Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Artoomis]

Please explain how I'm misreading the second sentence in that definition. Am I reading it out of context or what? Are you saying it's only an exemplary statement? Is there a sentence missing, perhaps "Touch spells are delivered to willing targets with non-touch attacks." or perhaps "Touch spells are delivered to willing targets with touch non-attacks." ?

The mere fact that it describes what happen when touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets does not say anything about what happens to willing targets, but IN NO WAY implies that you cannot have willing targets for touch spells - as evidenced by the fact that other rules DO say what happens to willing targets. A more complete definition would say, "Willing targets simply need to be touched (automatically successful), while unwilling targets reqruie a touch attack" or somthing like that.

See

Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject...
Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack...

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I disagree. It is not a judgement call with respect to RAW.

With regard to RAW, there are a list of times when AoOs occur.

This is not one of them. The reason the list is not all encompassing is that there will be other feats, spells, PrC abilities, etc. which are not listed in core rules which will add to the list.


The two main reason people are listing for supporting an AoO are:

1) You are reaching into your opponent's square.

As evidence for this, they are listing attack actions that do provoke AoOs such as Grapple or Sunder or Disarm. They forget that these actions are against the opponent or his equipment, not against something in his square.

2) You are touching something on the ground.

As evidence for this, they are listing the pick up an item AoO rule.


They are ignoring that:

1) There are no AoO rules for reaching into an opponent's square.
2) There are no AoO rules for touching something on the ground.


In fact, the Sundering rule has an exception which indicates that reaching into an opponent's square should not provoke an AoO unless listed:

"Sunder An Object: If the object is being held, carried, or worn by a creature, yes. If not, no."

This is a case where it explicitly indicates that this only applies to the objects held or on the creature, not objects within his square.


ALso, Open/Close a door. If there is an opponent in that square, too bad. No AoO. It matters not that you reach into his square to touch the door.


Effectively, what the pro-AoO supporters are doing is creating a new "Protect My Square" rule. It is a concept of "standing over the body and protecting it".

Such a rule does not exist, but that is what an AoO adjudication actually does.

 

[Artoomis]

I disagree. It is not a judgement call with respect to RAW.

With regard to RAW, there are a list of times when AoOs occur.

This is not one of them. The reason the list is not all encompassing is that there will be other feats, spells, PrC abilities, etc. which are not listed in core rules which will add to the list.

That is a conclusion NOT justifed by the RAW. The SRD ONLY states:

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.

and

Manipulate an Item
In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Move Actions.

In both cases it's clear that the tables are NOT all-encomposing and one should draw one's own conclusion about activities not listed.

In other words, it's a DM judgement call for activities not listed. It is not a proper reading of the RAW to treat these lists as all-encomposing such that something not listed cannot provoke an AoO.

 

[dcollins]

What determines if you are using CLW as an attack spell or not?... Or is it dependant on what the "attacker" is truly "attacking"?

By the rules: what the attacker is truly attacking.

Let's get terminology straight, shall we? There is no such thing as a "touch attack" spell.

And yet the SRD says this:

“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.

 

[Artoomis]

...And yet the SRD says this:

“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.

One point for you , but it's still an undefined term. A touch spell IS a defined term, and from that it's clear that a "touch attack spell" is a spell with "range touch" when delivered to an unwilling recipient. In others, the term "touch attack spell" is defined by the situation of using a touch attack spell on a unwilling receipient.

Better?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not true at all.

The mere fact that it describes what happen when touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets does not say anything about what happens to willing targets...

Right, so you both are reading that second sentence as partially exemplary. Basically, the definition has a superfluous statement. I'm okay with that.

So now, do you deliver a touch spell to an unwilling target via a touch attack? Does the following imply that all touch spells are touch attacks or perhaps that they can all use touch attacks?

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge
In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Note the second sentence. Is this also exemplary, meaning that it doesn't apply to willing targets of your touch spell? If so, how do you reach that conclusion?

The Holding the Charge subsection in the Combat section has similar wording except that there it implies that you use a touch attack (albeit automatic success) even more strongly. I quote it here for convenience, though I'm sure it has already been quoted.

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.

