Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Munz 05-31-05, 08:06 AM	Ok, need some insight how this should have been handled... Yesterday had an issue come up between my DM and I. When casting Cure Light Wounds outside of a threatened area, and then reaching into a threatened area to touch a fellow who is lying prone right in front of another active and threatening character, does that provoke an attack of opportunity? I couldn't find anything in the PHB regarding this. It said when delivering touch-based spells your hand is treated as threatening for the sake of not provoking the attack of opportunity, but let's face it; a Cure Light Wounds spell wasn't considered threatening in this situation. I argued that yes, the AoO would have been granted because she is reaching into a threatened area. What more, she is reaching down to a character that is prone. I considered that A) the spell is not considered threatening (as far as the touch attack goes) and B) it specifically states that picking up an item (from the ground) provokes an AoO. My DM only argued saying, "If you READ in the Players Handbook, you'll see that this does not provoke the AoO. Well I read and didn't find what he would be referring to. Can you give me your insight or, if I'm wrong, direct me to a page number I can look this up in? Thanks!
Cantankerous 05-31-05, 08:11 AM	The AoO does indeed occur. Threat, in this context, doesn't mean that you intend to do harm. It simply means that you have put yourself in a position where YOU (the spell caster that is) can be threatened by the opponent. Isshia
True Cavalier 05-31-05, 08:39 AM	I would give the Attack of Opportunity for kneeling down to reach the prone character, if not for anything else.
Captain Casualty 05-31-05, 08:45 AM	My opinion is no but that may be because I do not understand the situation. 1) Does the AoOer have reach? 2) How were you arranged? C=caster, V=Victim, F=fighter Was it ---c--- ---v--- ---f--- In which case there is no way that you could have been hit because that would effectively give f reach of one extra square. or was it --cv--- ---f--- In which case you are going to get hit. Either for spell casting or because you provoked by reaching. As I read your example as case one I think both your DM and Isshia are just plain wrong. Isshia if you stick to your ruling then what size penalty does the casters hand get for AC?It must be at least a small target. From the hypertext srd Provoking an Attack of Opportunity Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Please note that if you look further at the list of standard actions that provoke an attack of opportunity whilst casting a spell is on there you did not cast the spell in a threatened square instead you are delivering the effects of the spell via a touch. This can be considered to be a touch attack against a willing opponent therefore no hit roll is needed and attacks do not normally provoke an AoO. (ignoring missile weapons in melee) If your DM then says that you cant cast a spell and do an attack walk away. RAW is not insanity.
Nephite 05-31-05, 08:53 AM	I would say yes, the monster in this case would recieve an AoO. However, since you (well, the majority of your body) are more than five feet away, it would still not be able to hit you unless it had a weapon with reach.
Nom 05-31-05, 08:55 AM	By the rules, I agree with Casualty. You are not in a threatened square, and therefore do not provoke an AoO. While it would not be unreasonable to house-rule that reaching into a threatened square provokes, I think that this works against the rules. Prone or not, it is intended that a cleric can stand behind the front line and heal those in the front line - all of a sudden he cannnot. Casualty is also correct in pointing out that you don't actually cast the spell in the threatened square, but only reach into that square to deliver the spell. Touching any part of the body will do. I wouldn't make it provoke an AoO. If you don't like it, a better house rule would be to require the cleric to make a touch attack on his helpless friend - if he misses the spell doesn't discharge and he can try again the following round.
High Octane 05-31-05, 09:41 AM	Although you are not in a threatened square when you cast the spell, you have to enter the threatened square to deliver the spell, thus you are delivering it in a threatened square, thus an AoO is applied.
Leobardis 05-31-05, 10:13 AM	But, delivering a spell (to an ally) does not provoke an AoO, only casting it does. And besides, you only provoke an AoO from and 'unarmed attack' from the person you are attacking. So even if you did enter the opponets space, he dosen't get an AoO against you since you weren't attacking him unarmed, you were "attacking" someone else. (but your ally would get an attack if he wanted one :D ) In addition, you were outside the opponent's reach. D&D for the most part only looks at the location of the majority of your mass. You could stick your hand into your opponents face, wave it around, and flip him off, and you'd never actually enter his space by the RAW.
eudas 05-31-05, 10:18 AM	By my understanding, you did not generate an AO. If you cast outside of a threatened square, and touched your ally who was in an adjacent square, then you should be fine. eudas
HailSpork 05-31-05, 10:27 AM	You don't provoke an AoO for touching your fallen ally any more than you would if you were casting Inflict Light Wounds on a prone target. Also, here's something to think about: What if you did the exact same thing against an undead opponent? Now, when you use your CLW, it's a potentially damaging spell to your opponent, so there definately wouldn't be an AoO. Here's another scenario: Same thing happens, and the opponent can't make the spellcraft check to figure out what spell you have charged on your hand. Now, even if it is CLW, it's a potentially damaging spell as far as he knows. At any rate, touch spells simply don't provoke AoO. See page 139 in the bottom left corner. [edit]Btw: Picking an object off the ground and touching something on the ground are very different. There is no reason that kneeling should provoke an AoO.
