Ranged Touch Attacks Provoking AoOs 2: Electric Boogaloo


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

And fixed my own link, thanks for pointing it out wraithstrike.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:
But locking a thread and simply saying that, "either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts." ...does NOT make it true. And to be completely explicate, it is not true. The question has recieved no attention from the Devs at all.

It is true. The old thread was going in circles. At no point did I claim the issue was resolved. I was simply expressing that the thread was not serving a useful purpose.

If you really feel this needs attention from Paizo staff, then by all means click the FAQ link on this thread and the others. That will bring it to their attention much more effectively (and civilly) than another 10 pages of 'Is not!'/'Is too!' interleaved with assaults on the intelligence, competence, and ancestry of Paizo staffers and members of the community.


No he does not decide intent. Once again do I need to provide a quote?

With that out of the way -->"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Now I am not talking about greater trip and vicious stomp. We agree on that.

I am talking about things like charging* where you can provoke once from leaving a threatened square, and a second time for making an unarmed attacked. Since charge is one action that can provoke more than once why would an enemy not get two AoO's. The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

*Spellcasting and using a ranged touch attack also.


Ross Byers wrote:
Lune wrote:
But locking a thread and simply saying that, "either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts." ...does NOT make it true. And to be completely explicate, it is not true. The question has recieved no attention from the Devs at all.

It is true. The old thread was going in circles. At no point did I claim the issue was resolved. I was simply expressing that the thread was not serving a useful purpose.

If you really feel this needs attention from Paizo staff, then by all means click the FAQ link on this thread and the others. That will bring it to their attention much more effectively (and civilly) than another 10 pages of 'Is not!'/'Is too!' interleaved with assaults on the intelligence, competence, and ancestry of Paizo staffers and members of the community.

+10,000


wraithstrike wrote:

No he does not decide intent. Once again do I need to provide a quote?

With that out of the way -->"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Now I am not talking about greater trip and vicious stomp. We agree on that.

I am talking about things like charging* where you can provoke once from leaving a threatened square, and a second time for making an unarmed attacked. Since charge is one action that can provoke more than once why would an enemy not get two AoO's. The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

*Spellcasting and using a ranged touch attack also.

You can put that sentence in quotes, but that does not change the fact that the sentence is your own, and is not in the CRB, any FAQ or any errata. And, according to both my interpretation, and the interpretation of the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating, any action, including charging and attacking with an unarmed strike, full attacking with a bow, falling prone, casting a ranged-touch-attack spell, or any other standard or full-round action allows for one, and exactly one AoO. You act like it is a given that charging with an unarmed strike is universally accepted to provoke two aoo's, but there is nothing in the rules saying it does, and the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating has specifically told us it does not.


And nothing limits it to one provocation per Action. That's because you can provoke multiple times during an action.

Ranged full attacks will provoke every single time you make an attack roll.

Another example is a Magus using spell combat with unarmed strikes without IUS. That one Action is going to provoke twice, because they are A) casting a spell (which provokes) and B) attacking unarmed (which provokes).


Forgive me all, catching up on the threadbomb that is this discussion... I will be updating periodically or new posting depending on responses.

james maissen wrote:
No, it is only one opportunity. It may provoke twice, but does not give two opportunities.

James, how do you reconcile what you just said with:

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).

Here we have a clear incongruency of your logic with that of the RAW. You state that two provocations does not equal two opportunities and that is your firm stance. However, the RAW states that if you provoke twice (which you agree occurs in Tarantula's scenario) then by the RAW you "could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)."

It seems that you've painted yourself into a corner here. You don't think that 2 provocations = 2 opportunities, but the RAW regarding AoOs and Combat Reflexes is in clear disagreement with your stance.


Cheapy wrote:

And nothing limits it to one provocation per Action. That's because you can provoke multiple times during an action.

Ranged full attacks will provoke every single time you make an attack roll.

Another example is a Magus using spell combat with unarmed strikes without IUS. That one Action is going to provoke twice, because they are A) casting a spell (which provokes) and B) attacking unarmed (which provokes).

Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
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."

"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)."

This quote has 2 parts. First, "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity." This obviously prevents someone from making all of their AoO's for a single opportunity. We all agree you can't do that.

Second, "if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity." So this says, just because you can't make them all for ONE opportunity, if they do multiple things, you can still hit them more than once.
An example we can all agree on: Move action to retrieve a stored potion from a backpack. Provokes AoO #1. Standard action to drink said potion. Provokes AoO #2.

