Read it again, this time without the second sentence and see if you still make that same leap.
But if you read it without the second sentence, you're deliberately taking it out of context. That's like deliberately trying to misinterpret it.
I think the issue lies with the change from 3.5 to pathfinder. In 3.5 the idea was you cast defensivly to not get AOO, and if you failed the check you provoked and took possible hit, which in turn could disrupt the spell if you take damage and fail the second save. Pathfinder may have tried to make it so that a Caster doesnt get free attacks on them in melee range which trying to cast spells and they fail the save. But they worded it bad, and I would rather have 3.5 rules then loosing a spell, making 2 checks has a higher chance for success than failure in this situation.
There's little change between 3.5 and PF on what casting defensively does. The mechanics of making the check change, but that's it.
Casting on the Defensive: Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell.
I found it.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.Which doesn't clarify if a spell that isn't cast defensively provokes twice or not. Please note it specifically states that the attacks are part of the spell and not a separate action -- all it tells us is that if cast defensively you will still provoke for the ranged attack.
Which we already knew from the ranged combat section.
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.So if I cast a spell without casting defensively and you take your AoO for this opportunity (casting the spell) then any other part of casting the spell won't provide you another AoO since it's still the same opportunity (as it is part of the same action).
Cast the spell defensively but have a ranged attack -- provoke.
Cast the spell and have a ranged attack -- provoke.Either way you are only getting one swing. The key is if I cast defensively you don't get to disrupt the spell.
Wouldn't an 'opportunity' be any action or part thereof that provokes? All it says is that you cannot make more than one attack ~per opportunity~. But if such opportunities are the only things that can provoke an 'attack of opportunity', then isn't it circular to suggest you can only have one opportunity per action when clearly there are two provocations?
IE:
I cast, non-defensively. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.
I aim the ranged touch spell and launch it. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.
If the rule said once per action I would agree. But unless I'm misreading something or overlooking something, somewhere, it seems to be saying that only one single attack can be made per -opportunity-.
Ugh, that's messy. =)
Edit: To try and clarify, I'm specifically referring to the quoted portion that says it is one opportunity because it is part of the same action. Is that ever actually stated anywhere?
|
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.Wouldn't an 'opportunity' be any action or part thereof that provokes? All it says is that you cannot make more than one attack ~per opportunity~. But if such opportunities are the only things that can provoke an 'attack of opportunity', then isn't it circular to suggest you can only have one opportunity per action when clearly there are two provocations?
IE:
I cast, non-defensively. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.I aim the ranged touch spell and launch it. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.
If the rule said once per action I would agree. But unless I'm misreading something or overlooking something, somewhere, it seems to be saying that only one single attack can be made per -opportunity-.
Ugh, that's messy. =)
Edit: To try and clarify, I'm specifically referring to the quoted portion that says it is one opportunity because it is part of the same action. Is that ever actually stated anywhere?
Abraham, thank for the citation, I was searching where it was stated that there is only 1 attack for opportunity.
I have a problem similar to the one Apotheosis has:
- I see that people read the quote above as "If you are running in circles around a creature and he has combat reflexes, he get only 1 attack of opportunity as you are leaving multiple squares threatened by the same person."
Instead I read the text as:
- "if you occupy multiple squares threatened by a creature and move outside of them, he get only 1 attack of opportunity" but "if you enter another square threatened by the same person and then you leave it he get another attack of opportunity if he has combat reflexes".
There is a FAQ stating that the first interpretation is the right one?
I hate to necro an old thread, but are you also saying that if I provoke(do not cast defensively) that I provoke a second time from the actual ranged touch attack.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
I hate to necro an old thread, but are you also saying that if I provoke(do not cast defensively) that I provoke a second time from the actual ranged touch attack.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
Concerro, I think it would be better to concentrate all the FAQ in one thread. So I suggest you put a onmicomprensive FAQ here and I will push the FAQ in support or you can hit FAQ on this one if it clear enough for your tastes. ,
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.Wouldn't an 'opportunity' be any action or part thereof that provokes? All it says is that you cannot make more than one attack ~per opportunity~. But if such opportunities are the only things that can provoke an 'attack of opportunity', then isn't it circular to suggest you can only have one opportunity per action when clearly there are two provocations?
IE:
I cast, non-defensively. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.I aim the ranged touch spell and launch it. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.
If the rule said once per action I would agree. But unless I'm misreading something or overlooking something, somewhere, it seems to be saying that only one single attack can be made per -opportunity-.
Ugh, that's messy. =)
Edit: To try and clarify, I'm specifically referring to the quoted portion that says it is one opportunity because it is part of the same action. Is that ever actually stated anywhere?
Abraham, thank for the citation, I was searching where it was stated that there is only 1 attack for opportunity.
I have a problem similar to the one Apotheosis has:
- I see that people read the quote above as "If you are running in circles around a creature and he has combat reflexes, he get only 1 attack of opportunity as you are leaving multiple squares threatened...
