|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.Right there, if there is no harm, it is not an attack.If I cast Harm on an enemy, not knowing that he's a vampire/lich/some undead that doesn't necessarily LOOK like a bag of bones, is it not an attack because he benefits? Same for hitting a golem with a spell that would, in fact, heal it?
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.
No mention is made of enemies, just combatants near the provoking character
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.
Here it DOES mention enemies, but still, two separate paragraphs on the same rules say different things.
It is not "two different paragraphs that say different things", it is a single rule where the second paragraph specify how it work.
By your logic I can take the first paragraph of most feats and say that the feat work differently."I throw away the part I dislike" isn't how rules work.
|
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.Right there, if there is no harm, it is not an attack.
The second sentence outright disagrees with you.
And the "don't harm anyone" part of that paragraph is only applying to summon spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he wasn't expecting it, would it be against flat footed touch? If you had rogue levels would sneak attack count? If you rolled a 20 would it crit?
RAW the answer to all of these is YES
Sneak attack critical healing for the win!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he wasn't expecting it, would it be against flat footed touch? If you had rogue levels would sneak attack count? If you rolled a 20 would it crit?
RAW the answer to all of these is YES
Sneak attack critical healing for the win!
lol
In one game I was in the Cavalier was too far away for my Oracle to get to, but it was obvious he was gonna charge the enemy closer to me.
So I positioned myself... and got a Nat 20. Which I confirmed.
Critical healing is awesome!
|
|
The rule we have for resolving AoO is simple, as some of us have pointed out:
"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
Not an ally, not anyone, not even yourself, because you are always considered your own ally and you occupy your own square which you are also threatening.
Actually the rules are simple, if you would actually quote them correctly.
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.
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
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).
No mention of the enemy/ally paradigm.
As I said before, the critical question should be: when can we declare that someone goes from enemy to ally or from ally to enemy status? Is that even possible?
Whenever you feel like it. I'm not saying it's recursive such as "Well that guy didn't help so I'm retracting the bless specifically from him", but you can sure as hell go "Well that guy's an a+$&@%* so I'm not including him in the effect when I cast bless."
Actually rather simple.
The sentence that referes to damage -"even those that don’t damage opponents"- is probably talking about spells like Hold Person, which do not incur in any kind of damage but it is obviously offensive; it is not talking about cure serious or cure light spells, at least, not when they are used to heal and not harm.
Well hold person doesn't rely on an attack roll in the first place so not a good example.
Otherwise, so if I pretend they're undead or they're using illusion magic to appear as undead I can AoO with a CLW? But the moment I realize they aren't I cant? What?
AoO of opportunity were not designed as ally buffers as the sentence pointed out before goes to show; if you want to give some credit and validity to that use, you must find a rule that favors your cause because, at the moment, all we have is a rule that says the contrary.
No, they were designed to give you attacks outside of your turn. Which is exactly what this is doing.
Fine me a rule that specifically says you're only allowed to make harmful attacks during an AoO.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.Right there, if there is no harm, it is not an attack.The second sentence outright disagrees with you.
And the "don't harm anyone" part of that paragraph is only applying to summon spells.
You took the section you bolded out of context. You forgot the bit about whether or not it is an offensive combat action.
Healing someone is not an offensive combat action.
As for the harming, there is another sentence there you are glossing over that defines what are attacks. "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."
Spells delivering a beneficial effect are not attacks.
In short, anyone trying to use an AoO to deliver a beneficial spell is trying to sidestep the rules.
|
|
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.Right there, if there is no harm, it is not an attack.The second sentence outright disagrees with you.
And the "don't harm anyone" part of that paragraph is only applying to summon spells.
You took the section you bolded out of context. You forgot the bit about whether or not it is an offensive combat action.
Healing someone is not an offensive combat action.
As for the harming, there is another sentence there you are glossing over that defines what are attacks. "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."
Spells delivering a beneficial effect are not attacks.
In short, anyone trying to use an AoO to deliver a beneficial spell is trying to sidestep the rules.
I'm making an Attack Roll, an "offensive combat action."
Or "Offensive combat action" described in the Rulebook somewhere?
Whether or it's a moot point since right after the part I bolded it says "are considered attacks".
Not "these are the only things that are attacks" but, "these are considered attacks as well"
If it requires an attack roll it's an attack, if it benefits and is penalized by everything for being an attack roll, it's an attack
Yes, but touching an ally with a beneficial spell does not require an attack roll nor does it count as an offensive combat action (the first part of the sentence you keep ignoring).
|
|
Yes, but touching an ally with a beneficial spell does not require an attack roll nor does it count as an offensive combat action (the first part of the sentence you keep ignoring).
