I tried to find it and could not, but I do remember reading something somwhere.

The only way to avoid AoO while casting spells is to cast them defensivelly? Is that right? Or does feats like Silent Spell, Still spell and the such can acomplish something of the like?

Swift action spells also do not provoke. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Even using a spell-like ability (with no components at all), you have to sit there concentrating, i.e. not defending yourself, which provokes.

Correct only using the Casting Defensively action can you avoid an AoO when casting while threatened. Note that even this isn't perfect anymore as there is a feat to over come even that, but for the most part casting defensively is the way to go!

Using the metamagic Still, Silent, and Escew Materials feats won't prevent an AoO for casting while threatened. They do help while silenced and grappled however!

--Vrock of Ages!

Oh and as tejon mentioned swift spells never provoke.

Also dont forget that ranged touch attacks now provoke AoO even if you successfully cast defensively.

Also dont forget that ranged touch attacks now provoke AoO even if you successfully cast defensively.

Sprith wrote:

Also dont forget that ranged touch attacks now provoke AoO even if you successfully cast defensively.

Is that actually new to pathfinder? I've always played that way in 3.0/3.5....under the 'ranged attacks provoke AoO' concept.

Used to in 3.5 ranged touch spells didnt provoke if you successfully cast defensively. Now they do even if you succeed the check. So yep that part is new in PF.

Sprith wrote:

Used to in 3.5 ranged touch spells didnt provoke if you successfully cast defensively. Now they do even if you succeed the check. So yep that part is new in PF.

You need to document that, as I'm certain you are incorrect.

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.

I, for one, am not fond of this rule. Consider this:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow
you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting
of the spell.

So if the spell is cast defensively, and the ranged touch attack is "part of the casting of the spell" why does it provoke an AoO?

This puts casters trying to use these "ray" types of spells at a huge disadvantage. If he wanted to Magic Missile you, he just needs to cast defensively then he blasts you in the face from 5' away. But if he wants to Acid Splash you, he can try to cast defensively, but you can still whack him because some part of that defensive casting wasn't defensive enough?

Seems silly.

It's either part of the defensive casting, or it isn't. One little paragraph of text says both things at once, blatantly contradicting itself.

Me, I won't use this rule.

If you do use it, consider this. Attacks of Opportunity can disrupt the spellcasting, but casting defensively can prevent this. No AoO can stop an archer from shooting you from 5' away. Sure, you might hit him, but if he survives it, he shoots you anyway. Likewise with this silly rule. If the casting doesn't provoke (because he successfully casts defensively) but the ranged touch attack does, then if the caster survives the AoO, he can make his attack - so at least all is not lost (if he survives).

Sprith wrote:

Used to in 3.5 ranged touch spells didnt provoke if you successfully cast defensively. Now they do even if you succeed the check. So yep that part is new in PF.

You need to document that, as I'm certain you are incorrect.

If you do use it, consider this. Attacks of Opportunity can disrupt the spellcasting, but casting defensively can prevent this. No AoO can stop an archer from shooting you from 5' away. Sure, you might hit him, but if he survives it, he shoots you anyway. Likewise with this silly rule. If the casting doesn't provoke (because he successfully casts defensively) but the ranged touch attack does, then if the caster survives the AoO, he can make his attack - so at least all is not lost (if he survives).

Indeed the spell can no longer be disrupted as it has been cast, the delivery is what provokes the "AoO" and that makes sense in that it means any ranged attack provokes AoO. It's just a matter of surviving the blow and hitting.

Documented.

You need to document where the AoO was required in 3.5 and that needs to be in form of a line saying you don't provoke for Ranged Touch Spells when cast defensively. I don't believe you will find that line, which is why I asked for it to be documented. I might not be aware of the line.

...

Wed, Aug 19, 2009, 07:19 PM

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

No where did it say in 3.5 that a ranged touch attack would provoke spells as firing a ranged weapon did. It did however say that casting defensively removed the AoO for casting a spell. So it was reasonable in 3.5 to say defensive ranged touch attacks didn't provoke. Googled for about 20 min now and couldn't find any ruling contrary to that belief for 3.5 nor can I find anything in the book that says otherwise. As Jason said, it was changed and whether or not it was the intended case in 3.5 it is now clear in PF and it was a good change (or perhaps clarification? May never know unless you have proof that they still provoked after casting defensively). Really it could have been argued either way with the vague rules.