I did not want to derail this thread with that subarguement, and while the dev's post suggest that spellcasting and using a ranged attack is an exception to the rule it is not flat out stated. His intent could have gone either way, and I don't like to debate a point if I don't think I can eventually find proof. I have no issue FAQ'ing it here though. Either way it should get back to them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'AoO per square moved' question was answered in WotC's 3.5 FAQ. I can't access the site from work, so you'll have to Google it.
Basically, you get one AoO per provoking action. A move action is one action, not a series of 5ft movement actions.
Remove the grid and ask yourself, 'would I really get three chances to hit a guy moving 20ft past me? Or would I only get one swing as he goes by?'
|
A lot of people want movement to provoke more than once, not so much for the cases where someone runs past via the shortest route, but where they run round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and generally give their GM the feeling they're taking the piss.
|
|
I think the issue lies with the change from 3.5 to pathfinder. In 3.5 the idea was you cast defensivly to not get AOO, and if you failed the check you provoked and took possible hit, which in turn could disrupt the spell if you take damage and fail the second save. Pathfinder may have tried to make it so that a Caster doesnt get free attacks on them in melee range which trying to cast spells and they fail the save. But they worded it bad, and I would rather have 3.5 rules then loosing a spell, making 2 checks has a higher chance for success than failure in this situation.
There's little change between 3.5 and PF on what casting defensively does. The mechanics of making the check change, but that's it.
Casting on the Defensive: Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell.
QFT, since people seem to have missed it being said several times.
Nothing has changed from 3.5 to PF in the presentation, or the intent.
The only things that have changed are the ways one calculates the DC and the caster's check bonus.
|
|
Wouldn't an 'opportunity' be any action or part thereof that provokes? All it says is that you cannot make more than one attack ~per opportunity~. But if such opportunities are the only things that can provoke an 'attack of opportunity', then isn't it circular to suggest you can only have one opportunity per action when clearly there are two provocations?
IE:
I cast, non-defensively. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.I aim the ranged touch spell and launch it. This is a chance (an 'opportunity') for me to be hit. This is a provocation.
If the rule said once per action I would agree. But unless I'm misreading something or overlooking something, somewhere, it seems to be saying that only one single attack can be made per -opportunity-.
Ugh, that's messy. =)
It's worth noting that there is a further distinction, between spells effects that are fired as an instantaneous effect (Scorching Ray), and those that create the means to fire effects in future rounds (Produce Flame, Magic Stone).
Regardless of the eventual ruling on the former, I wouldn't allow a player to cast one of the latter defensively, or provoke from one insignificant goon, then wade into threat range, firing in future rounds, claiming 'I already provoked last round, you missed your chance, buddy.' to their more competent master.
|
|
The 'AoO per square moved' question was answered in WotC's 3.5 FAQ. I can't access the site from work, so you'll have to Google it.
Basically, you get one AoO per provoking action. A move action is one action, not a series of 5ft movement actions.
Remove the grid and ask yourself, 'would I really get three chances to hit a guy moving 20ft past me? Or would I only get one swing as he goes by?'
My reply would be: I get more attacks against a guy getting in my range and then moving past me than against a guy simply moving away from me.
When 3.5 FAQ can be applied or not is always a problem.But thanks for the reference, I will check it.
Talking is a free action, so a giant frog should be able to take as many AoO with its tongue in a round as it likes.
Hehhehehe.
*sucks in helium*
We'd like to welcome you to, the lollipop guild...
OP: I'm sure they made it this way to keep it simple, and to keep the number of dice rolls down. It's kind of their thing most of the time.
|
|
OP: I'm sure they made it this way to keep it simple, and to keep the number of dice rolls down. It's kind of their thing most of the time.
I know, but it just didn't look right to me the way it's worded, then with the following sentence saying the opposite of what I am seeing in the first sentence, I think one can understand where some confusion can creep in. Of course it's always easier to just make a logical leap, connecting the dots, as it were, but when it comes to rules (or law for that matter) precise language in every sentence is a must.
I'll continue to play it as I've known it for the last few years so it's no sweat off my back. :)
|
|
The purpose of the check is not to avoid the AoO. The purpose of the check is to maintain your spell while you avoid the AoO. The reason you cast defensively in the first place (which requires you to make a check) is to avoid the AoO.
To me, the way you are saying this, it sounds like a contradiction and an exercise in doublethink.
Imagine three scenarios: In the first the wizard isn't casting, isn't moving, isn't doing much of anything actually, he's just focusing on defending himself from his opponent. (We'll say he's forfeiting his round.)
In the second he focuses entirely on his spell at the cost of defending himself. This lowers his defenses and allows the enemy to slip a strike in at him.
In the third, the wizard decides to focus on his defense while trying to mumble through a quick spell with the absolute bare minimum of gestures, and those more a result of rote and repetition than conscious thought (as his primary thought is "Dodge the sharp pointy metal thing").
So casting defensively isn't so much taking an action to make sure your casting doesn't provoke as it is focusing on your defense while trying half-assedly to cast a spell.
