| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
After some thought about a recent thread I have come to the conclusion that the simplest rules question that needs to be answered is the one in the topic of this thread. Basically, the answer to this question could make the other thread and many other related questions moot.
Here is the relavant rules text:
Making an Attack of OpportunityAn attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
The other thread posed the question if Greater Trip worked in conjunction with Vicious Stomp to trigger 2 AoOs. Greater Trip triggers off successfully tripping an opponent and Vicious Stomp triggers off an opponent falling prone next to you. While tripping someone is the actual act that is being performed that makes both triggers happen in most cases (but not all) it is not what triggers both. The question is - due to the wording of Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity posted above - if these triggers represent seperate "opportunities".
Clearly there are cases where you can get multiple AoOs against someone or else it wouldn't have needed to make the specification of "...but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)." But just what kind of actions qualify for this?
For instance, when you cast a ranged touch spell while in a threatened square would this give one AoO, or two? Would it be just a single AoO because it was one "act" which triggered the AoO? Or would it be two AoOs because there were two different triggering conditions being met (casting a spell, and making a ranged attack)?
From my personal perspective I would say that it would be 2 AoOs in both circumstances as it makes more sense to me to count the number of triggers that happen, not how many acts were performed. The only exception to this is movement, which, in my opinion, is why they bothered to spell that out as an exception in the rules posted above.
I'm not posting this to preach what my opinion is and why. I'm here because I think this needs to be ruled on. Sure I'm curious about other people's opinions. But it is the designer's opinions that really matter here. The last thread was locked as a moderator thought that it had got answered and that the answer was simply burried. But it was never answered by any designer or other "rules guy". The thread was marked for FAQ by over 60 people so you'd think it would be an issue that Paizo would be interested in weighing in on.
I'm sure that this is something on their radar. Hopefully it is something that is being discussed currently and they are waiting to give the most balanced answer. But without any contact and the thread being otherwise locked we are left blindly awaiting any kind of response. The reason I'm posting this thread is to give a forum for people (mostly designers) an opportunity to post their thoughts.
And please, for the love of all that is holy, can we keep this thread on topic and not inject any emotionally driven responses? We don't need people calling into question anyone's intelligence, slandering their reading retention or otherwise being a jerk. No one wants this thread to get locked because one bad apple ruins the bushel for everyone. Lets keep it civil.
AoO's are based more on acts, not actions. Most actions just happen to be one act.
As an example if you cast a ranged touch spell in melee you provoke once for casting, once for making a ranged attack while in melee range.<--This is specified by a dev. I will see if my search-fu can locate it.
Does there really need to be another thread on this?
This is the only post I will make in this thread, and when this one gets locked too, we will see who the bad apple is.
The answer is actually in the books for the ranged touch question.
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."
Below is Jason saying that such spells are good enough to warrant two AoO's.
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
Maven he is actually asking a different question. I would like to not discuss the greater stomp question here because it has its own thread already though.
|
I certainly don't think we need yet another thread on what is basically the same topic. We've already seen one poster state one of the points of view (complete with a quote from a developer that the poster chooses to read as supporting his particular interpretation of the rules). I'm quite sure that this will be countered by the opposing view - that it's still only one actual provocation (albeit with two distinct ways it can trigger). The quoted message can equally well be read as supporting this viewpoint, of course.
Nothing new will come from this thread; there are already enough FAQ requests in the other threads to prompt a definitive ruling from the developers, should they be so inclined. If they don't choose to respond to the other threads, I don't see this thread changing their mind.
I am sure they will eventually answer the other thread. They just do things on their own time.
On my previous answer:The ranged touch issue could be an exception. I don't know of many actions that are composed of more than one act so I think I will have to say it depends.
|
this subject has been beat to death instead of having all posters bring you there collective knowledge please take the time to search through some threads. the post you originally posted explains that the greater trip vicious stomp you get 2 aos. one is procced when you successfully trip someone the other is from when you cause a player to gain the prone condition. as for other things it may take some evaluating but the general rule is you are only allowed one attack of opportunity for any one thing that happens UNLESS YOU HAVE A FEAT THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.
feats are after all exceptions to the rules of gaming. movement through threaten squares provoke one ao from each threatening creature. however if as you move through threatened squares and you failed the cast defensively concentration check on a swift action dmging spell you released in a threatend square your opponenet can smack you for moving and smack you for casting. if you had greater trip and used trip for your ao from the casting you can take an additional ao from the guy being tripped. then if u have vicious stomp bam you ao them again for hitting the floor. see how all 4 aos happened at the same time but each one was brought from a different source
As of now there is no way to get everyone on page with the other thread unless someone has an exact statement, so there is really no need to discuss it otherwise.
As for the topic in general I think my "it depends" answer suffices. So unless someone has another specific example I think the thread has run its course.
