Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Does a ranged touch attack spell provoke twice?


Rules Questions

451 to 500 of 534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:
8 Red Wizards wrote:

Also page 185 in the Core Book

Touch Spells in Combat
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.
In addition, you have quoted the wrong section of the rules for this discussion.

Actually, that's a perfectly valid citation. It clearly states that ranged touch attacks are one of the two types of touch attacks just after stating that touch spell attacks do not provoke AoO. Absolutely clear statement that no AoO is provoked by a ranged touch attack.

Yes, another section a few paragraphs later says the exact opposite, but let's not pretend that the passage 8 Red Wizards cites does not exist or is not relevant.

That wording is similar to what appeared in v3.5 and thus the contradiction is probably something they missed when they decided to make ranged touch attacks have different AoO handling than both melee touch attacks and ranged targeted spells.

However, the one thing the two contradictory statements agree upon is that they both say one AoO, not two. :]

Shadow Lodge

CBDunkerson wrote:

Also, as others have noted, the text you quote from v3.5 post PHB 'clarifications' does not support your position at all. The bit about three AoO on an opponent in one round cites them casting a spell (action, which BTW it says cannot provoke more than one AoO - contradicting the 'two AoO on ranged touch spells' argument), picking up an object (action), and moving out of a threatened square (action). One AoO per action... NOT multiple AoO per action as you are arguing.

Right here.

Here:
Let's say you have three attacks of opportunity available and your foe has two.

You make a disarm attempt when your opponent moves past you (attack of opportunity #1). This provokes an attack of opportunity from your foe.

Your foe decides to disarm you in turn (attack of opportunity #2). This provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

You decide to disarm again (attack of opportunity #3).

Your foe also decides to disarm again (attack of opportunity #4 and your foe's second and last attack of opportunity).

You decide to disarm yet again (attack of opportunity #5 and your third and last attack of opportunity).

Your foe would like to disarm you again, but he's out of attacks of opportunity, so that's the end of the chain.

Resolve attack of opportunity #5 first; if you succeed, your foe no longer threatens you and can't continue, bringing the whole process to an end. If you fail to disarm your foe, move on to attack of opportunity #4; now your foe has a chance to end the process by disarming you. Continue until one of you is disarmed or until all the attacks of opportunity are resolved.

Now that that is out of the way, I will admit, I misread the publising date, 2007 rather than 2002 as I had thought, so we have proven that 3.5, and not 3.0 was that way.

I am deployed, and I do not have my 3.0 book, so honestly I do not have any way t research that. Not that it matters.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Right here.

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, that doesn't work either. That example shows AoO provoking AoO. Each AoO is itself an action and thus we're still talking about one AoO per action.

Quote:
I am deployed, and I do not have my 3.0 book, so honestly I do not have any way t research that. Not that it matters.

Well, it matters in that the original claim was that you'd been playing AoO this way (multiple attacks on one opponent for one action) since the concept of AoO was developed. Given that the v3.0 rules specifically limited it to one AoO on a target per round that would clearly have been a house rule and your argument that the rule 'has always been this way [i.e. multiple AoO for one action], unless Paizo changed it' is incorrect.


So, we have established that it has not "always worked this way" (multiple aoo's on one opponent for one action), and we have established that in 3.0 it was specifically one aoo per target per round. We have not found any language in the rules which specifies multiple aoo's per target per action, so I see no reason to assume this as a baseline.

I am willing to stipulate that the intent is currently multiple aoo's per target per round (not per action), but only because the specific language restricting a character to a single aoo per target per round has been removed from the rules since 3.0. So, all that is left to guide us no how many aoo's are allowed with combat reflexes is some oblique references to the concept of "opportunity" in the rules.

I contend that an opportunity is an action which provokes. I see no clearer inference in the rules as to what an "opportunity" is, so I see no reason to try and do mental gymnastics to try and figure out how many parts an action is divided into, and which of those subdivisions of an action would be considered an "opportunity."

