I take an AOO on my ally

[Paragon]

from the SRD. it sounds fine to me what you did. i would allow it. theres nothing to say your character can't designate anyone an enemy if he wanted to.

ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY


Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. 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.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. 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.

Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action (see below).

Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.

An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

 

[Sejs]

Citation?

What type of action does it take to change your mind or form an opinion? Can you only think on your turn? The only difference between an ally and an enemy is your attitude toward them. And what, if any, is the difference between an enemy and an opponent?

"Bill's going to blast those puppies. I would stop him, but I can't - he's my ally." Bill provokes no AoO because he's your ally, even though you'd take one if you could.

or is it

"Bill's going to blast those puppies. I should stop him. He's my friend, so I should try to save him from making a mistake" Bill provokes an AoO, and you take it. At no point does Bill stop being your ally.

Flat-footed?

Heh, fair enough. Monk with Combat Reflexes then. ^_^

 

[AuraSeer]

Citation?

Usually I'm a big one for requiring cites, but in this case I think we'll have to go with common sense. The term "enemy" is not specifically defined in game terms, so we have to rely on the general meaning, which is unavoidably subjective.

Even if you assume the "enemy" reference is a hard rule (as opposed to flavor text), there's no restriction on who you call an enemy. If a character is doing something with which you disagree-- running away from combat, say, or meteor swarming the local orphanage-- you can call him your opponent or "enemy" on that issue.

Allowing AoOs on allies doesn't unbalance anything, doesn't go against common sense, and doesn't break any of the rules in the book. I don't see why a DM would prevent it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The term "enemy" is not specifically defined in game terms, so we have to rely on the general meaning, which is unavoidably subjective.

Ooh - can we play the Bane game now?

I love the "What is an enemy?" argument

-Hyp.

 

[Elric]

Citation?

I'm not sure about this one. Is there a citation that says one should have citations?

You cannot always find perfect wording from a rules perspective because the rules are also meant to be read and understood. Thus, the rules tend to default to likely cases. "You make take an AoO on an enemy, or your friend if you really feel like it" is rather awkward. For example, as far as I know, the core rules don't address higher ground in zero gravity environments...

 

[argo]

Not sure about that. The precise language is that "enemies" get to take an AOO on someone. Was the fighter an enemy? Is the rogue paying attention to defend himself against this character?

Fair enough. Except that in order to make that work there would have to be some "phase" to the initative system where a character declares who his allies and who his enemies are, perhaps at the start of combat or the start of each round or the start of each character's turn. But no such "phase" exists in the initative system. Just the opposite in fact, the initiative system never makes you declare intent to do anything right up until the moment you do it. You can make an attack and then decide if you want to continue with a full round attack or take a move action after you resolve the first attack. You can make two attacks against one target and then decide weither you want to attack him a third time or attack the guy next to him or turn around and trip the guy behind you or whatever. At any given time durring your turn the only limit on your decision making ability is the consequences of what you have already done (ie: you can't full round attack if you have already taken a move, you can't take an off-hand attack if you have already made an attack without the TWF penalties).

So a character should be able to decide who he considers an "enemy" at any given time and behave accordingly.

 

[Len]

Citation?

Click the link, dude! If OotS isn't authoritative, I don't know what is.

OK, seriously:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent.

Now, I couldn't find a definition of "opponent" in the PHB so I have to go with my gut: If you want to attack a guy, you're his opponent. (Please let me know if I've missed this definition in the rules somewhere.)

So, rogue threatens a square, fighter runs through the square, rogue wants to stop the fighter (or just punish him for running away), rogue decides to hit fighter. By the rules, the rogue fulfills the requirements for taking an AoO on the fighter. There's nothing there about who's in the party, whether the rogue has already attacked the fighter, or vice versa.

 

[devoblue]

Whilst the conclusion that the Rogue can take an AoO seems logical, isnt it also logical that the Rogue is unaware or suprised by the fighters actions. If the rogue can't make a spellcraft check to identify the fear, might he not think the fighter is just repositioning in combat?

From the rogues point of view, combat appears as such:

DM :Bad dude casts a spell.

Ftr: I start a run move, moving past the rogue.

Rog: I meta-game and trip the fighter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the rogues point of view, combat appears as such:

DM :Bad dude casts a spell.

Ftr: I start a run move, moving past the rogue.

Rog: I meta-game and trip the fighter.

Don't you mean...

Ftr: I gibber in terror, and run past the rogue waving my arms over my head and shrieking like a smurf when Azrael hits Smurf Village.

...?

 

[Len]

*flips through FRCS* Smurf Village?