|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CBDunkerson: So what your saying is that through the editions from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder that the trend has been to allow more AoO's/person?No. From v3 to v3.5 there was an increase. However, v3.5 and Pathfinder are both 'ambiguous' in some cases. Pathfinder is slightly more ambiguous than v3.5, but some people make the same 'you can get one AoO for every ranged attack' argument for both. In v3.5 some people argued that it wasn't clear whether ranged touch spells cast defensively provoked an AoO or not (personally I think it was fairly clear that they didn't) and thus the debate focused on that issue. When Pathfinder changed it so ranged touch spells cast defensively DO cause an AoO the 'ok then we can get TWO AoO' debate started immediately.
The fact remains. NOWHERE is there an unambiguous example of one action provoking multiple AoO from a single opponent. It is a 'rules interpretation' based on wording in a table which hasn't changed since v3... when those same words unquestionably did NOT mean you could get multiple AoO.
The suggestion has been made that 3.5 limited a character to taking two AoOs on the same target. The example given on pp. 137 of the PHB of moving then casting a spell, is just that: an example. Here is another example given in Rules of the Game: "For example, if you have Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity score of 15 you can make up the three attacks of opportunity each turn. You could make all three of them against the same foe, provided that the foe does three different things that provoke attacks of opportunity."
The statement has been made that NOWHERE is there an unambiguous example of one action provoking multiple AoOs from a single opponent. From Rules Compendium: "Each provoking act represents a different opportunity," (RC p. 19) and subnote 5 to the Actions in Combat table: "This special attack provokes attacks of opportunity as normal for the movement involved. The attacker also provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender upon entering the defender's space." (RC, p. 9) The footnote is a footnote to bull rush and overrun. This is an example of a single standard action provoking two AoOs from the defender. Why? Because the action consists of two separate acts (1: leaving the adjacent square, and 2: entering the target's square), each of which is a different opportunity. This is spelled out further: "You move into the defender's space, provoking an attack of opportunity from that defender. You also provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for your movement," and "You begin the overrun by moving into the defender's space, so you provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender. You also provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for your movement." (RC, pp. 23, 108)
All of the rules and articles quoted are for D&D 3.5, a separate and different game than PF, but one which is highly influential. The normal caveats apply regarding D&D not being PF, and the sources themselves may not carry much weight to all readers. They merely represent the understanding of the rules, as published, by the company that wrote the 3.5 SRD, D&D 3.5, and repeatedly answered questions about how the game rules work.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, my standard response these days to these hypertechnical rules debates is:
"How is this ruled in PFS play?"
Surely it's come up there.
I have ruled it provokes twice. Other GMs in my area agree it provokes twice as well.
I think this is clear, but I guess it doesn't hurt to make sure.
Unless Paizo has interesting ideas of how things work...
Removed posts and replies. Flag it and move on.
|
It might be best to leave it as a DM call (just spell out the difference between provocation and opportunity, perhaps give a few examples as guidance).
Unfortunately that doesn't really work - PFSOP needs a consistent set of rules. The difference between one and two AoO opportunities (let alone the crazy examples one can construct if multiple attacks are permitted) is more than enough to shift the balance of an encounter from a slight challenge to a walkover. People who have built their characters assuming one interpretation of the rules aren't going to quietly accept a DM who rules that their viewpoint is wrong. But if this is allowed to be a DM call that conflict is bound to arise.
It will be bad enough if we do eventually get a FAQ clarification; we've already seen posts from people saying that no matter what the ruling is, they're going to continue to adjudicate this the way they do today.
|
|
Unfortunately that doesn't really work - PFSOP needs a consistent set of rules.
I'm sorry, but this idea that all game rules will work the same at all PFS tables is a myth. The rules have grey areas. Those grey areas are subject to GM interpretation. It is incumbent on every GM, including those running PFS tables, to interpret them.
If a player builds a character around the expectation of a favorable ruling of a grey area, she WILL be disappointed from time to time. As it is incumbent on GMs to make rulings, it is incumbent on players who build such characters to know that a grey area can be ruled in different ways and to consider how this is going to affect the playability of a character. This is particularly true when the grey area in question is a rule about how something works at the table.
Expect Table Variation.
Multiple Attacks of Opportunity:
Some abilities allow you to make more than one attack of opportunity per round. Most such abilities, unless they say otherwise, don’t let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity. If the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, however, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity. Each provoking act represents a different opportunity. Multiple attacks of opportunity otherwise follow the rules for normal attacks of opportunity.
This is the logic I have been using with charge and the ranged touched spells in combat.