So, until there is some clarification from the developers, or someone finds a recent publication by paizo on what an opportunity is, or the limitations or lack-thereof as regards to combat reflexes, the most sane ruling would be one aoo per action, but with the possibility that the real intention is one aoo per round per target.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, another section a few paragraphs later says the exact opposite, but let's not pretend that the passage 8 Red Wizards cites does not exist or is not relevant.

Now, that's a confusing statement. So, I agree yes, its from the rules, but no, its not relevent. In fact its so not relevent, the rules themselves specify how not relevent it is.

@james

james maissen wrote:
The rules adjudicate 'simultaneous' the way that English does. When they say it they mean it happens at the same time and the results of one cannot be used to alter decisions on the others.

I'd like to see some written rules support for this position.

james maissen wrote:
Likewise if you read the start of the section of Attacks of Opportunity you will see that they represent the lowering of one's guard, overextending one's self by an action..

Although you, yourself, are slowly coming to see the merits of the two AoO ruling for a ranged touch spell. So.. that's one action that's comprised of two actions? Can't have it both ways James.

james maissen wrote:
Again- all the rays of a scorching ray are fired AT ONCE. Despite what you would claim that they are fired sequentially this is NOT THE CASE.

The problem with your stance (and what I will keep trying to get through to you) is that even if they fire "AT ONCE" each ray provokes an attack of opportunity. Nowhere in the rules does it say "if presented with many provocations 'AT ONCE' you can only choose to respond to one and let the rest fly by." No, that's not in the rules. So whether "AT ONCE" or sequentially the mechancial effect is the same. Multiple AoO provocations and the ability to respond to each of them. You may not be satisfied with this, but without any rules language to describe any other interaction, you've constructed a limitation not in the rules.

We know this will happen because the casting of a ranged touch spell and the ranged touch component happen "AT ONCE", and works in the exact same way multiple rays released does. This is because multiple ranged touches and the spellcasting comprise the multiple components of your action.

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.


@stynkk

I have shown that historically, combat reflexes has been restricted to one aoo per opponent per round. Since then 3.0 the rulebook has become much more vague about what is allowed by combat reflexes, but there has been no language added to say that this limit has changed. Don't you think that the authors of 3.5 specifically wanted to change combat reflexes to allow more aoo's per opponent per round, they would have written specific language in the rules to that effect? And say they did neglect to make it clear that this was a change from 3.0, do you really think that their next step, from this very limited use of combat reflexes, would be to allow unlimited aoo's per target per action? And do you really think paizo, when creating PathfinderRPG were intending to remove all restrictions on the feat, without placing language in the rules specifying that this earlier restriction had been lifted?

Where is your precedent for multiple aoo's per action, beyond your interpretation of a line of the CRB which just as many people interpret the opposite way? Where is the Dragon Magazine article talking about how the restrictions on combat reflexes specified in the 3.0 rules has been lifted for 3.5, or paizo.com article about the new powers of combat reflexes for PathfinderRPG?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The thing that is still blowing my mind here is that someone could think that the word "simultaneous" is considered fluff and doesn't have any mechanical intention.

Mechanically, the game works sequentially. The rules dictate that things occur in a specific order. Whether someone justifies actions in a combat round as occurring at the same time is irrelevant; mechanically, things are NOT occurring at the same time. So, when a spell description mentions the word "simultaneous" (or any derivative thereof), that word is intended to be interpreted to mean exactly what the word means, and if you think that Paizo needs to have the word "simultaneous" defined in an appendix or something, then you are just being obtuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@mavben
I don't have any horses in your historical precedent race. I don't care to get involved in that argument as I feel PF should be its own self contained entity. If the developers want something to function as it did in 3.5 or 3.0 or 1.0 or whatever, clarify it, write a FAQ article and move on. Don't base your game on assumptions of the other rule sets, but roll them in together and make things as clear as possible.

That is between you and DA.

But in the case of PFRPG, we can only go with the rules they've given us. And we know that a single action can provoke more than once.

