDIT: Let me provide an example.
Me and my wizard buddy are in a village. The villagers are annoying, and I'd just as soon kill them all, except I'd rather not deal with the local law enforcement that would bring down on us. I realize my wizard buddy is thinking the same thing, but without the restraint or concern for the local law enforcement.
Surprise round, we both get to act. I beat his init, but take no actions except to say, "Don't do it."
He proceeds to begin casting fireball. Do the rules prevent me from punching him in the face with my armed gauntleted fist to disrupt his spell?
When the game does not provide a game based definition you use the common English definition. Now we can both twist things around and come up with corner cases, but I doubt you beleive that an ally who is not dominated or charmed is also going to count as an enemy.
Let me ask you this.Do you think the devs would say you can count a party member as an enemy?⬅⬅⬅Assumes no corner cases such as a temporary alliance, someone who is normally on your team, but is now under a magical compulsion, etc etc
Also for the sake of my previous post I am saying once again that you can not do something that is along the lines of using a cure spell which is obviously beneficial. In your example you were trying to hinder someone, but previously my post said an AoO, is used to harm or hinder someone so your example is not in line with my anti-AoO argument.
You need another example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As anyone who's ever had a GM gleefully dictate just who your sword ended up in after that attack roll ended up a 1 can attest, allies do need to guard against each other, even by accident. Honestly, if you're walking up on someone who's trading sword strikes with an angry monster, you'd better be wary.
In addition, sometimes you do end up turning against an ally mid-battle. Like in the example of tripping a fleeing friend so she stays put instead of legging it halfway to Egorian. Or putting some subdual damage on that wizard who tends to enjoy Fireball too often downtown.
So between all of these, I'd say you PROVOKE, but your allies are choosing to not TAKE, the attacks of opportunity.
Fumbles due to nat 1's are house rules and have no bearing on actual rules.
Fumbles due to nat 1's are house rules and have no bearing on actual rules.As anyone who's ever had a GM gleefully dictate just who your sword ended up in after that attack roll ended up a 1 can attest, allies do need to guard against each other, even by accident. Honestly, if you're walking up on someone who's trading sword strikes with an angry monster, you'd better be wary.
In addition, sometimes you do end up turning against an ally mid-battle. Like in the example of tripping a fleeing friend so she stays put instead of legging it halfway to Egorian. Or putting some subdual damage on that wizard who tends to enjoy Fireball too often downtown.
So between all of these, I'd say you PROVOKE, but your allies are choosing to not TAKE, the attacks of opportunity.
That was more 'classic example to remind you that your allies are a threat to you' than 'example from rules'.
Or you could just define an enemy as someone you don't like, that falls within the dictionary definition. So you can make that beneficial AoO as long as you have some hostility toward the character in question. On the other hand, if you always get along with them, that's obviously going to put a kink in your plans
..'kink'. 'OK. Well, you're saying that Barry the Bard likes Alex the Alchemist too much to use an AoO for a trip? Barry really, REALLY likes Alex. And has Exotic Weapon (whip).'
I think an opponent who is against you, but also a team member is different than claiming someone is an enemy just so can use what is normally an attack as a helpful thing.
So far it seems like people are trying to pretend an ally is an opponent just to get free actions(not the game term).
If that is not the case they are explaining themselves well.
I think an opponent who is against you, but also a team member is different than claiming someone is an enemy just so can use what is normally an attack as a helpful thing.
So far it seems like people are trying to pretend an ally is an opponent just to get free actions(not the game term).
If that is not the case they are explaining themselves well.
There really isn't any other interpretation that makes sense.
When the game does not provide a game based definition you use the common English definition. Now we can both twist things around and come up with corner cases, but I doubt you beleive that an ally who is not dominated or charmed is also going to count as an enemy.
Let me ask you this.
Definition of enemy:
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
Emphasis mine. I'm actively opposed to my wizard friend casting a fireball on the villagers.
Do you think the devs would say you can count a party member as an enemy?⬅⬅⬅Assumes no corner cases such as a temporary alliance, someone who is normally on your team, but is now under a magical compulsion, etc etc
Yes. Though the rules are vague enough here I cannot feel complete confidence in that. (Unless it was for a PFS game).
Also for the sake of my previous post I am saying once again that you can not do something that is along the lines of using a cure spell which is obviously beneficial.
If you re-read my first post you'll note I pointed out that using it to apply beneficial effects like CLW is a different discussion IMO.
In your example you were trying to hinder someone, but previously my post said an AoO, is used to harm or hinder someone so your example is not in line with my anti-AoO argument.
Huh? I'm hindering, them, but an AoO is used to harm or hinder, so my example isn't valid? Can you clarify that, because what you've stated makes my position valid.
But lets take another example, it isn't a perfect match because you cannot grapple as an AoO, but it still illustrates the point.
Have you never in your life, or never seen someone else, grapple a friend who was about to jump into a fray that you knew they weren't really prepared for - would have got their butt whooped? This fits the first portion of the definition of enemy I posted. It doesn't mean they hate each other. Just that one didn't like what the other was trying to do.
