Ranged Touch Attacks Provoking AoOs 2: Electric Boogaloo


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Tarantula wrote:


Or in your example, I would allow the friend to stop the coup de grace, but he still loses his full-round Action for his turn. Is this RAW?

That's a good question. Regardless that's certainly how I would (and have) ruled it as well. I'm just testing the granularity of it all. If something happens as part of the AoO, or another readied action, it seems like you ought to be able to abort the action at LEAST if not re-target in extenuating circumstances.

But this is a side argument that is detracting from the topic. It seems we agree that multiple X should provoke multiple AoSs.


Quote from James Jacobs, Creative Director of Paizo, from today:

James Jacobs wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:

There is a heated debate which has spawned at least 5 threads about Attacks of Opportunity and the Combat Reflexes feat. I would understand if you didn't want to answer this quickly, because of the heated level of the debate, but I would be very interested to hear your take on it.

One side claims that if one has Combat Reflexes, and a high enough Dex, there is no limit to the number of AoO's one can take per action per target, as long as that one action fulfils more than one requirement for being a "provocation." One example is spells which require a ranged touch attack. A recent errata added language to the Core Rulebook which says that a spell with a ranged touch attack provokes an AoO even if cast defensively, because all ranged attacks provoke. Those on one side say that if a caster chooses not to cast defensively, he provokes two separate attacks of opportunity for the one action (casting a ranged touch attack spell.) Some even go so far as to say that a full-caster level scorching ray would provoke 4 AoO's - one for each ranged touch attack, and one for casting the spell. Similar arguments have been made for the Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp feats. (2 AoO's for the single action of falling prone)

The other side claims that you are limited to one AoO per provoking action, even if that one action fulfils the requirements for being a provoking action twice. This side of the argument is divided into two camps, one which would allow multiple aoo's per target on a ranged full-attack or charge with unarmed attack (no Improved Unarmed Strike feat), because these are full-round actions that are made up of what would be individual standard and/or move actions otherwise. The other camp says that any one action can only cause one AoO per opponent, even if it is a full-round action. This camp subscribes to the opinion that an "Opportunity" is an action which provokes, and thus the prohibition against more than one AoO per opportunity specifically limits AoO's to one per action per

1) I'm generally never interested in getting into a "heated debate" about rules, since in my experience most folks involved in such debates are more interested in the debate itself than in listening to reason or accepting resolutions.

2) With Combat Reflexes... you can take an additional number of AoOs in a round equal to your Dex mod. If your Dex is 18, that means you can take (1+4) a total of 5 (five) attacks of opportunity in any one round.

3) Here's how I would run the multiple triggers with one action situation: It would provoke only one AoO. It's only one action, and therefore can only provoke one response... EVEN IF that one action has multiple elements that, on their own, would provoke an AoO.

AKA: Effects that provoke attacks of opportunity do not stack. And they only provoke when the provoking action begins. You can't just run back and forth by a guy doing a full round action that provokes and get an AoO each time you run by him. Because allowing that many attacks of opportunity is not what the game is intending to happen.

As I suspected, the answer is one aoo per action per target.

If you do not consider James Jacobs to be an authoritative source, I do not know that I can debate you logically on any subject.


While I give James Jacobs massive consideration when he makes an "official" ruling, this is merely him stating his interpretation and how he would run things.

I guess that is where we're at. GM interpretation, check with your GM prior to counting on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

James Jacobs is NOT an authoritative source. He's a creative director and has absolutely no control or expertise in the rules.

Similarly Liz Courts would not be an authoritative source, nor would anyone merely because of a Paizo nametag.

His response demonstrates a basic lack of understanding about AoO rules. Movement is already specifically called out in the rules as not provoking multiple times in a round to prevent the scenario he envisions as being a next logical step in allowing multiple AoO provocations. This ruling would make CAGM, the barbarian rage power, nearly useless against a full attacking opponent. He gets 6 attacks, you only get 1 swing back? Certainly contrary to the way it reads...

JJ does great work in his field of expertise, don't get me wrong, everyone at Paizo is talented. Jason or Sean would be the authority in this area though.


LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, I don't see James Jacobs as an authoritative resource, based on his own preference and him repeatedly saying that he is not the person to ask for authoritative answers to the rules of the games, and that that is Jason Bulmahn and the other designers. Heck, he even said in that response that that's how he'd run it.

But I do see Jason Bulmanh as the definitive authoritative resource. You know, because he is.


I give you the gospel, straight from the horse's mouth, and you say "Wrong horse." Wow. Just Wow.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong.

Well I got out my Ouija board and asked Gary Gygax himself. He says that rocks fall and we all die. Crap!

JJ is not an authoritative source. He bats like 0 on these sorts of rules questions. As cheapy says, he has HIMSELF said he's not an authoritative source. What he offers is just off the cuff GMing advice, not anything approaching an official ruling.

Liberty's Edge

While I agree with what JJ says, unfortunately he doesnt have the authority to make formal rules clarifications, and these are just his opinions.

EDIT: dammit! Super ninja'd!


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
I give you the gospel, straight from the horse's mouth, and you say "Wrong horse." Wow. Just Wow.

Uh...yeah. Because THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE!

You can't just ask anyone and then DECLARE that it's the gospel.
I mean, I asked Gary Gygax himself, and apparently rocks fall and we die! Always and forever. Why can't you accept that as the gospel truth?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He has been wrong before. With that said I think he knows his stuff, but he is not "the rules" guy, which is why him repeating what someone may have already said does not end debates.

Notice that number 3 is: "Here's how I would run...." That is not the same as "This is the rule.."

Another example is the "Intensified Spell" feat on which he made a "I would allow" type statement.

That AKA is saying Greater Trip and the other feat that allows and AoO for knocking someone prone don't stack. That is different than the number 3 statement.


I'm still waiting to hear a response to my unarmed strike charge conundrum.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong.

If Jason or Sean said it most of us would agree that was the rule, even if we disagreed about the fairness of it. If Jason or Sean tried to make a Golarion specific based ruling they would catch the same amount of grief since James is the man for Golarion. That does not mean Jason does not know about Golarion, but he is not the authoritative source.


The absolutely hilarious thing is that James said:

James Jacobs wrote:
1) I'm generally never interested in getting into a "heated debate" about rules, since in my experience most folks involved in such debates are more interested in the debate itself than in listening to reason or accepting resolutions.

It's like he is reading your minds. Spooky!


wraithstrike wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong.
If Jason or Sean said it most of us would agree that was the rule, even if we disagreed about the fairness of it. If Jason or Sean tried to make a Golarion specific based ruling they would catch the same amount of grief since James is the man for Golarion. That does not mean Jason does not know about Golarion, but he is not the authoritative source.

And yet, the monk improved unarmed strike debate rages on, despite both Sean and Jason clearly stating their positions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yea, like people refusing to listen to the lead designer of the pathfinder roleplaying game. Or accepting as official the word of the guy who said he wasn't the guy to ask rule questions for an official answer.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

The absolutely hilarious thing is that James said:

James Jacobs wrote:
1) I'm generally never interested in getting into a "heated debate" about rules, since in my experience most folks involved in such debates are more interested in the debate itself than in listening to reason or accepting resolutions.
It's like he is reading your minds. Spooky!

That is because this has happened before. I could have told you that had I commented on his thread.

Why should we take his ruling if he does not work on the rules? Yeah he works at Paizo, and does great things, but so do other developers.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
LOL, you guys crack me up. You will argue no matter which source specifically says you are wrong.
If Jason or Sean said it most of us would agree that was the rule, even if we disagreed about the fairness of it. If Jason or Sean tried to make a Golarion specific based ruling they would catch the same amount of grief since James is the man for Golarion. That does not mean Jason does not know about Golarion, but he is not the authoritative source.
And yet, the monk improved unarmed strike debate rages on, despite both Sean and Jason clearly stating their positions.

That is a different issue. The complaint with the monk issue is that people don't like it. There are not many people saying it is not the rule, which is what is done when James comments are used in a rules debate.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear a response to my unarmed strike charge conundrum.

Sorry, I'm multi-tasking between making sure my kids don't destroy the house, playing Skyrim, eating a hot dog, and monitoring this thread.

