I remember asking this same question in a thread about this awhile ago. Now I have "an official anser". Thank you Paizo. No more discussions with my players about this *g*...
"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. "
|
Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?
In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.
Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!
--Vrock Market Crash!
Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?
In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.
Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!
--Vrock Market Crash!
Um, I think it was probably because it didn't make sense to be able to fire a magical arrow in melee range to avoid an AoO, but using an actual arrow did.
|
Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?
In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.
Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!
--Vrock Market Crash!
It's obvious, you have to stick your arm out that far to shoot a bolt from your fingertips, or whatever. Of course, the best thing to do is take a 5 foot step away from your threateners before casting the spell.
|
It's obvious, you have to stick your arm out that far to shoot a bolt from your fingertips, or whatever. Of course, the best thing to do is take a 5 foot step away from your threateners before casting the spell.Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?
In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.
Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!
--Vrock Market Crash!
Not with Step Up anymore.
Really this made sense, as it makes this does two things for the melee classes. It encourages the Wizard's reliance upon them to keep the big armored tank from smashing them to pieces, and it allows the fighter to ruin the BBEG's day by attacking them and keeping the pressure up, no matter the difficulties.
|
|
Um, I think it was probably because it didn't make sense to be able to fire a magical arrow in melee range to avoid an AoO, but using an actual arrow did.Why on earth is casting a spell with a ranged touch attack any different to do while threatened than casting a targeted spell while threatened?
In 3.5 you provoked for making a Standard or Full round "Ranged Attack," meaning an attack with a missile or thrown weapon. You also provoked for "Casting a Spell," but could avoid that through defensive casting. How is it any different to cast Hold Person than Scorching Ray??? The Ranged Touch Attack was part of the Casting a Spell action, not a seperate action of its own.
Really I want to know the reasoning behind the change? Is it because touch spells were too good? If that's the case then perhaps it's a reasonable change. Enquiring Minds Want to know!!!
--Vrock Market Crash!
Again how is casting a spell with that requires a ranged touch attack any different than one that's an area effect or targeted??? They all have the same V, S, M, or Focus/Divine Focus Components. The act of casting a spell provokes in and of itself and to mitigate that you have casting defensively, which I think is much better now than it was in 3.5.
I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.
--Vrocks Car Willy!
|
How about... it's magic?
Ranged touch spells require a greater effort to shoot at distances and leave the caster open.
Ranged touch spells require a somatic component that involves leaning much farther than you can normally balance.
Nethys preferred a caster willing to get up close and personal so he made all ranged touch spells much harder to cast.
Really, just make up a reason. It was a mechanical decision, but it's magic. Who the heck knows how it's supposed to work?
It's D&D. Use your imagination. :)
|
The problem is with "it's magic" is that leaves it completely up to interpretation of what magic is and how it acts. My interpretation could say S.R. doesn't affect Divine Spells, and no spell offers a Save, becuase that's how I can see Magic. :)
I'd have no problem with ranged touch attacks working just like ranged attacks, except that ith Step Up, it completely robs the caster. This is a problem with fighters and Step Up, not ranged spells, though. At the very least, there needs to be a caster feat that negates Step Up.
I've already heard pretty unanimously, caster BBEG are extremely weak now, because they can't do anything at all once anyone closes with them.
The problem is with "it's magic" is that leaves it completely up to interpretation of what magic is and how it acts. My interpretation could say S.R. doesn't affect Divine Spells, and no spell offers a Save, becuase that's how I can see Magic. :)
I'd have no problem with ranged touch attacks working just like ranged attacks, except that ith Step Up, it completely robs the caster. This is a problem with fighters and Step Up, not ranged spells, though. At the very least, there needs to be a caster feat that negates Step Up.
I've already heard pretty unanimously, caster BBEG are extremely weak now, because they can't do anything at all once anyone closes with them.
