Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?
Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?
Once he starts the action the can not stop mid-spell and attack.
Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?Once he starts the action the can not stop mid-spell and attack.
Ahaha that's cool! A funny tricky way to avoid AoO, haha...
Aw man there's still the stupid 5-foot step in this case, no fun. Well my shadowdancer can always sneak-scroll to avoid the AoO at least. Or I assume so...
Oh but the SRD lists "Cease concentration on a spell" as a free action, and I think casting is concentrating on it, right? Or well I suppose they mean 'duration: concentration', so that's not likely. Well I hope you're right but are you positive he can't cancel that action as a free action? It seems like a plausible thing in my mind. Where are you coming from with this?
Ok say like I set a readied action to drink a potion 'when my opponent attacks me'. Since it's an immediate action and the attack is a standard action I guess it'd be the same as this (assuming they can't redirect their swing to hit the potion or something)? BUT! Someone with Greater Trip gets an attack of opportunity when they trip someone, and can't they take that in the middle of a full attack action? Though it's divided into separate attacks ('attack actions'?). So perhaps 'full attack action being divided into smaller attack actions' is the only exception of someone disrupting their own action with an AoE? But again I'd like to know where you're coming from on this.
Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?Once he starts the action the can not stop mid-spell and attack.Ahaha that's cool! A funny tricky way to avoid AoO, haha...
Aw man there's still the stupid 5-foot step in this case, no fun. Well my shadowdancer can always sneak-scroll to avoid the AoO at least. Or I assume so...
Oh but the SRD lists "Cease concentration on a spell" as a free action, and I think casting is concentrating on it, right? Or well I suppose they mean 'duration: concentration', so that's not likely. Well I hope you're right but are you positive he can't cancel that action as a free action? It seems like a plausible thing in my mind. Where are you coming from with this?
Ok say like I set a readied action to drink a potion 'when my opponent attacks me'. Since it's an immediate action and the attack is a standard action I guess it'd be the same as this (assuming they can't redirect their swing to hit the potion or something)? BUT! Someone with Greater Trip gets an attack of opportunity when they trip someone, and can't they take that in the middle of a full attack action? Though it's divided into separate attacks ('attack actions'?). So perhaps 'full attack action being divided into smaller attack actions' is the only exception of someone disrupting their own action with an AoE? But again I'd like to know where you're coming from on this.
Concentration is not casting. It is something that can be done while or after casting depending on the spell.
The greater trip is a specific rule that overrules a general rule. Generally speaking you can't interrupt your own action. A full round attack also consist of many smaller action as you stated which is why if you down someone after 2 hits you do not have to take the remaining attacks if you don't want to kill them.You drinking the potion is also not an immediate action. If you ready an action it takes up a standard action. You setting up conditions for it does not make it an immediate action.
The ready action interrupts
PRD=Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
As you see the ready action happens in the middle of their action .
It(their action)then finishes after you finish your ready action.
I don't think it is game breaking to allow it since a caster with a melee weapon is not normally a threat with that weapon. Of course I avoid touch spells like the plague.
If you could stop a spell then why not any other action such as a charge to avoid a weapon set against a charge when you are the charger? If you can't stop a charge then why can you just stop the spell?
Concentration is not casting. It is something that can be done while or after casting depending on the spell.
Aye I'd agree it'd be a stretch for them to refer to casting as concentration, but you always concentrate to cast a spell, nay?
The greater trip is a specific rule that overrules a general rule.
Aye I must keep this in mind. However this is an inferred general rule yeah? There lacks precedence but 'tis a rather exceptional case and could have gone 'under the radar' rulemaking-wise, so I personally couldn't venture either way.
You drinking the potion is also not an immediate action. If you ready an action it takes up a standard action. You setting up conditions for it does not make it an immediate action.
Yes, I probably jumbled 'interrupt' and 'immediate' in my head.
I don't think it is game breaking to allow it since a caster with a melee weapon is not normally a threat with that weapon. Of course I avoid touch spells like the plague.
Yeah, but I might be more concerned about this getting around fighters thing, yeah? I mean it looks like AoO's are avoided rather easily just by moving down your initiative by a varying amount.
If you could stop a spell then why not any other action such as a charge to avoid a weapon set against a charge when you are the charger? If you can't stop a charge then why can you just stop the spell?
