AoOs and ranged magical attacks

[Forrester]

A friendly debate (ha!) in another thread reminded me of a situation that came up in a one-shot I ran a few months ago.


A wizard and a fighter are standing 5' away from each other. The fighter has a spiked chain, because he's a twink.

But the wiz wins initiative! After a quick prayer to the Dice Gods, he takes a 5' step back, combat-casts a Disentegrate, and . . . listens to his opponent begin to argue that the wiz has just opened himself up to an attack of opportunity.

Here's the gist. The PHB says that ranged attacks open oneself up to an AoO. A Disentegrate is a ranged touch attack. Therefore, did or did not the wizard, combat-casting aside, open himself up to an AoO? He prevented the AoO granted by his casting a spell within a threatened area . . . but isn't there another AoO granted here?

I ruled that there was not, and the fighter whiffed the save. These things happen.

But I'm not 100% confident I made the correct ruling. What do you all think?

 

[IceBear]

I think that was the correct ruling.

BTW - I don't mean to seem unfriendly in that other thread. I am literally bored at work so I'm arguing for the sake of arguing really. If you don't like the rule, don't use it - I don't think that's wrong. I (and others) didn't like your choice of words in your inital post.

As I've said before - "different strokes for different folks". My group and I have no issue with the rule and have fun with it. If you and your group don't then by all means don't use it. Just don't call us idiots for using the rules as WotC published them and there won't be any problems

Ok?

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

A friendly debate (ha!) in another thread reminded me of a situation that came up in a one-shot I ran a few months ago.


A wizard and a fighter are standing 5' away from each other. The fighter has a spiked chain, because he's a twink.

But the wiz wins initiative! After a quick prayer to the Dice Gods, he takes a 5' step back, combat-casts a Disentegrate, and . . . listens to his opponent begin to argue that the wiz has just opened himself up to an attack of opportunity.

Here's the gist. The PHB says that ranged attacks open oneself up to an AoO. A Disentegrate is a ranged touch attack. Therefore, did or did not the wizard, combat-casting aside, open himself up to an AoO? He prevented the AoO granted by his casting a spell within a threatened area . . . but isn't there another AoO granted here?

I ruled that there was not, and the fighter whiffed the save. These things happen.

But I'm not 100% confident I made the correct ruling. What do you all think?

No AoO would provoked in the situation you describe.

Using a ranged weapon within someone's threatened area provokes an AoO.

Casting a spell within someone's threatened area provokes an AoO.

A spell may be a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon (even if it's a weapon-like spell such as melf's acid arrow).

Doing a Defensive Cast prevents you from provoking an AoO for casting a spell, even a ranged touch attack spell.

And aside from all that, if this is the first round of combat and the wizard won initiative, the fighter is flat footed and can't make AoO's (unless he has combat reflexes - which is likely if he's a chain fighter).

 

[Forrester]

Hey -- keep that stuff in the other thread .

And no offense, but I think that anyone who uses *everything* that WoTC puts out, without question, is being lazy, at best. The defense that "It's like that in the book, so that makes it okay" is not very intellectually defensible. There are many cases where the rules are questionable -- Harm, Time Stop, touch-attack sneak attacks, the new caster-level rulings, and so on.

--------------------
But that's another discussion. Ironically, I'm looking for a books-based core-rules based ruling here! Hell with Rule 0 -- how should I have "officially" handled this situation?


EDIT -- Thanks, Caliban! I must have missed that distinction in the rules -- but it makes sense. There's ranged attacks, but what provokes an AoO is using a *ranged weapon*, apparently. Whew. Looks like I made the right call.

(And yes, he was a twinked-out chain fighter. Buff, too. Surprised he blew the save!)

 

[IceBear]

I *never* said I use everything that WotC puts out verbatim - I don't use Timestop or Harm as written for instance. I have a nice big long list of stuff that I have for existing and possible houserules. *sheesh* Stop reading more into stuff. This is the RULES FORUM, so I always try to answer questions as per the offical rules. If I don't like a rule, I will often present an alternative rule and why, but I don't just say "If you use this rule you're a dummy"

Anyway, you're going to have to trust me that I probably have houserules for stuff that you believe is perfectly fine. That's ok. My group has different tastes than yours so of course we will use different rules. The only reason I'm not using more house rules than I am is that our group has several DMs so we decided to try to stick as close as possible the rules so to minimize the confusion from going from one campaign to another.

IceBear

 

[Devon]

how should I have "officially" handled this situation?

Simple. You made the right ruling.

1. The spellcaster made his Concentration check, therefore no AoO was provoked.
2. The fighter was flat-footed, and therefore couldn't have made an AoO.

Caliban's concise and informative summary of the rules adequately answer to the other related issues.

