Warlock's Eldritch Blast?

[francisca]

This is what drives me nuts about 3E. There are good arguments here for both conclusions concerning the number of AOOs for the Eldritch Blast. When you have a system which trys to codify everything, it's maddening when the waters are murky (sometimes).

I'm an "intent" rather than "letter" of the rules guy. I look at all of these ranged touch spells, and see that they all have somatic components. In my way of thinking, the caster reaches out with his hands and points/gestures/"puts the whammy" on the target as part of the spell, therefore only one AOO for them, and only one for the Eldritch Blast.


Now, in the case of the Acid Arrow (and Polar Ray) there is a spell focus. In the Acid Arrow's case, it is a dart. I am assuming the dart is transformed into the acid arrow. Does that mean that the dart must be thrown as part of the spell? Would the tossing of the dart/arrow provoke, in this interpretation? The spell's description in the SRD does not specify what should be done with the focus item.

 

[Thanee]

I explained that part already. It does not say, that ranged attacks provoke, but that the Attack (ranged) action provokes. It only says the first if read out of context.

Full Attack should read "maybe" not "no". I consider this an error. It contradicts the rest of the rules.

And I don't see anything inconsistent in the whole "actions provoke AoO" view.
Manyshot, for example, is an action, which is not listed, therefore it can be both... obviously "AoO: yes" makes most sense here. Full Attack (see above).

Also, saying, that a ranged touch attack is a touch spell and provokes an attack of opportunity clearly contradicts the rules (as quoted above).

Anyways, I've said how I believe it works and that fits (IMHO) to all the text quotes we have seen. I've yet to see a text quote, which gives more than an obscure hint at your claim, that the attack and not the action is crucial in provoking the attack of opportunity. Not just an example line, which is bathed in the term "action" all around (see above) and is linked to a table (8-2), which only lists actions and a yes/no for AoO, including both of the examples (I have included the table entries in the text quoted above to make that clear what the text snippets are meant to represent IMHO).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've yet to see a text quote, which gives more than an obscure hint at your claim, that the attack and not the action is crucial in provoking the attack of opportunity.

And yet... weren't you arguing just the other day that 'action' doesn't mean 'action' in the Dazed/AoO thread?

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

Yes.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

I explained that part already. It does not say, that ranged attacks provoke, but that the Attack (ranged) action provokes. It only says the first if read out of context.

Full Attack should read "maybe" not "no". I consider this an error. It contradicts the rest of the rules.

And I don't see anything inconsistent in the whole "actions provoke AoO" view.
Manyshot, for example, is an action, which is not listed, therefore it can be both... obviously "AoO: yes" makes most sense here. Full Attack (see above).

Also, saying, that a ranged touch attack is a touch spell and provokes an attack of opportunity clearly contradicts the rules (as quoted above).

Anyways, I've said how I believe it works and that fits (IMHO) to all the text quotes we have seen. I've yet to see a text quote, which gives more than an obscure hint at your claim, that the attack and not the action is crucial in provoking the attack of opportunity. Not just an example line, which is bathed in the term "action" all around (see above) and is linked to a table (8-2), which only lists actions and a yes/no for AoO, including both of the examples (I have included the table entries in the text quoted above to make that clear what the text snippets are meant to represent IMHO).

Bye
Thanee

It clearly does not fit all the quotes.

You state that only the Standard Attack (ranged) action provokes.

The PHB states that Full Attack action does not provoke. This means it would not provoke even if you use a Full Attack Action to make ranged attacks. You say the PHB is in error.

The Manyshot feat uses a Standard Action, not a Standard Attack (ranged) action. You say that this is also an error in the rules, it should provoke.

The AoO rules also state that attacking with a ranged weapon provokes (not using the Standard Attack (ranged) option). You say that this is also an error, that it is being used out of context.

So, your interpretation does indeed fit the rules, as long as you throw out every part of the rules that disagrees with your interpretation.

That may work for you, but I'm afraid that I don't find it very convincing. It does not seem consistent with the intent of the rules or the RAW.

If you use the interpretation that any ranged weapon attack (not the Attack (ranged) Action) provokes, you don't have to ignore or throw out any part of the rules.

