Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Coldkilla 06-11-07, 03:50 AM	Opponent threatens you and your ally. You want to draw the AoO so that your ally will not when he stands up or casts a spell or drinks a potion or whatever. But you also don't want to lose the prepared spell or spell slot if you fail to make the Concentration check. So can you simply pretend to cast a spell, i.e. make spellcasting sorts of gestures and mutterings? Do you have to make a Bluff check and the opponent would make a Sense Motive check? Would the opponent maybe get a circumstance penalty if he has no casting ability or Spellcraft skill?
runestar 06-11-07, 04:03 AM	The problem with this is that not only must you provoke an AoO, but the opponent must also follow up by using up his AoO to attack as well. Even if my cleric were to really cast a spell, the spiked-chain wielding fighter may not attack him anyways if he perceives the wizard to be the greater threat. I am not sure how to resolve this...
MakArios 06-11-07, 04:23 AM	IMO the easiest way of doing this would be to cast a cantrip. The idea of Bluff/Sense motive is also good :). Maybe you could even substitute intelligence for charisma with the bluff check, or use spellcraft/spellcraft opposed check... Anyway if I were to allow this, it should take a standard action (like Feinting in combat does), because you want to draw the attention of your opponent and give him the opportunity to attack. Second, to prevent Faked spellcasting + real spell combo ;). Cheers.
Kouk 06-11-07, 06:56 AM	If you are already a spellcaster, maybe some kind of Standard action with a Bluff check. Presumably you know the motions, you are just doing them out of order or something. I guess it would be difficult though - if the opponent in question has already seen you casting spells, and is not trained at all in recognizing spellcasting (Spellcraft) he might be allowed a Sense Motive, but he should probably take a penalty if he has already seen you cast a spell in the past. He would have almost no choice but to assume you are casting another spell. If your opponent has training, he might be able to oppose your Bluff check with a Spellcraft check, or Sense Motive, whichever was higher I would say. Alternatively, you might decide to use Spellcraft in place of Bluff. This would almost guarantee a higher result, most mages don't have Bluff maxxed out. By using your Spellcraft you make the motions look good, which can be opposed by enemies' ability to identify spells being cast with their own Spellcraft check. I guess the DC of recognizing a fake spell should be fairly low though, maybe a level 0, or level 1 spell DC. And worst case, you might decide to make both Bluff and Spellcraft checks but this would slow the game a bit. I would probably go with the Spellcraft checks now that I think about it. Standard action to attempt a "fake" spell. If your opponent has no ranks in Spellcraft, he will assume it is a real spell pretty much automatically. An opposing wizard might be able to realize what you are doing though. Possibly allow a synergy for having 5 ranks in Bluff for the person trying to fake a spell, and a synergy bonus from 5 ranks of Sense Motive for the person attempting to realize you are casting a fake spell. You might set DC for your Spellcraft to mimic specific spells. Maybe the same as it would be for an opponent to identify a spell being cast? Like, if you want to pretend to cast a fireball, it would be 15+3 for instance. The opposed Spellcraft check might have to make the normal ID for a fireball to see it wasn't a fireball but if it was not higher by 5 or so, it is possible he would interpret it as you casting a different spell (and your ruse would still work against him, unless you went out of your way to say "Here comes a normal fireball!").
Nom 06-11-07, 08:00 AM	Note that there are other ways to draw AoOs too. Just rummage in your backpack randomly.
foxtail 06-11-07, 08:25 AM	I would think you'd be able to provoke AoOs "on demand," too, by intentionally lowering your guard to do nothing in particular. A Bluff check would probably be in order against intelligent enemies, though.
runestar 06-11-07, 08:33 AM	There are tons of ways of provoking AoOs. Must it be through casting a spell? You could try leaving your square. Or dropping your weapon as a free action and then picking it up. Or simply falling prone (a free action), then standing up as a move action. They also have the side benefit of still leaving you a standard action to cast a spell if need be. But again - my original question still stands: what guarantee is there that the dm takes you up on your AoO offered?
Ack 06-11-07, 08:42 AM	In my experience, no GM ever turns down an AoO when offered. How to provoke it? Punch the opponent, barehanded.