Each is only 1 action, but they consist of more than one act that would provoke.
|
I suppose my interpretation was different from the last few posters. I took the wording "...even if the caster casts defensively" to mean "there is no chance to avoid provoking an AoO when using a ranged touch attack spell."
But then that darned Quicken Spell wording comes up again.
Reading through the posts, I started with the view that goes like this:
Without defensive casting, casting a ranged touch spell qualifies for a triggered AoO twice, but remains a single AoO provocation.
But based on exact wording without regard for intent, I now say that the RAW seems to support the possibility of two AoO's from one enemy.
But that's not likely in my own games.
I don't know that it is strange to think that a caster would choose not to cast defensively when standing next to a melee opponent. Concentration checks are not the trivial things that they used to be (no longer a skill, DC of 15 + double spell level). There are many times when I choose not to use a concentration check with my current wizard character. He is 3rd level, and generally has the highest AC in the party when he has Mage Armor and Shield going. If he uses a concentration check, he has to roll d20 + 3 + 3 to beat a DC of 17 for a first level spell. That is just below 50% chance. But, if he chooses to provoke instead, his opponent needs to have a +11 to have the same 50% chance to disrupt my spell with damage, which is unlikely. This calculation sways even further in favor of not casting defensively if you have the mirror image spell.
Now, if the only decent damage spell I have prepared is scorching ray, you bet your ass I'm going to fire it point-blank range at the guy who cornered me, and I am going to take the best chance I can to hit that guy with 4d6 damage, even if that best chance carries the risk of taking melee damage. Better to kill the guy who cornered you, than to avoid the AoO, lose the spell, and face his full-attack the next round.
I did not notice that until I had a magus in my group a few months ago, but you do have a good point Mabven.
@LazarX
Oh come now, you are moving the goal posts. In your previous post, you presented a situation where the caster is backed in a corner, and can't 5' step, and now you are saying "I'll be smarter. I'm going to take that 5 foot step and then blast him." Then you say, dimension door away, yet you say how often as a 3rd level caster going to have mage armor and shield memorized. Well, how often is any caster going to be backed in a corner, and still have a dimension door memorized? Wouldn't you have used that DD before you ended up fully backed into a corner? Plus, casting DD is going to require an even tougher concentration check (15 + double spell level = 23. At 7th level, when you have DD, you will have d20 + 11, again less than 50% chance of success).
If I have 50% chance to fail by casting defensively, yet if I don't cast defensively I have 25% chance of getting hit, and even if I do get hit, I still get to roll a concentration and still have that 50% chance to succeed, I am going to take the 75% chance of success with a second roll at 50% chance if I failed the first roll. Wouldn't you?
I'm a poker player - I am always going to play the odds.
I'll be smarter. I'm going to take that 5 foot step and then blast him. Or better yet dimension door out and let someone else be his problem.The problem with your rosy scenario is that if you do provoke and you do get hit, you're pretty much going lose the spell anyway. 3rd level and you're blowing spell capacity on both mage armor and shield? That's a lot to blow on just defense and on only one combat. How much of those spells are you preparing at third level? And what's left at that point?
My third level wizards usually have a wand of mage armor and a first level pearl of power specifically so I can cast mage armor as much as I need it, and shield at least twice a day, which uses up one spell slot for a +8 to my AC, frequently making my wizard's AC the best in the party for that fight.
Mabven's odds calculations seem right on the money to me.
@LazarX
Once again, I say - come now. Mage Armor has a duration of 1 hour/level. Even at 3rd level, you cast it at the cave mouth, crypt door, castle drawbridge, or even when leaving town, and in most cases, it lasts you through your whole adventure day, even if you are taking 20 searching stuff between combats.
In my experience, the "adventuring days" which last longer than 3 hours (first combat to last) maybe represent 25% of all "adventuring days", until you start getting to mid-high levels. Maybe your experience is different, but generally, GM's in our group don't insist on putting parties through multiple combats after major resources have been used up.
It is an experience thing. As an example the players choose when to stop adventuring that day, but the world does not go into pause mode because they decide to rest in my group. I started doing that because I once had a "nova then rest" group.
I do not think you are accusing my group of being a "nova then rest" group but...
Yeah, we are not a "nova then rest" group, we use cantrips and spell-like abilities as much as possible, save buffs for harder battles, fight defensively to conserve use-per-day class abilities. We generally do 4-5 encounters per day, but we tend to not waste a lot of time in between combats. (no 3-martini lunches)
|
|
Unfortunately that doesn't really work - PFSOP needs a consistent set of rules.I'm sorry, but this idea that all game rules will work the same at all PFS tables is a myth. The rules have grey areas. Those grey areas are subject to GM interpretation. It is incumbent on every GM, including those running PFS tables, to interpret them.
