|
Scorching Ray: It states all rays fire simultaniously, so if I fire 1 ray or 25 (yes I know three is the max) doesn't matter, its all the same distraction that allows the enemy to exploit a hole in my defense.
Because that is what provoking an AoO is, you let your guard down and an enemy seizes that opportunity to strike you.For Produce Flame, you can hurl them as a thrown weapon. Thrown weapons provoke for each throw, because each one is a seperate action where you let your guard down. Especially when it's done over multiple rounds. You don't throw those "flameballs" simultaniously but in succession.
So the question is: Is casting and aiming once all part of the same action or is it actually two, completely seperate actions that would provide two openings that people can exploit? I'd still say it's just one. However as others have pointed out, Casting Defensively does not help.
So this would actually indicated that you cast first, and then aim.
But again you can argue, that as long as you leave yourself open to both, it's all more or less one fluid motion...
AoO do not say actions. It says things that provoke. It doesn't matter if they one action or two, they are two seperate things that both provoke AoO's. When I say that they are fired seperately, I man they each require their own attack rolls, damage rolls, miss chances, rolls for S.R., etc. . . so they count as seperate attacks.
"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)."
It says opportunity, not Actions. Like I mentioned with the charge examle, it's one action, but could produce 3 seperate opportunities that all provoke.
These sorts of debates always make my brain hurt.
The rule CBDunkerson quoted seems to make the developers intent perfectly clear, it is worded very explicitly and denotes in simple English language that a ranged touch attack is a single action which provokes "AN" attack of opportunity, yet people still argue that it provokes two. Even quoting that very rule.
Strange.
|
|
If you say no, it's all just one casting and can only provoke once, that means that Produce Flame after the first attack, can never provoke again, even though it lasts a lot of rounds. So I can go gt a minion to AoO me before I tackle the BBEG that can't even attempt it while I ranged Attack from the next square over?Strawman.
First, of all the ranged touch spells scorching ray has a great reason for not provoking multiple times. The rays are fired simultaneously.
HOW could you call that separate opportunities? An opportunity is the caster lowering their guard. They only do that once.. to fire the rays. They do NOT fire them in succession, but rather all at once. So there's no way for this to be multiple opportunities.
First, I'll counter that accusing me of a strawman is actually a strawman arguement, but that basically leads to pointing fingers and saying un uh at each other. They might fire simultaniously, but they are seperate attack and damage rolls, involve seperte miss chances, targets, rolls for S.R., and potentually seperate bonuses (True Strike affects your next attack roll, so only one ray). In other words, casting causes you to lower your gurd, and then shooting while threatened also causes you to lower your guard, again.
Second, it depends upon how you view the act of casting. If it includes the targeting with a ranged attack then it would not provoke 2 AOOs (1 for casting, 1 for targeting) but the AOO from the ranged attack could disrupt the casting. Obviously for a spell like Produce Flame the spell casting does not last multiple rounds as there is no concentration to maintain for one. And even if it did, that separate it would be easy to argue separate opportunities.
Actually no, this is completely irrelivant. AoO, as I've said a few times now, does not work off of Action Types, it works of of things that provoke. The fact the the ranged attack is part of casting does chang the fact that both provoke on their own, and are seperate opportunities, even if they are the same action. See my charging examle.
|
|
These sorts of debates always make my brain hurt.
The rule CBDunkerson quoted seems to make the developers intent perfectly clear, it is worded very explicitly and denotes in simple English language that a ranged touch attack is a single action which provokes "AN" attack of opportunity, yet people still argue that it provokes two. Even quoting that very rule.
Strange.
No one is saying that the ranged attack itself would draw two or more AoO's. It is between Casting drawing #1, and the the ranged attack drawing #2 OR casting and ranged attacking together only drawing 1, even if both seperately provoke. You have to ignor the other part of that rule to get that second one. Look at it again like this:
"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. ."
That means they are seperate opportinities, even if they are part of the same action.
Does that clear it up?
These sorts of debates always make my brain hurt.
The rule CBDunkerson quoted seems to make the developers intent perfectly clear, it is worded very explicitly and denotes in simple English language that a ranged touch attack is a single action which provokes "AN" attack of opportunity, yet people still argue that it provokes two. Even quoting that very rule.