All step up does is force casters to take combat casting. I am sure if a DM is brutal enough the caster can still put up a good fight. It may require prefight buffing but I think it can work. I really hope they did not nerf mirror image, even though I hated that spell when I was not DM'ing.
|
|
All step up does is force casters to take combat casting. I am sure if a DM is brutal enough the caster can still put up a good fight. It may require prefight buffing but I think it can work.
I don't see how? Step Up means he Fighter can follow you when you take a 5ft step to cast. Taking that 5ft step is mostly so a caster doesn't have to cast defensively. If they 5 ft step to cast, they are probably also not casting defensively, so combat casting will not do anything when the Fighter follows you and gets their attack, that forces the caster to make a concentration check anyway.
Again how is casting a spell with that requires a ranged touch attack any different than one that's an area effect or targeted??? They all have the same V, S, M, or Focus/Divine Focus Components. The act of casting a spell provokes in and of itself and to mitigate that you have casting defensively, which I think is much better now than it was in 3.5.
I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.
--Vrocks Car Willy!
I believe the why of it is in the mechanics. Casting a spell provokes an AOO (avoidable by casting defensively). Making a ranged attack also provokes an AOO.
|
|
Again how is casting a spell with that requires a ranged touch attack any different than one that's an area effect or targeted??? They all have the same V, S, M, or Focus/Divine Focus Components. The act of casting a spell provokes in and of itself and to mitigate that you have casting defensively, which I think is much better now than it was in 3.5.
I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.
--Vrocks Car Willy! I believe the why of it is in the mechanics. Casting a spell provokes an AOO (avoidable by casting defensively). Making a ranged attack also provokes an AOO.
I'v always played this way, honestly. It also takes the penulties for firing into a melee, and cover/concealment. ranged touch spells are treated as weapons, so they can crit. The only difference between throwning a ray and throwing a rock is that the ray just has to touch.
All step up does is force casters to take combat casting. I am sure if a DM is brutal enough the caster can still put up a good fight. It may require prefight buffing but I think it can work.I don't see how? Step Up means he Fighter can follow you when you take a 5ft step to cast. Taking that 5ft step is mostly so a caster doesn't have to cast defensively. If they 5 ft step to cast, they are probably also not casting defensively, so combat casting will not do anything when the Fighter follows you and gets their attack, that forces the caster to make a concentration check anyway.
The 5 ft step is your move equivalent action. When you see you are being followed then cast defensively so he can't stab you in the face, assuming you make the check anyway. There is nothing stopping you from take the 5 foot step and then casting defensively, unless it is a full round action now. If that is the case I might have to go back to the drawing board.
If you are still using 3.5 and Pathfinder rules take athletics and tumble so he can't follow you, of course once again you have to make the check.
|
|
Really, I can't help but say BOO HOO!
BOO HOO I CAN'T CAST INDISCRIMINATELY AND MELEE CHARACTERS ARE CATCHING UP TO MY SHENANIGANS!
There, I got it out of my system.
I don't mean to flame, really I dont, but when casters had no problems avoiding melee characters, the crux of the problem was, there really is only two classes that can keep a caster looking like he's about to poop his pants in fear because his tricks don't work.
1) Swordsage with the Setting Sun Discipline get Mirrored pursuit where you get a move action, after someone takes one, and the move doesn't provoke.
2) Knights make the area they threaten difficult terrain. This also harms casters as they can't just 5 ft step away.
That was pretty much IT. Melee combatants had to basically watch as the mages or bow shooting classes merely stepped back, and avoided the world of hurt since they could not follow come down upon them.
This feat merely says "If I'm a wizard, I now have to have minions, or I'm going to get ganked, pretty hard." It forces DMs to have creative encounter design, rather than stick them in generic room number 3 with the party, and watch him slowly tear them to pieces.
Great reply, dissinger.
I totally agree.
Someone is talkin as everybody had this darn step up feat.