Aye that's a good point, it definitely points towards that general rule. However stopping charging and stopping casting are not the most comparable conceptually speaking. I'm just not sure if the game designers had it in mind at all, or not. I gather it's not directly mentioned, and it would very rarely come up. I mean I can see the DM bringing up some dramatic development just as a character is casting a spell... and I can see like a certain pressure for them not to puss out at the cost of story/dramatic value... but I'm not really seeing much objective still. I do lean towards your opinion but I'm not 100% convinced that there's no chance it may just be a hazy area rules-wise. I can 'see' why one 'couldn't' back out of a charge... but I can also 'see' a wizard abandoning his spell relatively easily (it's disrupted easily enough after all). Basically you are assuming there must be a rule in place and making what would be a valid extension from the charge thing; but I mean sometimes there isn't a rule in place. Is the charge thing specifically documented at all or just subjective/common sense?
Also seriously isn't this 'getting around AoO's of any attacker' thing pretty crazy actually?
Also what if you ready a move action to greatly hinder your attacker's assault? Would the first attack even land then? And by what we're saying they wouldn't even get an AoO. Well it prevents you from attacking but it lets one character neutralize a whole lot of offense by theirself. This much can't be true...
Also I juiced up my profile B]
Concentration is not casting. It is something that can be done while or after casting depending on the spell.Aye I'd agree it'd be a stretch for them to refer to casting as concentration, but you always concentrate to cast a spell, nay?
Nope. Concentrating in games terms actually has two definitions. One is with respect to a spell's duration. The other is with respect to not dropping a spell due to outside interference such as damage, being tossed around(elemental's whirlwind as an example)
Aye I must keep this in mind. However this is an inferred general rule yeah? There lacks precedence but 'tis a rather exceptional case and could have gone 'under the radar' rulemaking-wise, so I personally couldn't venture either way.
A general rule is stated in the regular part of the rules. Special cases are made in things like spells, feats and so on. I will also say that making an attack of opportunity in the middle of an attack is something that almost never comes up since it requires another person to take an action on your turn. Greater trip forces them to provoke even though they have not taken an action. It also allows you to make an AoO the middle of all of these attacks(full round attack), and then continue as if nothing happened.
Yeah, but I might be more concerned about this getting around fighters thing, yeah? I mean it looks like AoO's are avoided rather easily just by moving down your initiative by a varying amount.
How so? Remember that if you call for a ready action you are giving up your standard action, and that if the fighter does not do what you expected then your action is wasted for that round. It seems like a big gamble to me.
Aye that's a good point, it definitely points towards that general rule. However stopping charging and stopping casting are not the most comparable conceptually speaking. I'm just not sure if the game designers had it in mind at all, or not. I gather it's not directly mentioned, and it would very rarely come up. I mean I can see the DM bringing up some dramatic development just as a character is casting a spell... and I can see like a certain pressure for them not to puss out at the cost of story/dramatic value... but I'm not really seeing much objective still. I do lean towards your opinion but I'm not 100% convinced that there's no chance it may just be a hazy area rules-wise. I can 'see' why one 'couldn't' back out of a charge... but I can also 'see' a wizard abandoning his spell relatively easily (it's disrupted easily enough after all). Basically you are assuming there must be a rule in place and making what would be a valid extension from the charge thing; but I mean sometimes there isn't a rule in place. Is the charge thing specifically documented at all or just subjective/common sense?
Most of it is common sense, but if you decide to not cast that spell the person using the scroll has already won to an extent. Passing concentration checks get trivially easier at higher levels, especially with combat casting. Scrolls have terrible saves so I would take my chances with any DC's damage that come from it. I did have some rules support when the ready action says you interupt the action, but then it continues if possible. The rules never allow you to stop your action, only to continue the action if possible.
Also seriously isn't this 'getting around AoO's of any attacker' thing pretty crazy actually?
I don't see it as getting around anything. I am sure there are corner cases but most of the time it is not worth it.
Also what if you ready a move action to greatly hinder your attacker's assault? Would the first attack even land then? And by what we're saying they wouldn't even get an AoO. Well it prevents you from attacking but it lets one character neutralize a whole lot of offense by theirself. This much can't be true...