That's all well and good, but the problem here is you are assuming a fluff explanation for how the rules are worded that do not exist in the rules. When taken how it has been understood to operate since the beginning, such leaps are understandable. All I'm saying, is to look at this from a different perspective. Read each sentence independently. Do they support each other directly or only by implication? If the latter, the language needs to be cleaned up for clarity; whatever direction they go is fine with me.
|
|
Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a concentration check (DC 15 + double the spell's level) to successfully cast the spell. Failure means that you lose the spell.
I'm not seeing how this is contradictory.
Also, Spellbreaker.
You can strike at enemy spellcasters who fail to cast defensively when you threaten them.
Prerequisites: Disruptive, 10th-level fighter.
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Kind of useless if you can already AoO on failed Concentration checks.
|
|
Okay, found the text you were mentioning as conflicting. I guess it could be misread.
"If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail."
If you want to cast without provoking an AoO, make a concentration check. You lose the spell if you fail.
Like Bill Dunn said above, it works the way you think it does if you read it out of context, e.g. ignore the second sentence. That second sentence defines what happens on a failure and does not mention granting an AoO.
|
|
Given that it has worked like this since 3. whatever, and given that everyone here but you understands how it works, and there is no disagreement from anyone but you, I would say that it does not need to be cleaned up.
I mean how much clear does it get:
If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
Sounds like you didn't read a single bit of what I wrote. Did you? I do understand the rule as it has stood, but I'm not going to explain it to you AGAIN, the reasoning behind my questions here...
Okay fine. Let's look at just the first sentence.
If it said "if you want to avoid an attack of opportunity while casting a spell make a consentraation check to suceed" then failing would mean you do not suceed at avoiding the attack.
But, it says "if you want to cast a spell without provoking..." in which case failure means not casting.
See, the thing your want to do comes after the words "if you want" and failing means you don't get what you want. The second part is describing what your doing already when you want to do something esle.
Now you try, read the sentence again, if you don't make the check to you fail to "avoid an attack of opportunity while casting" or do you fail to "cast a spell without provoking an attack"?
The wording should have never been changed from the 3.5 version which was more clear. Instead they changed the wording, and added the relevant part to the combat chapter. Maybe we can FAQ this and get it changed back.
Hit the FAQ button is all I can say. I don't think any of us is going to convince the OP otherwise.
|
|
The wording is exactly the same in 3.5.
If you ignore the rest of the rules I guess you could get confused.
Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell.
And in Pathfinder, the Spellbreaker feat specifically calls out what the normal actions are, as I quoted above.
The wording is exactly the same in 3.5.
If you ignore the rest of the rules I guess you could get confused.
And in Pathfinder, the Spellbreaker feat specifically calls out what the normal actions are, as I quoted above.
Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell.
Darn it I see what my error was. I took another poster's quote from the 3.5 combat section thinking it was the one from the 3.5 magic section.
With that said since the words are the same as 3.5 then it is only logical that the meaning is the same.
Now I just have to find evidence that our opinion of the 3.5 version was correct.
Let me check the rules compendium(page 133)
Casting Defensively
Casting a spell defensively doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.
It does require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell
level). Failure on the check means that you lose the spell.
edit:So we know the words did not change. We now know what the 3.5 meaning was. Hopefully this solves the issue.
Well, the actual issue is the OP feels it shouldn't work that way. Which is not a problem, cause it's their game.
True, but I am waiting to see if they will go with the rule once it is proven or just ignore it anyway assuming they are the GM.
For the OP's convenience=more proof
Spellbreaker (Combat)
You can strike at enemy spellcasters who fail to cast defensively when you threaten them.
Prerequisites: Disruptive, 10th-level fighter.
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Regarding the ranged touch attack as part of a spell cast defensively, wouldn't the ranged touch attack succeed (assuming a hit is rolled) regardless of the whether the AoO provoked a hit or not, just as say, firing a crossbow provokes an attack of opportunity but you don't have to make a concentration check to keep firing?
THREADNECRO!11!!
|
|
Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a
concentration check to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.We ran into this tonight in my game. I interpreted the rule as....IF you want to cast without an AOO, you must succeed on a concentration check....implying, a fail provokes
And, as mentioned repeatedly upthread, casting a spell defensively never provokes, but if you fail the concentration check, you lose the spell.
Nice necro, by the way.
I get this, but how does the act of casting defensively, in and of itself, not provoke an AoO? Shouldn't it be a successful check for casting defensively be what avoids the AoO? Perhaps bringing it in line with tumbling (acrobatics)?The enemy may ready an attack to injure you just as you are casting. Another way to make a damage based concentration check is if you are suffering from an ongoing effect such as acid arrow.
Failing the concentration check while casting defensively does not allow an AoO. It just means the spell fizzles(fails).
Normally, you must divert your attention away from the fight to have enough focus to cast a spell. This provokes, because you weren't paying enough attention.
However, you can instead choose to pay attention to the fight while trying to manage a spell cast anyway. To do this, you cast defensively. If you succeed, you not only paid attention to your surroundings, but had enough concentration to cast the spell as well. And if you fail, you were too focused on the fighting going on to manage the spell properly, so it fizzles.
In neither case do you provoke, because the whole reason you are even making the check is because you have decided that paying attention was your priority.