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.
If you can cite the point in the rules that states that only opportunities which are sequential, rather than simultaneous provoke AoOs, then, please? :)
Without such a point, the default rule (an opportunity provokes an AoO) applies.
Also, a heads up that I edited my last post probably while you were replying to it.
That chart lists a ranged attack as a standard action, so since the ranged touch attack made as part of casting a spell is not a standard action, only casting the spell (which is listed on the chart) provokes. By your logic, making multiple attacks as a full-attack action would provoke exactly 0 AoO's, because "Make a full attack with a ranged weapon" is not on the chart.
That chart lists a ranged attack as a standard action, so since the ranged touch attack made as part of casting a spell is not a standard action, only casting the spell (which is listed on the chart) provokes. By your logic, making multiple attacks as a full-attack action would provoke exactly 0 AoO's, because "Make a full attack with a ranged weapon" is not on the chart.
Um, I feel you are shifting the goalposts on me. You asked for an example of a single action that could provoke multiple AoOs. I provided the example of a full attack with a bow, which is indeed a single action that could provoke multiple AoOs. I don't get how you are getting from that to me saying a full attack with a bow does not provoke at all, because that is pretty well the opposite of what I said. I entirely disagree with you if you are arguing that a ranged attack only provokes when used as a standard action and not when used as part of a full attack.
I was responding to Mergy's example of both ranged attack and cast a spell being on the chart. But both are listed under "standard action", so I was pointing out that the chart is not definitive, giving the example of full attack with ranged weapon.
I was responding to Mergy's example of both ranged attack and cast a spell being on the chart. But both are listed under "standard action", so I was pointing out that the chart is not definitive, giving the example of full attack with ranged weapon.
IIRC the rule about ranged attacks provoking AoOs can be found in text as well (where it is not limited to standard action ranged attacks). If you require a citation of such to demonstrate AoOs on a ranged full attack, give me a bit with the CRB.
I am not stating that the chart is definitive in any way. Yes, I absolutely agree that full-attacking with a ranged weapon not only provokes an AoO, but multiple AoO's. I was just demonstrating to mergy that the chart is not definitive.
Ah, fair enough. Text > table when they may disagree, certainly.
So is this thread laid to rest, then, with agreement that two AoOs can be provoked by one action? :)
One full-round action, yes. One casting of a spell with a ranged touch attack, no.
Hmmmm. So now I need to find not only one action that can provoke multiple AoOs, but it needs to be a standard action?
I must admit I am not entirely inclined to withdraw my complaint about shifting goalposts. However, here goes.
A slowed fighter charges a giant who is armed with a sword and possessed of 10ft reach. The charge is a standard action, as per the rules on standard action charging. The fighter provokes an AoO for moving through the giant's threatened area as part of the charge action. Also as part of the charge action, the fighter makes an unarmed attack against the giant. He provokes another AoO for attacking the armed giant while himself unarmed (presuming that the fighter is not trained in unarmed combat, as with Improved Unarmed Strike).
This is also an action which is made up of what under normal circumstances would be two actions - move and attack.
Mabven I was just about to mention charge. :)
Find us an action or event, which can not be broken down into multiple actions or events that provoke more than one opportunity, and you have proven your point irrefutably - casting a ranged-touch spell has been specifically singled out in the rules as not being broken down into separate actions or events.
Broken down into separate events or not, there are still two opportunities in which to take an attack of opportunity. Therefore Combat Reflexes allows for two. I don't see how your points disprove that.
No, it does not mention two opportunities at all. It mentions that the opportunity presented can not be removed with a concentration check, as opposed to other types of spells.
|
"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."
So, just to be clear, people are saying that the fact the text above says that "an" attack of opportunity is provoked by the ranged touch attack does NOT contradict the view that TWO AoO are provoked because the casting of the spell could also provoke... even though the text above says that casting the spell and making the attack are done together.
Is that about the size of it?
Obviously, I disagree. The text makes clear that casting and attack are combined and that this combined action provokes "an" AoO. If the text didn't link the two things I could see the basis for arguing two AoO (I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd understand the logic) but as it is I don't see any way it can hold up.