Kalidor 05-31-05, 10:45 AM	When delivering a Touch Spell you are considered 'armed' therefore, you do not provoke an AoO for doing so, any more than you'd provoke one for stabbing him with your sword.
Krelios 05-31-05, 10:49 AM	You don't have to enter an ally's space to deliver a touch spell so you weren't threatened by the opponent--thus, no AoO. Even if you were threatened (say by an opponent with a reach weapon), touching someone with a touch attack does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity.
BlueSlaad 05-31-05, 11:13 AM	I think it is a slightly grey area, with some good arguments on either side, though the rules do seem to lean on the side of you not provoking a AoO. For me, however, their's a more important issue here... Did the question of an AoO in a grey area stop the game? I think the DM should be allowed to make a judgment call that he feels goes with the rules or with his perspective of logic or common sense, even if it is later determined to go against the rules. I have had a lot of grey issues and discussions stop a game and cause an encounter to take ten times longer than it should. Times like that become frustrating for everyone, so in my opinion, the DM should be the rules, not the books - though the DM would be foolish not to rely on the rules as much as possible, without stopping the game to debate grey areas.
danielinthewolvesden 05-31-05, 12:39 PM	Casting a touch spell incurs an AoO, but delivering it does not. I assume you cast the spell out of reach, or casted defensively. The fact that the target is prone is meaningless- they are just easier to hit that way. Well, unless you give the the defender an AoO when an attacker hits a prone foe? :rolleyes:
Bruunwald 05-31-05, 12:46 PM	Yeah, it sounds like something isn't clear here. From what you've said, it sounds like you're confusing threatening as in personality with threatening as a game term. If the healer was in a square opposite an attacker with a prone form between, the healer only provokes the attack of opportunity if the attacker has reach. In other words, the threatening-seeming attacker only threatens the healer if he has reach. Simply touching the square in-between doesn't provoke the attack of opportunity. However, there are other ways to AoO a spellcaster.
Kalidor 05-31-05, 12:57 PM	He wouldn't provoke even if the attacker HAD reach because delivering a touch spell doesn't provoke period.
Bruunwald 05-31-05, 01:00 PM	I think it is a slightly grey area, with some good arguments on either side, though the rules do seem to lean on the side of you not provoking a AoO. For me, however, their's a more important issue here... Did the question of an AoO in a grey area stop the game? I think the DM should be allowed to make a judgment call that he feels goes with the rules or with his perspective of logic or common sense, even if it is later determined to go against the rules. I have had a lot of grey issues and discussions stop a game and cause an encounter to take ten times longer than it should. Times like that become frustrating for everyone, so in my opinion, the DM should be the rules, not the books - though the DM would be foolish not to rely on the rules as much as possible, without stopping the game to debate grey areas. So do I. I have an example from a recent game. We have two new players, one of which is a real stickler for the rules: a real "if it doesn't say it in the book, then it's simply not a matter of discussion" kind of guy. But we play a more organic game where actual logic is considered in as real a way as is fair. We had a situation where a large PC in heavy armor had fallen into a deep pit. Another PC threw him a rope simultaneous to the party being attacked by a hail of crossbow fire. Well, the PC in the pit climbed his move for the first round, but had about half his move (climbing-wise) left to go. The rules stickler wanted to say that on the following round the climbing PC should be able to take half his move up the rope and the other half moving across the grid. I ruled that climbing over the lip of the pit occupied the rest of his turn (a ruling I consider quite fair - sounds like a move action to me). The rules stickler tied the game up with about ten minutes of arguing (prompting another player to finally shout out that enough was enough). The reason he tied the game up was that he didn't like my notion that climbing up over a pit was roughly the same as standing from prone. To him, if the rules didn't state it, then climbing out of the pit was as simple as the movement rules. The rules give a figure for climbing per round and that was all that mattered to him. To me, a half-ogre in heavy armor pulling himself up must take a moment to haul his carcass to standing. He doesn't just climb up to an immediate standing position and run the rest of his movement. Most of us have climbed up small cliffs or hauled ourselves onto the roof of our house. We know that the climb may occupy a short span of time, but the actual wriggling onto the roof (even with a rope) is a thing you do with effort and with caution. I guess this guy has never done that. Either that, or as I've said, it wasn't specifically covered word-for-word in the PH, so it's a non-issue to him and not worthy of a ruling. But that means an unfair advantage for the half-ogre and a negation of the challenge of the pit.
