Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 4729528" data-attributes="member: 16285">This is how I run it in my game.But, as I said earlier the RAw tends to support the other interpretatin (i.e., an AoO for casting and an AoO for attacking).And as I tried to point out earlier the reason why I think the RAW supports this is that yu generate an AoO when attacking with a ranged weapon (note it does not say making a ranged attack - this is an important distinction to keep in mind).And the RAW (clarified in Complate Arcane and the rules Compendium - say that using rays works like using a ranged weapon.And when RAW talks about attacking it is using the generic term and not the "action type" - this is supported by the fact that invisibility is broken when you attack (and then it lists examples that are considered "attacks" and are in no way attack "actions") and the RAW also talks about actions that can be done when attacking.That is why I said that Jeff Wilder was barking up the wrong tree when he was trying to use a generic definition of "action" to capture this instead of the generic "attack". There aren't really examples (or at least no where near as many) of using "action" as the generic word (which actually per the dictionary pretty much means the same thing) as there are for using the generic "attack" instead of "attack action".Now - I have stated that I don't like but see how the RAW supports it.The way I handle it is that if the attack is part of the casting (i.e., has to be done at that time instead of over multiple or later rounds) then it only generates 1 AoO (for casting the spell) - otherwise every round an attack is being made then an AoO is generated for the attack (you don't get the ability to cast defensively to eliminate this on subsequent rounds - you can only do it the first round when the spell is cast)Also when an archer makes a full attack he only generates 1 AoO.But these are my interpretations (and house-rules) not necessarily per a strict RAW interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification