Warlock's Eldritch Blast?

[Thanee]

Yes, because it's a spell-like ability and not a (non-light) weapon. It has some similarities with a weapon, but it is not a weapon in that sense, that makes them useless in grapple.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

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

Uhm... no.

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.

Right, in this specific case.

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.

Wrong. I say, that this case is not covered in the rules.

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.

No, I don't say it is an error, I say you put too much weight on that part.

It's basically the whole foundation of your opinion, or not?
Yet, it's just an example, which even contradicts the general rule, if read that way and not the way I presented above.

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

Only the "no" with Full Attack, and that is obviously wrong, if you compare it with Standard Attack.

Why do they state, that the Attack (ranged) action provokes an attack of opportunity, if that is not the case (it cannot in your interpretation, it would provoke twice then, once for the action, once for the attack)?

Also, it says "Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions" so any case is consistent as long as it includes the one's listed, which my interpretation does... since Full Attack does itself not provoke as per the table, but when using Disarm or Grapple with it does, again as per the table, that works very well in the way I interprete the rules, that is, that every single attack in a Full Attack action is a seperate (attack) action (note: see below my answer to Hypersmurf's post for further explanation on this topic) when it comes to adjudicating attacks of opportunity, and it says that the Attack (ranged) action provokes, so it's natural to assume that every ranged attack action within a Full Attack action does provoke. The possibility of making a 5-ft. step between them underlines this (that the Full Attack action consists of several smaller parts, which are by themselves also actions) in the same way as the split between the spellcasting and the attack does with (melee) touch spells.

These are, however, the only two actions which have these special cases, spellcasting in general does not have them. You cannot cast Melf's Acid Arrow, then make a move and then target the ray. It's part of the spellcasting.

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.

How so? What is the intent?

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.

Oh you do, like the definition of attacks of opportunity... here:

"Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square."

That's it. The whole definition of attacks or opportunity. There is nothing else to it. The rest just goes on to explain, what such an action is and what not.

Attack (ranged) is such an action, Use spell-like ability is such an action, but the very act of attacking (with a ranged weapon) is not. An action, which is focused on attacking with a ranged weapon is such an action, not the very act of attacking with the ranged weapon itself. The Cast spell or Use spell-like ability is not such an action, the ranged attack roll is just a mechanic used as part of the spell or ability, it's not the centerpiece of the action (as it is with Manyshot, for example, which is why Manyshot would provoke an attack of opportunity going by the spirit and the intent of the rules (at least as far as I can discern it)).

Also, the SRD entry makes quite clear, that the part you find so very important, isn't important after all, since it simply does not list it.

"Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity."

Shouldn't it, if that was what the rules intended to say, at least somehow mention, that it's not the actions, which provoke the attacks?

Also, why do they list all the provoking actions sorted by Action type, if the action is basically completely irrelevant as you say?

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

No, it's not, but is it the intent, that some spells provoke twice? I can hardly believe that.

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.

Well, it might be better to convince you, but that is not my opinion ; my opinion is, that you only provoke depending on the type of action and that is only once for a use spell-like ability action, because it is not an attack-type action with a ranged weapon.

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.

Well, see above... your whole evidence is an example, which uses language to spell out a game term, that's all there is. At least when I look at it.

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.

Heh. Well, if you are not to be convinced otherwise, than so be it. There is no proof of anything, it's just a matter of interpretation and you seem to like yours best.

You seem to take a back to front approach, you start with the example and fit the rest (like the definition of what an attack of opportunity is) to what you make out of it.

I go from front to back, start with the definition and fit the rest to it in my interpretation.

I don't think that without switching the way of looking at it one can see the other direction in the same way.

You can say all day long that my interpretation is not consistent, but it's only not consistent with your interpretation (and vice versa), that's all. Because we base the definition of attacks of opportunity on different things.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, it says "Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions" so any case is consistent as long as it includes the one's listed, which my interpretation does...

The table notes many of them; the strong implication is that it does not note all of them.

... the way I interprete the rules, that is, that every single attack in a Full Attack action is a seperate Attack action when it comes to adjudicating attacks of opportunity...

The Attack action is a standard action. The Full Attack action does not consist of multiple standard actions; it consists of multiple attacks. The attacks within a Full Attack action are not the Attack action.

The possibility of making a 5-ft. step between them underlines this in the same way as the split between the spellcasting and the attack does with (melee) touch spells.

Except the touch attack isn't a separate action; it's part of the Cast a Spell action. It just happens to be a special case where the move can occur in the middle of the action.

