|
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 didn't answer the question as such, it gave your opinion on it.
I was just thinking that maybe, even though casting defensively means you cannot avoid an attack of opportunity when the spell is a ranged touch attack spell, maybe casting defensively has some benefit in that it avoids the possibility of losing the spell if the AoO hits and does damage.
I.e. I can see that it could be a valid interpretation of RAW that casting the spell and then throwing it at the target only ever provokes a single AoO because those two actions happen in the same Action. However I still see the actions as being sequential - cast spell, then throw it - and that therefore maybe casting defensively can mean the single AoO isn't provoked until the "throw it" portion of the action, thus meaning the spell has already been created.
If as you said the designers were "telling you not to cast defensively when casting a spell with a ranged touch attack [...] telling us not to waste our time" then I would think they would have come out and phrased it like that, e.g. "Spells that involve a ranged touch attack cannot be cast defensively and always provoke an Attack of Opportunity".
Back to the original question of this thread, I personally don't think the RAW is conclusive one way or the other on whether a Ranged Touch Attack spell provokes one or two AoOs, but thinking about the phrasing of the rule re casting defensively (and it not simply stating you can't cast such spells defensively) makes me think the intent of the designers was perhaps that it should provoke two AoOs.
But as I said I don't think the argument can be won either way with the RAW - we need this FAQed (so here's hoping they do it).
For me, I favor the multiple AoO angle because I see it as cleaner. You simply draw as many AoOs as you provoke. It's supported in the rules at least as well as any other interpretation and it relieves the player of needing to arbitrarily assess simultaneity of events or break down opportunities into fractions of an action.
Actually, the single AoO angle is cleaner and simpler. That way, when you try to determine how many AoO's, all you have to do is say "well, how many actions provoked?" The multiple AoO angle leaves you with questions like "do the simultaneous rays from scorching ray or prismatic spray each provoke their own AoO, or is it one AoO for the spell, and one AoO for all the rays, because they are simultaneous"; or "Can you trip someone over and over before they fall, using up all your AoO's?"
The multiple AoO perspective is the one which forces you to try and divide actions into parts, not the single AoO perspective.
If the answer is one AoO per action, that is very clear, and does not need further clarification - much cleaner, no unanswered questions.
Prismatic spray is a ranged spell, but not a ranged touch spell. It an an area of effect cone-shaped burst, and therefore doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity (unless you don't cast defensively).
Master Arminas
For me, I favor the multiple AoO angle because I see it as cleaner. You simply draw as many AoOs as you provoke. It's supported in the rules at least as well as any other interpretation and it relieves the player of needing to arbitrarily assess simultaneity of events or break down opportunities into fractions of an action.Actually, the single AoO angle is cleaner and simpler. That way, when you try to determine how many AoO's, all you have to do is say "well, how many actions provoked?"
Except that it runs contrary to many other parts of the rules. You move away from an axe-wielder and towards a longspear-wielder thirty feet away - you provoke twice (once for moving away from the axe-wielder, once for moving through the longspear-wielder's reach. Two clearly separate opportunities (as they even happen in different squares), one action.
And for those saying that because a full attack is listed as not provoking, anything you do as part of a full attack also can't provoke... check out combat maneuvers on the table (under Action Type Varies) and check out Footnote 6. Can be used as part of a full attack. Provokes an AoO. Can't get more explicit than that, there's no water in the full attack makes you immune to AoOs line of thought.
The full attack action does not provoke an AoO in and of itself. As per combat maneuvers, they do not make you immune to eating AoOs for doing other things that provoke during the full attack.
Except that it runs contrary to many other parts of the rules. You move away from an axe-wielder and towards a longspear-wielder thirty feet away - you provoke twice (once for moving away from the axe-wielder, once for moving through the longspear-wielder's reach. Two clearly separate opportunities (as they even happen in different squares), one action.For me, I favor the multiple AoO angle because I see it as cleaner. You simply draw as many AoOs as you provoke. It's supported in the rules at least as well as any other interpretation and it relieves the player of needing to arbitrarily assess simultaneity of events or break down opportunities into fractions of an action.Actually, the single AoO angle is cleaner and simpler. That way, when you try to determine how many AoO's, all you have to do is say "well, how many actions provoked?"
You are attributing to me something which I never said. I may have short-handed my position by saying "one AoO per action", but my position has never been that multiple attackers don't each get their own AoO, even for a single action which only provokes once. So, because you are going to play the semantics game, I have to say "one AoO per action per attacker?" How about we agree to not take each others' arguments to the level of grammatical absurdities, so we don't each have to write novels every time we reply to each other?
And for those saying that because a full attack is listed as not provoking, anything you do as part of a full attack also can't provoke... check out combat maneuvers on the table (under Action Type Varies) and check out Footnote 6. Can be used as part of a full attack. Provokes an AoO. Can't get more explicit than that, there's no water in the full attack makes you immune to AoOs line of thought. The full attack action does not provoke an AoO in and of itself. As per combat maneuvers, they do not make you immune to eating AoOs for doing other things that provoke during the full attack.