Leilond 06-11-07, 08:47 AM	Try disarming your opponent without using a weapon. You don't risk being disarmed yourself and if you're very lucky you'll end with your opponent weapon in your hands ;)
Kouk 06-11-07, 09:40 AM	One reason for making it a spell specifically, and not just going through your backpack etc is because a spell represents a much bigger threat than any of those other actions. If the NPC was acting intelligently, perhaps planning on using the AoO when a particular PC ran by him, and then he sees a guy drop his sword and go to pick it up, he very well may continue with his current plan and not go for the guy who dropped his weapon. If he is ready to use his AoO on something else, but then the guy next to him starts casting a spell, I can easily see the plan getting scrapped in an attempt to stop whatever spell is being cast. To be sure, this is a very minor distinction, and enemies tend to go for any AoO they are offered - but occasionally it might be useful, or even just for flavor reasons a mage would try to fake a spell rather than risk looking stupid and dropping his staff, or lowering himself to physical combat and taking a swing at the enemy.
runestar 06-11-07, 10:17 AM	or even just for flavor reasons a mage would try to fake a spell rather than risk looking stupid and dropping his staff Well, it need not be that blatant. You could announce that your mage raises his staff to strike the foe, but fumbles and drops it on the ground. He grins sheepishly, and quickly scrambles to pick it up. His opponent chuckles as he sees how defenseless the mage looks, then raises his weapon to take advantage of that opening the mage has given him, in anticipation of easy pickings... Dropping your weapon was simply the first thing which came to mind when I was muling over how to replicate this scenario in game terms...:embarrass
Roivas 06-11-07, 10:23 AM	I'd try to sunder their weapon or start a grapple. You will proke the attack but if he misses you just made sure that enemy won't get to attack your ally since he isn't even threatening them anymore. Also they might have combat reflexes.
Captain Casualty 06-11-07, 10:25 AM	Surely the best win/win way of provoking an AOO is grapple? If he does not resist grapple him and if he does use that AOO. Simple.
Leilond 06-11-07, 10:30 AM	One reason for making it a spell specifically, and not just going through your backpack etc is because a spell represents a much bigger threat than any of those other actions. If the NPC was acting intelligently, perhaps planning on using the AoO when a particular PC ran by him, and then he sees a guy drop his sword and go to pick it up, he very well may continue with his current plan and not go for the guy who dropped his weapon. If he is ready to use his AoO on something else, but then the guy next to him starts casting a spell, I can easily see the plan getting scrapped in an attempt to stop whatever spell is being cast. To be sure, this is a very minor distinction, and enemies tend to go for any AoO they are offered - but occasionally it might be useful, or even just for flavor reasons a mage would try to fake a spell rather than risk looking stupid and dropping his staff, or lowering himself to physical combat and taking a swing at the enemy. If you're looking a RAW answer than you can't If you're looking for an house rule, some of those given are nice. The best "by the RAW" way is casting a low level spell... like a cantrip or a 1st level spell that you recognize isn't the best you have for the situation
Coldkilla 06-11-07, 10:42 AM	Must it be through casting a spell? ... But again - my original question still stands: what guarantee is there that the dm takes you up on your AoO offered? No, it doesn't absolutely have to be a spell, but to paraphrase someone else, it tends to be efficient in grabbing a melee fighter's attention when a spellcaster tries to cast right in front of them. Of course there is no guarantee of the DM taking advantage of the provocation, but unless the opponent is supposed to be extraordinarily clever and he calculates that he'll be sure to get another chance at an AoO this round against a more dangerous/attractive target, he should take the shot with relish and mustard.
calvinNhobbes 06-11-07, 11:05 AM	If you are going to draw an AOO on purpose, I would at least make it worthwhile. Try disarming, tripping or grappling the person. Who knows you might get lucky!
Leilond 06-11-07, 11:06 AM	Consider also that fighter don't understand so much about magic, but they've seen casters using magic, tons of times and this, by the RAW, means you cannot "cast a fake spell" to foulish them. How can we translate it into "logic". We can assume that when you start casting a spell your hand glow, or your eyes becomes totally white or a small particular noise start... and so on. Chose your way to justify the RAW, so that you can play by the rules without feeling "illogical"
wrecan 06-11-07, 11:24 AM	I don't think Bluff is an appropriate use of this. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate The only uses of Bluff that can be done in a standard action or less is Feinting, causing a diversion to Hide and delivering a secret message. So you'd be faking a full round spell. The opponent is less likely to take an AoO against you for this, and instead will use its standard action against you to disrupt your "spell" (assuming the Bluff even works). But were you to do this full round action, you would be provoking an AoO, because using a skill that takes one round is one of the actions that "usually" provokes an AoO. I'd say the spellcaster can even bluff a specific spell (in case the AoO'er has Spellcraft), but incurs a penalty on the Bluff check equal to the level of the spell being mimicked.
mvincent 06-11-07, 12:28 PM	If you're looking a RAW answer than you can'tRAW does not say (or imply) that one cannot pretend to cast a spell during combat.
