Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 1962089" data-attributes="member: 478">Uhm... no.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Right, in this specific case.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Wrong. I say, that this case is not covered in the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; No, I don't say it is an error, I say you put too much weight on that part. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; It's basically the whole foundation of your opinion, or not?&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet, it's just an example, which even contradicts the general rule, if read that way and not the way I presented above.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Only the &quot;no&quot; with Full Attack, and that is obviously wrong, if you compare it with Standard Attack.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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)?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Also, it says &quot;Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions&quot; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; How so? What is the intent?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Oh you do, like the definition of attacks of opportunity... here:&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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)).&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;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.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Also, why do they list all the provoking actions sorted by Action type, if the action is basically completely irrelevant as you say?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; No, it's not, but is it the intent, that some spells provoke twice? I can hardly believe that.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Well, it might be better to convince you, but that is not my opinion <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; I go from front to back, start with the definition and fit the rest to it in my interpretation.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think that without switching the way of looking at it one can see the other direction in the same way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;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.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Bye&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thanee, post: 1962089, member: 478"] Uhm... no. Right, in this specific case. Wrong. I say, that this case is not covered in the rules. 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. 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 [i]Melf's Acid Arrow[/i], then make a move and then target the ray. It's part of the spellcasting. How so? What is the intent? 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 [b]performing an action[/b] 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 [b]Action type[/b], if the action is basically completely irrelevant as you say? No, it's not, but is it the intent, that some spells provoke twice? I can hardly believe that. 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. 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. :) 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification