Spell of Opportunity on friend

[dumah87]

Hi guy,

I was wondering:
It's possible to cast a spell through "Spell of opportunity" feat on a friend who trigger an AoO?

i.e. I'm a cleric and an archer adjacent to me (friend of mine) fires some arrows, triggering theoretically an AoO ("You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack").
May I cast on him Heal or another touch spell?

thank you all.

[linklord231]

I think that should work.  It uses up your Attack of Opportunity for the round, so you can only do it a limited number of times (the feat requires Combat Reflexes, so you can make a number of Attacks of Opportunity equal to 1 + your Dex modifier). 
Remember that Spell Opportunity is an Epic feat that requires 25 ranks in Spellcraft, so you can only take it at level 22 or higher. 

[NunoM]

I don't want to split hairs here, but there's only one thing that bugs me: the friend is not an enemy.

The basic description for AoOs (here) only specifies "combatants". However, further down, the definition for "Threatened squares" is elaborated like so:

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.

(emphasis mine)

The way i see it, your friend isn't an enemy (unless he's aiming his arrow at you ), so it doesn't provoke an AoO from you... but i'll research a bit further and let you know if i find anything to contradict this.

Also, you must be armed (to threat the surrounding squares in the first place), and have a free hand or be able to provide the somatic components for the spell.

[linklord231]

You're correct that you have to threaten the squares (so you probably have to be armed, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike), but don't you get to decide who's an ally and who's an enemy?  Otherwise how would spells like Prayer work?

[Captnq]

I'm going to go with NunoM on this one for the RAW.

That said, the RAI would indicate that you should be able to do it.

What I would say, to be as RAW as possible, would be that you have to decide who you are labling enemy and who you are lableing friend at the start of your action. It lasts until the start of your turn.

For example, I cast a spell that helps my allies and hurts my enemies. Until your next action, you can't do your SoO trick.

I can choose to make my allies my enemies, thus allowing me to hit him with SoO, but I can't choose to make him a friend that same round.

If anyone can find any indication as to the speed at which you can change someone's friend/enemy status, please let me know.

[NunoM]

When i DM, i assume the whole party (including animal companions and such) as "allies" for all purposes (buffs, AoOs, etc.)... That only changes when an enemy casts something like "Dominate Person".
To rule it otherwise, would just cause unneeded complication to straightforward concepts, IMHO.

... but that's just me.

[dumah87]

[...]

The way i see it, your friend isn't an enemy (unless he's aiming his arrow at you ), so it doesn't provoke an AoO from you... but i'll research a bit further and let you know if i find anything to contradict this.

[...]

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.

It doesn't matter if you're a friend or foe, to provoke AoOs.
Trigger an AoO it's a matter of action not relation with the other characters.

A friend of mine if acting dangerously always trigger an AoO.
It should depends on me if use this "opportunity" or not.

[NunoM]

Correct. The definition of "threatened square" i posted, clarifies that the dangerous action must be performed by an enemy (please see emphasis).

... but following your reasoning, lets assume you're playing a cleric and have just cast, say, a "Bless" spell during your turn in the round. All your allies within 50ft gain the benefits. Cool!
Suddenly the party archer, next to you, aims his shot at a foe and his dangerous action provokes the AoO from you.
Will he be denied the bonuses granted by the "Bless" spell?... He's either an ally or an enemy. As Captnq mentioned, when do you get to choose your enemies and allies during the encounter? Is it valid to choose different allies/enemies during the same encounter as a player sees fit?

This reminds me of another, weird, thing that could happen...
Flanking doesn't mention friend or foe, but rather uses "threatened squares" rule... Well... Could i say that i consider the enemy behind the front line foe as, in fact, an ally, so that i get flanking bonuses?

This and other questions can be raised, that's why i try to keep it simple in my games... but if your DM allows it, i'm cool with that.

[EjoThims]

For practicality, it is probably best to let the decision of ally rest with other creature and the decision of enemy rest with you.

