| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're doing something different that provokes, that provokes. If you're doing the exact same thing, then you provoke for each time you do it, but you can't have any one opponent take more than one AoO for each type of action.
Attacking with a different weapon that provokes in one round is one AoO for each weapon (you're doing something different when you attack with each one, even if they're both hand crossbows, you have to put your arms up in different ways to fire them). If you drop bow a, and quickdraw bow b and fire it, you're using exactly the same movements, then it's grouped with the other attack from the other bow. If you pull multiple daggers and throw them, you're using the same motions with the same type of attacks, then you get one AoO, but he provokes with each thrown dagger.
Not sure how it doesn't make sense to people. It does to me. Any major difference in what you're doing re-provokes. Throw an axe vs a dagger, re-provoke. Fire a bow 3 times and throw a dagger, re-provoke. Cast a spell, make a ranged touch attack, re-provoke.
|
Just to ask something I was wondering. For those on the side of scorching ray only allowing one attack of opportunity despite provoking multiple times due to the provocations happening simultaneously do you also rule that all attacks of opportunity for any given opportunity happen simultaneously. That is if one is threatened by say 3 opponents and one provokes all three opponents attacks hit simultaneously.Yes, all 3 opponents threatening may each take
- 1 attack for the casting (if not cast defensively)
- 1 attack for the ranged attack
This would appear to be in conflict with the viewpoint that you can only get one AoO for a given action, as the rules for spells like Scorching Ray that grant ranged touch attacks explicitly state that the ranged touch attack is made as part of the casting of the spell, and does not require a separate action.
Just to ask something I was wondering. For those on the side of scorching ray only allowing one attack of opportunity despite provoking multiple times due to the provocations happening simultaneously do you also rule that all attacks of opportunity for any given opportunity happen simultaneously. That is if one is threatened by say 3 opponents and one provokes all three opponents attacks hit simultaneously.Yes, all 3 opponents threatening may each take
- 1 attack for the casting (if not cast defensively)
- 1 attack for the ranged attack
This would appear to be in conflict with the viewpoint that you can only get one AoO for a given action, as the rules for spells like Scorching Ray that grant ranged touch attacks explicitly state that the ranged touch attack is made as part of the casting of the spell, and does not require a separate action.
It is not in conflict. That part about being part of the same action just means that you do not need to burn another standard action to make an attack, but that it's included in the standard action required to cast the spell.
Well... The rules only state that moving out of multiple threatened squares counts as only one opportunity. Nowhere do they say "you provoke only for the first time you take a given action in a given round" or something similar. The part about combat maneuvers specifically mentions that you can use some of them mutiple times in a round, while the table tells us that a combat maneuver provokes by default, but it does not say that you only provoke once, regardless of how many times you take the action.
To me, the rules seem to be clear on this:
Taking action X provokes. You can take action X multiple times. Action X is not leaving a threatened square; there is no exception or limit given. => If you take action X multiple times, you provoke multiple times.
Sheathing a weapon or pulling something out of your backpack are both move action (so should take a bit less then half of the 6 second round) that provoke.
If you take both actions, you provoke twice.
Why should it be different when you sheathe two weapons or retrieve two items from your backpack?
It's probably not that your opponent goes like "ah, I smacked him once for trying to disarm me/take some stuff out of his backpack... now if he does something equally stupid, I smack him again, but if he repeats the action, I'll spare him"...
Actually, I would rule the 3rd attack still took place, as it takes up an AoO on the part of the attacker, which is important to keep track of.
...
To me, the rules seem to be clear on this:
Taking action X provokes. You can take action X multiple times. Action X is not leaving a threatened square; there is no exception or limit given. => If you take action X multiple times, you provoke multiple times....
I checked the combat section again and would say that you are right. Thus - until someone else can point me to another source - I would say that multiple attacks of opportunity can be taken for those things on the list :-)
I thought I had read about that limit somewhere, but I may have confused it with the movement rule. It also made sense from a gamebalance point of view to me: Punish certain actions, but do not make them impossible.
So archery just got more dangerous in my games :-P
I'll be looking forward to the FAQ though...
