Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[aboyd]

"The target is treated as armed, therefore no AoO" is the same as "because the target is treated as armed, no AoO."

There is no exception for being armed when a ranged attack provokes an AoO.

There doesn't need to be. A ranged touch attack is not a ranged attack; it's a touch attack. Thus whatever it says about ranged attacks is irrelevant, except in so far as a DM is willing to go outside of the rules (which I am, but I would not be discussing RAW in that case).

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Wrong. Casting a ranged touch spell and making the ranged touch attack is one and the same thing. It's inseparable. You cannot cast the spell and not make the ranged touch attack!

This is like saying drawing a bowstring and releasing the arrow are two actions which each provoke an AOO.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wrong. Casting a ranged touch spell and making the ranged touch attack is one and the same thing. It's inseparable. You cannot cast the spell and not make the ranged touch attack!

So what? That has nothing to do with whether either or both things provoke an AoO. It's a non sequitur.

Casting a spell provokes an AoO. Making a ranged attack provokes an AoO.

Casting a spell and then making a ranged attack with it provokes one AoO for casting the spell, then another AoO for making the ranged attack. AoOs do not require distinct actions -- in the rules sense -- to be provoked. Why is this so difficult to understand?

This is like saying drawing a bowstring and releasing the arrow are two actions which each provoke an AOO.

No, it's like saying casting snake's swiftness on yourself so you can make a ranged attack (absurdity of doing that aside) provokes two AoOs. It doesn't matter that the ranged attack isn't an action -- in the rules sense -- at all. It's a ranged attack, and it provokes an AoO, just like casting the spell provokes an AoO.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes, a type of action in the English language usage. One of which is "ranged attack."

You keep relying on this statement.

Which I actualy find incorrect. Now if you use the generic "attack" instead of "attack action" that is much more compelling, especially since breaking invisibility addresses "attacks" as being more than "attack actions".

from Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary

action:
1. The process of acting or doing
2. An act or deed
3. A movement or sequence of movements
4. Manner of movement
5. Habitual or vigorous activity or energy
6. Behavior
7.a The operating parts of a mechanism
7.b. The way in which such parts operate
8. A change that occurs in the body or in a bodily organ as a result of its functionality
9. A physical change, as in position, mass, or energy undergone by an object or syatem
10. The plot of a story or play
11. The appearance of animation of a figure in a work of art
12. Law - a) lawsuit, b)The right of an individual toexercise his or her privilege tolegal process
13. Combat
14. Significant or exciting activity

Now a dictionary presents meanings in the order of commonality. So the first few meanings listed are the most common. I am having difficulting seeing where those definitions substantially differ from those for "action types" in D&D.

PHB pg 304

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.

PHB pg 138

ACTIONS IN COMBAT
The fundamental actions of moving, attacking, and casting spells cover most of what you want to do in a battle. They’re all described here. Other, more specialized options are covered later in Special Attacks, page 154, and Special Initiative Actions, page 160.

PHB pg 143

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item) you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

PHB pg 22

Numbers after a slash indicate additional attacks at reduced bonuses:

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You keep relying on this statement.

I'm not "relying" on it. It's just a fact.

I am having difficulting seeing where those definitions substantially differ from those for "action types" in D&D."

I know you are. I think this is where you -- and others -- are getting lost.

What "action type" -- under the D&D rules -- is the attack allowed for by a casting of snake's swiftness? Is it free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full?

What "action type" is an AoO? Is it free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full?

(The answer to both of those is "none of them.")

These are not "actions" -- in the rules sense -- at all. They are actions -- in the English language sense -- that may or may not provoke AoOs of their own, however.

 

[irdeggman]

Now to be fair, I did state earlier that I thought the RAW supported the stance of 2 AoO being generated with a ray spell.

No one has specifically refered to the rule that gives the most credence to this interpretation though, instead attempting to rely on overarching viewpoints. It is not the fact that you are making a ranged touch attack is the other text in the rules.

Here is the rule that actually leads me to my opinion.

From the SRD

Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.

If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

Complete Arcane goes into details on how to apply ranged attack benefits to rays and treat them like "weapons". Things like Point Blank Shot specifically apply.

I have stated it is my opinion that this is wrong and that the attack is actually part of the casting. but that the RAW supports the opposite.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

From the SRD

Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack.

I don't understand how this is at all inconsistent with what I've been saying. (I understand that you agree with my conclusion. I don't understand why you think I'm using incorrect "overarching" reasoning.)

Yes, a ray is treated as a ranged weapon.

Using a ranged weapon provokes an AoO because making a ranged attack provokes an AoO. It doesn't matter if it's a "ranged weapon" or not. It matters that it's a ranged attack. If you throw your beer mug, you provoke an AoO, not because you're using a ranged weapon, but because you're making a ranged attack.

 

[irdeggman]

I'm not "relying" on it. It's just a fact.

I know you are. I think this is where you -- and others -- are getting lost.

What "action type" -- under the D&D rules -- is the attack allowed for by a casting of snake's swiftness? Is it free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full?

What "action type" is an AoO? Is it free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full?

(The answer to both of those is "none of them.")

These are not "actions" -- in the rules sense -- at all. They are actions -- in the English language sense -- that may or may not provoke AoOs of their own, however.

How about this

PHB pg 135

An attack of opportunity is a free melee attack that does not use up any of your actions.

PHB pg 144

Some actions don’t fit neatly into the above categories. Some of
these options are actions that take the place of or are variations on
the actions described under Standard Actions, Move Actions, and
Full-Round Actions.

PHB pg 144

Free actions don’t take any time at all, though your DM may limit the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn.

So an AoO is a free action that can be taken even when it isn't your turn.

Of if you prefer then it is "not an action", like a 5-ft step is not an action.

I would have to check my rules Comepndium to see if the larger Actions table and better descriptions of actions contained there better cover it though.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Of if you prefer then it is "not an action", like a 5-ft step is not an action.

For what it's worth, that's what the FAQ says.

In any event, you now agree that there are "actions" (in the English language sense) that are not "actions" (in the rules sense), right?

Some of these "non-rules" actions -- like a sunder attempt made as an AoO -- can provoke AoOs, right?

A ranged attack can sometimes be one of these "non-rules" actions ... like when it's part of casting a spell, right?

A ranged attack provokes an AoO, right?

So ... it doesn't matter that a ranged attack as part of a spell is a "non-rules" action. It still provokes an AoO, right?

 

[irdeggman]

In any event, you now agree that there are "actions" (in the English language sense) that are not "actions" (in the rules sense), right?

Not in the way you are relying n the meaning.

Which one of the meanings from the dictionary apply to how you are defining "actions"?

Some of these "non-rules" actions -- like a sunder attempt made as an AoO -- can provoke AoOs, right?

Actually every one of those are classified as "Special Attacks", right?

A ranged attack can sometimes be one of these "non-rules" actions ... like when it's part of casting a spell, right?

A ranged attack provokes an AoO, right?

So ... it doesn't matter that a ranged attack as part of a spell is a "non-rules" action. It still provokes an AoO, right?

No.

Rays are treated like using a ranged weapon.

Aiming of the ranged weapon is what generates the AoO. Not making a ranged attack.

Note if using the "making a ranged attack" is all it takes then using a reach weapon also generates an AoO right?

When making a melee
attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach
weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Since it uses the rules for ranged attacks? I mean it doesn't have to be an attack action right or even a special attack anymore per your reading of the rules.