I have never once said that a full-attack which is composed of combat maneuvers, which each provoke in their own right, was exempt from AoO's. I don't know who you are confusing me with, but I certainly never said anything of the kind. I'd even be open to the interpretation that each trip attempt (or whatever other combat maneuver), and each attack in a ranged full-attack provoke their own AoO, because under normal circumstances a trip or ranged attack is an action of its own, and thus this type of full-attack can provoke more than one AoO. But I also would not be all that surprised if the devs walked in here and said "one action, one aoo, even for full-round actions." It would not surprise me, but it is not my position.
Prismatic spray is a ranged spell, but not a ranged touch spell. It an an area of effect cone-shaped burst, and therefore doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity (unless you don't cast defensively).
Master Arminas
Yes, I misremembered prismatic spray. I did not look it up, and remembered "beams" as "rays", but you are right, no ranged touch attack with prismatic spray.
|
|
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.
Sure, if you take that sentence out of it's parent paragraph and read it out of context, yeah I can see what you are saying. Unfortunately, it is a portion of a paragraph and when I read that paragraph as a whole, I understand it to mean that the actions are occurring at the same time; the language stating that the ranged touch attack merely is stating that no matter what that caster does, because he is casting a ranged touch attack, he is going to receive an AoO. A singular AoO. Not potentially two AoO if the caster doesn't cast the spell defensively.
|
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.
No one is trying to sneak out anything. That is how it has worked since 3.0, the fact that the issue keeps going back to ranged spells has nothing at all to do with either deliberate misrepresentation or cheese. That is how it works by the book.
Sure, I can see where you could interprete it slightly different like people have, which tells me that it could use a little clarification, but you keep assuming that your stance is the accepted rule and general concensus. It is not. Repeating that does not make it more credible.
Sure, I can see where you could interprete it slightly different like people have, which tells me that it could use a little clarification, but you keep assuming that your stance is the accepted rule and general concensus. It is not. Repeating that does not make it more credible.
I have been playing this game since before the Attack of Opportunity rule itself existed. I've played with a dozen different groups (or more) and in three states.
This thread is the first time I have ever encountered even the slightest notion that ranged touch attack spells might possibly trigger multiple opportunity attacks from the same person.
|
|
This purposeful blindness leads to absurdity, and frankly breaks the model.
-James
Like the ability to completely become imune to AoO for the actions you don't want to provoke by taking provoke one earlier, (like the charging unarmed combat manuver I keep mentioning)? That kind of absurdity, (and they say my interpretation is cheesy and rediculous. . . )
:)
|
|
I have been playing this game since before the Attack of Opportunity rule itself existed. I've played with a dozen different groups (or more) and in three states.
This thread is the first time I have ever encountered even the slightest notion that ranged touch attack spells might possibly trigger multiple opportunity attacks from the same person.
I can say the opposite, and even add in another country, too. That doesn't make either of us more authoritative on the subject though. Just one of us played with a lot of groups that either played wrong or houseruled it.
I can say the opposite, and even add in another country, too. That doesn't make either of us more authoritative on the subject though. Just one of us played with a lot of groups that either played wrong or houseruled it.
I'm pretty sure I could identify a different reason it's never come up in my groups. But been there done that got the t-shirt and it doesn't matter.
Paizo rules on this or you multi-attack folks will never agree how blatantly obvious and simple the rule actually is.
Oh, I agree it is blatantly obvious, just not with how you rule it at the end of that being blatantly obvious.
:)
If it's not blatantly obvious, the developers would have responded to the FAQ by now.
Sometimes people over-analyze. And there's usually a reason that they do.
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.No one is trying to sneak out anything. That is how it has worked since 3.0, the fact that the issue keeps going back to ranged spells has nothing at all to do with either deliberate misrepresentation or cheese. That is how it works by the book.
Sure, I can see where you could interprete it slightly different like people have, which tells me that it could use a little clarification, but you keep assuming that your stance is the accepted rule and general concensus. It is not. Repeating that does not make it more credible.
I don't know where you get the idea that multiple AoO's per action with combat reflexes is how it has worked since 3.0. Below I link an article from wizards' own web site, which states that you do not get more than one AoO against a single opponent, even with combat reflexes, never mind more than one AoO per action.
There is an explanation of the aoo per round issue right on that page, and it mentions that it is in dispute, although it seems that monte cook and dragon magazine (a paizo product) both fall on the side of one aoo per opponent per round. There are also links to a pdf "explanation of attacks of opportunity" which is a Dragon magazine pdf also specifically stating that even with combat reflexes, you are limited to one aoo per opponent, and a link to 3.5 and 3.0 errata, and the clarification link for 3.0 errata also specifically states one aoo per opponent per round even with combat reflexes.
tl;dr: the plea to history for multiple aoo's per action is disproved by published materials on 3.0 and 3.5 by both wizards of the coast and paizo.
|
|
Maybe this will clear things up a little. Here is the LINK
Warning, it is long, and I have tried to highlight the important parts to this discussion. I did not try to just do the ones that proved my point, so I amy have missed something, and if so, it was not purposefully.
Making an Attack of Opportunity
As noted last month, an attack of opportunity is a melee attack. Unless you have the Combat Reflexes feat (and a Dexterity score of at least 12), you can make only one attack of opportunity each turn. (Some monsters, such as hydras, have the ability to make multiple attacks of opportunity each turn.) You always can opt not to make an attack of opportunity, but if you do, the foe that provoked the attack of opportunity from you completes his action and that particular attack of opportunity is lost to you. (You can't change your mind after you know the result of the foe's action.) Still, you may have a good reason to forego the attack of opportunity. Perhaps later you'll get a chance to make an attack of opportunity against a more dangerous foe.
Even if you're allowed several attacks of opportunity each turn, you make a single melee attack against a foe that provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.
When you make an attack of opportunity, you use your full attack bonus (no matter how many other attacks of opportunity you've made during the round). Certain actions you've taken during your previous turn might impose a penalty on your attacks of opportunity, such as using the flurry of blows class feature. If the same foe later provokes another attack of opportunity from you, you can attack that foe again (provided that you're allowed more than one attack of opportunity that round), and you use your full attack bonus for that attack.
You can use any special attack that you can use as a melee attack as an attack of opportunity. That includes disarming, grabbing someone to grapple, sunder, or trip. In the case of a trip attack, you must make the trip attack with whatever weapon you're using to threaten the area where you're making the attack of opportunity.
Though you cannot cast a spell as an attack of opportunity, you can use some spells as attacks of opportunity. If you're holding the charge from a touch spell, you can try to touch a foe as an attack of opportunity. Some spells last long enough to let you to make several melee attacks. Spells such as chill touch and produce flame prove useful for attacks of opportunity if someone provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
You cannot make an attack of opportunity against a foe that you cannot see (unless you have the blindsight special quality), and you cannot make an attack of opportunity when you're flat-footed (unless you have the Combat Reflexes feat).
Attack of Opportunity Results: If you hit, you deal damage just as would for any other melee attack. If you've used the Power Attack feat during your turn, you gain whatever damage bonus the feat gives you (just as you took the penalty the feat gave you on your attack roll).
If the damage kills your target or renders the target unconscious, your attack of opportunity foils the action that triggered the attack. If you've made your attack of opportunity in response to a foe using a spell or spell-like ability, your attack interrupts the spell or spell-like ability. If you slay your target or render the target unconscious, the spell or spell-like ability is disrupted. Even if the target survives the attack, the damage you deal might still disrupt the spell or spell-like ability if the target fails a Concentration check. This is one case when an attack of opportunity happens during the action that triggers it rather than before that action.
If you've made your attack of opportunity in response to a foe entering your space, your attack interrupts your foe's movement. Though you make the attack in response to your foe's attempt to enter your square, you make the attack before the foe actually does so. If you slay your target or render the target unconscious, you prevent the foe from leaving the space it occupied just before it tried to enter yours. If you have a reach of 0, you still can make attack of opportunity against foes entering your space. In that case, you make the attack within your space and if you slay your target or render the target unconscious, the foe goes back to the space it left.
Threatened Areas
Because you must threaten your foe before you can make an attack of opportunity, it pays to examine what area you can threaten and when you threaten it.
As noted earlier, you threaten all the squares on the battlefield into which you can make an armed melee attack. The diagrams on pages 308-310 in the Dungeon Master's Guide show the areas that Medium and bigger creatures threaten when armed with regular weapons and with reach weapons.
A Small creature threatens the same sized area as a Medium creature.
As shown in Diagram 2, a Tiny or smaller creature threatens the square it occupies but not the squares around it. A Tiny or smaller creature cannot make an attack of opportunity unless a foe actually enters its space, such as when a foe tries to make an overrun or bull rush attack. (This is the only case when entering a space triggers an attack of opportunity.)
If you have a natural weapon or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you threaten the area around you so long as you have at least one hand free. A creature with several natural weapons might continue to threaten an area even when its "hands" are occupied. For example, a dragon clutching something in both claws could still threaten the area around it with its bite attack and other natural weapons. Likewise, a monk can attack with just about any part of her body and still threatens an area when she doesn't have her hands free. If you're grappling, however, you don't threaten an area, no matter how many weapons you have.