Notice, in this second part of the sentence, it does not mention any actions taken. If the opponent provokes. How do we know what provokes? We look at the table. Casting a spell? Yes. Making a ranged attack? Yes.

Looking at it another way. Using a spell-like ability also provokes. Air domain clerics can use lightning arc (sp) to make a ranged touch attack and do some damage. So, if they are in a threatened square, and use lightning arc. They, Used a spell like ability? Yep, thats AoO #1. Made a ranged attack? Yep, thats AoO #2.

Mabven, you are asking for the rules to explicitly state that "If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Why you want provocations to be tied to Actions taken, I don't know. The RAW does not address Actions taken, since being tripped is not a standard, move, full-round, or other action a creature takes. Yet, being tripped by someone with Greater Trip causes it to provoke AoO's. If AoO's were tied to actions, then only through deliberate choice could a creature provoke an AoO. Maybe that's the root of the issue. Would you be happier if only Actions a creature takes itself could provoke AoO's?


Stynkk wrote:

Forgive me all, catching up on the threadbomb that is this discussion... I will be updating periodically or new posting depending on responses.

james maissen wrote:
No, it is only one opportunity. It may provoke twice, but does not give two opportunities.

James, how do you reconcile what you just said with:

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).

Here we have a clear incongruency of your logic with that of the RAW. You state that two provocations does not equal two opportunities and that is your firm stance. However, the RAW states that if you provoke twice (which you agree occurs in Tarantula's scenario) then by the RAW you "could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)."

It seems that you've painted yourself into a corner here. You don't think that 2 provocations = 2 opportunities, but the RAW regarding AoOs and Combat Reflexes is in clear disagreement with your stance.

We have just been told, by the Editor-in-Chief of the Core Rulebook, that any one action can only provoke one AoO, no matter how many different types of provocations that action represents. You assume your interpretation that a provocation equals an opportunity, but we have been told specifically that an opportunity is an action which provokes. Clear as day. One action, one AoO.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

And nothing limits it to one provocation per Action. That's because you can provoke multiple times during an action.

Ranged full attacks will provoke every single time you make an attack roll.

Another example is a Magus using spell combat with unarmed strikes without IUS. That one Action is going to provoke twice, because they are A) casting a spell (which provokes) and B) attacking unarmed (which provokes).

Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.

Yes, every time you do something on that list that provokes an attack of opportunity...it provokes an attack of opportunity.

Nowhere does it say you provoke an attack of opportunity more than once in the life of your entire character. Therefore it must be true that, since I provoked against an ogre at level 1, I am IMMUNE TO EVER PROVOKING NOW AND FOREVER.

/eyeroll

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:

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.

While I might be willing to concede that casting a spell requiring a ranged touch attack might provoke two times, I definitely will not concede the argument that each individual ray from a scorching ray provokes. Each of these rays is not an individual use. They are one use that happens to be able to hit multiple targets. Scorching rays are not iterative uses like firing from a bow. They are one use and all are fired simultaneously. One use, one AoO.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:


Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.

To be technical, Ranged Full-Attack is not in the chart at all.

Full-attack is listed as No.
Attack (ranged) is listed as Yes.

Back to point-blank master, "Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."
Can you agree that Using a bow equates to firing a single arrow?


meatrace wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

And nothing limits it to one provocation per Action. That's because you can provoke multiple times during an action.

Ranged full attacks will provoke every single time you make an attack roll.

Another example is a Magus using spell combat with unarmed strikes without IUS. That one Action is going to provoke twice, because they are A) casting a spell (which provokes) and B) attacking unarmed (which provokes).

Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.

Yes, every time you do something on that list that provokes an attack of opportunity...it provokes an attack of opportunity.

Nowhere does it say you provoke an attack of opportunity more than once in the life of your entire character. Therefore it must be true that, since I provoked against an ogre at level 1, I am IMMUNE TO EVER PROVOKING NOW AND FOREVER.

/eyeroll

I have quoted the core rules - specifically the chart which shows that it is actions which provoke are opportunities. You say the chart does not trump the written rule. I have shown how the written rule specifically states that a ranged touch attack spell provokes AN opportunity. You debate that the word AN was not intended to mean one. I have quoted Monte Cook saying that any action may provoke only one aoo. You say that this is PFRPG, and not 3.5. I have quoted James Jacobs stating specifically that it is intended that you may only make one AoO per action. You say that he is not "the rules guy", even though he is the rules-guys' boss.

The truth is, you want combat reflexes to be way better than it is. There is nothing I can say which will change your mind. Every employee of Paizo could enter this thread, tell you that you may only make one AoO per action, and you will find a reason why every one of them is wrong. This is not a debate, this is you refusing to accept all evidence against your opinion, and me banging my head against a wall.

