Need confirmation on number of AoOs for ranged touch spells

[irdeggman]

He's trying to appear Socratic. It's in his nature.

(I was going say that he's trying to look Socratic, but until I see him running off barefoot to fight the Peloponnesian War, I'll hold off on that statement.)

I know his nature and he is always polite too.

He usually runs through a logic path of connecting statements and makes comparisons to other examples in the rules.

But in this case he is comparing things that are not the same and relying on a absence of rules to make a comparison. What I mean by an absence is the lack of any additional clarification meaning the same thing as saying if it is not mentioned then it wipes out the first statement.

This is not up to his usual quality of logic path structure.

 

[Hypersmurf]

One (the ranged attack) gives more specific details on what it means, specifically in relation to an AoO the other (pushing/pulling) doesn't becasue there is no need.

p16 doesn't comment on whether or not the Attack (Ranged) action provokes an AoO. It does state that shooting a ranged weapon provokes an AoO.

p47 doesn't comment on whether or not the Push/Pull Heavy Object action provokes an AoO.

Since "take the Attack (Ranged) action" and "shoot a ranged weapon" are not the same thing, then p16 makes as much comment about the AoOness of the Attack (Ranged) action as p47 makes about the AoOness of the Push/Pull Heavy Object action - that is, none. So p16 has as much bearing on the validity of "AoO: Yes" for the Attack (Ranged) action as p47 has for the Push/Pull Heavy Object action.

Thanks to p8, we know that the Attack (Ranged) action provokes an AoO (whether or not shooting with a ranged weapon is involved). Thanks to p16, we know that shooting a ranged weapon provokes an AoO (whether or not it is done as part of the Attack (Ranged) action).

The two pages give us separate pieces of information about what provokes an AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

p16 doesn't comment on whether or not the Attack (Ranged) action provokes an AoO. It does state that shooting a ranged weapon provokes an AoO.

p47 doesn't comment on whether or not the Push/Pull Heavy Object action provokes an AoO.

Since "take the Attack (Ranged) action" and "shoot a ranged weapon" are not the same thing, then p16 makes as much comment about the AoOness of the Attack (Ranged) action as p47 makes about the AoOness of the Push/Pull Heavy Object action - that is, none. So p16 has as much bearing on the validity of "AoO: Yes" for the Attack (Ranged) action as p47 has for the Push/Pull Heavy Object action.

Thanks to p8, we know that the Attack (Ranged) action provokes an AoO (whether or not shooting with a ranged weapon is involved). Thanks to p16, we know that shooting a ranged weapon provokes an AoO (whether or not it is done as part of the Attack (Ranged) action).

The two pages give us separate pieces of information about what provokes an AoO.

-Hyp.

Then why does it bother to state that (onpg 16) attacking with a ranged weapon provokes since that is already covered (in your reading) by the table on pg 8 under Attack (ranged)?

And yet the other example you give on pushing/pulling a heavy object requires no such additional clarification.

The comparison is weak.

Pg 16 (the clarification or additional details) specifies what is meant by the paraphrase in the table on pg 8. Or is the assumption that the table is fullly elaborate and not a quick reference (e.g., a paraphrase of what the rule is supposed to be)? There is a reason that text trumps tables after all.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Isn't it possible that we can read spells like scorching ray as being resolved by a ranged touch attack roll; but that, in fact, no range touch attack action occurs? In other words, it's not a ranged touch attack as an action (since we already know it's a spell and thus requires the cast-a-spell action), but the success (hit) or failure (miss) is determined by a ranged touch attack roll (i.e., a roll, with dice, that is a ranged attack vs. touch AC, as in the ranged touch attack action throw-a-splash-weapon).

In any case, even if both casting a spell and making a ranged touch attack both provoke AoOs, there is still only one "activity" taking place (casting scorching ray), and should therefore provoke only one AoO. The fact that the spell is resolved in a way that itself provokes an AoO does not necessarily imply that there should be an additional AoO. At least not to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then why does it bother to state that (onpg 16) attacking with a ranged weapon provokes since that is already covered (in your reading) by the table on pg 8 under Attack (ranged)?

It isn't. They're different.

If I shoot my bow three times as part of a Full Attack action, I'm shooting with a ranged weapon, but I'm not taking the Attack (ranged) action. If p8 was the only rule we had, I wouldn't provoke any AoO, because the Full Attack action does not provoke.

The three AoOs I provoke are due to the text on p16, not due to the table on p8.

And if a circumstance arises where I take the Attack (ranged) action, I'll provoke an AoO even if the action is resolved without my shooting or throwing a ranged weapon. The action itself provokes, as shown by the table on p8.

Shooting a ranged weapon and taking the Attack (ranged) action are not mutually dependent events. Thus, a rule that says shooting a ranged weapon provokes, and a rule that says taking the Attack (ranged) action provokes, are two different rules.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

It isn't. They're different.

If I shoot my bow three times as part of a Full Attack action, I'm shooting with a ranged weapon, but I'm not taking the Attack (ranged) action. If p8 was the only rule we had, I wouldn't provoke any AoO, because the Full Attack action does not provoke.

The three AoOs I provoke are due to the text on p16, not due to the table on p8.

And if a circumstance arises where I take the Attack (ranged) action, I'll provoke an AoO even if the action is resolved without my shooting or throwing a ranged weapon. The action itself provokes, as shown by the table on p8.

Shooting a ranged weapon and taking the Attack (ranged) action are not mutually dependent events. Thus, a rule that says shooting a ranged weapon provokes, and a rule that says taking the Attack (ranged) action provokes, are two different rules.