- Devon

 

[Artoomis]

Re: Re: AoOs and ranged magical attacks

No AoO would provoked in the situation you describe.

Using a ranged weapon within someone's threatened area provokes an AoO.

Casting a spell within someone's threatened area provokes an AoO.

A spell may be a ranged attack, but it's not a ranged weapon (even if it's a weapon-like spell such as melf's acid arrow).

Doing a Defensive Cast prevents you from provoking an AoO for casting a spell, even a ranged touch attack spell.

And aside from all that, if this is the first round of combat and the wizard won initiative, the fighter is flat footed and can't make AoO's (unless he has combat reflexes - which is likely if he's a chain fighter).

Sorry about this, but I couldn't resist.

If a ranged touch attack is NOT a weapon, why is a Touch Attack spell a weapon in your eyes, Caliban (I refer to arguments over what is a weapon for Coup de Grace purposes and your proposal tha you CAN do a COup de Grace with a Touch Attack).

Forgive me if I recalled your argument incorrectly, but it seems to me you have done the following:

Touch Attack = Weapon
Ranged Touch Attach <> Weapon.

These positions contradict themselves, do they not?

BTW I agree with you here completely - a ranged touch attack is not an attack with a weapon so does not provoke an AoO from using a ranged weapon in a threatened area.

edit: An earlier quote from Caliban:

If it does damage to them and requires an attack roll, it it can crit, then it's a weapon. Period.

Of course, that was in the context of Coup de Grace. Still, it was a pretty definate statement with no qualifiers. I don't think you'll change your position on Coup de Grace, but I trust you'll rescind this statement? For it would require that a Ranged Touch Attack be a weapon, thus an attack witha ranged weapon, and thus provoke an AoO seperate from spell casting.

 

[IceBear]

If you make an unarmed attack you suffer an AoO. If you make a touch attack with spell you are considered armed and don't suffer the AoO. Sometime, waaaaay in the past, I think it was decided that the spell creates a glowing nimbus around your hand that your opponent could see and thus react differently to than if you were just making an unarmed attack. I don't think a ranged touch attack does the same thing.

I know, it's pretty lame. Mainly, you don't threaten with ranged weapons so I think they wanted to keep it similar with spells.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Re: AoOs and ranged magical attacks

Of course, that was in the context of Coup de Grace. Still, it was a pretty definate statement with no qualifiers. I don't think you'll change your position on Coup de Grace, but I trust you'll rescind this statement? For it would require that a Ranged Touch Attack be a weapon, thus an attack witha ranged weapon, and thus provoke an AoO seperate from spell casting.

If you feel like harping on semantics, go ahead. I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I could have, but I believe you understood what I meant.

For most purposes a weapon-like spell can be treated like a weapon. The cases where it can't be treated as a weapon are those cases where having a physical weapon (rather than spell energy that is targeted like a weapon) in hand is important.

In this instance, a spell provokes an AoO for being a spell, it doesn't provoke it for being a weapon because it's not a physical weapon. Having it provoke an AoO for being a spell and for being a ranged weapon-like spell would be double jeopardy, something that is generally avoided in 3e.

In the context of a Coup De Grace, as long as you can target the attack and achieve a critical with it, you can use it for a Coup De Grace. A weapon-like spells qualifies as a weapon for this purpose.

Just like a bow or crossbow can be used for a coup de grace if you are within 5 feet, I believe a ranged touch attack spell can also be used for a coup de grace if you are within 5 feet.

 

[Artoomis]

"Harping on semantics?" You made a clear an unequivocal statement - no semantics about it. Yes, I was having a little fun, but I certainly was not "harping on semantics." It seems that when you get exacting about language its just a good, legitimate point, but if I do it I'm harping on semantics Ah, well, moving on...

Anyway, the whole issue come down to when are touch attacks (and ranged touch attacks) like weapons, and when are they not like weapons. Obviously it varies by situation.

For example, touch attacks are like weapons when it comes to not provoking an AoO for an unarmed attack. Ranged touch attacks, however, are not like weapons when it come to provoking an AoO for using a ranged weapon.

You think they count as weapons for Coup de Grace, I do not.

Clearly, neither of use really believes they are weapons for all purposes, or that anything that does damage, requires an attack roll and can critical is a weapon for all purposes.

My actual serious point to make is that such things as improved unarmed attack, touch attacks and ranged touch attacks sometimes count as weapons and sometimes do not. It's not always clear from the rules which they should be, or even what the intent of the writers/editors was in any particular circumstance.

That, I think, is something on which we can agree.

I think I need a new item in my Guide that specifically addresses when an unarmed attack of one sort or another is considered the same as if you were armed with a weapon. That should be worthy of a pretty good entry in there, I should think.