The reason I wouldn't agree even without the text above is that my understanding of the AoO concept has always been that 'if you let your guard down in combat you may get hit'. That makes sense. However, getting hit TWICE by the same opponent(s) for a single action then seems inconsistent;
Using a touch spell on six allies only provokes ONE AoO
Doing a run action in a tight circle around an opponent only provokes ONE AoO
Firing a ranged weapon four times only provokes ONE AoO
Et cetera. There are several unquestioned cases showing that a single action, even a FULL ROUND action, provokes only one AoO (per threatening enemy). The few disputed cases would then be highly inconsistent if allowing more than one AoO... why would casting a ranged touch spell (standard action) leave someone 'twice as open to attack' as doing a full round double move action to run in a circle around them? Or standing with your back to them and spending a full round shooting arrows at someone else?
RAW seems clear in most cases, but even in the very few where it isn't I think 'logical consistency' still gets you to one AoO provoked per action.
Yes, it says that even if cast defensively it provokes an AoO. If it said it provokes twice, we would not be having this discussion. This is not a discussion about using our own judgement, but about what is written in the rules.
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 rule doesn't say moving can't provoke more than once.
It says you can't make more than one attack for a given opportunity, and that moving out of multiple squares doesn't count as more than one opportunity.
So you can only make one AoO for movement, but no limit is put on the number of times movement can provoke.
CBDunkerson is obviously better at arguing this point than I am, so I am going to defer to him in defence of one AoO, and bow out.
Charge is one action. If someone charges a monster with a reach of 10 does the monster get an AoO because the charger left a threatening square, and also get a second AoO if the charger uses an unarmed attack*? Charge is one action that is made of two acts.
*We will assume the charger does not have improved unarmed strike.
|
It's true: a literal reading of that text means only one attack of opportunity period. It doesn't matter if you're surrounded on all sides and behind those enemies are more enemies with reach weapons; one of them draws the long straw and gets to make AN attack of opportunity.
That's a silly interpretation though, isn't it?
That is from the caster's PoV. From the attacker's PoV they all get to swing Axl.
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
At no point does it say that you are limited by other's actions. With that out of the way let's stop the semantics, and argue the point, not the words.
How about we agree to FAQ, and leave it at that. Clearly we aren't making much progress here.
Firing a ranged weapon four times only provokes ONE AoO
I do not agree with this contention of yours, and my disagreement with you over the rest of your post seems to flow naturally from this. To me, the idea that you can only AoO once if your opponent fires four times is ludicrous. Which one provokes the AoO, then? When do you get to take it, at the beginning of the full attack?
Axl the quote says:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell.....
If "you" is not the caster then who is it referring to?
"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."
So, just to be clear, people are saying that the fact the text above says that "an" attack of opportunity is provoked by the ranged touch attack does NOT contradict the view that TWO AoO are provoked because the casting of the spell could also provoke... even though the text above says that casting the spell and making the attack are done together.
Is that about the size of it?
Obviously, I disagree. The text makes clear that casting and attack are combined and that this combined action provokes "an" AoO. If the text didn't link the two things I could see the basis for arguing two AoO (I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd understand the logic) but as it is I don't see any way it can hold up.
The reason I wouldn't agree even without the text above is that my understanding of the AoO concept has always been that 'if you let your guard down in combat you may get hit'. That makes sense. However, getting hit TWICE by the same opponent(s) for a single action then seems inconsistent;
Using a touch spell on six allies only provokes ONE AoO
Doing a run action in a tight circle around an opponent only provokes ONE AoO
Firing a ranged weapon four times only provokes ONE AoOEt cetera. There are several unquestioned cases showing that a single action, even a FULL ROUND action, provokes only one AoO (per threatening enemy). The few disputed cases would then be highly inconsistent if allowing more than one AoO... why would casting a ranged touch spell (standard action) leave someone 'twice as open to attack' as doing a full round double move action to run in a circle around them? Or standing with your back to them and spending a full round shooting arrows at someone else?
RAW seems clear in...