A character with a BAB of +6 that uses a Full Attack Action and replaces their first attack with a trip maneuver and the second with a disarm maneuver (without either improved trip or improved disarm) provokes 2 attacks of opportunity from a single full attack action. So, now that we have seen it is possible to provoke twice from a single action, I hope this discussion moves forward.

@hangarFlying

HangarFlying wrote:

The thing that is still blowing my mind here is that someone could think that the word "simultaneous" is considered fluff and doesn't have any mechanical intention.

Mechanically, the game works sequentially. The rules dictate that things occur in a specific order. Whether someone justifies actions in a combat round as occurring at the same time is irrelevant; mechanically, things are NOT occurring at the same time. So, when a spell description mentions the word "simultaneous" (or any derivative thereof), that word is intended to be interpreted to mean exactly what the word means, and if you think that Paizo needs to have the word "simultaneous" defined in an appendix or something, then you are just being obtuse.

Hangar, the problem here is that this would be the only example of something happening simultaneously in the world of pathfinder mechanics. Every other "simultaneous" interaction is handled in a sequential way, that's just how the rules work (see: artificial intiative counts for simultaneous turn structure clarity).

Creating a new way of handling Scorching ray that deviates from the norm, with no rules precedent or guidance is bad form IMO. Whether you want to call my position on simultaneity "obtuse" or "consistent" - I don't much care. The fact is that the concern is valid because both you and James are very comfortable making a leap regarding timing that I feel is quite unwarranted.

You said it yourself, mechanically "things are NOT occurring at the same time." The end and in all instances. Scorching Ray is no different because the game cannot account for simultaneous ranged touch actions with the rules as currently constituted. Read over scorching ray, nothing about exemption from multiple ranged touch AoOs. So we have to fall on how the rules treats ranged touches. Each roll provokes. I don't see that as a very far fetched interpretation of the rules.

Example: a fighter with combat reflexes is standing adjacent to two enemy archers. They both ready actions to fire their bows at the fighter "simultaneously" at the initiative count of 10. Do both attacks provoke? Yes. Can the fighter legally make an AoO vs both archers? Yes. Even if it's a "simultaneous" release of the arrows?! Yes. That's just how the rules work, timing is not exempt.

Flavor the AoOs as a spinning flurry of death or whatever, but it is far from unreasonable.


Stynkk wrote:


Hangar, the problem here is that this would be the only example of something happening simultaneously in the world of pathfinder mechanics.

Magic missile, fireball...

These are not sequential either... nor is scorching ray.

You need to target all of the rays from a scorching ray at once. You do not get to fire one then another then another. It just doesn't work that way.

scorching ray wrote:
The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.
magic missile wrote:
You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.

-James

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:

Hangar, the problem here is that this would be the only example of something happening simultaneously in the world of pathfinder mechanics. Every other "simultaneous" interaction is handled in a sequential way, that's just how the rules work (see: artificial intiative counts for simultaneous turn structure clarity).

Your angle is getting larger.

What simultaneous actions occur in the game that are handled in a sequential way? Don't give me some pathetic example about how combat, in real life, would actually be occurring simultaneously and is therefore justification to apply a strange interpretation. That type of wishful reasoning has absolutely no place in this thread. Game combat occurs sequentially. It does not occur simultaneously, no matter how much you, as DM, describe to your players that the actions are occurring simultaneously.

Stynkk wrote:
Neither does scorching ray because the game cannot account for simultaneous ranged touch actions with the rules as currently constituted.

I think the rules cover Scorching Ray quite well in stating that a) multiple rays are fired simultaneously (meaning that once the targets are picked, the rays emerge from the caster at the SAME TIME, not one at a time), b) the rolling of the dice for making the ranged touch attack are made as part of the spell caster casting the spell, and c) the caster, casting this spell in a threatened area only provokes one AoO from the bad guy standing next to him.

Stynkk wrote:
So we have to fall on how the rules treats ranged touches. Each roll provokes. I don't see that as a very far fetched interpretation of the rules.

