Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 1965068" data-attributes="member: 478">Because a ranged weapon attack is an action, which provokes an attack of opportunity. The text clearly states that... here's the passage again:In short...Then it goes on to say...So, we take a look at table 8-2 and find the Attack (ranged) action, which is a standard action focussing on attacking with a ranged weapon, and which provokes an attack of opportunity.So we see, that when attacking with a ranged weapon you do indeed provoke an attack of opportunity in the process, because you have to perform an action, which does so.Of course, the fact, that you are attacking with a ranged weapon is rather crucial in the provoking an attack of opportunity, but it's not the attack, but the action which provokes the AoO. If you are casting a spell, the fact, that you also attack with a ranged weapon (ranged touch spell) is irrelevant, since you do not perform an action, which is focused on attacking with a ranged weapon, but an action, which is focused on casting a spell. That's what provokes the AoO, the action.As the ranged attack is only listed as a standard action (it really should be under action type varies, as Hypersmurf said somewhere above), we are left to ourselves to draw the conclusions. A ranged attack really seems to fall into the same category as a disarm or grapple (or trip) attempt, if you look at it closely (it can be done as a standard or a full-round action, so it varies). An action with the action type: varies, which can be a sub-element of the Full Attack action.I just said, that even if the Full Attack action does not provoke by itself (the table quite clearly states that), it's still the action (sub-action in this context), which provokes.The other way to look at it would be what I said initially, that the Full Attack action should say "maybe", because it sometimes provokes AoO and sometimes not, depending on what kind of sub-action you take with the multiple attacks.This is not contradictory in the way you meant, just two different viewpoints, both are fully consistent with the way I read the rules; tho after putting some thought into the matter, I believe the first makes more sense, really, and then the "error" in the table I first mentioned with the Full Attack action would not be existent, so it's obviously "better" that way.But in any case... the action provokes, so there is no contradiction to that part, whatsoever.Really? Name a single one from the PHB that does, please. Havn't found one myself...The fact, that it is very close to the Attack (ranged) action. I already said, that it should state that it does provoke, it does not. Neither does it state, that it does not provoke. It is also not listed on the table of actions, which provoke, therefore it's not covered in the rules.Oh, really? So where exactly do they say, that attacking provokes an attack of opportunity and not performing an action (which lets you attack)?So, where exactly does this say anything but that actions provoke attacks or opportunity?It doesn't even say, that attacking with a ranged weapon provokes. It only says, that it is a (distracting) action.The glossary entry about attacks of opportunity also says, that you get to make one, if an action provoked it.A single action, which can be broken down into multiple actions, yes (otherwise there would be not point in listing disarm and grapple as provoking actions, because there is no Disarm or Grapple action on the same level as an Attack or Full Attack action).This alone is the reason, that it can provoke multiple AoOs.ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification