Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Veril]

Let's say we have a cat and an ogre in the same square (three size categories difference).

Our adjacent cleric casts Inflict Light Wounds defensively, and zaps the cat.

Does his touch attack on the cat provoke an AoO from the ogre?

-Hyp.

Unless I'm reading things wrong, this situation cannot occure. You can move through suqares occupied by friends, but you cannot end your movement in them. So the cat (-sized creature) and the ogre (-sized creature) cannot be in the same square (assuming they are allies).

 

[Artoomis]

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

Thanks.

As for the rest of your logic, well, I don't agree with it, but you are following the right train of thought - look for what's kind of like what's going on and draw a conclusion from that. The way we both do that is different, but that's what a DM's judgement is all about and conclusion WILL be different in different games. That's just fine.

 

[Infiniti2000]

"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?

No, that definitely does not help clear things up. Are you suggesting that one cannot "hold the charge" on a cure light wounds?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Unless I'm reading things wrong, this situation cannot occure. You can move through suqares occupied by friends, but you cannot end your movement in them. So the cat (-sized creature) and the ogre (-sized creature) cannot be in the same square (assuming they are allies).

The key point there was the "three size categories difference." Also, the fact that the cat is Tiny means that he can enter the square anyways.

 

[scranford]

I still think I would require the Caster to cast on the defensive in this situation, however if I had to make a ruling on the type of action the touch was (Since there is a five foot step between the casting of the spell, and the actual touching of the comrade. I would rule this to be a "Swift action" [DMG2, pp 237].

This consumes a small amount of energy but represents a larger expenditure than a free action. You can perform a swift at any time you could perform a free action, without it affecting other actions, but you can only perform one per turn.

"Casting a spell or manifesting a power with a casting or manifesting time of 1-swift action does not provoke any attack of opportunity."

So I restate I would avoid the situation entirely by requiring the Concentration check, but if forced to rule I think I would go with the Swift Action and no AoO.

 

[KarinsDad]

As for the rest of your logic, well, I don't agree with it, but you are following the right train of thought - look for what's kind of like what's going on and draw a conclusion from that.

What do you not agree with and why?

That most Special Attacks do not result in nearby opponents getting AoOs, hence, they cannot be viewed as "perform a distracting action" and are not similar at all?

Or, that touching for non-attach touch spells is part of the casting of the spell and hence can be considered a free action (and free actions generally do not provoke)?

Or, that closing a door is closer to a "just a touch" action than picking up an object?

The way we both do that is different, but that's what a DM's judgement is all about and conclusion WILL be different in different games. That's just fine.

Agreed.

 

[Veril]

This is an interesting puzzle to resolve by the rules. I don't think it is exactly covered

Cure Light Wounds is delivered by touching a living person with your hand. The spell description states exactly that. So "Hip checking" or "kicking to deliver the touch" are all completly irrelevant. (see PHB p215). Whilst it is not stated, it's pretty obvious that the free hand you used to cast the spell with is the hand that is holding the charge and must be the one that you deliver it with.

The action being performed is "doing something to a person who cannot resist in a the square next to you"Looking at the D&D rules for what actions are most similar to what I have described, we have the Coup-De-Grace. And that provokes an attack of opportunity from opponents who threaten you.

Thinking about the situation, which is the easiert case
1) touch an unconcious person whilst avoiding attacks if an Opponent is on the far side of the unconcious person.
2) touch an unconcious person whilst avoiding attacks if an Opponent is on the adjacent to the unconcious person.
3) touch an unconcious person whilst avoiding attacks if an Opponent is straddling the unconcious person.
From my extensive experience in Live Role Playing (1000's of hours) I can assure you that the first is far easier than the second and then the third.

 

[Artoomis]

What do you not agree with and why?

That most Special Attacks do not result in nearby opponents getting AoOs, hence, they cannot be viewed as "perform a distracting action" and are not similar at all?

No, I do not agree with that. Most (arguably all) special actions that involve reaching into your opponent's square do provoke an AoO.

Or, that touching for non-attach touch spells is part of the casting of the spell and hence can be considered a free action (and free actions generally do not provoke)?

No, I do not agree with that, and, even if I did, it would not necessarily apply to the case of reaching into an opponent's square like this. That is clearly not something that was considered in the book tables on AoOs.

Or, that closing a door is closer to a "just a touch" action than picking up an object?...

Is the door in an opponent's square? I do not think that this was even considered, so it's a brand new situation.

I prefer to compare this to other circumstances when you reach into an opponent's square:

Attack with melee weapon: AoO No
Attack with unarmed strike: AoO yes
Bull Rush: AoO Yes
Sunder a weapon: AoO Yes
Sunder an attended object: AoO Yes
Sunder an unattended object: AoO No (But did any designer think this would be in an opponent's square?)
Delver Coup de Grace: AoO Yes

It seems to me that, generally, reaching into your opponent's square draws an AoO unless you are directly threatening them with a weapon (even indirectly like sunder or disarm is not good enough to avoid an AoO).

You are looking at this differently, and in a matter of pure judgement like this that's just fine.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, I do not agree with that. Most (arguably all) special actions that involve reaching into your opponent's square do provoke an AoO.

