Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Artoomis]

BTW, I think there are basically two things that can happen when you reach into an opponent's square:

1. You do an action that clearly does not provoke an AoO, so no AoO from anyone (like making a melee attack, or using Improved Disarm).
2. You do an action that is not on the AoO table, in which case I'd say the general rule is you provoke an AoO, but only from that one opponent.

I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where the action would be clearly "no" on the AoO table but would grant an opponent an AoO if you reached into theat his square to do it, but that would be number three on the above list.

Also, of course, if you do an action that is already on the AoO table as a "yes" then it still provokes an AoO as normal (well, duh... right?).

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Actually, it is explicitly addressed. It's addressed by the "not an action" rules.

From PHB:

PHB pg 139: "Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else. For instance, using the Use Magic Device skill (page 85) while trying to activate a device is not an action, it is part of the standard action to activate a magic item."

In fact, Rules of the Game talks about touch spells:

If you cast a spell with a range of touch, you can touch one recipient as a nonaction that's part of the action you used to cast the spell.

Nonactions (or no actions) such as 5 foot step, concentrate to cast defensively, make an opposed strength check as the target of a special attack, delay, touch with a touch spell, etc. are always no AoO.

From Rules of the Game:

Nonaction: A nonaction is an activity that effectively takes no time at all (as opposed to a free action, which takes an insignificant amount of time), but it nevertheless involves some effort on your part. Often, a nonaction is something that you do as part of another action, such as making a Use Magic Device skill check while trying to activate a magic wand. Activating the wand is a standard action and making the check is not an action at all. Some activities that are described in the rules as free actions are actually nonactions; one example is trying to establish a hold on a foe after a successful grab in a grapple attack. (Readers may remember the entry for "Not an Action" on page 139 of the Player's Handbook.)

A 5-foot step is a nonaction you can use to move a short distance when you don't otherwise move during your turn; see Rules of the Game: All About Movement.

Many nonactions are things you can do when it's not your turn, such as making opposed checks to avoid being disarmed or tripped or making an attack of opportunity."

The PHB also talks about touch spells:

PHB pg 140: To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round, or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touching is a "no action" which is part of casting the spell. Just like avoiding an Overrun is a "no action" or the target making an opposed Grapple check (the attacker is doing a free action, the defender is doing a no action).

Another SRD example of touch spells where touching is part of casting the spell and a no action:

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. 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.

You are adding a brand new rule about "reaching in" which is not covered under touch spells or anywhere else in the rules.

Touch spells are no AoO because the touch portion of that is a "no action" action as part of casting the spell.

Reaching in is irrelevant, just like reaching in to close a door would be irrelevant. The action itself does not provoke an AoO in a threatened square, regardless of circumstances.

According to RAW.

 

[beepeearr]

SRD: 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.

Not every situation is covered in the PHB table, they even say so in the description of AoO, it is not an all inclusive list so don't treat it as one. There will be instances where an action is not listed on it, so use the spirit of the rule, and the spirit of the rule is performing a distracting action while threatened provokes an attack of opportunity. I agree that delivering the touch spell does not provoke, however ignoring your opponent to deliver the touch spell on an ally he is standing over should. I would treat this and similar activities as entering your opponents square, but without leaving your own (important distinction as both of these actions would provoke separate attacks of opportunity, that a character with Combat Reflexes could whack you twice for).

The whole cat and ogre example doesn't work, and if the cat wasn't an ally he would have proved an attack of opportunity from the ogre.

 

[Artoomis]

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

Absolutely not. The text in question is only there to let you know you do not "lose the charge" by missing an attack roll.

Here's the rule, re-phrased:

When you use a spell with "range touch" you first cast the spell and then touch your target. If you do not touch your target in the same round, you are "holding the charge" until such time as you touch your target or accidently touch anything else, in which case the spell is discharged.

Is that any better?

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, it is explicitly addressed. It's addressed by the "not an action" rules...

Again, I disagree. This particular situation of reaching into an opponent's square for some purpose other than fighting them in some way is simply not covered by the rules.

My logic suggests that it does not matter what type of action you are doing, even "not an action."

The situation of reaching into an opponent's square for an action not related to fighting that opponent in some way is not covered in the rules.

This is the heart of my position - that is does not matter what the action is, you may not reach into your opponent's square without provoking an AoO unless it's some form of attack, in which case the AoO rule is already defined.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree that delivering the touch spell does not provoke,

Great. Next topic!

however ignoring your opponent to deliver the touch spell on an ally he is standing over should.

Should, would, could, ...

Where in the rules does it state that you are ignoring an opponent?

Admit it, you made this part up.

I would treat this and similar activities as entering your opponents square, but without leaving your own (important distinction as both of these actions would provoke separate attacks of opportunity, that a character with Combat Reflexes could whack you twice for).

None of the special attacks indicate that the target gets an Attack of Opportunity for you entering their square except Bull Rush and Overrun where you are actually attempting to enter the square. In fact, you are NOT entering the square at all with this action.