The interesting thing about your example is that the rules discuss unarmed attacks and you provoke when you make one.

I can't actually find any rules that state you provoke whenever you make a ranged attack. The only thing we have is the action chart that says that an Attack (Range) - a standard action -provokes an AoO.

So, we know that making a ranged attack provokes, but are we to infer from this chart that every ranged attack made provokes? Certainly this is how, dare I say, everyone plays it, but just because a majority play it that way doesn't mean that is the way it is actually supposed to be played.

Grapple, trip, sunder, whatever. These all are specifically stated to provoke each time they are done. Where is this language for ranged attacks?

Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue.


Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does? How about this, you get Jason or Sean to make a contradictory ruling, and I will cede the debate, but until then, the evidence is squarely against you.

By the way, this is at least the 5th thread on this subject, each thread having had the FAQ button hammered out of existence. If you really think Jason or Sean had something contradictory to say, don't you think they would have said it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does?

I'll let James Jacobs answer that question.


HangarFlying wrote:
Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue.

Best I've got for a straight rules quote is from Point-Blank shot. "Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."

Since the benefit is that you don't provoke, normal shows that you do. Note how it doesn't specify an action. Just "use". I think we can agree each time you shoot an arrow, you are using the bow. Therefore, each shot provokes as each one is a separate use.


Cheapy wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does?
I'll let James Jacobs answer that question.

I see, you do think you know the rules better than James does. I disagree.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does?
I'll let James Jacobs answer that question.
I see, you do think you know the rules better than James does. I disagree.

I'm fairly confidant that I know the rules better than James Jacobs.

I'm also fairly certain I don't know the rules NEARLY as well as SKR or Jason or some of the other chief designers.

James Jacobs' job is not to know the rules, and he has maintained that his rules responses are not official, so why the f*~@ would I assume they are AGAINST HIS OWN WORDS?


Tarantula wrote:
RAW they get 2 attacks, since as you said, there is 2 provocations.

No, they would only get one.

There could be half a dozen 'provocations' from the crawl.. but it's just one opportunity. You could have one character elect to take the AOO for that opportunity from the first provocation and another from the fifth.. but none could make more than one as it's just one opportunity.

The examples that have been picked to illustrate your position have firmly solidified my position. I do thank you for that.

-James


Quote:

Why should I take your ruling over James Jacobs? Do you really think you know the rules better than he does? How about this, you get Jason or Sean to make a contradictory ruling, and I will cede the debate, but until then, the evidence is squarely against you.

By the way, this is at least the 5th thread on this subject, each thread having had the FAQ button hammered out of existence. If you really think Jason or Sean had something contradictory to say, don't you think they would have said it?

I never said you should take my ruling over his, and he might know the rules better than me, but that does not mean he will always be right when we disagree.

I know the rules better than most people, but I also falter at times also. The point is that who knows the rules better does not mean that person is correct for a particular case.

The evidence is not against me. If it was I would think I was wrong.

I also don't think they would have said something by now. Sometimes they chime in quickly, and other times they have waited months to issue an errata or FAQ.

I have been in long debates, such as the mirror image vs cleave thread where the rules guys have used my logic when explaining an answer so I would think I am no slouch.

Also recently posted when I did get a rule wrong-->

Quote:

My bold. ¨

If you had read the OP:s question instead just the name of the thread you would have noticed it was central to the op's question.

Cleric's alignment vs. Deity's alignment.
And you would also have noticed that there was/is some confusion regarding this feat (and some other stuff, like the stuff regarding the cleric's aura, alignment subtype vs. Celestial/fiendish template )

Heck, even wraithstrike got it a bit wrong and that isn't usual....as far as I Know.

Not to mention-->click me

Both of these were made within the last 48 hours. It is safe to say I am no slouch.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue.

Best I've got for a straight rules quote is from Point-Blank shot. "Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."

Since the benefit is that you don't provoke, normal shows that you do. Note how it doesn't specify an action. Just "use". I think we can agree each time you shoot an arrow, you are using the bow. Therefore, each shot provokes as each one is a separate use.

I don't see that language for the feat in the PRD. Do you mean a different feat?