Ack 06-11-07, 02:26 PM	RAW does not say (or imply) that one cannot pretend to cast a spell during combat. Doesn't say you can, either.
Sildatorak 06-11-07, 02:35 PM	I'd say your best bet is to cast a level 0 spell. Unless the character you're trying to draw the AoO from has spellcraft, she has no way of telling the difference between light and disintegrate other than the effects of the spell, and by that point the AoO will already be taken.
wrecan 06-11-07, 02:41 PM	Doesn't say you can, either. True, but that doesn't make it accurate to say you can't. mvincent wasn't saying the rules expressly allow it.
northern_bear 06-11-07, 02:46 PM	This presents a clear game mechanic vs reality issue. There's lots of stuff you could do according to game mechanics. As a standard action, you could drink a "potion". Of course, it could just be your ale flask or whatever you have on you. Better yet, drop whatever you're carrying. Dropping something is a fee action. Then, as a move action, bend over and pick it up. Picking something up draws an AoO. Then you can still attack this round. I would even think that saying "Hey budy, hit me, go ahead, I dare you" while you lower your weapons and stick your face out, might entitle the bad guy to an AoO. But here's where reality kicks in. That might be a great tactic from the perspective of game mechanics. But is it realistic? No. How is letting yourself get slashed in the face going to help your budy stand up. Realistically it wouldn't. But in game terms it would. As a DM, I would allow movement to qualify as a distraction. That actually draws the opponents attention away, possibly partially moving with your, or turnging his back, to allow your friend to get up. If I felt somebody was doing something for no other reason than to draw an AoO, I might be inclined to consider that a FREE AoO which didn't count against his limit. Not RAW, but probably what I'd do.
mvincent 06-11-07, 03:15 PM	True, but that doesn't make it accurate to say you can't. mvincent wasn't saying the rules expressly allow it.Correct. Since RAW is silent on the issue, the earlier statement of "If you're looking a RAW answer than you can't" is not a truism. Also note: an accepted guideline here is that RAW cannot possibly cover everything that one can (or cannot) do, so certain norms are accepted, and DM calls are expected as part of the 'rules'. It's easy enough to provoke and AoO using other methods (movement, pick something off the ground, etc.), but if you wanted to seem more threatening (or to trigger a readied action), I would typically allow someone (even a non-spellcaster) to seem like they are casting a spell... possibly by rolling their bluff or spellcraft vs. the opponent's sense motive or spellcraft.
wrecan 06-11-07, 03:59 PM	How is letting yourself get slashed in the face going to help your budy stand up. I don't have a problem with that at all. Maurice and Pedro are fighting an Ogre, who overran Pedro to the ground. With his small complement of spells, Maurice has no hope of taking out the ogre alone, and while prone, Pedro is a sitting duck. "Cilantro et sobsiquay mila--!" shouts Maurice, gesturing. He knows the words are gibberish, but they sound enough like a real spell so as to make the ogre -- who suffered a magic missile wound from Maurice just moments before -- think that another magic missile is imminent. The bluff works, and the ogre turns its momentary attention to Maurice. The club comes down hard against his shoulder, interrupting his fake incant. The pain is immense, but he is still standing, and he lost no memorized spells -- he'll need every one. Meanwhile, he spies Pedro, nimbly back-flipping to a standing position and getting into his fighting stance. Maurice smiles though his pain. Too late, the ogre realizes he is flanked. Pedro shoves a knife in a tender spot under the ogre's ribs. "Gotcha," Maurice says, smiling.
Thubby 06-11-07, 04:31 PM	i say you can provoke AoOs on demand, but you dont want your oponent to think your up to something. because mooning him is a kinda obvious distraction. so id call for a bluff check, with bonus synergy from slight of hand vs. his sense motive or spellcraft (if he can identify your spell, and it comes up as wtf...) he might attack you even if he realizes the farce, but he would know.
