|
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity. Nothing about that excludes whatever attack of opportunity might exist for other opportunities, such as casting a spell that uses a ranged touch attack to resolve the spell.
If someone has two tanglefoot bags, one in each hand, and throws both of them, each ranged touch attack provokes AN attack of opportunity, two total.
If a character without Improved Unarmed Strike charges with an unarmed strike at a character armed with a longspear and spiked armor, he provokes, via a single action that itself does not provoke (the charge), two AoOs. One for moving out of a threatened square, and once for the unarmed strike.
Ok, I think this thread has run its course. I have taken great pains to not imply anything negative about people who disagree with me, because I have a bad history of such implications in the past (yes, I admit it, though I do not admit malicious intent, just poor wording and impatience, which justifiably was misinterpreted as aggression), but I am seeing the same mistake I have made in the past being made by both sides of this argument.
Lets please try to not give the moderators fits, and either take more care in addressing each other, so we don't seem to be attacking each other personally, or just let the thread die. I know how I would rule in this case, those with the opposite opinion know how they would rule, and we are not convincing each other. I think we have exhausted rules citations and "common sense" (obviously not that common, as we have about an even division on what is common sense in this case), and have devolved to the point of arguing the meaning of the word "AN".
I think it is time we just shake hands, go our separate ways, and accept that intelligent, rational beings can disagree. What is really left to debate on the topic? Perhaps the devs will put this in an FAQ, perhaps they won't. If they don't, each side will continue to rule the way they have been, and it just doesn't affect those with the opposite opinion much at all.
Where does this come from I have never seen it and would like to know.However the Ranged attack part still provokes, but this time the damage dealt acts as a penalty on your ranged touch attack roll.
Seriously I want to know if this is in the rules or a houserule cuz I've never heard this at all.
|
|
I went back to trace the evolution of this.
In v3 combat reflexes allowed multiple AoO in a round, but was still limited to one AoO per opponent... and thus this question was explicitly precluded.
In v3.5 we get closer to the current situation, but combat reflexes is described as allowing specifically two AoO on the same opponent in the same round if they commit two actions which provoke.
Now, if we take the citation of two AoO in v3.5 as meaning 'no more than two' then it works out the same way I have been arguing for Pathfinder. If we take that as 'just an example, but could be more' then it works out the way the 'lots of AoO' people have been saying.
I take the existence of incontrovertible examples (e.g. multiple touch spell applications to allies / movement through multiple squares threatened by one opponent) of multiple actions provoking only one AoO and the non-existence of any equally incontrovertible examples to the contrary as strong evidence. Ditto the wording of the ranged touch attack text. Ditto the history of AoO in previous versions of the game. Others obviously feel strongly to the contrary, but I just don't see any actual evidence for their view. Possible interpretation of what the words could theoretically mean... yes in some cases. Actual examples where it isn't in question... not one.
They say ALL the movement is considered ONE opportunity.
But Opportunity DOES NOT EQUAL Provocation.
Leaving multiple threatened squares gives multiple provocations, yet it is considered only one opportunity and thus only one of those multiple provocations can be acted upon.
You would be right except for the fact that the rules had to specifically call out movement to function in the way you describe because if it was not called out this way it would function in the way I (and others) have described.
Opportunity does equal Provocation (except in the case of movement, because the Rules specificly clarified that to function differently than everything else).
Using movement (a specific deviation from the AoO norm) as your basis, one comes to flawed conlcusions.
I think it is time we just shake hands, go our separate ways, and accept that intelligent, rational beings can disagree. What is really left to debate on the topic? Perhaps the devs will put this in an FAQ, perhaps they won't. If they don't, each side will continue to rule the way they have been, and it just doesn't affect those with the opposite opinion much at all.
Fair enough.
I did hit the FAQ button, because I do think it is somewhat of a fiddly question.
|
These boards are great for taking a chink of the rules that I thought that I knew, and throwing it into confusion, 1/2 the time to only be proven that I was right to begin with.
In the past, I have played it as the non-defensive casting of the spell provokes one attack, and the aiming and firing of the ranged attack provokes another. I say this as they are both different activities that are listed as provoking.
Games that I run, I may still stick with this, but I am curious as to the Dev's opinion. So I went ahead and FAQ'd it.
Seriously I want to know if this is in the rules or a houserule cuz I've never heard this at all.Where does this come from I have never seen it and would like to know.However the Ranged attack part still provokes, but this time the damage dealt acts as a penalty on your ranged touch attack roll.
It is a houserule.