Liberty's Edge

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.

No, there is no "Ranged Full-Attack" listed on the charts. There is "Attack (Ranged)" which does provoke -it is also only a standard action. And there is "Full-Attack" which does not provoke. It is this discrepency that brought up my earlier post questioning if each iterative attack of a full-attack using ranged weapons actually do provoke individually, or if only one AoO is provoked.

(I'm not bringing this up to start another argument, just pointing out the lack of a "ranged full-attack action" on the charts).


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
We have just been told, by the Editor-in-Chief of the Core Rulebook, that any one action can only provoke one AoO, no matter how many different types of provocations that action represents. You assume your interpretation that a provocation equals an opportunity, but we have been told specifically that an opportunity is an action which provokes. Clear as day. One action, one AoO.

I respect James' opinion and I love the guy too. He's funny and has great ideas. I go to his thread with questions regarding the rules, although I realize that he's simply offering his opinion on the matter. He did not consult with the rules designers like Sean and Jason before replying. He has more experience than myself in running games, and I respect that experience and value it for my own games, but like he said - he's not really one for rules debating.

I think that his opinion holds weight in discussions however I believe he is approaching this from a simplicity's sake stance. He is stating that the game did not intend for multiple triggers to occur multiple AoOs. However, the rules very clearly state that multiple trigers do trigger multiple AoOs.

So, what I would like to see is a Paizo roundtable where James, Jason, Sean, and others could talk about certain rules things (like a Podcast?) and we could get to the intent of what was written.

Let's look at another example. It is clear that Jason had a much different intent for the Monks and Flurry of Blows than whow others working for/with Paizo thought (many of whom were preserving their 3.5 or otherwise skewed mindset). So, I will continue to debate because there can/have/will be differences between what people read but Paizo should strive to clarify this and other wordings.

If the intent is to go with 1 AoO per action, that's fine, but we have a contending piece of information with Jason talking about spells with ranged touches.

@hangar:
The chart is far from exhaustive... it doesn't even list Ranged Touch Attack!!!


HangarFlying wrote:
While I might be willing to concede that casting a spell requiring a ranged touch attack might provoke two times, I definitely will not concede the argument that each individual ray from a scorching ray provokes. Each of these rays is not an individual use. They are one use that happens to be able to hit multiple targets. Scorching rays are not iterative uses like firing from a bow. They are one use and all are fired simultaneously. One use, one AoO.

Almost there then. From scorching ray: "Effect one or more rays"

As I quoted before, "You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon." Since aiming each ray counts as using a ranged weapon, then firing it should provoke an AoO.

As the closest similarity, I submit the double crossbow. "Double Crossbow: This heavy weapon fires a pair of iron-tipped bolts with a single squeeze of the trigger. Due to its size and weight, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll if you're proficient with it, or –8 if you're not. If the attack hits, the target takes damage from both bolts. Critical hits, sneak attack damage, and other precision-based damage only apply to the first bolt. Reloading one bolt is a standard action; the Rapid Reload feat reduces this to a move action. Crossbow Mastery allows you to reload both bolts as a move action"

This truly fires both bolts at the same time. So much so that there is only a single ranged attack roll for both bolts. If scorching ray allowed you to target a single creature with all 3 rays, and make only a single ranged touch for all of them, then I would agree. One AoO. Because you make 3 separate rolls, you provoke 3 separate times.

Likewise, an archer using manyshot only provokes once for his first attack. It fires 2 arrows, but only has one roll, and is only one attack. Therefore, only one provocation.

My rule of thumb. Each d20 roll is a separate ranged weapon attack. Each time a d20 is rolled, that is a new provocation from the ranged weapon. (Excluding re-rolls.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mabven the OP healer wrote:


You can put that sentence in quotes, but that does not change the fact that the sentence is your own, and is not in the CRB, any FAQ or any errata. And, according to both my interpretation, and the interpretation of the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating, any action, including charging and attacking with an unarmed strike, full attacking with a bow, falling prone, casting a ranged-touch-attack spell, or any other standard or full-round action allows for one, and exactly one AoO. You act like it is a given that charging with an unarmed strike is universally accepted to provoke two aoo's, but there is nothing in the rules saying it does, and the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating has specifically told us it does not.

1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

2. James does not get to overrule the book, and since you keep quoting him as if he can trump the rules I guess I have to show that he is not in charge of the rules section.

to save space:

James is the lead developer. James is the lead designer. The designer of an RPG system controls the rules. The following are all quotes from James.