The Defensive Bow Stance skirmisher trick also specifies

Quote:
Defensive Bow Stance (Ex): The Ranger can use this trick as a swift action. Until the start of his next turn, his ranged attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

That'd be a really weird way to phrase it if only the first attack would provoke anyways.

I thought about posting that earlier, but...the intention of an attack of opportunity is that you let your guard down momentarily to focus on something else other than the guy next to you. It makes no sense that the next few attacks would not provoke.


HangarFlying wrote:
Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue.

No, no, you make a fair point. RAW I can't see where it says that every single ranged attack provokes, at least not in the section of the rules dedicated to explaining how AoOs work.

I think Tarantula is referring to Point-Blank Master, from the APG. I'm unsure whether the language there should trump the ambiguous verbiage in the Combat section though. It's worth a FAQ we should be able to agree!

But either way I think it's safe to say you can totally provoke from multiple acts within an action. There are just too many examples of rules loopholes created or ambiguity if this were not so.

Again though, please address my charge/unarmed conundrum. An unarmed attack provokes, as you say, but if a SINGLE ACTION can only provoke once, which act as part of that full-round charge action is what provokes? The movement, or the charge?

I contend that both do. If only one or the other does, how do we adjudicate which one? Who decides? The GM or the player? Do different monsters get to say which one provokes? Is a vote held? What if the monsters agree that the movement should provoke, but then the second monster trips the charger preventing him from moving through the first monster's space, robbing him from his clobbering? Like seriously WTF.

It just makes no sense this way.


May as well repost Jason Bulmahn's response here again.


Tarantula did in fact mean Point-blank Master.

I also noticed it was weird that the only place that lists what provokes AoOs is the table. I guess that makes sense, but it goes against the "ignore the table!" mantra.


james maissen wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
RAW they get 2 attacks, since as you said, there is 2 provocations.

No, they would only get one.

There could be half a dozen 'provocations' from the crawl.. but it's just one opportunity. You could have one character elect to take the AOO for that opportunity from the first provocation and another from the fifth.. but none could make more than one as it's just one opportunity.

The examples that have been picked to illustrate your position have firmly solidified my position. I do thank you for that.

-James

Mind quoting something for me? I've got:

"Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus."

Emphasis mine. Explicitly stated if an opponent provokes two attacks, you get to make two attacks. Please quote me something that says otherwise. Do note: You already said they provoked two.

james maissen wrote:
You are leaving a square multiple times. Each of these provokes. It's only one opportunity, but each provokes.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

Again though, please address my charge/unarmed conundrum. An unarmed attack provokes, as you say, but if a SINGLE ACTION can only provoke once, which act as part of that full-round charge action is what provokes? The movement, or the charge?

I contend that both do. If only one or the other does, how do we adjudicate which one? Who decides? The GM or the player? Do different monsters get to say which one provokes? Is a vote held? What if the monsters agree that the movement should provoke, but then the second monster trips the charger preventing him from moving through the first monster's space, robbing him from his clobbering? Like seriously WTF.

It just makes no sense this way.

I don't see how you can be getting this. It seems clear that multiple parts of an action can provoke. It doesn't have to be either or. James is just saying that each opponent only gets one opportunity attack per action. So moving past one monster provokes. It takes its action. If it happens to stop the movement (via trip) then the action ends and we're done. If it just wails on him and lets him by he can still provoke against a different monster by movement or attacking unarmed. He just can't provoke against the first opponent a second time with the same action.

At least, that's how it would seem to me. And how I'd rule it at my table. Not that this sort of debate ever came up during my 4+ years of a GMing for my levels 1-20 campaign.


So when can you use your combat reflexes aoo's?

Movement:
Once during A movement? Or is it One aoo per threatened square they move through, up to you max dex? Would failing an acrobatics check allow you one aoo, or one per square?

Casting:
Once per non defensivly cast spell? Once if it's a ranged touch spell, but they cast defensively? Once if they make an unarmed touch attack, cast defensively?

Ranged attacks:
Once per ranged attack roll/action? Once per ranged attack declaration?