No where did it say in 3.5 that a ranged touch attack would provoke spells as firing a ranged weapon did.

I never really found much debate on this topic in 3.5, and from my point of view it was pretty commonly considered to provoke. IIRC, there was even a FAQ covering the question in 3.5 (and saying it provoked.)

Sprith wrote:

No where did it say in 3.5 that a ranged touch attack would provoke spells as firing a ranged weapon did.

While I could debate that point, it isn't worth it now. In 3.p, casting makes sense. How it worked (or didn't work) in 3.5 no longer matters to me.

I never really found much debate on this topic in 3.5, and from my point of view it was pretty commonly considered to provoke. IIRC, there was even a FAQ covering the question in 3.5 (and saying it provoked.)

Harry the wizard is toe-to-toe with an orc. He decides to cast Ray of Enfeeblement but doesn't want to provoke, so he casts defensively and succeeds at the roll. According to the book aiming the ray is "made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action". Yet, the orc still gets to make an AoO when Harry points at the orc to aim his ray.

Hermione the wizard is toe-to-toe with an orc. She is much smarter so she casts Magic Missile, but she doesn't want to provoke, so she casts defensively and succeeds on the roll. Somehow, she manages to point at the orc without provoking an AoO.

Both Harry and Hermione point at their orcs as part of casting their spell, but for some reason, Harry provokes and Hermione doesn't. I don't see any logical reason for this ruling.

The RAW explicitly says that casting the spell defensively doesn't provoke, so why should just one part of casting the spell provoke?

That's like saying "Eating an apple doesn't provoke an AoO, but taking a bit of an apple provokes."

It's realy a silly rule. Furthermore, it puts rays and other ranged touch spells at a disadvantage. Casting them provokes, aiming them provokes, and then you still have to roll to hit.

Dang, just use Magic Missile and you only have 1/3 the problems.

James Risner wrote:

...

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Wed, Aug 19, 2009, 07:19 PM

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

Full Thread

No where did it say in 3.5 that a ranged touch attack would provoke spells as firing a ranged weapon did. It did however say that casting defensively removed the AoO for casting a spell. So it was reasonable in 3.5 to say defensive ranged touch attacks didn't provoke. Googled for about 20 min now and couldn't find any ruling contrary to that belief for 3.5 nor can I find anything in the book that says otherwise. As Jason said, it was changed and whether or not it was the intended case in 3.5 it is now clear in PF and it was a good change (or perhaps clarification? May never know unless you have proof that they still provoked after casting defensively). Really it could have been argued either way with the vague rules.

In 3.5 Certain spells required a Touch attack roll to hit. Touch attacks come in 2 flavors: melee and ranged. In either case touch attacks did not provoke AoO's in and of themselves. Using the action "Cast a Spell" provoked, which could be mitigated by casting defensively. Only the Standard Action "Attack (Ranged)" provoked an AoO.

I mainly protested in the thread to get a reason for the change, which I see from a Game balance point of view rather than a versimilitude POV. Ranged touch AC's are ridiculously easy to hit in 3.5, so up the degree of difficulty the rule was changed.

--Vrock the House!

the wizard is toe-to-toe ... cast Ray of Enfeeblement ... casts defensively and succeeds ... the ray is "made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action". Yet, the orc still gets to make an AoO when Harry points at the orc to aim his ray.

3.0 FAQ:
"A ray (or any other spell that uses a ranged attack roll) follows all the same rules that govern ranged attacks ..."

If you follow all the same rules, you provoke the AoO when you make the attack (which by definition is after you finished casting the spell.)

DM_Blake wrote:

the wizard is toe-to-toe ... cast Ray of Enfeeblement ... casts defensively and succeeds ... the ray is "made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action". Yet, the orc still gets to make an AoO when Harry points at the orc to aim his ray.

The difference is that the casting (which could be interrupted) provokes and the "cast defensively" only avoids the AoO for casting. The spell caster still needs to make a Ranged Attack action (which is granted by the spell for free) to make the attack once the spell activates, which by the chart provokes.