Only because Allies don't normally try to dodge getting healed.
Going off that logic I don't have to make an attack roll when casting inflict or harm spells to kill stuff.
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.
When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.
Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, poisoned, sickened, and stunned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level.
Heal does not remove negative levels or restore permanently drained ability score points.
If used against an undead creature, heal instead acts like harm.
Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.
If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal.
None of the language in these spells even suggest that I actually don't have to make an attack roll to use something beneficial against an ally, that's just an assumption that the Ally in question isn't dodging the beneficial spell.
You are considered armed and can use attacks of opportunity when holding a touch attack spell. I'm pretty sure this is read as "touch attack" spell, so it doesn't matter if the spell is beneficial.
Healing a charging barbarian with a cure spell as an attack of opportunity should be perfectly fine, but you probably have to hit his touch AC.
As a GM I wouldn't mind if the barbarian would forego his dex-bonus.
An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
But tell me, what if an ally is Dominated/Charmed into fighting you, would the GMs tell me that I can't take an Attack of Opportunity against someone who is normally an ally, but clearly acting against their own free will?
If any GM says "No, you can't take Attacks of Opportunity against Dominated/Charmed allies, because they're still allies," then that GM is out to screw you over with his ridiculous enforcement of RAW.
In a normal adventuring party, you can't Dominate anyone into fighting the party. You absolutely can't Charm them into doing it. People always forget the limiting factors of the spells:
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
|
|
But tell me, what if an ally is Dominated/Charmed into fighting you, would the GMs tell me that I can't take an Attack of Opportunity against someone who is normally an ally, but clearly acting against their own free will?
If any GM says "No, you can't take Attacks of Opportunity against Dominated/Charmed allies, because they're still allies," then that GM is out to screw you over with his ridiculous enforcement of RAW.
In a normal adventuring party, you can't Dominate anyone into fighting the party. You absolutely can't Charm them into doing it. People always forget the limiting factors of the spells:
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
Uh, actually you can Dominate someone into fighting the party, that's kinda the whole point of it that separates it from a charm effect.
An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
Please demonstrate pray tell, how my assumptions are wrong.
An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
There's no similar wording for non-enemies.
Now, who is an ally and who is an enemy isn't well defined in the rules. Selecting who counts and who doesn't for each category doesn't get well defined either. It's really a judgement call by the GM.
|
|
Please demonstrate pray tell, how my assumptions are wrong.An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
I quoted the relevant text concerning AoOs.
Nothing even mentions the recipient having to be an enemy or even you wanting to kill them.
Please demonstrate pray tell, how my assumptions are wrong.An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
I quoted the relevant text concerning AoOs.
Nothing even mentions the recipient having to be an enemy or even you wanting to kill them.
Do your characters regularly engage in combat with their allies? Because that's the only place where AOO's involving your allies can live. You can only get an AOO from someone you THREATHEN, which by definition is an opponent in melee.
|
|
Do your characters regularly engage in combat with their allies? Because that's the only place where AOO's involving your allies can live. You can only get an AOO from someone you THREATHEN, which by definition is an opponent in melee.Please demonstrate pray tell, how my assumptions are wrong.An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
I quoted the relevant text concerning AoOs.
Nothing even mentions the recipient having to be an enemy or even you wanting to kill them.
I threaten whoever moves through my threatened squares, having the title of "Enemy" or "Ally" is irrelevant.
Sometimes I really wish I was a dev so I could just come and end this sorts of discussion which I find to be....absurd.
None of the language in these spells even suggest that I actually don't have to make an attack roll to use something beneficial against an ally, that's just an assumption that the Ally in question isn't dodging the beneficial spell.
Actually, the rules SPECIFICALLY state that you automatically touch an ally (friend) but require an attack roll to touch an enemy.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Again, you have failed to show how touching an ally with a beneficial spell qualifies as an attack where I have shown in several places that the rules qualify an attack as something that is offensive in nature, harmful, or a hindrance. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that indicates a beneficial effect is an attack.
Note: you have tried to conflate things by bringing up inflict spells. While the wording is similar between inflict and cure the effects are dramatically different in most cases.
Cure spells used to heal = not harmful.
Cure spells used to hurt undead = harmful.
Inflict spells used to hurt non-undead = harmful.
Inflict spells used to heal undead = not harmful.