I bolded the part that I have problems with, CBDunkerson. Each ranged attack provokes; so that would be FOUR Attacks of Opportunity (one for each ranged attack) is the archer made a full attack with someone threatening him.
Master Arminas
Core rulebook, page 186:
"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."
"an" attack of opportunity. One. Uno. Singular.
Nobody has been arguing that one ranged touch attack would provoke two attacks of opportunity, by the way, so I really don't see your point here. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity even if you cast defensively. What about that implies that ranged touch attacks don't provoke an AoO if you didn't cast defensively?
|
|
CBDunkerson hasn't answered my question: which enemy gets to make the AoO?
If you want to be overly pedantic then yes, you can assume that all of the MANY places in the text which state that something provokes an attack of opportunity mean only ONE ATTACKER gets to make an AoO. I'm quite confident that is not the intent, but hey if you want to go with 'what crazy thing can I interpret the text to mean' rather than 'what makes sense' then go for it.
|
|
Nobody has been arguing that one ranged touch attack would provoke two attacks of opportunity, by the way, so I really don't see your point here. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity even if you cast defensively. What about that implies that ranged touch attacks don't provoke an AoO if you didn't cast defensively?
Hrrm? You seem to be agreeing with me here.
The 'even if' wording indicates that defensive casting doesn't matter for this purpose, the spell provokes "an" attack of opportunity either way. One AoO, regardless of whether it is cast defensively or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has been arguing that one ranged touch attack would provoke two attacks of opportunity, by the way, so I really don't see your point here. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity even if you cast defensively. What about that implies that ranged touch attacks don't provoke an AoO if you didn't cast defensively?Hrrm? You seem to be agreeing with me here.
The 'even if' wording indicates that defensive casting doesn't matter for this purpose, the spell provokes "an" attack of opportunity either way. One AoO, regardless of whether it is cast defensively or not.
I am not. An AoO is provoked by casting a spell while threatened (unless you cast defensively). Even if you cast defensively, making a ranged touch attack while threatened provokes an AoO.
Thus, you would normally provoke two attacks (one from casting a spell, one from a ranged attack in melee), but even if you cast defensively and avoid the AoO from spellcasting, you still provoke an AoO from using a ranged attack in melee.
Nobody ever claimed that making one ranged touch attack while in melee provoked two AoOs, though, so the point about the singular wording of that AoO seems irrelevant. It is responding to an argument that nobody ever made.
You are misquoting in your summary when you say that the rule says the spellcasting still provokes an attack of opportunity. The spellcasting no longer provokes an attack of opportunity if you cast defensively. The ranged attack in melee still does.
The only things these arguments demonstrate is, as Mabven has pointed out, who wants to get extra attacks of opportunity through their own pet interpretation of a rule in a way that seems obviously counter to the intent of the developers.
That's the long and short of this thread.
Axl the quote says:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell.....If "you" is not the caster then who is it referring to?So from the spellcaster's point of view, he is only hit by one attack.
Not at all. I was just arguing semantics. If you are surrounded and you provoke you just have to pray that the dice gods are on your side.
The word "an" is there because by the general rules any opponent can only attack you once. It does not mean every opponent that is around you has to draw straws if you commit a provoking action.
The only things these arguments demonstrate is, as Mabven has pointed out, who wants to get extra attacks of opportunity through their own pet interpretation of a rule in a way that seems obviously counter to the intent of the developers.
That's the long and short of this thread.
Resorting to deriding your opposition's motivations is bad form. I have made no implications about how you might just be motivated by wanting your pet spellcasting monsters to escape with fewer AoOs than it ought, kindly refrain from doing the reverse.
Also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not playing a character with Combat Reflexes. Even if I did, you are not my DM. The assertion that I am trying to buff up a pet character by convincing a stranger on the internet who is not my DM of my rules interpretation is not only baseless, it is nonsensical.
|
|
Coriat, you seem to be arguing that one attack of opportunity is provoked ONLY if the spell was cast defensively. If the spell was NOT cast defensively then TWO AoO are provoked. However, that is clearly not what the text says. It says one AoO "EVEN" if the spell was cast defensively.
The term "even if" means that the result is the same either way. "AN" AoO is provoked. Whether the spell was cast defensively or not.