3.0 FAQ:
"A ray (or any other spell that uses a ranged attack roll) follows all the same rules that govern ranged attacks ..."

If you follow all the same rules, you provoke the AoO when you make the attack (which by definition is after you finished casting the spell.)

You're not making them use two standard actions to do this, are you? Or even a standard action and a move action?

You say the ranged touch attack is "granted by thespell for free" so do you mean that making this attack is a free action? How many other attacks do you know of that are free actions? A ranger cannot fire his bow as a free action. A fighter cannot attack with a sword as a free action. A monk cannot grapple as a free action. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any attack that is a free action.

So we already know that aiming this ranged touch attack is special, and falls under stpecial rules. The mere fact that it is a free action that is taken as part of another action (casting the spell itself) makes this ranged touch attack a very special, almost unique, category of actions.

And yes, they follows all the other rules that govern ranged attacks: You need LOS and LOE to your enemy, firing into combat incurs a -4 penalty, Precise Shot eliminates that penalty, BAB and DEX modify your chance to hit, etc.

Oh, wait, they don't follow all of the rules for ranged combat because they only have one range increment. No other ranged attacks (that require attack rolls to hit) are limited to one range increment.

So now we know two ways that ranged touch attacks very obviously do not follow "all the same rules".

They are unique, special attacks that, according the RAW that I quoted earlier, exist as part of the spellcasting action, just like aiming a Magic Missile.

It still seems to me that if the spellcasting action doesn't provoke, then anything you do that is part of that non-provoking action also doesn't provoke. I don't see how a whole action can be immune from provoking but one small part of that very same non-provoking action still provokes. If it does, then the action itself cannot be said to be non-provoking.

All that aside, I can't think of a good game reason for this rule to exist.

Without the extra provocation, ranged touch spells seem quite balanced. They suffer all the normal conditions of spellcasting just like any spell. Why does just this one category of spells also need to suffer additional non-spellcasting conditions that no other type of spell needs to worry about?

I would have to agree with those that think this rule makes sense, it follows the same logic as any ranged attack provoking. The only possible argument I can see here is saying that using a ranged attack against an adjacent opponent would not provoke (as you are paying attention to them directly) but this would open up a whole can of worms. In my opinion, the original reason ranged attacks provoke an AoO is because you are carefully aiming at a target that is at range which opens you up to attacks from those nearby.

As for the statement about using two actions, it specifically says that you get to make the attack as part of the casting, yes it is a little confusing why that particular type of spell provokes while others don't, but similar arguments can be made for why a particular kind of weapon provokes while others don't.

And really, if it bothers people so much, then ask for your GM to change it (or if you are the GM just do it). There really isn't any reason to be arguing if it is within the rules or not, as we have already pointed out, it clearly is written out, no confusion on that.

What you really need to be asking yourself is: Why is your ranged spellcaster using these ranged spells right next to an enemy? There are plenty of good melee touch spells to use in such a situation.

@ DM Blake: You don't have to aim a Magic Missile, you don't even have to point. The missile flies unerringly towards the target. All you have to do is get the spell off, which is covered by Casting Defensively.

If on the other hand you want to pop off a Ray of Frost you're both casting then aiming the spell. It might be part of the same action, but aiming a ranged weapon (or weapon-like spell such as a ray) provokes, just as aiming a crossbow, shortbow or sling does.

As for a game reason why? Because it should be dangerous for a wizard to try and shoot off a ranged spell in melee combat. At least as dangerous as a ranger taking potshots with his arrows at a target a sword's reach away. The game does not have a "shooting defensively" option, and thus using any kind of ranged attack in melee provokes. If you want your wizard to avoid provoking with rays try keeping him out of melee combat. (Where are your meatshields anyway that you're in melee? You should dock the fighter's pay for not doing his job right).

While I could debate that point, it isn't worth it now. In 3.p, casting makes sense. How it worked (or didn't work) in 3.5 no longer matters to me.

So now we know two ways that ranged touch attacks very obviously do not follow "all the same rules".

A couple specific rules (how they differ from other ranged attacks) doesn't negate the general rule (that ranged attacks provoke) without an explicit line saying they do not provoke.

Can we move on thought? I like the clean elegant 3.p way.