It is not in conflict. That part about being part of the same action just means that you do not need to burn another standard action to make an attack, but that it's included in the standard action required to cast the spell.Just to ask something I was wondering. For those on the side of scorching ray only allowing one attack of opportunity despite provoking multiple times due to the provocations happening simultaneously do you also rule that all attacks of opportunity for any given opportunity happen simultaneously. That is if one is threatened by say 3 opponents and one provokes all three opponents attacks hit simultaneously.Yes, all 3 opponents threatening may each take
- 1 attack for the casting (if not cast defensively)
- 1 attack for the ranged attack
This would appear to be in conflict with the viewpoint that you can only get one AoO for a given action, as the rules for spells like Scorching Ray that grant ranged touch attacks explicitly state that the ranged touch attack is made as part of the casting of the spell, and does not require a separate action.
Just to follow up on this with details: The combat section states
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.
Actually, I would rule the 3rd attack still took place, as it takes up an AoO on the part of the attacker, which is important to keep track of.
That would be a houserule then:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
|
I checked the combat section again and would say that you are right. Thus - until someone else can point me to another source - I would say that multiple attacks of opportunity can be taken for those things on the list :-)
I thought I had read about that limit somewhere, but I may have confused it with the movement rule. It also made sense from a gamebalance point of view to me: Punish certain actions, but do not make them impossible.
So archery just got more dangerous in my games :-P
I'll be looking forward to the FAQ though...
Combat Reflexes allows a creature to take more than 1 AoO in a round it's assumed that any situation given here that the creature has the feat or an ability to do likewise.
Was that the "Limit" you were thinking?
I checked the combat section again and would say that you are right. Thus - until someone else can point me to another source - I would say that multiple attacks of opportunity can be taken for those things on the list :-)
I thought I had read about that limit somewhere, but I may have confused it with the movement rule. It also made sense from a gamebalance point of view to me: Punish certain actions, but do not make them impossible.
So archery just got more dangerous in my games :-P
I'll be looking forward to the FAQ though...
Combat Reflexes allows a creature to take more than 1 AoO in a round it's assumed that any situation given here that the creature has the feat or an ability to do likewise.
Was that the "Limit" you were thinking?
Essentially a limit like it is spelled out for movements. I thought I had read about that, but apparently I was wrong. Funny that all my DMs those past years handled it this way as well... :-P
The part about balance vs. realism/logic is already mentioned above :-)
The limit is "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity" when referring to combat reflexes. It's just that people have some very different ideas of what an opportunity is.
The limit is "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity" when referring to combat reflexes. It's just that people have some very different ideas of what an opportunity is.
If that was the case, then there would be no need for this:
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.
"Move" is listed in the table, so for your (and my previous) argument to be valid it would either have to be removed from the table or the bolded sentence is unnecessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I would rule the 3rd attack still took place, as it takes up an AoO on the part of the attacker, which is important to keep track of.That would be a houserule then:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
No it's not a house rule.
Target provoked an attack of opportunity. When he does, the players have the choice of making or not making the AoO. Once they declare the AoO, they have chosen to make it or not. If it turns out the third attack is hitting a corpse, that's just too bad. While all 3 attacks are resolved in order, they are provoked simultaneously. At the time the attacker chose to take his AoO, it was a valid choice, and he lives by it.
What do you mean "If that were the case?". I did not express an opinion, I simply quoted a single phrase from the same paragraph you just quoted. How can it not be true? It is a quote with no interpretation attached to it.
Actually, I would rule the 3rd attack still took place, as it takes up an AoO on the part of the attacker, which is important to keep track of.That would be a houserule then:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
No it's not a house rule.
Target provoked an attack of opportunity. When he does, the players have the choice of making or not making the AoO. Once they declare the AoO, they have chosen to make it or not. If it turns out the third attack is hitting a corpse, that's just too bad. While all 3 attacks are resolved in order, they are provoked simultaneously. At the time the attacker chose to take his AoO, it was a valid choice, and he lives by it.
I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. To me it seems like a bit of a grey area. It might worthy to be FAQd by itself.
I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. To me it seems like a bit of a grey area. It might worthy to be FAQd by itself.
The problem is, AoO have no rules on how to resolve them in order. So, most people resolve them either in initiative order, or in dex order. However, they're really all simultaneous. So how does Attacker C know that his attack is the one that's not needed?
Let's say the target has 20 HP.
Attacker A does 10 hp.
Attacker B does 12 hp.
Attacker C does 12 hp.
