Spells and Ray Attacks

[DetectiveKatana]

Clarification Needed:

If a player casts a spell that has a ranged touch attack, say Ray of Frost while threatened by an opponent and successfully casts defensively, do they still take an Attack of Opportunity for the ranged attack?

Also, if they choose not to cast defensively for some reason and the opponent has Combat Reflexes, do they provoke two attacks? One for the spell and one for the ranged attack?

[james maissen]

DetectiveKatana wrote:

Clarification Needed:

If a player casts a spell that has a ranged touch attack, say Ray of Frost while threatened by an opponent and successfully casts defensively, do they still take an Attack of Opportunity for the ranged attack?

Also, if they choose not to cast defensively for some reason and the opponent has Combat Reflexes, do they provoke two attacks? One for the spell and one for the ranged attack?

To the first: yes they provoke, but AFTER they have cast the spell.

To the second: yes as casting the spell and THEN firing the ray are TWO opportunities.

-James

[Nefreet]

Yup. During PFS games players of spellcasters look at me like I'm crazy and out to kill them. One provoke from casting, and another for making a ranged attack.

Not sure if a spell with multiple rays, like Scorching Ray, would provoke additional times... I'm leaning towards "no", though, given all the other situations where firing multiple rays counts as just one spell.

[HangarFlying]

Your hunch is correct, sir.

[james maissen]

Nefreet wrote:

Not sure if a spell with multiple rays, like Scorching Ray, would provoke additional times... I'm leaning towards "no", though, given all the other situations where firing multiple rays counts as just one spell.

No, because they are simultaneously fired.. thus it can be at most one opportunity.

Now if they were fired sequentially, then they would provoke each time.. like iterative attacks with a bow do...

-James

[Troubleshooter]

In my opinion, they should be sequential. I disagree with getting a full complement of surprise attacks from a simple invisibility or stealth, while an archer is allowed one surprise attack from its attacks. That an archer also suffers an Attack of Opportunity for each attack only reinforces my position.

Alas, the spell is already written and the RAW is clear.

[fretgod99]

Troubleshooter wrote:

In my opinion, they should be sequential. I disagree with getting a full complement of surprise attacks from a simple invisibility or stealth, while an archer is allowed one surprise attack from its attacks. That an archer also suffers an Attack of Opportunity for each attack only reinforces my position.

Alas, the spell is already written and the RAW is clear.

I have good news for you!

EDIT: Perhaps it's not entirely relevant, but I keyed in on the surprise attacks bit. *shrug*

[DetectiveKatana]

Thank you all for the clarifications and assistance!