If a player builds a character around the expectation of a favorable ruling of a grey area, she WILL be disappointed from time to time. As it is incumbent on GMs to make rulings, it is incumbent on players who build such characters to know that a grey area can be ruled in different ways and to consider how this is going to affect the playability of a character. This is particularly true when the grey area in question is a rule about how something works at the table.
Expect Table Variation.
It's a myth because of 2 reasons. 1, GMs don't know rules as well as they should, and 2, the rules are far too unclear when it does not need to be unclear. Point 1 is something everybody can improve on. Point 2 is baffling. Why wouldn't people want clear answers? Something like this can easily be clarified. Most things can be clarified, but isn't for whatever reason. I'll adjudicate for things that require it, not for things that shouldn't and can be cleared up easily. This should not require adjudication.
Something like "the weather is starting to get windy and rain clouds are approaching". If there is no follow up in the scenario/module, then I will adjudicate if asked if a caster wants to know what his concentration check would be. Something like how many opportunities does a spell with a ranged touch attack roll cast defensively should be clear, instead of being imprecise and guessed at. That's why Antagonize annoys me, because it's completely unclear and can be broken in either direction. Way too good when level 20 archmagi feels the need to charge a level 10 fighter with a staff, or archmagi saying "oh he has a sword, that's dangerous" and GM says that qualifies for the out cause in Antagonize.
I wasn't. I was just saying that it is an experience thing. Another example is that when I have GM'd with other people taking along time to adventure, which may be a combination of talking and fighting has taken a lot of time before.
Many GM's also add time if a place is really big. Clearing(confirming all enemies are dead) in a building takes a more time in real life than it does in a game.
If I have 50% chance to fail by casting defensively, yet if I don't cast defensively I have 25% chance of getting hit, and even if I do get hit, I still get to roll a concentration and still have that 50% chance to succeed, I am going to take the 75% chance of success with a second roll at 50% chance if I failed the first roll. Wouldn't you?
I'm a poker player - I am always going to play the odds.
I may note that while I agree with your calculations, your position on the AoO debate actually removes any meaningful choice or odds-calculation about casting defensively because it removes any benefit to casting defensively. There is no benefit casting defensively unless you are avoiding the risk of two AoOs by so doing. So why would anyone ever consider casting a ranged touch attack spell defensively under your interpretation, if you can only get hit by one AoO and you are guaranteed to provoke it anyway for the ranged attack?
There are only odds to play at all if not casting defensively carries some downside - and there is no downside to not casting defensively under your interpretation of ranged touch attack spells.
So why would anyone ever consider casting a ranged touch attack spell defensively under your interpretation, if you can only get hit by one AoO and you are guaranteed to provoke it anyway for the ranged attack?Why would you ever elect to withdraw from being adjacent to a creature with reach? Leaving the 2nd square will provoke and you've limited your options now after your first movement should you see something along the way.
If you look here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html) and scroll down, you will actually find a specific, illustrated example of a creature withdrawing from another creature with reach!
So a valid answer to your question is "because you are also threatened by a creature without reach."
:D
Also, slightly more seriously, the rules quote everyone is relying on specifically brings up casting ranged touch spells defensively, which would be odd if you were meant to never have to cast defensively if your spell was a ranged touch spell.
This is the 'one for being tripped, one for going prone as a result of the trip' argument all over again :p
How did that work out, if you don't mind me asking?
Could we take the 'how often will you or won't you cast defensively' to another thread? It really doesn't have a place here.
Agreed. We are losing focus.
@Coriat
Two aoo's for one spell actually swings the decision further toward choosing not to cast defensively -
Casting defensively - 50% chance of failure, followed by 25% chance of being hit,
if hit, another concentration check with most likely greater than 60% chance of failure.
Not casting defensively - 25% chance of being hit, if hit, greater than 60% chance of failuer;
followed by another 25% chance of being hit, if hit, greater than 60% chance of failure.
Break those odds down, and what you have is close to: casting defensively: 56% chance of failure vs not casting defensively: 37% chance of failure. Still going to go with the one that gives me 63% chance of success over the one that gives me 44% chance of success.
casting-provokes its own AoO (unless you cast defensively).
Making a ranged attack of any sort draws its own, separate AoO.casting a range touch spell has 1 AoO for casting it and another for making a ranged attack.
Where is the confusion.