BigJohn42 06-11-07, 04:41 PM	Opponent threatens you and your ally. You want to draw the AoO so that your ally will not when he stands up or casts a spell or drinks a potion or whatever. But you also don't want to lose the prepared spell or spell slot if you fail to make the Concentration check. So can you simply pretend to cast a spell, i.e. make spellcasting sorts of gestures and mutterings? Do you have to make a Bluff check and the opponent would make a Sense Motive check? Would the opponent maybe get a circumstance penalty if he has no casting ability or Spellcraft skill? Love the strategy idea. Could work particularly well with a couple of battle-mages (who do I attack?). Only problem is that the action should keep the target from getting suspicious (asking for a sense motive check). The trick here is to get the target thinking that the smart move is to hit the melee character. Here's my thoughts on doing it with a melee character and a mage: - Spend a move action to put the melee character into flanking position. This is an obvious tactical action that anyone can see would be of benefit. - Ask the wizard character if he remembers where your potion of super-heroism went, then dig out a flask and drink. This one might require a bluff check. - I really like the disarm/grapple/sunder attempt that was discussed in previous posts. I know some of these take away from the overall concept you had in mind. Acting as the melee character, I'd move into flanking, then attempt to disarm (using the flanking bonus). If neither of those draws an AoO, then the guy really wants to whack-a-mage, and you're not going to be able to chance his mind... Or, if he has Combat Reflexes, you'll find out when he hits you twice.
Factol Rhys 06-11-07, 05:50 PM	He could absolutely intentionally provoke an AoO. You provoke an attack of opportunity whenever you let your guard down. In my opinion, the character might as well put his hands in his pockets and whistle. That'd provoke an attack of opportunity, as well. Thus, the principle of provoking an AoO without doing anything aggressive is sound. This method, faking a spell to cast, is a lot more fun and so I'd allow it and never give it a second thought. I'd say make a Bluff check opposed by Sense Motive to see if you can convince the opponent that you're casting. He doesn't have to take that attack, though. If he doesn't have Combat Reflexes, then he's fully aware that if he commits to attacking you, people might get away with slipping behind his back. It's a completely realistic decision he'd have to make in a real fight.
allenchan 06-11-07, 06:32 PM	Try disarming your opponent without using a weapon. You don't risk being disarmed yourself and if you're very lucky you'll end with your opponent weapon in your hands ;) my favorite so far.
BigJohn42 06-11-07, 07:29 PM	He could absolutely intentionally provoke an AoO. You provoke an attack of opportunity whenever you let your guard down. In my opinion, the character might as well put his hands in his pockets and whistle. That'd provoke an attack of opportunity, as well. Thus, the principle of provoking an AoO without doing anything aggressive is sound. This method, faking a spell to cast, is a lot more fun and so I'd allow it and never give it a second thought. I'd say make a Bluff check opposed by Sense Motive to see if you can convince the opponent that you're casting. He doesn't have to take that attack, though. If he doesn't have Combat Reflexes, then he's fully aware that if he commits to attacking you, people might get away with slipping behind his back. It's a completely realistic decision he'd have to make in a real fight. The trick is to convince the NPC that he needs to take that AoO against the melee character. You've got to make it juicy enough to where he either can't resist, or feels he has no other choice (such as when you're attempting to disarm him). That's why I like the idea of moving through threatened squares, then disarming.
Purkake 06-11-07, 08:03 PM	The best way to do it with less risk to yourself would be taking the Total Defense action and moving to provoke the AoO or dropping your weapon as said before. Enjoy that +4 dodge bonus!
wrecan 06-11-07, 09:37 PM	Except that seems so transparent that few moderately intelligent creatures would take the bait. Now, the disarming seems to be something few people would resist.
Factol Rhys 06-11-07, 09:49 PM	The trick is to convince the NPC that he needs to take that AoO against the melee character. You've got to make it juicy enough to where he either can't resist, or feels he has no other choice (such as when you're attempting to disarm him). It ought to just be a situation where, on a failed Sense Motive check, the DM says, "Okay, he's casting a spell. You can make an Attack of Opportunity if you want." However, since this is an NPC who's doing the attacking, he'll have to make the decision as to whether the NPC would attack if he saw the spellcaster leaving himself open. Same situation. It's just that no spell will come out even if the attacker does nothing.
pmurray@bigpond.com 06-12-07, 12:05 AM	So can you simply pretend to cast a spell, i.e. make spellcasting sorts of gestures and mutterings? I'd say that you could deliberately leave an opening in your defense than an AAO will apply to, and leave it at that. Heck, just move 10' while within the reach of the opponent.
