|
In 3rd ed, 'attack action' meant the kind of weapon-like attack that could be done several times in a full attack. So Grapple is out because it took a special standard action but Disarm is okay because you could replace any or all of your attacks in a full attack to attempt a Disarm.
Now PF has changed the definition of 'attack action' via the back door to support the wording of the Vital Strike feat (that's a rant for another day), but that principle helps us here.
Normally, an AoO can only be taken with a melee attack. But not with any old attack that happens to be an attack in melee, but the kind of attack that 3.5 defined as an 'attack action'. PF might have changed what that phrase means (to its detriment), but even in PF an AoO can only be taken with the kind of melee attack that could be used more than once in a full attack. (If only there was some neat phrase that we could use...!)
Anyway, Snap Shot changes the requirements for an AoO; it can be a ranged weapon attack rather than a melee weapon attack. But is hasn't changed the part about it needing to be the kind of attack that could be done more than once in a full attack.
So the action type (free, swift, standard, full round) isn't technically the issue, because AoOs don't take ANY action to execute (not even free or immediate). The issue is whether or not you have the ability to use that method of attack multiple times in a full attack.
If a creature had an at-will supernatural ability to shoot a ray as a standard action (or even a swift action), then that would not be good enough to use it to take an AoO.
If a creature had an at-will supernatural ability to shoot as many rays as its full attack would allow, then that creature could shoot one of those rays as an AoO if it had the Snap Shot feat.
So, to be eligible, the ray attack would have to be useable as part of a full attack. Most can't be used that way; most require the 'cast a spell' action, not the 'attack' action.
Rays have been stated to be a valid selection for Weapon Focus, and the Snap Shot line of feats lets you use a ranged weapon for an AoO. It seems to follow that selecting Weapon Focus (Ray) and then Snap Shot would allow you to cast a ray spell as an AoO within your minuscule threatened area.
Making one attack is a standard action, and casting one ray spell is usually a standard action. It seems to fit.
Any counterarguments? And would Combat Reflexes allow you to cast multiple spells for multiple AoOs?
Edit: The most important part of the question seems to be whether or not you're considered to be wielding your ray attacks.
Do you wield your rays only when you cast it, or whenever you might be capable of casting it? You could argue that they only exist when they're cast, or you could argue that you wield an ordinary weapon even when you're not swinging it.
An attack of opportunity is an immediate action that allows a single attack (or a subset of maneuvers), without any other action before the attack (other than possibly drawing ammunition). Unless the spell is already in existence (i.e., a held charge or other circumstance) at the time of the action that provokes the AoO, you can't make the AoO with the spell, as it would require at least a swift action to cast (just as you can't draw a melee weapon, even using a free action with Quick Draw, before making an AoO).
Now there are some very specific cases where you could pull this kind of trick off: chill touch modified with Reach Spell is one; thorn javelin (using Weapon Focus (Javelin), since "You can wield this thorn as a javelin...") is another. However, it's not something that's broadly applicable to all spells.
In 3rd ed, 'attack action' meant the kind of weapon-like attack that could be done several times in a full attack.
This is not true at all. The definition did not change. If you go to the PHB index and look up attack action it points you to page 139. If you go to page 139 it has the same text that Paizo has about an attack taking a standard action. This is also supported by the "rules of the game" FAQ quotes I used in our manyshot debate a while back.
Here is a reminder from the Rules of the Game article.
You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack. If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action.
An attack of opportunity is an immediate action that allows a single attack (or a subset of maneuvers),.....
AoO's are not immediate actions.
Disagreeing with my point is fine, but being insulting about it is not. I'm not debating this with you.Caliban_ if you need to take any kind of action to threaten you can't take an AoO, so you can't threaten with a weapon you aren't wielding.
You don't threaten with a sheathed dagger, even if you have quickdraw and
you can draw it with a free action. Same thing for a uncast spell.