You could move, but you have also done nothing to contribute to the fight for that round. In that sense you have also neutralized yourself. I will also add that your party members won't be too happy with that. The person may also decide to just attack one of them instead, and since your have already committed yourself to a ready action(move away if attacked) that won't take place, your turn is still wasted. The person could also pull out a ranged weapon on the next round. Moving won't put you outside of the weapon's range at that point like it will with a melee weapon.
Ready actions are a gamble because if you are supposed to be specific, and if you guess wrong then you are out of luck. Many GM's will make you specify the type of attack also. Being cryptic would allow ready actions to have a big advantage in some cases.
I cede your 'continuing an action' argument now, the relevant points are my last two comments, the rest is just minor/casual nitpicking.
Nope. Concentrating in games terms actually has two definitions. One is with respect to a spell's duration. The other is with respect to not dropping a spell due to outside interference such as damage, being tossed around(elemental's whirlwind as an example)
Oi oi. I started with hearsay but looked at the SRD to find "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." And, I'm more trying to get the facts straight than make a pertinent point now but does this not contest what you're saying here? Concentration is a state always undertaken when casting a spell -- especially to avoid disruption but still necessary to cast the spell in neutral conditions. I could see 'ceasing concentration' as referring to this 'concentration', easily enough (though subjectively the ruling appears to be directed just towards duration: concentration, if I had to guess).
A general rule is stated in the regular part of the rules.
But that's my point, is this 'general rule' even really stated anywhere?
Most of it is common sense, but if you decide to not cast that spell the person using the scroll has already won to an extent.
Oh but this scroll can mess you up, easily foil your current spell by itself. It would be one of the better cases to show when you would want to give up the spell.
Passing concentration checks get trivially easier at higher levels, especially with combat casting.
Are you speaking against the ease of losing concentration? However skilled you can become, I speak of the fact that mere distraction can cause you to let go what must be a constant force of will to maintain. I can't help but see this as something relatively easily dropped. Compared to well the momentum of a charge. Though even a charge can be stopped by caltrops and maybe a couple other things. Which points to it being stoppable by the charger themselves, conceptually/logically at least. What you said about a set weapon, is this a key issue? Is it something you sometimes see after you start charging?
Scrolls have terrible saves so I would take my chances with any DC's damage that come from it.
Well this particular scroll has no save. And general practicality isn't too significant here; the exception matters.
I did have some rules support when the ready action says you interupt the action, but then it continues if possible. The rules never allow you to stop your action, only to continue the action if possible.
Aye that is a bit of support, which I did overlook actually and apologize, though I would prefer something a bit more direct since I am aware of inconsistencies in the rules. Still it is clear enough and really I suppose that is where it would be mentioned if anywhere, I wouldn't exactly expect them to lay it out by itself specifically somewhere. Also it keeps the game cleaner/more straightforward which is always a goal. So yes, I'm sufficiently satisfied, thank you for obliging me.
You could move, but you have also done nothing to contribute to the fight for that round. In that sense you have also neutralized yourself. I will also add that your party members won't be too happy with that. The person may also decide to just attack one of them instead, and since your have already committed yourself to a ready action(move away if attacked) that won't take place, your turn is still wasted. The person could also pull out a ranged weapon on the next round. Moving won't put you outside of the weapon's range at that point like it will with a melee weapon.
I don't know, I see a lot of potential here. I assume melee-based boss-type enemies to be fairly significant. If so, one character's standard action foiling potentially its whole turn against your party is huge, if it can be achieved with any reliability -- and I don't imagine it as taking that much organization to get some solid results. Overall it just seems like getting too much for too little. You probably have more expertise here than me but, I just see this much, quite applicable, potential, in something any character can do. Facing off a big baddy who is most likely going to straight up attack a particular character in its next turn does not seem remotely rare or terribly unpredictable to me. Is it not? Hell even half your party doing it at a time could be incredibly worthwhile against certain, no doubt significant opponents. Well maybe just chalk that up to valid strategy, seems a bit much though.
Well if it isn't broken or anything I would definitely be one to enjoy putting such a maneuver to use as I can. Oh god, it would be fun as hell to actually pull off. 'Whiff' "oh oops, wrong choice, buster~ tee hee"
Yeah...