Kouk 06-12-07, 01:04 AM	I'd say that you could deliberately leave an opening in your defense than an AAO will apply to, and leave it at that. Heck, just move 10' while within the reach of the opponent. Sure, but the reason for wanting to do this (fake spellcasting) in the first place, is that casting a spell would be more of a compelling reason to take an AoO, if the enemy would have to choose whether to use it or not. This is assuming you are fighting against relatively intelligent NPCs, and that the DM tries to consider what the NPCs would do against the players rather than whatever is most tactically sound in a given instance (not meta-gaming or acting on more information than that particular NPC should know). If we pretend for a moment that your enemy is a moderately intelligent fighter-type who has been through several battles in his lifetime, he would (subconsciously at least) assign a "danger rating" (for lack of a better term) to each of his opponents. If he has been fighting back and forth with a PC Rogue, and he can tell that that PC is nearly dead (5 HP) and will probably try to make a run past him (provoking an AoO from the NPC fighter) in order to escape, or get to the cleric, that NPC fighter might intend to use his AoO against that Player Character in order to finish him off. If, suddenly, one of the adventurers who had been given a lower "danger rating" or tactical importance, appears to be casting a spell right near to the fighter, that PC will be bumped up in priority as a danger. This could force the NPC to reconsider what he should do with his AoO - he could save it for the nearly-dead Rogue that is trying to get by him, or he can take his AoO against the other character who appears to be casting a spell on him. Usually, if someone is casting a spell on you, it poses an extremely real threat that you would have to take into consideration (in the game :P). The NPC fighter would most likely forget about his original target, and take his AoO against the apparent spellcaster in the interest of self preservation. This is exactly what the spellcaster Player Character intended - thus allowing his injured ally (the Rogue with 5 HP) to make his escape past the NPC while he is no longer able to respond. If instead, the PC attempting to draw the AoO performed some other action, such as dropping his staff and picking it up, or just moving out of a square that the NPC threatened, he would appear to be retreating or else just a moron and much less of a threat. Remember that the NPC wants to save his AoO for the nearly dead Rogue (which presumably has been a thorn in his side) and would not willingly give up a chance to finish the Rogue off. This is an extraordinarily rare occurrence -- most NPCs are not smart enough, or concerned enough to ever NOT take an AoO that is presented to them. BBEG's however, might be crafty enough to plan out every one of their next moves, so a trick like this might be worth trying (in desperation). The theory behind this, is that the NPCs respond to the greatest threat they are presented with. Most of us have probably seen NPCs go straight for obvious spellcasters, or the Rogue who has just done 40 Sneak Attack damage in one hit - ignoring their previous targets in favor of the biggest current threat. Attempting a Grapple, or some other special move might be very effective as well. On the other hand, a small size, scrawny guy wearing just a robe and carrying no real weaponry is not as big of a threat if he tries to wildly grab at you (not likely to succeed on a grapple) as he would be if he was to cast a Finger of Death at you. Also for RP reasons, some characters would prefer to mislead their opponents into attacking them and foiling their plans, rather than physically attempting to provoke an AoO. The sly Bard who delights in enchantments and has high Bluff and Diplomacy skills might greatly prefer to try a fake spellcasting rather than a half-hearted attempt to grapple. He will give a sly grin through the pain as his maneuver succeeds, "Fooled you..." as his friend escapes to safety...
primemover003 06-12-07, 04:38 PM	Like Northern Bear mentioned this is clearly a case where you're Metagaming knowing that most creatures can only take 1 AoO a round and trying to draw that out. I think it's a cheap maneuver that you're only doing to take advantage of a game mechanic. I wouldn't allow it. I would allow you to Bullrush the foe away from your downed opponent, use the Aid Another action to give your ally a +2 to AC, try to disarm the foe, or use any other tactic that doesn't smack of blatant Metagaming.
Kouk 06-12-07, 04:46 PM	I don't think it's metagaming, it is extrapolating you own abilities on to other characters. If you know that regardless of how many opportunities present themselves, you are unable to take advantage of more than maybe 1 every 6 seconds. You just assume that it holds true for others as well. It usually does, but you still have no way of knowing if they have Combat Reflexes and you are screwed. If I can't run as fast as I could normally when I am wearing heavy armor (movement rate is reduced), it would be a fair assumption that an enemy who appears to be wearing heavy armor would not be able to move very fast. You can still be surprised when they have Boots of Springing and Striding, or the armor is just an illusion.
