Is this an Attack of Opportunity?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

(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".

It doesn't have to be.

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. 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.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Note: "Touch spells," not "Touch attack spells."

Cure Light Wounds is a touch spell. Accordingly, they follow the rules for Touch Spells in Combat, which doesn't say anything about provoking AoOs.

If we were touching an opponent with a touch spell - regardless of what that spell is - it is considered to be an armed attack, and therefore does not provoke an AoO.

This also debunks your 2nd point, because whether or not it is an attack isn't relevant, since the rules on touch spells as attacks only apply to touch spells directed against opponents.

(3) The Table: Actions in Combat actually says "Use touch spell on a friend: Yes" to AOO.

No, it doesn't. Maybe it does in 3.0, but it certainly doesn't say that in the 3.5 SRD.

In the 3.5 SRD, it says:

Use touch spell on up to six friends Yes

As a full-round action you can use a touch spell on up to 6 friends. Doing so provokes an AoO.

Unless you are arguing that a single application of CLW requires a full-round action to accomplish (and therefore two rounds, barring metamagic), then this line does not apply.

And yet somehow the concensus here looks like "RAW says cure light wounds on a friend is an attack spell with no AOO".

No, it's "RAW says CLW on a friend is a touch spell with no AoO." Whether or not it is an attack is irrelevant.

 

[reedu21]

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?

That is a whole other issue. The same situation would arise with a readied action to strike anyone attempting to touch someone next to you.

Warrior1 and Warrior2 are fighting each other. Warrior2 is staggered and about to drop. Not wanting to kill him, Warrior1 readies to attack anyone attempting to heal him. Warrior2's friend, Cleric who is wielding a mace, cast CLW and moves adjacent to Warrior2. Warrior1's readied action triggers and he attacks Cleric, taking a 5' step if necessary. Warrior1 decides to grapple Cleric to keep him from touching his friend. Does that provoke an AoO that Cleric can take?

I think it is ambiguous, and another good question, but an entirely separate issue from the one raised in this thread.

So as not to completely dodge the question, I would say Cleric could take an AoO, but would have to take the penalties for fighting with two weapons (the spell and the mace). The only thing making it ambiguous is that it interrupts Cleric's action.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's not ambiguous, and it's very relevant because, according to you, the reason the cleric provokes is because he isn't properly threatening the fighter who is standing over the ally.

You admit that the cleric can take an AoO if the fighter provokes one.

Ergo, the cleric - even in mid-touch - is still properly threatening the fighter.

 

[reedu21]

It's not ambiguous, and it's very relevant because, according to you, the reason the cleric provokes is because he isn't properly threatening the fighter who is standing over the ally.

You admit that the cleric can take an AoO if the fighter provokes one.

Ergo, the cleric - even in mid-touch - is still properly threatening the fighter.

Alright, you convinced me, the Cleric should not get an AoO because he is not threatening mid-touch. He threatens before and after, but not during because he is busy doing something else. If he wishes to continue threatening then he must make a melee touch attack to touch his ally and take the appropriate two-weapon fighting penalties.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But it's not an attack. From Glossary:

"Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack."

Cure Light Wounds is a touch spell. If you touch an opponent with it, it's an armed attack. If you're unarmed but holding the charge on a CLW, and an opponent provokes an AoO, you are considered armed.

If it's an ally instead of an opponent, you're not armed; it's a touch spell but not a touch attack spell.

The Glossary definition is general. It says that the result of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

Is Magic Missile an attack?

"All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

Magic Missile deals damage. The Magic Overview chapter says it's an attack. Is the Magic Overview chapter wrong? The result of Magic Missile is not determined by an attack roll. Doesn't that mean that the glossary says it isn't an attack? Which is right?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Alright, you convinced me,

Oy. You went entirely the wrong way on that one.

 

[reedu21]

Oy. You went entirely the wrong way on that one.

It's only a subset of the bigger issue anyway. Do you agree that if the cleric doesn't have a weapon out, then the warrior gets an AoO when the cleric reaches into his square?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Do you agree that if the cleric doesn't have a weapon out, then the warrior gets an AoO when the cleric reaches into his square?

Nope.

There's nothing about "reaching into your square" that provokes an AoO. It certainly isn't listed on any AoO? table that I'm aware of.

Certain forms of reaching into someone else's square are listed, and they provoke as indicated. Nothing, however, makes this a general rule.

 

[Artoomis]

Nope.

There's nothing about "reaching into your square" that provokes an AoO. It certainly isn't listed on any AoO? table that I'm aware of.

Certain forms of reaching into someone else's square are listed, and they provoke as indicated. Nothing, however, makes this a general rule.

Correct. But this appears to me to be an oversight. So:

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

I do not think that question is precisely answered by the rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

Is there such a thing? If I am trying to use Diplomacy with an enemy (combat hasn't started), and I try to "reach into their square" no matter what the reason is, do you think the enemy (ie the DM) would allow that? Wouldn't that, by default, be considered a threatening action, or a combat-related action. If the DM says, "Ok, roll init" are you going to say, "But why, I wasn't doing it in a threatening or combatitive manner."