I didn't quote the whole paragraph, because the remainder doesn't apply to this point. The reading of this is clear to me that when you touch one friend as a standard action, it refers to making "touch attacks round after round."

 

[scranford]

In this case I would use one of the "Clear" rules of 3.5. Just require the cleric to cast on the defensive, if he dosen't want to invoke an attack of opportunity. This would eliminate the debate by using a clear rule on the situation.

Since casting the spell is a standard action, and taking the five foot step is no action, then the touch must be some other type of action (Move equivelent, Instant, swift), which unless you have the proper feats you can't take anything but Instant or swift actions after the 5' step. (Might not have the terminology right on the types of attacks since I don't have a book here in front of me.

 

[Artoomis]

...

"You can continue to make touch attacks round after round" means in one unsuccessful attempt to touch an unwilling receipient (missed touch attack) does not discharge the spell, that is, the charge is still "held."

That's why this is in the "Holding the Charge" section

Does that help make this clear?

 

[Artoomis]

In this case I would use one of the "Clear" rules of 3.5. Just require the cleric to cast on the defensive, if he dosen't want to invoke an attack of opportunity. This would eliminate the debate by using a clear rule on the situation.

Since casting the spell is a standard action, and taking the five foot step is no action, then the touch must be some other type of action ...

This does not help. This issue is not at all over the spell itself, it's over the actual touch which is allowed in the same round that a touch spell is cast. It's a special rule for range touch spells and not defined as specific type of action.

Regrettably, your approach does not answer the question of whether reaching into an opponent's square to deliver a touch spell to a willing ally (unconscious) provokes an AoO.

I have not yet seen any compelling argument that this is anything other than a DM's judgment call.

 

[KarinsDad]

In both cases it's clear that the tables are NOT all-encomposing and one should draw one's own conclusion about activities not listed.

In other words, it's a DM judgement call for activities not listed. It is not a proper reading of the RAW to treat these lists as all-encomposing such that something not listed cannot provoke an AoO.

Ok. Let's say it is a judgement call.


Many of the AoO rules listed so far in this thread discuss attacking a creature who can defend himself. Only that defending creature gets to AoO, so none of these rules (e.g. grapple, disarm) are applicable to any other nearby creatures if performed against a helpless creature.

A few of the AoO rules listed so far in this thread discuss attacking or manipulating an item. Not a creature, but you could extrapolate the same action for an object to a helpless creature considering that it seems reasonable that you would have to "perform a distracting action" regardless.

Of these, we have:

1) Pick up an item: yes
2) Open/Close a door: no
3) Sundering a non-held/non-worn item: no


Which of these is closest to touching a helpless creature?

Well, picking up is not just touching so much as it is grabbing and doing further manipulation on the object (including holding it).

Open/Close is fairly close to touching an item. It requires some minor effort to open/close, but not much. It is the closest of these three to just touching.

Sundering is not very close. But, it does illustrate that you can reach into an opponent's square without causing an AoO.


Touching appears to be a pretty simple action. In fact, Cast Move Touch implies that touching with a non-attack spell is practically a free action and there are no free actions in the table listed as provoking an AoO (in reality, the touch is part of the casting, but it does not provoke for casting, only the actual casting does that).

The argument that you have to lean down to do this is relatively weak as well. There are no examples of just leaning down provokes. In fact, falling to the ground does not provoke, so why would leaning to the ground provoke?


What are the anti-AoO supporters left with?

1) Non-attack touch is for all intents and purposes a free action as part of the casting and no free actions listed provoke.
2) Open/Close a door does not provoke.
3) Falling to the ground does not provoke.


What are the pro-AoO supporters left with?

1) Pick up an item provokes.


It seems that the pro-AoO supporters have very few rules that are very similar and even pick up an item is not very similar (grab and hold versus touch).

Note: Pick up an item is also a move action. Touching with a touch spell is not a move action. It is a free action as part of the casting ("You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.").

Note: Even pick up an item does not apply to the leaning down argument since you could be picking up an object off of a table.

So yes, you could rule pro-AoO. But, you do not have many similar rules supporting that position, including "reach in" arguments for Grapple or Disarm or Overrun or Sunder which do not provoke for other nearby creatures.