Any two hits kill the target, but you have no way to tell which one kills him.
Here's another scenario...
Attacker A does 2 hp.
Attacker B does 4 hp.
Attacker C does 30 hp.
C could kill him in one hit, but A & B can't. Should A&B keep their AoO?
What do you mean "If that were the case?". I did not express an opinion, I simply quoted a single phrase from the same paragraph you just quoted. How can it not be true? It is a quote with no interpretation attached to it.
You stated your interpretation of the text. That can be wrong; I interpret it differently - you see? :-) Again, I was with you until a few posts ago.
What I mean is: The text portion I highlighted would be unnecessary in the first place if "opportunity" referred to each line/entry in the actions in combat table. I now believe that this is supposed to express the following:
The restriction about not taking more than one attack per opportunity is just meant to prevent you from attacking 4 times (dex+4 and combat reflexes) because the poor guy you threatend tried to shoot with his bow once. But you are allowed to attack im 4 times when he tries to shoot 4 times.
Clearer? :-)
I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. To me it seems like a bit of a grey area. It might worthy to be FAQd by itself.The problem is, AoO have no rules on how to resolve them in order. So, most people resolve them either in initiative order, or in dex order. However, they're really all simultaneous. So how does Attacker C know that his attack is the one that's not needed?
Let's say the target has 20 HP.
Attacker A does 10 hp.
Attacker B does 12 hp.
Attacker C does 12 hp.Any two hits kill the target, but you have no way to tell which one kills him.
Well, but since C is slower than the others in the first place, he might have realized "oh, looky, I can attack him" after B has already atacked and target is down, looks at it and thinks "oh, not standing anymore, me not wanna bow down to hit" ;-P
Here's another scenario...Attacker A does 2 hp.
Attacker B does 4 hp.
Attacker C does 30 hp.C could kill him in one hit, but A & B can't. Should A&B keep their AoO?
Well, here I am with you I think. Unless they are metagaming, A & B cannot know tha C would kill the target. So they get to decide when it is their turn in the sequence whether they attack or not. They cannot even know if C can make AoO anymore. So once A decides to attack, A attacks. Then B attacks, then C.
What do you mean "If that were the case?". I did not express an opinion, I simply quoted a single phrase from the same paragraph you just quoted. How can it not be true? It is a quote with no interpretation attached to it.You stated your interpretation of the text. That can be wrong; I interpret it differently - you see? :-) Again, I was with you until a few posts ago.
What I mean is: The text portion I highlighted would be unnecessary in the first place if "opportunity" referred to each line/entry in the actions in combat table. I now believe that this is supposed to express the following:
The restriction about not taking more than one attack per opportunity is just meant to prevent you from attacking 4 times (dex+4 and combat reflexes) because the poor guy you threatend tried to shoot with his bow once. But you are allowed to attack im 4 times when he tries to shoot 4 times.Clearer? :-)
I did not express an opinion in that post. I only quoted that portion of text, which includes a reference to a limit of one attack per opportunity, and then said that different people have different ideas of what an opportunity is. So, aside from the direct quote from the text of the rules, the only opinion I expressed is that people have different opinions. Am I wrong about that? Is this 300 posts of people agreeing with each other?
The problem is, AoO have no rules on how to resolve them in order. So, most people resolve them either in initiative order, or in dex order. However, they're really all simultaneous.
There appears to be more than one definition of "simultaneous" being used in this thread.
Also, the rules do not state that the AoOs from multiple opponents occur "simultaneously". That's your opinion.
Please show how you can have anything else.
Target provokes. You must decide if you are taking the AoO or not. Attacks of Opportunity interrupt play, as soon as someone takes their AoO, they have interrupted play, and you are no longer able to respond to something that happened in the past. You can't take an AoO against something that happened earlier, only what is happening now. So you either have to allow only one AoO/Resolution per provocation, or you have to allow simultaneous declarations, then resolutions of all in whatever order you want.
Well, but since C is slower than the others in the first place, he might have realized "oh, looky, I can attack him" after B has already atacked and target is down, looks at it and thinks "oh, not standing anymore, me not wanna bow down to hit" ;-P
How do you determine C is slower?
What if A has Dex 20?
What if B has Dex 18?
What if C has Dex 16?
Now, different question?
What if A has Initiative 5?
