Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[FEADIN]

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

Good point I didn't thinked of
I would say no AoO but roll a to hit because you don't want to be striked by the warrior, you roll vs his touch ac with a +4 from prone, an ac with -5 from 0 dext.

 

[reedu21]

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.

I guess I'm saying that I think that part of their argument is irrelevant. If the body is laying on a table and the warrior is standing on the table, so the cleric just has to reach out and touch his ally, but into the space controlled by the warrior, he has to divert his attention from the warrior enough that the warrior might hit him, because he has no fear of the non-threatening cleric.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

but into the space controlled by the warrior, he has to divert his attention from the warrior enough that the warrior might hit him, because he has no fear of the non-threatening cleric.

... So what if the cleric's got a mace in his other hand?

What if the cleric is touching his ally standing right next to the fighter?

What if the cleric is touching his active, tiny-sized petal friend who is currently attacking the fighter?

 

[Svisionguy]

Only if the fighter has Spellcraft...

Bye
Thanee

and knowledge religion...lol

 

[reedu21]

... So what if the cleric's got a mace in his other hand?

He's not properly wielding it if he's going to touch his ally with the spell, though I'd allow the feint as I describe above to make the warrior think he was threatening to attack.

What if the cleric is touching his ally standing right next to the fighter?

If the ally is in a threatened square, but not a controlled square then no AoO, the rules are clear.

What if the cleric is touching his active, tiny-sized petal friend who is currently attacking the fighter?

This is the hardest question, because here, the ally can help with the touch, so it is slightly less distracting to the cleric. For consistency, I'd probably still say any non-threatening reach into controlled space provokes an AoO, but I'm not completely convinced on this one.

 

[Nail]

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.

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

 

[Kugar]

Would the conversation change if we consider the dying body an "object" for combat purposes, but still a creature for spell targeting?

I see requiring a touch attack: Prone, 0 Dex, Cover. If the attack misses because of cover it hits the fighter (unless the touch attack does not hit the fighter's touch AC, at which point the fighter would not provide cover)

Kugar

 

[Thanee]

...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.

Now you're making up things.

The cleric is, of course, free to act in any way he likes. He can provoke AoOs from you like no tomorrow and laugh about your puny healing spell.

Only thing is, that he does not get an AoO, if you touch him, or anyone else for that matter, with the cure spell... big deal!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

He's not properly wielding it if he's going to touch his ally with the spell, though I'd allow the feint as I describe above to make the warrior think he was threatening to attack.

The fighter is standing over the ally, and has readied an action to attack anyone who tries to touch the ally.

The cleric, who is wielding a mace in his right hand, casts Cure Light Wounds and moves up, attempting to touch the ally.

According to you, this should provoke an AoO, because "[the cleric] has to divert his attention from the warrior enough that the warrior might hit him, because he has no fear of the non-threatening cleric."

The fighter, for whatever reason, decides to Trip the cleric with his readied attack (which is resolved first). The fighter doesn't have Improved Trip.

Does the cleric get an AoO?

Then, on the AoO which the fighter, according to you, should get, he decides to try a Disarm. The fighter doesn't have Improved Disarm.

Does the cleric get an AoO?

 

[dcollins]

Sometimes you guys really crack me up. How one can decide that casting cure light wounds counts as an attack spell with no AOO is beyond me. At least 3 separate pieces of evidence in RAW say otherwise:

(1) By the glossary definition, cure light wounds is not an "attack" --> so it's not a "touch attack" --> so it's not a "touch attack spell".
(2) In this case, we even have designer intent rationale provided in the text for a no-AOO situation. It's because a touch attack spell "provides you with a credible threat". There is no credible threat from cure light wounds --> so again it's not a "touch attack spell".
(3) The Table: Actions in Combat actually says "Use touch spell on a friend: Yes" to AOO.

And yet somehow the concensus here looks like "RAW says cure light wounds on a friend is an attack spell with no AOO". Maybe I'm cranky today, but it's like I'm seeing a mass hallucination.