Quote:

No worries!

One of the main reasons I answered that way is because I'm actually not all that familiar at all with the archeypte under discussion on the thread you linked to. And I'm not really the type of gamer who worries too much about the rules—when, in a game I'm running, a rules question comes up, I generally just make snap decisions rather than agonizing over the minutae of the actual rules texts. And when I post things here, folks tend to assume I'm posting from the standpoint of a "near top rules expert," which I'm not. There's LOTS of folks better at the rules than me on these boards, and when I post to rules-heavy arguments, those posts tend to seem to do more damage than help as the combination of other players who know the rules better than me AND other players who THINK they know the rules better than they actually do get all worked up.

Quote:

Actually, I am a developer.

The terminoligy between pen and paper RPGs and videogames is not 100% accurate in their crossover.

For tabletop RPG publishing, a "developer" (or "dev") is a person who takes a text turnover from a freelancer or designer and then polishes it up—he/she makes sure the rules work in the context of the story, and that the story works in the context of the rules. The developer is a sort of bridge between design and editorial—since designers don't necessarily have strong editorial skills and editors don't necessarily have strong design skills, the developer's job is to help facilitate the transition of a designed document to an edited one.

The term you're looking for is "designer." The designers at Paizo (Jason's the lead designer) are the ones who make the rules, check freelancer design of rules, and otherwise handle the raw creation and maintenance of rules-related content.

Quote:

Jason is on the other side of the planet right now, at Gen Con Australia. He won't be back in the office here (and thus able to read the boards and answer) until next Tuesday or Wednesday.

I'm in the process of shipping our fourth and fifth printer files this week, at the tail end of a super frantic week of catchup, and thus my participation on the boards here has been more random than usual.

One of us will hopefully be able to address these rulings... and that person SHOULD be Jason, since he's the lead designer and knows the rules even better than me... but since things are crazy and weird at this end it's not gonna happen fast.

Quote:

First of all... have you played a Pathfinder monk in a campaign long enough to KNOW that they suck? Or is this a knee-jerk reaction to reading the stats? Monks are not meant to outdo or even MATCH the fighter or barbarian or paladin or ranger in combat. If they were, they'd have d10 HD and a full base attack bonus. They're meant to be more defensive than offensive.

Second of all... I'm not the lead designer of the game. Jason Bulmahn is. My interest and tendency to err on the side of the story or to not need exacting rules when I'm running a game don't make me the best choice to be Paizo's lead designer... Jason's does. When I post on these boards to talk about rules and design decisions, it's to help folks understand the game as best as I am able, to relay to you what Jason was thinking or what his design goals were when I know them or to interpret them when I don't, and so on.

In the case of the monk and this feat, I DID chat with Jason about it, and his reasons for not allowing it made a lot of sense for the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Feel free to house rule this ruling, of course.

I have more quotes. I just did not want to waste too much time.


Firstly, James Jacobs is not listed as the Editor-in-chief in the core rulebook's credits. He's not even listed as an editor. Here are all the editors:

Quote:

Editing and Development: Christopher Carey, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds,

Lisa Stevens, James L. Sutter, and Vic Wertz
Editorial Assistance: Jeffrey Alvarez and F. Wesley Schneider
Editorial Interns: David A. Eitelbach and Hank Woon

Secondly, "ranged full attack" is not listed on the table of actions as you claimed it is.

Thirdly, Jason Bulmahn, the lead designer of the pathfinder roleplaying game, has said that ranged attacks always provoke.

He even added a section to the game that was missing in 3.5 to make this clear.

Quote:

Hey there all,

This change was made for a few simple reasons. First, it was never perfectly clear whether or not this provoked in 3.5. I saw the rules citation, but it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged. Second, the homogeny of ranged attacks working in a similar way, spell or not, was just simply cleaner from a rules perspective. The value of the ranged touch attack is such, that it probably deserves this limitation in any case.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

He's referring to the change that was the inclusion of this section:

Quote:
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.

He says, in no uncertain terms, that ranged touch attacks from spells provoke attack of opportunities.

How you can ignore the lead designer of Pathfinder, I do not know.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:


Actually, the rules limit it. Ranged full-attack is specifically listed in the chart of actions which provoke an attack of opportunity. I know of no chart which lists actions which provoke more than one attack of opportunity. Once again, you are mistaking your interpretation for RAW.

To be technical, Ranged Full-Attack is not in the chart at all.

Full-attack is listed as No.
Attack (ranged) is listed as Yes.