That's it. The whole definition of attacks or opportunity. There is nothing else to it. The rest just goes on to explain, what such an action is and what not.

Attack (ranged) is such an action, Use spell-like ability is such an action, but attacking with a ranged weapon is not.

It explicitly states that attacking with a ranged weapon is.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Maybe I am just over simplifing here, but isn't Attack (ranged) and attacking with a ranged weapon the same exact thing? I think you are disecting the wording a little too much here.

 

[Thanee]

The table notes many of them; the strong implication is that it does not note all of them.

That's what I said. That's why Manyshot does not make any difference, since it is not listed. It falls into the "not one of the many" category.

The Attack action is a standard action. The Full Attack action does not consist of multiple standard actions;

That (the standard Attack action) is not what I meant (read on).

it consists of multiple attacks. The attacks within a Full Attack action are not the Attack action.

Correct. But yet they are some kind of actions (read on).

Except the touch attack isn't a separate action; it's part of the Cast a Spell action. It just happens to be a special case where the move can occur in the middle of the action.

Yes, but the move is not part of the action. It's not like in 3.0 where a standard action consists of a move and the actual action. They are two completely seperate actions now.

It can be interrupted by movement, so the action itself can be split in two seperate parts.
One could also say, that the attack itself is then a free action on the same turn.

Same is true for the Full Attack action. Each seperate attack is a seperate entity, which can be seperated by the rest of the action with a 5-ft. step (just once per round, of course, but you could put it in any of the spaces between the attacks).

It's not really seperate actions, but then again... Disarm is listed as an action, and Grapple is listed as an action and both can be done within one Full Attack action.

So there certainly is some evidence, that there are smaller parts, which are also actions and which together form the greater (standard, full-round, etc) actions like Full Attack.

And this is also very specific to the Full Attack action and the Touch Spells, so I consider these two as exceptions and special cases. Not as the general case.

It explicitly states that attacking with a ranged weapon is.

Well... my explanation was a bit vague and misleading there.

What I meant to differentiate is the action "attacking with a ranged weapon" and the attack "attacking with a ranged weapon".

It states, that "attack with a ranged weapon" is an action which provokes attacks of opportunity, which strongly implies that the Attack action is meant here, not the act of attacking. This is further underlined by refering to table 8-2.



@RigaMortus: It's the same. But it's also the difference between the two opinions of Caliban and myself. The difference is what part of the action triggers the attack of opportunity... the acting or the attacking.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Caliban]

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

You can't cast a spell with a somatic component while you are being grappled, and you can't cast one with a somatic or verbal opponent while you are pinned if your opponent chooses to prevent you from speaking. It doesn't matter what concentration check you make.

Even though they are spell-like abilities, the Warlock's invocations and Eldritch blast specifically use somatic components. The warlock cannot use them at all while pinned, no matter what concentration check they make.

Warlocks are even more vulnerable to grappling than wizards and sorcerers (although they will generally have a better grapple check).

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, I recall the thread about Warlocks and grapple and how it totally hoses them.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Disarm is listed as an action, and Grapple is listed as an action and both can be done within one Full Attack action.

No, they're not. Footnote 7 specifically states they they substitute for an attack, not an action.

So there certainly is some evidence, that there are smaller parts, which are also actions and which together form the greater (standard, full-round, etc) actions like Full Attack.

5' step is 'not an action'. Disarm and Grapple substitute for 'an attack, not an action'. The touch attack is part of the cast a spell action; it is nowhere defined as a free action.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Let's say you want to cast Inflict Light Wounds. Are you allowed to cast the spell, move up to an enemy, then touch attack them all in one round?

Now look at something like Scorching Ray. Are you allowed to cast the spell, move into a better position, then fire off the spell?

 

[Thanee]

Disarm and Grapple substitute for an attack and not an action (obviously, they do not replace the action you perform, they are not actions you can perform by themselves), but they are actions (with action type: varies), table 8-2 clearly denotes them as such. Otherwise they could not provoke attacks of opportunities, since only actions (and movement) can do so as per the definition of attacks of opportunities.

I'm quite aware, that the touch attack is not defined as a free action. But if it is not a free action it contradicts the rules for movement and how actions have to be resolved, since you can make it with a move action between the casting and the touch attack, therefore it is quite reasonable to assume, that it actually is a free action.

What are you saying, anyways, Hypersmurf? It doesn't really become clear. Do you also think, that something else but actions provoke attacks of opportunity? Or do you just want to point out some errors/vague parts there without presenting an opinion?

Do you think a ranged touch spell provokes twice?

Bye
Thanee