Show me a quote with the word "action" that supports that statement.The text states that one action provides one opportunity, and that one opportunity allows for one attack.The text limits you to one AoO per opportunity, not one AoO per action.
From the footnotes to the chart of "Actions in Combat":
1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.
2 If you aid someone performing an action that would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, then the act of aiding another provokes an attack of opportunity as well.Those are two instances where attacks of opportunity are stated to be provoked by actions. In fact, 1) specifically states that despite some of the listed actions including movement (which would provoke in its own right) it is the action itself which provokes. It is calling out that even though there are two provocations, there is only one aoo.
Direct link between actions and opportunities.
That is not what I asked for. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the guy who has no authority keeps getting referenced as a valid source it just tells me the debate is already over.
You can't go asking the general of the Navy(James Jacobs) can you borrow an Army tank just because the General of the Army(Jason.B) is not available.
Healer:I want to use that Army tank, can you explain to me how it works?
James J:I have seen them in use. I will give my opinion of how they work.
Healer:Hey everyone James just told me how to operate a tank, so I am going to drive one.
Me:I have several transcripts with James saying he has is not an expert or leading authority on the operation of tanks. He even says it is better to ask other people who have studied tanks since that is not his area of expertise. He also says he can't authorize their use.
Healer:Well he is the only military guy I could find, so he must be correct.
Me:You don't understand. He does not have the authority to make that call. The tank is not his to lend out.
Healer:I don't care if he says that is someone else's call and out of his realm. I am going to pretend he has the authority to make the call, and drive that tank.
Me: SMH
|
It is the same kind of situation. You have completed the spell, it is only the delivery part that is now being resolved.I disagree with your conclusion. A touch spell is completed, then the touch resolves - it is a two step process. A Ranged touch is different because the touch is part of the spellcast, it even states this in the rules.
If I was taking your conclusion as valid I would have to side with the idea that casting + firing a touch attack provoke only once.
I see from where you get that conclusion, but I see this piece too:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.
Ranged touch spell in combat is separated but it is meant (I think) to work with this piece too.
My position in that is more ROI than RAW, but it is something that hopefully will be cleared together with the main question.
Unfortunately, "range of touch" does not mean "ranged touch attack."
"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn."
This is quite clear that the ranged touch attack is part of the casting of the spell. Quite unlike touch range spells, with a Ranged Touch spell, you can Not cast, then move, then deliver the ranged touch. Delivering the touch is part of casting, and the damage from the AoO provoked by that RTA should RAW cause a concentration check or lose the spell.
RAI? I don't think the RTA should be part of "casting" the spell. It should be made immediately upon completion. As it stands, RAW it is part of casting it however.
|
|
A pity that Come and Get Me doesn't really work well with the interpretation that one action = one provocation max. I mean, it doesn't say it allows you to bypass that "limitation", so even if the enemy makes a full attack, which "clearly" only provokes once, the barbarian just gets 1 AoO in return.
I have seen people saying that the AN part of that ability description mean that the barbarian get only 1 AoO against each opponent, so it would not be an unheard position. [shrug]
Come and Get Me (Ex): While raging, as a free action the barbarian may leave herself open to attack while preparing devastating counterattacks. Enemies gain a +4 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the barbarian until the beginning of her next turn, but every attack against the barbarian provokes an attack of opportunity from her, which is resolved prior to resolving each enemy attack. A barbarian must be at least 12th level to select this rage power.
|
|
I agree with meatrace: it is ambiguous, and there are merits to both sides. I'd like to see it clarified. FWIW, my reading is:
(For all these examples, assume the opponent has Combat Reflexes and enough Dex.)
A single Action allows an opponent to make multiple AOOs if multiple events within the action each independently provoke. Thus, making a full attack with a bow allows one AOO for each attack, making an unarmed charge vs. a reach opponent provokes twice, etc. I am pretty sure about this, but I admit ambiguity. Casting Scorching Ray defensively at low level (1 ray) allows one AOO. Explicitly stated, no ambiguity. If the AOO from above results in damage being taken, there is no need for a concentration check against the damage, because the spell has already been cast. I feel strongly about this, but admit ambiguity. Casting Scorching Ray NOT defensively at low level allows two AOO. I feel a little ambivalent about this. Even if this is not true, and it only allows one AOO, there is still a reason to cast defensively, because it prevents the necessity of a concentration check against damage, which is likely to be much higher than the cast defensively check. Casting Scorching Ray defensively at high level (three rays) still allows only one AOO, because the three rays are simultaneous. This I am not at all confident of, but it is what makes sense to me. What makes sense to me isn't necessarily the rules, but I don't think it makes sense for three simultaneous events to provide multiple openings for an attack against a single person. Furthermore, although targeting three people simultaneously may require more concentration than targeting one, it surely takes less effort than casting a spell with a full-round casting time, which only provokes once. If it turns out that there is a rule of "one AOO per action," then I would interpret it as, "Every circumstance within the action that provokes an attack of opportunity still provokes, but you may only choose to take one."...
Perfect sum up, Gordon. I agree with you, comments included. Thanks.
(I know, it will not stop the discussion, but it is a good piece)
If I was taking your conclusion as valid I would have to side with the idea that casting + firing a touch attack provoke only once.
I see from where you get that conclusion, but I see this piece too:
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks.
Diego, you're factoring in only the Melee component of touch attacks. Here is what it says about Ranged Touches:
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."Ranged Touch Attacks" are ruled different than "Melee Touch Attacks or "Spells with a Range of Touch" (touching up to 6 friends).