Back to point-blank master, "Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."
Can you agree that Using a bow equates to firing a single arrow?

Or maybe you are just "using" the bow to make a full-attack and each iterative attack is not intended as a separate "use" as far as game term definitions are concerned?

(Playing devils advocate more than anything, here.)


Stynkk wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
We have just been told, by the Editor-in-Chief of the Core Rulebook, that any one action can only provoke one AoO, no matter how many different types of provocations that action represents. You assume your interpretation that a provocation equals an opportunity, but we have been told specifically that an opportunity is an action which provokes. Clear as day. One action, one AoO.

I respect James' opinion and I love the guy too. He's funny and has great ideas. I go to his thread with questions regarding the rules, although I realize that he's simply offering his opinion on the matter. He did not consult with the rules developers like Sean and Jason. He has more experience than myself in running games, but like he said - he's not really one for rules debating.

I think that his opinion holds weight however I believe he is approaching this from a simplicity's sake stance. He is stating that the game did not intend for multiple triggers to occur multiple AoOs. However, the rules very clearly state that multiple trigers do trigger multiple AoOs.

So, what I would like to see is a Paizo roundtable where James, Jason, Sean, and others could talk about certain rules things (like a Podcast?) and we could get to the intent of what was written.

It is clear that Jason had a much different intent for the Monks and Flurry of Blows than whow others working for/with Paizo thought (many of whom were preserving their 3.5 or otherwise skewed mindset). So, I will continue to debate because there can/have/will be differences between what people read but Paizo should strive to clarify this and other wordings.

If the intent is to go with 1 AoO per action, that's fine, but we have a contending piece of information with Jason talking about spells with ranged touches.

@hangar:
The chart is far from exhaustive...

Actully, there is no contending piece of information. The rule about ranged touch attack spells, and Jason's wording in his post (which actually made it into the rules, word-for-word), state nothing about the spell providing more than one Aoo, in fact, he says it provokes AN aoo, despite being cast defensively. But you interpret that to mean two, even though he does not say two at all. You are creating a contradiction where one does not exist. Jason thinks it is reasonable not to add a whole bunch of extra words to the rule, and assumes that people will not try to interpret it beyond what he has written. He assumes that "AN attack of opportunity" will not be contentious, and I have to assume he means one by AN. Jason backs me up on this. There is no contradiction here other than a contradiction with your opinion.


wraithstrike wrote:
1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

I believe you are referring to

CRB wrote:
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:

wraithstrike wrote:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.


HangarFlying wrote:

Or maybe you are just "using" the bow to make a full-attack and each iterative attack is not intended as a separate "use" as far as game term definitions are concerned?

(Playing devils advocate more than anything, here.)

Maybe drawing the bow is considered use, so people should get an AoO against a person who hadn't pulled their bow off their back yet. "Use" is up to the GM.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Actully, there is no contending piece of information. The rule about ranged touch attack spells, and Jason's wording in his post (which actually made it into the rules, word-for-word), state nothing about the spell providing more than one Aoo, in fact, he says it provokes AN aoo, despite being cast defensively. But you interpret that to mean two, even though he does not say two at all. You are creating a contradiction where one does not exist. Jason thinks it is reasonable not to add a whole bunch of extra words to the rule, and assumes that people will not try to interpret it beyond what he has written. He assumes that "AN attack of opportunity" will not be contentious, and I have to assume he means one by AN. Jason backs me up on this. There is no contradiction here other than a contradiction with your opinion.

Ok. Ranged touch attack spell. Cast defensively. Provokes 1 single AoO. Just like Jason said.

What does casting defensively do? It causes casting a spell to not provoke an AoO.

So if you cast a ranged touch attack spell, NOT defensively, then you get 1 AoO for the ranged touch, and 1 AoO for the casting. Total 2 AoO for the action. This does not go against what Jason said. Its a logical conclusion from it. Otherwise, as I've said before, there is no reason for anyone to ever cast a ranged touch spell defensively.


Cheapy wrote:

Firstly, James Jacobs is not listed as the Editor-in-chief in the core rulebook's credits. He's not even listed as an editor. Here are all the editors:

Quote:

Editing and Development: Christopher Carey, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds,

Lisa Stevens, James L. Sutter, and Vic Wertz
Editorial Assistance: Jeffrey Alvarez and F. Wesley Schneider
Editorial Interns: David A. Eitelbach and Hank Woon

Secondly, "ranged full attack" is not listed on the table of actions as you claimed it is.