It does lead to the possibility of two AoO opportunities for some spells, but I hardly think that is unbalancing or game breaking.



If you don't think casting a ranged touch spell (or using eldritch blast) should provide two AoO opportunities, you would have a stronger case by argueing that they are not ranged weapon attacks.

I think there is considerable gray area there, and it could be reasonably ruled either way. Personally, I think the preponderance of evidence points towards them being treated as ranged weapons, but not by a great margin. I was hoping to see some convincing arguements against them being classified as ranged weapon attacks. I would try, but I'm biased because I play a sorcerer that relies heavily on ranged spells. I don't trust my own arguements on that score.

 

[3d6]

There is some evidence that wizards doesn't consider ranged touch spells to be attacks with a ranged weapon. For example, the SRD entry on rays reads:

Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.

If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

Note some of the wording. They call out specific times when a ray works like a ranged weapon, which implies that a ray is not a ranged weapon, but simply similar to a ranged weapon.

 

[Caliban]

There is some evidence that wizards doesn't consider ranged touch spells to be attacks with a ranged weapon. For example, the SRD entry on rays reads:

Note some of the wording. They call out specific times when a ray works like a ranged weapon, which implies that a ray is not a ranged weapon, but simply similar to a ranged weapon.

Yeah, but is that simply because a spell effect isn't a physical object, and therefore can't really be classified as an actual weapon?

You can take weapon focus and weapon specialization with a ranged touch spell. You make an attack roll, you can critical with it, and many of them you can sneak attack with. Everytime it comes up in the rules, it seems ranged touch spells are treated like weapons. I just can't recall any instance where the rules say they work differently than a weapon (other than the obvious: can't sunder or disarm them ).

How is it NOT like a ranged weapon?

In other words, is it different enough from a ranged weapon to not provoke an AoO?

A melee touch spell is enough like a weapon to not provoke, even though an unarmed attack (even a touch attack like trip or grapple) would normally provoke an AoO.

Why wouldn't a ranged touch spell be equally similar to a ranged weapon?

 

[3d6]

In regards to Weapon Focus, it just says that a ray is treated as a weapon for the purposes of that feat, it never says that a ray is a weapon. I actually don't think you are allowed to take Weapon Specialization (ray), as Weapon Specialization doesn't include that parentheical bit that Weapon Focus does.

Regardless of the actual literal rules, I think its a terrible idea to actually run it that way. For example, it negates the need for the Precise Shot feat for spelcasters because the -4 firing into melee penalty only applies to ranged weapons.

Also, you get wierd glossary things where, apparently, ranged touch spells don't exist. (They are a ranged touch attack, which is a ranged attack, which is an attack with a ranged weapon. If a ray isn't a ranged weapon, then it can't be a ranged touch attack by definition.)

 

[Caliban]

In regards to Weapon Focus, it just says that a ray is treated as a weapon for the purposes of that feat, it never says that a ray is a weapon. I actually don't think you are allowed to take Weapon Specialization (ray), as Weapon Specialization doesn't include that parentheical bit that Weapon Focus does.

Regardless of the actual literal rules, I think its a terrible idea to actually run it that way. For example, it negates the need for the Precise Shot feat for spelcasters because the -4 firing into melee penalty only applies to ranged weapons.

Also, you get wierd glossary things where, apparently, ranged touch spells don't exist. (They are a ranged touch attack, which is a ranged attack, which is an attack with a ranged weapon. If a ray isn't a ranged weapon, then it can't be a ranged touch attack by definition.)

That's where I keep getting hung up. And that's why my sorcerer has Point Blank and Precise Shot, and avoids casting Ray spells in a threatened area, just like with any other ranged weapon.

 

[Malcer]

Grapple

I'd like to ask a question about Eldritch Blast on a related issue since a lot of rules experts are present on this thread.

I am currently playing a Warlock and I was wondering whether it is possible to use Eldritch Blast while grappling.

One could cast a spell with a Concentration Check while grappling and while being pinned. But can one aim the ranged touch attack of an Eldritch Blast while grappling?

Thx for you opinions and thoughts on that matter.

Malcer