Again, if it is harmful it is an attack, if it is not harmful, not a hinderance, etc. then it is not an attack.
|
|
None of the language in these spells even suggest that I actually don't have to make an attack roll to use something beneficial against an ally, that's just an assumption that the Ally in question isn't dodging the beneficial spell.Actually, the rules SPECIFICALLY state that you automatically touch an ally (friend) but require an attack roll to touch an enemy.
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.Again, you have failed to show how touching an ally with a beneficial spell qualifies as an attack where I have shown in several places that the rules qualify an attack as something that is offensive in nature, harmful, or a hindrance. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that indicates a beneficial effect is an attack.
Note: you have tried to conflate things by bringing up inflict spells. While the wording is similar between inflict and cure the effects are dramatically different in most cases.
Cure spells used to heal = not harmful.
Cure spells used to hurt undead = harmful.
Inflict spells used to hurt non-undead = harmful.
Inflict spells used to heal undead = not harmful.Again, if it is harmful it is an attack, if it is not harmful, not a hinderance, etc. then it is not an attack.
Okay so the rules do say you can automatically touch one friend.
What about if you try casting on someone you want to help but they have no idea what you're casting and try to get away? Are they still your friend and you automatically succeed even if they don't want to be touched?
And the rules say you can, not that you have to.
|
|
Is not only you who decide if a target is an ally or an enemy. The target has something to say about it. So a dominated friend might act as an enemy under some circumstances.
Can you buff an enemy? Yes. Nevertheless if you consider they do not know you are trying to help them, they will try by all their means to avoid your help.
But we are not here to discuss if you can or can not buff an enemy, we are arguing if you are allowed to buff an ally through an attack action designed to be used -only- against enemies.
Going off your "target has something to say about it" logic the question is already answered.
So lets go with your logic: The "ally" acts like an "enemy" in order to be eligible for you to make an attack of opportunity to buff them.
Next, since they have already declared that do not want the effect cast upon them they must now roll a saving throw to negate/reduce the buff (most buffs have a save).
Yup, now your buff spell just failed altogether. Enjoy! :)
(Note: this is just me following your logic to it's conclusion, not that I agree with this stance..it is still an attempt to cheese the system.)
|
|
So lets go with your logic: The "ally" acts like an "enemy" in order to be eligible for you to make an attack of opportunity to buff them.
Next, since they have already declared that do not want the effect cast upon them they must now roll a saving throw to negate/reduce the buff (most buffs have a save).
Yup, now your buff spell just failed altogether. Enjoy! :)
(Note: this is just me following your logic to it's conclusion, not that I agree with this stance..it is still an attempt to cheese the system.)
There is nothing in the rules that says I can't heal enemies.
There is nothing that says enemies would have to make a save vs healing and other harmless effects.
Your Allies don't (Barring a Barbarian with a certain rage power).
Thinking that actually using tactics and holding a charge to cast on an Ally as they charge past you is cheese? Wow.
Here you go:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
By declaring he did not want the spell (thus forcing an attack roll) the recipient has already declared that he is resisting the spell and thus is going to make the save attempt.
You cannot have it both ways, either you are resisting the spell (necessitating both the attack roll and the save) or you are not.
And yes, this is cheesing the system because this is clearly not the intent of the rules. Does that mean it is an unreasonable house rule? No, and I did not say it was.
|
|
Here you go:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.By declaring he did not want the spell (thus forcing an attack roll) the recipient has already declared that he is resisting the spell and thus is going to make the save attempt.
You cannot have it both ways, either you are resisting the spell (necessitating both the attack roll and the save) or you are not.
And yes, this is cheesing the system because this is clearly not the intent of the rules. Does that mean it is an unreasonable house rule? No, and I did not say it was.
I never declared he didn't want the spell.
He never declared he didn't want the spell.
All I did was switch the little imaginary check box next to his name from Ally to Enemy.
"Can attempt a saving throw if it desires"
Automatically touching/having to make an attack roll and not needing to make a save/have to save are two different things.
Show me the rule where it says people have to make saving throws against effects from people who are supposedly antagonistic toward them.
You cannot have it both ways Rysky. Either he is resisting the spell, thus requiring an attack roll and saving throw, or he isn't.
In any case, this is a futile discussion. You are ignoring several rules and trying to logic your way around them. You are free to houserule that you can use beneficial non-attack spells in an AoO, but that is not how the rules are written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now hang on just one bloody minute.