perdera 06-12-07, 04:53 PM	Like Northern Bear mentioned this is clearly a case where you're Metagaming knowing that most creatures can only take 1 AoO a round and trying to draw that out. I think it's a cheap maneuver that you're only doing to take advantage of a game mechanic. I wouldn't allow it. I would allow you to Bullrush the foe away from your downed opponent, use the Aid Another action to give your ally a +2 to AC, try to disarm the foe, or use any other tactic that doesn't smack of blatant Metagaming. I agree, but it's a pretty tough thing NOT to metagame. If the Fighter runs up to the Ogre (who has reach) and takes his AoO, I probably won't hesitate to run up there too, because I know his AoO is taken and he likely doesn't have Combat Reflexes. What about running up to the extent of his reach and then five-footing in next round to avoid AoO's, that's not metagaming? What about taking a five-foot step to stand back and cast a spell, instead of moving back 10 feet, because you know the movement would provoke an AoO? AoO's are just weird, don't be so harsh. Like the colorful example somebody gave above, consider the small amount of time that is actually passing during the round as this 'feint' is being performed. An ally is trying to trick/goad an opponent into attacking him while (pretty much) simultaneously, his ally scrambles to his feet and scoots away. If the defender were particularly skilled (Combat Reflexes) he'd get 'em both, but chances are your ruse will work.
mvincent 06-12-07, 05:27 PM	I think it's a cheap maneuver that you're only doing to take advantage of a game mechanic. I wouldn't allow it. It wouldn't take much pattern-recognition abilities to notice that you could safely move around a creature after your party’s tank moved in as cover/distraction. Weird stuff works in D&D that may not work in our own world (but then, the opposite is often true as well). Using that knowledge isn't necessarily meta-gaming. It would be very much in-character for a PC (who's career is devoted to life and death struggles) to research and rehearse optimal tactics (i.e they have much more motivation for doing so than an average gamer) But even if it is meta-gaming... often that is the intent of D&D (i.e. it is a very gamist system). I mean, it's not like PC's would know about potentional synergy when assigning their stats or cherry picking their prestige classes.
Thubby 06-12-07, 05:40 PM	distracting a foe so a friend can escape is hardly metagaming. "he'll be too busy dealing with me to focus on my friend" provoking an AoO just represents that. i can think of a thousand situations where that would apply
duboisjf 06-13-07, 10:32 AM	There's others good reasons for fake spellcasting. Example : Fooling a NPC (with good spellcraft) by letting him believe that you can cast high level spells more times than you really can (works better with spells that have no visible results). You could also want to be attacked because you have a special protection that will hurt your foe if he hits you. In fact there is enough reason for using fake spellcasting that it wouldn't be a waste of time to find a way to deal with that. ... Fake spellcasting could be a cantrip that mimics the casting of a known spells. Two ways to negate the effect : 1- You succeed the normal spellcraft check and it's a spell you know (you cannot be fooled about a spell you can cast) 2- You succeed the normal spellcraft check and your modified results also beats a DC of 15 + total modifier to spellcraft or bluff of the caster(wichever is higher)
olshanski_home 06-13-07, 10:42 AM	how about "drop your guard" as a move action. Lets you drop your guard vs one or more foes that threaten you, provoking an AoO. It doesn't matter what sort of flavor you add... "pretend to cast a spell", "look clumsy", "act distracted", whatever. The point is, you could provoke an AoO by simply moving, by grabbing an item, or any other method. If you think actually casting a spell is more likely to provoke an AoO than dropping your guard, then probably you should actually try casting a spell.
Sildatorak 06-13-07, 04:30 PM	Like Northern Bear mentioned this is clearly a case where you're Metagaming knowing that most creatures can only take 1 AoO a round and trying to draw that out. Standing up in that moment when your foe is too busy stabbing your friend to stab you isn't metagaming anymore than moving in to flank someone is metagaming. The mechanics don't match exactly what the real world situation is like, but they do have a tie to real-world situations.
BigJohn42 06-13-07, 11:01 PM	how about "drop your guard" as a move action. Lets you drop your guard vs one or more foes that threaten you, provoking an AoO. The problem with just saying "I drop my guard" is that the npc can just say "that's nice, but I've got your squishy little friend on the ground, and I'm gonna skewer him anyway." You've gotta make the NPC want to take that swing at you. That was the idea behind the fake spellcasting to begin with.
Leilond 06-15-07, 06:53 AM	The rule specify each action that provoke AoO Fake casting a spell isn't in that list, so it doesn't provoke without an "house rule" You can justify that in a lot of ways Start casting a spell cause nearby enemies to feel a "vibration" in his bones for a moment. This can be a logical justification for the rule. It isn't the only one, you can find your preferred. Find your own or add an house rule for "fake casting" because the rules do not cover that possibility
wrecan 06-15-07, 09:01 AM	Fake casting a spell isn't in that list That's not entirely true. Using a skill "usually" provokes an AoO, and Bluff is a skill. So it is entirely within the DMs perogative to allow Bluff to provoke an AoO without having to ignore RAW. That said, this use of Bluff would be a full-round action, so the only spells you can Bluff are full round ones.
