|
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?
First, with you writing ranged touch attack as ranged (touch) attack, it makes me believe that you think that a ranged touch attack is a sub-section of ranged attacks. It is not. Ranged attacks are made by using projectile and thrown weapons. Ranged attacks are not made by casting spells that require ranged touch attacks. They are different and unrelated.
Second, casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack is not casting a spell and then making a ranged touch attack, it is making that ranged touch attack as part of casting that spell. It is a singular action that only provokes one AoO.
Of course there is a downside to him casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack: he's going to get hurt and could potentially waste the spell for nothing.
The point of the language about AoO for spells requiring ranged touch attacks is to let the caster know that they are going to get hurt, even if they try to cast defensively; doing so won't get them out of an AoO. The language isn't trying to say that casters provoke two AoO.
How do I see it playing out? I see it playing out in a way that casters will do their best to stay out of threatened areas when they cast spells that require ranged touch attacks.
EDIT: The sentence "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively" is the exception to the rule that you can cast a spell defensively to avoid an AoO. This sentence is stating that you will still receive an AoO, even if you cast the spell defensively. Either way, you still only provoke one AoO, not two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The problem with this interpretation (it's not just you, its others with you defending the position): the rules don't change for scorching ray. There is nothing in the rules that state: Rays fired simultaneously don't function like every other AoO provoking ranged touch attack.
While they might fire "simultaneously" per the spell's description, there is nothing that changes about multiple ranged touch rolls (each of which provoke) whether they are flavored as simultaneous, sequential or otherwise - they all function the same mechanical way unless they have a specific addendum to the rules included in them.
Scorching Ray does not carry such distinction, there is no difference in the rules between simultaneous ranged touches and non-simultaneous ranged touches. The very act of being a ranged touch attack provokes.
Is my point clearer?
|
|
The problem with this interpretation (it's not just you, its others with you defending the position): the rules don't change for scorching ray. There is nothing in the rules that state: Rays fired simultaneously don't function like every other AoO provoking ranged touch attack.
While they might fire "simultaneously" per the spell's description, there is nothing that changes about multiple ranged touch rolls (each of which provoke) whether they are flavored as simultaneous, sequential or otherwise - they all function the same mechanical way unless they have a specific addendum to the rules included in them.
Scorching Ray does not carry such distinction, there is no difference in the rules between simultaneous ranged touches and non-simultaneous ranged touches. The very act of being a ranged touch attack provokes.
Is my point clearer?
You are treating each ray from a scorching ray spell as an iterative attack for each ray, which it is not. Just because you are making separate rolls for each individual ray, that does not mean you are provoking separate AoO for each roll. The ranged touch attacks are made as part of the casting of the spell, which is one singular standard action. They are one and the same as casting the spell.
Is my point even clearer?
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?
First, with you writing ranged touch attack as ranged (touch) attack, it makes me believe that you think that a ranged touch attack is a sub-section of ranged attacks. It is not. Ranged attacks are made by using projectile and thrown weapons. Ranged attacks are not made by casting spells that require ranged touch attacks. They are different and unrelated.
Second, casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack is not casting a spell and then making a ranged touch attack, it is making that ranged touch attack as part of casting that spell. It is a singular action that only provokes one AoO.
Of course there is a downside to him casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack: he's going to get hurt and could potentially waste the spell for nothing.
The point of the language about AoO for spells requiring ranged touch attacks is to let the caster know that they are going to get hurt, even if they try to cast defensively; doing so won't get them out of an AoO. The language isn't trying to say that casters provoke two AoO.
How do I see it playing out? I see it playing out in a way that casters will do their best to stay out of threatened areas when they cast spells that require ranged touch attacks.
EDIT: The sentence "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively" is the exception to the rule that you can cast a spell defensively to avoid an AoO. This sentence is stating that you will still receive an AoO, even if you cast the spell defensively. Either way, you still only provoke one AoO, not two.
So if Wiz gets hit when casting a ranged (touch) spell (and yes, I put that back in there just because it annoys you), does he have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell? A question you didn't answer.
EDIT: And, if your version is correct, there is absolutely no reason for a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, or other caster to cast a ranged (touch) spell (there it is again!) defensively!