Again how is casting a spell with that requires a ranged touch attack any different than one that's an area effect or targeted??? They all have the same V, S, M, or Focus/Divine Focus Components. The act of casting a spell provokes in and of itself and to mitigate that you have casting defensively, which I think is much better now than it was in 3.5.I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.
--Vrocks Car Willy!
Because it's a ranged attack. Making a ranged attack while threatened provokes attacks of opporunity. It's that simple.
Also, it's different from a targeted spell or an area effect spell in that you have to make an actual attack roll.
And actually, that rule is unchanged from 3.5.
And lets realize that if you succeed on the casting defensively you do get the spell off, it just the ranged attack means you might get hit for doing so. So you don't lose the spell at least.
And lets realize that if you succeed on the casting defensively you do get the spell off, it just the ranged attack means you might get hit for doing so. So you don't lose the spell at least.
But here is the follow up question:
If you don't cast defensively, and still succeed in getting a ranged touch attack spell off, do you provoke two sets of AoO?
(I haven't studied Concentration checks yet, but you used to be able to check against damage taken to still cast. I'm assuming that is still true.)
And if so, why?
I don't mean from a balance standpoint. I'm looking at this from a "streamline" point of view. Why work hard at solidifying all those corner case rules, to introduce one of your own?
|
|
I mean at least the Designers could spell out the WHY of it. That's all I want.
Here's an answer you might like better: You have to aim.
So, first you have to wave your hands about to work your mojo. That provokes an AoO which you can avoid by watching the big nasty axeman next to you and casting defensively.
Second, after you successfully completed your little ritual to summon the bright beam of death, you now have to take your eyes off the big nasty axeman to aim your ray at that dodgy rogue across the way. As soon as you take your eyes off him, you provoke another AoO as the axeman tries to chop you in twain.
Bob, designer of campaign settings, FRPG rulesets, and office furniture
|
|
Because it's a ranged attack. Making a ranged attack while threatened provokes attacks of opporunity. It's that simple.Also, it's different from a targeted spell or an area effect spell in that you have to make an actual attack roll.
And actually, that rule is unchanged from 3.5.
Actually you're wrong in 3.5 casting a spell with a touch or ranged touch component did NOT provoke.
From the 3.5 srd
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.
You provoked from the Cast a Spell action, not an Attack (Ranged) action. Casting defensively mitigated the AoO if successful. Therefore this is a specific change to the rule.
As for "aiming," I might have to aim a fireball to squeeze it into a tight space like an arrow slit... would that provoke too?
--On the chopping Vrock
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
This change was made for a few simple reasons. First, it was never perfectly clear whether or not this provoked in 3.5. I saw the rules citation, but it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged. Second, the homogeny of ranged attacks working in a similar way, spell or not, was just simply cleaner from a rules perspective. The value of the ranged touch attack is such, that it probably deserves this limitation in any case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there all,
This change was made for a few simple reasons. First, it was never perfectly clear whether or not this provoked in 3.5. I saw the rules citation, but it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged. Second, the homogeny of ranged attacks working in a similar way, spell or not, was just simply cleaner from a rules perspective. The value of the ranged touch attack is such, that it probably deserves this limitation in any case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'll agree with that. The warlock in my player group used to irritate the heck out of me. I'd have to beef up all the bad guys because he was doing 6d6 RTA every round (and basically hitting every round). Plus he had his AC so high that nobody could hit him with a ranged attack (without being able to slam everyone else on a 6 or better). :(
I need hardly mention how much I love this change. I might add a feat at the end of a "Point-Blank Shot" chain, though, to let ranged attacks off without provoking AoO.
|
|
Or you could ready an action (Like charge when he casts a spell), it works like a charm.
"I ready an action to hit the wizard as soon as he attempts to cast a spell..."
"Okay the wizard takes a five foot step back and attempts to cast a spell. Your trigger occurs, take your attack."
"I can't hit him!"
"That's your fault dude."