Leilond 06-15-07, 09:18 AM	That's not entirely true. Using a skill "usually" provokes an AoO, and Bluff is a skill. So it is entirely within the DMs perogative to allow Bluff to provoke an AoO without having to ignore RAW. That said, this use of Bluff would be a full-round action, so the only spells you can Bluff are full round ones. "Use a skill" usually provoke, that's right, but there's no rule for using bluff skill for "fake casting". It is a too specific situation to consider it covered by the general bluff skill rules. Nothing in the RAW under the bluff skill nor the sense motive skill nor the spellcraft skill cover the "fakle casting". The rules do not cover the "fake casting" at all... so you have to "house rule it", you have to chose if the enemy can use "spllcraft" to "resist" like fighters can use BAB to resist a "feint" You don't need to ignore the RAW... you simply have to add a new rule to cover a situation it isn't well covered I won't do it, because I think it's too easy... If you want to "drag" an AoO from an opponent you must "sacrifice" something (a 0 level spell) or you have to really threaten your opponent in some way (disarm for example), and not simply roll a d20 and hope for a good result.
Factol Rhys 06-15-07, 09:23 AM	The rule specify each action that provoke AoO Fake casting a spell isn't in that list, so it doesn't provoke without an "house rule" You can justify that in a lot of ways Start casting a spell cause nearby enemies to feel a "vibration" in his bones for a moment. This can be a logical justification for the rule. It isn't the only one, you can find your preferred. Find your own or add an house rule for "fake casting" because the rules do not cover that possibility That's entirely wrong. The rules don't give a comprehensive list of every action you could possibly take that would provoke an AoO. It says you provoke one by moving inside a threatened square of by performing a catch-all "distracting action": Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. (bold emphasis mine) The rules don't say that shaking your opponents hand provokes an attack of opportunity. Or lighting up a cigarette. Or tying your shoes. The list absolutely does not delineate every possible Attack-of-Opportunity-provoking action you can take.
Leilond 06-15-07, 09:30 AM	That's entirely wrong. The rules don't give a comprehensive list of every action you could possibly take that would provoke an AoO. It says you provoke one by moving inside a threatened square of by performing a catch-all "distracting action": Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. (bold emphasis mine) The rules don't say that shaking your opponents hand provokes an attack of opportunity. Or lighting up a cigarette. Or tying your shoes. The list absolutely does not delineate every possible Attack-of-Opportunity-provoking action you can take. Exactly what I mean. You have to house rule every situation that isn't covered. Someone will argue that "lighting up a cigarette" will not provoke and someone will say it provoke. Who is right? None and both... house rule it Fake casting isn't covered by the rules. It can be similar to "feinting", but against feinting you can use BAB instead of sense motive... against "fake casting" it can be used "spellcraft", it appear logical, but nothing in the rule cover it... you have to house rule it There's nothing wrong in an house rule, but why we have to negate that "fake casting" isn't covered by the rules and have to be house ruled? I don't like it and I won't, like I written in my previous post, but it's really funny to say "fake casting is covered by the rules"
wrecan 06-15-07, 09:31 AM	"Use a skill" usually provoke, that's right, but there's no rule for using bluff skill for "fake casting". It is a too specific situation to consider it covered by the general bluff skill rules. No it isn't. It seems to fit exactly into what the Bluff skill is for: A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Nothing in the RAW under the bluff skill nor the sense motive skill nor the spellcraft skill cover the "fakle casting". The rules do not cover the "fake casting" at all... The Bluff rules clearly allow you to convince someone to believe something you want him to believe and to act appropriately. That's all "fake spellcasting is". Now, you couldn't generally Bluff someone into thinking you successfully cast a spell because you can't Bluff physical phenomena. However, I don't see why you and a friend couldn't bluff someone into thinking you successfully cast Charm Person on your friend, for example. so you have to "house rule it", you have to chose if the enemy can use "spllcraft" to "resist" like fighters can use BAB to resist a "feint" I don't have to house rule that at all. The Spellcraft rules plainly state: [DC 15+SL] Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry. So someone with Spellcraft could make a DC 15 check (with no add-onm to the DC, since there is no spell level). If successful, the response to "What spell is he casting" is "He isn't casting." you simply have to add a new rule to cover a situation it isn't well covered It appears to be comepletely covered under the general description of Bluff, as well as the Spellcraft rules. If you want to "drag" an AoO from an opponent you must "sacrifice" something (a 0 level spell) or you have to really threaten your opponent in some way (disarm for example), and not simply roll a d20 and hope for a good result. Why? The rules don't say that at all. Now you're the one who is ignoring RAW.