What if B has Initiative 8? (4 Dex + 4 Imp Init)
What if C has Initiative 9? (3 Dex + 4 Imp Init + 2 Trait)
You're saying A is Faster than C? But C has better reaction speeds? But, A has more dexterity than C? No matter how you cut it, you're splitting reaction speeds down to a tiny fraction of a second.
Well, but since C is slower than the others in the first place, he might have realized "oh, looky, I can attack him" after B has already atacked and target is down, looks at it and thinks "oh, not standing anymore, me not wanna bow down to hit" ;-P
How do you determine C is slower?
What if A has Dex 20?
What if B has Dex 18?
What if C has Dex 16?Now, different question?
What if A has Initiative 5?
What if B has Initiative 8? (4 Dex + 4 Imp Init)
What if C has Initiative 9? (3 Dex + 4 Imp Init + 2 Trait)You're saying A is Faster than C? But C has better reaction speeds? But, A has more dexterity than C? No matter how you cut it, you're splitting reaction speeds down to a tiny fraction of a second.
Initiative.
I did not express an opinion in that post. I only quoted that portion of text, which includes a reference to a limit of one attack per opportunity, and then said that different people have different ideas of what an opportunity is. So, aside from the direct quote from the text of the rules, the only opinion I expressed is that people have different opinions. Am I wrong about that? Is this 300 posts of people agreeing with each other?What do you mean "If that were the case?". I did not express an opinion, I simply quoted a single phrase from the same paragraph you just quoted. How can it not be true? It is a quote with no interpretation attached to it.You stated your interpretation of the text. That can be wrong; I interpret it differently - you see? :-) Again, I was with you until a few posts ago.
What I mean is: The text portion I highlighted would be unnecessary in the first place if "opportunity" referred to each line/entry in the actions in combat table. I now believe that this is supposed to express the following:
The restriction about not taking more than one attack per opportunity is just meant to prevent you from attacking 4 times (dex+4 and combat reflexes) because the poor guy you threatend tried to shoot with his bow once. But you are allowed to attack im 4 times when he tries to shoot 4 times.Clearer? :-)
Please calm down, I am not trying to offend you :-)
I thought your statement
"The limit is "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity" when referring to combat reflexes. It's just that people have some very different ideas of what an opportunity is."
was an answer to the "limit" I was thinking of and based my argument on but for which I could find no source. And this limit is exactly what I understand now to be a different one.
If you meant someting else, that's fine. Then I misunderstood you :-)
Anyway, I voiced my revised opinion on the AoO often enough now, I believe.
I am not offended nor upset. I was simply stating the baseline rule which people are disagreeing about. I was stating that the disagreement is "what is an opportunity," with reference to the limit of one AoO per opportunity, which is specified in the rule you and I both quoted.
I am not offended nor upset. I was simply stating the baseline rule which people are disagreeing about. I was stating that the disagreement is "what is an opportunity," with reference to the limit of one AoO per opportunity, which is specified in the rule you and I both quoted.
And what I am trying to say is that I now interpret that rule text differently than before. I spelled it out in my previous posts, so no need to reiterate :-)
@Sangalor
Ok, so we have achieved a baseline, and we have one line of the rules on which we disagree - the question of what is an opportunity. So, here is another quote from the Attacks of Opportunity section of the rules:
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
The above quote states that "Some actions" provoke attacks of opportunity. The question is: are these actions the opportunities? Or are the Opportunities some other discrete subdivision of these actions?
We know what an action is. The combat section of the rules lays out all the things which are actions, and the different types of actions which exist. So the only question left is: since we know that actions provoke, but Opportunity has still not been defined, do we infer that an opportunity is one of these different types of actions which provoke? Or is an opportunity something else, but something which, at the very least, the actions which provoke are composed of?
So, since opportunity does not seem to be defined more specifically than this, we are left with interpreting what the Intended meaning of Opportunity is. My opinion is that the closest we can come to a definition of Opportunity is "An action which provokes an attack of opportunity." This is interpretation, because there is no RAW on what an opportunity is, but I personally think it is a reasonable inference. If my inference is correct, it would mean that one can not take more than one AoO per Action which provokes.
My opinion is based on inference. But, since there is no RAW on what an Opportunity is, any other opinion on what an opportunity is must, at best, also be based on inference. I think it is a very reasonable inference, as it is the closest I can find to a specific definition of "Opportunity."