DM would just have to put on ignorance, that's always slightly awkward.
Oi oi. I started with hearsay but looked at the SRD to find "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." And, I'm more trying to get the facts straight than make a pertinent point now but does this not contest what you're saying here? Concentration is a state always undertaken when casting a spell -- especially to avoid disruption but still necessary to cast the spell in neutral conditions. I could see 'ceasing concentration' as referring to this 'concentration', easily enough (though subjectively the ruling appears to be directed just towards duration: concentration, if I had to guess).
If concentration was always happening then why do you have to make a concentration check as an active decision instead of it being passive? It seems to me that one being always one, and the other method of it being forced leads toward it being not the same thing.
But that's my point, is this 'general rule' even really stated anywhere?
If I can just stop an action whenever I want then how could you have AoO's. Why not just start to cast a spell to make the fighter use the AoO, stop it as a free action. This would stop the spell slot from being used since it was never cast, and since AoO's occur before the action, unlike readied actions the spell of course never got cast. Not every fighter has combat reflexes. That means that after the AoO is used I can go ahead and cast the spell.
Are you speaking against the ease of losing concentration? However skilled you can become, I speak of the fact that mere distraction can cause you to let go what must be a constant force of will to maintain. I can't help but see this as something relatively easily dropped. Compared to well the momentum of a charge. Though even a charge can be stopped by caltrops and maybe a couple other things. Which points to it being stoppable by the charger themselves, conceptually/logically at least. What you said about a set weapon, is this a key issue? Is it something you sometimes see after you start charging?
The distraction can make you lose a spell. I am not saying it can't. I am saying that it gets harder at higher levels. As to the caltrop there is a big difference between actively choosing something and having it forced upon you. If I am running full speed and you step in front of me I may not be able to stop in time. That is different than some physical object bringing me to a halt.
Aye that is a bit of support, which I did overlook actually and apologize, though I would prefer something a bit more direct since I am aware of inconsistencies in the rules. Still it is clear enough and really I suppose that is where it would be mentioned if anywhere, I wouldn't exactly expect them to lay it out by itself specifically somewhere. Also it keeps the game cleaner/more straightforward which is always a goal. So yes, I'm sufficiently satisfied, thank you for obliging me.
You would have to find the inconsistency in order to have a point in an actual game though. Right now the rules say the action continues.
I don't know, I see a lot of potential here. I assume melee-based boss-type enemies to be fairly significant. If so, one character's standard action foiling potentially its whole turn against your party is huge, if it can be achieved with any reliability -- and I don't imagine it as taking that much organization to get some solid results. Overall it just seems like getting too much for too little. You probably have more expertise here than me but, I just see this much, quite applicable, potential, in something any character can do. Facing off a big baddy who is most likely going to straight up attack a particular character in its next turn does not seem remotely rare or terribly unpredictable to me. Is it not? Hell even half your party doing it at a time could be incredibly worthwhile against certain, no doubt significant opponents. Well maybe just chalk that up to valid strategy, seems a bit much though.
Well if it isn't broken or anything I would definitely be one to enjoy putting such a maneuver to use as I can. Oh god, it would be fun as hell to actually pull off. 'Whiff' "oh oops, wrong choice, buster~ tee hee"
Yeah...
DM would just have to put on ignorance, that's always slightly awkward.
Using a melee as a big bad is an exercise in futility so he is already lost, but if the GM knows you are going to try a tactic he could always go for trip or another action. You as a playing guessing the right action would be hard to do.
Thanks again for going into depth with me here, and sorry I've left you hanging a bit there. I generally wouldn't mind pounding out the fine details and come closer to a mutual understanding on some points that I still feel may lack representation but I'm at a crucial point in my life where I just don't feel like I can set aside time for that in particular. Anyway I got the answer to my main question, and enjoyed discussing :) . I'm sorry if it compromises any satisfaction, it's my bad, I'm the one ducking out. Anyway peace bro it was nice, I appreciated it ;)
I kinda like you x)
Thanks again for going into depth with me here, and sorry I've left you hanging a bit there. I generally wouldn't mind pounding out the fine details and come closer to a mutual understanding on some points that I still feel may lack representation but I'm at a crucial point in my life where I just don't feel like I can set aside time for that in particular. Anyway I got the answer to my main question, and enjoyed discussing :) . I'm sorry if it compromises any satisfaction, it's my bad, I'm the one ducking out. Anyway peace bro it was nice, I appreciated it ;)
I kinda like you x)
It's ok. :)
|
Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?