The answer is actually in the books for the ranged touch question.
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."Below is Jason saying that such spells are good enough to warrant two AoO's.
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
Nowhere there is he stating that a ranged spell is good enough for two AoO's. Rather he is clarifying that despite successfully casting defensively, because it is still a ranged attack it is still provoking just like any other ranged attack, like using a bow.
Even if you had not successfully cast defensively, you would still only provoke once. Casting a spell and making a ranged attack in this case represent not two separate opportunities to make an attack, but rather two conditions either of which would allow the one attack for the one action.
Nowhere there is he stating that a ranged spell is good enough for two AoO's. Rather he is clarifying that despite successfully casting defensively, because it is still a ranged attack it is still provoking just like any other ranged attack, like using a bow.
Even if you had not successfully cast defensively, you would still only provoke once. Casting a spell and making a ranged attack in this case represent not two separate opportunities to make an attack, but rather two conditions either of which would allow the one attack for the one action.
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."
Even if means "whether or not" in most cases. So that means the ranged attack part will provoke no matter what the result of the actual casting is.
The thread this came from supports that. Below is when the question is asked about why the change was made.
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!
As you can see 3.5 did not allow this.
Below is Jason's reply again.
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
Well, I guess thats the points, wraithstrike. Is it an exception, or not?
Or to ask that another way: Are there other circumstances that can be thought of that are one act that provides two AoOs?
Is there anything to point to the ranged touch attack spell being an exception? And if it IS an exception, what is it an exception to? I mean, what is the rule that it is making an exception of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John F - If you don't like the thread, dont read it. If you don't want to post here, don't. If you have nothing constructive to add, I'd rather you not anyway.
Otherwise, I welcome your viewpoints.
You are correct, Martiln.
However, to preserve the point I believe Martiln was trying to make assume that the character in question is not casting defensively as he does not wish to lose his spell and would rather take his chances with making a concentration check against potential damage from threatening an AoO.
Also, if I am not mistaken, not all swift spells are cast using quicken. Some spells are swift by nature. I can't think of any ranged touch spells that are, though. Perhaps he was refering to a hypothetical spell? Either way I believe swift spells not cast via quicken still threaten. Unless I'm mistaken?
AoO's are based more on acts, not actions. Most actions just happen to be one act.
As an example if you cast a ranged touch spell in melee you provoke once for casting, once for making a ranged attack while in melee range.<--This is specified by a dev. I will see if my search-fu can locate it.
...its also written in the core rules..no search fu needed. Unfortunately, on Ranged Touch spells the casting & touching are all in one continuous motion (not like melee touches which are a free action afterward).
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. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
So this is a clear example of one "action" provoking two attacks of opportunity.
Stynkk, while I agree that it is a clear example of one "action" provoking two AoOs I didn't realize that this fact was something that was even contested. But it appears that Fuzzypaws' post above shows an altnernate opinion on how Jason's response above.
However, I do think wraithstrike hit the nail on the head with it being misinterpretted. Unless... does anyone still think that this one action does not provoke two AoOs?
Is this more precedent or more exception? If it is exception ...to what rule is it an exception to?
Is this more precedent or more exception? If it is exception ...to what rule is it an exception to?
My vote is certainly precedent, as there is no text to indicate this instance is in any way unique.
Stynkk, I agree.
James: I want to thank you for your candor in these discussions. Even though you disagree with the views of many people here you still do it in a logical respectful way.
I guess I would ask that if you can get 2 AoOs from one action when casting a ranged touch spell then how is this really different from the GT+VS or the whip+come and get it situations?
Anyway, I think you helped to successfully define that grey area by giving some other good examples. Not that it will matter here if 60+ didn't get attention in the other thread but please hit FAQ. I think getting this grey area answered will serve to solve the rules problems from many situations not just one specific situation.
The answer is actually in the books for the ranged touch question.
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."Below is Jason saying that such spells are good enough to warrant two AoO's.
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
Actually, that rules passage says ranged touch attacks provoke if you cast defensively. If you cast defensively, the casting doesn't provoke, so it's still only one AoO.
It also gives casting a second way to provoke if you couldn't take the first AoO for some reason (e.g. cast, 5-ft. step, shoot) similar to ranged attacks and Come and Get Me from the previous thread. It doesn't say that casting a ranged touch spell is an exception to the "one attack per opportunity" clause. It could be read that way, but it isn't specific.
Of course, what exactly an opportunity is isn't clearly defined, so casting a ranged touch spell could be two separate opportunities. There's no good way to tell for sure one way or the other.
Jason's remarks seem to be simply supporting the rules statement in question, which, as I've pointed out, isn't exactly unambiguous.