Bruunwald 05-31-05, 01:09 PM	He wouldn't provoke even if the attacker HAD reach because delivering a touch spell doesn't provoke period. Delivering a touch spell as an attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity. However, casting the spell is a standard action that does provoke an attack. If the healer were in the same square adjacent to the healee, and did not step before casting, he would provoke an attack by anyone threatening his square during the casting and in my opinion, during the healing BECAUSE HE IS NOT THREATENING THE ATTACKER WITH HIS TOUCH. (Read top of page 141 of the PH.)
Krelios 05-31-05, 01:16 PM	He doesn't have to threaten. The act of touching doesn't provoke.
Kalidor 05-31-05, 01:17 PM	Well, that's all well and good, but rather a moot point since it was stated in the second sentence "When casting Cure Light Wounds outside of a threatened area". So that part of the issue is moot. The confusion arose, apparently, over weather or not the delivery of the touch spell provoked, which it cannot.
BlueSlaad 05-31-05, 02:05 PM	Bruunwald sees my point. The issue shouldn't be whether reaching down and touching a prone figure that is in melee of an opponent provides an AoO - it should be whatever the DM rules because it makes sense to him at the time. The DM could say that the attacker can't reach the caster because the caster is only kneeling and reaching with a hand to touch a prone figure, so no AoO is provoked. Or, the DM could say that the attacker's sword can easily reach the caster when he goes to touch the prone body because it is so close, and that since the caster has to kneel to touch, then stand back up, an AoO is provoked. Either way, it should be the DM's call, regardless of how the rules read. This keeps the game moving and preserves the DM's authority of knowing everything about the world he is presenting to the players, instead of causing the players to feel that they need to double-check everything he does and go back on rulings he has already made. DM: "The minotaur swings his massive axe and catches Marcus in the side, wedging deep into his ribcage. Marcus takes 16 points damage and drops to the floor unconscious and bleeding to death." Player: "Wait..." <PHB is consulted and a 20 minute argument ensues> DM: <sigh> "Never mind, the minotaur misses"
screwtape 05-31-05, 02:05 PM	"a moot point " I have to digress here and congratulate Kalidor for correctly using the word "moot". All too often on these boards, and in life, I come across ignorant dopes who try to sound smart and say the point is "mute". It has become a peeve of mine. Thank you for not being an ignorant doofus. Your effort is appreciated.
Munz 05-31-05, 02:08 PM	Kalidor expressed the confusion on my part correctly. I was only thinking it would provoke the AoO upon touching the recipient BECAUSE the caster had to bend over, reaching into a square threatened by an adjacent attacker. My logic behind this is, I am simply making the comparison between someone getting an AoO by picking something up off the ground. In the case of picking something up off the ground, an AoO is granted presumably because bending over/down to pick something up prevents you from defending yourself well; hence, opening yourself up for an AoO. In this case, I saw the similarity that the caster is trying to touch someone on the ground, leaning over and reaching into the space that the adjacent person is threatening. So it is true the caster wouldn't provoke the AoO from the space he's standing within, but would while within the threatened square (even if only momentarily). And again, my thoughts on this is because he would have to lean in/over or bend down to do so. So instead of focusing on the aspect of a spellcaster delivering a touch attack, let's look at this from a different angle: If someone reached into a threatened square to grab an individual who was unconcious and prone (at that point an unattended object), would that not be considered similar to picking up an item from a threatened area and by that aspect alone, provoke the AoO. If it does NOT, then explain to me how picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity and doing this differs.
Cantankerous 05-31-05, 02:16 PM	Munz put it succinctly. That was exactly my thought and rationale. According to the SRD stooping to stabilize a fallen comrade DOES provoke an AoO. How is this different? Isshia
BlueSlaad 05-31-05, 02:28 PM	Personally, I would not rule that this provoked an AoO. Picking up a weapon or stabilizing a person takes more time and brings you closer to the attacker then just reaching into another square and touching a prone target does. But then, just how long does the touch take? Is the spell delivered instantly, like a static shock after shuffling across the carpet, or do you have to place your entire hand on the target, pausing for half a second so that the spell will work (otherwise, are you at risk of accidentally brushing up against an enemy in a scuffle and delivering the spell to the wrong guy?) It may be mostly black and white, but there's still just a little grey, so I go back to my previous argument that it should be the DM's call - period.
danielinthewolvesden 05-31-05, 02:48 PM	The issue shouldn't be whether reaching down and touching a prone figure that is in melee of an opponent provides an AoO... The DM could say that the attacker can't reach the caster because the caster is only kneeling and reaching with a hand to touch a prone figure, so no AoO is provoked. Or, the DM could say that the attacker's sword can easily reach the caster when he goes to touch the prone body because it is so close, and that since the caster has to kneel to touch, then stand back up, an AoO is provoked. The issue of the OP isn't "is the DM right when he makes a call". We all know that he is. (and in this case the DM ruled that it didn't note) The question is whether or not the DM's call is backed by the RAW. In this case it is. You don't have to knell or do anything that provokes an AoO to hit/tough a prone opponent. Do foes generate an AoO when they hit your prone buddy? No. The caster doesn't have to kneel to touch, becuase a foe doesn't have to knell to hit. And a "touch' is a form of attack.