Standard/move actions:
Once per potion? Once per scroll/wand activation? picking up your weapon? Multiple grabs attempts vs a brutal pugilist?

So, what good is ombat reflexes if your DM's not going to provoke them? I play dumb monsters dumb, smart monsters smart, and even then it's nice to throw players an AOO to help them kill the baddies... and set up some tpk flanking haha.


I can't believe I never thought to quote that. Tarantula wins the thread, and the other thread.

<I will just pretend I PM'd him and told him to say that. >

Yes I deserve all the credit. Tarantula is a quote stealer. :)


Let's see here, the Archer fighter archetype:

Quote:
Safe Shot (Ex): At 9th level, an archer does not provoke attacks of opportunity when making ranged attacks with a bow. This ability replaces weapon training 2.

I don't recommend e-mailing Jason Bulmahn questions. But this guy did! JB didn't correct the ranged touch spell part, and confirmed that casting a spell quickened, which normally stops the AoO from casting, doesn't stop the AoO from the ranged touch.

Granted, he could be making it up, but later on he does say that he disagreed with JB's ruling, and house ruled it otherwise. Which would make it REALLY strange if he made it all up.


wraithstrike wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Ok, well I got my answer. I am happy with James' take on it. Carry on inflating combat reflexes into the greatest feat that ever was by a factor of 10.
You've gone completely off the deep end.
When James agrees with her he is correct. When he says there are posters that know the rules better than he does James gets ignored, yet she wants to complain when people ignore James. Strange I tell you.

Yes, the Editor-in-Chief of the CRB is humble enough to say that others know the rules better than he does. That is called a positive personality trait. It does not invalidate his expertise, as the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating. Do you know what an Editor-in-Chief does? He has final say on all content in the book he is editing. This includes rules about AoO. If he wishes for AoO's to be limited to one per action, then whether it is RAW now, it will be RAW if he ever thinks the rules are unclear enough to warrant a clarification.

Seriously, this is like saying "I don't believe Obama really believes we should raise taxes on the rich. I'd like to hear from Biden, as he is more authoritative on administration policy."


Cheapy wrote:

Let's see here, the Archer fighter archetype:

Quote:
Safe Shot (Ex): At 9th level, an archer does not provoke attacks of opportunity when making ranged attacks with a bow. This ability replaces weapon training 2.
I don't recommend e-mailing Jason Bulmahn questions. But this guy did! JB didn't correct the ranged touch spell part, and confirmed that casting a spell quickened, which normally stops the AoO from casting, doesn't stop the AoO from the ranged touch.

Fixed link

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Now before everyone NERDRAGEPOUNCEs me, I'm not asking to be combative or disruptive. Either the rule is there and I'm overlooking it, or we all have been playing under an assumption that may or may not be true. Again, I'm on the fence regarding this issue.

No, no, you make a fair point. RAW I can't see where it says that every single ranged attack provokes, at least not in the section of the rules dedicated to explaining how AoOs work.

I think Tarantula is referring to Point-Blank Master, from the APG. I'm unsure whether the language there should trump the ambiguous verbiage in the Combat section though. It's worth a FAQ we should be able to agree!

But either way I think it's safe to say you can totally provoke from multiple acts within an action. There are just too many examples of rules loopholes created or ambiguity if this were not so.

Again though, please address my charge/unarmed conundrum. An unarmed attack provokes, as you say, but if a SINGLE ACTION can only provoke once, which act as part of that full-round charge action is what provokes? The movement, or the charge?

I contend that both do. If only one or the other does, how do we adjudicate which one? Who decides? The GM or the player? Do different monsters get to say which one provokes? Is a vote held? What if the monsters agree that the movement should provoke, but then the second monster trips the charger preventing him from moving through the first monster's space, robbing him from his clobbering? Like seriously WTF.

It just makes no sense this way.