Strange.
+1
Nothing else needs to be said. CBDunkerson found the answer, and no matter how angry people may get at him, or me, or AD, or james or anyone else who is basing their opinion on reading the rules, and not on imagining what is going on behind the curtain, the question is answered. Good debate, all, glad we got to the bottom of this one.
No one is angry at you, you are all just wrong, and didn't find the answer. Or rather the answer does not support you as you seem to think it does.
This is exactly what I find to be so bizarre.
The rule quoted is very explicit. Very clear. There are no qualifiers or wiggle terms... It's AN action which provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet you seem to think this supports your side of the debate.
Very, very strange. Yet another amazing example of the strangeness of human cognition.
Oh well, I'll just keep playing the way I always have.
|
|
I agree it is an action and it does provoke an <or AN> attack of opportunity. I also state that the very quote also indicates that that is seperate from the attack of opportunity from casting a spell while threatened, (which is also AN opportunity). Please show me in that quote, or anywhre really where it says this is not the case? Becasue we will need to remove this portion of the quote "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively." to make that true.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?
|
"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."
Emphasis mine.
That pretty clearly states that if you do not cast defensively, it's TWO attacks of opportunity. If you successfully make your check, it's one for the ranged attack. I'm surprised that people are mixed up by this.
These sorts of debates always make my brain hurt.
The rule CBDunkerson quoted seems to make the developers intent perfectly clear, it is worded very explicitly and denotes in simple English language that a ranged touch attack is a single action which provokes "AN" attack of opportunity, yet people still argue that it provokes two. Even quoting that very rule.
Strange.
No one is saying that the ranged attack itself would draw two or more AoO's. It is between Casting drawing #1, and the the ranged attack drawing #2 OR casting and ranged attacking together only drawing 1, even if both seperately provoke. You have to ignor the other part of that rule to get that second one. Look at it again like this:
"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. ."
That means they are seperate opportinities, even if they are part of the same action.
Does that clear it up?
Leaving a threatened square provokes. Every time you leave a threatened square it provokes. Movement, however, represents single opportunity. No matter how many threatened squares you leave or how many times you provoke, a single opponent is limited to one attack for a given opportunity.
Hence, it is precedented that a single action may provoke multiple times yet be only one opportunity.
Movement is called out specifically as an action that represents only a single opportunity, but "opportunity" is never defined, so there's no way to know what a "single opportunity" is.
For my own information, how would you define a "single opportunity" and what would be an example, other than movement, where a single opportunity might provoke more than once (but be limited to only a single AoO, as per RAW)?
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?
Mabven, what I find strange is how completely rational intelligent people can read exactly the same rule and reach exactly the opposite conclusion when the rule is about as explicit and clear as it could possibly be made to be.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Mabven, what I find strange is how completely rational intelligent people can read exactly the same rule and reach exactly the opposite conclusion when the rule is about as explicit and clear as it could possibly be made to be.
I would posit that a rule that causes confusion is, by definition, confusing, and is not, again by definition, explicit.
But that's just me.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Mabven, what I find strange is how completely rational intelligent people can read exactly the same rule and reach exactly the opposite conclusion when the rule is about as explicit and clear as it could possibly be made to be.I would posit that a rule that causes confusion is, by definition, confusing, and is not, again by definition, explicit.
But that's just me.
Here is the deal. The rule says a ranged touch attack is a single action that provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet that's not clear enough?
My whole point is that if that's not clear enough, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to be clear enough to get everyone to agree on ANYTHING.
Thus my head-shaking response to human cognition.
The rule quoted is very explicit. Very clear. There are no qualifiers or wiggle terms... It's AN action which provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet you seem to think this supports your side of the debate.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?
Coming newly into this thread, I am not entirely sure it supports your side as written, or that you are not the ones inserting additional intentions into the rules. It seems to me that your reading rests on inserting the meaning "only for the ranged touch attack" into the rule, such that the rule effectively would read provokes an attack of opportunity" as "provokes an attack of opportunity only for making the ranged touch attack." Since this bolded addition does not exist in the actual rules nor does it seem like the only valid interpretation is to assume it as an unspoken rule, I see no reason to read it in.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Mabven, what I find strange is how completely rational intelligent people can read exactly the same rule and reach exactly the opposite conclusion when the rule is about as explicit and clear as it could possibly be made to be.