Bruunwald 05-31-05, 02:56 PM	He doesn't have to threaten. The act of touching doesn't provoke. Attacking unarmed does provoke an attack of opportunity from your intended target. However, a touch attack is considered an armed attack - but only against that target. It doesn't protect you if you move through a threatened area, does it? You still provoke attacks of opportunity from those whose threatened spaces you pass through, to get to your intended target. A touch by itself is not exempt from AoO. Read the rules and consider them juxtaposed to each other. If you wandered up and tried to touch an opponent without a spell or a weapon, he'd have an attack of opportunity against you. But as stated, so would anybody you were ignoring who threatened a space you were in, whether or not you were armed. Merely "touching" somebody else does not make you immune to AoO: TOUCH-ATTACKING WITH A SPELL MAKES YOU IMMUNE TO AOO FROM YOUR INTENDED TARGET. So, to put it in order: The healer is prone to AoO while casting the spell. He would not provoke one from whomever he was trying to touch with the spell. He would provoke one from those whose threatened areas he passed through (even while he still held the spell). Stooping to touch (help) his prone companion is a move action that makes him vulnerable, thus he would be prone if he were stooping in a threatened square, but not if he were merely reaching into one. But since nobody here thinks stooping is necessary to the aid, then it's not an AoO. Personally, I would say it is. To me, it requires that you redirect your concentration. THE SPELL AS A WEAPON RULE DOES NOT - NOT! - make you immune to everybody's attacks of opportunity. ONLY against those of your target. The attacker in the case given us was NOT the target.
icote 05-31-05, 03:17 PM	Munz put it succinctly. That was exactly my thought and rationale. According to the SRD stooping to stabilize a fallen comrade DOES provoke an AoO. How is this different? Isshia Well for starters, the cleric isn't in a threatened square. This basically boils down to this: Does the cleric need to enter the prone characters square to apply the touch spell? If so, he enters a threatened square, and could be subject to AoOs if he performs an action that spawns one. If the cleric doesn't need to enter the square, then in this instance he's safe, since he's not actually in the threatened square. In my interpretation of the rules, the cleric does not need to enter the threatened square, and thus doesn't get thwapped by an AoO. However, looking forward to the next round, if the character that is currently prone is healed above 0 hp then he will provoke one when he stands, or if not, the attacker can take a five foot step into the prone characters square and now threaten that cleric. Nothing in the rules suggest that attacking into a threatened square can cause an AoO because the AoO rules specifically define who is threatened and who is not. Small creatures and larger can attack, or touch attack, adjacent squares without having to be in them. If your cleric was Tiny, then this would be a completely different story, but lets not go there.
Kalidor 05-31-05, 03:58 PM	Attacking unarmed does provoke an attack of opportunity from your intended target. However, a touch attack is considered an armed attack - but only against that target. It doesn't protect you if you move through a threatened area, does it? You still provoke attacks of opportunity from those whose threatened spaces you pass through, to get to your intended target. Unfortunately, you are mistaken in your assumption. Delivering a touch attack doesn't mean you don't provoke 'from the target'. It means you're armed and the act itself will not provoke an AoO. Its no differen than a monk being armed with is fist, for that purpose. All this talk about moving in and out of threatened squares and AoOs generated by movement would apply to any situation of combat and aren't really relevant to the issue at hand. A touch by itself is not exempt from AoO. A touch attack *is* because you are armed. Read the rules and consider them juxtaposed to each other. If you wandered up and tried to touch an opponent without a spell or a weapon, he'd have an attack of opportunity against you. No, he would not. Because delivering a touch attack doesn't not provoke an AoO nor does moving into someone's threatened area. But as stated, so would anybody you were ignoring who threatened a space you were in, whether or not you were armed. Merely "touching" somebody else does not make you immune to AoO: TOUCH-ATTACKING WITH A SPELL MAKES YOU IMMUNE TO AOO FROM YOUR INTENDED TARGET. Which is the point -- delivering a spell with the range touch *is* delivering a touch attack. No one is talking about walking up and flicking a guy on the ear -- they are talking about delivering a touch spell. So, to put it in order: The healer is prone to AoO while casting the spell. [quote] No, because as has already been stated AND reiterated, he did this outside of any threatened area. [quote] He would not provoke one from whomever he was trying to touch with the spell. Correct. He would provoke one from those whose threatened areas he passed through (even while he still held the spell). Correct -- if he leaves a threatened square, his MOVEMENT may provoke an attack of oppertunity. Stooping to touch (help) his prone companion is a move action that makes him vulnerable, thus he would be prone if he were stooping in a threatened square, but not if he were merely reaching into one. But since nobody here thinks stooping is necessary to the aid, then it's not an AoO. Personally, I would say it is. To me, it requires that you redirect your concentration. Probably subjective enough -- He may indeed have to drop to prone to deliver the touch attack, but that's a free action anyway (not a move action) and he's doing it in his own square adjacent to the target (not to the attacker) THE SPELL AS A WEAPON RULE DOES NOT - NOT! - make you immune to everybody's attacks of opportunity. ONLY against those of your target. The attacker in the case given us was NOT the target. You're wrong. Delivering a touch attack means you are "armed" for the purpose of that attack, therefore you will not provoke from ANYONE by delivering it.
