Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Vraille Darkfang]

AoO.

If I'm the DM.

Assuming no wierd differences in size categories.

He's not armed with a touch spell. He's armed with a healing spell. Part of why a Touch Spell doesn't Provoke an AoO is the threat entailed by the Touch.

For me, I'll lump it in with Grapple, Bull Rush & Overun actions when it comes to AoO. You enter his space, without a viable weapon or doing a reckless action, he can try to smack you.

Or, if you are in the same square as a comrade/enemy you can attack things entering into that square that are not directed at you.

So....

If you are defending a downed ally & a cleric tries to do an Inflict Spell on the Ally, you get an AoO. If he tries to bash his head in with a mace, you get an AoO.

I'm basically giving you the defence of the square you are in. (I.E, in order to attack something in the square you have to ignore the guy with the weapon enough he gets a swing at you).

In the long run, It'd be much more benefical to the PC's this way anyway. Defending a friend from foes happens a lot more than allies of a downed foe trying to aid their fallen friend.

Anything else gets fishy & rules-mongering, which I do not encourage in my games.

So, I'll do AoO, wether a definitive FAQ, Errata or Sage Advice come out (as we all know how good THOSE are at stopping arguements.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He's not armed with a touch spell. He's armed with a healing spell. Part of why a Touch Spell doesn't Provoke an AoO is the threat entailed by the Touch.

If I attempt to deliver CLW on an enemy via a touch attack, that doesn't provoke an AoO from him.

A touch spell is a spell with a range of touch. CLW is a healing spell (has the [Healing] descriptor), but it's also a touch spell (has a range of touch).

If you are defending a downed ally & a cleric tries to do an Inflict Spell on the Ally, you get an AoO. If he tries to bash his head in with a mace, you get an AoO.

Well, that's at least consistent with the AoO for healing, so I'd be fine with the ruling as one of your players. (I'd hope to know beforehand that hitting someone with a mace could provoke an AoO, though!)

As a DM, I wouldn't grant an AoO for the mace attack... and so, for consistency, I wouldn't grant an AoO for the Inflict spell, and therefore wouldn't grant an AoO for the Cure spell.

If someone wants to defend a downed ally against a mace attack, I'd require a Readied action, rather than granting an AoO. I don't see any rules support for the AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[Lee's Fortune]

Would the scenario in the thread topic even happen?

The bad guy's cleric-buddy casts "cure moderate wounds" from ten feet away, and takes a 5' step to a neighboring square to touch the bad guy's body and deliver the spell.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the RAW, but don't cure wounds spells have a duration of Instantaneous, as in the spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast?

I always assumed you could not cast and hold a cure wounds spell and that the 'Instantaneous' meant that its effects occurred instantaneously. I may need correction here...

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

If I attempt to deliver CLW on an enemy via a touch attack, that doesn't provoke an AoO from him.

A touch spell is a spell with a range of touch. CLW is a healing spell (has the [Healing] descriptor), but it's also a touch spell (has a range of touch).

To be consistent, I'd let the baddy have an AoO (assuming he wasn't an undead where it WOULD hurt him), not that he'd take it. I would also warn you it would provoke an AoO before you did it, allowing you to re-evaluate your actions.

Technically, this means when you cast a healing spell on an ally, he gets an AoO, he just, noramlly, doesn take it. I can see in an evil game where somebody make take an AoO on the cleric just to spite him, but my players aare pretty good.

Well, that's at least consistent with the AoO for healing, so I'd be fine with the ruling as one of your players. (I'd hope to know beforehand that hitting someone with a mace could provoke an AoO, though!)
-Hyp.

Of Course.

Really, this isn't about rules. This is about Running the Game in a smooth & consitent basis. I've gotten very good at mastering the fine line between DM Authority & DM Resposibility.

My players have voluntarily given my Ultimate Authority & Power over the Game, Rules included. They realize I take my responsibilty to insure that the game is run fairly, consistently, efficently & fairly VERY seriously. Thus in order to keep rules discussions to a minumum I take a "Common Sense" approach to the rules & tell my players (briefly), why I'm ruling the way that I am, make a note to look it up when I get a chance & tell them next time how it works from now on (wether its RAW, Errata or Flown out of My Backside).

That's part of the reason I tend to wind up being the DM all the time. Few people realize the amount of work, talent and practice it takes to be a good DM.

In other words, I'd call it like I see it, so the party can get back to the serious business of kicking critters cans & taking their contents.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the RAW, but don't cure wounds spells have a duration of Instantaneous, as in the spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast?

I always assumed you could not cast and hold a cure wounds spell and that the 'Instantaneous' meant that its effects occurred instantaneously. I may need correction here...

Most touch spells do have a duration of instantaneous. However, that duration is measured from when they are delivered, not from when they are cast.

A touch spell discharges when you touch a target - that's the instantaneous part.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Technically, this means when you cast a healing spell on an ally, he gets an AoO, he just, noramlly, doesn take it. I can see in an evil game where somebody make take an AoO on the cleric just to spite him, but my players aare pretty good.

Heh.

Hmm. It just feels like you're ruling on one point that's unclear, and then changing a bunch of rules that are clear to keep consistent with the initial ruling. I'd rather rule the unclear point to be consistent with the already-defined rules.

As written, attacking an opponent with a CLW is an 'armed' unarmed attack that doesn't provoke an AoO, and hitting someone with a mace doesn't provoke an AoO... so you're having to change those rules to remain consistent with your ruling for healing an unconscious ally.

I'd prefer to rule the healing-the-ally situation to remain consistent with the no-AoO rules we already have for attacking with a CLW and attacking with a mace...

-Hyp.

 

[Lee's Fortune]

Most touch spells do have a duration of instantaneous. However, that duration is measured from when they are delivered, not from when they are cast.