Master Arminas
|
So if Wiz gets hit when casting a ranged (touch) spell (and yes, I put that back in there just because it annoys you), does he have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell? A question you didn't answer.
Yes.
If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
EDIT: And, if your version is correct, there is absolutely no reason for a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, or other caster to cast a ranged (touch) spell (there it is again!) defensively!
Agreed. Is there a problem with that?
|
|
(and yes, I put that back in there just because it annoys you)
:-D Dude, that's fracking awesome! Made me laugh.
So if Wiz gets hit when casting a ranged (touch) spell, does he have to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell? A question you didn't answer.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, or at least made it easier to pick out my answer to this question:
Of course there is a downside to him casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack: he's going to get hurt and could potentially waste the spell for nothing.
By this I was implying that he would take damage from the AoO and would have to make the required concentration check to avoid losing the spell.
@master arminas
Of course Wiz needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell if he takes damage from the AoO when he is casting. I don't understand why the question needs to be asked.
Yes, the core rulebook is specifically telling you not to cast defensively when casting a spell with a ranged touch attack. It is telling us that there is no way to avoid the AoO. It is telling us not to waste our time. It is not telling us to take two attacks of opportunity.
|
|
HangarFlying, you said earlier that you can't be bothered to read the whole thread, so I'll take that to mean that you don't actually understand where the breakdown in agreement is occurring.
A single opportunity for AoO isn't necessarily linked to a single formal action. One action can provoke multiple times under differing circumstances. A number of people in this thread consider each time an opponent provokes to be a separate opportunity. It's a position that's supported by the text at least as well as any other.
Jumping into the middle of the conversation without knowing what's already been said isn't serving you well. You're not making a new argument here and you're not presenting an existing argument any better than previous posters.
You're talking about the whole "each ray from a scorching ray provokes an attack of opportunity", right? Yeah, no. That's not how it works. The spell description states that the rays occur simultaneously. Stynkk feels that this is just "flavor". Whether it's flavor or not is irrelevant. Last time I checked, simultaneously meant that things are happening at the same time, not separately. Considering that making ranged touch attacks are made as part of the casting of the spell, not as separate iterative attacks, indicates that there is only one provocation.
Someone else posted that they interpreted the casting of the spell as first, "casting the spell", then "pointing the finger like a gun" and that was how he justified as being two separate AoO. Did he ever consider the fact that "pointing his finger like a gun" and saying "bang, bang" were the verbal and somatic components to the casting of the spell?
All silliness aside, the aiming and rolling the die to make the touch (ranged) attack is a part of the intricate verbal and somatic components to casting that spell. There is only one AoO, not multiple AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stynkk feels that this is just "flavor". Whether it's flavor or not is irrelevant. Last time I checked, simultaneously meant that things are happening at the same time, not separately.
Again, there is no game representation of simultaneous. The entire round happens simultaneously across all characters, so can you only take a single AoO per round? It's simultaneous!
The simultaenous argument holds no water as the game already represents simultaneous as sequential steps.
What matters is that you're rolling more than one ranged attack roll. This is the only thing that influences Attacks of Opportunity. You provoke once per roll, if you want to say it's simultaneous or not, it has no bearing.
|
|
Again, there is no game representation of simultaneous. The entire round happens simultaneously across all characters, so can you only take a single AoO per round? It's simultaneous!
The simultaenous argument holds no water as the game already represents simultaneous as sequential steps.
No, again, you are wrong. Just because in real life a battle would be occurring simultaneously does not mean that the game treats the actions of individuals as occurring simultaneously.
The third sentence in the COMBAT chapter of the Core Rulebook states: Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence...
You can't use what would happen in real life to try to justify the rules of a game. There are things that we can do in real life that the rules of the game won't allow us to do in the game. There are things in the game that the rules allow us to do that we can't do in real life.
In this situation, combat occurs sequentially: one character takes and completes an action before another character can take their turn. This is an abstraction of real life, but the game does not even indicate that actions in a combat round are occurring simultaneously. The game indicates that the actions in a combat are occurring sequentially.