I'm a cleric, and I've got a cure spell cast, but not delivered. A creature rushes past me, moving out of a threatened square.
Are you seriously saying that if said creature is a barbarian with whom I am friends I cannot stick out a hand and touch him as he rushes past, but if it is a zombie, I can?
What if it's a barbarian enemy whom I think is a zombie, due to some kind of illusion spell, but is actually living? Can I stick out a hand and try to deliver a cure spell, which will have the effect of healing him rather than harming him? By your argument, because it would heal him, I can't take an AoO, even though I think he's a zombie and I want to make an attack against him with the cure spell, because it wouldn't harm him.
What if it's a dhampir ally? Touching him with a cure spell will harm him. But suppose we just met and he hasn't told me he's a dhampir yet, and I figure I want to cure him. Am I able to take an AoO as he rushes past me, even though I'm his ally, because the spell will harm him and he presumably doesn't want me to deliver it?
What about the action of sticking your hand out with a held charge of a cure spell is different when it's a zombie vs. a friendly barbarian rushing by you?
This breaks my brain.
And that is why you can make a house rule, but that doesn't change the rules as they are written. :)
These kinds of contradictions are a product of a rules system that does not (and cannot) take every possible scenario into account. That is why the GM should work with the players to figure out what works for their table but that discussion has no place in this forum.
My take: the game does not clearly identify who is an enemy and who is an ally. That is up to the people playing to determine.
However, you still cannot deliver a held cure spell as an AoO if that cure spell has a positive benefit. You can only deliver it as an AoO if it has a negative benefit (thus constituting an attack).
Where do the rule say anything of the sort?
The only reason you don't have to make an attack roll when using it to heal normally is because, well, people don't tend to dodge healing.
Do you make healers make a 'to hit roll' against barbarians that have the superstitious rage power? They are required to make a save, why aren't they required to dodge? Seems odd he'd be allowed to let the healer touch him, but then is forced to roll a save against it. The simple (if perhaps illogical from the real world perspective answer) is that sometimes rules don't make sense for balance/playability reasons.
I've stated in similar discussion that I feel an AoO against an ally is perfectly valid. However, if the effect of the AoO is to clearly benefit the character with no downside effects, I'd question whether its really an attack.
Tripping a ally who is feared? Sure. Ultimately it is beneficial to the character to keep them from running to their death, but it is certainly against the feared characters current desires as it prevents them from fleeing from their source of fear. Using an AoO to apply a healing spell? There is no downside here, so it is not really an attack. Note that cure spells are uniquely in a weird place for this as they can be held charges, and could be used to harm undead.
|
|
If he wasn't expecting it, would it be against flat footed touch? If you had rogue levels would sneak attack count? If you rolled a 20 would it crit?
RAW the answer to all of these is YES
Yes, but from that moment you are treating the former ally as an enemy, when that end will depend on both of you.
Sneak attack critical healing for the win!
Critics and sneak attack apply only to damage, not to healing.
Probably you were jesting.
In one game I was in the Cavalier was too far away for my Oracle to get to, but it was obvious he was gonna charge the enemy closer to me.So I positioned myself... and got a Nat 20. Which I confirmed.
Critical healing is awesome!
But apparently someone think that "critical healing" exist.
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together.
|
|
If he wasn't expecting it, would it be against flat footed touch? If you had rogue levels would sneak attack count? If you rolled a 20 would it crit?
RAW the answer to all of these is YES
Yes, but from that moment you are treating the former ally as an enemy, when that end will depend on both of you.
Sneak attack critical healing for the win!Critics and sneak attack apply only to damage, not to healing.
Probably you were jesting.
Sneak attack yeah, but if you're making a touch attack (and therefore requiring a d20 roll) you can get a critical with it.
|
|
Please demonstrate pray tell, how my assumptions are wrong.An AOO is something that represents a momentary drop in defenses of an enemy you're actively trying to kill.
I'm pretty sure that in most groups, the definition of ally is something other than the above.
I agree with you on the bolded part, the rest is putting your own assumptions on it.
I quoted the relevant text concerning AoOs.
Nothing even mentions the recipient having to be an enemy or even you wanting to kill them.
False:
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.
|
|
Sneak attack yeah, but if you're making a touch attack (and therefore requiring a d20 roll) you can get a critical with it.If he wasn't expecting it, would it be against flat footed touch? If you had rogue levels would sneak attack count? If you rolled a 20 would it crit?
RAW the answer to all of these is YES
Yes, but from that moment you are treating the former ally as an enemy, when that end will depend on both of you.