The actual charge, itself, doesn't provoke an AoO. It is the movement through a threatened area that provokes one and the unarmed attack that provokes a second. There are two distinct provocations, and each is explicitly allowed within the rules. This cannot be said of casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack. While some might argue the ambiguous language and interpret it to mean that two attacks are provoked, I feel the ambiguous language only indicates that an AoO is allowed, even if the spell is cast defensively, not indicating that there are two distinct provocations.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Ok, well I got my answer. I am happy with James' take on it. Carry on inflating combat reflexes into the greatest feat that ever was by a factor of 10.
You've gone completely off the deep end.
When James agrees with her he is correct. When he says there are posters that know the rules better than he does James gets ignored, yet she wants to complain when people ignore James. Strange I tell you.

Yes, the Editor-in-Chief of the CRB is humble enough to say that others know the rules better than he does. That is called a positive personality trait. It does not invalidate his expertise, as the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating. Do you know what an Editor-in-Chief does? He has final say on all content in the book he is editing. This includes rules about AoO. If he wishes for AoO's to be limited to one per action, then whether it is RAW now, it will be RAW if he ever thinks the rules are unclear enough to warrant a clarification.

Seriously, this is like saying "I don't believe Obama really believes we should raise taxes on the rich. I'd like to hear from Biden, as he is more authoritative on administration policy."

It is called a lie if it is not true. Since I don't consider James a liar I have to take him at face value. Editor in chief does not mean he gets to decide rules. He has said more than once that he does not make the rules. He leaves that to Jason. Do I need to provide quotes?

I am not saying he could not have overruled Jason. I am saying he leaves the final decisions to Jason if he is in charge. As an example when I was in the military I worked on computers. My commanding officer could have come in at any time, and made me do things differently than how I did them, but since he knew less than I did he left me alone.

It is no different than if you are the I.T. person for a company.

Once again James does not decide the rules, and is not the best at interpretation. He has said it and demonstrated it on multiple occasions. That does not mean he is not good with the rules, but Jason is the final authority.

Tarantula just made a quote that should clear it up anyway. :)


thoynan wrote:
So when can you use your combat reflexes aoo's?

I'll take these one at a time:

thoynan wrote:

Movement:

Once during A movement? Or is it One aoo per threatened square they move through, up to you max dex? Would failing an acrobatics check allow you one aoo, or one per square?

Once during a movement per creature. This is explicit in the AoO section: "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."

thoynan wrote:

Casting:

Once per non defensivly cast spell? Once if it's a ranged touch spell, but they cast defensively? Once if they make an unarmed touch attack, cast defensively?

Yes, one per non-defensively cast spell. Yes one if it is a ranged touch spell cast defensively. No, no AoO if it is an unarmed touch attack that was cast defensively. Unarmed touches attacks for a spell are considered armed and do not provoke.

thoynan wrote:

Ranged attacks:

Once per ranged attack roll/action? Once per ranged attack declaration?

Yes, one per ranged attack roll.

thoynan wrote:

Standard/move actions:

Once per potion? Once per scroll/wand activation? picking up your weapon? Multiple grabs attempts vs a brutal pugilist?

Once per potion (but you might provoke a 2nd for retrieving from a backpack).

Once per scroll. Wands do not provoke.
Picking up an item (or weapon if it is on the ground) Yes, one. Drawing a weapon from a sheathe, no.
Yes one per grab attempt vs brutal pugilist who is at least 2nd level.

thoynan wrote:
So, what good is ombat reflexes if your DM's not going to provoke them? I play dumb monsters dumb, smart monsters smart, and even then it's nice to throw players an AOO to help them kill the baddies... and set up some tpk flanking haha.

What good is it? You can still make AoO's when flat-footed. You and your friends can setup combos where the rogue gets in a flanking position, and the fighter proceeds to trip and otherwise make the enemy provoke AoOs. To balance ranged or spells vs melee combat. To make movement matter. Lots of reasons for AoOs to exist and combat reflexes lets you make better use of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:

I don't see how you can be getting this. It seems clear that multiple parts of an action can provoke. It doesn't have to be either or. James is just saying that each opponent only gets one opportunity attack per action. So moving past one monster provokes. It takes its action. If it happens to stop the movement (via trip) then the action ends and we're done. If it just wails on him and lets him by he can still provoke against a different monster by movement or attacking unarmed. He just can't provoke against the first opponent a second time with the same action.

At least, that's how it would seem to me. And how I'd rule it at my table. Not that this sort of debate ever came up during my 4+ years of a GMing for my levels 1-20 campaign.