Unless you take Step Up, there is no way to make that pay off. Readying an action that is based off casting, means more often than not, the target will be out of range when they cast that spell. If this is not the case, you have finally cornered the guy against a wall.
You're better off just trying to hit him while you got him there, and building up to follow after him. By making Ranged Touch Attacks magically better than ranged attacks it gave wizards yet ANOTHER point over martial characters. Sorry, your wizard is bound by the same laws as anyone else, and when you make that ranged attack, someone KNOWS they've got an opening to exploit, they're going to do it.
Charge also has a minimum distance.
The only thing I am not a fan of about this is the possibilty of getting 2 chances of AoO on one standard action, that just seems wrong to me, very wrong.
Except the dude threatening you gets only one (1) AoO per provocation, even if he has Combat Reflexes.
Or you could ready an action (Like charge when he casts a spell), it works like a charm."I ready an action to hit the wizard as soon as he attempts to cast a spell..."
"Okay the wizard takes a five foot step back and attempts to cast a spell. Your trigger occurs, take your attack."
"I can't hit him!"
"That's your fault dude."
Unless you take Step Up, there is no way to make that pay off. Readying an action that is based off casting, means more often than not, the target will be out of range when they cast that spell. If this is not the case, you have finally cornered the guy against a wall.
Actually, not exactly. If you have moved no other distance before Readying your action, you can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action. If you had to move to get to the caster, then you are SOL, but if you were already there, you can move with him. (PFRPG pg 203).
AJ
The only thing I am not a fan of about this is the possibilty of getting 2 chances of AoO on one standard action, that just seems wrong to me, very wrong.Except the dude threatening you gets only one (1) AoO per provocation, even if he has Combat Reflexes.
That still gives "the dude threatening you" the possibility of two AoO from one standard action.
1) Casting a spell non-defensively, and assuming it still goes off2) Succeeding in casting a ranged touch attack.
Unless there is an error on the PDR, there is no restriction on the number of AoO per target per round - if you have combat reflexes, nor is it worded to prevent more than one AoO per triggering action. Just per opportunity.
And this brings up a follow up to my follow up question:
Does this only affect ranged touch attack spells? I don't recall any ranged attack (non-touch) spells in core, but we do need to prepare for 3rd party possibilities.
And if non-touch ranged attack spells aren't affected, why not?
No, I agree with Dragnmoon. This rule feels "wrong." Not so much for any balance issue, but for the ugliness it introduces into the rules.
That still gives "the dude threatening you" the possibility of two AoO from one standard action.
1) Casting a spell non-defensively, and assuming it still goes off
2) Succeeding in casting a ranged touch attack.
Let's think this through. The caster isn't likely to cast non-defensively, because then when he gets hit he's almost sure to lose the spell. So unless he's got awesome defenses up and isn't worried about attacks to begin with, he'll cast defensively. OK, that means that either he loses the spell from failing his concentration (more likely now at low levels, but still next to impossible at high levels), or else he gets the spell off and then provokes an AoO for firing a missile while threatened -- same as an archer.
That would concern me if I were the caster, so I would first move 30 ft. away -- provoking an AoO for movement but foiling any readied actions to disrupt my casting -- and then cast non-defensively and fire the missile without provoking. Even better, I could put up a mirror image spell this round and then move away, and if the silly dude follows me, I can move again and then cast the ranged spell. And if I'm a wizard who actually uses his high Int, I'm for sure going to max out Acrobatics with some of those skill points -- so then I can even avoid AoO for moving.
Yes, this rule forces the casters to think tactically a bit instead of "pew-pewing" everything in sight, but I like that addition. Obviously the people who feel that casters should always outclass warriors don't like the rule, in which case they can houserule it away.
This rule feels "wrong." Not so much for any balance issue, but for the ugliness it introduces into the rules.