-Hyp.

Or you could read it the way the RC spells things out.

Now what are we really argueing about?

The attack (Ranged) must be made with a ranged (or thrown) weapon.

And anytime you make an attack with a raned (or thrown) weapon you generate an AoO. It doesn't matter what the action type being used is.

But you can't make an Attack (Ranged) standard action without using a ranged (or thrown) weapon. That part is defined in the sections (both PHB and RC) under Ranged Attacks. No other option is available for those.

The point I was trying to make before was that using a ray is like using a ranged weapon and attacking with a ranged weapon generates an AoO. It doesn't matter what action type (if any) is being used. The section in the RC (or Complete Arcane) takes about weaponlike spells and thus ties them into being like weapons for most purposes.

Attacks are also not merely limited to things that require an attack (or even a full attack) action. The rules on breaking invisibility makes that point clear.

So when making the attack with a ray an AoO is generated.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Attacks are also not merely limited to things that require an attack (or even a full attack) action. The rules on breaking invisibility makes that point clear.

You can't generalise a definition of what an attack is from the Invisibility description; the spell specifies that it uses an idiosyncratic definition.

"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."

The definition of 'attack' used by the Invisibility spell is different to the definition of 'attack' used by the Magic Overview section, which is different to the definition of 'attack' used by the Combat section.

The word 'attack' has many meanings.

Magic Overview says:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

So for the purposes of the Invisibility spell, Detect Magic cast such that the area includes a foe is an attack, and will break Invisibility. However, since it is not an offensive action, does not deal damage, harm, or hamper subjects, and is not resisted with saving throws, Detect Magic is not an attack for the purpose of other spell descriptions - it will not break a Sanctuary spell, for example.

And while the Detect Thoughts spell, which opponents resist with a saving throw, is an attack by the definition of the Magic Overview (and will thus break a Sanctuary spell), it is not an attack by the definition of the Combat chapter.

The section in the RC (or Complete Arcane) takes about weaponlike spells and thus ties them into being like weapons for most purposes.

A ray is only a weaponlike spell if it a/ requires an attack roll, and b/ deals damage (in the form of hit point loss, ability damage, or negative levels).

Ray of Frost is a weaponlike spell. Ray of Exhaustion is not. However, Ray of Exhaustion requires a ranged touch attack.

If your contention is that Ray of Frost, by the rules, provokes a second AoO because it is a weaponlike spell, then Ray of Exhaustion does not, because it is not a weaponlike spell.

However, if we assume that Ray of Exhaustion requires making a ranged attack (even though it is not an attack with a ranged weaopn, like Ray of Frost might be considered to be), Ray of Exhaustion might still provoke the second AoO, under the rules in the PHB that ranged attacks provoke.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

The word 'attack' has many meanings.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - but this is essentially what I was meaning. That in D&D terms Attack is more than an "attack action".

A ray is only a weaponlike spell if it a/ requires an attack roll, and b/ deals damage (in the form of hit point loss, ability damage, or negative levels).

Ray of Frost is a weaponlike spell. Ray of Exhaustion is not. However, Ray of Exhaustion requires a ranged touch attack.

If your contention is that Ray of Frost, by the rules, provokes a second AoO because it is a weaponlike spell, then Ray of Exhaustion does not, because it is not a weaponlike spell.

I'm sorry I was just using "ray" to be brief in my statements. Your quotes are the actual times it applies as a weaponlike spell.



Now - when precisely is an Attack (ranged) - not using a ranged (or thrown) weapon? Every section in the RAW talking about ragned Attacks specifically calls out using a ranged weapon (and the RC adds in thrown).

So how is it possible to make an Attack (ranged) without using a ranged (or thrown) weapon?

Stating that they are not inclusive (well an Attack (ranged) must be made with a ranged (or thrown) weapon) is as far as I can tell per the RAW - incorrect. It is possible to make an attack with a ranged (or thrown) weapon without using the Attack (ranged) action but it is not possible to do the reverse {again as far as I can find in the RAW - I might have missed something}

 

[3d6]

I think that casting a range touch spell does provoke two opportunity attacks, but its a good idea to house rule otherwise. There is nothing about ranged touch spells that would require an additional balancing factor of two opportunity attacks. (Or many additional opportunity attacks, in the case of "volley" spells like scorching ray.)

The question of how it works best for your game is more important than a literal reading of the rules, in any event. Its important that a DM administers the game rules in a consistent, fair, and transparent way, not that a precisely literal interpretation of the rules is used.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm sorry I was just using "ray" to be brief in my statements. Your quotes are the actual times it applies as a weaponlike spell.

So does Ray of Exhaustion count as shooting or throwing a ranged weapon? It's not a weaponlike spell.

Now - when precisely is an Attack (ranged) - not using a ranged (or thrown) weapon? Every section in the RAW talking about ragned Attacks specifically calls out using a ranged weapon (and the RC adds in thrown).

The Attack (Ranged) action will almost always involve shooting or throwing a ranged weapon (while I can see a scenario involving readied actions and invalidated targets where the action is taken but no weapon is shot or thrown, it's a corner case that isn't relevant to the casting-a-spell question).

However, a ranged attack doesn't always involve a ranged weapon.

... for example, Ray of Exhaustion.

And there's a line in the PHB, previously quoted, that says that making a ranged attack provokes an AoO. Ray of Exhaustion involves a ranged attack, but involves neither the Attack (Ranged) action, nor shooting or throwing a ranged weapon, so neither p8 nor p16 in RC will tell us that the attack provokes... but the PHB does.

-Hyp.