Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[Jeff Wilder]

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

Sure. So what? Special Attacks are not "rules" actions. Just like "ranged attack" is not a "rules action."

A "non-rules" action is simply "something a character does" that doesn't fall under the rules-defined action types. The rules call this type of action, when it provokes an AoO, a "distracting act":

Performing a Distracting Act

Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

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

Now you're just inventing rules. What provokes an AoO is an "attack (ranged)."

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

Uh, no. (Seriously, where are you getting this stuff?) Cover is determined for a reach weapon as if for a ranged attack. Is that where your confusion is coming from?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

To the OP:

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

Casting a spell that requires a ranged attack provokes two AoOs: one for casting the spell (which might interrupt the spell), one for making the ranged attack (if the spell isn't interrupted).

The folks arguing otherwise are simply incorrect, as you should be able to tell by their arguments -- "a ranged touch attack is not a ranged attack," "it's not a ranged attack that provokes, it's the act of aiming," and so on -- and their lack of rules knowledge -- that a splash weapon doesn't provoke an AoO (unless targeted at a grid intersection, apparently), that an attack with a reach weapon is a "ranged attack," and so on.

But as one final point, consider this: If shocking grasp (and other touch spells) did not have an exception that treated the caster as being armed, would it provoke two AoOs (once for casting, once for the unarmed attack)?

If yes, then obviously casting and attacking can both provoke.

If no, then why include that text in the rules in the first place?

I've attempted to explain this clearly, and I believe I've done so, so I'm out. Have fun in your game.

EDIT: To soften language.

 

[irdeggman]

The folks arguing otherwise are simply incorrect, as you should be able to tell by the absurdity of their arguments -- "a ranged touch attack is not a ranged attack," "it's not a ranged attack that provokes, it's the act of aiming," and so on -- and their lack of rules knowledge -- that a splash weapon doesn't provoke an AoO (unless targeted at a grid intersection, apparently), that an attack with a reach weapon is a "ranged attack," and so on.

Is there any reason to respond to people so rudely?

I (and those who have engaged with you) have never resorted to such statemenets and have instead relied on actual rules quotes.

You will note that I have provided a veritable ton of them while you have relied on a single one.

I even provided the one that best captures the reason the RAW supports 2 AoO. I haven't checked the FAQ - but I think there is likewise something there that can be used to support the argument, as well as something from the Rules of the Game articles. I generally rely on prepondereance of evidence instead of a single line of text when posible.

When engaging in an argument it is extremely important to choose supporting text and comparisons carfully. Otherwise the strenght of the argument gets lost in a discussion and dispute over "points" - which is what has happened here.

But most people have remained very civil in their disagreement.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Is there any reason to respond to people so rudely?

I am (honestly) sorry that you feel my response is rude. I have not made any attack on you, so far as I'm aware. The rules arguments are absurd -- literally; this is no more attack language than "incorrect" is -- and your rules knowledge really is lacking, as illustrated by your question about reach weapons (among other things).

I'm really not sure how else to state those facts, but I'll willingly edit my post if you'll give me suitable suggestions that you feel are more civil. It isn't my intent to insult you (or anyone else in this thread).

 

[billd91]

But as one final point, consider this: If shocking grasp (and other touch spells) did not have an exception that treated the caster as being armed, would it provoke two AoOs (once for casting, once for the unarmed attack)?

If yes, then obviously casting and attacking can both provoke.

If no, then why include that text in the rules in the first place?

I've attempted to explain this clearly, and I believe I've done so, so I'm out. Have fun in your game.

For one thing, a shocking grasp does not need to be delivered in the round (or as part of the same action) in which it is cast. Therefore, the text about avoiding an AoO for delivering a touch spell is necessary.

I would say that the ranged touch attack occurs as part of the spellcasting action and thus only generates the one AoO - for spellcasting while threatened. And the FAQ pretty much agrees with me. See the question regarding scorching ray/meteor swarm on page 61 of the 3/23/07 FAQ.