So, when a spell states that it's effects occur simultaneously, I can be pretty confident that the person who wrote that into the spell description intended it to mean exactly what it says.
|
|
What matters is that you're rolling more than one ranged attack roll. This is the only thing that influences Attacks of Opportunity. You provoke once per roll, if you want to say it's simultaneous or not, it has no bearing.
Where does it say that you provoke an AoO for each ray of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack? These rays aren't iterative attacks (and after reviewing the rules on AoO, Ranged Attacks, and Full Attacks, I don't think iterative ranged attacks provoke separate AoO).
Since the actual act of rolling for a ranged touch attack (regardless of how many of them you roll) are made as part of the casting of a spell indicates to me that you do not provoke an AoO for each roll made, you only provoke one AoO for the casting of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.
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?
Thanks, I think. :)
It shouldn't. Throwing two javelins with an iterative attack should provoke twice, but you can only make one AoO since the two provocations are the same provocation (throwing a javelin). That's the only way I can make sense of the 'only one per opportunity' and not have it be 'every provocation provokes'. However, firing a bow with your +11 BAB attack, and then throwing a javelin or dagger with your +6 BAB iterative is two different 'opportunities' since they are two different types of provoking action (one ranged attack with a bow, the other a ranged attack with a javelin). Which makes sense, if you think about it. You're switching from one type of activity mid action to another one, thus leaving yourself even more open.
Right? How am I reading this incorrectly?PS: Anyone can respond to this ;)
You're not. He provokes each and every time he fires a bow. But enemies may not be able to legally take an AoO every time he fires.
Here's a good example.
Melee A (with combat reflexes) is threatening Archer Q, and Melee B's action comes before Archer B. So Melee B declares an action to step 5 feet (free action) and attack Archer Q after Archer Q fires at Melee C. Archer Q decides to fire at Melee C. Melee A declares an AoO on Archer Q's attack, interrupts it, and hits Archer Q. Archer Q fires at C, and hits. Melee B's declared action kicks off, he steps up, and attacks Archer Q and hits. He now threatens Q. Q decides to fire off again at C. Melee A has already had one AoO based on Archer Q making a ranged attack, he can't make another AoO, but Melee B can, and does, pre-empting the attack and killing Q with his hit, stopping Q from firing at C.
Notice that Archer Q provoked every time he fired his ranged attack, but Melee A could only make 1 attack against him for provoking, because he provoked for the same reason (ranged attack with a bow). Melee B, even though he doesn't have Combat Reflexes, was able to take an AoO on Q's iterative attack because he hadn't taken on on the first one.
Where does it say that you provoke an AoO for each ray of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack?
Let's go down the rules rabbit hole.. as I see I have a lot of work to do here.
Does a Ranged Touch Attack provoke an AoO? Yes.
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunityCan a single action provoke multiple attacks of opportunity (that is: present multiple opportunities)? Yes. Once for the spellcasting, once for the Ranged Touch.
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.
Does Scorching Ray involve a Ranged Touch Attack? Yes. So it is encompassed by these rules.
Does a Scorching Ray with multiple rays involve more than one Ranged Touch Attack Roll or a single one?You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.
Are these rules in effect for every Ranged Touch Attack created by scorching ray? Yes.
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).
Since the actual act of rolling for a ranged touch attack (regardless of how many of them you roll) are made as part of the casting of a spell indicates to me that you do not provoke an AoO for each roll made, you only provoke one AoO for the casting of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack.
So as we can see, each ranged touch attack roll provokes separately (each ray of the scorching ray). A single action or act can provoke multiple times (casting a ranged touch spell or a spell with multiple ranged touch components) and if an enemy provokes multiple times you my hit them with an AoO for any/all of these provocations.
@mdt: Thanks for the reply, no snark about your position intended. There is no rule that limits you to one AoO per activity category. Even if there were: isnt attacking with a bow and a javelin both instances attacking with a ranged weapon? So where is the "difference"?
You're not. He provokes each and every time he fires a bow. But enemies may not be able to legally take an AoO every time he fires.
Many people have made this argument, is it a hold over from earlier editions of D&D? Because I can't find any evidence of it in Pathfinder. In the rules you provoke for "using a ranged weapon" not using a bow specifically, not using a javelin specifically.
