Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Artoomis]

Is there such a thing? If I am trying to use Diplomacy with an enemy (combat hasn't started), and I try to "reach into their square" no matter what the reason is, do you think the enemy (ie the DM) would allow that? Wouldn't that, by default, be considered a threatening action, or a combat-related action. If the DM says, "Ok, roll init" are you going to say, "But why, I wasn't doing it in a threatening or combatitive manner."

Non-threatening is a technical term meaning in a manner that does not threaten the opponent such as not having a weapon or improved unarmed combat. Or using a weapon but not trying to use it against the opponent (like, for example, trying to help someone on he ground in the same square as the opponent ).

Perhaps if I rephrase:

Assuming your opponent is not flat-footed, does reaching into your opponent's square using an action that does not "threaten" the opponent provoke an attack of opportunity?

Better question?

Note that not being flat-footed means combat has already started.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Assuming your opponent is not flat-footed, does reaching into your opponent's square using an action that does not "threaten" the opponent provoke an attack of opportunity?

The only rules location that can possibly answer this, in such a general case, is the following:

Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. 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.

So, you could rule it either way per the RAW. Unfortunately, the general case is a poor choice. As evidenced in Hyp's various examples, it seems clear that people will rule specific cases differently. For example, it's clear by the rules that picking up an item from your opponent's square provokes an AoO because picking up an item provokes one. Some of the other examples are not so clear. Moreover, let's say I had a feat that allowed me to pick up items as a free action without provoking an AoO (call it Brawny - the Quicker Picker Upper). If the feat leaves it unspecified, and it probably would, would you provoke picking up an item from your opponent's square?

So, is touching someone or something a distracting act? I don't think so. I say that this is particularly true for touch spells since you don't even have to touch a particularly body part, even hitting the shield is sufficient. But, if the DM ruled otherwise, I'd be okay with that, too. Maybe a concentration check DC 10 is sufficient (trivial for most casters with max ranks).

 

[Artoomis]

So, you could rule it either way per the RAW. Unfortunately, the general case is a poor choice. As evidenced in Hyp's various examples, it seems clear that people will rule specific cases differently...

You made my real point rather nicely, I think.

It's a judgement call. There is no clear rule defining whether an AoO is provoked in this case.

Personally, I'd say you are "diverting your attention from the battle." I'd also remember that only SOME of the of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity are defined in the tables, as noted in your quote.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Personally, I'd say you are "diverting your attention from the battle."

The fact that the cleric is there healing his ally when he drops is clear evidence that his attention is fully on the battle. Nonetheless, I understand your point. You feel it's a distracting act. Fair enough. But, do you feel that way for the general case, or for this specific one?

 

[Artoomis]

The fact that the cleric is there healing his ally when he drops is clear evidence that his attention is fully on the battle. Nonetheless, I understand your point. You feel it's a distracting act. Fair enough. But, do you feel that way for the general case, or for this specific one?

I think in the general case this is true - if attempting to disarm is taking your attention from the battle enough to draw an AoO, then surely reaching in without "threating" is as well.

Mind you, you would ONLY draw an AoO from the opponent into whose square you were reaching.

 

[Legildur]

But, but, but.......

That would be a hilarious way to deliver touch spells.... Would it need to be bare skin?

This is all raising some interesting questions:

And does Hypersmurf's Ogre and cat example work equally well with a rider on a mount? They are both occupying the same square(s).

Or what if the axe wielding barbarian was standing next to the unconscious and dying fighter AND the cleric, thereby threatening both, as the cleric seeks to make the touch on his downed ally (assuming he can't manoeuvre to a non-threatened square)? Does that significantly change the situation?

Assuming the healing spell is successful, what happens when the fighter regains consciousness? You can't have 2 opponents occupying the same square (unless grappling etc). Is the fighter forced to move out of the square (using a crawl) and thereby provoking an AOO and likely undoing the cleric's good work?

I'm finding this discussion very interesting as these sort of situations crop up regularly in our games. Mostly it is because we are seeking to withdraw from combat with a fallen comrade. Can you pick something up without being in their square? Or can you reach into an adjacent square to drag someone who is unconscious?

Another question, if you disarm someone, and the weapon lands on the ground in their square, can you pick it up? (with an AOO of course)

The rules (to me) are very vague around these sorts of actions.

 

[irdeggman]

Assuming your opponent is not flat-footed, does reaching into your opponent's square using an action that does not "threaten" the opponent provoke an attack of opportunity?

Better question?

Note that not being flat-footed means combat has already started.

Doesn't matter.

For AoO only the person making the AoO has to threaten the other one. The one on the receiving end in no way has to be threatening his foe.

For example stepping out of a square provokes an AoO regardless of whether that character is armed (or threatening the other).

A cure spell is not considered armed since it is a "harmless" spell. So having one cast doesn't not make the caster be considered armed.

 

[dcollins]

"Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack."

The quote is under the heading of "Touch Attacks". There is an implied touch attack spell there, by virtue of being in that paragraph (that you've snipped the heading out of for your quote).

Cure light wounds is not an attack spell. It is not a touch attack spell. The rules in the "touch attacks" section do not apply to it. This quote does not apply to it.

Magic Missile deals damage. The Magic Overview chapter says it's an attack. Is the Magic Overview chapter wrong? The result of Magic Missile is not determined by an attack roll. Doesn't that mean that the glossary says it isn't an attack?

The second sentence of the glossary "attack" definition does need fixing in light of the Magic Overview chapter. But the first sentence is the important part, and that is in agreement with the Magic Overview chapter.

Glossary: "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent". Magic Overview: "All offensive combat actions... All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

Cure light wounds doesn't harm or hamper, disable, neutralize, offend, or deal damage. So the two sections agree, it is not an attack.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Cure light wounds is not an attack spell. It is not a touch attack spell. The rules in the "touch attacks" section do not apply to it. This quote does not apply to it.

Cure light wounds doesn't harm or hamper, disable, neutralize, offend, or deal damage. So the two sections agree, it is not an attack.

Even if you use it against undead?

 

[dcollins]

Sure, against undead it's an attack spell.