Munz 05-31-05, 04:11 PM	So why is it when you stoop or bend down to pick up something off the ground that provokes an AoO, but when you touch somebody on the ground it does not? And how is it that a Cure Light Wounds spell can be considered a form of attack against a living creature? Against undead, sure... Let me pose this question: If you had to reach into an adjacent space (5-foot square) to grab/handle something and someone else could threaten that same space you are reaching into, would that provoke an AoO when you grab something in that space? To me this falls under the clarification for picking something up (which provokes and AoO).
Kalidor 05-31-05, 04:32 PM	So why is it when you stoop or bend down to pick up something off the ground that provokes an AoO, but when you touch somebody on the ground it does not? That's a very good question. For one thing, when you do that you are usually adjacent to the guy who is threatening you. In this situation, you wouldn't be because you and the enemy would be flankling the target of your spell (Not flanking in the rules sense, just the literal sense). So you aren't leaving your square to deliver the touch spell. And how is it that a Cure Light Wounds spell can be considered a form of attack against a living creature? Against undead, sure... Its not considered a form of attack per se -- but it is considered a 'touch attack spell', in which the rules are pretty clearly defined: "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. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally." Let me pose this question: If you had to reach into an adjacent space (5-foot square) to grab/handle something and someone else could threaten that same space you are reaching into, would that provoke an AoO when you grab something in that space? Yes, it would. But 'grabbing a handle' isn't considered and armed attack action. Its a move action that would provoke an attack of oppertunitiy. I guess its one of those cases where you'd want to use judgement per the situation, but you specifically asked what the rules state.
Kessalin Talira 05-31-05, 04:59 PM	The reason this doesn't fall into the same category as picking up a dropped object is that in order to pick up a dropped object, you have to divert your attention from whatever's threatening you at least for a moment. Otherwise you simply fumble around for it without taking your attention away the enemy. Imagine trying to pick something up like a sword or bow, or even a potion, when it's three feet or so away from you. Not too hard. Now imagine trying to do that without looking for the item. Compare that with simply reaching down and laying your hand on something the size of a body. I think it would be much easier, because it wouldn't matter if you laid your hand on their head or their foot, the spell would still take effect. Because the caster wasn't in a threatened square when they cast the spell, they didn't provoke an AoO. Because casters don't have to enter the square of their target to deliver a touch spell, I would say that at no point in the course of that round did the cleric provoke an AoO from the enemy.
deadDMwalking 05-31-05, 05:25 PM	Kalidor expressed the confusion on my part correctly. I was only thinking it would provoke the AoO upon touching the recipient BECAUSE the caster had to bend over, reaching into a square threatened by an adjacent attacker. My logic behind this is, I am simply making the comparison between someone getting an AoO by picking something up off the ground. In the case of picking something up off the ground, an AoO is granted presumably because bending over/down to pick something up prevents you from defending yourself well; hence, opening yourself up for an AoO. ... If someone reached into a threatened square to grab an individual who was unconcious and prone (at that point an unattended object), would that not be considered similar to picking up an item from a threatened area and by that aspect alone, provoke the AoO. If it does NOT, then explain to me how picking up an object provokes an attack of opportunity and doing this differs. The important point is whether you perform the action in a threatened square. If the person is in a non-threated square (10' from a hostile person) it doesn't matter that they are reaching into a threatened square. They aren't considered to be in that square for the purpose of attacks of opportunity. If the DM rules that it is like picking up an object (their discretion) it would only provoke an attack of opportunity from those threatening the healer (usually only those within 5' of him). It doesn't matter that the person is reaching into a threatened square. It matters where they are in relation to others.
astute1 05-31-05, 06:02 PM	1. Most importantly, you aren't in a threatened square, thus, no attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter if you have to reach into the threatened square. That's the whole point of reach. 2. Touch attacks don't provoke attacks of opportunity because you are considered "armed." Even if you were making an unarmed attack against the ally, you wouldn't provoke an attack from an enemy adjacent, because you only provoke an attack from the person you are attacking with the unarmed strike.