If you use a reach weapon, you threaten more squares because your natural reach doubles. You do not, however, threaten the squares immediately adjacent to you. The reach diagrams in the Dungeon Master's Guide show your normal reach as a band of dark squares and your extended reach with a reach weapon as a band of lighter squares. When you wield a reach weapon, you no longer threaten the darker squares. Remember that you usually make an attack of opportunity before the action that triggers it, so if you're armed with a reach weapon and a foe steps into a square adjacent to you, that foe's movement triggers an attack of opportunity from you. You make that attack while the foe is still in the square you threaten. If you slay your target or render the target unconscious, you prevent the foe from leaving that space.
Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons: There are some tricks you can use to threaten those adjacent squares when you're using a reach weapon. If you're a monk, your unarmed attacks continue to threaten the squares adjacent to you. Even if you're not a monk, you can use a smaller weapon to threaten the adjacent squares. You'll have to hold the reach weapon in one hand and wield the smaller weapon in the other hand. Since most reach weapons are two-handed weapons, you're only holding onto the reach weapon, not wielding it, and you don't threaten an area with it. Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you. Drawing the smaller weapon requires an action, but if you have the Quick Draw feat, it's a free action. Note that you can take a free action only during your turn.
If you want to use this trick, you must draw the smaller weapon while it's still your turn. When you do so, you don't threaten any area with your larger weapon until you wield it in two hands again. To resume using the bigger weapon on your turn, you'll have to drop the smaller weapon (a free action) to free up your hand for the bigger weapon.
Weapons such as the spiked gauntlet or armor spikes are ready for use whenever you have a free hand, and you don't need to drop them to use your hand for something else.
Spellcasting and Threatened Areas: You still threaten the area around you after you cast a spell, provided that you are armed. Sometimes the spell itself can "arm" you, as would happen if you cast a touch spell and hold a charge or cast a spell that allows you make melee attacks, such as shocking grasp or chill touch.
The Quick Draw Feat and Threatened Areas: The Quick Draw feat allows you to draw a weapon as a free action. If you're unarmed, you do not threaten an area, even if you have the Quick Draw feat, because you can take a free action only during your turn.
Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.
Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe.
Actions that Provoke Attacks of Opportunity
An action's description tells you whether it provokes an attack of opportunity. Table 8-2 in the Player's Handbook summarizes actions available to you in combat and notes which ones provoke attacks of opportunity.
The move and run actions are worth a special note. According to Table 8-2, both these actions provoke attacks of opportunity; however, the basic rule for movement and attacks of opportunity still applies. When you move from one square to another in combat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you leave a threatened square -- not when you enter a threatened square.
When You're Out of Reach
When no foes threaten you (that is, when you're not in any area that a foe threatens) you can get away with an action that normally provokes an attack of opportunity without actually provoking one. For example, if you have greater reach than your foe, you could try to sunder that foe's weapon or shield or disarm that foe without provoking an attack of opportunity provided that you stand outside the area the foe threatens while doing so.
When an Attack of Opportunity Provokes an Attack of Opportunity
In some cases, you can make an attack of opportunity that provokes an attack of opportunity against you. For example, a foe runs past you, leaving a square you threaten and provoking an attack of opportunity from you. If you choose to disarm your foe, you'll provoke an opportunity from that foe (unless you're out of the foe's reach).
Attack of Opportunity Chains: If both you and your foe have multiple attacks of opportunity, the two of you could set up a whole chain of attacks of opportunity. For example, you try to disarm, provoking an attack of opportunity. Your foe responds by attempting to disarm you, and you respond with another disarm attempt.
When this situation occurs, simply allow both foes to keep going with attacks of opportunity until one of them either runs out of attacks of opportunity or chooses not to make any more. Keep track of all the attacks of opportunity each combatant provokes and makes. Resolve the final attack of opportunity in the chain first, and then work forward along the chain until you've resolved all of them or until one opponent's attack of opportunity foils the other's action.
Let's return to our previous example: Let's say you have three attacks of opportunity available and your foe has two.
You make a disarm attempt when your opponent moves past you (attack of opportunity #1). This provokes an attack of opportunity from your foe.
Your foe decides to disarm you in turn (attack of opportunity #2). This provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
You decide to disarm again (attack of opportunity #3).
Your foe also decides to disarm again (attack of opportunity #4 and your foe's second and last attack of opportunity).
You decide to disarm yet again (attack of opportunity #5 and your third and last attack of opportunity).
Your foe would like to disarm you again, but he's out of attacks of opportunity, so that's the end of the chain.
Resolve attack of opportunity #5 first; if you succeed, your foe no longer threatens you and can't continue, bringing the whole process to an end. If you fail to disarm your foe, move on to attack of opportunity #4; now your foe has a chance to end the process by disarming you. Continue until one of you is disarmed or until all the attacks of opportunity are resolved.