Your readied action (casting your scroll) happens just before he starts casting his spell. If he threatens you (for example by holding a dagger), he can make an AoO as your casting provokes. Making the AoO does not disrupt his spellcasting as he has not started casting yet.
Casting from a scroll doesn't provoke.
@ Ice Titan:
Yeah, it does
Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action.
Deciphering a scroll to determine its contents does not activate its magic unless it is a specially prepared cursed scroll. A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll.
Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items. In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance.
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.
* The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
* The user must have the spell on her class list.
* The user must have the requisite ability score.
If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
Determine Effect: A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. Assume the scroll spell's caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll, unless the scriber specifically desired otherwise.
The writing for an activated spell disappears from the scroll as the spell is cast.
Scroll Mishaps: When a mishap occurs, the spell on the scroll has a reversed or harmful effect. Possible mishaps are given below.
* A surge of uncontrolled magical energy deals 1d6 points of damage per spell level to the scroll user.
* Spell strikes the scroll user or an ally instead of the intended target, or a random target nearby if the scroll user was the intended recipient.
* Spell takes effect at some random location within spell range.
* Spell's effect on the target is contrary to the spell's normal effect.
* The scroll user suffers some minor but bizarre effect related to the spell in some way. Most such effects should last only as long as the original spell's duration, or 2d10 minutes for instantaneous spells.
* Some innocuous item or items appear in the spell's area.
* Spell has delayed effect. Sometime within the next 1d12 hours, the spell activates. If the scroll user was the intended recipient, the spell takes effect normally. If the user was not the intended recipient, the spell goes off in the general direction of the original recipient or target, up to the spell's maximum range, if the target has moved away.
@concerro:
You make convincing arguments, but I'm not seeing many rule citations. Is this just your opinion, or do you have RAW to back it up?
Sub-question: Are you saying no character can ever interrupt an action in order to make an AoO? Can you stop, say, a Full Attack to make an AoO?
|
|
Ok so say I got this scroll, scroll of Touch of Idiocy. And I move up to this Wizard and ready an action to cast it on him if he starts casting a spell. So say he starts casting a spell in his turn; then I immediately start casting my scroll -- then does he get an attack of opportunity while he's casting a spell? If he does, does that disrupt his spellcasting?Your readied action (casting your scroll) happens just before he starts casting his spell. If he threatens you (for example by holding a dagger), he can make an AoO as your casting provokes. Making the AoO does not disrupt his spellcasting as he has not started casting yet.
Not so. The AoO provoked by spellcasting explicitly takes place during the the spellcasting. If you want to make an argument that casting from a scroll is different, I'll leave that to others to debate.
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
@ Ice Titan:
Yeah, it does
** spoiler omitted **...
I don't know why your entire post was not quoted, but some of it is just understanding of the game, and some of it is 3.5 rules, some from the rules compendium that I remembered. Many of the rules are not explained as well in Pathfinder. I honestly probably could not find quotes for all of them because many of them are based on deduction. The other would require 3.5 rulings to be accepted.
In short, can I prove it with absolute certainty? Probably not. Can I find some quotes and make my case stronger? I definitely believe so.edit:As to the full attack question I would say yes, but only because a full attack action is made up of individual attacks, and is not a single action in the same sense that casting a spell is.
some of it is just understanding of the game, and some of it is 3.5 rules, some from the rules compendium that I remembered. Many of the rules are not explained as well in Pathfinder. I honestly probably could not find quotes for all of them because many of them are based on deduction. The other would require 3.5 rulings to be accepted.
Noted, yoh. I can dig it
*does a dance*
Btw my DMs took some conceptual interpretations against the attack avoidance thing (I think they didn't find it realistic enough) but still works for me.
|
|
Not so. The AoO provoked by spellcasting explicitly takes place during the the spellcasting. If you want to make an argument that casting from a scroll is different, I'll leave that to others to debate.
Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
Always good to learn something new. Thank you.