Let's say when a cleric decides to purchase a Spell storing weapon and conveys a cure serious wounds with an attack of opportunity(dealing nonlethal damage) to one of his allies moving across him, is that counted as an auto-hit? Or he casts a Weaponwand on a cure light wounds wand, and full-round attacks his teammate(still dealing nonlethal), does he auto-hit on every attack?
First thing, allies do not trigger AoO.
Second thing, no. It is up to the GM how much of a player's defense he can intentionally drop, but if the attacker rolls a 1 it always misses.
Meirril wrote: First thing, allies do not trigger AoO.
Second thing, no. It is up to the GM how much of a player's defense he can intentionally drop, but if the attacker rolls a 1 it always misses.
In core rule book P180 wrote: 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. Seems the attacker of AOO doesn't need to be an enemy. Thou I might be exploiting the rule loophole. Besides, you don't have to roll an attack dice to see if it's a N1 when clwing your ally, yes?
So the question here is whether you can auto-hit an ally with a somewhat friendly attack action just like a common friendly spell, when what you do is not casting one.
I don't see why they couldn't be auto-hit. I imagine it akin to a coup-de-grace. The target isn't moving or attempting to dodge the hit so a nat 1 wouldn't really factor into it. Just my opinion, anyway.
TheMagicIndian wrote: I don't see why they couldn't be auto-hit. I imagine it akin to a coup-de-grace. The target isn't moving or attempting to dodge the hit so a nat 1 wouldn't really factor into it. Just my opinion, anyway. The OP is asking about an attack of opportunity provoked by an ally moving past them. A coup-de-grace is a full round action against a helpless target. These are very different situations.
It's worth noting that on your turn you can touch up to 6 allies as part of casting your spell without needing to roll to hit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Meirril wrote: First thing, allies do not trigger AoO.
They absolutely do, you just don't ordinarily attack your allies. There are spells to force you to take AoOs against everyone who provokes one, even your (pre-spell) allies.
It's not anywhere in the rules.
As a GM I don't allow autohit. I do allow allies to drop their AC (the way someone might drop spell resistance) which removes dex from AC and makes them flat-footed. BUT! I say these penalties apply for the whole round (until their next turn) so enemies can capitalize on your dropped defenses.
Quote: 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. Only enemies provoke for movement in the CRB. Other things may allow them to provoke.
As a gm, I'd make dropping your ac work like dropping SR, it lasts the whole round.
Xenocrat wrote: Meirril wrote: First thing, allies do not trigger AoO.
They absolutely do, you just don't ordinarily attack your allies. There are spells to force you to take AoOs against everyone who provokes one, even your (pre-spell) allies. Individual spells give explicit exception to general rules. Specific always trumps general, but you only get to use specific when the circumstance permits it.
willuwontu wrote: As a gm, I'd make dropping your ac work like dropping SR, it lasts the whole round. I would probably go with using Flatfooted instead of regular AC, as your ally presumably wouldn't try to dodge an ally, but would still try to dodge enemies.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: Quote: 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. Only enemies provoke for movement in the CRB. Other things may allow them to provoke.
Whether someone is an enemy is a state of mind. If you decide to treat an ally as an enemy because you want to make an AoO (whether for harmful or beneficial reasons), they now provoke. Which is to say everyone actually provokes, the rules just don't bother with the ally circumstance because they don't want you to have to explicitly tell the GM you're deciding not to attack your ally every time they walk by you or cast CLW on you.
Now you could treat your party members like they aren't allies. That means you stop benefiting from any abilities that target allies. You also block movement for the rest of the party, and count as cover for the enemy as well as your party. Also you and your party would provide the enemy flanking against you and your party.
This might be amusing in an intrigue campaign, but I can't recommend entering a Mexican stand off as a standard party tactic.
Xenocrat wrote: Whether someone is an enemy is a state of mind. If you decide to treat an ally as an enemy because you want to make an AoO (whether for harmful or beneficial reasons), they now provoke. Which is to say everyone actually provokes, the rules just don't bother with the ally circumstance because they don't want you to have to explicitly tell the GM you're deciding not to attack your ally every time they walk by you or cast CLW on you. And you could treat enemies as allies, which is where betrayal feats, and solo/fighter's tactics comes into play.
At least until the gm says you can't flip flop on people being an enemy or an ally in the middle of combat.
Firebug wrote: willuwontu wrote: As a gm, I'd make dropping your ac work like dropping SR, it lasts the whole round. I would probably go with using Flatfooted instead of regular AC, as your ally presumably wouldn't try to dodge an ally, but would still try to dodge enemies. Also a fair way to handle it, though if your ally taking the AoO is a rogue, I'd reccomend against that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: Firebug wrote: willuwontu wrote: As a gm, I'd make dropping your ac work like dropping SR, it lasts the whole round. I would probably go with using Flatfooted instead of regular AC, as your ally presumably wouldn't try to dodge an ally, but would still try to dodge enemies. Also a fair way to handle it, though if your ally taking the AoO is a rogue, I'd reccomend against that. Sure, call it 'voluntarily lowering Dex to AC' and not 'Denied Dex to AC' to avoid Rogues triggering sneak attack.
willuwontu wrote: Xenocrat wrote: Whether someone is an enemy is a state of mind. If you decide to treat an ally as an enemy because you want to make an AoO (whether for harmful or beneficial reasons), they now provoke. Which is to say everyone actually provokes, the rules just don't bother with the ally circumstance because they don't want you to have to explicitly tell the GM you're deciding not to attack your ally every time they walk by you or cast CLW on you. And you could treat enemies as allies, which is where betrayal feats, and solo/fighter's tactics comes into play.