Getting Out of Harm's Way
You can leave a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Taking a 5-foot Step: If you leave a threatened square by taking a 5-foot step, your movement doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity from any foe that threatens that square. Remember, however, that you can take a 5-foot step only if you don't perform any other movement during your turn (see page 144 in the Player's Handbook).
The Withdraw Action: You can use the withdraw action (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook) to leave one threatened square without provoking attacks of opportunity (that square doesn't count as a threatened square). You can move up to twice your speed when withdrawing, but you're safe only from attacks of opportunity you'd provoke when leaving your first square. Foes you can't see (or discern through blindsight) can make attacks of opportunity against you even when you leave that first square.
The withdraw action is a full-round action, so you can't take other actions if you withdraw during your turn.
The Tumble Skill: With a DC 15 Tumble check, you can move at half speed without provoking attacks of opportunity for that movement. If you fail the check, you still move, but you provoke attacks of opportunity. If you tumble into a foe's square, you still provoke an attack of opportunity from that foe.
With a DC 25 Tumble check, you can pass right through a foe's space without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you fail the check, you stop before entering the foe's space and you provoke an attack of opportunity from that foe.
You can't use the Tumble skill to stop in any space where you can't normally stop, such as a foe's space.
If you're a whole lot bigger or smaller than your foe, you can move through and even stop in the foe's space (see Player's Handbook page 148); you also can do so if you're size Fine, Diminutive, or Small. Entering a foe's space normally provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe, but if you use the Tumble skill to enter the space, you don't provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe if you make your skill check.
Spring Attack: The Spring Attack feat lets you move through some threatened squares without provoking attacks of opportunity. To get the benefit from this feat, you must move and attack a foe, and you must move at least 5 feet both before and after the attack. When you do so, your movement before and after the attack doesn't provoke any attacks of opportunity from that foe, no matter how many threatened squares you leave. Other foes that threaten the squares you leave still can make attacks of opportunity against you.
Ride-By Attack: The Ride-By Attack feat works much like the Spring Attack feat, except that neither you nor your mount provoke any attacks of opportunity from the foe you attack when you move.
Mobility: The Mobility feat doesn't stop attacks of opportunity against you when you leave threatened squares, but it gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC when you provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened square. A dodge bonus, however, doesn't help you when you're denied your Dexterity bonus against an attack, as you would be when moving past a foe you can't see.
Combat Reflexes and Attacks of Opportunity
If the character in the previous example moved and left three (or more) squares that you threaten and did nothing else that provokes attacks of opportunity from you, you'd get only one attack of opportunity against him.
A Pair of Completely Unofficial Rules
I was talking to Andy Collins, senior RPG designer at Wizards of the Coast, about threatened areas and attacks of opportunity not long ago, and the two of us cooked up two rules we're going to try out in our own games.
Tiny Creatures with Reach Weapons
As noted earlier, using a reach weapon doubles your natural reach. If your natural reach is 0, your reach is still 0 when you wield a reach weapon. As a variant, allow Tiny creatures a reach of 5 feet when they use reach weapons.
Using Reach Weapons up Close
Normally, when you wield a reach weapon, the area you threaten forms a hollow ring. You threaten a band of squares away from you, but not the band of squares right next to you. This is the game's way of representing the weapon's physical limits. If the business end of the weapon is at the end of a pole more than 5 feet from you, it's pretty hard to bring that end to bear against a foe right next to you.
Most reach weapons have fairly sturdy shafts, however, and there's no reason why you couldn't use the shaft to clobber someone. Likewise, there's no reason why you couldn't shorten your grip on the weapon so that the business end doesn't stick out so far. To represent these possibilities, you can allow a character to use a reach weapon to attack foes within his natural reach, but with a -4 penalty on attack and damage rolls. The penalties simulate all the difficulties the character has when employing the weapon in this fashion, such as striking with the shaft or messing up the weapon's usual leverage and balance.
Maybe this will clear things up a little. Here is the LINK
Warning, it is long, and I have tried to highlight the important parts to this discussion. I did not try to just do the ones that proved my point, so I amy have missed something, and if so, it was not purposefully.** spoiler omitted **...
You're right. It's long and it does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument that isn't undone immediately by the simple rule of ranged touch attack spells which OUTRIGHT SAYS that it's a single action that provokes AN (single) attack of opportunity.
It's amazing that you can dump a wall of text and ignore the one sentence that actually matters in this discussion.
But that's how it goes when you want to have it interpreted a certain way I suppose.
Yes, I said in my post that it was in dispute. I did not say it was definitive one way or the other, only that pleading historical precedent was irrelevant, since there is also a history of official material contradicting the idea of more than one aoo per opponent, and paizo seems to fall on the side of one aoo per opponent per round.
That said, the article you quoted never once mentions more than one aoo per action, such as 2 aoo's for a ranged touch attack spell. It only mentions more than one aoo per opponent.