Questioning one's motives doesn't make their arguement false. I don't know why this is ever brought up anyway. Even if someone is completely bias...why does that matter? Isn't it better to refute their actual opinion rather than their motives for having such an opinion? Or barring that isn't better to just stay on topic itself rather than making any issue personal?
I can tell you that for my part I am not playing Pathfinder at all currently. I'm DMing. Thus my motivation is to find the most accurate ruling. I don't have a motivation for it to be one way or the other.
Also, I'm not sure how stopping posting about this would help. In fact, I think it would be better to keep posting about it. Heck, even if it is a cyclical arguement that isn't really going anywhere and leads to multiple threads being locked...why stop? I agree, it would be better to get an answer without having to resort to the "brute force" method. But I can tell you that whether this thread gets locked like the other one did or not that I'm not planning on letting it end there. With these boards being the only real method of requesting a ruling for Pathfinder we don't really have anything else we CAN do if a ruling is what we are looking for.
Also, concerning my last post...
The reason I meant ready was because of this:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. 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.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Bolding mine. What I meant is that, to me, it seems that you can specify a condition of a spell being completed that is seperate from making the ranged touch attack. Note the wording of "condition" and not "action".
So, if you can ready an action to pop in with dimensional agility and strike someone after the spell is completed yet before the ranged touch attack and take that attack, and the AoO that follows, and the dude standing next to the character also can get his AoO against the caster for when he provokes for not casting defensively ... well, then doesn't that establish that both still provoke?
...look, it makes sense in my head, ok?
|
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.
I already tried using this as an example, even going so far as to say they where charging, making unarmed strike, and attempting a Comabt manuver, where all three could provoke. It was ignored.
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.
Lets be clear. The developers, (those guys that wrote 3E are the developers whose intentions matter) did state in the FAQ that you are wrong. Each attack in a Full Ranged Attack is a seperate opportunity. Casting and then making a Ranged attack are both seperate opportunities.
I'll see if I can find that, even though I can already anticipate the "3E does not count"'s.
I was just about to bring that charge example up again DA. Thanks. :)
I already tried using this as an example, even going so far as to say they where charging, making unarmed strike, and attempting a Comabt manuver, where all three could provoke. It was ignored.
Hey, don't feel bad. Many poignant posts are ignored in the course of a discussion.
I'll see if I can find that, even though I can already anticipate the "3E does not count"'s.
While I do recall this in 3.5 it seems my search fu is failing. I would like to see it in print again if you happen to find it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also... did anyone hear Stynkk say something just now?...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3e's should count if the words are the same. You can't really keep the same words, and expect for the meaning to change without dev intervention.
With that said I have a copy of the 3.5 FAQ on my computer, and I could not find that statement. I also checked the rules of the game articles on the website.
I'd say two AoO's. Here's why.
If I charge Target A with an unarmed attack, and I run past Target B while I'm doing it, I provoke 2 AoO with one action (The Charge/Attack is one full action). I provoke when I run past Target B, because I left his threatened area. I provoke when I attack Target A, because I'm making an unarmed attack (assuming I don't have IUA or gauntlets of course).
This is a very clear example of where one action (Charge Attack on Target A) generates two separate and valid AoO's. So, I'd say the spell casting does the same.
As to the Ray's argument, I would say no. A ranged archer who uses a FA to fire 3 arrows doesn't provoke 3 AoO, so the ray's shouldn't either. Here, we're using the 'same action type doesn't provoke' rule. All three are ranged attacks, so they don't 'triple dip'.
The casting of the spell and the ranged attack is two different actions (casting vs attacking), same as the example I gave above (Running by vs attacking).
Actually firing 3 arrows does provoke 3 times if they are differnet shots.
And this is about provoking from the same person twice not two different people.
Also... did anyone hear Stynkk say something just now?...
Why you!!! *clench teeth*
I'd say two AoO's. Here's why...
While I'm with you on the two AoOs, your example is a tad off. In your case, my action triggers two AoOs from different sources.
Which is something that any single action that provokes will do if you're threatened by more than one opponent.|
|
Citing multiple AoO from firing multiple arrows or attacking unarmed at the end of a charge or what not else would be great (though the charge/unarmed is the kind of thing likely to be overlooked)... if there were any proof that they work the way people are saying they do.
There isn't.
There is not one clear case of multiple AoO by a single attacker on a single target from a single action. Am I wrong? If so then please cite it.
The 'evidence' that most seem to be relying on is an interpretation of the table of AoO examples. Yet, the the same 'attack, ranged', 'attack, unarmed', and 'full attack' table entries people are citing as 'evidence' to the contrary appeared in v3... where it is absolutely clear that full ranged attack, unarmed attack on a charge, and so forth only provoke one AoO per attacker/target pair.