But only from the target getting attacked, not anyone else.

The target is explicitly not getting an AoO because you are "performing a distracting action", otherwise every other opponent who threatens you would also get an AoO.

Contast Grapple with Bullrush. With Bullrush, you lower your guard and everyone gets an AoO. With Grapple, this does not happen. You are not lowering your guard, hence, how can you use this as a comparison for lowering your guard when you reach into another square?

In fact, the AoOs for Special Actions are there as balance points, not because it makes sense that you would provoke an AoO for "reaching in" (and there are feats to avoid this, so it cannot be a reaching in issue, it has to be something else).

No, I do not agree with that, and, even if I did, it would not necessarily apply to the case of reaching into an opponent's square like this. That is clearly not something that was considered in the book tables on AoOs.

Well, RAW explicitly states that the touch action is part of the casting action. RAW also states that free actions are part of other actions. This sounds a lot closer than anything else I have heard here.

Is the door in an opponent's square? I do not think that this was even considered, so it's a brand new situation.

Actually, it seems likely that it was considered. The reason is that a door is typically on the edge of a square in the game.

Regardless of whether it was considered or not, the action of closing or opening a door, even if reaching into an opponent's square, does not according to RAW, provoke an AoO.

The action does not provoke. Period.

I prefer to compare this to other circumstances when you reach into an opponent's square:

Attack with melee weapon: AoO No
Attack with unarmed strike: AoO yes
Bull Rush: AoO Yes
Sunder a weapon: AoO Yes
Sunder an attended object: AoO Yes
Sunder an unattended object: AoO No (But did any designer think this would be in an opponent's square?)
Delver Coup de Grace: AoO Yes

First off, all of these are attacks. The touch spell case is not an attack.

Secondly, all of them are attacks that only provoke against the targeted creature with the exception of Bull Rush. This means that none of these (except Bull Rush) can be considered due to "performing a distracting action"

RAW clearly states that certain attack actions cause AoOs.

It also clearly states that certain move actions cause AoOs due to "performing a distracting action".

The touch action is not a move action. It is not an attack action. The closest thing we have for it (in core rules) is a free action. Free actions (generally) do not provoke.

It seems to me that, generally, reaching into your opponent's square draws an AoO unless you are directly threatening them with a weapon (even indirectly like sunder or disarm is not good enough to avoid an AoO).

The problem with your position here is that you are adding a brand new component to the game called "reaching into your opponent's square".

You haven't illustrated that any of the Special Attacks provoke for reaching into the opponent's square, but you are assuming that this is the reason.

You are not comparing the touch action with similar actions, you are comparing it to dissimilar actions and claiming they are similar.

But, they are attacks. They only provoke to the target.

Touching is not an attack. You are also giving a non-target an AoO and that only occurs in the game for "performing a distracting action" and touching is also not a move action that can do that, but you have yet to illustrate in any way that it is distracting to the character performing it.

If you had a non-attack non-move action that provoked for "reaching in", your position might have some validity.

However, you are adding brand new rules based on a brand new concept (reaching in) that is not listed anywhere in RAW.

On the other hand, free actions, actions part of other actions, and AoOs due to "performing a distracting action" are part of RAW.

 

[Artoomis]

...The problem with your position here is that you are adding a brand new component to the game called "reaching into your opponent's square".

Indeed I am - because it's not addressed in the rules as they exist today, but it's a viable option.

You haven't illustrated that any of the Special Attacks provoke for reaching into the opponent's square, but you are assuming that this is the reason.

You are not comparing the touch action with similar actions, you are comparing it to dissimilar actions and claiming they are similar.

You are slightly off the mark here. I simply stated that these are the actions that I view as most similar to reaching into a opponent's square. Each of them does indeed involve reaching into the opponent’s square in one form or another. No non-attack options seem to have even considered the possibility, so it's something new.

But, they are attacks. They only provoke to the target.

I think I earlier stated that only the opponent gets an AoO. My way of looking at it is analogous to those actions, even though they are attacks and this is not.

Touching is not an attack. You are also giving a non-target an AoO and that only occurs in the game for "performing a distracting action" and touching is also not a move action that can do that, but you have yet to illustrate in any way that it is distracting to the character performing it.

How is bending down to reach into your opponent's square not distracting? You are taking your attention OFF of your opponent at least long enough to focus on, in this case, delivering the touch, not your opponent. This one seemed too obvious to even discuss.

If you had a non-attack non-move action that provoked for "reaching in", your position might have some validity.

Such an action remains undefined - which is why a DM has to exercise best judgment here without too much to go on, really.

However, you are adding brand new rules based on a brand new concept (reaching in) that is not listed anywhere in RAW.

As I stated: Indeed I am - because it's not addressed in the rules as they exist today, but it's a viable option.

On the other hand, free actions, actions part of other actions, and AoOs due to "performing a distracting action" are part of RAW.

This, however, is not a "free action." It's an oddball thing that seems in some ways to not really count as its own action, but, clearly, it does involve some activity, if not an "action."

In any case, you are certainly free to draw your own logical conclusion, as you have. My reasoning is very different from yours, so I end up with a different conclusion.

My advice to anyone who is reading this it so pick the best of both arguments and make their own decisions.