Firing ranged weapons and rays

[radmod]

As irdeggman says, spiritual weapon would not provoke an AoO (although it is not a weaponlike spell). Think of a ranged attack like this...

Magic Weapon is a weapon like spell - but it is not a ranged attack. Weapon is created and then it attacks using your BAB and Wis modifier. All ranged attacks use your Dex mod including rays.

Only time for a quickie.
I should've made that clearer. Spiritual Weapon is not, itself, a ranged weapon, but it can be used with a ranged weapon. In that case, it would technically be a ranged weapon being used as a spell and, hence, provoke. Personally, I think that's dumb.

Anyway, I'll look back later.

 

[irdeggman]

Only time for a quickie.
I should've made that clearer. Spiritual Weapon is not, itself, a ranged weapon, but it can be used with a ranged weapon. In that case, it would technically be a ranged weapon being used as a spell and, hence, provoke. Personally, I think that's dumb.

Anyway, I'll look back later.

No it does not.

It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage
creatures that have damage reduction.

So I was actually incorrect about it being a weapon-like spell, despite requiring an attack roll and doing damage (basic criteria for being a weapon like spell). The spell description takes precedence and thus makes it not a weapon-like spell. So it does not strike as a weapon and no AoO except for the initial casting.

 

[radmod]

Complete Arcane pg 72
"Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects."

How dare you quote something I really haven't read that much!
(Though I thought this had been covered in the PHB, hadn't it? Or is it simply that I'm such a genius I already did it this way)

Now to be serious.
The crux of the situation:

It is not strictly the "type" of action being used that generates an AoO it is the action of making an attack with a ranged weapon. A rules terminology peculiarity.

You're not going to like this, I guarantee it. Very few people here have (though strangely everyone I've spoken to, face to face, agrees with me. Maybe it's just my personal charm.). From the glossary:

Action
A character activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions.

Under strict RAW, a single ranged attack is a standard action that provokes an AoO.
Likewise, casting a spell with a casting time of a standard action provokes an AoO.
Therefore, casting a spell, with a casting time of a standard action, that has the effect of a ranged attack is two standard actions. Yet, a creature may not (usually) perform two standard actions in a given round.
This basically means only three things:
1) Either the creature cannot perform both actions in a single round.
2) Or, one of the actions is not a standard action, such as a free action.
3) Else, a creature can cast a spell with the effect of a ranged attack as a single action.

So for there to be two AoOs provoked, then either #1 or #2 applies. If #3 applies then there must be some rule, somewhere, that says that either casting a spell, or making a ranged attack that is not an action by iteself provokes an AoO. For example, one provokes by making a move action, yet one can also provoke for movement not specifically addressed as an action (e.g. as part of a move action).

I prefer a literal, strict gamist perspective on the rules as I believe the writers intended (hence, specific keywords and the like). So, to me, it must be a single action (#3). Therefore, it provokes a single AoO since AoOs are (usually) provoked for actions.

For example an archer with multiple attacks is using a full attack action in order to do so with his longbow. The full attack action does not generate an AoO but attack (Ranged) does. Does he generate an AoO by attacking with his bow for attacking someone at range? Or ar you claiming that he does not generate an AoO when using the full attack but only when making a single attack?

I have an answer for this, but I want to see what you say about the rest first.

It doesn't say attack action with a ranged weapon it says attacking with a ranged weapon.

Yes, but any rules lawyer would point out that in none of the rules you mentioned does it ever say that a ray and the like are ranged weapons, simply that they are weapon-like, "as if a ranged weapon", and "function as ... in certain respects." What I would prefer from the rules is a more specific contextual based explanation of how they are similar. For example, the "as if" is clear because you aim "as if" meaning, contextually, they are talking about LOE, etc. (and they address LOS subsequently).

In the end, though, as everyone agrees, no seems to play it that way. To me, this seems to give a strong indication that perhaps, just perhaps it isn't RAW. Then again, it used to be pre-3.x RAW that dead was 0 (-1?) hps, yet no-one, generally speaking, ever played it that way.

 

[irdeggman]

How dare you quote something I really haven't read that much!
(Though I thought this had been covered in the PHB, hadn't it? Or is it simply that I'm such a genius I already did it this way)

Nope.

There term weaponlike spells was first "codified" in Complete Arcane along with such things as they can benefit from certain weapn feats like point blank shot.