By moving into that square the orc put himself in threat, he's mixing in the combat and became an eligible target.Not really. Consider the character fighting several orcs, when suddenly another orc that was no where near him charges across the room and moves past the character? At no point were the two probing for openings in the defenses from each other.The question betrays an important misunderstanding about what AOO's are.
AOO's aren't meditated actions created by either the person provoking them or the person taking them.
The abstraction of turn-based combat assumes that opponents are in contest with each other constantly probing for openings in defenses, and will generally get one or more opportunities a round to strike true.
AOO's are created when the opponent lowers their defense by engaging in an action, either by movement or an activity that lowers defense.
Allies can not provoke an AOO, because they are not in a situation where they are defending themselves in combat against you, and you are not trying to kill them.
Sorry I should have been more clear. The point I meant to make was that the orc and character hadn't been feinting, changing blows, etc before the AoO was provoked. So AoO's aren't a matter of working out your opponents attack patterns, or anything like that. Let me use an alternate example though, since you may state that the character had time to see the orc running towards him and prepare for it.
An invisible orc stabs you, becomes visible as a result, then moves away provoking an AoO. There is no time in this example to see him coming, anticipate anything he is doing, etc. But you still get your AoO.
I think an opponent who is against you, but also a team member is different than claiming someone is an enemy just so can use what is normally an attack as a helpful thing.
So far it seems like people are trying to pretend an ally is an opponent just to get free actions(not the game term).
If that is not the case they are explaining themselves well.
Please don't assume my motives. The assumption is wrong.
What I'm saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to something one of your allies is doing (paladins have that problem all to often) and to take a course of action to prevent it.
It doesn't matter your motive for being opposed to it:
It could be your just a jerk of a friend and think it would be funny.
It could be that by tripping him you prevent him from running from the dragon, into that hallway with the 20' wide pit he may not make the acro check for and fall 100' to his death - you are opposed to him dying in that way.
etc.
There really isn't any other interpretation that makes sense.I think an opponent who is against you, but also a team member is different than claiming someone is an enemy just so can use what is normally an attack as a helpful thing.
So far it seems like people are trying to pretend an ally is an opponent just to get free actions(not the game term).
If that is not the case they are explaining themselves well.
I don't understand what you are saying so I will explain.
Let's say your party barbarian is dominated and decides to charge the party wizard. We will also assume he has pounce and if he is not stopped the party wizard will die. <-------Makes sense to see him as an enemy.
Let's say the party barbarian is hit with a fear spell, and tries to run away, and you have an ability to make a grapple check as an AoO instead of a standard action. In this case the guy is not an enemy so no AoO should be allowed. <------I think this is what some are arguing.
When the game does not provide a game based definition you use the common English definition. Now we can both twist things around and come up with corner cases, but I doubt you beleive that an ally who is not dominated or charmed is also going to count as an enemy.
Let me ask you this.
Definition of enemy:
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
Emphasis mine. I'm actively opposed to my wizard friend casting a fireball on the villagers.
Do you think the devs would say you can count a party member as an enemy?⬅⬅⬅Assumes no corner cases such as a temporary alliance, someone who is normally on your team, but is now under a magical compulsion, etc etcYes. Though the rules are vague enough here I cannot feel complete confidence in that. (Unless it was for a PFS game).
Also for the sake of my previous post I am saying once again that you can not do something that is along the lines of using a cure spell which is obviously beneficial.
If you re-read my first post you'll note I pointed out that using it to apply beneficial effects like CLW is a different discussion IMO.
In your example you were trying to hinder someone, but previously my post said an AoO, is used to harm or hinder someone so your example is not in line with my anti-AoO argument.
Huh? I'm hindering, them, but an AoO is used to harm or hinder, so my example isn't valid? Can you clarify that, because what you've stated makes my position valid.
But lets take another example, it isn't a perfect match because you cannot grapple as an AoO, but it still illustrates the point.
Have you never in your life, or never seen someone else, grapple a friend who was about to jump into a fray that you knew they weren't really prepared for - would have got their butt whooped? This fits the first portion of the definition of enemy I posted. It doesn't mean they hate...
In that case we agree. I had to be more detailed to be sure we were not talking past each other and we were.
You cannot have this both ways. Either you count your potential target as an enemy and I will not allow you to hit them with a beneficial effect - (or I will want to know why you didn't cure light wounds that goblin). Or they are an ally and don't provoke.
No shenanigans.
RAW, I suppose you can't.
But that's utterly ridiculous in any practical sense.
Our group always shuts down any "realism" arguments when the rules conflict with realism because of the fantastic nature of the game; on the other hand, arguments as to whether or not something is *believable* are often given merit.
You can take opportunity actions. There's no fundamental, universal force preventing you from using that action on one person and not another, regardless of the unfortunate choice of noun used in the opportunity attack section. Characters have a limited number of opportunity actions anyway; if the party wants to set up "tag" healing, it's using up that action, so the idea that this is somehow providing "free" actions is silly - actions are being spent, the action economy is safe.
Sometimes you need to accept that RAW isn't everything. RAW, a wizard 5/cleric 1 can spontaneously convert a fireball into cure serious wounds - an argument met with vehement disapproval by the devs.
So all I have to do is decide you are my ally and you can't hurt me, right?
I mean if you are my ally, then I must be yours.