The way I understand the rules, a spell that grants a ranged touch attack, even when cast defensively, still triggers an AoO because ranged touch attacks follow the rules for ranged attacks. Yes?
So, does a quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack still grant an AoO for the ranged touch attack?
Yes. Casting a quickened spell does not provoke, but making the ranged attack does.
To break it down, we'll use scorching ray as an example. A normal casting of scorching ray would use the following breakpoints:
1) Casting a spell -> provokes
2) Make a ranged attack -> provokes
3) Since you can only make one AoO per action, the fact that it provokes for two different reasons is irrelevant
Now, a quickened scorching ray:
1) Casting a quickened spell -> does not provoke
2) Make a ranged attack -> provokes
Yeah, that was what I thought. I have to say, tho, that while I have almost always agreed with the design philosophy and decisions that the PF staff has made, I really think that this one is...wrong, and bordering on silly.
Making ranged touch attacks consistent with other ranged attacks is fine, after all simpler is almost always better. It just doesn't make any sense to me that a spell can be cast so quickly that an opponent can't react to it, but he/she can react to the portion of the spell that involves targeting.
I understand that targeting a ranged attack is considered to take your attention off of the immediate threats around you. I get that. But in the case of quickened spells, wouldn't your lapse in concentration, much like the casting of the spell, simply be too quick for an opponent to react to?
Yeah, I agree. I actually double-checked to make sure that AoO prevention wasn't part of the swift action text rather than the quickened spells text. Alas, it isn't.
Well, at least I'm not the only one. I guess that's what house rules are for....
Action 1 provokes for casting.
Action 2 provokes for Ranged attack.If the person had combat reflexes he could make two attacks of opportunity since they are two seprate actions.
Incorrect. It is one action to cast and resolve the spell, and you only get one attack of opportunity per action, just as you only get one AoO for moving through 8 squares threatened by the same foe.
Where do you get the idea that free actions cannot provoke attacks of opportunity? Or, for that matter, that targeting the ranged attack is a free action? Technically, it's either not-an-action or part of the swift action of casting the quickened spell. It's not the action-ness that provokes, it's making a ranged attack in a threatened square that provokes. It doesn't matter what kind of action the ranged attack is.
Action type doesn't matter: Making a ranged attack while in a threatening area provokes an AoO. Everything else doesn't matter making a ranged attack (no matter how you make it) provokes an AoO. Let me repeat, ranged attacks -- no matter the action used to make them -- provoke AoO.
If you were to use a supernatural ability to make a ranged attack while being threatened you provoke. If you somehow make a ranged attack as a swift or free action while threatened you provoke. The key here is the fact that all ranged attacks while threatened provoke AoO.
Which is why this is a silly ruling on the part of Paizo. And once again, I say that as a big fan of their work. They were trying to make all ranged attacks, including spells that grant ranged touch attacks, work with the same mechanic, which is a laudable goal. It just doesn't make any sense. Targeting a ray spell by the current rules is not a standard action, a swift action, or a free action. It's...something else. Even when done as part of a swift action, which is so fast it doesn't trigger an AoO, it still somehow does trigger an AoO. And that just doesn't make any sense.
To clarify, that's not a change. 3.5 worked exactly the same way. So, it's not Paizo's fault, unless you want to blame them for not fixing it.
|
To clarify, that's not a change. 3.5 worked exactly the same way. So, it's not Paizo's fault, unless you want to blame them for not fixing it.
3.5 did not work the same way at all... note the bolded text.
Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.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.
So in 3.5 touch attacks do not provoke. There are two kinds of touch attacks, melee and ranged. Only the act of Casting a Spell provoked and that could be mitigated by Casting defensively. Thus this is a Pathfinder specific rule change.
I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I'm not thrilled by it. Touch attacks are too easy to get off on almost every class and even moreso against monsters. Something had to be done to tone down ranged touch attacks.
--Jingle Bell Vrock!