Thirdly, Jason Bulmahn, the lead designer of the pathfinder roleplaying game, has said that ranged attacks always provoke.

He even added a section to the game that was missing in 3.5 to make this clear.

Quote:

Hey there all,

This change was made for a few simple reasons. First, it was never perfectly clear whether or not this provoked in 3.5. I saw the rules citation, but it is not entirely clear whether or not that applies to melee as well as ranged. Second, the homogeny of ranged attacks working in a similar way, spell or not, was just simply cleaner from a rules perspective. The value of the ranged touch attack is such, that it probably deserves this limitation in any case.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

He's referring to the change that was the inclusion of this section:

Quote:
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.
He says, in no uncertain terms, that...

Look further down in the credits, at the top of the third paragraph is:

Editor-in-Chief: James Jacobs

Second, you are right, ranged full-attack is not listed, but since you are limited to one aoo per action, it provokes exactly one.

Third, Jason absolutely said that ranged touch attacks always provoke, he does not, however, ever say that they provoke two aoo's. You are saying I am ignoring Jason, but I am paying attention to what he wrote, not what I assume he meant. You assume he means two, but he never wrote two.


Mabven,
If the rulebook text already limits AoO to one per action, then why did they have to include a separate section on movement stating that moving through multiple squares of a threatened creature only provoke once?
"Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." This sentence is redundant if you are already limited to provoking once per Action.

Liberty's Edge

Cheapy wrote:
Lots of stuff about JB & RTA

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not arguing that RTA don't provoke an AoO. I think that is perfectly clear. What I am arguing is, when made as part of the casting of a spell, I don't interpret the RTA to provoke separately from the spell, thus I feel only one AoO is warranted, not two.

From the quote you keep referring to, he is only saying that RTA do provoke. I don't read anything in his comment that indicates it should be treated as a separate AoO from the casting, nor do I read anything in his comment that indicates that it should be treated as only one AoO with the casting.


wraithstrike wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:


You can put that sentence in quotes, but that does not change the fact that the sentence is your own, and is not in the CRB, any FAQ or any errata. And, according to both my interpretation, and the interpretation of the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating, any action, including charging and attacking with an unarmed strike, full attacking with a bow, falling prone, casting a ranged-touch-attack spell, or any other standard or full-round action allows for one, and exactly one AoO. You act like it is a given that charging with an unarmed strike is universally accepted to provoke two aoo's, but there is nothing in the rules saying it does, and the Editor-in-Chief of the book we are debating has specifically told us it does not.

1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

2. James does not get to overrule the book, and since you keep quoting him as if he can trump the rules I guess I have to show that he is not in charge of the rules section.

** spoiler omitted **

...

This is the quote from the CRB, combat section:

CRB wrote:
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.

There is nothing in that paragraph resembling your quote. I have searched the entire combat section for your sentence, and it is not there.


The 5th printing does not list him as Editor-in-Chief. I can only assume that's the most up-to-date printing.


Ross Byers wrote:
If you really feel this needs attention from Paizo staff, then by all means click the FAQ link on this thread and the others. That will bring it to their attention much more effectively (and civilly) than another 10 pages of 'Is not!'/'Is too!' interleaved with assaults on the intelligence, competence, and ancestry of Paizo staffers and members of the community.

Ross! You're killing me...

As is Mabven's odd zeal about James being the Editor-in-Chief of "the pathfinders"... it's a communal effort I hope you know.

@mabven

Ranged Full Attack is not on the action table list... does that mean that you can't make one? No... just that the table doesn't have everything on it... The table doesn't mention touch attacks... or ranged touch attacks...

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

Or maybe you are just "using" the bow to make a full-attack and each iterative attack is not intended as a separate "use" as far as game term definitions are concerned?

(Playing devils advocate more than anything, here.)

Maybe drawing the bow is considered use, so people should get an AoO against a person who hadn't pulled their bow off their back yet. "Use" is up to the GM.

Drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO. ;-)


HangarFlying wrote:
Drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO. ;-)

Drawing a bow.. isn't the same as drawing a bow... oh I see what you did there..


The top of the 3rd listing says "Creative Director: James Jacobs".

If you see "editor in chief" could you tell us what is directly above or below it with regard to another title or name?


Cheapy wrote:
The 5th printing does not list him as Editor-in-Chief. I can only assume that's the most up-to-date printing.

That is the one I have also, and I am not seeing it.


wraithstrike wrote:

The top of the 3rd listing says "Creative Director: James Jacobs".

If you see "editor in chief" could you tell us what is directly above or below it with regard to another title or name?