If it hasn't been already cast you can't threaten with it, even if you can cast it as a free action.If you take weapon focus with Hurled produce flame you can threaten with it, but you should have already cast the spell, you can't cast the spell as part of the AoO.
For Snap shot to work with a bow the bow should be already in your hand, ready to be used.
For snap shot to work with a weapon like spell effect the spell should be already cast and the effect in your hand ready to be used.- * -
Your whole argument is an attempt to say that casting a spell as a free action is the same thing as drawing ammunitions for a missile weapon and that is simply a false equivalence.
You can only break rules that are specifically allowed to be broken, so that means no spell casting even as a free action outside of your turn. Quicken spells are not even a free action. They are a swift action, not that it would be matter because you can only talk as part of a free action outside of your turn without a rules exception.
What about Produce Flame? You are clearly wielding magic at that point. Not a ray, but just throwing that out there. Also, are there ray spells you can do over several rounds similar to the above spell? I recall a few touch spells that do this (Rusting Grasp), but I don't know any rays off hand.
A fair enough proposition. It's no different than having Chill Touch active to threaten, since it is an "armed" unarmed attack. However, it still falls under the Fighter Weapon Group fallacy; although it would be considered in the Thrown weapon group (since the spell calls it out as a thrown weapon), it's not actually defined as being in that group. One glaring problem I don't understand is how such a spell interacts with the whole "Holding the Charge" rules for Ranged Touch Attacks, since it can be expelled as both a Touch and Ranged Touch.
Fighter Weapon Training in that specific group would apply its benefits to the spell, but effects like Weapon Focus/Specialization would fall under the same propositions as Weapon Focus (Ray), in that unless the attack being made is with a Ray, it won't work. I don't even think an effect like Produce Flame would be viable for choice with Weapon Focus/Specialization feats. Maybe Weapon Focus (Touch), but whether that applies to Ranged Touch separately is a whole different issue.
Of course, if you were Human, took Weapon Focus [random Thrown weapon], and then took Martial Versatility/Mastery, the benefits of those feats would then apply to Produce Flame, since it technically falls under the Thrown Weapon Group (but again, it's not explicitly defined there, so it is at best a RAI interpretation).
How did Fighter Weapon Groups get mixed into this? Some actual weapons don't even have a Fighter Weapon Group, like the dorn-dergar.
|
|
In 3rd ed, 'attack action' meant the kind of weapon-like attack that could be done several times in a full attack.This is not true at all. The definition did not change. If you go to the PHB index and look up attack action it points you to page 139. If you go to page 139 it has the same text that Paizo has about an attack taking a standard action. This is also supported by the "rules of the game" FAQ quotes I used in our manyshot debate a while back.
Here is a reminder from the Rules of the Game article.
You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack. If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action.
Actually, Sage Advice (written by Skip Williams, one of the three who created 3rd ed) clarifies what 'attack action' means in answer to a question about using Disarm or Sunder as one attack in your full attack, or as an AoO. If you only make one 'attack action', then yes it uses your standard action, but if you use them in a full attack they they are not, by definition, 'standard actions'.
For the purposes of this thread, what we call that kind of attack doesn't change the fact that, in order to be used as an AoO, it must be that kind of an attack: one which can be used as part of a full attack consisting of more than one attack.
You may disagree about name changes, but not about the kind of attack it must be to be eligible to be used as an AoO.
AoO's are not immediate actions.
An attack of opportunity is an immediate action that allows a single attack (or a subset of maneuvers),.....
<looks up rules>
True enough, since it doesn't use up a swift action.
In 3rd ed, 'attack action' meant the kind of weapon-like attack that could be done several times in a full attack.This is not true at all. The definition did not change. If you go to the PHB index and look up attack action it points you to page 139. If you go to page 139 it has the same text that Paizo has about an attack taking a standard action. This is also supported by the "rules of the game" FAQ quotes I used in our manyshot debate a while back.
