Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[irdeggman]

So does Ray of Exhaustion count as shooting or throwing a ranged weapon? It's not a weaponlike spell.

-Hyp.

It is now

RC pg 132

Any spell that requires an attack roll is weaponlike. Most weaponlike spells also deal some form of damage, or ability drain. Some bestow negative levels, or they grant conditions or penalties.

Ray of Exhaustion requires a ranged touch attack and thus meets the requisite to count as a weaponlike spell (and is eligble for application of several weapon feats (as outlined in the same page of the RC)).

 

[Mark1733]

AoOs for ranged touch spell

I read some, but not all the posts on this...so if I am duplicating anything, sorry. Quite the debate! It seems like the debate got bogged down in semantics. Remember, this is a game and the main intent is fun and imagination of heroic stuff! Regardless, a single AoO from a big, nasty foe is probably sufficient to make a spellcaster think twice about casting in a threatened space.

I think for both simplicity and effectiveness, I think the spellcasting and aiming for the ranged touch attack happen simultaneously (to a sufficient degree to constitute a single action), and therefore, a single AoO from any one opponent is sufficient. I do think that all ranged (including ranged touch) attacks work the same way, so regardless of weapon, no weapon, weaponlike, blah, blah, blah, an AoO applies. So even using a wand of a ray spell would require the AoO because of the ranged attack (aiming) component, even if activating a magic item like a wand does not.

 

[Herzog]

I agree.

Let's consider a different scenario:

Spellcaster casts defensively. No Attack of Oppertunity for the spellcasting. Spell cast has range: Ranged Touch.

Does this draw an attack of oppertunity?

 

[SSuser]

aboyd nailed it on the first page of this post.

Stop arguing your point, pick up your 3.5 PHB & open it to pgs 140 & 141. Read the entire section labeled "Touch Spells in Combat". It defines a ranged touch attack as a type of touch attack. Therefore no second AoO is granted. No one should be debating the definition of actions, ranged attacks, and cans of beans. Those things have nothing to do with touch attacks.

If you decide that a caster should receive two AoO as a house rule, that's fine. That's great. That's wonderful. However, the OP did not ask you to interpret the rules. He asked for confirmation on the rules.

 

[pawsplay]

In my reading,

Attack (ranged) -> AoO
and
Attack with a ranged weapon -> AoO

Aiming a ray is neither of those scenarios. It is neither the attack action, nor is it an attack with a ranged weapon. The text saying it is treated as if attacking with a ranged weapon appears, to me, only to say, "This is another way of making a ranged attack, without using a ranged weapon." The RC seems to concur. So one AoO.

 

[irdeggman]

In my reading,

Attack (ranged) -> AoO
and
Attack with a ranged weapon -> AoO

Aiming a ray is neither of those scenarios. It is neither the attack action, nor is it an attack with a ranged weapon. The text saying it is treated as if attacking with a ranged weapon appears, to me, only to say, "This is another way of making a ranged attack, without using a ranged weapon." The RC seems to concur. So one AoO.

How do you get the RC concurs with using a ray (as in a spell with an attack roll) is another way of making a ranged attack without using a ranged weapon?

The way I read the RC is that it is the same thing as using a ranged weapon. Since it is a weaponlike spell (requires an attack roll - pg 132 of the RC)

I do not see how it is possible (using the RC rules) to make an attack (ranged) without using a ranged weapon since using a weaponlike spell with a ranged touch attack requirement is like using a ranged weapon to the point of almsot all ranged weapon feats still apply as does any bonus/penalty to ranged attacks.


The way the RC reads to me is that the only way to make an attack (ranged) is by using a ranged (or thrown) weapon .

 

[pawsplay]

How do you get the RC concurs with using a ray (as in a spell with an attack roll) is another way of making a ranged attack without using a ranged weapon?

That the RC categorizes attacks as melee, ranged, and touch attacks. Specifically, the RC does not treat ranged touch attacks as a subset of ranged attacks but of touch attacks.

 

[Mark1733]

I don't see how, regardless of the use "melee," "ranged," and "touch" attack terminology, one can explain the difference between the physicality of a ranged attack and the physicality of the ranged touch attack and conclude that they are different. The difference is that "touch" means you need to touch--not penetrate armor of, etc.--the target. Hence lower AC of the target makes touch attacks a bit easier. I don't read in the rules that "touch" somehow negates the physicality of the fact that with an attack roll, you are in essence taking time to correctly aim the attack. In the case of ranged touch attack--you would take time to aim it just like a physical ranged weapon, and the risk is getting hit from a threatening opponent. However, with a melee touch attack, a touch in hand to hand combat seems much different--just like a melee weapon does not provoke. Casting the spell would make the AoO, regardless of the melee attack, unless you cast defensively. But with a ranged touch attack (e.g., a ray), it seems to me like that extra little bit of time and stillness to aim opens the caster up for the AoO, regardless of casting defensively. Because its all one fluid motion (in my mind) of casting/aiming/firing, the process provokes only a single AoO. I do not think it reasonable that the caster stands there, casts a spell in "first part" of the action (provoking one AoO), and then aims and fires the spell (provoking another AoO). And as far as not aiming all to avoid an AoO as someone suggested earlier, that's like firing into full concealment or darkness...50% miss chance at best. That means the caster is more focused on not getting hit rather than hitting his target. That, to me, means "fizzle" and an AoO when you take that extra second to cuss on the fact that you missed

 

[Vegepygmy]

Stop arguing your point, pick up your 3.5 PHB & open it to pgs 140 & 141. Read the entire section labeled "Touch Spells in Combat".

Yes. And pay particularly close attention to the part that says: "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

Then take a moment to ponder the significance of that word, therefore.

 

[irdeggman]

That the RC categorizes attacks as melee, ranged, and touch attacks. Specifically, the RC does not treat ranged touch attacks as a subset of ranged attacks but of touch attacks.

Let's see. . .

RC logic path

pg 8 Table of action.

Attack (Ranged) - Generates an AoO - Page 16 (for additional details)

Pg 16 Ranged Attacks "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range. . ."

Pg 132 Weaponlike spells

"Any spell that requires an attack roll is weaponlike. . . .For the purposes of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories - tanged spells and touch spells. Ranged spells include those that require ranged touch attack rolls, such as rays and hurled missiles. This category also includes spells that generate effects that act as ranged weapons and require tanged attack rolls. Touch spells include any damage-dealing spells that have arange of touch."


Pg 134

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

So basically the RC says that a ray (which is essentially the type of spell we are talking about here) is:

Weaponlike because it requires an attack roll (pg 16)

Is treated as if using a ranged weapon (pg 134)

Making an attack with a ranged weapon is a ranged attack (pg 16)

And generates an AoO because it is an Attack (Ranged) (pg 8)

These are specific rules in regards to a spell (a ray particularly). Specific rules trump general ones.