Sneak attack critical healing for the win!Critics and sneak attack apply only to damage, not to healing.
Probably you were jesting.
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together.
Critical when using a cure spell to harm a undead, sure. Critical when healing a living creature, nope.
My 2 cents:
Can u aoo the brb with a cure? Well, I would say yes. He is leaving a threatened square, u are armed, so u can touch him letting him decide if he try to resist the effect of the touch or not. The action is the same for a cure or for an inflict, so u should be able to do it. The brb is the one who has the last word to decide if he is resisting the touch or not.
You just take an action, you dont have to know if he is an ally or not, or even if he wants that cure or will hate u for trying to cure him. So you just take your aoo on a creature that is leaving a threatened space, and the rest depends on the brb.
Thats my point. Hope it helps.
Allies and enemies are subjective terms.
If my barbarian "ally" is dominated by a vampire, and starts a pouncing charge against the party wizard, and he's moving through my threatened square, you'd better believe I'm taking an opportunity attack against him to try and stop that charge before it kills my ally.
Cure light touch tag seems to be a separate issue, but it still seems *perfectly* fine.
For one, in-combat healing tends to be terrible, but more importantly, a standard action has been spent, a move action has been spent, an opportunity attack use has been spent (quite possibly the character's only opportunity attack for the round,) and the possibility of failure exists. Seems pretty terrible to me, actually.
If you are sticking out your hand so your ally is touched by your held cure wounds charge, that does sound like a Ready Action to me, not an Attack of Opportunity.
Simply touching someone who does not care about being touched is either a move or free action, as you are not attempting to do anything other than touch him. The same way you don't need to take any action to deliver a cure spell, it's part of the same action used during the spell casting action.
By following RAW, i would not allow a cure spell to be used as a AoO, as he is not your enemy and does not provoke AoO related to you. Unless you are attempting to murder him once he does a mistake in combat (but not healing...).
On the other hand, i would allow a Swift Action to be used to deliver a touch spell on an ally when he does move next to you, as it was a free action to deliver it to a willing adjacent ally in the first place.
Similarly to how i allow you to give someone to an ally when said ally spends a move action to take alway something from you. Like handing out a weapon or potion. The character who is handing out does not need to make any action to hand it out, only the character who is taking it.
If you are taking an AoO against ally you treat him as an enemy.
So:
- doing that break invisibility and sanctyary 8and similar spells or effects);
- touching him require a to hit;
- he get a save;
- tripping him require a successful Combat Maneuver;
- his status for several spells casted by you change;
- similarly your status for several spells casted by him change;
- some allied creature (as an example summoned monsters) will see you as a enemy and could attack you.Essentially you are taking an action that change your status from ally to enemy.
Diego,
I agree with your list excepting a couple points:
1) "he gets a save". I would caveat this with " if he desires one". The target of a spell always gets the option to waive the saving throw and voluntarily accept the effects of a spell regardless of it's source. Naturally, if he understands that he is being helped by a spell, he will naturally want to waive the saving throw. With emphasis on "if he understands that he is being helped" by someone "attacking" him.
2) Spells, when cast, are independent of changes in status of enemy/ally, imo. A caster that casts a beneficial spell on a target is betrayed by the target in the future doesn't suddenly have that effect dismissed if it says "ally" in the description. It requires the caster to spend a action to dismiss it or dispel it.
|
|
If you are taking an AoO against ally you treat him as an enemy.
So:
- doing that break invisibility and sanctyary 8and similar spells or effects);
- touching him require a to hit;
- he get a save;
- tripping him require a successful Combat Maneuver;
- his status for several spells casted by you change;
- similarly your status for several spells casted by him change;
- some allied creature (as an example summoned monsters) will see you as a enemy and could attack you.Essentially you are taking an action that change your status from ally to enemy.
Diego,
I agree with your list excepting a couple points:
1) "he gets a save". I would caveat this with " if he desires one". The target of a spell always gets the option to waive the saving throw and voluntarily accept the effects of a spell regardless of it's source. Naturally, if he understands that he is being helped by a spell, he will naturally want to waive the saving throw. With emphasis on "if he understands that he is being helped" by someone "attacking" him.
2) Spells, when cast, are independent of changes in status of enemy/ally, imo. A caster that casts a beneficial spell on a target is betrayed by the target in the future doesn't suddenly have that effect dismissed if it says "ally" in the description. It requires the caster to spend a action to dismiss it or dispel it.
