Healing a downed companion

[Ozymandias]

In our game last weekend, the fighter went down to a fighter/rogue with a keen scimitar.
The cleric cast a cure moderate wounds and approached the downed fighter. THe spell was cast 15' back from the threatened area. The cleric then reached into the 5' square and attempted to use the spell to heal the downed fighter.

The question is: Does the touch incur an AoO from the f/r in the adjacent square from the downed companion and the cleric is on the opposite side?
Generally, you can freely touch companions with touch spells.
The casting of the spell was outside the threatened area.
Making a dying friend stable on page 141 of the PH is more in line with a full round heal skill check (but is a similar concept in the action taken)

Our group argued logic for 10 minutes and then we made a quick decision and moved on.

I was curious if the rules supported one side or the other as interpreted by the ENworld experts.

 

[billd91]

In our game last weekend, the fighter went down to a fighter/rogue with a keen scimitar.
The cleric cast a cure moderate wounds and approached the downed fighter. THe spell was cast 15' back from the threatened area. The cleric then reached into the 5' square and attempted to use the spell to heal the downed fighter.

The question is: Does the touch incur an AoO from the f/r in the adjacent square from the downed companion and the cleric is on the opposite side?
Generally, you can freely touch companions with touch spells.
The casting of the spell was outside the threatened area.
Making a dying friend stable on page 141 of the PH is more in line with a full round heal skill check (but is a similar concept in the action taken)

Our group argued logic for 10 minutes and then we made a quick decision and moved on.

I was curious if the rules supported one side or the other as interpreted by the ENworld experts.

My take on this is no AoO. The cleric isn't in the square being threatened by the fighter/rogue so nothing he does there can provoke an AoO from the fighter/rogue. If the fighter/rogue really wanted to prevent the downed fighter from getting up, he should have advanced into the square over the fighter's body.

 

[udalrich]

Even if the cleric was in a threatened square when he touched the fighter, there's still no AoO.

Casting the spell provoked an AoO, but there was no one who threatened the cleric at that time to take it.

You can automatically touch yourself or an ally.

Touching an opponent to discharge a touch spell doesn't provoke an AoO. While I couldn't find text that explicitly say you don't provoke an AoO while touching an ally, it seems strange that doing something to an ally would provoke an AoO, while doing the same thing to an enemy wouldn't.

The rules are at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell

 

[billd91]

You can automatically touch yourself

Uhhh, huh huh. He said "touch yourself", Beavis.

 

[werk]

No AoO.

"Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity."

"You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. "

 

[rvalle]

Per the rules it does not... but seems like it should as the closest thing to touching a person laying on the ground is 'Pick up an item' as that does cause an AoO.

rv

 

[Ozymandias]

Concur.

We were trying to introduce logic into the world and we went awry.

I would have to agree that indirectly if touching an enemy is an armed attack and no AoO then touching a friend should at least be the same.

Thanks for the neutral feedback folks.

ENworld rules the world.