Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Wrathamon]

I dont see how you can get aoo on summoned creatures from an ally when Aoo say that only enemies can be targeted for AoO

When the creature is summoned, it is an ally... you dont AoO your cleric when he runs by... so why would you get to do tha to the allys that were just summoned?

The guidelines for enemies and allys are there for a reason.

seems like you are making up rules on who an enemy is and who an ally is.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I dont see how you can get aoo on summoned creatures from an ally when Aoo say that only enemies can be targeted for AoO

When the creature is summoned, it is an ally... you dont AoO your cleric when he runs by... so why would you get to do tha to the allys that were just summoned?

The guidelines for enemies and allys are there for a reason.

seems like you are making up rules on who an enemy is and who an ally is.

Nope, sorry...that's the fine print. AoO rules only talk about combatants, not enemies and allies. If your fighter would want to, he could hit the cleric running by with an AoO and stay fully within the rules.

Edit: I apologize, they DO spell it out. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity from you. PHB 3.0, p. 122, under Threatened Area entry. Looks like the whole problem is solved. Damn, I really need new glasses.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nope, sorry...that's the fine print. AoO rules only talk about combatants, not enemies and allies. If your fighter would want to, he could hit the cleric running by with an AoO and stay fully within the rules.

Edit: I apologize, they DO spell it out. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity from you. PHB 3.0, p. 122, under Threatened Area entry. Looks like the whole problem is solved. Damn, I really need new glasses.

The rules are not actually as clear cut as that:


"They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent."


"Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it."


"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you."


"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."


"Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents."


"First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender."


"You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm."


The list goes on and on and on.

 

[KarinsDad]

I dont see how you can get aoo on summoned creatures from an ally when Aoo say that only enemies can be targeted for AoO

When the creature is summoned, it is an ally... you dont AoO your cleric when he runs by... so why would you get to do tha to the allys that were just summoned?

The guidelines for enemies and allys are there for a reason.

seems like you are making up rules on who an enemy is and who an ally is.

See my previous post.

There are boatloads of rules that state that an opponent can be AoOed. An opponent is anyone you feel like attacking, not just "enemies".

 

[Abraxas]

Uhm, excuse me, but how is it any argument to bury one the one example we are talking about under a heap of other examples, some of which could be easily identified as evil as the present discussion topic, and then claiming "If all those aren't evil, the last one isn't either!"? Especially as you're talking about the games you played in. That is nice and good if we were discussing about the games you played in...but we're not. We're talking about the morality of a certain situation from the point of view of the D&D core rules.
I'm sorry, but so far there haven't been any helpful arguments towards that topic, only a heap of examples that are not really comparable to the situation discussed, and a claim without arguments.

I'm glad you are able to sum up your arguments so succinctly.

The examples illustrated the willingness of the summoned creatures to do whatever was necessary. The point is, in the D&D game, this particular use of summoned creatures is neither good nor evil. It only becomes good or evil based on the framework of your individual game. In your games, with your games framework it could be evil (don't know, don't know what kind of game you play in) In my games and my games framework it is not evil - by the very same rules you quoted.

Merely quoting the text on alignments from the PHB isn't a valid argument. That text has to be looked at in the context of the game each group is playing. Otherwise you end up with a lot of odd situations in which paladins lose their paladin status because they are willfully commiting what that text says is an evil act.

I'm not out to "prevent" any abuse, I'm just stating my opinion on what the tactic described can do to a character's alignment. That's no bandwagon, that's a DM's train of thought...I don't have to jump it, I'm sitting at the controls.

Never said you would do anything to prevent the "abuse". Just pointing out those who have said they would, have said they would use alignment to prevent "abuse".

And I'm not trying to use alignment to prevent the AoO+Cleave combo from being used...I'm only stating that the maneuver of heedlessly attacking an ally with the intent to kill him to gain a personal advantage is, in most cases, an evil act, at least in my opinion derived from the core rules.

And I've said that in this particular case it is not an evil act in my opinion derived from those same rules.

I've also stated more than once that I'd allow that maneuver, and that there are a lot of situations in which that act might be considered not evil. See above for my point on the relevance of intentions on the alignment consequences of actions.