It is a matter of desire. Rational, intelligent people have goals. Those goals are more important than pure rationality. If one's goal is to find reasons for Combat Reflexes to grant the maximum number of AoO's possible, one is going to find those reasons.
The rule quoted is very explicit. Very clear. There are no qualifiers or wiggle terms... It's AN action which provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet you seem to think this supports your side of the debate.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Coming newly into this thread, I am not entirely sure it supports your side as written, or that you are not the ones inserting additional intentions into the rules. It seems to me that your reading rests on inserting the meaning "only for the ranged touch attack" into the rule, such that the rule effectively would read provokes an attack of opportunity" as "provokes an attack of opportunity only for making the ranged touch attack." Since this bolded addition does not exist in the actual rules nor does it seem like the only valid interpretation is to assume it as an unspoken rule, I see no reason to read it in.
The quoted rule only states that, unlike other spells, a spell which grants a ranged touch attack as part of the same action as casting the spell, provokes an attack of opportunity even if the caster casts defensively. It is not specifying an additional opportunity, only that the act of casting defensively does not prevent the AoO, because the action fulfils two of the requirements for provoking an AoO, not that it provokes twice.
I also think that some people are not really thinking through exactly how bad that single AoO is for the caster, even more so than two AoO's would be. Since it is a single opportunity, caused by a single action, and can not be prevented by casting defensively, if the AoO hits, the caster MUST make a subsequent concentration check, or lose the spell. If one were to assert that there are two opportunities, the caster could cast the spell defensively, succeed at his concentration check, fire his ray at the adjacent opponent, and that opponent's AoO would not force a concentration check, because the "spell portion" of the action has already succeeded. So, if one's rational is "casters are already too powerful, they deserve to get hit twice", they are arguing the wrong side of the debate, because in actuality, the single AoO is more of a check on the caster's power than two AoO's would be.
I am not ascribing the intention to nerf caster power to anyone, so please don't be angry and think I am assigning a "bad" intention to anyone, I am just saying that if someone did have such an intention, they would be better served by arguing on the side of a single AoO.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Mabven, what I find strange is how completely rational intelligent people can read exactly the same rule and reach exactly the opposite conclusion when the rule is about as explicit and clear as it could possibly be made to be.I would posit that a rule that causes confusion is, by definition, confusing, and is not, again by definition, explicit.
But that's just me.
Here is the deal. The rule says a ranged touch attack is a single action that provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet that's not clear enough?
My whole point is that if that's not clear enough, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to be clear enough to get everyone to agree on ANYTHING.
Thus my head-shaking response to human cognition.
Yep, a ranged touch attack provokes AN attack of opportunity.
Casting a spell provokes an attack. too.
Single action? Means nothing.
[Combat Reflexes] 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).
One attack per opportunity, not one attack per action.
So, if someone casts a spell, you can't take all 7 of your AoOs against him.
Ahh, but what if he casts a ranged spell? Do you get AN attack for the ranged attack and AN attack for the spell? Or is it just one attack because a single action is only a single opportunity?
No where in the rules does it state that a single action is only a single opportunity, but nowhere in the rules does it say exactly what an "opportunity" is.
It's not explicit and it's not clear.
No matter how smug one gets about it.
The quoted rule only states that, unlike other spells, a spell which grants a ranged touch attack as part of the same action as casting the spell, provokes an attack of opportunity even if the caster casts defensively. It is not specifying an additional opportunity, only that the act of casting defensively does not prevent the AoO, because the action fulfils two of the requirements for provoking an AoO, not that it provokes twice.The rule quoted is very explicit. Very clear. There are no qualifiers or wiggle terms... It's AN action which provokes AN attack of opportunity.
And yet you seem to think this supports your side of the debate.
How is reading only the rules that are written, and not trying to imagine some additional intention by the developers, strange?Coming newly into this thread, I am not entirely sure it supports your side as written, or that you are not the ones inserting additional intentions into the rules. It seems to me that your reading rests on inserting the meaning "only for the ranged touch attack" into the rule, such that the rule effectively would read provokes an attack of opportunity" as "provokes an attack of opportunity only for making the ranged touch attack." Since this bolded addition does not exist in the actual rules nor does it seem like the only valid interpretation is to assume it as an unspoken rule, I see no reason to read it in.