Coldkilla 06-15-07, 10:00 AM	In the interest of trying to defuse an argument about RAW vs houserule, I recognize that fake spellcasting is not specifically covered by the RAW. What I'm looking for is a workable mechanic that stays within the spirit of the RAW, doesn't violate existing rules and is fairly balanced (DMs can use it against PCs, PCs can use it against monsters/NPCs). As someone mentioned, WotC can't list every conceivable action or possible situation. Sometimes you have to make judgment calls and extrapolate from general guidelines given by the RAW. Some will label this "houseruling"; that's fine and I don't have a problem with it. Opposed Spellcraft checks sound good, but puts non-casters at a huge disadvantage. Logically consistent perhaps, but not sure whether it serves play balance. Maybe Bluff plus synergy bonus from Spellcraft vs. either Sense Motive or Spellcraft, whichever is higher, plus synergy bonus from the lower skill. Standard action. There, there's my houserule.
Leilond 06-16-07, 10:26 AM	No it isn't. It seems to fit exactly into what the Bluff skill is for: A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. The Bluff rules clearly allow you to convince someone to believe something you want him to believe and to act appropriately. That's all "fake spellcasting is". Now, you couldn't generally Bluff someone into thinking you successfully cast a spell because you can't Bluff physical phenomena. However, I don't see why you and a friend couldn't bluff someone into thinking you successfully cast Charm Person on your friend, for example. I don't have to house rule that at all. The Spellcraft rules plainly state: [DC 15+SL] Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry. So someone with Spellcraft could make a DC 15 check (with no add-onm to the DC, since there is no spell level). If successful, the response to "What spell is he casting" is "He isn't casting." It appears to be comepletely covered under the general description of Bluff, as well as the Spellcraft rules. Why? The rules don't say that at all. Now you're the one who is ignoring RAW. Is it so simple? Well, next day I will make my opponent close his eyes and fall on the floor because I succeded in a bluff roll and convinced him to do so! It is plain obvious that "bluff" isn't designed to work for "combat" except for the single specified situations of the manual. The same things of "intimidate" or "diplomacy". If we accept the way you read the rules, a bard will never be attacked by a fighter with open eyes and stand up position Come on
wrecan 06-16-07, 12:15 PM	Is it so simple? Well, next day I will make my opponent close his eyes and fall on the floor because I succeded in a bluff roll and convinced him to do so! Perhaps you missed this section of he Bluff skill: Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff. Bluffing someone into laying down in the midst of battle is going to have some hefty penalties. There should be additional penalties if the person start out disinclined to believe you for example, if you're the enemy.) Also, as I said before, Bluffing is always at least a full-round action. In this case, the person isn't being Bluffed into doing something risky. He's being bluffed into wasting an AoO. If we accept the way you read the rules, a bard will never be attacked by a fighter with open eyes and stand up position It should require epic levels of Bluff and Diplomacy to convince Hostile NPCs to stop attacking.
Millennium 06-18-07, 11:01 AM	Do you have to make a Bluff check and the opponent would make a Sense Motive check? That's how I'd do it. However, I would give the opponent the +5 circumstance bonus since the bluff puts him at some risk: he has to turn his attention away from the person he was going to attack. You have to not only convince the opponent that you're casting a spell, but that you're enough of a threat to be worth diverting his attention.
lears_fool 06-18-07, 11:40 AM	I MIGHT require a bluff check. . but only in certain circumstances. Why? Because there are so many characters and NPCs that CAN cast a spell or two in most campaigns that it's not that unlikely that a character that's been acting like a rogue or fighter wouldn't suddenly cast a true strike or something. So. .first, the perception. Does the NPC have spellcraft? Because if not then we're not even IN bluff check territory here. Does your average barbarian ignore a chance to thwap a guy just because he doesn't recognize the spell he's casting? I think not! :) If the NPC DOES have spellcraft then go ahead and roll it, and if he'd have a clue then there's no way a bluff would succeed. And if he rolls spellcraft and fails, then bluff'd come into play, since someone who's investing in spellcraft is more likely to know a real spell. and I'd apply a bonus/penalty if the person faking a spell isn't a real caster, of course. And once you know whether or not he thinks the person's really casting a spell (very likely without ranks in spellcraft) then you decide what they'd do based on how they function. .odds are they'd probably take the AOO unless they really are disciplined enough to focus on the one target and they're convinced he's down in one shot and is trying to retreat. It's a good idea anyway, no reason to punish it.