So, can you also quote anything from 3.0 or 3.5 which states that you get more than one aoo per action?
|
|
Yes, I said in my post that it was in dispute. I did not say it was definitive one way or the other, only that pleading historical precedent was irrelevant, since there is also a history of official material contradicting the idea of more than one aoo per opponent, and paizo seems to fall on the side of one aoo per opponent per round.
That said, the article you quoted never once mentions more than one aoo per action, such as 2 aoo's for a ranged touch attack spell. It only mentions more than one aoo per opponent.
So, can you also quote anything from 3.0 or 3.5 which states that you get more than one aoo per action?
Are you serious here or are you joking?
In some cases, you can make an attack of opportunity that provokes an attack of opportunity against you. For example, a foe runs past you, leaving a square you threaten and provoking an attack of opportunity from you. If you choose to disarm your foe, you'll provoke an opportunity from that foe (unless you're out of the foe's reach).
Attack of Opportunity Chains: If both you and your foe have multiple attacks of opportunity, the two of you could set up a whole chain of attacks of opportunity. For example, you try to disarm, provoking an attack of opportunity. Your foe responds by attempting to disarm you, and you respond with another disarm attempt.
When this situation occurs, simply allow both foes to keep going with attacks of opportunity until one of them either runs out of attacks of opportunity or chooses not to make any more. Keep track of all the attacks of opportunity each combatant provokes and makes. Resolve the final attack of opportunity in the chain first, and then work forward along the chain until you've resolved all of them or until one opponent's attack of opportunity foils the other's action.
Let's return to our previous example: Let's say you have three attacks of opportunity available and your foe has two.
You make a disarm attempt when your opponent moves past you (attack of opportunity #1). This provokes an attack of opportunity from your foe.
Your foe decides to disarm you in turn (attack of opportunity #2). This provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
You decide to disarm again (attack of opportunity #3).
Your foe also decides to disarm again (attack of opportunity #4 and your foe's second and last attack of opportunity).
You decide to disarm yet again (attack of opportunity #5 and your third and last attack of opportunity).
Your foe would like to disarm you again, but he's out of attacks of opportunity, so that's the end of the chain.
Resolve attack of opportunity #5 first; if you succeed, your foe no longer threatens you and can't continue, bringing the whole process to an end. If you fail to disarm your foe, move on to attack of opportunity #4; now your foe has a chance to end the process by disarming you. Continue until one of you is disarmed or until all the attacks of opportunity are resolved.
Sounds pretty clear that a single action can have multiple opportunities, AND that they all qualify for an AoO from the same target.
Yes, I read that article. That article does not show any examples of 2 aoo's for one ranged touch attack spell, nor for any one action. It does not support your argument at all.
The portion about aoo chains is about an aoo provoking another aoo, provoking another aoo... each aoo being their own action and provoking individually. There is not one action provoking multiple aoo's, but multiple actions, each provoking their own aoo.
The article I linked disputes not only multiple aoo per action, but also disputes multiple aoo per opponent per round. It also links to the 3.0 errata which says the same specifically, and to another article in dragon magazine (a paizo product) that also disputes multiple aoo per opponent per round, and finally to the 3.5 errata which also could be obliquely assumed to dispute more than one aoo per round per opponent (in reference to the rogue "opportunist" ability)
I am not saying either your link or my link is definitive for multiple aoo per opponent per round, but I am disputing your claim to historical precedent, since I have found historical precedent that counters your argument. On the other hand, the historical precedent you quoted does not mention more than one aoo per action.
If you wish to prove your point, you should link articles where your point is mentioned.
|
|
Here is what I am guessing you are talking about.
Q: What about Attacks of Opportunity (AoO)?
A: Things are easier if you remember the following:
For movement, you do NOT provoke an AoO:
if all you do is move (not run) during the round
if the only movement you make is a 5' step
if you move INTO a threatened area
if you tumble (DC 15 or 25) THROUGH the threatened zone
if you have 1/2 or better cover from the monster that threatens you
Note: creatures that have "10 foot reach" threaten the 2 squares adjacent to them. Thus moving into 10' does not provoke an AoO, but into 5' usually does (except as noted above)
All other actions that provoke AoO are clearly (for the most part) listed in the PHB.
Q: Can I make multiple AoO in one round?
A: No. Only the Combat Reflexes feat will allow you to make more than one AoO in a round.
Q: Can I make multiple AoO against the same target in one round?
A: No. The PHB specifically says so. Even Combat Reflexes does NOT let you take additional AoO against the SAME target.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Josh's commentary: That bit about combat reflexes is apparently subject to some debate. (With Skip Williams on one side and Monte Cook on the other) It is possible that the designers intended Combat Reflexes to allow you to get multiple AoOs against a single opponent if (and only if) that opponent does multiple things that provoke AoOs. For example, an opponent who moves out of a threatened area, then picks up a knife, then closes in to grapple has done three separate things to draw AoOs, and a character with Combat Reflexes may or may not be able to make three separate AoOs against them. Fortunately, such cases are extremely rare, and running the game either way will not make much difference.