Initiative.
Now, let's say all 3 got 18 for their combat initiative roll. Now who goes first?
Instead, you have 3 attackers with +5 initative, and 15 dexes, and all are going on initiative round 5, due to holding actions to go at the same time.
So, who is A, who is B, and who is C?
Again, it's simultaneous declaration, with sequential resolution. Any other way eventually leads to quandary situations.
EDIT : Also note that your resolution answer of 'Initiative' is your house rule, since there's nothing in the system specifying what order you declare/resolve AoO's.
I'll try to explain how I came to my conclusion - at least we're bumping the thread and possibly getting more people to mark it for the FAQ.
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity : moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
Clear so far. If you take one certain action, you provoke (an AoO).
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack.
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity,
So it's obviously one attack per 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).
If someone provokes twice, it represents two opportunities. Hence the two AoOs you are allowed to make.
Each of them represent a different opportunity, which means that if you provoke once (by taking an action that does) you provide one 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.
This means that if they hadn't included this part, it would count.
Which means that taking the same provoking action multiple times does provide multiple opportunities and does provoke multiple AoOs.
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity , then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
So it's not "oh look, you provoked twice" but "you provoke once - interrupt, resolve AoO - continue with turn - provoke again - interrupt, resolve AoO - continue with turn".
Well said, Cyberwolf2xs.
Master Arminas
|
|
TL;DR
I haven't read all the posts since my last message, so I don't know if this point has been covered. It also appears as though the original topic might have drifted on to something else. So, to steer the car back onto the road: a spell caster casting a spell requiring a ranged touch attack (such as acid arrow) while standing in a threatened area will only provoke one AoO (assuming only one creature threatens).
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.
The camp that says that casting this spell would provoke two AoO fixate on the third sentence and use the idea that "ranged touch attack" and "casting the spell" are two seperate entities that each allow an AoO to be made against the caster. The important sentence that this group is overlooking is the first sentence: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. The casting of the spell and the associated ranged touch attack are the same action and only provoke one AoO. The third sentence goes on to say that even if you cast that spell defensively, because of the nature of that spell, you still provoke an AoO, no matter what.
So, if a poor wizard was surrounded by 8 villans, and each of those villans had Combat Reflexes, and he cast acid arrow, he would only provoke 8 AoO, not 16 AoO.
The moral of the story? Don't cast spells that require a ranged touch attack while in a threatened area.
PS - Stop using combat with bows as an example to relate to ranged touch attacks. They are not comparable. A bow is a ranged attack. Casting acid arrow is a touch attack.
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target...
Touch Spells in Combat:Touch Attacks: Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.
EDIT: Punctuation and bolding.
I'll talk with MDT since it seems like he's "getting it" like I "get it" the most.
@mdt: Why would Full-attacking with twice with a bow while threatened provoke once and Full-attacking with a bow and a javelin provoke twice?
We both agree a single action "full attack" or "ranged touch spell" can provoke more than 1 AoO.
In instance 1, attacking with a bow provokes an attack of opportunity, which you have done twice.
In instance 2, attacking with a bow then a javalin both provoke an attack of opportunity, which you have done twice.
From combat reflexes:
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 is clear that from the RAW, the rules state each time an opponent would provoke it indicates a new opportunity regardless if it comes from the same or similar type of action.
Right? How am I reading this incorrectly?
PS: Anyone can respond to this ;)
Hangar, that has been repeatedly pointed out to the people working their left brain into a lather to support the idea of multiple attacks of opportunity.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
As I said approximately 260 comments ago, this can only be resolved for them by having Paizo come out and make a specific ruling, an event I consider unlikely since the developers almost certainly consider the rule to be so clear as to not need a ruling.
We'll see.
|
|
A whole bunch of crap about ranged attacks with projectile and thrown weapons that actually have no influence on spells with ranged touch attacks.
Again, using ranged weapons with iterative attacks and trying to compare it to how casting a spell with a ranged touch attack cannot be done. A more appropriate analogy would be saying that an archer would provoke two AoO: the first from drawing the bowstring back, and the second for aiming and releasing the arrow, and we all know that this isn't true; the archer only provokes one AoO per attack because all of the actions of shooting that arrow coalesce into one fluid motion, just like how a caster casting a spell that has a ranged touch attack as part of it coalesce into one fluid motion.
