Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2701936" data-attributes="member: 2011">Why? The pro-AoO side keeps stating "should". Not "does". Should is house rules. Does is RAW."Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity."There is not ONE "reaching into your opponents" square action that indicates that the opponent gets an attack of opportunity BECAUSE you are reaching in. Not one.Not Grapple.Not Sunder.Not Disarm.Not Unarmed Attack.Additionally, none of these give an AoO to anyone except the opponent you are targeting.Overrun and Bullrush do indicate that you get the AoO because the opponent is "entering the square".But, a touch spell is not entering. This is not targeting the opponent. It is a "No Action" action part of casting the spell and there is a rule that allows for the character to automatically touch an ally as part of that action. If they wanted to allow AoOs for that, they would have listed it.No rule states that you ever drop your guard or divert your attention from battle when performing a touch spell. Not one rule.There are rules that indicate that you do not (the "No Action" rule and the Touch Attack spell rules).Seriously, your interpretation is house rules area. The rules on when you do not "divert your attention from battle" are pretty explicit. You do not do that when doing a "No action" action. Those are part of other actions. The original action might provoke, but the no action does not.</blockquote>

Verification