Now, does anyone dispute that in Pathfinder (also v3 & v3.5) moving through multiple threatened squares in a round only provokes one AoO per attacker/target pair? Does anyone dispute that taking a full round action to apply a touch effect to six allies only provokes one AoO per attacker/target pair?
If not, that's two examples contrary to the 'multiple AoO' theory in the Pathfinder rules. Plus the history of how it worked in prior versions.
Moving through multiple squares does not provoke more than once because the rules say they don't. There is really no way around that.
Why would a touch attack provoke?
Example one you list moving is called out to not allow but one AoO. The second is casting one spell which provokes one time but at no time does touching an ally provoke so i don't know what your getting at.
You cited two examples one which is called out specificly and one which is only one oppourtunity anyway you look at it.
|
|
The second is casting one spell which provokes one time but at no time does touching an ally provoke so i don't know what your getting at.
Why would a touch attack provoke?
See the table on page 183 of the Core rulebook;
"Use a touch spell on up to six friends" is a full round action that DOES provoke an AoO.
Now look at the rules on touch spells on page 185. It says that you can touch ONE ally as a free action in the same round the spell is cast.
Ergo, we aren't talking about another 'is it the spell or the touch/ranged touch'. This is on a round after the spell has already been cast. You can spin around touching different friends as a full round action, but only provoke one AoO.
There is not one clear case of multiple AoO by a single attacker on a single target from a single action. Am I wrong? If so then please cite it.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ghc&page=3?Does-a-ranged-touch-attack-spel l-provoke-twice#147
|
|
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ghc&page=3?Does-a-ranged-touch-attack-spel l-provoke-twice#147
Stynkk, you are citing yourself saying that this is the way Jason B ruled. Great. Where is that ruling?
Yet, the the same 'attack, ranged', 'attack, unarmed', and 'full attack' table entries people are citing as 'evidence' to the contrary appeared in v3... where it is absolutely clear that full ranged attack, unarmed attack on a charge, and so forth only provoke one AoO per attacker/target pair.
Oh. Well thats a relief. As long as you can provide a citation for that ruling?
|
|
Oh. Well thats a relief. As long as you can provide a citation for that ruling?
Errr... I'm citing the v3 PHB. Where you can find the same entries in the 'AoO table' and the 'combat reflexes' section of the AoO rules says that you can only ever get one AoO per round on a given target. In v3 combat reflexes could get you AoO on multiple opponents, but not multiple AoO on one opponent. Very clearly stated in the rulebook. It changed in v3.5 to something more similar to Pathfinder, but there the combat reflexes section of the AoO rules says that you can get TWO AoO on one target in a round if they make two provoking actions... which would be an odd way to word it if they meant that you could get four AoO on someone making 4 bow shots in a full attack action.
As to the 'Jason B has ruled' claim Stynkk made, I suspect he is referring to the comment when Pathfinder Core Rulebook first came out where it was explained that they revised the wording to make ranged touch attack spells cast defensively provoke an AoO (unlike direct target spells cast defensively). It didn't say anything about TWO AoO because that interpretation perforce came after the ruling that defensively cast ranged touch attack spells provoked at all. However, I'll wait to see what he comes up with.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ghc&page=3?Does-a-ranged-touch-attack-spel l-provoke-twice#147Stynkk, you are citing yourself saying that this is the way Jason B ruled. Great. Where is that ruling?
|
|
Where is that ruling?
Link
The quotation you link to says, "This change". You are apparently implying that the ruling in question was that ranged touch attack spells provoke two AoO. It was not.
That thread was about the change in Pathfinder to specify that ranged touch spells cast defensively now provoke AoO. This was a frequent subject of debate in v3.5. Jason is clearly referring to THAT debate (i.e. "it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged" makes sense for the old debate, but has nothing to do with the TWO AoO debate).
CBDunkerson: So what your saying is that through the editions from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the trend has been to allow more AoO's/person?
|
|
CBDunkerson: So what your saying is that through the editions from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the trend has been to allow more AoO's/person?
No. From v3 to v3.5 there was an increase. However, v3.5 and Pathfinder are both 'ambiguous' in some cases. Pathfinder is slightly more ambiguous than v3.5, but some people make the same 'you can get one AoO for every ranged attack' argument for both. In v3.5 some people argued that it wasn't clear whether ranged touch spells cast defensively provoked an AoO or not (personally I think it was fairly clear that they didn't) and thus the debate focused on that issue. When Pathfinder changed it so ranged touch spells cast defensively DO cause an AoO the 'ok then we can get TWO AoO' debate started immediately.