Did you mean to say "So we have to fall on how the rules treats ranged attacks"? If that was your intent, then no, we would not look to ranged attacks because ranged touch attacks are not ranged attacks, they are touch attacks. Ranged attacks can only be made by projectile or thrown weapons. Ranged attacks and touch attacks are adjudicated differently. Don't apply the rules for bows to scorching ray, as they are not intended to be comingled together. If the devs had intended to have ranged touch attacks be included with ranged attacks, the rule would have said "Ranged attacks include projectile weapons, thrown weapons, and ranged touch attacks". What you have is "There are two types of touch attacks: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks". Stop trying to make it an incestuous relationship between the rules.

PS - If you didn't mean to say "ranged attacks", sorry, I don't understand what you were trying to say then.

EDIT: clarity and sentence structure


james maissen wrote:
Magic missile, fireball...

I can't help but notice that the spell description of magic missile and fireball both do not contain the word "simultaneous".

Further, your examples don't much help your case. While you might be able to target the spell components of Magic Missile together (that i specify them before firing the spell) and fireball uses area targeting, neither of these spells use Ranged Touch Attack (you know, the AoO trigger so hotly debated in this thread) or even provoke AoOs at all outside of their spellcasting.

@hangar

No, I meant ranged touches... Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity is what I am referring to. Ranged touch attacks provoke on a 1:1 scale just like Ranged Attacks do. They are not the same, but they provoke at the same rate. More ranged touches mean more AoOs, simultaneously or otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabven wrote:

So, we have established that it has not "always worked this way" (multiple aoo's on one opponent for one action), and we have established that in 3.0 it was specifically one aoo per target per round.

I am willing to stipulate that the intent is currently multiple aoo's per target per round (not per action), but only because the specific language restricting a character to a single aoo per target per round has been removed from the rules since 3.0.

The article from WotC clearly gave an example of multiple AoOs to 1 target within 1 round (3 total in fact, which also refutes the "only 2" argument based on descriptive text in Combat Reflexes), so it's clear their official stance was such. (Even if there was much debate amongst themselves internally)

As for Pathfinder... if it's supposed to operate differently (ie. 1 AoO/target/round) than the accepted mechanics of 3.5 they need to come out and clarify it.

Now, I expect (if a FAQ comes back - and I really hope one does) that the ruling would be 1 AoO per action. I don't 100% agree with that interpretation, but I recognize the logic behind it.

Stynkk is right about the 2 archers shooting "simultaneously" each being subject to an AoO from a target with Combat Reflexes who also threatens them. And, I concur that strictly RAW, "an AoO interrupts the normal flow of actions" AND "an attack(ranged) provokes"... it doesn't matter that each ray is fired "at the same time" as those interruptions prevent it from mattering.
I said it before, I wouldn't play it that way, but it is supported by RAW. (The lesson is simple, don't use ranged attacks while threatened.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:


@hangar

No, I meant ranged touches... Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity is what I am referring to. Ranged touch attacks provoke on a 1:1 scale just like Ranged Attacks do. They are not the same, but they provoke at the same rate. More ranged touches mean more AoOs, simultaneously or otherwise.

Ok, I can still apply what I thought I responded to to your response here ;-) (saves typing).

I don't see how you justify ranged touch attacks provoking on a 1:1 scale like ranged attacks. Just because you are rolling multiple dice does not mean you are making iterative attacks. Making a full attack with a bow is making iterative attacks with that bow. Each roll of the die is an individual action separate from the previous roll of the die. This is not the case with scorching ray. Each roll of the die is not an iterative attack. Each roll of the die is not a separate action from the previous one. If you are going to interpret the word "simultaneously" in the spell description as fluff, then you must also interpret "all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other" as fluff too, and I doubt you consider the distance between targets to be fluff.

The point being, the individual rays emerge from the caster at the same time, and strike the target(s) at the same time as one action, not iteratively as separate actions.

But, the whole "each ray provokes an AoO" argument we are having is moot because the caster only provokes one AoO for the whole she-bang anyways.


Stynkk wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Magic missile, fireball...

I can't help but notice that the spell description of magic missile and fireball both do not contain the word "simultaneous".

And? So?

