Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[Hypersmurf]

General to Specific so I think my reference still stands as the most specific material and thus the most authoritative on that specific subject per the RAW.

But it's only necessary to consider general vs specific when there's a contradiction.

There's a similar question in 4E, where in one place it says "Making a ranged attack provokes", and in two places it says "Using a ranged power provokes". You can use a ranged power that doesn't entail making a ranged attack, and you can make a ranged attack without using a ranged power, so which is correct? CustServ's answer is "They both are - they are describing two separate scenarios that provoke".

So we have in assorted places in the PHB and the RC that: a/ the Attack (Ranged) action provokes; b/ attacking with a ranged weapon provokes; and c/ ranged attacks provoke.

You can attack with a ranged weapon without taking the Attack (Ranged) action; you can make a ranged attack without shooting or throwing a ranged weapon; and so on... but why assume that only one of those three statements as to what provokes can be correct? You don't need to establish any order of precedence if you assume that the rules are correct.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

But it's only necessary to consider general vs specific when there's a contradiction.

There's a similar question in 4E, where in one place it says "Making a ranged attack provokes", and in two places it says "Using a ranged power provokes". You can use a ranged power that doesn't entail making a ranged attack, and you can make a ranged attack without using a ranged power, so which is correct? CustServ's answer is "They both are - they are describing two separate scenarios that provoke".

So we have in assorted places in the PHB and the RC that: a/ the Attack (Ranged) action provokes; b/ attacking with a ranged weapon provokes; and c/ ranged attacks provoke.

You can attack with a ranged weapon without taking the Attack (Ranged) action; you can make a ranged attack without shooting or throwing a ranged weapon; and so on... but why assume that only one of those three statements as to what provokes can be correct? You don't need to establish any order of precedence if you assume that the rules are correct.

-Hyp.

You have lost me here Hyp.

What I said (and qouted) was

Actions that provoke attacks of opportunity include moving (except as noted below), casting a spell, and attacking with a ranged weapon.

It does not specify the attack action nor does it say "ranged attack".

You can go through the series of steps to trace it to attack action but the the point I was trying to make is that it was not making a ranged attack (which can include many, many things) but rather it was attacking with a ranged weapon that provokes an AoO.

The tie in being that casting a ray spell (or similar ones) is like attacking with a ranged weapon.

Hence the RAW justification that casting and attacking with the a ray spell generate an AoO - regardless of whether you use an attack action.

Text also trumps tables in rules precedence.

 

[pawsplay]

irdeggman, do you believe that aiming ray takes a standard action, and that aiming mutiple rays is a full round action?

 

[irdeggman]

irdeggman, do you believe that aiming ray takes a standard action, and that aiming mutiple rays is a full round action?

Please read all of my previous posts.

I do not like the the rule that 2 AoO are generated nor do I use that in my game.

I have started that RAW tends to support it though.

Note that per the Rules Compendium it is not an attack action that generates the AoO but attacking with a ranged weapon.

There is a huge difference.

Attacks have been defined as being more than just things encompased by attack actions in the RAW. See the details on what constitutes attacks for breaking invisibility. That is the precedence on that subject.

Relying on the Action tables for being the authority on what actions generate AoO is likewise a poor basis.

PHB pg 137

Table 8–2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Note that it clearly states "many" not "all". The Rules Compendium is clearer on this since this statement (or a similar one - I don't have my book right in front of me at the moment to look it up) appears right at the table location.

It is clear that the table is supposed to be aready reference to aid in determining things but not an all-inclusive list.

I think many people are relying on the table itself to be the single source of what does and does not generate an AoO. It does say Attack (ranged) under the Standard Action section generates an AoO - but that is not exactly what the actual rules state - it is merely a paraphrase. The actual rules text has more detail on what this means (see my earlier reference to the Rules Compendium).

Now whether or not it takes a full round action or not to aim multiple rays is a mote point since the attack with a ranged weapon statement makes no difference as to how many attacks are being made nor as to how they are being made (e.g., using an attack action, full attack action, casting a spell action, etc.). Remember my reference as to how D&D has defined attacks as being more than mere action types (again see the invisibility rules).

But again I go back to my earlier statement (in almost all of my posts on this subject) that I feel the attack is actually part of the casting and shouldn't generate an AoO by itself. So remember that I am not defending my opinion I am defending how the RAW supports the subject - the two are actually in conflict on thsi subject.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does not specify the attack action nor does it say "ranged attack".

RC16, PHB135, PHB137 say attacking with a ranged weapon provokes.
RC8 and PHB141 say the Attack (Ranged) action provokes.
PHB135 says making a ranged attack provokes.