LordHell 05-31-05, 06:26 PM	The only instance where this would provock an AoO is if the caster of the CLW spell had a 0ft reach. In that case, he would have to move into the prone characters square to cast CLW. This is a world of difference from doing a stabilize check. One requires you to let your guard down and maybe apply pressure on a wound to stop bleeding etc, the other requires a simple touch. If you rule that the original posters action allows an AoO, then you would have to also rule that anyone attacking with a 5ft reach also provokes an AoO, since after all, they're reaching into the opponents square to attack, are they not?
danielinthewolvesden 05-31-05, 06:52 PM	So why is it when you stoop or bend down to pick up something off the ground that provokes an AoO, but when you touch somebody on the ground it does not? ). 1. Becuase thems the rules. 2. Ok, if you must- have a freind lie down. Now, try and touch him, with your hand-anywhere on his body. See how easy it is? Do you have to kneel? Now, out a nice big sharp knife on the ground- then try and pick it up- remembering that you have to pick it up by the handle.WAY more difficult.
Nom 05-31-05, 08:13 PM	The real issue is that to pick up an object or stabilize a fallen comrade you need to be in the same square. To deliver a touch spell (even to a prone target) you merely need to be adjacent. If this is not so, then any attempt to make contact with a prone creature with your hands must provoke an AoO. For example, a monk would provoke an AoO when attacking a prone target adjacent to him. Since this is not the case, nor is delivering a touch spell to an adjacent prone target. If your group wishes to make house-rules about picking up objects in adjacent squares and (not provoking) AoOs then feel free.
glutton 05-31-05, 09:58 PM	This is an amusing thread. The simple answer is no AoO is involved because that is the rule. If you want some grand excuse in real world dynamics as to why, remember it is a five foot square. Most characters are at least 5 feet tall and border on 6-8 feet if they are lying on their backs with their arms flopped around. You could argue quite well that you didnt even have to put his hand into his square claiming as he fell down his arm flopped into yours. That arguement isnt even required in my mind as D&D's battle system is done via grid. You arent technically required to hit a character inside his grid section, just the edges of the grid if you break it down to base system. And putting your hand in a square somewhere in a 6 second round does not make you off balance and open for an attack. If by some bizzare reading of the rules you decided to allow a swing at the hand, I'd say you could easily yank it back alot faster than someone with a broadsword could swing at you, and dart back in to touch someone lying still before the attacker could recover and try to nail you again on the back swing. The duration listed on the Cure spells is instantaneous, so you merely need to touch the target for an instant for the effect to occur. You can't "brush up against someone" and accidently cure them as it is totally being directed by your will. It's hard to write a compelling response to this as it seems so cut and dry that formulating a situation where it would provoke an AoO in my mind seems impossible.
Cadfan 05-31-05, 10:18 PM	Casting cure light wounds on a fallen comrade. A-B-C Each are adjacent 5' squares. A = cleric B = fallen comrade C = angry orc with 5 foot reach A casts cure light wounds- no attack of opportunity. He's out of C's reach. A touches B to deliver cure light wounds. A does NOT move into B's square. No attack of opportunity. Delivering a touch spell does not invoke an attack of opportunity. Plus A is not in a square threatened by C. The fact that B has fallen down does not change anything anymore than if A were using a touch attack spell on a tiny opponent. -------- Picking up a dropped item. A-B-C A = cleric B = dropped item C = angry orc with 5' reach Cleric moves into square B, no AoO. Cleric bends down to pick up dropped item- AoO is invoked. Now, the DM could decide to do things differently, I guess. But that's his call.
Cantankerous 06-01-05, 08:08 AM	Ok, if you must- have a freind lie down. Now, try and touch him, with your hand-anywhere on his body. See how easy it is? *lol* Try doing that while there's a screaming, raging maniac 10' away who wants to smash that big bloodied axe he's carrying through the crown of your skull and see how easy it gets. Isshia
nephtis 06-01-05, 09:48 AM	When delivering a Touch Spell you are considered 'armed' therefore, you do not provoke an AoO for doing so, any more than you'd provoke one for stabbing him with your sword. Off topic Thanks, if that is backed up in the core books, that answered a question that came up in our last session. Casting the spell defensivly worked (no AoO, concentration check positiv), but would trying to touch the target provoke a AoO or not?