You have some weird belief that everything happens simultaneously but everything happens sequentially.

I don't quite understand it.

The game distinguishes between character's turns. If in a round a PC dies before their turn, they don't get to perform their actions the round in which they died even though you claim it's simultaneous.

Meanwhile all 3 rays of a scorching ray, or all 5 missiles from a magic missile fire before any hit and/or resolve.

There's a difference here. Try to understand it. You're just dancing otherwise, and it's getting a bit old.

You believe that a fireball damages the PCs in some order.. what order would that be? What can interrupt it? You've made the claim that NOTHING is simultaneous and EVERYTHING is sequential. This is false. But please defend your stance... or remove the claim.

-James


Ranged touch attacks are still an 'Attack(ranged)'.
The separate entry for touch attacks was there only to describe that touch attacks (melee or ranged) ignore armor and whatever. (If this was not the case, we wouldn't even need to know touch AC)


Fireball is not targeted at individuals, but a location. It is concerned with line of effect, but that's a separate issue.

If Fireball required a ranged touch attack vs each affected target, it too would provoke for each.


Archaeik wrote:


Stynkk is right about the 2 archers shooting "simultaneously" each being subject to an AoO from a target with Combat Reflexes who also threatens them. And, I concur that strictly RAW, "an AoO interrupts the normal flow of actions" AND "an attack(ranged) provokes"... it doesn't matter that each ray is fired "at the same time" as those interruptions prevent it from mattering.
I said it before, I wouldn't play it that way, but it is supported by RAW. (The lesson is simple, don't use ranged attacks while threatened.)

First he's putting up a strawman. Readied actions do not resolve simultaneously, but rather they resolve sequentially.

If you want simultaneous how about the damage from a fireball? Can you ready an action that triggers after one is damaged by the fireball but before another? No? Why not?

Lastly let's quote the entry on Attacks of Opportunity:

attacks of opportunity wrote:
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free.

So how many times is a combatant separately letting their guard down when firing all 3 scorching rays at once? One, Three, a million?

Is it possible for a character to make simultaneous swings of their sword? No?

The issue is how you separate one opportunity from a later opportunity. Scorching ray is a non-issue. It's clearly one opportunity for firing all the rays. Now it might be one opportunity for casting, and then a later opportunity for firing them.. but that does seem to stretch things. Like I said earlier I'm used to that ruling, but the more I think on it the less it seems correct and likely it should just be one.

-James


Archaeik wrote:

Fireball is not targeted at individuals, but a location. It is concerned with line of effect, but that's a separate issue.

If Fireball required a ranged touch attack vs each affected target, it too would provoke for each.

You missed the point.

Does it damage everything in its effect sequentially or simultaneously?

People have claimed that the game resolves EVERYTHING sequentially and NOTHING simultaneously.

-James


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, if you were die mid-cast on Scorching Ray from the multiple AoOs, you'd only resolve the rays you managed to roll before you died.

And I'm saying the rules aren't as well defined for this situation as you'd like to believe.


Allow me to ask the following. Since one provocation of an attack of opportunity must occur simultaneously with itself do the people that consider simultaneity to have any import also rule that all attacks of opportunity in response to that provocation occur simultaneously.


AoOs probably occur in order of initiative for all those who can take said AoO.
Mechanically, it is somewhat undefined however because of the "interruption" of play that AoOs cause.


Archaeik wrote:

No, if you were die mid-cast on Scorching Ray from the multiple AoOs, you'd only resolve the rays you managed to roll before you died.

And I'm saying the rules aren't as well defined for this situation as you'd like to believe.

So even though the rules CLEARLY and distinctly say the rays are fired simultaneously, you think they aren't??

Have fun,

James


I think the rolls aren't resolved before the AoOs but individually.

I view it as struck down exactly mid-cast, diminishing some of the energy from the spell.
It would *look* like all the rays fired, but 1 or more would just kind of fizzle.


Archaeik wrote:

I think the rolls aren't resolved before the AoOs but individually.