And that's the bottom line, which Paizo fully understands. Most people don't want a game that works mechanically; they want a game that seems to cater to their personal feelings. Which is why Pathfinder, with gaudy full-color art but numerous mechanical problems left unsolved, is sold out in print, and will likely remain a best-seller in PDF indefinitely.
If I'm blasting something (like fire) from my fingertips, I'm a living weapon. If my opponent wants to ignore that I'm a living weapon then they should get no saving throw. In any case, attacking with my weapon should not provoke a AoO. I've already had to cast defensively, dealt with grappling or whatever, and maybe have had to deal with them readying an action against spell casting, isn't that enough?!?
3.5 had the rules right imo. Ranged touch attacks are armed attacks.
Fyi, this change has almost no effect at all on PCs, but it has a HUGE effect on the bad guys. I can no longer put a spellcaster bad guy in my game without houserules, between concentration and rullings like this, they just suck, absolutely no challenge. I guess it doesn't help that melee classes tear through everything in record time as well.
|
|
If I'm blasting something (like fire) from my fingertips, I'm a living weapon. If my opponent wants to ignore that I'm a living weapon then they should get no saving throw. In any case, attacking with my weapon should not provoke a AoO. I've already had to cast defensively, dealt with grappling or whatever, and maybe have had to deal with them readying an action against spell casting, isn't that enough?!?
Bolded by me. Unless it's a ranged weapon. You're throwing gobs of fire around, I'm pulling back a bow. We both need to take our eyes off the guy with the axe standing next to us if we want to hit anything. Why should I be the only one who has to dodge?
I'll listen to the whining more easily when archers get a "Shoot Defensively" option.
Fyi, this change has almost no effect at all on PCs, but it has a HUGE effect on the bad guys. I can no longer put a spellcaster bad guy in my game without houserules...
Here's one thing that always made me stop and think: if there was a BBEG in a 3.5 module who was human(oid), he was ALWAYS a caster. Why is that? Oh, yeah, because a warrior was no contest for a party of PCs, whereas a caster was. Now it's evened out a bit -- maybe the bad guy caster needs some mooks to run interference, and to think a bit. Meanwhile, maybe you can occasionally have a warrior BBEG (unheard of!) without the PCs walking all over him.
Archers don't have to make ridiculous concentration checks each round (that only work 50% of the time) to see if they can fire their bow each round. They aren't comparable.
Like I said, doesn't affect the PCs so much, affects my NPCs. Casters die too easily now without being able to what they're supposed to do, with too many way to shut them down. That's been my experience so far.
Now it's evened out a bit -- maybe the bad guy caster needs some mooks to run interference, and to think a bit. Meanwhile, maybe you can occasionally have a warrior BBEG (unheard of!) without the PCs walking all over him.
I played 5 scenarios this weekend and most of the casters had guys running interference. It completely didn't matter, they all died in 1 round. The guy who lived to round 2 couldn't cast because of concentration. He would have been better off just blasting us with channelling, it's the only thing that works reliably now.
You obviously don't like caster opponents or have some agenda against them, which is fine, but I never had a problem with the power difference between BBEG that were warriors or casters, they're all a threat if played properly. Actually, the only encounter that was a threat this weekend was an enemy fighter, mostly because they output 20 HP of single target damage each round.
You obviously don't like caster opponents or have some agenda against them, which is fine, but I never had a problem with the power difference between BBEG that were warriors or casters, they're all a threat if played properly.
My "agenda" is that, in 3.5 or PF Beta, if I actually played a wizard BBEG intelligently, he invariably TK'ed the party -- latest example: one 11th level enchanter bad guy wiped out four 9th level PCs without too much trouble -- and one of them even had the Mage Slayer feat that prevents defensive casting.
A cleric or sorcerer with low Int, OK, you can have them play stupidly, or make obvious mistakes that let the party trounce them. But a wizard who supposedly has a 20 Int? It strains my credibility way too far if he sits around and waits for the party catch him with his pants down, so I play him as if he has half a brain.