Especially since the rules state: "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)."
|
|
Where does it say that you provoke an AoO for each ray of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack?Let's go down the rules rabbit hole.. as I see I have a lot of work to do here.
Does a Ranged Touch Attack provoke an AoO? Yes.
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunityCan a single action provoke multiple attacks of opportunity (that is: present multiple opportunities)? Yes. Once for the spellcasting, once for the Ranged Touch.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.Does Scorching Ray involve a Ranged Touch Attack? Yes. So it is encompassed by these rules.
Does a Scorching Ray with multiple rays involve more than one Ranged Touch Attack Roll or a single one?
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.Are these rules in effect for every Ranged Touch Attack created by scorching ray? Yes.
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)....
Considering you are not even addressing the rules that I pointed out to show why your stance is incorrect, you continue to pontificate on misread hope and wishful thinking.
EDIT: removed snarky comments.
@MDT: I think I see your position now. Although, using two separate ranged weapons, they are being used in the same iterative attack sequence. I'm still not convinced that iterative attacks (whatever the combination) provoke more than one AoO.
|
Can a single action provoke multiple attacks of opportunity (that is: present multiple opportunities)? Yes. Once for the spellcasting, once for the Ranged Touch.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.
As has been pointed out on several occasions, your interpretation of the quoted section of the rules is nothing more than that - your interpretation.
An alternative interpretation is that the section shown bolded above simply means that because there is a ranged touch attack involved, casting defensively does not prevent the act of casting from provoking; the specific rule (relating to casting a spell which includes a ranged touch attack) overrides the more general rule about being able to cast spells defensively to avoid provoking.
I think by now everybody is aware of the multiple different opinions on how many AoOs result from a Ranged Touch spell. It is possible to read the rules to support any of the positions (although opinion is divided as to just how much of a stretch any particular interpretation is) - the rules are, unfortunately, not as precise as one might wish.
Continuing to state just one viewpoint as if it is the only position consistent with the rules as written isn't adding anything new to the debate.
@Stynkk
It's just how I read the 'not more than one per opportunity' in the combat chapter. You're welcome to your own interpretation of course. Just about any way works, as long as you are consistent in how you apply it to both PCs and NPCs.
|
|
Where does it say that you provoke an AoO for each ray of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack?Let's go down the rules rabbit hole.. as I see I have a lot of work to do here.
Does a Ranged Touch Attack provoke an AoO? Yes.
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunityCan a single action provoke multiple attacks of opportunity (that is: present multiple opportunities)? Yes. Once for the spellcasting, once for the Ranged Touch.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.Does Scorching Ray involve a Ranged Touch Attack? Yes. So it is encompassed by these rules.
Does a Scorching Ray with multiple rays involve more than one Ranged Touch Attack Roll or a single one?
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.Are these rules in effect for every Ranged Touch Attack created by scorching ray? Yes.
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)....
If I may, allow me to make sure I understand your interpretation:
A caster is threatened by a bad guy, who has the combat reflexes feat. If the caster casts scorching ray with 5 rays, the bad guy would get 6 AoO (assuming a high enough dexterity): one for the casting, and then one for each of the rays. Am I understanding your position?
A caster is threatened by a bad guy, who has the combat reflexes feat. If the caster casts scorching ray with 5 rays, the bad guy would get 6 AoO (assuming a high enough dexterity): one for the casting, and then one for each of the rays. Am I understanding your position?
That is correct.
I am aware of multiple positions in this argument, and I am aware of the validity of everyone's own interpretation. I respect everyone's opinions and am willing to debate the finer details of the rules as long as anyone likes.
That being said, we should strive to come to a consensus through debate, logic, the rules and all that other good stuff because a lot of folks may be wondering about this and would appreciate some resolution.
Unfortunately, while I see the value of understanding multiple positions, it is not valu-able to have to invoke GM fiat on nearly every rules *grey area* debate on this forum. We (as intellignet folk) should be able to resolve this issue.
|
|
Where you feel that the casting of the spell is separate from the rolling of the dice, thus provoking multiple AoO, I feel that they are not separate entities that individually provoke, but as a whole, only provoke one time. How does this get resolved?