Unfortunately your "see above" post came after my response to your earlier post - so you really can't expect me to see the future and know what you are going to say at 4:21 when I posted at 4:11.

good gaming to ya

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Please, we're not heading into another argument about what constitutes an enemy in D&D rules speak?

The rules are not actually as clear cut as that:


"They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent."

"They" must enter to attack. Which makes them enemies of the attacked "opponent", who by then is entitled to an AoO.

"Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it."

"You" want to attack the reach creature, which makes you it's enemy, so it is entitled to an AoO against you.

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you."

Which only means that somebody who would provoke an AoO from you (which means he's your enemy) can't be hit by it because you can't reach him due to cover.

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."

So an enemy provoked an AoO, but you can't attack him because of his total concealment.

"Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents."

Yeah, so you qualify as an enemy to those around you who want to stop you Coup de grace-ing your victim, and as such provoke an AoO from them.

"First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender."

Means that you are an enemy to those who oppose you (your opponents), and who hence get an AoO on you in that situation.

"You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm."

Probably because you qualify as the target's enemy when you have to forcefully strike it's weapon to disarm it?

The list goes on and on and on.

Yeah, probably, but in every quote we have either "enemy" or "opponent", both words that describe those in a combat who are fighting against you...so where's the problem right now?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'm glad you are able to sum up your arguments so succinctly.

Okay, cheap shot calls for cheap shot...my apologies

The examples illustrated the willingness of the summoned creatures to do whatever was necessary. The point is, in the D&D game, this particular use of summoned creatures is neither good nor evil. It only becomes good or evil based on the framework of your individual game. In your games, with your games framework it could be evil (don't know, don't know what kind of game you play in) In my games and my games framework it is not evil - by the very same rules you quoted.

It can't depend on the framework of the individual game, as D&D is working on a pretty absolute blanket morality, which is defined by the meager scraps of information they give in the PHB. If you are not taking Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds into account, which I both don't have, and which both aren't core material, as far as I recall. The problem with "this particular use of summoned creatures" is that this is not detailed enough on the situation itself, the intentions and motivations of either wizard nor fighter, to enable someone to adequately point out an alignment direction.

Merely quoting the text on alignments from the PHB isn't a valid argument. That text has to be looked at in the context of the game each group is playing. Otherwise you end up with a lot of odd situations in which paladins lose their paladin status because they are willfully commiting what that text says is an evil act.

Uhm, yes? That exactly is what apparently makes a D&D paladin a damn hard class to play? The fact that the frame for good behaviour is given in the alignment section, and that the finer details have to be worked out first before the game starts...ideally. The alignment rules luckily provide enough leeway for some interpretation, which is exactly what we're doing here, right?

And I've said that in this particular case it is not an evil act in my opinion derived from those same rules.

Okay...so somebody who has no qualms about cutting down an ally to gain a personal advantage in combat is not commiting an evil act? I'd like to pester you for either an explanation of that opinion, if you have the patience to explain, or better give me the details in that situation about why it is no evil act.

For my own part:
The fighter in question has no problems simply cutting down and killing an ally with one blow without any provocation, because it is convenient to do so to gain a personal advantage against his opponent.
According to the rules, that's the action of an evil character.
Mitigating facts?
- Has the wizard told him that those creatures are his allies, or does he percieve them as annoying disturbance in his fight, or even a threat conjured up by his opponents? Easily solved by noting that none of them attack him or disturb his fighting.
- Does the fighter know those creatures will be resurrected 24 hours after they were killed? He may, if either the wizard told him (if HE knows that), or if he himself has some Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledg (Planes) skills. Even if, he still has no problems slaughtering an ally, even if the damage is undone later. Neutral at best, as this shows a callous demeanor towards causing pain and ending a life as soon as it offers a slight advantage.
- Was the killing agreed upon by the slain creatures? If yes, we're dealing with a different set of dice, because then ALL parties were in agreement on the maneuver, and it can be seen as a self-sacrifice, which was willingly given and properly used. A little prayer of thanks and a symbolic apology after the victory would still be "good behaviour" in my opinion, but that's each to his own.