To clarify, that's not a change. 3.5 worked exactly the same way. So, it's not Paizo's fault, unless you want to blame them for not fixing it.I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that. Every 3.5 board has at least one thread arguing about this. While 3.5 did say that ranged touch attacks were treated as ranged attacks, the FAQ (p76) also said:
The caster uses the cast a spell action (a standard action), and makes all the ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of that standard action (not as part of the attack or full attack action); making these attacks is not an action at all.
I always found it difficult to see how something that "isn't an action at all," not even a free action, can trigger an AoO. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything in the various erratas or FAQ that address AoO's specifically.
Regardless, 3.5 is a dead ruleset, so let's let it rest in peace. Paizo does a great job of not just supporting their system, but of explaining why they make the decisions that they do, so hopefully someone will explain it to us (hint, hint).
So in 3.5 touch attacks do not provoke.
This is exactly the same in PFRPG. Touch attacks do not provoke unless of course your a witch using a Hex attack. ;)
Its Range Touch Attacks that provoke an AoO in both 3.5 and PFRPG. The only thing PFRPG did was nicely spell this out exactly so no more huge arguments about it. Personally I am very happy they made it nice and clear now and of course its easy to houserule out if you disagree.
I always found it difficult to see how something that "isn't an action at all," not even a free action, can trigger an AoO. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything in the various erratas or FAQ that address AoO's specifically.
It's not that it "isn't an action at all" - It's just as much an action as one of your Iterative Attacks in a Full Attack Action are (which also would provoke if you're Full Attacking Unarmed without IUS). The point was that it isn't *it's own* action WITH REGARDS TO THE "ACTION ECONOMY" (F-R, Standard, Move, Swift, Free) because Touch Spells (Standard usually) ALLOW this free touch attack as PART of the "paid for" Casting Action (just as Full Attack allows your full # of Iterative Attacks, each of which do not have an "Action Classification" wrt F/S/M/Sw/Fr). Just like Iterative Attacks, this is irrelevant as to whether or not the attack provokes - melee touch spell attacks don't themselves provoke (the Casting may) because you are 'armed' with the spell charge. Ranged touch spells provoke in the exact same way making a Ranged attack with a bow (while threatened) provokes. Spells like Flame Blade give you a Touch Attack that persists, meaning you will likely be using Iterative Attacks the very next round after Casting the spell, likewise not provoking from use of the spell effect (because you are armed with it's effect).
I always found it difficult to see how something that "isn't an action at all," not even a free action, can trigger an AoO.
Here's an example, then: falling through a flying monster's threatened range. Falling is involuntary movement and thus not an action, but is still movement and thus still provokes.
So in 3.5 touch attacks do not provoke.
This is exactly the same in PFRPG. Touch attacks do not provoke unless of course your a witch using a Hex attack. ;)
Its Range Touch Attacks that provoke an AoO in both 3.5 and PFRPG. The only thing PFRPG did was nicely spell this out exactly so no more huge arguments about it. Personally I am very happy they made it nice and clear now and of course its easy to houserule out if you disagree.
Once again, let's let 3.5 RIP. The issue at hand isn't whether a Quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack DOES trigger an AoO (clearly by the PF rules, it does), it's whether it SHOULD trigger an AoO.
Edit: added the parenthetical comment
|
|
So in 3.5 touch attacks do not provoke.
This is exactly the same in PFRPG. Touch attacks do not provoke unless of course your a witch using a Hex attack. ;)
Its Range Touch Attacks that provoke an AoO in both 3.5 and PFRPG. The only thing PFRPG did was nicely spell this out exactly so no more huge arguments about it. Personally I am very happy they made it nice and clear now and of course its easy to houserule out if you disagree.
Once again, let's let 3.5 RIP. The issue at hand isn't whether a Quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack DOES trigger an AoO (clearly by the PF rules, it does), it's whether it SHOULD trigger an AoO.
Edit: added the parenthetical comment
Sorry Jake, I know it's whipping a dead horse... but it's the Zon-Kuthite in me...
Chemosh you need to read what I posted in it's entirety. Touch attacks consist of melee AND ranged in 3.5, and neither provoke IN 3.5. I also went on to mention the change and the why of it as I understood it from Jason's comment in other threads.