I view it as struck down exactly mid-cast, diminishing some of the energy from the spell.
It would *look* like all the rays fired, but 1 or more would just kind of fizzle.

That's a nice thought, but there's no support for it.

In fact there's no 'first' ray, 'second' ray, etc. So there's no way to resolve which ones wouldn't occur.

Rather it makes more sense, since they are at the same time.. that it would be one opportunity for all the rays. The caster lowers their guard when they aim all the rays to fire them. People threatening him/her would make their attack of opportunity for that opportunity.

Just as you couldn't have something trigger after one person was damaged by the fireball but before another was.. Heck, it's even stronger for scorching ray as the rules expressly spell out it's simultaneous for the scorching rays..

-James

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archaeik wrote:

I think the rolls aren't resolved before the AoOs but individually.

I view it as struck down exactly mid-cast, diminishing some of the energy from the spell.
It would *look* like all the rays fired, but 1 or more would just kind of fizzle.

You are certainly making things more complex than they need to be. If the caster would die while casting the spell, there would be no scorching rays because the spell fizzled out and the caster died.


If you were to choose to play it the way I described, the attack rolls would be made against targets you declare in (an) order.
(The group I play with would do this anyway because they want to know which die is which period)


I like complex. (but if you've been paying attention, these arguments are "devil's advocate" type stuff based on an interpretation of RAW)


Archaeik wrote:

If you were to choose to play it the way I described, the attack rolls would be made against targets you declare in (an) order.

(The group I play with would do this anyway because they want to know which die is which period)

So it would NOT be simultaneous, but rather sequential.

Why not simply run the rules as written instead of this house rule?

-James


Fine, a "simultaneous" solution to this would be to roll all the attacks and then randomly determine which ones got shot...

I don't see either method as being houserules. Both are pretty arbitrary.


Archaeik wrote:

Fine, a "simultaneous" solution to this would be to roll all the attacks and then randomly determine which ones got shot...

I don't see either method as being houserules. Both are pretty arbitrary.

Yes they are arbitrary house rules.

For RAW you'd call it one opportunity, if it hits then it has a chance to disrupt the spellcasting otherwise they all fire as normal.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That has not been sufficiently proved for RAW that it is only one opportunity.

Detailing the way it could be handled by a different interpretation of RAW does not constitute houserules.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Some people like their cucumbers pickled. Wait...what?


Archaeik wrote:

That has not been sufficiently proved for RAW that it is only one opportunity.

Detailing the way it could be handled by a different interpretation of RAW does not constitute houserules.

It depends. In your case, it does. The scorching ray spell plainly says that the rays are fired simultaneously. You wish to ignore that.. which is fine... it's just a house rule like many others people play with.

-James

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archaeik wrote:

AoOs probably occur in order of initiative for all those who can take said AoO.

Mechanically, it is somewhat undefined however because of the "interruption" of play that AoOs cause.

Going back to the two archers readying to fire thing.

"PRD: Initiative wrote:
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other.
"PRD: Readying an Action wrote:
Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

If both archers readied their action to shoot the fighter when moved up to them (as was given in the previous example) - and for argument sake, let's say the fighter was moving on initiative count 10 - both archers would have the same initiative result. As such, they would resolve who fires first by determining which one had the higher initiative modifier. If they had the same initiative modifier, a die roll would be made (or flip coin, or whatever) to determine which one would go first.

So, in this example, the fighter moves up, Archer A would start to fire, the fighter would interrupt with an AoO, Archer A fires, then Archer B would start to fire, the fighter interrupts with an AoO, Archer B fires, fighter then completes his activity.

{EDIT TO CONTINUE POINT: In the following round, on initiative count 10, Archer A would act first, then Archer B, then the fighter. THEY ARE NOT ACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY, but are acting sequentially on the same initiative number.}

This example, in no way, even remotely resembles the simultaneous discharge of a scorching ray.