Now you are also arguing that 'the ranged touch attack' only provokes one AoO, but the spell cast to create it is separate and provokes a separate one... but, as I stated previously, that is contradicted by the fact that the text just got through explaining that the casting and the attack are one and the same thing. And then it goes on to say that the attack provokes "an" AoO whether it was cast defensively or not.
As to claims (by others) that 'each ranged attack in a bow full attack sequence provokes an AoO'... funny, the table you are basing that on says a standard action ranged attack does so. Full attack is not a standard action, and indeed the table says that full attacks do NOT provoke AoO, so if we want to go with the 'what can I interpret the written words to mean if I toss logic out the window' then we can conclude that full attack with a bow doesn't provoke ANY AoO. :]
I have been using this ruling since 3.5 that two attacks are provoked. PC's and NPC's both have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with trying to get a free AoO.
The only things these arguments demonstrate is, as Mabven has pointed out, who wants to get extra attacks of opportunity through their own pet interpretation of a rule in a way that seems obviously counter to the intent of the developers.
That's the long and short of this thread.
Resorting to deriding your opposition's motivations is bad form. I have made no implications about how you might just be motivated by wanting your pet spellcasting monsters to escape with fewer AoOs than it ought, kindly refrain from doing the reverse.
Also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not playing a character with Combat Reflexes. Even if I did, you are not my DM. The assertion that I am trying to buff up a pet character by convincing a stranger on the internet who is not my DM of my rules interpretation is not only baseless, it is nonsensical.
"Bad form".
Hahahahahahahahaaaa!!!
"I want to do what I want and if you call me on it, you are a bad person!"
How bad form is that Coriat?
I have been using this ruling since 3.5 that two attacks are provoked. PC's and NPC's both have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with trying to get a free AoO.
Wraith, and in your case, if the developers feel that there is a need to explain their very clear and concise text, I am sure you would adjust your rules.
However, since the rule is so clear and concise, I am sure the developers who might be reading this thread are just shaking their heads and sighing "jeez.... not again..."
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.
So this is a clear example of this "action" provoking two attacks of opportunity.
The ranged touch is not a separate action like a normal touch. This is confirmed by Jason B's ruling on ranged touches in Pathfinder.
So a single action can provoke more than once if there are multiple AoO factors involved. The only limiter in AoOs is for movment when the rules explicitly call out that moving in and out of threatened squares multiple squares doesn't provoke more than once - because without this clarification, it would provoke multiple times for the same "move action" or movement (as that would present multiple opportunities/AoO factors).
Using this exception (the bit about of movement) as the foundation of your understanding of AoOs is a poor choice.
Coriat, you seem to be arguing that one attack of opportunity is provoked ONLY if the spell was cast defensively. If the spell was NOT cast defensively then TWO AoO are provoked. However, that is clearly not what the text says. It says one AoO "EVEN" if the spell was cast defensively.
Yes. There are two risks of provoking an AoO, the casting, and the ranged touch attacking. Even if you don't provoke the first, you still provoke the second. That does not make it impossible to provoke the firsdt.
Now you are also arguing that 'the ranged touch attack' only provokes one AoO, but the spell cast to create it is separate and provokes a separate one... but, as I stated previously, that is contradicted by the fact that the text just got through explaining that the casting and the attack are one and the same thing. And then it goes on to say that the attack provokes "an" AoO whether it was cast defensively or not.
It says that they are part of the same action, not that they are one and the same thing. This seems to be a distinction I am making that you are not grasping.
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.
It should be fairly obvious that things can be part of the same action without being one and the same thing. For instance, moving and attacking are not the same thing, but they are both part of the charge action.