I certainly don't think we need yet another thread on what is basically the same topic. We've already seen one poster state one of the points of view (complete with a quote from a developer that the poster chooses to read as supporting his particular interpretation of the rules). I'm quite sure that this will be countered by the opposing view - that it's still only one actual provocation (albeit with two distinct ways it can trigger). The quoted message can equally well be read as supporting this viewpoint, of course.
Nothing new will come from this thread; there are already enough FAQ requests in the other threads to prompt a definitive ruling from the developers, should they be so inclined. If they don't choose to respond to the other threads, I don't see this thread changing their mind.
The other thread discussed multiple rules issues, of which this is but one. The other thread also got so out of hand that it was locked.
Don't you think a more pointed, civil thread is more likely to get positive attention from the devs, there by getting a specific answer to a specific question, than an unfocused thread that had become more name calling than rules discussion?
Well, I guess thats the points, wraithstrike. Is it an exception, or not?
Or to ask that another way: Are there other circumstances that can be thought of that are one act that provides two AoOs?
Is there anything to point to the ranged touch attack spell being an exception? And if it IS an exception, what is it an exception to? I mean, what is the rule that it is making an exception of?
It is an exception.
The wording of combat reflexes reinforces that you can not make two AoO's off of one action.The wording of "Ranged Touch Spells in Combat:" goes out of the way to say you can do it for that case, and the developer says the ruling for ranged touch spells in combat was changed. He did not say the ruling for AoO's in general was changed. There is also no difference in the verbage between 3.5 and PF to suggest a rules change, other than in the ranged touch spell in combat rules.
I would have replied earlier, but my internet went down.
The answer is actually in the books for the ranged touch question.
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."Below is Jason saying that such spells are good enough to warrant two AoO's.
That is absolutely correct. You can prevent ONE of those AOO's by casting defensively. (save where a weird feat or class feature might prevent that), but you're still subject to the aOO for firing off the rays/orbs/bolts themselves.
However the would be AOO'er would still be limited to one attack of opportunity per round unless they have an appropriate feat.
I agree that you do need combat reflexes.
How is my posting of King of Vrock's question, and Jason's answer even being questioned? He is answering that question. If Jason disagree he would have said that is not the case. I am sure the question which specifically calls out a rules change between 3.5 and PF is easy for Jason to understand.
PS:I am not saying anyone is allowed to make two AoO's without having combat reflexes under any circumstances.
That is understandable so I will bring another quote into the occasion.
First I will give the title of the thread-->Finally - Ranged Touch Spells provoke AoO.
Next is the OP's statement:
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. "
Vrock is asking why ranged touch attacks provoke even if the spell is cast defensively.
Others posters chime in to basically agree that it is two AoO's for one action, before an after Jason post.
I am sure if that was not the intent he would have corrected them.
Reading the post you can see that people are discussing the disagreement of the ruling, but nobody is disagreeing with what the ruling is.
By the way, the whip and come and get me example from earlier I think should incur two AoO's, As starting to attack with a whip is what triggers the first, swinging at the barbarian is a whole different part of what's happening. I have no real back up for this, just the feeling. I mean if the whip user standing next to the barbarian and attacking someone 15 feet away provokes the same amount as without come and get me? Or, someone without Improved Unarmed Strike punching him in the face only provokes once? Sometimes the game doesn't make sense thematically to make sense mechanically, and vice versa.
Looking at it again I want to change my mind. I just thought of several ways to interpret the post I linked to.
The only problem is that the other thread had people who looked at is as a double AoO, and they were never corrected. The devs are pretty good about clarifying things when they enter into a thread, and it is not like them to just bail out.
I see it as when you rear back to strike with a whip or unarmed strike, it's not a natural motion and you leave yourself open, provoking an AoO. When you follow through with that motion on the barbarian he is sacrificing his ability to defend himself to smash you on your follow through, which provokes the second AoO he takes. Shrug its all semantics and visualization dependent on personal thought. I'm sure someone will eventually follow through with an FAQ, especially with how this thread is worded, which is a much more wide ranging implication than just a specific couple of feats. The fact I entered thinking strongly one way and could be swayed the other, and the other way around for other people, showcases how blurry the line here is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. You've got a 6th level wizard that is casting scorching ray. For some reason, the wizard decides NOT to cast defensively, even though he has a hostile lizardman with 2 levels of fighter armed with a short sword adjacent to him.
Wiz starts to cast the spell and provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the Lizardman. If the AoO misses, there is no effect and the spell goes off. If the AoO hits, the wizard takes damage and must make a Concentration check to complete his spell (right?).
Wiz finishes casting his spell. Not really too concerned about the adjacent Lizardman, he instead opts to hit the Ogre Barbarian 3 25' distant from him. He now provokes a SECOND Attack of Opportunity for making a ranged attack (this is completely seperate from the AoO he gained from not casting defensively).