I kept trying to search for this in the FAQ, and it is not comming up. So I am not sure where "chonjurer's FAQ" came from? It is not in the actual FAQ though. And the disclaimer right after that portion points out that it is probably not correct.
However, my article does prove every arguement I have made, except for the possibility of Scourching Ray, which I admitted could go either way.
It shows that a single Action, or even a single type of opportunity within a single action can provoke AND DRAW multiple AoO's from an opponent.
It does show that Ranged Attacks do draw a seperate AoO than other actions that round.
It does show that a single target can provoke, and draw multiple AoO's, and that they do in fact work in innitiative order, drawing and resolving the action before moving on to the next one, so this also does mean a full attack with a ranged weapon, and each one would draw an AoO and need to be resolved.
It does not say "it is probably not correct", it says that it is in dispute, with skip williams and monte cook being on opposite sides of the debate. Then if you follow the links on that page, specifically the one that says "explanations of attacks of opportunity", it takes you to a pdf, published by paizo, which specifically states that you may only take one aoo per opponent per round. If this was paizo's official stance for 3.5, what makes you think their stance has changed since?
Link to Dragon Magazine article about attacks of opportunity. Up until 4th edition came out, Dragon Magazine was a paizo publication.
This article specifically states "But you still can’t make more than one attack of opportunity against a single enemy." I think it is not unreasonable to think that since they published this in their magazine, that it is paizo's official stance.
Since they published this article on aoo's in 3.5, don't you think that if they changed their minds on how it should work, they would put language into the core rulebook which specifically points out this change from what had been their official stance for 3.5?
|
|
Paizo was the publisher, but that doesn't mean that is there stance. Secondly, Dragon articles are not concidered offical, while the FAQ is. That being said, I have and highly enjoy them, and they do usually make for very good reasoning. But, and that is a big "but", they are often wrong, or misleading.
Whether Dragon magazine's articles are correct or official as far as the rules for 3.5 go is not relevant. It is published by paizo, thus represents the opinion of the columnist and editors of the magazine - both paizo employees. Since wizards is cut out of the loop now, it no longer matters what their intention for the way aoo's work is, only paizo's intention is important. I think this article makes it very clear what paizo's intention is.
But how long can you go without sleep before you die?
What is that a 3.0 article or something. The 3.0 rules are hardly what I would consider prudent to the discussion considering that they were overruled by wizards of the coast themselves already.
I brought it up, because DA said that multiple aoo's per action is how it has always worked since 3.0. Well, this proves that as far as paizo is concerned, it is not at all how it has worked since 3.0. The official 3.0 errata also supports my position, and the 3.5 errata could be interpreted to support it also.
This is germane to the discussion, because this is paizo's stance for 3.0. I find nothing in print saying that paizo has changed their position, so to then say "it has always worked this way" is not germane to the discussion, because it is not true.
Find me something printed by paizo that says that they have changed the way they intend aoo's to work since the printing of this article, and we will have something to talk about. Until then, multiple aoo's per action is quite thoroughly disproved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, actually Paizo often posted things they didn't agree with, and printed things that Wizards said "absolutely not" to (as in, no that is not how it works or what we meant). Paizo actually has no intentions with the rules, because they didn't design them. They had nothing to do with them, except when they changed specific things from the original rules. There is no indication of that here, at all. If paizo had invented the concept and mechanics for AoO's, then their intentions behind the way they are suppossed to work would matter here. That's not a slight against them, you are asking the wrong group to judge something.
You are also jumping to a wild conclusion that you know their mind and will, particularly from an article whose authorship you assume is from Paizo and not from WotC, staff, or a fan.
It is a Dragon magazine article, which you admit was printed by paizo. I am not jumping to any conclusions, I am reading what they wrote. To assume the authorship and editing of an article appearing in a paizo magazine should be credited to anyone other than paizo staff is a pretty big stretch.
WotC's intention is not relevant. They do not publish PathfinderRPG. Whether they had other intentions on how AoOs are supposed to work is irrelevant. Paizo printed in that article how they interpret it to work, and until you find something else printed by paizo that contradicts it, you have run out of rope.
Grasp at straws all you want, but you have nothing to support your argument but inference and assumption. I, on the other hand, have published material by the publisher of PathfinderRPG themselves which supports my argument. Find something more "official" from paizo about aoo's, which addresses the issue as specifically as the article I linked, and perhaps you will have some basis for your argument.
Well when one PC 'trips' a target 6 times as they fall and provoke 6 AOOs from all his threatening friends... that's absurdity.
But unless your friends are dex based, and have combat reflexes, and corral you into a completely surrounded square then it probably won't matter.