I bolded the first line in your quote... It only refers to "spells with a range of touch" or something you physically touch, you will notice that scorching ray has a range of "close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)" so it functions more like a ranged weapon than a melee touch. Because it is different the rules call it out differently.
How are they different? First, they provoke an AoO where a melee touch spell does not and second they are made as "part of the casting of the spell", it is impossible to argue that you can cast the spell then aim the effect because the rules state "Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn".
So you must consider the "ranged touch" component to be a part of the actual spell casting process.
If you have more comments I'd like to hear them, because I think many people are making this mistake when examining this debate.
For the record, I am firmly in the AoO per Ranged Touch Attempt, that is the counter balance to your being able to shoot multiple rays.
|
|
Unfortunately, "range of touch" does not mean "ranged touch attack."
"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn."
This is quite clear that the ranged touch attack is part of the casting of the spell. Quite unlike touch range spells, with a Ranged Touch spell, you can Not cast, then move, then deliver the ranged touch. Delivering the touch is part of casting, and the damage from the AoO provoked by that RTA should RAW cause a concentration check or lose the spell.RAI? I don't think the RTA should be part of "casting" the spell. It should be made immediately upon completion. As it stands, RAW it is part of casting it however.
Maybe it is a leftover from the 3.5 version but there is that piece about ranged touch attacks under "Touch Spells in Combat" and that link Ranged Touch spells to the main heading on touch spells.
As I already said, more ROI than RAW, but I prefer to treat the ranged touch attack as a free or no action granted by casting the spell.
Maybe it is a leftover from the 3.5 version but there is that piece about ranged touch attacks under "Touch Spells in Combat" and that link Ranged Touch spells to the main heading on touch spells.
As I already said, more ROI than RAW, but I prefer to treat the ranged touch attack as a free or no action granted by casting the spell.
But, the way you prefer to treat it is different than the mechancial description of the Ranged Touch Attack in the Pathfinder Core Rules. I think you may be holding over something from the 3.5 ruleset, but not all the rules are the same. This may be one of those cases - but I do not know the specifics of 3.5
Please refer to my post directly above this one if you want to see the rules text or go here.
|
|
Actually that piece is cited verbatim from the PRD. It is unfortunate but the ranged touch attack get that small reference under touch attack, not only under "Ranged Touch Spells in Combat".
In the next revision of the book it would be advisable to put all the text under a single header and remove that piece of text if it is obsolete, or move the whole "Touch Attacks: ..." before the section about Touch attacks in combat. Normally when a piece of the rules is a sub-heading of a larger piece you apply all the rules in the larger piece and then the specifics in the sub heading.
And so we get back to the original question.
It matters not if you assume "one Action = one opportunity max".
If you assume so, then the Ranged Touch Spells in Combat is a specific exception and over rules it, stating in no unclear terms that the ranged touch attacks as part of the spell provoke.
If you don't assume this, not only does the game actually work as intended, but then it doesn't even matter because there was never a problem in the first place. The rules that were added to PF say that you provoke from ranged touch attacks granted by spells.
Diego, the section of the rules you are referring to is an artifact of 3.5. The Ranged Touch Spells In Combat section was added in PF, and from that it should be obvious which one has precedence in any case of ambiguity.
The rules that were added to PF say that you provoke from ranged touch attacks granted by spells.
Yes, but you can provoke multiple times but not have multiple opportunities. That's the disconnect here.
Where does it say that you can provoke multiple times but you only give one opportunity?
Just as you could leave 16 squares in a given round. Each could provoke if those squares were threatened. But the entire sequence is but one opportunity.-James
That's because it explicitly says it's only one opportunity. If it did not explicitly say that movement through the threatened squares was only one opportunity, than each and every time you left the threatened square would be an opportunity.
And you should recall that the intent of AoOs is that if you are doing a distracting act, no matter what, you provoke and give your opponent an opportunity to whack you. That's what the entire AoO rule system is trying to implement. It doesn't matter if you've already provoked and given an opportunity. You do not suddenly become immune to being distracted if you've provoked and given an opportunity once. To say otherwise is to claim against the intent of AoOs.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity is the same as giving your opponent an opportunity to attack you.
But, as I said before, it matters not.
If somehow there is only One AoO per Action, then it is an explicit exception that the RTAs of a spell provoke.
I can't believe people are actually trying to argue against the very clear language that was added to the game that they provoke. It's like looking at the PF Power Attack and saying it's the same as the 3.5 Power Attack, despite the text being right there in front of you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The disconnect for me, james, is the idea that multiple provocations /= multiple opportunities. I think this is some weird mental gymnastics. The system is much cleaner and simpler if when you provoke an attack of opportunity...you provoke an attack of opportunity. The language about movement seems to indicate that it is a special situation rather than a general trend, otherwise why not just say "multiple acts that would provoke from a single action instead only provoke once"? Certainly that would be infinitely cleaner language.
James,
I don't see where you are getting 2 separate items, a provocation and an opportunity.
"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
"If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn"
"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)."
Suddenly, under combat reflexes, they switch from saying provoke to opportunity. Opportunity is never clarified, however provoking is. The logical thing is to infer that they meant to say provoke under combat reflexes. I would rewrite it like this: (I am putting my words into italics because this is not a rules quote, this is how I would change a few words to make them look more consistent.)
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 when an opponent provokes an attack of 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 distracting act). 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.
I removed more posts. Play nice.
I'm also locking this thread for the same reasons the last one was locked.