Directly above is the list of "Interior Artists" and directly below is the list of "Editing and Development".

Liberty's Edge

Stynkk wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Drawing a weapon doesn't provoke an AoO. ;-)
Drawing a bow.. isn't the same as drawing a bow... oh I see what you did there..

No, actually I was referring to his comment about pulling thw bow off the back, or something like that, not in reference to "drawing" a bowstring to fire it.


Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

I believe you are referring to

CRB wrote:
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:

wraithstrike wrote:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."
I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.

I don't find that sentence anywhere in the combat section of the prd, in either form.


wraithstrike wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
The 5th printing does not list him as Editor-in-Chief. I can only assume that's the most up-to-date printing.
That is the one I have also, and I am not seeing it.

I am looking at the second printing. I really don't think the Editor-in-Chief position has changed from printing to printing. Look further down the page, you'll find him.


Copy and Paste:

Quote:

Interior Artists: Abrar Ajmal, Concept Art House, Vincent Dutrait, Jason Engle, Andrew Hou, Imaginary Friends,

Steve Prescott, Wayne Reynolds, Sarah Stone, Franz Vohwinkel, Tyler Walpole, Eva Widermann, Ben Wootten,
Svetlin Velinov, Kevin Yan, Kieran Yanner, and Serdar Yildiz

Creative Director: James Jacobs

Editing and Development: Christopher Carey, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds,

Now it may have said editor in chief a long time ago, but that still does not change the fact that he was never in charge of the rules, and at best might have been responsible for the organization of the book, which is not the same as being in charge of all the rules in the book.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The top of the 3rd listing says "Creative Director: James Jacobs".

If you see "editor in chief" could you tell us what is directly above or below it with regard to another title or name?

Directly above is the list of "Interior Artists" and directly below is the list of "Editing and Development".

So you're referring to the title "Creative Director"? I also have the 5th printing of the book (if anyone cares). Editors are called editors for a reason. They edit the words to see if they make sense... (amongst other organizational things) dealing with the content of said words is somewhat outside of their scope in general (not saying that James had no influence, I have no way of knowing that).

I'm going to jump on my own bandwagon here (tarantula appropriated it, then I got it back): if we accept that James' (both of em) assertions are correct about multiple AoOs then why even have the rules text on CR & AoOs regarding moving? Using your move should only provoke once correct?

Unless... Jason strikes again!


wraithstrike wrote:

Copy and Paste:

Quote:

Interior Artists: Abrar Ajmal, Concept Art House, Vincent Dutrait, Jason Engle, Andrew Hou, Imaginary Friends,

Steve Prescott, Wayne Reynolds, Sarah Stone, Franz Vohwinkel, Tyler Walpole, Eva Widermann, Ben Wootten,
Svetlin Velinov, Kevin Yan, Kieran Yanner, and Serdar Yildiz

Creative Director: James Jacobs

Editing and Development: Christopher Carey, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds,

Now it may have said editor in chief a long time ago, but that still does not change the fact that he was never in charge of the rules, and at best might have been responsible for the organization of the book, which is not the same as being in charge of all the rules in the book.

Ok, they changed the title from Editor-in-Chief to Creative Director. Still does not invalidate him as the source for RAI.

Also, you still have not answered my statement that your quote "If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action." does not exist in the PRD. I have searched the combat section for every instance of the word "provokes" and have not found this quote at all.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

I believe you are referring to

CRB wrote:
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:

wraithstrike wrote:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."
I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.
I don't find that sentence anywhere in the combat section of the prd, in either form.

I was copy and pasting from Tarantula's quote. I checked the PRD, and it was close so I am guilty of skim reading, but that does change the fact that there is not language saying one actions can not provoke more than one if it contains two provoking actions, except for the comment about moving. Anything else should be fair game.

combat chapter wrote:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity,....

The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.


Stynkk wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The top of the 3rd listing says "Creative Director: James Jacobs".

If you see "editor in chief" could you tell us what is directly above or below it with regard to another title or name?

Directly above is the list of "Interior Artists" and directly below is the list of "Editing and Development".

So you're referring to the title "Creative Director"? I also have the 5th printing of the book (if anyone cares). Editors are called editors for a reason. They edit the words to see if they make sense... (amongst other organizational things) dealing with the content of said words is somewhat outside of their scope in general (not saying that James had no influence, I have no way of knowing that).

I'm going to jump on my own bandwagon here (tarantula appropriated it, then I got it back): if we accept that James' (both of em) assertions are correct then why even have the rules text on CR & AoOs regarding moving? Using your move should only provoke once correct?