I have two sentences that specifically state that the casting and the rolling are one and the same. You have one sentence that, when taken out of context, can be construed to imply that there are separate provocations of AoO.
The spell description for scorching ray clearly states that the separate rays occur at the same time. You try to claim that if this were all taking place in real life that everything would be occurring simultaneously and therefore the word "simultaneously" in the spell description really means "occurring at different times". If you want to argue the rules using logic, debate, and the rules, you can't go outside of that context. Yes, the rules are an abstraction of reality (if only magic were real!), and a part of that abstraction is that combat occurs in a strict order and one character acts before another character. But to say that if the combat were to happen in real life that all the fighting would be happening at the same time, and therefore the game really represents all this action occurring simultaneously, instead of sequentially is fallacy in its truest form. Just because you want the rules to the have a real-world justification (or flavor, or whatever to visualize the game in your mind), that doesn't mean the rules actually work that way. In the game, combat occurs sequentially, not simultaneously. In the game, the rays produced by a scorching ray spell occur simultaneously as indicated by the word "simultaneously". Yes, I realize that there are a few words and sentences used in the rules that are ambiguous, but the definition of simultaneous is pretty hard to screw up.
|
|
Of course Wiz needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell if he takes damage from the AoO when he is casting. I don't understand why the question needs to be asked.
Yes, the core rulebook is specifically telling you not to cast defensively when casting a spell with a ranged touch attack. It is telling us that there is no way to avoid the AoO. It is telling us not to waste our time. It is not telling us to take two attacks of opportunity.
Assuming your position is correct and a Ranged Touch Attack spell only ever provokes 1 AoO (even if not cast defensively), I wonder whether there is still some incentive to casting defensively.
If you cast a Range Touch Attack defensively it still provokes an AoO - but if that AoO deals damage would I be correct in stating that the caster doesn't have to make a concentration check or lose the spell?
I.e. casting defensively prevents the act of spellcasting provoking and it is only the ranged touch attack component that provokes and so as long as the caster is still on his feet after suffering damage he can make the ranged touch attack.
Does that make sense?
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.
So much debate because this has not been scrutinised correctly....
It is very clear and needs no clarification from Paizo at all except with the caveat I end this post with (see below).
You cast and fire the ranged touch attack at exactly the same time with the following potential consequences if you are threatened;
Cast Normally - casting normally and firing simultaneously means ONE AoO.
Cast defensively - firing the ranged touch attack STILL means ONE AoO.
Caveat: I cannot find a single reference stating that under any circumstances AoO's can be made 'simultaneously'. If this IS the case, and I have missed an entry somewhere, then the debate needs to continue - otherwise it's a lot of verbal wrangling over nothing....
|
|
Let's try a different tack.
We all agree that there is a significant difference in power between ranged touch spells being subject to one AoO and being subject to two AoO, yes? And even moreso for full unarmed, bow, and other provoking attacks being subject to one AoO per strike rather than just one for the entire action, right?
Hopefully we all also agree that the 'standard situation' is that you only get one AoO per round... and thus the question is entirely moot EXCEPT when the Combat Reflexes feat is involved.
Given the extreme limitation of one AoO in the vast majority of cases and the huge difference in power between 'one AoO per action' (by the rules definition of 'action') and 'one AoO per provoking activity' (where 'activity' can refer to multiple things within a single action) does it really make sense that this huge difference would not be explicitly spelled out anywhere? Ever?
Finally: "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)."
Why does this text say "two" if a single opponent could theoretically provoke seven or more attacks in a single round? This text says an opponent could do something which allows you to opportunity attack them twice in one round. Why doesn't it say 'up to your dex mod plus one times' if that is how the rule is supposed to work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cast and fire the ranged touch attack at exactly the same time with the following potential consequences if you are threatened;
Cast Normally - casting normally and firing simultaneously means ONE AoO.
Cast defensively - firing the ranged touch attack STILL means ONE AoO.
Ok, so casting defensively seems totally useless. According to you interpretation spells including ranged touch attacks always provoke ONE AoO. But when?