Captain Casualty 06-01-05, 10:08 AM	Quoted From Hypertext SRD Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Reach Weapons Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more. Provoking an Attack of Opportunity Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Right so besides being rude and suggesting that everyone who want this AoO goes back and reads the rulebook lets go through some of the objections. Ok point1 Does the cleric need to enter the prone characters square to apply the touch spell? If so, he enters a threatened square, and could be subject to AoOs if he performs an action that spawns one. If the cleric doesn't need to enter the square, then in this instance he's safe, since he's not actually in the threatened square. My reply - Who cares if he needs to enter a threatened square - Read again the line about moving. moving out of a threatened square What this means is that anyone can freely enter a threatened square including suicidal Joe the one hitpoint mage, leaving it is altogether a diffrent matter. Now how about touching a prone comrade/foe with the effects of a touch spell? Having established that he can enter a square without provoking AoO what he does inside can also provoke so lets consider is delivering a touch spell a provoking action?"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. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally." Please note that whilst it is specifically stated that touch attacks do not provoke some might (and have) argue that if it is against a willing opponent it is therefore not an attack and so therefore not covered by that sentence. [expletive deleted] to that. Honestly it is in the erratta but if thats not good enough just consider it a hit on a stationary target (ie don't roll a 1). If you miss it is still ready to be delivered next round. As an aside if that is the ruling it does leave the possibilty of getting a crit heal so ho hum. How is this diffrent from a stabilization roll? Somebody beat me to it but that is the use of a skill which implies observation and physical interaction, much more than a nudge. So why is it when you stoop or bend down to pick up something off the ground that provokes an AoO, but when you touch somebody on the ground it does not? Ok lets give the silly reply first. Where in the description of touch does it say hand? You could by the RAW just as easily be nudging them with your toe! If you want to argue that it silly (a bad idea with RAW) please explain where the rules state that a cleric in full plate must take off his gauntlets to cure someone? If he can cure through gauntlets why can he not cure through boots? Now the pseudo-logical reason. It is assumed that it takes longer to safely grasp and then get ready an object whereas just reaching down and tapping someones foot/arm/head/whatever is a quick and non distracting action. Now the real reason. It's the RAW. Now the real source of confusion, you dont enter a square to deliver a touch attack. Whilst this is all a bit abstract the rules measure the position of the mass of the body. As an example somebody with a spear does not occupy two squares instead they occupy a centre mass and threaten other squares. Since the fighter cannot reach the supposed central mass of you and by the rules must be able to in order to hit you you could in theory drop your trousers and pee on the prone guy without provoking an AoO. This breaks down only if 1) The cleric has a reach of Zero in which case he must move into the square 2) The bad guy has reach 3) The bad guy is actually standing over the prone victim(the only time two can occupy the same square) The long and short of this is no AoO. You have been given logical Reasons and you have been given RAW reasons. You may think that they are not right or fair. I can think of more than a few rules I vehemently disagree with (especially regarding whether the withdraw action should provoke an AoO) but we work by the RAW and live with (and debate ad nauseum)the problems that causes. :)
astute1 06-01-05, 10:29 AM	Actually, I'd just like to comment on a point people were talking about earlier - that is, that the AoO for picking up an item is incurred because you are "bending over" to pick up the item. I'm fairly certain that's not why you provoke the attack. You provoke an attack because picking something up off the ground requires a considerable amount of attention and hand-eye coordination. You have to look down at the object, reach out, pick it up by a handle, etc. Try reaching down to pick up a book or pencil using only your peripheral vision - it's really hard. In contrast, reaching out and touching an object is fairly easy - you only have to wave your arm around in the area.
Fortebraccio 06-01-05, 10:36 AM	By RAW this action doesn't provoke an AoO. By common sense, it should. So it really depends on the DM's style. If he likes to run D&D as a tactical wargame, then he should stick to the RAW; if he prefers not to ruin the suspension of disbelief, rule number 0 allows him to rule as he sees fit. Both approaches are 100% legitimate.
Captain Casualty 06-01-05, 10:47 AM	By RAW this action doesn't provoke an AoO. By common sense, it should. So it really depends on the DM's style. If he likes to run D&D as a tactical wargame, then he should stick to the RAW; if he prefers not to ruin the suspension of disbelief, rule number 0 allows him to rule as he sees fit. Both approaches are 100% legitimate. Agreed. But in this case if I read the OP right this is a case where the player wants the DM to change the RAW as he does not think he interpreted it correctly. He did interpret it correctly. Sorry but the OP by RAW was wrong. You might think there is a common sense argument; I am not so convinced but definetly do not want to argue about that. I would suggest that the OP talks to his DM aware that he is in the wrong by RAW and try to persuade him to house rule it. If he cannot (and I wouldn't do it) at least console yourself that you have a DM who knows the rules. As I said earlier you live with compromises in the rules between realism and playability.
