As I read it, a ranged touch attack is still a ranged attack, and as such does provok an attack of opportunity (possibly two, if you're threatened and you don't cast defensivly).
My logic is that when you make any ranged attack, whether it be with a bow, a sling, or a spell, you must take a moment to aim at your target, and this focus causes you to give less attention to your immediate surrounding momentarily. Nearby foes can exploit this and take a quick shot at you, since you aren't on active defense while aiming your shot.
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the
spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively.I can understand reading the rules in that way and of course the DM is always right. :-)
There really is no ambiguity there. Its not the DM reading the rules it simply how they are.
I just do not understand WHY there should be an AoO. All the other actions like standing up or firing a bow in melee put you in a positon where you are (more or less) hard put to defend yourself.
In game, you have to point your arm out at the thing you want to blast.
Balance wise, its unfair to the archers to make them get whacks of opportunity without shooting on the defensive while wizards can make concentration checks to do the same.
I found no indication of how you must behave to "shoot" a ranged touch attack. As with every ranged attack it depends on DEX, so in same way it is a physical act but I can find no reference that it involves an act that leaves you open to attack. I can't even find a passage that firing a ranged touch attack such as a ray involves your hands, tentacles, whatever. It seems to be possible to shoot them from your eyeas, knees, elbows,... The only passage I found is rather short.
The game doesn't get that descriptive for a few reasons. 1 being space, another being that the more you write the more people read way, way too much into it.
I see where you're coming from, but when you're making a melee attack, you're very muched focused on that which is in melee range, plus it's assume that you're doing some degree of parrying and weaving during a given round. However, if you make a range attacks, parrying with your bow not only risks breaking it, but also completly unaligns your shot - as does dodging or weaving. You have to take about one or two seconds to line up your shot and fire, during which time you may perform no other task. There are ways to avoid this, but they require a lot of practice, which is reflected in feats such as mobility or the abilities granted to a fighter using the "archer" varaint in the APG.
In game, you have to point your arm out at the thing you want to blast.
I would like to see that passage. It would also clear up if a bound wizard could use his/her acid dart or a creature with no arms (lets say a wizard in ooze form) could use rays. I personally think it rather strange that a beholder (not open content I know) should incur AoO for using his eye rays.
Any idea where I could find this passage?
enervation: You point your finger and fire a black ray of negative energy
polar ray: A blue-white ray of freezing air and ice springs from your handray of enfeeblement: A coruscating ray springs from your hand
Ray of exhaustion: A black ray projects from your pointing finger
Disintegrate: A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger.
Dimensional anchor: A green ray springs from your hand.
Searing light: you project a blast of light from your open palm
More importantly its part of pathfinders philosophy: unlike 3.5 a caster should not be able to stand right in front of the guy with the big honking sword and sling spells at him as safely as he can if he was across the room.
If I were running a game, then yes, I'd let you shoot a ray however you wanted, but you'd still have to focus on a distant target, which gives an adjacent foe a window for an AoO.
|
I do not really like the aiming/concentration argument that much as you must focus on your opponent making a melee attack as well.
Ah, but therein lies the rub.
For a melee attack you are literally focused on the opponent.
With a ranged attack, your eyes have to focus on a target much further away, so things nearby go into "tunnel vision" and you can't see them as well.
Besides, it's a game. Some of the rules are abstract. Like hit points. Or exactly what "sneak attack" damage is and why it works against constructs/undead/etc. Or the entire concept of combat on a grid made of 5-foot squares!
I mean, really? Your only problem is with ranged touch spells provoking an AOO?
I don´t get the problem. RAW/RAI is utterly clear, Ranged Touch provokes.
You´re totally correct, the rules don´t visually/physically describe how Ranged Touches work.
There could be multiple ways, depending on spell/effect. Who knows.
But if you´re having problems explaining WHY it works this way, I don´t get why you´re not taking the simplest explanation - That Ranged Touch magic DOES involve gestures similar to using a bow. That is the simplest solution that doesn´t conflict with RAW. What`s the problem with that?
If you don´t like RAW, just admit it and change it in your games. Voila.
If you find RAW balanced and want to play that way, why pretend there is a problem that doesn´t exist. The rules don´t describe plenty of things in detail, but that doesn´t mean one is compelled to choose the visualizations that CONFLICT with RAW rather than those that align with it.
I once had a warlock who would flex and fire his eldritch blast from his chest.
Okay forget realism...D&D combat system ain't realistic, period. It's there for balance. Ranged attacks become TOO good if you can full attack at melee range with no AoO.
True.
After all, in reality you are better off using range.
I do not really like the aiming/concentration argument that much as you must focus on your opponent making a melee attack as well.Ah, but therein lies the rub.