You're not going to like this, I guarantee it. Very few people here have (though strangely everyone I've spoken to, face to face, agrees with me. Maybe it's just my personal charm.). From the glossary:


Under strict RAW, a single ranged attack is a standard action that provokes an AoO.
Likewise, casting a spell with a casting time of a standard action provokes an AoO.
Therefore, casting a spell, with a casting time of a standard action, that has the effect of a ranged attack is two standard actions. Yet, a creature may not (usually) perform two standard actions in a given round.
This basically means only three things:
1) Either the creature cannot perform both actions in a single round.
2) Or, one of the actions is not a standard action, such as a free action.
3) Else, a creature can cast a spell with the effect of a ranged attack as a single action.

So for there to be two AoOs provoked, then either #1 or #2 applies. If #3 applies then there must be some rule, somewhere, that says that either casting a spell, or making a ranged attack that is not an action by iteself provokes an AoO. For example, one provokes by making a move action, yet one can also provoke for movement not specifically addressed as an action (e.g. as part of a move action).

I prefer a literal, strict gamist perspective on the rules as I believe the writers intended (hence, specific keywords and the like). So, to me, it must be a single action (#3). Therefore, it provokes a single AoO since AoOs are (usually) provoked for actions.

Or from the Rules Compendium pg 136

"Attacks

Casting time takes precedence over normal rules for attacks, unless a spells description says otherwise. If a spell allows its caster to make multiple attacks and has a casting time of 1 standard action, all those attacks occur during that standard action. The caster uses the highest applicable attack bonus for each attack in such a case."

Again it is reinforcing the difference between an "attack" and an "attack action".

Yes, but any rules lawyer would point out that in none of the rules you mentioned does it ever say that a ray and the like are ranged weapons, simply that they are weapon-like, "as if a ranged weapon", and "function as ... in certain respects." What I would prefer from the rules is a more specific contextual based explanation of how they are similar. For example, the "as if" is clear because you aim "as if" meaning, contextually, they are talking about LOE, etc. (and they address LOS subsequently).

Then by the transititive property of board arguments Such benefits as weapon focus, point blank shot, weapon finesse do not apply since the specific spells don't mention them.

In the end, though, as everyone agrees, no seems to play it that way. To me, this seems to give a strong indication that perhaps, just perhaps it isn't RAW. Then again, it used to be pre-3.x RAW that dead was 0 (-1?) hps, yet no-one, generally speaking, ever played it that way.

I wouldn't make such broad statements as "everyone agrees". There was a discussion on this topic a while ago and I was overwhelmed by people disagreeing with how I had been interpreting the rules (the same as you) and thus I went with their arguments (RAW based of course) and made my interpretation a house-rules based one.


And actually in 2nd ed our group played by the RAW as to when a character was dead.

 

[radmod]

Again it is reinforcing the difference between an "attack" and an "attack action".

Thanks for posting that. It helps reinforce my own beliefs. Really, I need to find some time and go through the RC rather than check it out when necessary.

Then by the transititive property of board arguments

Is that the property next to Park Place.

I wouldn't make such broad statements as "everyone agrees".

Yeah, I should've said you and Pers agree, IIRC, but it seems to pretty much be everyone I've talked to.

And actually in 2nd ed our group played by the RAW as to when a character was dead.

Wow, I've never talked to someone who did, so I have to know. From your experience would you say that PCs die less often with -10?
I know that many DMs tend to ignore downed characters (sometimes even against incidental damage like fireball). So, especially at low levels where you are more likely to hit the -1 to -9 range, I imagine that it would result in fewer deaths.

 

[irdeggman]

Wow, I've never talked to someone who did, so I have to know. From your experience would you say that PCs die less often with -10?
I know that many DMs tend to ignore downed characters (sometimes even against incidental damage like fireball). So, especially at low levels where you are more likely to hit the -1 to -9 range, I imagine that it would result in fewer deaths.

Usually the damage dealt with the last blow was enough that it didn't matter.

And the 2nd ed game played was Dark Sun - where PC died quite frequently (hence the character tree concept in the rules).

 

[irdeggman]

PHB pg 175

"You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack"

Another piece to the puzzle and application of preponderance of evidence that attacking with a ray generates an AoO.

I was sort of incorrect when I said about Complete Arcane was the first place weaponlike spells was brought up.

The PHB references treating them like weapons but didn't use the term "weapon like" and Complete Arcane was the first place where it specified in detail about the feats that could be used. So it was kind of there but required some work to get to it and some interpretation to get there.