Warlock's Eldritch Blast?

[Abraxas]

Do you play it that way?

 

[Caliban]

Do you play it that way?

No, I play by the correct reading of the rules.

Making a ranged weapon attack is what provokes, not taking the Attack (ranged) action.

So anytime you make a ranged weapon attack (whether as part of a full attack action, a standard action, an attack action, or casting a spell), you provoke.

You really should read the rest of the thread, because we've been over this before.

 

[Abraxas]

I have read the rest of the thread.

We play Manyshot and Full Attacks with a Ranged weapon the same way as your group. We don't see this as a conflict with how we handle ranged touch attack spells.

Our correct reading of the rules treats ranged touch attack spells as weapons only for the purpose of resolving the ranged touch attack itself. So they are treated as ranged weapons whenever something would affect the attack roll (cover, firing into melee, point blank shot, precise shot). For anything else they are covered by the casting a spell action. Its consistent and easy for us.

Good Gaming

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'm not interested in ranged attacks. I'm interested in ranged (touch) attacks that stem from spellcasting. And the FAQ addresses that suitably for me. Everything else is just people's (widely varied) interpretations and house rules.

I'll go with the FAQ. That's what it's there for.

 

[Caliban]

I have read the rest of the thread.

Well, then why did you ask me how I played it?

We play Manyshot and Full Attacks with a Ranged weapon the same way as your group. We don't see this as a conflict with how we handle ranged touch attack spells.

But you just said it's the action an not the attack that provokes the AoO, didn't you? Neither Manyshot nor Full Attack action are listed as provoking an AoO, so why are you having them provoke?

Our correct reading of the rules treats ranged touch attack spells as weapons only for the purpose of resolving the ranged touch attack itself. So they are treated as ranged weapons whenever something would affect the attack roll (cover, firing into melee, point blank shot, precise shot). For anything else they are covered by the casting a spell action. Its consistent and easy for us.

Good Gaming

Well, inconsistent in the same way each time I guess.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not interested in ranged attacks. I'm interested in ranged (touch) attacks that stem from spellcasting. And the FAQ addresses that suitably for me. Everything else is just people's (widely varied) interpretations and house rules.

I'll go with the FAQ. That's what it's there for.

Yeah, but the FAQ entry you are referring doesn't actually address the situation we are talking about. That's what is confusing me about your stance.


Going with the FAQ is fine, when it actually answers your question...

 

[Thanee]

So in your group, Manyshot doesn't provoke? Or doing a full attack with a ranged weapon?

That's Thanee's reasoning, but she has effectively house ruled Manyshot so that it provokes, and has declared the PHB to be in error about the Full Attack action (in spite of it being unchanged since 3.0 was first introduced).

I havn't made any such changes. I only said, that Full Attack should say "maybe" instead of "no", because depending on what you do with the various attacks it either could or could not provoke, so the "no" is obviously wrong.

Another way to look at it would be, that the Full Attack action really does never provoke any AoO by itself, which would lead to the sub-actions (as evidenced with Disarm and Grapple). Maybe they did this to prevent a Full Attack action to provoke in addition to the Disarm action or Grapple action.

Manyshot is not listed at all, so it could be either way. Obviously it should provoke an AoO. The rules don't cover it, so no changes have to be made, just additions, but those have to be made, anyways, in the case of Manyshot (they usually say whether an action provokes... or whether an action does not provoke... no mentioning of this either way in the Manyshot description).

You keep saying, that I need to make changes to the rules, yet your interpretation violates the very definition of attacks of opportunity, which is a rather big change IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

If you go by your reading of the example with the ranged weapon attacks, then when someone takes a standard action (Attack (ranged)) to attack with a ranged weapon, can an opponent with Combat Reflexes make two attacks of opportunity?

Because that is what your interpretation would lead to, since the provoking for the attack action is absolutely undeniable. If the attacking provokes, it must provoke in addition to that.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Just for clarity's sake, here are some examples, how I think some actions would provoke AoO:

Cast Spell action, casting Scorching Ray - 1 AoO (for the spellcasting action)

Attack (ranged) action - 1 AoO (for the ranged attack action)

Manyshot action - 1 AoO (for the Manyshot action, because it most closely resembles the Attack (ranged) action from the ones which are listed)

Full Attack action with three attacks (melee, disarm, trip) - 2 AoO (one each for the disarm and trip sub-action)

Full Attack action with three attacks (ranged, ranged, ranged) - 3 AoO (one for each ranged attack sub-action)

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

If you go by your reading of the example with the ranged weapon attacks, then when someone takes a standard action (Attack (ranged)) to attack with a ranged weapon, can an opponent with Combat Reflexes make two attacks of opportunity?

Because that is what your interpretation would lead to, since the provoking for the attack action is absolutely undeniable. If the attacking provokes, it must provoke in addition to that.

Bye
Thanee

No, it wouldn't. I'm afraid you are incorrect.

The Attack action does not provoke. Using the Attack action to make a (ranged) attack does, because ranged attacks provoke. That's all the table indicates.