--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree
Chemosh you need to read what I posted in it's entirety. Touch attacks consist of melee AND ranged in 3.5, and neither provoke IN 3.5. I also went on to mention the change and the why of it as I understood it from Jason's comment in other threads.
--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree
Ranged touch attacks don't provoke for being touch attacks, because they're considered armed. They still provoke for being ranged attacks. Remember, the entire point of that section is "touch attacks with spells are counted as armed attacks". Armed ranged attacks still provoke attacks of opportunity.
Sorry Jake, I know it's whipping a dead horse... but it's the Zon-Kuthite in me...
LOL.
So in 3.5 touch attacks do not provoke.
This is exactly the same in PFRPG. Touch attacks do not provoke unless of course your a witch using a Hex attack. ;)
Its Range Touch Attacks that provoke an AoO in both 3.5 and PFRPG. The only thing PFRPG did was nicely spell this out exactly so no more huge arguments about it. Personally I am very happy they made it nice and clear now and of course its easy to houserule out if you disagree.
Once again, let's let 3.5 RIP. The issue at hand isn't whether a Quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack DOES trigger an AoO (clearly by the PF rules, it does), it's whether it SHOULD trigger an AoO.
Edit: added the parenthetical comment
Sorry Jake, I know it's whipping a dead horse... but it's the Zon-Kuthite in me...
Chemosh you need to read what I posted in it's entirety. Touch attacks consist of melee AND ranged in 3.5, and neither provoke IN 3.5. I also went on to mention the change and the why of it as I understood it from Jason's comment in other threads.
--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree
They provoke. The proof was posted in another thread on this same issue recently. If I can find the post I will put it here.
Edit: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.)
This is important because 3.5 followed 3.0's rules unless otherwise stated.
|
|
A thorough reading of the 3.0 rules doesn't support your claim. The touch attack section doesn't include the 3.5 language that touch attacks do not provoke, so there is a change or clarification from 3.0 to 3.5 already. Ranged attacks provoke, but the definition of a ranged attack requires a ranged or thrown weapon. Spell is not included in the action description. The blurb about the rules that govern other ranged attacks means using dex to hit, firing into melee, cover, etc. AoO's are triggered by actions, and the Casting the Spell Action is what triggered them. The melee touch or ranged touch attacks were part of the spell in 3.5, not an action in and of themselves.
And in any case for Pathfinder it's moot because the clause specifically states that ranged attack spells now provoke. And yet it still doesn't seem right for a quickened spell to provoke at all...
--Dick Clark's Vrockin' New Years Eve!!!
So if I may be so bold as to summarize:
1. 3.5 was confusing (as usual).
2. In PF, a spell that grants a ranged touch attack triggers an AoO, even if cast defensively (whether you like it or not).
3. In PF, Quickened spells that grant a ranged touch attack trigger an AoO (even if casting the spell doesn't).
4. That's silly.
5. We still love Pathfinder.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, does a quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack still grant an AoO for the ranged touch attack?
Yes, the speed of the casting of the spell doesn't prevent the aiming of the spell from provoking.
Which is why this is a silly ruling on the part of Paizo.
Wasn't a change from 3.5 rules.
The issue at hand isn't whether a Quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack DOES trigger an AoO (clearly by the PF rules, it does), it's whether it SHOULD trigger an AoO.
They should provoke for the ranged attack.
Chemosh you need to read what I posted in it's entirety. Touch attacks consist of melee AND ranged in 3.5,
I read what you post in it's entirety, I don't agree with your opinion as I read it as talking about melee touch and not discussing ranged touch attack that provoke AoO (because you are not "armed" as a range touch so clearly the line about "armed" isn't discussing ranged touch attacks.)
If you want to argue about what 3.5 did and didn't allow, there's this other forum set for up for exactly that. Maybe you've heard of it? Wizards of the Coast? DnD? Ring any bells?
In PF, ALL ranged touch attacks trigger, even those granted by a quickened spell. It's quite clearly stated in the ruleset. No one is questioning that. What I am questioning is whether it's a good rule, and also hoping someone could explain the logic behind it. 'Cause I don't get it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
whether it's a good rule, and also hoping someone could explain the logic behind it. 'Cause I don't get it.