I would expect the following:
Cast normally: one AoO provoked by casting BEFORE the spell resolves -> spell probably lost
Cast defensively: one AoO provoked by ranged attacking BEFORE the ranged touch attack resolves -> spell deals damage if caster survives the strike - often decides between win or death!
See the difference? BUT if you agree in separate points for the AoO, each additional ranged touch will also provoke its own AoO since it is an additional point for an opportunity.
In my view the Scorching Ray was badly worded. In 3.5 you had ONE Range Touch attack which was applied to all targets. The change to multiple individual ranged touch attack complicated the spell.
In my view the Scorching Ray was badly worded. In 3.5 you had ONE Range Touch attack which was applied to all targets. The change to multiple individual ranged touch attack complicated the spell.Er yeah I don't think it worked that way in 3.5 at all.
True. Strangly I had in mind that you make one roll and add you bonus to hit only to the first ray. The other rays use the unmodified roll..perhaps in 3.0??? Or a total different game...can not remember.
Sorry...
|
Pitching another spell + AoO provoking action in here.
Dimension door.
Does D-Door move you out of a threatened square if you are in melee combat when you cast it? You are, after all, leaving a threatened square as part of the casting. And I am currently unable to find anything in the rules that says that this type of movement does not provoke an AoO.
If so, then you should provoke twice for casting it normally.
|
|
Really, I see no real problem in reading Scorching Ray as making a single ranged attack that just happens to target multiple opponents. It could be worded better to make it clear. Saying each ray requires an attack and then saying they go off simultaneously, does muddy things a bit.
Even under that reading, I'd still say it provokes twice overall, though.
But since you get to roll each attack for it individually, you get the full benefits and penalties for each roll (each can crit for x2, feats that apply to rays count for each etc..). It is not like the Manyshot feat, where the first two arrows use the same attack roll.
Of course Wiz needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell if he takes damage from the AoO when he is casting. I don't understand why the question needs to be asked.
Yes, the core rulebook is specifically telling you not to cast defensively when casting a spell with a ranged touch attack. It is telling us that there is no way to avoid the AoO. It is telling us not to waste our time. It is not telling us to take two attacks of opportunity.
Assuming your position is correct and a Ranged Touch Attack spell only ever provokes 1 AoO (even if not cast defensively), I wonder whether there is still some incentive to casting defensively.
If you cast a Range Touch Attack defensively it still provokes an AoO - but if that AoO deals damage would I be correct in stating that the caster doesn't have to make a concentration check or lose the spell?
I.e. casting defensively prevents the act of spellcasting provoking and it is only the ranged touch attack component that provokes and so as long as the caster is still on his feet after suffering damage he can make the ranged touch attack.
Does that make sense?
The first sentence of my post that you quoted already answered your question, and I say again: Yes, of course a caster who is hit by the AoO in the middle of casting the spell must roll a concentration check to avoid losing the spell. It does not matter that it was the spell casting or the ranged touch which provoked, as he is in the process of casting the spell when the AoO hit, either way.
So, no, what you said about the provocation of the AoO does not make sense to me. The spell is what provokes. Because it is a ranged touch attack spell, that provocation is not prevented by casting defensively. The AoO happens at the same time, whether he casts defensively or not - it is the same provocation - casting a ranged touch attack spell. If the caster is foolish enough to try to cast defensively, it does not allow him to avoid a concentration check if he is hit.
The casting of the ranged touch attack spell is not divided into different parts. It is one action, and if it provokes, the resulting AoO interrupts the spell casting, no matter what.
|
|
Finally: "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)."
Why does this text say "two" if a single opponent could theoretically provoke seven or more attacks in a single round? This text says an opponent could do something which allows you to opportunity attack them twice in one round. Why doesn't it say 'up to your dex mod plus one times' if that is how the rule is supposed to work?
Thanks for posting this. And to expand upon this, the casting of a spell requiring a ranged touch attack is one opportunity, not two (to reiterate, the casting of the spell and the rolling of the ranged touch attack are a singular event). If the caster then decided to move after casting the spell, THAT would provoke a second opportunity.
