Ranged Touch Attacks on willing targets

[Shorticus]

The latest threads I see on this are back in 2013, so I wanted to know if there's been any updates:

If I cast a ranged touch attack at a willing target...

1. Do I still need an attack roll?
2. Can the willing target in any way remove DEX or Dodge bonuses to AC, or otherwise act as if flatfooted to my attack?

Thanks!

[Melkiador]

There was never an official answer for this kind of question. There's nothing in the rules to make it easier to hit a willing target, so the GM just needs to make whatever house rules makes the most sense for the table.

Personally, I'd say the target can count themselves as helpless for an attack, if they desire to.

[Valandil Ancalime]

Is it in combat or out of combat? Is the target being threatened by an opponent? Are they aware of your plan to cast a spell on them or not? These are all factors I would take into consideration if I was DM.

[Shorticus]

In combat. Out of combat I assume it's no big deal, but this would be hitting an ally with a ray combat in the middle of combat, potentially while they're in melee.

[Melkiador]

Officially, a character should at least be able to close their eyes to give themselves the blinded condition, which would remove their dex bonus.

[RAWmonger]

Turn-based is just how the mechanics of the game works. In the theater of your mind, though, combat is continuous (like real life).

If, in an attempt to give the wizard better access to cast a spell on an ally, the fighter stops moving while in melee combat with an enemy (or closes his eyes, in Melkiador's example), he *also* provides his enemy with a perfect opportunity to instantly kill him.

No you cannot voluntarily make yourself helpless or otherwise reduce your AC for your ally's *one* standard action in the midst of combat. I would allow a decision on your turn though, to last until the beginning of your next turn, to voluntarily make yourself easier to hit for *all* creatures.

Especially given that it wouldn't be the fighter's turn to voluntarily take *any* action except immediate actions (and some free), why would he be allowed to take voluntary action (such as lowering defenses or some such action). If he wanted to do that, he should have done it on his turn.

[Melkiador]

What we really want are rules for "catching". But Pathfinder doesn't have those. I'm not even sure what catching rules would look like if we did have them, though. Maybe, the "thrower" would attack to hit the square and the "catcher" would roll to get hit? But would catching require a readied action or an attack of opportunity or just be an immediate action?

Maybe it'd even be less like an attack and more like an attack DC that has to be beat by the combined scores of the catcher and the thrower. That wouldn't perfectly mirror reality, but it'd be closer to the real thing.

[Valandil Ancalime]

If it was my game, I would let the target ignore his ally so his ally could get the same benefits as an invisible attacker (+2 hit and defender loses dex mod). I might even allow a +4 to hit and defender loses dex mod. But that's probably as much as I would allow without the target suffering penalties vs actual opponents.

[RAWmonger]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

If it was my game, I would let the target ignore his ally so his ally could get the same benefits as an invisible attacker (+2 hit and defender loses dex mod). I might even allow a +4 to hit and defender loses dex mod. But that's probably as much as I would allow without the target suffering penalties vs actual opponents.

Good solution.

[vhok]

In our games we allow people to not dodge or move so same ac as hitting an object ac:5
But as others have said there’s no offcial rule for this but it makes sense you can allow something to hit you by not trying to avoid it

[dragonhunterq]

If it's from a spell. SLA or supernatural ability no attack roll is required - it is automatic..

touch spells in combat wrote:

You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

The rules draw no distinction between melee touch and range touch in respect of this.

It's a little hard to justify not extending the rule to other abilities where there are no rules..

[Mysterious Stranger]

I for one would not have a problem with a character forgoing their DEX bonus vs an attack that they are aware of and want to be hit by. The section on DEX specifies you add your DEX bonus to AC provided that the character can react to the attack. The word can implies a choice, if it you could not chose to lower this vs attacks you want to hit you it should say that you are aware of. Dodge bonuses are also lost when you lose your DEX bonus, so it would make sense that you when you choose not to use your DEX bonus you also lose your dodge bonus.

There are also plenty of examples of characters losing their DEX bonus only vs a particular attack. That kind of invalidates the idea that if you choose not to use it vs your ally you lose it vs all attacks.