Urgent Do Ranged Touch Attacks provoke AoOs?

[strongbow]

Ok, a ranged attack provokes an AoO, but does someone who makes a ranged touch attack with a spell with being threatened provoke two AoOs, one for casting a spell, and another for making a ranged attack in melee.

Furthermore, does a spellcaster provoke multiple AoOs for casting a chained spell while threatened. Ex: A fighter threatens a wizard's square. A wizard casts a Chained Disintegrae spell. How many AoO's does the wizard provoke.

A) One
B) Two (one for spell, one for ranger attack)
C) Lots (one for spell, one for each ranged attack roll made

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are actually a couple of interesting questions here. The first is "Can you Chain a Disintegrate?"

You can only Chain a spell that "specifies a single target". Disintegrate doesn't specify any targets at all; rather, it produces an Effect: Ray. Now, you can only aim this at a single object or creature, but that's not the same, in game terms, as "specifying a single target", which would be shown as "Target: One creature or object" in the stat block of the spell. However, Customer Service have most recently been quoted as saying that a ray does count.

I personally wouldn't allow it, especially after the Split Ray text was errata'd to specifically eliminate the "specifies a single target" wording from a feat that is supposed to work with Rays.

Next question - does a ranged attack provoke an AoO?

It's generally assumed that yes, it does... but can you find that written down anywhere?

What you'll find is that the standard action Attack (Ranged) - an action that allows you to make a single ranged attack - provokes an AoO. But the Full Attack action does not. Now, if you use the Full Attack action to, for example, attempt a Disarm, you will provoke an AoO, since Disarm specifically does. But if you use the Full Attack action to make two ranged attacks, you are not using the standard action Attack (Ranged); you are using the Full Attack action. Ranged attacks are not listed anywhere (to the best of my knowledge, at any rate) as provoking AoOs.

The Manyshot feat, while it allows you to make a ranged attack as a standard action, also does not use the Attack (Ranged) action (clearly spelled out in the 3.5 FAQ), and thus, in the absence of text stating that either a/ ranged attacks in general provoke AoOs, or b/ the Manyshot action provokes an AoO, Manyshot does not provoke an AoO either.

Most of your ranged touch attacks take place as part of the Cast a Spell action. This provokes an AoO (unless you cast defensively), but again, unless there is text found stating that any ranged attack provokes an AoO, the touch attack itself does not.

However...

... this means that any archer can use the Full Attack action to fire their full complement of shots - even if that's only one - without provoking an AoO.

You may choose to insert the common understanding into your game, which is the rule that any ranged attack provokes an AoO. In this case, Manyshot, as a ranged attack, provokes an AoO. A Full Attack action firing three arrows provokes three AoOs (from someone with Combat Reflexes, anyway). And casting a spell that requires you to make a ranged touch attack potentially provokes two - one for casting, and one for attacking.

-Hyp.

 

[0-hr]

In other words, common sense (and the great majority of DMs) says yes. By the (probably erroneous) letter of the rules, no.

A Full Attack action firing three arrows provokes three AoOs (from someone with Combat Reflexes, anyway).

Isn't that like leaving multiple threatened squares, which only draws a single AoO (from a given opponent)?


Anyway, thanks for pointing out that ranged AoO loophole Hype, they should really do a new edition to fix that sort of oversight

 

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't that like leaving multiple threatened squares, which only draws a single AoO (from a given opponent)?

No, it's nothing like leaving multiple threatened squares, which only draws a single AoO (from a given opponent).

That is a specific exception to the 3.5 rule that a creature with Combat Reflexes can make one AoO per opportunity up to his limit.

If someone attempts to initiate a grapple three times with a Full Attack action, and you've got Combat Reflexes and a 14+ Dex, you get three AoOs. If someone loads three light crossbows with Rapid Reload and Quick Draw, you get three AoOs. If someone moves out of three squares you threaten, you only get one - because it's a special exception.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Actually, I think common sense, along with letter of the rules, would be "no". If an AOO is already assessed for casting a spell, it doesn't make sense to assess another one because the mechanic happens to be a ranged touch attack. Whether you're casting magic missile or disintegrate, you've (presumably) got to point a finger at the target, and it doesn't make sense to award a bonus AOO for one and not the other.

In addition, the only place ranged touch attacks are mentioned in my rulebook is on 3.0 PHB p. 125, under the general rule of "Touch Spells in Combat", after it has said that touch spells do not provoke AOOs for the touch. An argument could be made that the flavor text doesn't apply to ranged-touches, but narrowly read, no type of touch attack spell provokes an AOO for the touch.

On Hyp's analysis of ranged attack language, I will point out that the text on 3.0 PHB p. 122 does say "Some actions themselves provoke attacks of opportunity, including casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon." Presumably that would cover the full attack situation, even if the table doesn't recognize the same.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Whether you're casting magic missile or disintegrate, you've (presumably) got to point a finger at the target, and it doesn't make sense to award a bonus AOO for one and not the other.

I guess it could be argued that a ranged touch attack does require aiming (an attack roll) and thus is more complex than a spell which doesn't require such.

However, in my campaign I'd never give an AoO for casting a ranged touch spell, I'd just roll it into the whole "cast a spell" thing for simplicity.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I think common sense, along with letter of the rules, would be "no". If an AOO is already assessed for casting a spell, it doesn't make sense to assess another one because the mechanic happens to be a ranged touch attack.

I agree with you based on your p122 quote, because a ray isn't, strictly, a "ranged weapon". It's a ranged attack, but it's not attacking with a ranged weapon.

On Hyp's analysis of ranged attack language, I will point out that the text on 3.0 PHB p. 122 does say "Some actions themselves provoke attacks of opportunity, including casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon." Presumably that would cover the full attack situation, even if the table doesn't recognize the same.

You know, I have a memory of hunting for that quote... but I think at the time I was at work, and using the SRD. The line is not in the 3E SRD.

Can someone with the 3.5 PHB confirm if the same language is used in 3.5? It doesn't appear in the 3.5 SRD either.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

3.5 PHB p. 135 Combat Basics under Attacks of Opportunity:

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

 

[Hypersmurf]

3.5 PHB p. 135 Combat Basics under Attacks of Opportunity:

Cool.

Damned SRD exclusions

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Cool.

Damned SRD exclusions

-Hyp.

Indeed. Especially the "basics" should have been listed there