I tried to think of a way that a character could provoke three or more AoO from one attacker in the same round, but can't think of any situation that would provide those opportunities.
|
|
Minor point, you cannot (edit: easily) use Cleaving Finish with a whip.
If you make a melee attack, and your target drops to 0 or fewer hit points as a result of your attack, you can make another melee attack using your highest base attack bonus against another opponent within reach. You can make only one extra attack per round with this feat.
Since a whip deals nonlethal damage, you can never drop an enemy to 0 HP unless they are already unconscious and your nonlethal strikes are being converted the lethal damage.
Edit: Unless you take a -4 to your attack rolls to deal lethal damage with it.
|
|
It appears that you still don't understand the core of the disagreement here. Even if that clause actually limits you to two attacks of opportunity per round on the same opponent rather than providing an example of multiple provocations, there is nothing that explicitly limits you to only one attack of opportunity per action. The only limiting factor is one attack per opportunity. It says that if an opponent provokes twice, each time is a different opportunity. So if an opponent provokes twice in the same action (such as by casting a spell and making a ranged attack) that counts as two opportunities and invites two attacks of opportunity.
You may disagree with this and that's fine. There is room for interpretation. But do at least understand the position of the people you're arguing against.
I understand the argument quite well, thank you. And quite frankly I am of the opinion that trying to squeak out extra AoO against a caster casting a spell requiring a ranged touch attack is deliberately misrepresenting and cheesing the intent of the rules. But to use your own explanation, the rules for ranged touch attacks don't explicitly state that the ranged touch attack IS a separate opportunity from the casting of the spell. If you want to use explicit interpretation, you have less ground to stand on.
|
|
I tried to think of a way that a character could provoke three or more AoO from one attacker in the same round, but can't think of any situation that would provide those opportunities.Walk around two combatants (move action, provoking multiple times from both.. one opportunity for both).
Make a cleave attack action with your whip (standard action, provokes from each attack.. one or two opportunities depending who you are in this thread).
Your attack on the second target drops them. The cleaving finish feat lets you attack again at highest bonus (no action, provokes as the attack is from the whip.. another opportunity though some here would say not).
During one of the provoked AOO opportunities a target could elect to try to disarm your whip. This provokes an AOO from you. You take that opportunity to attempt to sunder their weapon with your improved unarmed strike (AOO, not an action).. this provokes from them as well.
-James
Huh, so cleaving finish is what cleave used to be in 3.5, except that now your cleave attack uses your highest BAB instead of the iterative AB. That's a pretty convoluted example.
|
What I am asking is could a caster provoke once for the casting of the spell, and once again for the ranged attack portion.
Discuss.
PS:The point of this is to get this FAQ'd since no exact answer has yet to be given.
No need to FAQ it!
from http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.htmlMost spells have a casting time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a swift action...You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
...
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack...
Read the rules first it's easier to ask sensible questions. Targeting a spell is part of casting a spell. edit and this is spells out in the rulebook;
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.
|
|
Finally: "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)."Why does this text say "two" if a single opponent could theoretically provoke seven or more attacks in a single round? This text says an opponent could do something which allows you to opportunity attack them twice in one round. Why doesn't it say 'up to your dex mod plus one times' if that is how the rule is supposed to work?
One possibility - the most restrictive interpretation of the RAW - is that you can only get one attack of opportunity (from any given opponent) during a particular action phase of your round. That allows for at most two attacks during your turn - one coming during your movement action, and one coming during your standard action.
Finally: "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)."
Why does this text say "two" if a single opponent could theoretically provoke seven or more attacks in a single round? This text says an opponent could do something which allows you to opportunity attack them twice in one round. Why doesn't it say 'up to your dex mod plus one times' if that is how the rule is supposed to work?
One possibility - the most restrictive interpretation of the RAW - is that you can only get one attack of opportunity (from any given opponent) during a particular action phase of your round. That allows for at most two attacks during your turn - one coming during your movement action, and one coming during your standard action.
... and some people in this debate think that I read too far into things.
I propose that the two referenced here is meaning *a numerical example that is more than one*, not necessarily that two is the upper limit of AoOs. How do we know this? Combat Reflexes can grant you a number of AoOs higher than two per round. We can create examples (as James did) that might create even more provocations than two. It's just an example.