A touch spell discharges when you touch a target - that's the instantaneous part.

-Hyp.

Very cool, very cool. Tell's you how long it's been since I've played a spellcaster, lol.

 

[Telas]

Really, this isn't about rules. This is about Running the Game in a smooth & consitent basis. I've gotten very good at mastering the fine line between DM Authority & DM Resposibility.

My players have voluntarily given my Ultimate Authority & Power over the Game, Rules included. They realize I take my responsibilty to insure that the game is run fairly, consistently, efficently & fairly VERY seriously. Thus in order to keep rules discussions to a minumum I take a "Common Sense" approach to the rules & tell my players (briefly), why I'm ruling the way that I am, make a note to look it up when I get a chance & tell them next time how it works from now on (wether its RAW, Errata or Flown out of My Backside).

That's part of the reason I tend to wind up being the DM all the time. Few people realize the amount of work, talent and practice it takes to be a good DM.

In other words, I'd call it like I see it, so the party can get back to the serious business of kicking critters cans & taking their contents.

100% agreement. D&D is not about the rules, nor about the interpretations. That's for after the game (or before the game for the prescient).

I think Vraille has elucidated my thoughts on the subject: anything coming into your square that's not engaged in combat with you may receive an AoO. (Details as they're needed.)

You can read my responses above to grok my interpretation of D&D - it's a set of guidelines, not a hard-and-fast set of rules. The DM is there to interpret gray areas and resolve questions as smoothly as possible. (And to make the PCs lives generally "interesting".)

Hypersmurf - Thanks for the OotS reference... I forgot the new one came out today.

Telas

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Heh.

Hmm. It just feels like you're ruling on one point that's unclear, and then changing a bunch of rules that are clear to keep consistent with the initial ruling. I'd rather rule the unclear point to be consistent with the already-defined rules.

As written, attacking an opponent with a CLW is an 'armed' unarmed attack that doesn't provoke an AoO, and hitting someone with a mace doesn't provoke an AoO... so you're having to change those rules to remain consistent with your ruling for healing an unconscious ally.

I'd prefer to rule the healing-the-ally situation to remain consistent with the no-AoO rules we already have for attacking with a CLW and attacking with a mace...

-Hyp.

No,

My EXACT rulingis that trying to physcally interfer with an object (an unconscious being included) within teh same square you occupy provokes an AoO.

For Example. If you have a book strapped to your body & someone attempts to sunder it, you get an AoO (pg 158 PHB). If they attempt to, say Disentigrate it via some Touch Effect, would you still not get the AoO?

But, if said book lies in between you feet you get nada? That makes no sense to me. They can't touch your belt buckle without you taking a whack at them, but the box you got your foot on is fair game?

This comes down to what is considered 'yours' while within your space. If something wants to touch anything you got, then it gets punched. Yet if its merely at your feet, you get nothing (this might be the 'offical' answer).

Claiming CLW as an Unarmed 'Armed' Strike or that you can decide to call it a Touch Attack against a 'willing, yet unwillling' ally is Rules Weaseling. No thank you.

A Peacock feather is not a weapon, sure you can 'attack' me with it, even roll the die to see if you hit. I'm not ruling it an Attack.

Same here. IF the foe is on the ground, you are standing DIRECTLY on top of him. If he tries to hit you with Cure Light Wounds, you can smack him CLW is no more a 'Credible Threat' (to quote the PHB 141), than a wet pasta noodle (Ok, you want to get picky I guess you could require a Spellcraft check to know the spell is harmless, but after 3rd level or so, most characters are pretty familiar with Cure Spells, having them cast on you repeatedly sort of does that). He tries to bend over and pat his pal at your feet with a Cure Light Wounds spell, you get to smack him. After all by the rules if you picked him up & hefted him over your shoulder (encumbracne permitting), it WOULD provoke an AoO for him to touch the sack of potatoes draped over your body. I can't see how it changes if he's at your feet.

Now, if the foe were casting Cause Light Wounds (perhaps to prevent the foe from talking), it gets a little different. Now you are being approached by a with a "Cerdible Threat'. I could see saying you may now resolve the touch normally, but. Again you throw the foe over your shoulders & you get the AoO for him trying to touch 'objects worn or carried'.

I'm just expanding "Worn or Carried" to include objects within your square.

PS. The whole AoO for having the Cleric cast a Healing Spell on you is fine (agian CLW is not a Credible Threat). But you whack the cleric trying to Cure you.....

No Heal for You!! (Its been awhile since I've had a player that inter-party destructive).

The only rules I'm changing/Interpreting:

1. Unarmed "Armed" Touched spells, must, indeed be a 'Credible Threat'.

2. "Worn or Carried" Includes what is generally within your space (not REACH, just SPACE).


However, I'm now re-reading the Touch & Sunder Rules to see if I still agree with my initial descsion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Claiming CLW as an Unarmed 'Armed' Strike or that you can decide to call it a Touch Attack against a 'willing, yet unwillling' ally is Rules Weaseling.

Well, there's no ambiguity that using CLW against an opponent is an 'armed' unarmed attack.

“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. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

What is a touch attack spell?

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

What's a touch spell?

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later.

CLW has a range of touch; therefore it's a touch spell.

If you're touching an opponent with it, it's a touch attack spell.

If you're delivering a touch attack spell, you're considered armed, and don't provoke an AoO.

No weaseling required - it's a black and white chain of rules.

Now, if you're touching an ally, it's still a touch spell, but it's not a touch attack spell. Therefore you're not considered armed, and the touch is an unarmed attack.

Unarmed attacks do provoke AoOs... but only from the creature you're attacking, not from anyone else. However, since your ally is unconscious, he doesn't threaten an area.

Again, no problem.

-Hyp.