So the archer determines if he is your ally when you cast the spell (unless you have already designated him an enemy), but you can then designate him as an enemy to take your AoO and crush his skull (but not cast an ally type spell on him unless you were a fool, because he would no longer get the benefits).

And allow it to be switched once per encounter.

[nijineko]

an archer shooting an enemy usually isn't considered an enemy them self.

however, it makes sense that one should be allowed to use AoOs in this fashion. i would allow it without stressing over the precise wording in that specific case.

[dumah87]

Correct. The definition of "threatened square" i posted, clarifies that the dangerous action must be performed by an enemy (please see emphasis).

... but following your reasoning, lets assume you're playing a cleric and have just cast, say, a "Bless" spell during your turn in the round. All your allies within 50ft gain the benefits. Cool!
Suddenly the party archer, next to you, aims his shot at a foe and his dangerous action provokes the AoO from you.
Will he be denied the bonuses granted by the "Bless" spell?... He's either an ally or an enemy. As Captnq mentioned, when do you get to choose your enemies and allies during the encounter? Is it valid to choose different allies/enemies during the same encounter as a player sees fit?

This reminds me of another, weird, thing that could happen...
Flanking doesn't mention friend or foe, but rather uses "threatened squares" rule... Well... Could i say that i consider the enemy behind the front line foe as, in fact, an ally, so that i get flanking bonuses?

This and other questions can be raised, that's why i try to keep it simple in my games... but if your DM allows it, i'm cool with that.

IIRC enemy, foe, ally, friend are just a name in Dnd.
I guess I can consider a companion party of mine a friend or a foe without influencing spells, abilites or anything else...
let's assume this:
I cast "bless" spell and quickened "Inflict Critical Wounds" spell in my round and "Cure Serious Wounds" spell as AoO on this famous archer's round (I could easily switch Cure and Inflict spells ), who is suddendly an archer/wizard which had cast a "Masochism" spell on him, because the foe (enemy, BBEG, monster, etc) has a very high AC.

I still consider him as an ally, I'm actually giving a hand dealing and/or healing him damages.
Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

(I apologize if my english language is uncorrect)

[ketaro]

IIRC enemy, foe, ally, friend are just a name in Dnd.

Not necessarily true. I mean, the terms "ally/allies" and "enemy/enemies" come up almost anywhere a target is involved for an ability of some kind, thus making the situation of defining "allies" and "enemies" a mechanic of the game just as much as it is a perceived label to differentiate characters on a social level. Thusly something that is decided once and set in almost permanent stone (like alignments (because ppl don't often care to bother changing alignments anyways because they probably already chose one that conforms to any future plans of their build))

The description for "Attacks of Opportunity" define you as being able to make free attacks against opponents that you threaten. Whether one is an ally or an enemy is not something that can just be changed at the drop of a hat, and I'd say especially so when in the middle of combat to take advantage of certain rules. If you take an AoO against a fellow PC in a fight, even if the 'attack' ends up being a healing spell, you still took action against and attacked them as if that PC was an enemy as per the rules of AoOs. If the DM and the other players don't give a damn, then oh well, whatever, take advantage as you wish. But if they do, even just if one of them, this can lead to planting a seed of paranoia amongst one or several of your party mates. Why? Because suddenly your character perceives one or more of them as enemies in order to have done this. Sure the end result was healing their injuries, but what about NEXT TIME?! Now they would be constantly wary of everything you do, secretly worrying over what you may or may not do next. What if one of them is seriously injured and near death and you are within reach of them however they need to retreat and while can do so in a way to avoid their enemy's AoO, can't do anything against 'technically' provoking one from you and you take it. Is that a much needed Heal spell coming in? Or is it a Harm coming in to finish them off and they are just realizing the rest of the party is in no position to either come to the rescue if it is Harm or aren't even able to see it happen if so thus causing even more worry that they're about to be PKed!!

Maybe.

Just sayin', yanno?

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

Also not necessarily true. In D&D anyways.
Because some actions come with those little [Good] or [Evil] descriptors. Like some spells. And using a spell is an action.