As to claims (by others) that 'each ranged attack in a bow full attack sequence provokes an AoO'... funny, the table you are basing that on says a standard action ranged attack does so. Full attack is not a standard action, and indeed the table says that full attacks do NOT provoke AoO, so if we want to go with the 'what can I interpret the written words to mean if I toss logic out the window' then we can conclude that full attack with a bow doesn't provoke ANY AoO. :]
That's a good example of a bad argument. The table's main purpose is to list actions by type (standard/move/full/swift/immediate/free/not an action), not by whether they provoke an AoO. Thus, making a ranged attack is normally a standard action, and provokes an AoO. Making a full attack is a full round action, and does not provoke an AoO. However, if you make ranged attacks as part of your full attack, they can still provoke AoOs, because ranged attacks provoke even if full attacks normally wouldn't. It is not the full attack portion that provokes, it is the ranged attacks within it.
"Bad form".
Hahahahahahahahaaaa!!!
"I want to do what I want and if you call me on it, you are a bad person!"
How bad form is that Coriat?
That would be bad form. However, it is not what I did. I am not arguing about what I want, I am arguing about the rules of the game. As such, your continuing to claim that I have a certain motivation which I have several times now told you I do not is a distortion. Which is a nicer word for a lie, and since you are not being particularly classy about this, I feel no further compunction about using it.
Please stop lying about me. Thank you in advance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll FAQ it based on the frequency that it comes up.
My take on it:
AoOs are based on opportunities, not actions. AoOs are provoked by each opportunity, whether the separate opportunities are part of the same opportunity or not. Casting a spell and the ranged touch attack that it delivers are both opportunities. Each provokes. Full actions using ranged attacks provoke for each shot. If shooting a bow with Multishot and two additional shots, it would provoke 3 times.
Want an extreme example? Character with Rapid Reload (light crossbow) reloads as a free action, but the reload still provokes. Character has a BAB of +11 and gets three attacks. Reloading three times (each is a separate opportunity that provokes), shooting three times (each ranged attack is a separate opportunity that provokes). Character provokes 6 times, and a character standing next to him with Combat Relfexes and a Dex of 22+ would get 6 AoOs (assuming the character opts to keep taking the actions that provoke and survives long enough to complete them all).
The text regarding casting defensively and ranged touch attacks is there (explicitly stated by JB) to resolve whether casting defensively also negates the AoO for the ranged touch attack.
The key elements that seems to get people split on this are 1) internalizing opportunity as the same as action, 2) overgeneralizing the limit on 1 AoO for movement to all opportunities, and 3) visualizing an action (such as casting a ranged touch attack spell) in such a way that they identify it as completely simultaneous in nature.
If you're following one of those perspectives, consider the following regarding points 1 and 3:
1) Opportunity is short hand for doing something that provokes. No where in the rules is there a statement that an opportunity is the same as an action. Characters neither know that they are taking actions nor that they are taking AoOs; these are rules mechanics that players use. That said, opportunity is an undefined term and my statement above is my interpretation.
3) In the case of casting a ranged touch attack spell, the AoO takes place when you start casting; if someone were to approach during the middle of casting (such as with a casting time of 3 rounds or by use of a hypothetical immediate action that allows movement while you are casting), they would not get an AoO as a result of you casting the spell. This is explicit for spells that take longer than 1 standard action; it is implied in the event of the hypothetical movement. The ranged touch attack takes place when the spell is completed. In the event that a caster were dropped by an AoO that hits in response to casting the spell, the ranged touch attack would never even happen; it is later in time.
Despite providing my arguments on it, I have no delusion that this will sway anyone who is already entrenched in their position. So, if we get a FAQ reply, great. In the meantime, play the game as you understand it and have fun while doing so. :)
|
|
perhaps it's simply my lack for English knowledge, but AN in front of a word starting with A (or the other vowels) is the same as a simple A for words starting with a consonant ?
Yes, but the word 'a' also indicates that the object is singular.
'I see a dog' vs 'I see dogs'. 'Provokes an attack' vs 'provokes attacks'.
"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 attacks of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively." (my change in BOLD) would that make a difference on how you interpet it ? not trying to insult you or anything like that, simply trying to learn a bit of English, and the PF rules
It would be more ambiguous, but would not change my overall interpretation. While "provoke attacks" is plural, it is referring to the preceding "ranged touch attacks"... also plural. It thus doesn't say anything explicitly about what a single ranged touch attack would do, but I would take it to implicitly indicate that each single ranged touch would provoke a single AoO.