Lucikly for the bad guys, the Lizardman Fighter has combat reflexes as a feat; he rolls his Attack of Opportunity. Whether or not he hits or misses doesn't matter; the only way he can prevent the wiz from rolling his attack on the Ogre is to knock him unconscious. He hits! But he rolls a 1 on the damage and the Wiz remains standing. The wizard doesn't have to make a Concentration check (the spell is already cast) and may now roll his ranged touch attack on the Ogre.
That's how I view it.
Master Arminas
|
|
Looking at it again I want to change my mind. I just thought of several ways to interpret the post I linked to.
The only problem is that the other thread had people who looked at is as a double AoO, and they were never corrected. The devs are pretty good about clarifying things when they enter into a thread, and it is not like them to just bail out.
The devs didn't correct the people who argued that it was just a single AoO, either. Reading implied support (for either viewpoint) into their silence is unwarranted.
|
Okay. You've got a 6th level wizard that is casting scorching ray. For some reason, the wizard decides NOT to cast defensively, even though he has a hostile lizardman with 2 levels of fighter armed with a short sword adjacent to him.
Wiz starts to cast the spell and provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the Lizardman. If the AoO misses, there is no effect and the spell goes off. If the AoO hits, the wizard takes damage and must make a Concentration check to complete his spell (right?).
Wiz finishes casting his spell. Not really too concerned about the adjacent Lizardman, he instead opts to hit the Ogre Barbarian 3 25' distant from him. He now provokes a SECOND Attack of Opportunity for making a ranged attack (this is completely seperate from the AoO he gained from not casting defensively).
Lucikly for the bad guys, the Lizardman Fighter has combat reflexes as a feat; he rolls his Attack of Opportunity. Whether or not he hits or misses doesn't matter; the only way he can prevent the wiz from rolling his attack on the Ogre is to knock him unconscious. He hits! But he rolls a 1 on the damage and the Wiz remains standing. The wizard doesn't have to make a Concentration check (the spell is already cast) and may now roll his ranged touch attack on the Ogre.
That's how I view it.
Master Arminas
I agree with you Master Arminas 100%. :)
I see it as when you rear back to strike with a whip or unarmed strike, it's not a natural motion and you leave yourself open, provoking an AoO. When you follow through with that motion on the barbarian he is sacrificing his ability to defend himself to smash you on your follow through, which provokes the second AoO he takes. Shrug its all semantics and visualization dependent on personal thought. I'm sure someone will eventually follow through with an FAQ, especially with how this thread is worded, which is a much more wide ranging implication than just a specific couple of feats. The fact I entered thinking strongly one way and could be swayed the other, and the other way around for other people, showcases how blurry the line here is.
An attack is an attack. They are not broken down like that. How someone decided to attack with regard to motion is pretty much flavor if they decide to describe it.
Looking at it again I want to change my mind. I just thought of several ways to interpret the post I linked to.
The only problem is that the other thread had people who looked at is as a double AoO, and they were never corrected. The devs are pretty good about clarifying things when they enter into a thread, and it is not like them to just bail out.The devs didn't correct the people who argued that it was just a single AoO, either. Reading implied support (for either viewpoint) into their silence is unwarranted.
My point was that once a dev enters a thread he normally corrects misconceptions. If you look through their posts they are good for saying "This is what I was saying.......".
One can argue that thread was an anomaly, but the chances of it being true are small.
The wording is not clear enough or this discussion would not be taking place. I guess I do have to admit that much.
|
|
My point was that once a dev enters a thread he normally corrects misconceptions.
And my point was simply that as two contradictory viewpoints had been expressed in the thread, and neither had been corrected, this obviously had not happened. As a result, no conclusion can be drawn as to which of the two viewpoints is viewed by the developers as being the correct one.
Regardless taking a dev answer or FAQ and then running with it is never a good idea. Drawing inferences like that is dangerous.
I agree. However, when something is unclear and we are forced to make a ruling then aren't we all drawing inferences? I mean, isn't that why we are all here? We want to have it cleared up so that none of us - regardless of what side of the topic we fall on - don't have to debate it to find a concensus among ourselves? It is better to have a ruling.
And I think posting here and hitting FAQ is the best way to "ask them". Is there some better way that I do not know of? My mind is open to suggestions.
Hitting the FAQ button and waiting is the best way to do it. Every once in a while they pop in and answer, but there is no sure way to make it happen.
Well speaking for myself when absent a clear ruling, rather than inferences I use my judgement as to what is incorporated into the rest of the rules the most smoothly.
Hear, hear. I'm the GM for my Man Day group. If there's a conflict or ambiguity in the rules, the players quickly state their opinions, then I make a decision. We then continue playing the game and having fun.