But surely you must agree that if one offers two opportunities for an AoO, an enemy with Combat Reflexes normally gets to make two AoOs? What's different about the specific situation of firing a ranged touch spell in melee? Certainly I would think that normally if you did two things that provoked an AoO you would provoke two AoOs, even if they were part of one action. Example: Charging up to a giant with reach (provokes AoO for movement), then punching him (provokes AoO for attacking unarmed). Charge is only one full round action, though!
The only argument I have seen is that it is only possible to provoke one AoO per action, but I haven't seen any rules quotes supporting that.
I have thought of what seems to me to be another point. Namely, there would be no reason to spell out an exception for movement provoking AoOs ("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.") if you could only provoke one AoO per action anyway.
I am not ascribing the intention to nerf caster power to anyone, so please don't be angry and think I am assigning a "bad" intention to anyone, I am just saying that if someone did have such an intention, they would be better served by arguing on the side of a single AoO.
It's cool. I play a fighter who does not have Combat Reflexes (nor does anyone else in the party), so whatever answer may be arrived at is academic to me as well.
People are making an assumption that an "opportunity" is something other than "an action which provokes an attack of opportunity." I am not saying that this is defined in the rules, but neither is it defined as something else. If someone could point out a concrete example of a single action which provides more than one opportunity, and it was specified that this was the case, I would stop disputing. But I have yet to see a single example of a place in the rules which specifies any particular action which explicitly contains more than one opportunity.
People are making an assumption that an "opportunity" is something other than "an action which provokes an attack of opportunity." I am not saying that this is defined in the rules, but neither is it defined as something else. If someone could point out a concrete example of a single action which provides more than one opportunity, and it was specified that this was the case, I would stop disputing. But I have yet to see a single example of a place in the rules which specifies any particular action which explicitly contains more than one opportunity.
What about citing something that provokes an attack of opportunity without being an action at all (IE, would fall under "not an action" on the AoO table)? There are several of those, for instance, being tripped if your attacker has Greater Trip. The existence of AoOs not tied to an action would seem to indicate that AoOs are not tied to actions, no?
Against this one might cite the AoO entry ("Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity...") but in that case, if you are citing singular/plural, the use of plural "attacks" as opposed to a singular (hypothetical: "Two types of actions can provoke an attack of opportunity") would also seem to support the people arguing that a single action can provoke multiple AoOs.
Seems to catch you coming or going... I would be fonder of the second argument myself.
Still, you would need to cite something which specifically provokes more than one AoO which is not an action at all. We still need a citation of a single action, not-an-action, or something else which provokes two AoO's.
Still, you would need to cite something which specifically provokes more than one AoO which is not an action at all. We still need a citation of a single action, not-an-action, or something else which provokes two AoO's.
Sorry, the only example in the core rules of which I am aware of AoO rules "in play" is the thingy with the ogre, goblin, fighter, and sorcerer in the AoO section, and it does not provide any support either for your position or against it. Unless someone else has something I don't know of, we're back to the rules text.
I have no idea what you refer to as "the ogre, goblin, fighter, and sorcerer in the AoO section". It greatly aids discussion if, when you bring in a section of the rules which have not already been quoted, you could quote it.
The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.
This argument has me very confused. Seems fairly gray to me, but I've really no clue. I hope this gets an FAQ entry soon. ^___^
@Micronis
I have no idea what your point is. A summation of your post would help.
I have no idea what you refer to as "the ogre, goblin, fighter, and sorcerer in the AoO section". It greatly aids discussion if, when you bring in a section of the rules which have not already been quoted, you could quote it.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Scroll down to the Attacks of Opportunity header, then scroll down until you see a picture. When you examine the picture and its associated text, you will find an ogre, a goblin, a fighter and a sorcerer set up as examples of AoOs in action. However, you will also find that as I said it provides no support to either side, since none of the characters in the example take any actions that might or might not provoke multiple AoOs from a single opponent.
The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.
Ah, I see what you were asking. Making two or more attacks with a bow as part of a full attack action.
