Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Vraille Darkfang]

Why, with his intimate knowledge of Spellcr ... Oh..

Or maybe he notices the similarity to what the Cleric casts on his d10+Con rear 40-50 times a week?

I mean by 5th or 6th level any party with a Cleric ought to have a chance to notice that its a Cure Light Wounds Spell headed their way. After all they've probablly had it cast on themselves a hundred times. And seen it cast on others hunderds more.

But I don't think the RAW even has an OPTION for an experienced spellcaster to realize its a harmless spell headed their way.

 

[dcollins]

That's why I defined Cure Light Wounds as a touch spell, and Cure Light Wounds used on an opponent as a touch attack spell.

But it's not an attack. From Glossary:

attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The result of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

 

[reedu21]

My opinion (I'm in the same game with Telas, btw), is that all combat in D&D is abstract. AoOs are provoked by creatures that divert their attention from a threat. If the creature is threatening as well, it can keep its enemies at bay enough to not provoke the AoO for minor diversions of attention.

The assumption is that combatants are constantly trying to hit each other, not swinging their weapon, then waiting six seconds to swing again. Therefore, if the cleric reaches into the occupied space without any way to threaten the warrior, and taking his attention away from the big axe being swung at him long enough to touch his unconscious ally, he might get smacked (or he might dodge, or take it off his armor, etc).

If he had a spell that could hurt the warrior, he could make threatening gestures towards him and force him to be wary enough that his swings don't have a chance to connect more often than normal.

The spellcaster knows what spell he cast and that it won't do any good to touch the defending warrior with it, therefore he will need to act differently in combat. If he wants to try to pretend that he's threatening the warrior, then let him make a Bluff vs Sense Motive+BAB, a feint, because that's what he'd be doing.

Based on Improved Unarmed Strike, it's gotta be in how the attacker carries himself. Without the feat, the defender gets an AoO, with it he doesn't. Does he have to know, "this guy doesn't have the feat, I get to swing again!"

Well, that's enough rambling for now, but that is my reasoning for arguing that an AoO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But I don't think the RAW even has an OPTION for an experienced spellcaster to realize its a harmless spell headed their way.

Yeah, they do. It's called the Spellcraft skill.

 

[FEADIN]

By the RaW no AoO because it's a touch spell as said earlier but I see the point, the cleric has to bow near the ground to touch his ally, maybe like picking up a fallen object, action which provoques AoO

 

[Artoomis]

My position is that the rules don't cover this situation. This is a DM judgement call.

I think the DM needs to decide what is this MOST LIKE?

Is reaching into your opponent's square for a non-combat, non-threatening action more like actions that draw an AoO or actions that do not?

My opinion? It draws an AoO, but, again, that's strictly a judgement call based on the apparent intent of the AoO rules.

P.S. I do agree using a single touch spell on an ally does not draw an AoO. However, I also think that true question here is:

"Does reaching into your opponent's square for a non-combat, non-threatening action provoke an attack of opportunity?"

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Yeah, they do. It's called the Spellcraft skill.

Yes, they can KNOW what spell the Cleric is casting, Cure Light Wounds.

But, does that amount to anything?

The RAW says Touch spells are Unarmed 'Armed' Strikes, though the reasoning is behind it is that "A Touch Spell Presents A Credible Threat". No mention is made of Touch Spells as "Uncredible Threats".

So, say you are out of weapons, the Big, Bad Evil Cleric (Spellcraft +25) approaches you to Bash your Head in. Desperate, you cast Cure Light Wounds & now (by the RAW) you are now armed & He HAS TO TREAT YOU THIS WAY. He has to act like that you know have a dagger in your hand in terms of Combat Scenerios.

That's just silly.

Or is this dealt with elsewhere? I remeber no Mention of it under the Spellcraft Skill or in The Magic Section.

The RAW seems to indicate ALL Touch Spells are Credible Threats, even if the foes obviously knows it isn't.

 

[Infiniti2000]

the cleric has to bow near the ground to touch his ally, maybe like picking up a fallen object, action which provoques AoO

Why does he need to reach down to touch him? Why not touch him with his boot?

 

[reedu21]

Why does he need to reach down to touch him? Why not touch him with his boot?

The detail really doesn't matter. He still has to turn his attention away from the weapon coming at him to look down and make sure his boot touches his intended target for the spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The detail really doesn't matter. He still has to turn his attention away from the weapon coming at him to look down and make sure his boot touches his intended target for the spell.

No, I think it does matter. People are arguing in favor of the AoO specifically because "the cleric has to bow near the ground to touch his ally" and similar statements. They are equating it to picking up an item and that's pure flavor. However, I'm not infallible so maybe I missed a rule that states you have to use touch spells with a hand and not your boot, or butt. If so, I stand corrected, but I don't think there is a rule.