"Both of the example spells have a casting time of 1
standard action and an instantaneous duration. The caster uses
the cast a spell action (a standard action), and makes all the
ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of that standard
action (not as part of the attack or full attack action); making
these attacks is not an action at all."

Based on that, I'm willing to say that since the attacks are actually no action at all, there's no action that's provoking an AoO. The attack is entirely subsumed within the casting of the spell when it is made at the time the spell is cast. An opponent would get that initial spellcasting AoO and none others unless the spell specifically states that other actions may be taken later to make ranged attacks. Then, those would provoke AoO as normal.

 

[aboyd]

Based on that, I'm willing to say that since the attacks are actually no action at all, there's no action that's provoking an AoO. The attack is entirely subsumed within the casting of the spell when it is made at the time the spell is cast.

Thanks for quoting the FAQ. I was wondering what that would mean for other spells, so I got into my own copy of the FAQ (dated June 30, 2008) and found that after the text you quoted there is this:

Any other spells that allow multiple ranged touch attacks work the same way unless their descriptions specifically say otherwise.

So that's a relief. These ranged touch attack actions are indeed actually part of the casting action, and are not broken out. And since it refers to already-printed spell listings calling out the exceptions, it appears that they were aware of this and intended it to work this way all along.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I'm with Jeff on this one

I think there are definitely two AoO's generated, and every group I have played with has ruled it that way.

In my opinion, only the first AoO (the one eliminated by casting defensively) should be able to interrup the casting of the spell, though.

I think others have done plenty of rules parsing, so I won't get into that.

But even if I thought the rule was ambiguous (and I don't), I'd still rule that two AoOs were generated because as a general rule I tend to prefer rules interpretations that increase the power of martial types relative to casters, since I think casters dominate in mid-high level 3.X D&D.

Ken

 

[frankthedm]

I am (honestly) sorry that you feel my response is rude. I have not made any attack on you, so far as I'm aware. The rules arguments are absurd -- literally; this is no more attack language than "incorrect" is -- and your rules knowledge really is lacking, as illustrated by your question about reach weapons (among other things).

Here...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/155143-please-remain-civil-folks.html
4) Ultimately, none of us has the single, final right answer on any rules question. We don't even have a firm agreement on what a right answer looks like: some people operate according to a Rules As Written approach, while others believe that a looser interpretation based on perceived intent and overall coherence of the rules is the best way to derive the right answer. If you and another poster can't find common ground, it's perfectly okay to agree to disagree, instead of insisting on making the other poster see that they're wrong and you're right.

As far as the AoO issue goes, I'm torn. Never been a fan of the ranged touch attack replaces saves though. I definitely feel beholder eye rays don't draw AoOs.

 

[azhrei_fje]

This has been an interesting thread.

While I've always ruled that any attack rolls required by the spell are part of the somatic components required by the spell itself -- and thus can avoid the AOO by casting defensively -- there can certainly be an argument made that "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attack" (even though the Rules Compendium seems to disagree).

My basis for that last statement is the issue with splash weapons. However, I feel that splash weapons provoke regardless as there is no overarching action that subsumes the act of throwing the acid flask, i.e. throwing the acid is not a "somatic component" that the attacker has already made a check to protect against AOOs.

But I noticed that Jeff never answered a question posed early in the thread: if a bowman uses the full-attack action and fires 2+ arrows, does each one constitute an AOO? On the one hand I can that it does (each is a "ranged attack") yet on the other hand they are all part of the "full attack action" and any given action can only provoke a single AOO. Personally, I feel this is similar to the spellcasting subsuming the attack as part of the casting; the individual ranged attacks are subsumed by the full attack action.

 

[azhrei_fje]

(double posted by the board)

(It seems every post today has been doubled. I get an error message about waiting 30 seconds between posts, but when I re-submit it ends up a duplicate. I'm not even sure why I'm getting the "30 second" message, as I only have one tab open to ENworld.)