anders 06-01-05, 11:27 AM	Assuming everyone has 5' reach. A B C A is next to B is next to C. A will NEVER provoke an attack of oppertunity from C assuming he is standing on his position because he is not in a threatened square. He could drop guard, try to sleep.. whatever. C is simply too far away, and does not have reach. This means, A can cast cure light wounds 1) Without casting defensive to avoid AAO, since he is not provoking one 2) A can touch B and this would not produce an AAO from C, since C only has 5' reach. AC B In this situation A is in a threadened square. * Casting cure light wounds will indeed produce aao unless he casts defensivly. * Delivering the touch spell will *not* provoke aao since you are considered armed when delivering a touch spell.
astute1 06-01-05, 01:20 PM	By RAW this action doesn't provoke an AoO. By common sense, it should. So it really depends on the DM's style. If he likes to run D&D as a tactical wargame, then he should stick to the RAW; if he prefers not to ruin the suspension of disbelief, rule number 0 allows him to rule as he sees fit. Both approaches are 100% legitimate. That's a nice sentiment, but people use that excuse for all kinds of wacky rules excuses. Basically, if you aren't playing by the RAW, then you're not playing fair. In this case, you'd be letting a monster get a "free" attack on a player, because you "felt like it." I doubt most DMs would give a player a free attack if it was a BBEG making the touch attack. Thus, like most houserules, it is unfair. Side note: since when does allowing a creature's arms to spontaneously reach an extra 5' to strike a spellcaster not ruin the suspension of disbelief?
BlueSlaad 06-01-05, 01:46 PM	That's a nice sentiment, but people use that excuse for all kinds of wacky rules excuses. Basically, if you aren't playing by the RAW, then you're not playing fair. In this case, you'd be letting a monster get a "free" attack on a player, because you "felt like it." I doubt most DMs would give a player a free attack if it was a BBEG making the touch attack. Thus, like most houserules, it is unfair. Side note: since when does allowing a creature's arms to spontaneously reach an extra 5' to strike a spellcaster not ruin the suspension of disbelief? I couldn't disagree more with the idea that most houserules are unfair. The DM has the responsibililty of telling an exciting and often unique story. It would be impossible for WOTC or anyone else to design rules that cover every possible circumstance, and if they tried, I wouldn't want to spend the extra time and money trying to read them. Most DMs make house rules in order to keep the game fair or to promote logic or common sense, not just to add "wacky rules" on a whim. For example, here are a couple house rules I have used in the past: - A character cannot swim if he/she has 0 ranks in swimming, regardless of strength bonus (that to me is common sense - just because you have a 20 strength should not mean you can jump into the water for the fist time and swim like a pro, in fact, with the likleihood of very low body fat, that character would sink like a rock) - The 3.0 rules for damage from a critical hit only multiplied base damage die. I always maxed the damage on the first die to make sure that a critical hit always resulted in more damage than a normal hit. (The 3.5 rules saw this flaw and fixed it - which brings me to another point - if the rules can be flawed, house rules are sometimes necessary) - I allow each character one "hero roll" per gaming session. This allows them to re-roll in situation where a good roll is critical. (The players like it for obvious reasons, but I like it because it help prevent encounters that I worked hard to design from being ruled by a few bad rolls by the players) Personally, I don't see how any of these rules are unfair or unrealistic, and I imagine many DMs have their own rules of similar design and purpose.
kam_Islash 06-01-05, 01:53 PM	The aoo cant go beyond a monster's reach. ///
Fortebraccio 06-01-05, 02:44 PM	Astute1, you are somewhat right about the reach issue, but that's because D&D uses a boardgame-like grid system. Other roleplaying games generally use less standardized, more common sense oriented rules (some don't even bother to address the matter altogether)...and even the DMG states that, although it is strongly discouraged, it is theoretically possible to play without grids. Side note: since when does allowing a creature's arms to spontaneously reach an extra 5' to strike a spellcaster not ruin the suspension of disbelief? Actually, I'd suggest a different rationale: in order to touch a prone target, the caster is required to lean into his "square". :) About the rules and fairness, I believe that a DM should stick to the RAW 99% of the time, and houserule only the trickiest situations. And, in my opinion, this was the case.
Reinforcements 06-01-05, 03:45 PM	By RAW this action doesn't provoke an AoO. By common sense, it should. So it really depends on the DM's style. If he likes to run D&D as a tactical wargame, then he should stick to the RAW; if he prefers not to ruin the suspension of disbelief, rule number 0 allows him to rule as he sees fit. Both approaches are 100% legitimate. I'm sorry, but that is complete bull. Honestly I can hardly believe that this is even being argued, that people are actually arguing that a character who ISN'T BEING THREATENED can provoke an AoO. As for both approaches being legitimate, just no. Unless the DM had made very clear at the beginning of the campaign that he would throw the rules out the window at the slightest provocation this is a bad call. IMO, favoring "realism" over balance and the actual rules is almost always a bad idea, especially if it's sprung on the players suddenly. On another note, that doesn't seem all that realistic anyway.