You're saying RC8 is right, and anywhere that says anything different to RC8 is wrong. I'm saying RC8 is right, and anywhere that doesn't contradict RC8 is also right.

Two rules can be different without being contradictory.

If we have a rule that says "A flat-footed character does not add his Dexterity bonus to AC", and a rule that says "A blind character does not add his Dexterity bonus to AC", is one of them wrong because they say different things?

The rules, in different places, describe three different ways to provoke AoOs: attacking with a ranged weapon, making a ranged attack, and taking the Attack (Ranged) action. None of these rules are contradictory; they can each exist and be true without invalidating either of the others.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

I have yet to see good evidence that treating a ray as a ranged weapon means it causes an AoO. I see ample evidence it is "aimed" as a ranged weapon (in the rules), that it uses the same modifiers and can crit like an attack, and so forth. I don't see any evidence that working like a ranged attack means it crosses a line on the action table or any of those rules from "casting a spell" into "making an attack."

There are many reasons to believe that 2 AoOs incorrect. First of all, it's not a rule, but it's a clear convention and an explicit assumption under which rules questions were answered that any one action can only generate an AoO. Casting a ray spell is one action, which has the effect of a ray. Normal touch spells are explicit (potential) exceptions, when the charge is held. Further, ranged touch spells are defined as a sub-category of touch spells, which in several plays, the RC most notably, appear to be a different category than ranged attacks.

It is certainly a judgment call to what extent a ray is like a ranged weapon, but I see no reason to extend that definition beyond the clause that is is aimed like one and attack rolls are made in the same way. They don't require actions to aim, like a ranged weapon; they don't require a full action to attack with multiple times; they are not actually weapons; they do not take place during the course of a an attack action.

It is possible to pull a phrase out of context.

Range
A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following.

Would anyone take this bolded phrase to mean you can cast scorching ray such that it begins 25 feet away from you and strike your opponents from the side, avoiding cover?

 

[irdeggman]

RC16, PHB135, PHB137 say attacking with a ranged weapon provokes.
RC8 and PHB141 say the Attack (Ranged) action provokes.
PHB135 says making a ranged attack provokes.

You're saying RC8 is right, and anywhere that says anything different to RC8 is wrong. I'm saying RC8 is right, and anywhere that doesn't contradict RC8 is also right.

Two rules can be different without being contradictory.

If we have a rule that says "A flat-footed character does not add his Dexterity bonus to AC", and a rule that says "A blind character does not add his Dexterity bonus to AC", is one of them wrong because they say different things?

The rules, in different places, describe three different ways to provoke AoOs: attacking with a ranged weapon, making a ranged attack, and taking the Attack (Ranged) action. None of these rules are contradictory; they can each exist and be true without invalidating either of the others.

-Hyp.

And the RC pg 8 section sends you directly to pg 16 where it clarifies what that means.

Sorry Hyp but I can't follow your rules fu on this one.

Specific trumps generic.

And yes I agree that if the rules do not contradict they can in fact both be applicable, but in this specific case it "clarifies" what the paraphrase from the table actually means.

The RC unlike the PHB contains the reference section on the table that gives the explanation and wait the text preceding the table on pg 8 of the RC states:

[quoteThe following table summarizes acts that can be undertaken during combat. It also shows the action type required and wheter an activity provokes attacks of opportunity (AoO). The page of this book where a related entry contains further details is also noted. If no page is indicated, the act is defined in the notes following the table or is self-explanatory.[/quote]

Hence the RC itself states that the further details are contained on pg 16 where it states

You provoke attacks of opportunity when firing or throwing a ranged weapon.

Thus the further details state what the table means (i.e., attacking with a ramged or thrown weapon.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

RC p8 notes in the table that pushing or pulling a heavy object provokes an AoO. It also directs us to p47 for further details.

p47 doesn't say that pushing or pulling a heavy object provokes an AoO. Does this mean that the table is wrong, and pushing or pulling a heavy object doesn't provoke an AoO?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

RC p8 notes in the table that pushing or pulling a heavy object provokes an AoO. It also directs us to p47 for further details.

p47 doesn't say that pushing or pulling a heavy object provokes an AoO. Does this mean that the table is wrong, and pushing or pulling a heavy object doesn't provoke an AoO?

-Hyp.

What are you trying to accomplish by making unequal comaprisons?

One (the ranged attack) gives more specific details on what it means, specifically in relation to an AoO the other (pushing/pulling) doesn't becasue there is no need.

 

[billd91]

What are you trying to accomplish by making unequal comaprisons?

He's trying to appear Socratic. It's in his nature.

(I was going say that he's trying to look Socratic, but until I see him running off barefoot to fight the Peloponnesian War, I'll hold off on that statement.)