Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[Jeff Wilder]

Cite that rule.

I don't understand. Are you (implicitly) claiming:

(1) That a ranged attack does not provoke an AoO? Or,

(2) That a ranged attack only provokes an AoO when performed as a standard action (per the table)?

Note that the consequence of argument 2 is that, somehow, a ranged attack as a full attack does not provoke an AoO. (The table, after all, does not say it does. The "Full Actions" table specifically says, in fact, that full attacks do not provoke AoOs, without any exception for ranged full attacks.)

If that is the way you play and the way you believe the rules are to be read, I concede that under that interpretation, you're correct. (EDIT: Under the SRD, which is all I have access to right now. Vegepygmy quoted rules below, from the PH, invalidating your position.)

But I believe that interpretation is clearly absurd.

A ranged attack provokes an AoO, per the Standard Actions table. In order for the rules to make sense -- i.e., in order for a ranged attack to provoke an AoO as part of a full attack action -- the action "ranged attack" must be generalized to provoke an AoO, regardless of the type of action.

Then for every ranged attack spell there are 2 AoO that can interupt the spell casting.

No. The first AoO is for the spellcasting, and can interrupt the spellcasting. The second AoO is for the ranged attack, which is made after the spell has been cast.

People keep talking about how the attack is "part of a touch spell," while ignoring the fact that those rules apply to spells with a range of touch, and ranged touch attack spells, by definition, have a range other than "touch."

Actions generate AoO not conditions.

Correct. And "making a ranged attack" is one of those actions.

 

[Vegepygmy]

A ranged attack provokes. This has nothing to do with whether it's an attack action, a standard action, or any other kind of action.

Cite that rule.

PHB, page 135 (under "Combat Basics"): "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you."

It's repeated many times throughout the chapter.

 

[aboyd]

No, that's really not the question. The question is, "Is it a ranged attack?" The answer is "yes." Therefore there's an AoO.

I don't buy this 100%. Your statement suggests that one type of action (casting a spell) cannot possibly subsume other types (attack). I don't know anywhere in the rules where it says that if an action can be broken down into other actions, all those action penalties must apply. In fact, I see differently often. Off the top of my head, the Duskblade class explicitly combines casting & strikes into a single meta-action.

Having said that, I have to wonder if you might be onto something for some spells. For example, Produce Flame and Darkfire. These 2 spells essentially allow you to hurl flames as a ranged touch attack, and you can keep hurling magical flames for quite a while. It seems reasonable that each of those ranged touch attacks (repeated over many rounds of combat) would be similar to firing a bow over & over.

However, if I bought into that thinking, I'd probably adopt it as a house rule. I couldn't adopt it as RAW, because I think PHB page 141 is definitive, and not in your favor.

 

[aboyd]

PHB, page 135 (under "Combat Basics"): "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you."

Ranged attacks and ranged touch attacks are different.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't buy this 100%. Your statement suggests that one type of action (casting a spell) cannot possibly subsume other types (attack).

No, it does not.

When the attack is part of casting the spell, the rules say so. (Like when casting spells with a range of touch.)

I don't know anywhere in the rules where it says that if an action can be broken down into other actions, all those action penalties must apply.

I don't understand how you're getting that from my argument. I'm actually arguing something almost the opposite, namely: even though making a ranged attack as part of a spell is not an action (in the rules sense of the word), it is still a ranged attack, and thus an action (in the English usage sense of the word) that provokes an AoO.

I am not saying that ray of enfeeblement is broken down into the standard action "cast a spell" and the attack action "make a ranged attack." I'm simply saying that the ranged attack allowed by ray of enfeeblement provokes an AoO.

It seems reasonable that each of those ranged touch attacks [from produce flame] (repeated over many rounds of combat) would be similar to firing a bow over & over.

Of course. Given the rule Vegepygmy quoted -- "PHB, page 135 (under "Combat Basics"): "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you." -- I don't even understand how people can argue otherwise.

I think PHB page 141 is definitive, and not in your favor.

Please quote the rule you're talking about. I don't have my PH with me.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ranged attacks and ranged touch attacks are different.

So you would claim that throwing a vial of alchemist's fire, then, doesn't provoke an AoO?

"Ranged touch attacks" is a subset of "ranged attacks."

I mean, come on.

 

[aboyd]

I'm actually arguing something almost the opposite, namely: even though making a ranged attack as part of a spell is not an action (in the rules sense of the word), it is still a ranged attack, and thus an action (in the English usage sense of the word) that provokes an AoO.

Yes, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that it appears that "casting the spell" encapsulates the attack as well, so it's all one thing, and the ranged attack cannot be broken out as an action.

Please quote the rule you're talking about. I don't have my PH with me.

OK, here it is:

Touch attacks: Since you need only touch your enemy, you make a touch attack instead of a regular attack. Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity, so you may want to cast the spell and then move to the target instead of vice versa. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks (for touches made with, say, your hand) and ranged touch attacks (for touches made with magic rays, for example).

To me what that implies is that a ray or other ranged touch attack is essentially like giving yourself really long fingers so you can tap the bad guy on the shoulder, regardless of whether he's right next to you or across the room.

Also, it appears to group ranged touch attacks under "touch attacks" rather than under "ranged attacks." Therefore, I don't really find rules about ranged attacks to be a compelling case for how to treat these spells. At least not in this case.

 

[pawsplay]

[/I]
PHB, page 135 (under "Combat Basics"): "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you."

It's repeated many times throughout the chapter.

Again, that section only describes attacks that are standard actions or full actions.

The full attack action specifies that you are making mutiple attacks (which is normally a standard action) and spells out that you can decide after the first one to make just a standard attack. The attacks are interchangeable. While it is tempting to apply that, by analogy, to casting spells, there is nothing in the rules that backs that up. The description of rays says only that they are aimed as if they were ranged weapons, not that you are taking an attack action.

Triggering an AoO is specifically tied to a type of action. Casting a ray spell does not involve an attack action, whether standard or full. Page 135 clearly separates casting a spell from making attack actions.

 

[pawsplay]

Of course. Given the rule Vegepygmy quoted -- "PHB, page 135 (under "Combat Basics"): "Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity from opponents that threaten you." -- I don't even understand how people can argue otherwise.

One statement, taken out of context, is rarely a compelling closer to an argument. That section also states that taking a ranged attack is a standard action, and that making multiple attacks is a full action. By that reading, scorching ray takes two standard actions-- a standard action and a full round action, if you can fire multiple rays.

Making a ranged attack roll does not provoke an AoO. Taking a ranged attack does. While a ranged spell may use the same modifiers, aiming a spell is not making a ranged attack, particularly as defined on p.135 or the summary of actions.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

Your argument -- including the "long fingers as a ranged touch attack" interpretation -- hinges on this line in the text.

That line obviously applies to melee touch attacks. A melee touch attack without being armed provokes an AoO, but doing so with a touch spell counts as being armed. So a melee touch attack with a touch spell does not provoke an AoO.

However, whether one is armed has nothing to do with whether one provokes an AoO by making a ranged attack. The touch attack provides for being armed, but the "therefore" clause does not apply, because provoking an AoO for ranged attacks has nothing to do with being armed and isn't prevented by being armed.