Unless... Jason strikes again!

You assume the sentence about moving provoking only once is an exception, when in reality it is an example of how all actions can only provoke once. If they listed 2 examples, say moving through multiple threatened squares, and charging with an unarmed attack, would you then say that those two are the only exceptions? What if they provided 10 examples, would you say that those 10 are exceptions?


wraithstrike wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

I believe you are referring to

CRB wrote:
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:

wraithstrike wrote:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."
I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.
I don't find that sentence anywhere in the combat section of the prd, in either form.

I was copy and pasting from Tarantula's quote. I checked the PRD, and it was close so I am guilty of skim reading, but that does change the fact that there is not language saying one actions can not provoke more than one if it contains two provoking actions, except for the comment about moving. Anything else should be fair game.

combat chapter wrote:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity,....
The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.

And an opportunity is an action which provokes. You assume that all conditions which allow an action to allow an aoo are opportunities, when in reality, an opportunity is an action which provokes. Limit one aoo per opportunity == one aoo per action.

So, you see that you have misquoted the rules, by taking someone else's quote, and not looking it up yourself. You stated this misquote as authoritative against the fact that you are limited to one aoo per action, despite the fact that the quote does not exist, and the fact that James Jacobs has told us. Yet I am the one making assumptions. Hmm...


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
You assume the sentence about moving provoking only once is an exception, when in reality it is an example of how all actions can only provoke once. If they listed 2 examples, say moving through multiple threatened squares, and charging with an unarmed attack, would you then say that those two are the only exceptions? What if they provided 10 examples, would you say that those 10 are exceptions?

The wording is nebulous in my defense and your offense, I doubt you can disagree. So unless the wording gets clarified I don't think you're gaining any ground.


Actually according to my quotes from upthread it does mean he does not decide RAI.

I will post it again.

Quote:

Actually, I am a developer.

The terminoligy between pen and paper RPGs and videogames is not 100% accurate in their crossover.

For tabletop RPG publishing, a "developer" (or "dev") is a person who takes a text turnover from a freelancer or designer and then polishes it up—he/she makes sure the rules work in the context of the story, and that the story works in the context of the rules. The developer is a sort of bridge between design and editorial—since designers don't necessarily have strong editorial skills and editors don't necessarily have strong design skills, the developer's job is to help facilitate the transition of a designed document to an edited one.

The term you're looking for is "designer." The designers at Paizo (Jason's the lead designer) are the ones who make the rules, check freelancer design of rules, and otherwise handle the raw creation and maintenance of rules-related content.

Link to post where I have several quotes with James saying he is not in charge of the rules.


So, Mabven, if I charge a large creature with intent to trip (or whatever) when do I provoke? At the beginning of my movement through a threatened hex?

If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.

?????


meatrace wrote:

If I charge said monster to trip, the monster then does NOT get an AoO when I try to trip him, correct? Since I already provoked with the movement, which was part of the charge action.

?????

That is what he's saying. But, not even james maissen is willing to go that far.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
1. That sentence is in the CRB. Specifically it is in the combat section.

I believe you are referring to

CRB wrote:
"If a single action provokes more than once, you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."

Which you quoted accurately. Later in the same post you said:

wraithstrike wrote:
The quote says "..you may take more than one attack of opportunity against that opponent for that one action."
I believe that was your attempt to paraphrase the quoted rule. However, you left it in quotes, which I think caused Mabven to think that you were claiming your paraphrase was in the CRB.
I don't find that sentence anywhere in the combat section of the prd, in either form.

I was copy and pasting from Tarantula's quote. I checked the PRD, and it was close so I am guilty of skim reading, but that does change the fact that there is not language saying one actions can not provoke more than one if it contains two provoking actions, except for the comment about moving. Anything else should be fair game.

combat chapter wrote:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity,....
The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.

And an opportunity is an action which provokes. You assume that all conditions which allow an action to allow an aoo are opportunities, when in reality, an opportunity is an action which provokes. Limit one aoo per opportunity == one aoo per action.

So, you see that you have misquoted the rules, by taking someone else's quote, and not looking it up yourself. You stated this misquote as authoritative against the fact that you are limited to one aoo per action, despite the fact that the quote does not exist, and the fact that James Jacobs has told us. Yet I am the one making assumptions. Hmm...

I guess you missed it, but I did say I looked it up. I did did not read it in detail, but that is not the same as not checking at all.

That also does not change the fact that you are ignoring Jame's statements that he is not the rules person, without evidence to the contrary.

151 to 200 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