There is no rules to support JohnF's interpretation of the rules: "you can only get one attack of opportunity (from any given opponent) during a particular action phase of your round". I can't state this enough.
@James:
I thought your example of multiple AoOs from a techically single action was fine!
<--- Is in the 1 per whip attack roll camp, unless you're attacking a Barbarian with Come and Get Me :)
I removed a couple posts and the replies to them. Flag it and move on.
But to use your own explanation, the rules for ranged touch attacks don't explicitly state that the ranged touch attack IS a separate opportunity from the casting of the spell.
Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively.
Looks like a distinction is being drawn to me. If they had wanted it to mean "the spell still provokes an AoO even if cast defensively" then they could have said it like that, without being so careful to distinguish between the ranged touch attacks and the spell. Trying to equate the two seems to ignore that specific language was used that can have no other meaning than distinguishing them.
|
|
Finally: "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)."
Why does this text say "two" if a single opponent could theoretically provoke seven or more attacks in a single round? This text says an opponent could do something which allows you to opportunity attack them twice in one round. Why doesn't it say 'up to your dex mod plus one times' if that is how the rule is supposed to work?
One possibility - the most restrictive interpretation of the RAW - is that you can only get one attack of opportunity (from any given opponent) during a particular action phase of your round. That allows for at most two attacks during your turn - one coming during your movement action, and one coming during your standard action.
... and some people in this debate think that I read too far into things.
I propose that the two referenced here is meaning *a numerical example that is more than one*, not necessarily that two is the upper limit of AoOs. How do we know this? Combat Reflexes can grant you a number of AoOs higher than two per round. We can create examples (as James did) that might create even more provocations than two. It's just an example.
There is no rules to support JohnF's interpretation of the rules: "you can only get one attack of opportunity (from any given opponent) during a particular action phase of your round". I can't state this enough.
Just to be clear, I haven't stated whether or not I subscribe to this viewpoint. But I can quote at least as many parts of the rules that can be read to support it as you can quote to contradict it. Such as, for example:
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.
That introduces the concept of two kinds of provoking actions.
There is nothing in the RAW that says explicitly that multiple actions of the same kind give rise to multiple AoOs. In fact to I think the only reference to multiple actions of the same kind is the statement on attacks provoked by movement, which limits the number of attacks to one.Is this an explanation of how the rule works, or is it a restriction? It can be read either way. And that's the main problem here - the rules can be read in so many different ways that a case can be made for just about anything.
As has been mentioned, this is only an issue when Combat Reflexes are involved. I happen to think that this is a massively overpowered feat; it lets a high-dexterity character do far more damage in a round than he can do as part of his regular attack actions. But that's a whole other can of worms ...
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.I think the disconnect in our readings s stemming from the word "actions". I submit that the way the rules are using the word action is to describe any event that provokes an AoO rather than the PF rules codified "Action" that describes the temporal break-up a character's turn that is laid out in the following sections of the combat rules. After all, not all "actions" that provoke AoOs are "Actions" (as we saw illustrated in James Maissen's example).
It really is all in the reading, unfortunately. This is one of the reasons that I wish pathfinder would codify its "keywords" so that they (the rules developers) would not put themselves (and us) in this spot where we are unsure if we're talking about "actions (just a word)" or "Actions (a very meaningful pathfinder word)".
Regarding Combat Reflexes power level: I have my own thoughts on the feat, I don't think its all that powerful. But as MacGurules said, that should be saved for a different thread.
But, yes, Combat Reflexes is the main point of contention.
|
|
Fascinating thread! It certainly made me go back and look at rules I was taking for granted..
Here's a slight variation on the same question.
Does using a wand of Scorching Ray provoke an AoO?
On the basis:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Scorching Ray:
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.
Ranged Touch Attack
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.
My assumption is YES on the basis that it's a Ranged Touch Attack, even though the wand activation doesn't provoke.
Does using a wand of Scorching Ray provoke an AoO?
Yes, it does. While you bypass the "spell component" AoO, you still have to make a Ranged Attack Roll which provokes an AoO.