Here is a reminder from the Rules of the Game article.
You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack. If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action.Actually, Sage Advice (written by Skip Williams, one of the three who created 3rd ed) clarifies what 'attack action' means in answer to a question about using Disarm or Sunder as one attack in your full attack, or as an AoO. If you only make one 'attack action', then yes it uses your standard action, but if you use them in a full attack they they are not, by definition, 'standard actions'.
For the purposes of this thread, what we call that kind of attack doesn't change the fact that, in order to be used as an AoO, it must be that kind of an attack: one which can be used as part of a full attack consisting of more than one attack.
You may disagree about name changes, but not about the kind of attack it must be to be eligible to be used as an AoO.
Yeah I think we do agree that no AoO can allow you to cast spells, at least none that I know of anyway.
|
|
If there was a spell which said something like, 'during the duration of this spell you may attack (or full attack) with a ranged touch attack which deals 1d10 fire damage', then yes you could use the effect of this spell to execute an AoO via Snap Shot.
Can't think of any particular spell which does this...
Fiery Shuriken cannot work, as it is a swift action to fire one, and you can't use swift actions during an AoO.
Produce Flame could maybe possibly work, but I don't know if you can take Weapon Focus (Produce Flame).
If there was a spell which said something like, 'during the duration of this spell you may attack (or full attack) with a ranged touch attack which deals 1d10 fire damage', then yes you could use the effect of this spell to execute an AoO via Snap Shot.
Can't think of any particular spell which does this...
Produce Flame.
Touch attacks do make you armed, and you only provoke if you try to make a normal unarmed attack while holding the charge. If you only try to make a melee touch attack to deliver the spell then you do not provoke.
edit: @Uwotm8
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Ring of Vengeful Blood Magic helps elucidate that without specific allowances spells cannot be cast as an AoO.
Ring of Vengeful Blood Magic
This claw ring is made of red metal tinged with orange, and a long nail made of obsidian extends from the tip. It allows its wearer to cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. Three time per day, if the wearer is bloodraging and a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from him, the wearer can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action or less as the attack of opportunity. The spell must target the creature that provoked the attack or include it in the spell's area, and must be no higher than 3rd level. This counts as one of the wearer's attacks of opportunity for the round; casting this spell does not itself provoke an attack of opportunity.
As for a ray, you are not wielding it if you haven't already cast it. Which means you do not threaten with it as it does not exist. If you have cast it, it was on your turn and thus has already been fired and is not available again for use and you again cannot threaten with it.
|
Yeah I think we do agree that no AoO can allow you to cast spells, at least none that I know of anyway.[troll]Of course there is! Ready an action to cast shocking grasp when you take an AoO![/troll]
Seriously though, AoO's do not let you cast spells.
That's the normal rule, yes.
But feats and other abilities change the rules, and the question was if a the feat Snapshot allows a you to use a spell as an ranged attack AoO.
I think it does under certain circumstances, when using weapon-like spells. Specifically, Fiery Shuriken and Produce Flame, both of which can give you ranged attacks that last from round to round (the spell has already been cast so you are side-stepping the issue of casting as an AoO).
I also think if you can somehow cast a spell as a free action, Snap Shot would allow you to cast it as an AoO. It's a theoretical point though - I don't know of any way to actually cast a spell as a free action. Quicken spell doesn't qualify.
Four feats is a lot for a spell caster to spend on something that would only come up occasionally. Even if you think it works, I don't think it would be worth it for most spell casters.
Much ado about nothing.
I didn't say use spells, I said cast spells :P
There are a few spells that can be cast during an AoO (but not as an AoO). Those would be spells with cast time: Immediate Action (such asstone shield). But using an AoO does not let you -cast- a spell, though if there's a spell that gives you an attack, you may use that attack.
I think the Ring of Vengeful Blood Magic helps elucidate that without specific allowances spells cannot be cast as an AoO.