A ranged touch attack is NOT a ranged attack, it is a TOUCH ATTACK.
|
|
Hangar, that has been repeatedly pointed out to the people working their left brain into a lather to support the idea of multiple attacks of opportunity.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
As I said approximately 260 comments ago, this can only be resolved for them by having Paizo come out and make a specific ruling, an event I consider unlikely since the developers almost certainly consider the rule to be so clear as to not need a ruling.
We'll see.
I agree with your sentiments completely. Oh well, I'm off to keep working on by RotRL campaign! WOOT!
A ranged touch attack is NOT a ranged attack, it is a TOUCH ATTACK.
Oh, you're correct I'm mistaken... but you quoted the wrong section of the rules...
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 I guess that each ranged touch (multiple rays) provokes which is the same result as making a ranged attack. So I guess my example was valid to compare to multiple ranged attacks in a round and I guess it did illustrate my point.
Ball's in your court.
PS: The point was to say.. how is multiple ranged touches (same type of action) different from using a bow a bunch (same type of action) different from using different ranged attacks (which are literally the same type of action). One argument I have been seeing is one type of action can only present a single opportunity, but that is neither supported in the rules (as my above post stated) nor in mechanics.
But I see I have to do most of the legwork in this discussion.
TL;DR
I haven't read all the posts since my last message, so I don't know if this point has been covered. It also appears as though the original topic might have drifted on to something else. So, to steer the car back onto the road: a spell caster casting a spell requiring a ranged touch attack (such as acid arrow) while standing in a threatened area will only provoke one AoO (assuming only one creature threatens).
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.The camp that says that casting this spell would provoke two AoO fixate on the third sentence and use the idea that "ranged touch attack" and "casting the spell" are two seperate entities that each allow an AoO to be made against the caster. The important sentence that this group is overlooking is the first sentence: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. The casting of the spell and the associated ranged touch attack are the same action and only provoke one AoO. The third sentence goes on to say that even if you cast that spell defensively, because of the nature of that spell, you still provoke an AoO, no matter what.
So, if a poor wizard was surrounded by 8 villans, and each of those villans had Combat Reflexes, and he cast acid arrow, he would only provoke 8 AoO, not 16 AoO.
The moral of the story? Don't cast spells that require a ranged touch attack while in a threatened area.
PS - Stop using combat with bows as an example to relate to ranged touch attacks. They are not comparable. A bow is a ranged attack. Casting acid arrow is a touch attack.
So answer me this: a wizard of 6th level, having an Intelligence score of 21, that casts a 3rd level spell defensively has to make a concentration check against a DC of 21 (15 + 2x spell level) with a modifier of +11 to his roll (caster level + Int modifier). Correct? He has a straight 50% chance of either getting off the spell and avoiding an attack or opportunity or losing the spell and avoiding the attack of opportunity.
If he doesn't cast defensively, then he provokes an attack of opportunity, which if it hits, then requires him to make a concentration check of 13 + the damage dealt (10 + spell level + damage) or lose the spell.
Now, if there is only one provocation for casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack (rather than one for casting the spell and a second for making a ranged attack), why should the wizard cast defensively and risk that 50% of losing the spell for no effect? Does this attack of opportunity require a concentration check against 13 + the damage dealt or lose the spell?
In short, there is no downside to a wizard not casting defensively when threatened in melee if he only provokes a single attack of opportunity for both casting the spell and making a ranged (touch) attack.
Is this how you see it playing out?
Master Arminas
|
|
So I guess that each ranged touch (multiple rays) provokes which is the same result as making a ranged attack.
... The point was to say.. how is multiple ranged touches (same type of action) different from using a bow a bunch (same type of action) different from using different ranged attacks (which are literally the same type of action). One argument I have been seeing is one type of action can only present a single opportunity, but that is neither supported in the rules (as my above post stated) nor in mechanics.
But I see I have to do most of the legwork in this discussion.
I did a quick scan through the spells in the CRB and stopped when I came to Scorching Ray. Although multiple Rays are fired, they are fired simultaneously, and thus there are not multiple AoO for each ray, only one AoO.
If there is another spell that you are thinking of, let me know. Like I said, it was a quick scan and I stopped looking further, so I'm sure I missed some.