I'm on your side... but James can reiterate the concerns of the other side, as it seems that Mabven is preoccupied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they both allow for an AoO just like charging and using an unarmed strike(not having IUS) would allow for two AoO's in most poeple's games.
|
|
casting-provokes its own AoO (unless you cast defensively).
Making a ranged attack of any sort draws its own, separate AoO.casting a range touch spell has 1 AoO for casting it and another for making a ranged attack.
Where is the confusion.
It's agreed that it provokes twice.
It's debated whether these provocations are within the same opportunity.
In 3.5 I certainly played it as 2 opportunities. But there were many regions in the country that did not. Depending where you were would increase your chance of seeing it one way or the other (cause 'everyone' played it that way).
Paizo wanted to make sure that they made clear that it was two provocations, but they did not make clear whether or not it was two opportunities.
Currently its left as a DM judgement and where the line is drawn.
Is firing 3 scorching rays simultaneously somehow 3 separate opportunities?
What would happen if the 2nd or 3rd of these AOOs drops the caster? It doesn't make sense.
Likewise there's what started all of this, which was greater trip. Depending upon how you read things you could trip the victim that you've tripped (in mid air) multiple times to provoke multiple AOOs. Assuming that you're also reading this as separate opportunities...
-James
each ranged attack roll provokes.
AoO,s take place before the triggering action gets really funky, but thats the weirdness in the rules.
its like loading a crossbow and shooting. both actions provoke independantly, just because one provoking action provokes another doesnt mean theres only 1 provoking action
Loading a crossbow is a move action though so it is clear that those two are treated separately.
Even when you get rapid reload which makes it into a free action it is still its own action, but I don't think it provokes at that point. Your point however is noted.
|
|
Loading a crossbow is a move action though so it is clear that those two are treated separately.
Even when you get rapid reload which makes it into a free action it is still its own action, but I don't think it provokes at that point. Your point however is noted.
It still provokes (the description of Rapid Reload mentions this).
Loading a crossbow is a move action though so it is clear that those two are treated separately.
Even when you get rapid reload which makes it into a free action it is still its own action, but I don't think it provokes at that point. Your point however is noted.It still provokes (the description of Rapid Reload mentions this).
Thanks. Crossbows are weaker than I thought then. I had never enforced that rule before.
@Coriat
Two aoo's for one spell actually swings the decision further toward choosing not to cast defensively -
Casting defensively - 50% chance of failure, followed by 25% chance of being hit,
if hit, another concentration check with most likely greater than 60% chance of failure.
Ah, no, your math is wrong here. If you cast defensively, you don't provoke an AoO for spellcasting.
You are misunderstanding me. My last two posts were about whether it is better odds to cast defensively, or to not cast defensively. The first post compares the two options IF casting a ranged touch attack spell provided one opportunity. The second post compares the two options IF casting a ranged touch attack spell provided two opportunities.
My conclusion in both of the posts is that choosing not to cast defensively has a higher chance of the spell succeeding than if you were to choose to cast defensively.
Ranged touch spell casting provokes twice:
- once for casting - can be avoided by casting defensively
- once for making a ranged attack when threatened
Each creature threatening you (with AoO left) gets those two attacks if it has combat reflexes and a high enough dex. Otherwise it's only once, and they may choose in iteration which attack they take.
Note that because of the rule that you cannot take an AoO for the same type of activity more than once if you threaten someone, scorching ray provokes up to thrice, but you can only take the AoO once for all ranged attacks (same as with a bow) :-)
|
|
Do you interpret the ranged attack portion of the action to be an integral part of casting the spell? That might be where the breakdown in understanding is occurring. If the ranged attack happens after the spell is complete, it wouldn't invite a further spell failure chance. But if the spell isn't actually finished until after the ranged attack is conducted, it would. I believe that is what Coriat is referring to.
2 separate actions.
its not "i cast, that thing goes kaboom; AoO happens" with rays.
its "i cast." one action. action resolves.
"i hold my hand out like a gun and shoot lazer beams out of my finger" is broken down into 2 parts. the "i hold my hand out like a gun" part is effectively the somatic component of any ray spell and just like any spell it provokes. "Shooting lazers" is its own thing that provokes an attack.
analogy to scorching ray; multiple attacks with a revolver vs multiple or 1 enemys would provoke. what makes scorching missile SO different?
EX; Scorching Ray [without casting defensively] is "attempt cast(AoO interrupts)", resolve, if cast successfully then "shoot(AoO Interrupts)", "shoot(AoO Interrupts)", "shoot(AoO Interrupts)"...