As for a ray, you are not wielding it if you haven't already cast it. Which means you do not threaten with it as it does not exist. If you have cast it, it was on your turn and thus has already been fired and is not available again for use and you again cannot threaten with it.Ring of Vengeful Blood Magic
This claw ring is made of red metal tinged with orange, and a long nail made of obsidian extends from the tip. It allows its wearer to cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. Three time per day, if the wearer is bloodraging and a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from him, the wearer can cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action or less as the attack of opportunity. The spell must target the creature that provoked the attack or include it in the spell's area, and must be no higher than 3rd level. This counts as one of the wearer's attacks of opportunity for the round; casting this spell does not itself provoke an attack of opportunity.
Nice find. I figured there was something like this around. :)
Produce Flame.If there was a spell which said something like, 'during the duration of this spell you may attack (or full attack) with a ranged touch attack which deals 1d10 fire damage', then yes you could use the effect of this spell to execute an AoO via Snap Shot.
Can't think of any particular spell which does this...
Even that might not work. Text of the spell says nothing about it actually being a weapon. Even if it did, it still would not be making an AoO with a SPELL per se, because you are just using a spell effect as a weapon rather than casting a spell.
To the best of my knowledge you can use a "held charge" of a touch spell like inflict serious wounds or chill touch or shocking grasp to make an AoO because that "charge" counts as being "armed." I am not entirely clear on this because nobody ever seems to use or remember these rules, and generally when a mage casts one of those spells he or she hits the touch AC in the first attack, discharging the spell.
Why can't you "wield magic", even if the spell is somehow a swift or free action because of quicken spell or whatever? Because that's the rule. "Specific trumps general" means that the specific rule lets you take weapon focus on ray, missile, or touch attack but it does NOT actually make those attacks "weapons." The general rule is that magic isn't a weapon, so without a specific rule saying you can use snap shot to AoO with a spell, you can't.
"Is it an unreasonable house rule?" Well probably not. At that point you soaked 4 feats and are either a fighter with some spells or a very special kind of caster who is pretty darn high level and within grabbin' range of big scary things.
It's not that big a deal at that point if you can burn an extra disintegrate in a single turn at that point. It would be like spell perfection.
I dont think they were saying that you are using the actual spell as a weapon, but if the spell has an affect that counts as weapon such as this spell or flame blade, that can be used as weapon for an AoO if it has a duration and is already in place.
Spells can be used as AoOs. I think the debate regards using them for Ranged AoOs.
No they can't. Not unless you mean that spells you've already cast and persist through rounds might potential be usable with an AoO. Flameblade is one that is obviously usable with an AoO.
However, it seems like what you meant is that you can cast spells as an AoO. And that is patently incorrect. The ring of vengeful blood magic I posted that makes it clear. Why would a bloodrager need a specific magic item to cast a spell as an AoO if, as you claim, it was just generally allowed. The answer is, it's not allowed.
|
So, here:
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. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
So, here we have it clarified that the touch is considered an armed attack.
If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Seems pretty clear that you can hold a melee touch attack, then use it as part of an unarmed melee attack. There is nothing saying it prevents AoOs with a melee touch attack. There is no mention about preventing melee attacks as AoOs, even if they also discharge a spell.
: 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 where it becomes tricky. In order to make an AoO with a ray a PC would need that feat in the OP which allows ranged AoOs. You'd also need Weapon focus in rays, which is a listed option for that feat. Last, you'd need a spell that differs from the above quote in that it permits holding the charge. This is because the above quote is very specific that the spell must allow holding to charge, as a ranged touch cannot be held without notes that specify otherwise.
Using held spells as part of an AoO is fine. But you would have already had to cast the spell and be holding the charge. As a held spell allows you to threaten around you, it is just fine to use to make an AoO.
But there is a significant difference between attack with an already held touch spell as an AoO and casting a touch spell and attacking with it as an AoO.