For a melee attack you are literally focused on the opponent.
With a ranged attack, your eyes have to focus on a target much further away, so things nearby go into "tunnel vision" and you can't see them as well.
I think Simkiria (who is a player in my game) is especially concerned about the situation when the target of the ranged touch attack is in melee reach and is actually the one who gets to make the attack of opportunity.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
Couldn't Simkiria just do a 5-foot-step and cast the spell - works only for non-reach weapons. But if (s)he is still in a threatened square after his move, I see it as bad positioning on his/her side. *shrug*
Also, a quickened spell wouldn't give an AoO.
Otherwise, I agree to the posters above. It's clearly stated in the rules and it's necessary for balance reasons when looking at mundane ranged attackers.
Ruyan.
After all, in reality you are better off using range.
And that makes me think there is range, and there is range...
Fists range?
Grenade Range? (doesn't even need LOS!)
Rifle Range?
Artillery Range?
But rather than lament the 'lack of realism' I celebrate it: if I wanted 'real' I would paintball (more). :) I think forcing Ranged Touch Attacks to provoke AoO is a good balancing effect. If you don't make a blanket (all ranged attacks provoke) then you have to go into the *specific* mechanics... Throwing a dagger is 'easier' then shooting a bow. (that is a single arm sweep and release is a simpler physical mechanic than nocking, pulling, aiming, releasing.)
How annoying would the game be if we spent all of our time trying to be 'realistic' *grin* After Alkenstar has repeating firearms and has not take over the world ;)
GNOME
Quite simply... all ranged attacks provoke an Attack of Opportunity correct?
A ranged touch attack is still considered a type of ranged attack yes?
The touch attack part of the spell is required to complete the spell. And you will draw an AoO if threatened. You could not attempt it, but the spell will fizzle into oblivion.
Also, the rules spell it out pretty clearly...
More importantly its part of pathfinders philosophy: unlike 3.5 a caster should not be able to stand right in front of the guy with the big honking sword and sling spells at him as safely as he can if he was across the room.
Except he can. A caster can stand toe to toe with the big sword guy and spam lightning bolts, slow, fear, confusion, and a host of other spells and there's nothing the BSF can do about it. In fact, the only spells he can't cast with impunity are "ranged touch" spells, which make up a very small list.
Okay forget realism...D&D combat system ain't realistic, period. It's there for balance. Ranged attacks become TOO good if you can full attack at melee range with no AoO.
The fact that people think that it's "unrealistic" for ranged attacks to be better than melee attacks just proves your point all the more. :D
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Except he can. A caster can stand toe to toe with the big sword guy and spam lightning bolts, slow, fear, confusion, and a host of other spells and there's nothing the BSF can do about it. In fact, the only spells he can't cast with impunity are "ranged touch" spells, which make up a very small list.
More importantly its part of pathfinders philosophy: unlike 3.5 a caster should not be able to stand right in front of the guy with the big honking sword and sling spells at him as safely as he can if he was across the room.
True, but in most of these cases, the caster also has the benefit of obtaining ranged attack feats to buff these spells - especially rays. This benefit balances out the AoO issue IMHO.
In any case, your example of casting other spells with impunity while in melee range demonstrates that casters should have better options than ranged touch spells if he/she is engaged in combat - LIke casting Gust of Wind to push the fighter away from you, or blast a Lightning Bolt in his face. With a successful concentration check, these spells should both be better options while in melee combat than any ranged touch spell.
Except he can. A caster can stand toe to toe with the big sword guy and spam lightning bolts, slow, fear, confusion, and a host of other spells and there's nothing the BSF can do about it. In fact, the only spells he can't cast with impunity are "ranged touch" spells, which make up a very small list.
More importantly its part of pathfinders philosophy: unlike 3.5 a caster should not be able to stand right in front of the guy with the big honking sword and sling spells at him as safely as he can if he was across the room.
Do not forget that all those spell... Also cause a AoO. So in a way, all spell are range spells.
I just do not understand WHY there should be an AoO.
Because Rays are a very strong delivery method for spells.
|
In game, you have to point your arm out at the thing you want to blast.
I would like to see that passage. It would also clear up if a bound wizard could use his/her acid dart or a creature with no arms (lets say a wizard in ooze form) could use rays. I personally think it rather strange that a beholder (not open content I know) should incur AoO for using his eye rays.
Any idea where I could find this passage?
it is teh somatic component of the spell with the S in the Components description.
It is not really important if you are pointing your hand at the target or at the moon. What is important is that you need a free hand.
If you are casting a spell without somatic components or a still spell it can originate from your eyes and don't require pointing your hand at anything.
Components V, S
So a bound wizard can't cast it unless it is a stilled spell.