@hangar

Now you're just trying to break up something clearly described as simultaneous (agreed trigger between the archers) with your aherence to a gamist and sequentialist structure! *sarcasm*

So you've found a way to unpair a supposedly paired or simultaneous act. Could we not do the same to a scorching ray with multiple (I repeat Multiple) individual ranged attack rolls?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:

@hangar

Now you're just trying to break up something clearly described as simultaneous (agreed trigger between the archers) with your aherence to a gamist and sequentialist structure! *sarcasm*

So you've found a way to unpair a supposedly paired or simultaneous act. Could we not do the same to a scorching ray with multiple (I repeat Multiple) individual ranged attack rolls?

The game rules very clearly define the Attacks of Opportunity as occurring sequentially. Although we can use descriptive language while in a game session to describe the events as occurring at the same time, the game clearly delineates when each action occurs.

Regarding scorching ray, the game rules do not give an indication that each individual ray happens sequentially. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The rules explicitly state that the rays are fired simultaneously. This is not flavor.

Yes, it's cool to use all this awesome flavor to explain how everything is happening in the game, but you cannot use flavor to interpret the rules. The rules need to be read as they are, not prejudiced by what you want them to be.


By now I have to figure the developers are reading this thread on their breaks for the pure entertainment value alone...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
By now I have to figure the developers are reading this thread on their breaks for the pure entertainment value alone...

Actually, I'm of the opinion that SKR and JB are making bets as to how many more pages this goes on before Ross comes in and locks the thread.

EDIT: I say it has less that two full pages of life left.


Well, based on actual progress made in the "debate" he's about 454 comments too late.


Stynkk wrote:


From my last post: "there is no rule that states "when confronted with multiple simultaneous AoO provocations, you are forced to choose only one,""

Partially because it's patently obvious. But then again so are many things in this world.

Quote:

Attacks of Opportunity

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free.

Provoking AOOs does not GRANT nor EMPOWER an enemy to attack.

An opportunity PROVIDES a way for the enemy to convert threatening a square into damaging the foe.

That's what AOOs represent, and what they are defined to be.

-James

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Well, based on actual progress made in the "debate" he's about 454 comments too late.

Although, it is now the weekend, so we might be able to eek out a few more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Whether you read this as multiple ranged touch attacks from one spell or "ranged touch attacks" in general, either way it only allows for AN (singular, one, uno, un) attack of opportunity. That being said, I still feel this whole argument about multiple rays, blah blah blah, is moot because since the casting of the spell and the rolling for the touch attack occur simultaneously, that, in it self, only provokes one Attack of Opportunity.

I find it funny that you're still not seeing what I'm saying. Even after talking this out for pages.

It does say ranged touch attacks generate an AoO, that's the rule. It is a 1:1 ratio. If you make another ranged touch attack that also generates an AoO. I hardly think that the devs mean that all ranged touch attacks (in the world) generate a single AoO. That's just... well..

If you make more ranged touches, it provokes more AoOs.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:

I find it funny that you're still not seeing what I'm saying. Even after talking this out for pages.

It does say ranged touch attacks generate an AoO, that's the rule. It is a 1:1 ratio. If you make another ranged touch attack that also generates an AoO. I hardly think that the devs mean that all ranged touch attacks (in the world) generate a single AoO. That's just... well..

If you make more ranged touches, it provokes more AoOs.

Oh no. I see what you are trying to say quite clearly. I am saying that your interpretation is wrong.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:

That's a nice thought, but there's no support for it.

In fact there's no 'first' ray, 'second' ray, etc. So there's no way to resolve which ones wouldn't occur.

We know you don't agree with it, but there is support in the rules for this and if you are going to keep insisting not, YOU need to start showing the evidence for that. Not the other way around. Otherwise, stop insisting it, please.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
james maissen wrote:

That's a nice thought, but there's no support for it.

In fact there's no 'first' ray, 'second' ray, etc. So there's no way to resolve which ones wouldn't occur.

We know you don't agree with it, but there is support in the rules for this and if you are going to keep insisting not, YOU need to start showing the evidence for that. Not the other way around. Otherwise, stop insisting it, please.

The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.

(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)

451 to 500 of 534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Does a ranged touch attack spell provoke twice? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.