This is an assumption as to why those rules give AoOs and have nothing to do with RAW.

Also, none of the special attacks (except Bull Rush) give the Attack of Opportunity to anyone other than the target of the attack (and even with Bull Rush, you are attempting to enter the square).

You are also not attacking the character in the square with this action, so why exactly should he get an AoO if you are not attacking him?


You are not entering his square.

You are not attacking him.

You are not doing an action that provokes.


Why exactly again should he get an AoO? That's the confusing part of the pro-AoO side. Nobody has yet explained via the rules why this happens. They explained why they want it to happen, but not why it happens via the rules.

 

[nogray]

Attack an Object

Personally, I think the core of this has nothing to do with touch spells. My thoughts on this center on the "Attack an Object" options. By my way of thinking, attacking an object is far closer to touching a helpless person than either picking up an object or opening a door. This is especially true to me in that "attack" could very well mean "attack with a touch spell." Further, these attack options differentiate between objects "held, carried, or worn" and objects that are not. Clearly (to me), attacking a worn object with a touch attack spell would provoke an attack of opportunity even though attacking the wearer directly would not. It is also clear that attacking a definitively unattended object would result in no attack of opportunity.

It appears to me that what the fighter in the original scenario was trying to do was to treat the fallen opponent as a "held, carried, or worn" object and extend the level of protection from interference afforded to those objects to his foe. The only thing that I am uncertain about in this situation is whether the 5' adjust into the square of the unconscious opponent constitutes enough effort to consider the opponent attended (in the sense that an object that is held, carried, or worn is an "attended" object). If the fighter had spent an action (I'd lean towards at least a move action), I'd be inclined to say that he could treat the foe as a "held, carried, or worn" object, but as this is not the case, I would be much less comfortable in doing so.

(Going into "Over-thinking Way Too Much" Mode):
As noted many times, the actions in combat are abstractions, particularly the splitting of actions into discreet rounds. It could be conceivable that the fighter (at the end of a full attack sequence, presumably) just barely manages to move into place at the same time that the cleric (who is also completing his round of actions) completes the delivery of the touch spell. This argues against an attack of opportunity. If the fighter had spent a move action, this would definitely (to me) not be the case, and I would be inclined to let the attack of opportunity happen.
(Exiting OWTM Mode)

My conclusion is this: simply occupying the same space as an object (or a helpless character, for that matter) is not sufficient to treat the object as "held, carried, or worn" for the purposes of attacks of opportunity. Spending some sort of action (at least a move action) might be enough to do so. Actually picking up the object (or opponent) would definitely protect it from such interferences.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, I disagree. This particular situation of reaching into an opponent's square for some purpose other than fighting them in some way is simply not covered by the rules.

My logic suggests that it does not matter what type of action you are doing, even "not an action."

The situation of reaching into an opponent's square for an action not related to fighting that opponent in some way is not covered in the rules.

Irrelevant to RAW.

"No actions" do not provoke.

It matters not how or when you do them, they do not provoke in threatened areas.

Just like a normal attack never provokes in threatened areas.

Period.


Your "reaching in" concept is a house rule.

"Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet."

"You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll." This does not state that you have to enter your friend's square to do so.

I can reach in and close a door. No provoke.

I can reach in and drop an item. No provoke.

I can reach in and touch an ally. No provoke.

Creatures have reach and none of these actions provoke in a threatened area. Hence, reaching into an opponent's square and doing them still does not provoke. According to the rules.

Whether the creature's reach threatens the opponent is irrelevant to conversation. If he can reach to the square, he can do things there. Some of those things provoke. Some do not. The rules cover which ones provoke.


I cannot reach in and touch attack an opponent (without Unarmed Strike or a touch attack spell) because the rules explicitly disallow this. Provoke.


You are really stretching here. The rules cover it, you just appear to be in denial.

 

[Artoomis]

Irrelevant to RAW.

"No actions" do not provoke.

It matters not how or when you do them, they do not provoke in threatened areas.

Just like a normal attack never provokes in threatened areas.

Period.


Your "reaching in" concept is a house rule...

No, it's a judgement call based on a situation not covered in the rules. You are trying to shoehorn this into some existing rule, but it simply does not fit.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinon, but I maintain that this situation simply was not considered in the rules and requires a judgement call based upion all the rules surrounding AoOs.

 

[Fieari]

By the RAW, it does not provoke an AoO, since the RAW doesn't set this situation aside seperately from simply casting a touch spell on an unconscious ally. The RAW doesn't generally consider those cases in which two creatures occupy the same square, and not much text is devoted to it.

As such, I feel that when dealing with situations involving two creatures occupying the same square, house rules are in order. I won't claim it's the RAW, but I feel the RAW is inadequate here. I will, on the other hand, use precedent set up by such things as unarmed attacks, grappling, etc, in order to make my house rule. So in my games, trying this would provoke. But it'd be a house rule.