Unfortunately your "see above" post came after my response to your earlier post - so you really can't expect me to see the future and know what you are going to say at 4:21 when I posted at 4:11.

good gaming to ya

Damn, and here I thought I found somebody who'd be able to help me win the lottery

Good gaming right back at you

 

[Storyteller01]

Fisrt of all...

HOLD IT!

Next, READ THE FIRST MESSAGE ON THIS THREAD, NOW!

Third, as the originator of this thread, I hold myself responsible for anything said by and to other members of this site while in this thread. If I see any further insults; backhanded, thinly veiled or otherwise...

YOU WILL BE REPORTED!!!

No questions asked, no quarter given...

I hope you do the same for me as well.


*ahem* Now back to the dicussion.

I have placed a challenge to the members of this thread. Specifically, it was to explain an example to which killing an ally justifies gaining an extra attack against an enemy. Please keep away from the RAW as much as possible. Simply describe the event.

To date, I have received examples of 'they were my enemy previously, and I took them both out', 'my buddy was dying, and he said take the shot', and 'it is in the game world'. The last I will have to assume is another intrepretation of "It's in the rules", as no one has yet given specific examples of a DM stating ahead of time that attacking summoned creatures for this tactic is legal,or of players making comntracts with the summoned creatures (or their bosses) ahead of time. It may be implied in specific campaigns, but unless the DM clears such actions ahead of time, I'd say the matter definitely merits a discussion.

For one last time, I will place this challenge to you, the members of this site:

Please describe an event, real time or otherwise, where intentiaonally striking and killing, with the intent to 'abstarcly' droppingthe hp to 0 or less, justifies gaining an extra attack on an enemy. Please stay away from using the RAW, or using game mechanics (there is a cleric available) to justify the situation.

EDIT: also justify how this allows an attack out of turn (not one you have already lined up), if possile (I know, I asked you not to use the RAW. We'll deal with it as best we can).

Please use an example that can be used in multiple situations. The previous examples are good, but limited to specific circumstances. These circumstances do not apply to summoned crearures (most summoned creatures have no direct history to the players, and summoned creatures are at full hit points. They have not been injured, and have no immediate fear of dying).

PS: Claiming that the fighter is a ranger who's hated enemy is outsiders/elementals/fey or any other variant of summoned creature ies 1) a very specific situation and 2) uses the RAW almost entirely to explain itself.

I ask this because (and I'm sure I'll see some rebuttal for this, but...)if it cannot be explained outside the rules, then isn't it just a manipulation of said rules?

Please note: the same challenge has already been placed to me. Specifically, to give an example when striking an enemy justifes striking another enemy with an extra attack. I have done this, well enough in fact that variations of my arguement have been given as examples to my own stated challenge. And the example I gave can be used in nearly every combat situation (two handed swords are not manditory. All you need is a sharp edge).

If I can do what was asked of me without debasement, twisting of the original intent of the challenge, or claiming that it does not apply to the argument, then I ask that you be able to as well.

(no insults or finger pointing had been intended. sorry if you see it.)

 

[Abraxas]

Mad psycho has finger on trigger of an atomic bomb and you are in a crowded city.
Your buddy is standing between you and mad psycho.
You have a pistol in your hand.
You can choose to try to move your buddy and get a clear shot, but mad psycho can probably react faster.
You shoot through your buddy and kill mad psycho.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I have placed a challenge to the members of this thread. Specifically, it was to explain an example to which killing an ally justifies gaining an extra attack against an enemy. Please kee away from the RAW as much as possible. Simply describe the event.

A battle rages, on the brink of being lost against the enemy. The figher is already bracing himself for the unavoidable counterattack when he spots a chance. The apprentice of the group's "locksmith", as he calls himself all the time, is sneaking up on the main enemy from the side, yet unnoticed, with a simple dagger in his hand. Fully aware that the young boy doesn't stand a chance of penetrating the enemy's armor, the figher uses this chance at distraction, slashing at the boy with all his might, sending him reeling back in a bloodied heap. The enemy, taken by surprise from such a cold and decisive blow against an ally (especially if we talk "bad" enemy and more or less "good" heroes here), doesn't notice that the swing's arc that started at the boy's abdomen will finish at this neck.

You mean something like this?