OTOH, if I use a fighter bad guy 4 levels higher than the party, he dies in 1 round. If I pull out all the stops and play him to the hilt, maybe he takes 1 character down with him, but there's no way he can possibly threaten a party of four.
NOTE: I'm talking mid-level play here, not 1st level characters. That might make a huge difference in thinking.
|
|
The way I read AoO and Ranged Touch attack, both casting the spell and the actual ranged touch attack both are separate opportunities to get a AoO on one standard action, Which I said ealier just feels wrong and seems at least Disenchanter agrees with me on. Basically makes the touched spells no matter what you do if you are near melle you are guaranteed to get attacked. Someone with out Combat Reflexes will just not take his first opportunity to get the AoO off and just wait for the Ranged Touch to go off, that the Wizard can't defend against.
Luckily the Wizard really just needs to worry about opponents with Step-Up which not all of them will have, so most of the time it will not be a problem, he just needs to take a 5' step back and start casting.
Also this is an easy rule to Home Rule out if you are so inclined to.
My only issue with the new rule is the following:
If ranged spells (spells requiring a ranged attack roll) are going to provoke AoO's like any other ranged attack (makes sense) then I want to see all those lovely archery feats work for ranged spells too.
It doesn't make sense to me that it is impossible to "deadly aim" a ranged touch attack. Ray of frosting someone's face is going to hurt more than ray of frosting someones left arm (or scorching ray et al).
|
|
My only issue with the new rule is the following:
If ranged spells (spells requiring a ranged attack roll) are going to provoke AoO's like any other ranged attack (makes sense) then I want to see all those lovely archery feats work for ranged spells too.
Indeed and I see that the feat Deadly Aim does in fact work with ranged touch attack spells. Not that casters will see a huge benefit from this since it is BAB based but still a not a bad feat especially for a ray specialist.
Edit: Well dang, just reread and caught the last line of deadly aim excluding ranged touch attacks, bummer. Seemed fairly balanced to me since most casters wouldn't see a huge benefit. Except maybe an eldritch knight ray specialist monster.
|
|
Indeed and I see that the feat Deadly Aim does in fact work with ranged touch attack spells. Not that casters will see a huge benefit from this since it is BAB based but still a not a bad feat especially for a ray specialist.My only issue with the new rule is the following:
If ranged spells (spells requiring a ranged attack roll) are going to provoke AoO's like any other ranged attack (makes sense) then I want to see all those lovely archery feats work for ranged spells too.
Really? The PRD specifically says it doesn't apply to touch attacks.
The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
If ranged spells (spells requiring a ranged attack roll) are going to provoke AoO's like any other ranged attack (makes sense) then I want to see all those lovely archery feats work for ranged spells too.
That makes perfect sense to me; I'd allow them.
If ranged spells (spells requiring a ranged attack roll) are going to provoke AoO's like any other ranged attack (makes sense) then I want to see all those lovely archery feats work for ranged spells too.That makes perfect sense to me; I'd allow them.
Damn, everyone prepare for 2012, at this rate of agreement the world is going to end! :D
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey there all,
This change was made for a few simple reasons. First, it was never perfectly clear whether or not this provoked in 3.5. I saw the rules citation, but it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged. Second, the homogeny of ranged attacks working in a similar way, spell or not, was just simply cleaner from a rules perspective. The value of the ranged touch attack is such, that it probably deserves this limitation in any case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I hate to necro an old thread, but are you also saying that if I provoke(do not cast defensively) that I provoke a second time from the actual ranged touch attack.
|
|
I hate to necro an old thread, but are you also saying that if I provoke(do not cast defensively) that I provoke a second time from the actual ranged touch attack.
Yep, that would be how it would work I believe.
And it makes sense and prevents magic users casting a ranged touch spell whilst out of reach of an opponent and then moving adjacent to them and making a ranged touch attack without provoking an AoO.