The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.Ah. Making two or more attacks with a bow as part of a full attack action.
A full attack action, by definition, is made up of multiple attack actions.
Moving can provoke up to eight Attacks of Opportunity. That's eight opportunities to one action. Or am I stating the obvious? :)
A full attack action, by definition, is made up of multiple attack actions.The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.Ah. Making two or more attacks with a bow as part of a full attack action.
I'm going to go right back at you with the "cite your source" request. I'm fairly sure there is nothing to that effect ever stated in the combat chapter, because right now I am looking at descriptions of a full attack as a single full round action, and I see nothing about a full attack action really being made up of many actions.
Moving can provoke up to eight Attacks of Opportunity. That's eight opportunities to one action. Or am I stating the obvious? :)
Moving can not provoke more than one AoO per threatening enemy:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: 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.
Moving can provoke up to eight Attacks of Opportunity. That's eight opportunities to one action. Or am I stating the obvious? :)Moving can not provoke more than one AoO per threatening enemy:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: 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.
That's a very good thing to know, thanks!
I'm going to go right back at you with the "cite your source" request. I'm fairly sure there is nothing to that effect ever stated in the combat chapter, because right now I am looking at descriptions of a full attack as a single full round action, and I see nothing about a full attack action really being made up of many actions.A full attack action, by definition, is made up of multiple attack actions.The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.Ah. Making two or more attacks with a bow as part of a full attack action.
Ok, a full attack is a weird one, because it says it allows you to take multiple attacks, but does not say you get to take multiple actions. So, lets call it "A full round action which allows you to combine multiple attacks, which may be either an action, or a non-action." Either way, those attacks are separate events, taking place sequentially, and not simultaneously, so we can call them actions, or non-actions, but they are separate events, taking place at different times.
So, still looking for an example of a single action or non-action which provokes multiple AoO's specifically.
|
So if we look at that chart, don't we see that casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, and making a ranged touch attack provokes an attack of opportunity?
I believe that we are in agreement that both provoke.
However it is up in the air whether or not they provoke SEPARATE opportunities.
Movement is a wonderful example of a single opportunity that can have multiple provocations.
This is a distinction that seems like it is being lost by a number of the posters on these threads.
-James
Movement only has one provocation per opponent for a single move. The spellcasting and ranged touch option does not have the clause that it can only ever be one attack of opportunity. What it says is that it provokes even if cast defensively, which is not the same thing.
I'm going to go right back at you with the "cite your source" request. I'm fairly sure there is nothing to that effect ever stated in the combat chapter, because right now I am looking at descriptions of a full attack as a single full round action, and I see nothing about a full attack action really being made up of many actions.A full attack action, by definition, is made up of multiple attack actions.The rules text states that a single opportunity can not provoke more than one AoO. To support your position, it would be helpful if you could find an example of an action, or non-action, which specifically states that it contains more than one opportunity, and thus provokes more than one AoO if the attacker has Combat Reflexes.Ah. Making two or more attacks with a bow as part of a full attack action.Ok, a full attack is a weird one, because it says it allows you to take multiple attacks, but does not say you get to take multiple actions. So, lets call it "A full round action which allows you to combine multiple attacks, which may be either an action, or a non-action."
[snip]
So, still looking for an example of a single action or non-action which provokes multiple AoO's specifically.
Let's not. A full attack is specifically a full round action, it is not some strange portmanteau of one action and multiple actions. It qualifies.
Movement isn't relevant since it has a specific exception (not more than one opportunity for moving out of threatened squares) and so is no use for finding out the general rule. Specific overrides the general, and all.
@coriat
So, the attacks which make up a full-attack action are not considered separate events, happening sequentially?
@coriat
So, the attacks which make up a full round action are not considered separate events, happening sequentially?
What does it matter if they are? A full attack is still one action, and in the past several minutes I've come across many places in the rules I can cite in support of this (and several that specifically disprove a full attack action as a combination of many separate attack actions) if you so request.
Touch spells, and ranged touch spells are completely different. A ranged touch spell happens all at once, casting the spell, and making the ranged touch attack are done simultaneously. A melee touch spell is specifically separated into parts, and in fact, you can cast the spell, move, and get a free touch-attack to deliver the spell.