When others claim that they get 3 AOOs from the simultaneous rays being fired from a scorching ray, or the 15AOOs from a TK volley.. that's absurdity.
When people claim that one normal unarmed attack gives the target 2-3 AOOs because there are different reasons that this attack provokes.. that's absurdity.
Really 'opportunity' needs to be decided properly by a DM, and on a case by case basis. If the devs would be kind to give more guidelines and boundaries that's great, but blanket rules in either direction have their problems.
Personally, I think it's absurd to limit AoOs to a single "opportunity" instead of multiple opportunities. You are removing a lot of the danger from not having training in combat maneuvers or in using Unaremd Strikes.
A character only gets 1, 2 or 15 AoOs by devoting a lot of time to improving their dexterity which translates into not a lot of damage. I prefer a consistent 1:1 provocation = opportunity ratio. If that means that you've put yourself in danger then you should suffer for it - if you don't you're really curatiling the danger of the AoO in your campaign. Personally, I think you're being really lenient as there are myraid other options where a character could not provoke. Maybe try doing a Full Withdrawal before firing off your rays?
With rules that are ever expanding the Developers are needed more than ever to input their thoughts/guidance. Without it, we can only read what they've given us before and expand it to the current situation.
You are attributing to me something which I never said. I may have short-handed my position by saying "one AoO per action", but my position has never been that multiple attackers don't each get their own AoO, even for a single action which only provokes once. So, because you are going to play the semantics game, I have to say "one AoO per action per attacker?" How about we agree to not take each others' arguments to the level of grammatical absurdities, so we don't each have to write novels every time we reply to each other?Except that it runs contrary to many other parts of the rules. You move away from an axe-wielder and towards a longspear-wielder thirty feet away - you provoke twice (once for moving away from the axe-wielder, once for moving through the longspear-wielder's reach. Two clearly separate opportunities (as they even happen in different squares), one action.For me, I favor the multiple AoO angle because I see it as cleaner. You simply draw as many AoOs as you provoke. It's supported in the rules at least as well as any other interpretation and it relieves the player of needing to arbitrarily assess simultaneity of events or break down opportunities into fractions of an action.Actually, the single AoO angle is cleaner and simpler. That way, when you try to determine how many AoO's, all you have to do is say "well, how many actions provoked?"
Please note that it is not a case of multiple foes taking advantage of the same opportunity. The AoOs from the two foes happen, in this scenario, at different points in the movement (twenty feet apart, to be exact) - thus, two different opportunities in one move action, not two foes taking advantage of the same opportunity.
I have never once said that a full-attack which is composed of combat maneuvers, which each provoke in their own right, was exempt from AoO's. I don't know who you are confusing me with, but I certainly never said anything of the kind.
Not confusing you with anyone. Other people have made that argument in this thread, though. Thus first addressing you, and then saying "and for those who." It indicates a change of addressee ;)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm
Also page 185 in the Core Book
Touch Spells in Combat
Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.Touch attacks and Ranged Touch attacks do not provoke, because they are considered ARMED ATTACKS. Both are listed in the above and off the SRD20
Hey 8 Red Wizards. Thank you for wanting to join in the discussion, but I find the fact that you haven't read any of the thread a bit disconcerting. In addition, you have quoted the wrong section of the rules for this discussion.
Please go down three paragraphs from what you quoted and you will read this regarding the topic at hand:
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.
I realize you are new to this thread, welcome, but please do a little more reading (as this part of the core rules has been cited numerous times in this debate) and I am sure you will contribute to the thread & the discussion at hand.
@james
some people taking things that are simultaneous as occurring later in their minds.
How do the rules adjudicate simultaneous ranged touches differently? They don't. There is no exception made for them, so you either a) have to construct your own temporal judgement paradox as you have (please don't read this as snarky, just factual) or treat them all as individual ranged touches. It's black and white.
I find your way of interpreting simultaneous as adding an unnecessary extra layer of judgement and responsibility to the GM's plate. "Simultaneous actions" are handled in the exact same way as non-simultaneous actions are per the rules and AoOs are provoked in the same way. You're inventing a stipulation in the rules that does not exist, but one that you think should exist because you consider it reasonable. However, there is no evidence that the rules change based on the sequence of actions. Do you agree?
|
|
Umm... in v3.0 Combat Reflexes allowed you to get AoO against multiple opponents, but only one AoO on each given opponent in a round.
Combat Reflexes feat: "You still only make one attack of opportunity per enemy."
Also, as others have noted, the text you quote from v3.5 post PHB 'clarifications' does not support your position at all. The bit about three AoO on an opponent in one round cites them casting a spell (action, which BTW it says cannot provoke more than one AoO - contradicting the 'two AoO on ranged touch spells' argument), picking up an object (action), and moving out of a threatened square (action). One AoO per action... NOT multiple AoO per action as you are arguing.