|
In addition, you have quoted the wrong section of the rules for this discussion.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.
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. :]
|
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.
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.
|
|
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
|
|
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
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.
|
|
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.
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.
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
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.
|
|
@hangarNo, 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
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.
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?
|
|
@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...
|
|
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.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.
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.)