I'm playing devil's advocate. People have said that an action can only provoke once. I don't believe this is so and my question was to show how absurd that would become.

If I charge a large creature who has Combat Reflexes, then attack at the end of my charge with an unarmed strike (when I don't have IUS) I provoke twice. Once for the movement, movement out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Second for the unarmed strike. If the creature has Combat Reflexes he can take two (2) attacks of opportunity, once for movement which provoked, once for the attack which provoked.

Right?

IF you can only provoke once per action (a silly notion) then he would only provoke once for his charge. But...what would provoke it? It would matter because if the player decides that his unarmed strike will provoke, then the movement will not.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at? It must be the case that a single action can provoke multiple times, provided the acts contained WITHIN that action (moving, tripping, unarmed striking, bull rushing, etc.) each provoke separately.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:


Seriously, this is like saying "I don't believe Obama really believes we should raise taxes on the rich. I'd like to hear from Biden, as he is more authoritative on administration policy."

That is a terrible example. A better example would be Obama trying to tell his generals which strategy to use on a battlefield. Not a good idea.

edit:This of course assumes James can override Jason at all.


HangarFlying wrote:


The actual charge, itself, doesn't provoke an AoO. It is the movement through a threatened area that provokes one and the unarmed attack that provokes a second. There are two distinct provocations, and each is explicitly allowed within the rules. This cannot be said of casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack. While some might argue the ambiguous language and interpret it to mean that two attacks are provoked, I...

Except its the same thing!

Casting a spell provokes, and so does making a ranged touch attack. Two things which provoke, with the same action.

Moving through a threatened space provokes, so does making an unarmed strike without IUS, thus two provocations from the same action.

Please PLEASE explain why you think this is different. Why is spellcasting a special case when, clearly, BOTH casting a spell AND making a ranged touch attack are BOTH actions which provoke AoOs.

EDIT: I think I see where you're coming from.

However: the language EVEN IF does not preclude that they both provoke.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a personal attack and some related posts.


HangarFlying wrote:
The actual charge, itself, doesn't provoke an AoO. It is the movement through a threatened area that provokes one and the unarmed attack that provokes a second. There are two distinct provocations, and each is explicitly allowed within the rules. This cannot be said of casting a spell that requires a ranged touch attack. While some might argue the ambiguous language and interpret it to mean that two attacks are provoked, I feel the ambiguous language only indicates that an AoO is allowed, even if the spell is cast defensively, not indicating that there are two distinct provocations.

Lets try a different tact. From the magic section: "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. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming."

So RAW aiming a ray is done as if using a ranged weapon. Therefore, each ray that is aimed is equivalent to a use of a ranged weapon. I think we can agree that a use of a bow is to fire an arrow. Each arrow fired is an additional use. This means each ray aimed is equivalent to one arrow fired. Since we now know that multiple bow shots provoke (from the normal text of the point-blank master feat) we can conclude that each ray aimed also provokes.


Tarantula's quote is not clear. I have quoted the same thing myself, with different words bolded. You have mistaken your interpretation for RAW. There is nothing in that quote which says "If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action." You are acting like the rules say something as unambiguous as that, which they do not. James is right, his interpretation of the RAW is identical to mine, and he specifically said "Because allowing that many attacks of opportunity is not what the game is intending to happen.", being very specific about what is RAI.

As the boss, yes, he delegates the tasks of writing the rules. However, the intention of the rules is entirely his purview, as Editor-in-Chief, and he has made a specific point of saying exactly what is and is not intended. You can argue what is written, and if it mechanically works, and if it contradicts other rules, but when the boss tells you what he intends the rules to do, you can't really argue that it is not his intention. He told you it is.

To take your analogy, as a computer technician in the military, yes, you are responsible for the specifics of how your systems run, but your commanding officer is responsible for what your computers accomplish. That is the intention. Whether you have succeeded in accomplishing what your boss intended for you to accomplish does not change the fact that he intended for you to succeed.

101 to 150 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ranged Touch Attacks Provoking AoOs 2: Electric Boogaloo All Messageboards