Bwahahaha 

[Nanshork]

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness disagree with you, in D&D certain actions are specifically labeled as evil no matter what your purpose is.

[nijineko]

heck, even the dmg and phb disagree with that point. d&d is a morally and ethically concrete universe. certain things are right or wrong regardless. at least by raw. ^^

[littha]

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness disagree with you, in D&D certain actions are specifically labeled as evil no matter what your purpose is.

Deathwatch 

[dumah87]

I should have added "ironic sentence" at the end of my last post, but I thought that a was sufficient...

Anyway ...

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness disagree with you, in D&D certain actions are specifically labeled as evil no matter what your purpose is.

Deathwatch 

heck, even the dmg and phb disagree with that point. d&d is a morally and ethically concrete universe. certain things are right or wrong regardless. at least by raw. ^^

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness disagree with you, in D&D certain actions are specifically labeled as evil no matter what your purpose is.

... you're all actually quite right.

I apologize if my english is uncorrect.

[dumah87]

IIRC enemy, foe, ally, friend are just a name in Dnd.

Not necessarily true. I mean, the terms "ally/allies" and "enemy/enemies" come up almost anywhere a target is involved for an ability of some kind, thus making the situation of defining "allies" and "enemies" a mechanic of the game just as much as it is a perceived label to differentiate characters on a social level. Thusly something that is decided once and set in almost permanent stone (like alignments (because ppl don't often care to bother changing alignments anyways because they probably already chose one that conforms to any future plans of their build))

The description for "Attacks of Opportunity" define you as being able to make free attacks against opponents that you threaten. Whether one is an ally or an enemy is not something that can just be changed at the drop of a hat, and I'd say especially so when in the middle of combat to take advantage of certain rules. If you take an AoO against a fellow PC in a fight, even if the 'attack' ends up being a healing spell, you still took action against and attacked them as if that PC was an enemy as per the rules of AoOs. If the DM and the other players don't give a damn, then oh well, whatever, take advantage as you wish. But if they do, even just if one of them, this can lead to planting a seed of paranoia amongst one or several of your party mates. Why? Because suddenly your character perceives one or more of them as enemies in order to have done this. Sure the end result was healing their injuries, but what about NEXT TIME?! Now they would be constantly wary of everything you do, secretly worrying over what you may or may not do next. What if one of them is seriously injured and near death and you are within reach of them however they need to retreat and while can do so in a way to avoid their enemy's AoO, can't do anything against 'technically' provoking one from you and you take it. Is that a much needed Heal spell coming in? Or is it a Harm coming in to finish them off and they are just realizing the rest of the party is in no position to either come to the rescue if it is Harm or aren't even able to see it happen if so thus causing even more worry that they're about to be PKed!!

Maybe.

Just sayin', yanno?

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

Also not necessarily true. In D&D anyways.
Because some actions come with those little [Good] or [Evil] descriptors. Like some spells. And using a spell is an action.

Bwahahaha 

I disagree because a friend could turn on the enemy side even during the combact (i.e. : a doppelganger infiltrated in the group reveals his/her nature), isnt' right?
Maybe I could suspect this even while I'm granting him/her my spell bonuses, so I nevertheless decide to threat every memeber of my group.

On the other hand I agree with the Paranoia seed I may agree, but the ability to make AoO spell should be perceived just like combact superiority.
AoO are not evil!
a thought like : "Oh my [Deity of Faerun/Greyhawk etc...]! he/she's making an AoO on me! But wait he/she's healing me...hell yeah! But... what about next time...better be careful..."
is wrong, better like ""Oh my [Deity of Faerun/Greyhawk etc...]! his/her combact skill are peerless! He/she can cast spell in a blink of an eye! I love him/her !

I apologize if my English language is uncorrect

[dumah87]

Actions are not evil or good, purposes are

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness disagree with you, in D&D certain actions are specifically labeled as evil no matter what your purpose is.

Deathwatch 

Combobreaker!