So i'm planning to play a cartomancer/harrower witch and i've realized this would allow me to imbue my "card darts" w/ Cure X Wounds spells but I can't find anything online or in my books about attacking a willing ally.
My assumption is a willing target could choose to be flat-footed and thus it would be AC 10 in most cases (since its already a touch attack)
What do you guys think?
Well, You could look at cure light wounds. Against an ally its nothing but a tap, against an enemy its an attack. So I would say as GM, barring all sorts of crazy penalties in effect, like limited visibility or ridiculous sight based issues and penalties, its a non issue, you just succeed. Now if you are trying to do it from a 100 yards away out a window, and can only see their left big toe... then... yea... you are rolling.
Oh i'm not worried about the "attack roll" from the spell itself im worried about hitting them with the card carrying said spell.
|
It is a ranged touch attack. There aren't rules for voluntarily reducing your AC against those.
Your ally can act to lower it, deciding not to dodge and reducing his AC like he had dex 1 or 0, and no dodge but the involuntary effects, like the deflection bonus of items from items or from spells, can't be lowered without removing the item or canceling the spell.
Furthermore, it is an action, probably a free one, so it will be started during the character turn and continue until the character act again, so in the next turn. Not a good idea if there is an enemy present.
It is a ranged touch attack. There aren't rules for voluntarily reducing your AC against those.
Your ally can act to lower it, deciding not to dodge and reducing his AC like he had dex 1 or 0, and no dodge but the involuntary effects, like the deflection bonus of items from items or from spells, can't be lowered without removing the item or canceling the spell.
Furthermore, it is an action, probably a free one, so it will be started during the character turn and continue until the character act again, so in the next turn. Not a good idea if there is an enemy present.
By your logic people shouldn't be able to choose to automatically fail against spells INCLUDING harmless one without choosing to do so for the whole turn
|
|
By your logic people shouldn't be able to choose to automatically fail against spells INCLUDING harmless one without choosing to do so for the whole turn
"By my logic" there is an official rule that says that you can forego your save:
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
You can find one that says that you can lower your AC if you want?
And the harmless spell example I simply wrong. Normally you don't need to save against a harmless spell, but, if you want, you can try to save:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
As the description of the attacks of opportunity says:
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.
if you drop your AC for a moment, your opponents get an attack of opportunity?
After all, you are letting your guard down.|
|
My assumption is a willing target could choose to be flat-footed and thus it would be AC 10 in most cases (since its already a touch attack)
Just to point it out, no a target can't choose to be flat-footed. "Flat-footed" is a very specific condition, and isn't the same thing as not applying your dexterity to your AC.
You can choose to become effectively flat-footed simply by closing your eyes. Since you now cannot see you are effectively giving yourself the blinded condition (-2 AC and lose dex bonus to AC).
|
|
You can also ranged touch at 0" for a regular touch attack IF you could normally touch the target.
Even if the target is at range 0 it never became a touch attack, it still remains a RANGED touch attack.
IN PRACTICE most GMs will let it slide and just want to see that you can ranged touch AC10{aka not fumble}.
I have never seen a GM doing that. And deflection will work even if you stop dodging.
|
|
You can choose to become effectively flat-footed simply by closing your eyes. Since you now cannot see you are effectively giving yourself the blinded condition (-2 AC and lose dex bonus to AC).
Sure, but again it is something you do during your turn and that lasts till the next one. And you aren't flat-footed. Your dexterity bonus is negated and you can be sneak attacked, but you don't suffer the effects of the flat-footed condition.
As I said "effectively" flat-footed I never said you actually gain the flat-footed condition. As for only being able to close your eyes on your turn I and it lasting until your next turn I just don't see that as being realistic and I've not seen any rules that cover this. You can talk off-turn and closing ones eyes takes far less effort and time. And really do all creatures just stare unblinkingly until it's their turn?
|
|
As I said "effectively" flat-footed I never said you actually gain the flat-footed condition. As for only being able to close your eyes on your turn I and it lasting until your next turn I just don't see that as being realistic and I've not seen any rules that cover this. You can talk off-turn and closing ones eyes takes far less effort and time. And really do all creatures just stare unblinkingly until it's their turn?
So you want to close your eyes to attack someone with Mirror image, but have your eyes open when you are attacked?
It isn't about blinking, it is about trying to get a game advantage without the drawbacks.While the game is resolved in turns, it is a continuous flow of actions. You can't close your eyes (very different from blinking) and say that you aren't subject to sneak attacks because you do it only while attacking.
Why couldn't you close your eyes, make an attack, and then open them again? I would very much consider briefly closing ones eyes as a free action and then opening them again as a separate free action. I see no problem with this. In fact I have seen this done at PFS games I have attended.
|
Why couldn't you close your eyes, make an attack, and then open them again? I would very much consider briefly closing ones eyes as a free action and then opening them again as a separate free action. I see no problem with this. In fact I have seen this done at PFS games I have attended.
i'd make you use the rules for averting your eyes like a gaze attack, but the penalties would stick untill your next turn