It takes two to make an alliance. As long as the other party doesn't treat you as an ally it doesn't matter what you think, those feats don't work.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Also remember that some items provide a permanent deflection bonus to AC.
I think RAW you're not supposed to allow auto-hits on allies, but I do allow it just for the simple reason of not bogging down combat with unnecessary rolls. If there was an enemy in the way or has the potential to thwart the attack, then yeah, I'd make them roll for it, but if your ally is next to you and there are nearly zero complications, then it's just an auto-hit and move on.
willuwontu wrote: Firebug wrote: willuwontu wrote: As a gm, I'd make dropping your ac work like dropping SR, it lasts the whole round. I would probably go with using Flatfooted instead of regular AC, as your ally presumably wouldn't try to dodge an ally, but would still try to dodge enemies. Also a fair way to handle it, though if your ally taking the AoO is a rogue, I'd reccomend against that. Actually that makes it better, since sneak attack is the same damage type as the weapon used and if the weapon is a cure spell that does positive energy damage like a cure spell your aoo cure light wounds now heals 1d8+x+sneak attack. Take that cure light wounds right to the kidney you reckless son of a B***h you.
doomman47 wrote: Actually that makes it better, since sneak attack is the same damage type as the weapon used and if the weapon is a cure spell that does positive energy damage like a cure spell your aoo cure light wounds now heals 1d8+x+sneak attack. Take that cure light wounds right to the kidney you reckless son of a B***h you. This looks kinda fun, but I'm afraid it won't work the way you think. When applied to a positive-energy based creature, the clw heals it for 1d8+x instead of damaging it.Though when cast on a negative-based creature(ie, undead), it does deal 1d8+x positive energy dmg.
Besides, In the unchained rogue class feature wrote: This additional damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit. Thou the CRB rogue doesn't include this line, meaning that sneak attack does deal the same damage of your weapon dmg. So you can... probably use weaponwand to sneak attack undead targets dealing positive energy sneak attack, provided you have a decent UMD. Situational but still useful.
BTW, all these ideas reminds me of some interesting strategies when magus combines this spell in spell combat.
Claxon wrote: It's not anywhere in the rules.
As a GM I don't allow autohit. I do allow allies to drop their AC (the way someone might drop spell resistance) which removes dex from AC and makes them flat-footed. BUT! I say these penalties apply for the whole round (until their next turn) so enemies can capitalize on your dropped defenses.
It seems like a PC should be allowed to make herself Helpless against another PC.
Helpless Defenders wrote: A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.
Regular Attack
A helpless character takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. In addition, a helpless character is treated as having a Dexterity of 0, giving him a –5 penalty to AC against both melee and ranged attacks (for a total of –9 against melee and –5 against ranged). A helpless character is also flat-footed.
Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit.
Things like a Cleric using a Standard Action to Cast Cure Light Wounds on an Ally during melee don't even require an Attack Roll. But the OP is talking about making an Attack of Opportunity. If this is to be allowed at all, it does make sense that even if the target wants to be hit, it shouldn't be automatically successful.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You don't make a will save versus healing or buffs, you don't ally doesn't make an attack roll against you with aid another.
You can automatically fail a saving throw, even from an enemy. This is no reason why you can't choose to fail against an attack.
In fact, when I cast Burning Disarm I usually suggest the GM have the target make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell and then decide if they want to willingly fail the saving throw. Since usually dropping your primary weapon is a larger hindrance than taking some d4s. At least, until I tack on Dazing Spell...
Firebug wrote: In fact, when I cast Burning Disarm I usually suggest the GM have the target make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell and then decide if they want to willingly fail the saving throw. Since usually dropping your primary weapon is a larger hindrance than taking some d4s. At least, until I tack on Dazing Spell... Wouldn't a successful spellcraft check say that it was a Dazing Burning Disarm, not just a normal Burning Disarm? Dazing Burning Disarm would be a DC 19 Spellcraft check. If they got a 16-18 (able to identify Burning Disarm but not the Dazing), they'd fail the check and not know the spell at all.
I don't actually have Dazing, so that was just something I was looking forward too. On one of my characters I do have Freezing Spells from Oracle and the ability to convert the damage to cold from Sorcerer. So they end up getting slowed, but I don't think the spellcraft check would get class features being applied? Its been a while since I've played that one.
Firebug wrote: In fact, when I cast Burning Disarm I usually suggest the GM have the target make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell and then decide if they want to willingly fail the saving throw. Since usually dropping your primary weapon is a larger hindrance than taking some d4s. At least, until I tack on Dazing Spell... Dazing burning disarm is fun.
SorrySleeping wrote: Firebug wrote: In fact, when I cast Burning Disarm I usually suggest the GM have the target make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell and then decide if they want to willingly fail the saving throw. Since usually dropping your primary weapon is a larger hindrance than taking some d4s. At least, until I tack on Dazing Spell... Wouldn't a successful spellcraft check say that it was a Dazing Burning Disarm, not just a normal Burning Disarm? Dazing Burning Disarm would be a DC 19 Spellcraft check. If they got a 16-18 (able to identify Burning Disarm but not the Dazing), they'd fail the check and not know the spell at all. Nope, regardless of how many metamagics you add to the spell the spellcraft to determine what it is remains unchanged.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