Most, but not all spells are "independent" from the a creature status after they have been cast.
An example of a spell where the friend/foe status matter Monster summoning if the summoned creature is something with which you can't communicate.
The bear you have summoned will attack the enemies. Probably the enemy closest to its location, unless you use handle animal or speak with animals when you summon it. Who are your enemies isn't set the moment in which you cast the spell or it wouldn't attack enemies that where hidden when he was summoned, nor it would fight for you if you entered a new room after summoning it. When someone switch from friend/neutral to enemy its targets are updated, same thing if someone switch from enemy to friend/neutral (let's say because you have charmed them).
Some emanation that renew its target every round will do the same.
Some effect would be affected by switching from ally to enemy too, an example is the Aura of courage from a paladin.
What matter here is when you can switch someone from friend to foe, and even more, when you can switch him back.
Some poster here feel that it can be done both ways as a free action outside your turn, but that way we get to the point of some people arguing that "who is a foe is based on how you perceive him, so I feel that bunch of ogres trying to kill me are my dearest friends and I am casting a fireball on them to warm them up. I will not lose my invisibility."
Other feel that while you can switch your perception even outside your turn ("Jacob backstabbed me, he is an enemy!") there should be a motivation different from "switching his status I will get a extra action". And don't play mind games, you get an action advantage. If you cast a beneficial touch spell, move but can't reach your target having him pass near you to get the spell mean that you don't have to spend the next round delivering the spell.
As any touch spell can be delivered this way we are speaking of a serious advantage.
"Mark, I have cast greater invisibility, pass in my threatened area while moving toward the enemy and you will get it!".
And you can't perform Swift Actions when it's not your turn, and the Free Action only applies when you cast and use the spell in the same turn.
Immediate Action.
Mark, I have cast enlarge, pass in my threatened area while moving toward the enemy and you will get it!
Just a small aside, enlarge person has a range of close, not touch.
You cannot have it both ways Rysky. Either he is resisting the spell, thus requiring an attack roll and saving throw, or he isn't.
In any case, this is a futile discussion. You are ignoring several rules and trying to logic your way around them. You are free to houserule that you can use beneficial non-attack spells in an AoO, but that is not how the rules are written.
I posed whether the bolded subject was necessary to affect a Superstition Barbarian with a spell as an ally, and most everyone said that no attack roll was required, even though a Superstition Barbarian is an unwilling target of any spell or SLA thrown at him.
If being an unwilling target requires that you must roll a saving throw and you must be successfully hit by an actual attack roll, then quite frankly most everyone on the messageboards are running/interpreting the Superstition Rage Power completely wrong.
So I'll ask again, is an attack roll required or not? Bearing in mind, that if you say yes, then a FAQ for Superstition is required, and if you say no, then you're contradicting your own stance.
|
|
Mark, I have cast enlarge, pass in my threatened area while moving toward the enemy and you will get it!Just a small aside, enlarge person has a range of close, not touch.
Yes, I checked it after posting and changed the spell. I use ti rarely.
It, potentially, work with any touch spell as any touch spell can be used as an armed attack, regardless of it being beneficial or harmful.
|
|
You cannot have it both ways Rysky. Either he is resisting the spell, thus requiring an attack roll and saving throw, or he isn't.
In any case, this is a futile discussion. You are ignoring several rules and trying to logic your way around them. You are free to houserule that you can use beneficial non-attack spells in an AoO, but that is not how the rules are written.
I posed whether the bolded subject was necessary to affect a Superstition Barbarian with a spell as an ally, and most everyone said that no attack roll was required, even though a Superstition Barbarian is an unwilling target of any spell or SLA thrown at him.
If being an unwilling target requires that you must roll a saving throw and you must be successfully hit by an actual attack roll, then quite frankly most everyone on the messageboards are running/interpreting the Superstition Rage Power completely wrong.
So I'll ask again, is an attack roll required or not? Bearing in mind, that if you say yes, then a FAQ for Superstition is required, and if you say no, then you're contradicting your own stance.
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
"Cannot be a willing target of any spell" and "must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies" are different things.
The first mean that the barbarian is never a willing target for spells that affect only willing targets, like teleport, not that he will avoid being the target of a spell."Willing target" has a specific meaning in the rules.
As a GM I'd allow it (not saying it's written into stone one way or the other). I don't see it breaking the game or slowing combat.
That being said, I'd have enemies do the same thing, if it was advantageous for them to do so, and they were intelligent enough to use that tactic.