The fact remains. NOWHERE is there an unambiguous example of one action provoking multiple AoO from a single opponent. It is a 'rules interpretation' based on wording in a table which hasn't changed since v3... when those same words unquestionably did NOT mean you could get multiple AoO.
You don't get a freebie on the ranged attack, just because you decided to not cast defensively. Either way the ranged attack provokes.
1. You cast defensively. The the ranged attack provokes.
2. You decide to eat the AoO on the casting of the spell. The ranged attack still provokes.
Either way that AoO is provoking so you may as well just cast defensively.
Either way that AoO is provoking so you may as well just cast defensively.
Ah, but if you get to eat the AoO when firing your ranged touch (rather than when you cast the spell), you don't run the risk of losing your spell due to taking damage...
Either way that AoO is provoking so you may as well just cast defensively.Ah, but if you get to eat the AoO when firing your ranged touch (rather than when you cast the spell), you don't run the risk of losing your spell due to taking damage...
That is true, but whoever hit you will most likely get a full attack in next round, and you just got hit twice. Your adventuring days might be over.
I am very happy that the tone of this debate has become more respectful.
You go, CBDunkerson, you continue to make the case for one AoO much better than I had been doing.
|
|
I do, as leaving EACH square provokes an AOO. That's plainly in the rules.
Now ALL of those PROVOCATIONS are the same OPPORTUNITY.
James, I understand and agree with the distinction you are making. However, spelling out that distinction every time I need to say 'AoO' would be a nightmare. Having to say 'one AoO per attacker/target pair' to satisfy the people nitpicking on 'more than one person can attack you so the wording about one attack is wrong' is already a great annoyance.
Leaving each square is a provocation. Any one provocation, not EVERY provocation, within an opportunity can be responded to with an attack. Thus, I believe it is correct to say that only one 'ATTACK of opportunity' (per threatening enemy) is provoked.
Within this framework my position can be described as 'all provocations which are part of the same action constitute one opportunity'. Thus, if someone were firing four shots with a bow as a full attack action you could choose to ignore the provocation caused by the first two shots and take an AoO just prior to the third, but you cannot take an AoO before EVERY shot in the sequence. Multiple provocations. One opportunity. One attack. Ditto applying a touch spell effect to six allies. Ditto casting a ranged touch spell non-defensively. Ditto 'Greater Trip' and 'Vicious Stomp'. One attack for each opportunity regardless of how many provocations are involved.
P.S. on edit - BTW, the 'exception' to the above 'one attack per action' is the 'Double Move'. The text clearly indicates that multiple provocations from moving through threatened squares allow only one AoO (per enemy). Thus, it doesn't matter whether you are Charging, Running, or Double Moving... but 'Double Move' is generally treated as two move actions rather than one full round movement. This may be why the AoO rule on movement is spelled out more explicitly than any of the other 'multiple provocation' instances.
Question is, where do you draw the line?
Let's assume I stand 15 feet away fom a polearm fighter (with armor spikes). I walk up next to him (which provokes an AoO from his polearm during my move), then, while being in the threatened area of his armor spikes, cast a scorching ray (non-defensively), only to fire a volley of three rays... somewhere.
How may AoOs would you consider?
Only one, due to 'one attack per pair of attacker and target'?
Two, for provoking both on my move and my standard action?
Three, as I move, cast and ranged touch?
Five, as I use a total of three ranged touchs?
|
|
My work is done. :-)
Grrr. You're an evil evil person. :]
How may AoOs would you consider?
I'd say two. One for the movement action and one for the spell standard action. However, note that the attack on the movement could be when they come within 10' or when they come within 5'. The attack on the spell would just be before they cast because the attacks are part of the casting and stated to all fire simultaneously. If the ranged touch attack were a free action which provoked for some reason (rather than part of the casting) then it'd still be one attack, but you could choose to make it before they cast the spell OR after the spell was cast but before the attack was made. If the rays were then also fired individually rather than simultaneously I'd say you could attack before any ONE of them.
However, note that the attack on the movement could be when they come within 10' or when they come within 5'.
Umm... I disagree on that one.
AFAIK, the 'movement' attack is for leaving a threatened square. Which I only do once (when leaving the square 10' away to step right next to you)|
|
AFAIK, the 'movement' attack is for leaving a threatened square. Which I only do once (when leaving the square 10' away to step right next to you)
Right, good point. Would only be two provocations if you moved up and then another 5' to a different square adjacent. However, just one attack for the movement either way.