And I responded that it was a good rule, it has been a good rule (since 3.0 to present), and it doesn't make any sense that it shouldn't provoke from a game balance and game consistency point of view.
The problem is that you don't agree with my point of view.
And I responded that it was a good rule, it has been a good rule (since 3.0 to present), and it doesn't make any sense that it shouldn't provoke from a game balance and game consistency point of view.
You didn't say any of that. There's nothing in your posts about game balance or game consistency. You answered a question that had already been settled, brought up 3.5 (twice), and stated that quickened rta's should porvoke aoo's without any discussion of 'why' or 'should' whatsoever, much less game balance or consistency.
The problem is that you don't agree with my point of view.
My problem is with your behavior, not your opinion. You are trying to hijack the thread to argue about 3.5, despite several requests not to. That's both boorish and rude.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You didn't say any of that.
But I did give you an opinion. You just don't like the opinion.
The issue at hand isn't whether a Quickened spell that grants a ranged touch attack DOES trigger an AoO (clearly by the PF rules, it does), it's whether it SHOULD trigger an AoO.
They should provoke for the ranged attack
Keep telling yourself that if you want, but it's your behavior that I object to, not your opinion.
|
|
James how can you argue that my rule quote doesn't mention ranged touch attacks? It clearly says, "Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks." It also says, "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
I feel it's very clear. Touch spells can be either melee or ranged. Touch spells do not provoke. Please explain how this isn't applicable.
I hashed this argument out before in this Thread. In said thread Jason Bulmahn clearly spelled out the reason for the change, even if he waffled on the aforementioned rules quote.
Here's his quote.
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
--Jingle Bell Vrock
Thanks KoV, you vrock.
One thing I'd like to point out:
1. The RAW state that casting a spell in melee provokes (general rule about spells).
2. The RAW state that using a ranged touch attack provokes (general rule about ranged attacks) - by the way, I've always run my 3.5 games this way - I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time :)
3. The RAW state that casting a quickened spell does not provoke (specific rule about quickened spells).
How is it that #3 trumps #1 but not #2? It certainly seems to me that #3 is a more specific rule, thus it trumps the more general rules - and the specific rule includes no exception text. It flatly states that quickened spells do not provoke.
If indeed there is an actual Pathfinder ruling about quickened ranged touch spells (I haven't seen evidence of such yet, just the evidence about regular ranged touch attack spells and all of the discussion here), then that ruling is making Pathfinder inconsistent/more confusing.
It makes quickened ranged touch attacks due to a spell a special case of spell that, UNLIKE any other spell, do provoke even though they are quickened. How is it that you can quicken something like fireball, lightning bolt, ice storm, horrid wilting (or even gate and weird) and you don't provoke, but *magic missile* does? My opinion is there is no logic in interpreting the rules that way.
Staying with the 3.5 rules that ALL quickened spells NEVER provoke, just like in 3.5, seems like the right way to go to me. It's simpler *and* it's not a change, either from other quickened spells or from 3.5 (and from what I've seen so far, it is a valid interpretation of the rules).
|
|
James how can you argue that my rule quote doesn't mention ranged touch attacks? It clearly says, "Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks." It also says, "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
I feel it's very clear. Touch spells can be either melee or ranged. Touch spells do not provoke. Please explain how this isn't applicable.
I would have interpreted 'touching' as physically touching as well, thinking that they would have used the wording "Making a touch attack upon an opponent..." if that was what they meant.
I'm glad that it is clearer in PF.
My take on the matter is a ranged touch spell at melee range is, effectively, a touch attack. Does it really matter if the opponent is 30 feet away from your finger with scorching ray or 3 inches?
I've always wondered though... What if the opponent doesn't care about the touch attack? Could they take the AoO anyway and grant an automatic hit to the caster's touch attack? RAW, obviously not, but if their touch AC sucks they don't have much to lose. Or if the caster has been casting suboptimal spells (like slay living versus a beefy monster).
Just to be sure, I asked Customer Service. They say that an RTA from a Quickened spell does provoke.