But there is a significant difference between attack with an already held touch spell as an AoO and casting a touch spell and attacking with it as an AoO.Little lost. I think too many "and" uses in your sentence. Could mean a few things.
But there is a significant difference between [attack with an already held touch spell as an AoO] and [casting a touch spell and attacking with it as an AoO].
More clear now?
Casting a spell is a standard action. An AoO is not a standard action. You cannot you an AoO to cast any spell, including a ray.That was my pov as well, but then the GM pointed out that making a single attack is also a standard action, so why should it be treated any differently?
Full attack action says "Hi". A full attack is a collection of single attacks - but each single attack is resolved separately, so they are still single attacks.
As a standard action you may make an attack, but not all attacks are standard actions.
Most spells are a standard action (see casting time of the spell). Some are not. But none are castable as an AoO - an AoO provokes an attack, it does not provoke a cast a spell.
Are you going to argue that someone can grapple on an AoO?
No, I see your point. So snap shot does not work with a revolver then?
You can't cast as an AoO, but I do think you can release a charge as part of it. Maybe.
Hmm, good point. Ima have to remember that the next time I get the opportunity.
It doesn't work because casting requires an action. It's the line on the spell description called "Casting Time". Without an explicit exception (which you have not provided) you are required to spend that action every time you cast that spell. AoO do not provide an action. They grant you a single melee attack. The only one of those actions you could take out of turn would be immediate actions.
But isn't a touch spell a melee attack?
A revolver requires you to pull the hammer as a free action. Snap shot does not specify it. That would mean, as wraith strike said, it does not work with snap shot
|
|
A revolver requires you to pull the hammer as a free action.
Revolver: A revolver is a pistol with a revolving cylinder containing six chambers. Each chamber can hold a metal cartridge, and when one cartridge is shot, the cylinder automatically rotates (no extra hand or action required), readying the next chamber for firing. A revolver uses metal cartridges as ammunition.
No mention of needing any action needed to pull the hammer.
You aren't always armed with magic...
Yeah, I had already gotten to that...
@GM it seems like the only solid deciding factor here is that you can not already be wielding the ray when the target provokes. The rest seems to be kind of open for interpretation.
A revolver requires you to pull the hammer as a free action.No mention of needing any action needed to pull the hammer.Revolver: A revolver is a pistol with a revolving cylinder containing six chambers. Each chamber can hold a metal cartridge, and when one cartridge is shot, the cylinder automatically rotates (no extra hand or action required), readying the next chamber for firing. A revolver uses metal cartridges as ammunition.
Ah, I see. So that's just something that existed in my head, but is not actually in the rules. It should be in the rules, because pulling the hammer on an old timey revolver is worth mention just as much as pulling an arrow, but even if that's how I wanted to look at it, that would just mean that it would also be inserted in the snap shot rules.
@Caliban Ah, ty. for some reason your reminder that a standard can be used to make an attack, but that does not necessarily mean an attack always requires a standard, was useful to my brain
Ah, I see. So that's just something that existed in my head, but is not actually in the rules. It should be in the rules, because pulling the hammer on an old timey revolver is worth mention just as much as pulling an arrow, but even if that's how I wanted to look at it, that would just mean that it would also be inserted in the snap shot rules.A revolver requires you to pull the hammer as a free action.No mention of needing any action needed to pull the hammer.Revolver: A revolver is a pistol with a revolving cylinder containing six chambers. Each chamber can hold a metal cartridge, and when one cartridge is shot, the cylinder automatically rotates (no extra hand or action required), readying the next chamber for firing. A revolver uses metal cartridges as ammunition.
The games rules already allow you to fire the item quickly depending on your BAB so if the hammer is used it is the equivalent of pulling the string back back on the bow. The only part of firing the weapon that is its own action for ranged weapons is loading the ammunition. Otherwise we would have to break bows down into pulling the string back, and pulling your arm back to get power behind throwing weapons would be its own actions, and all of that is just not necessary.