Quick question regarding attacks of opportunity on spells with ranged attacks.

[Morphie]

Hello guys,
So I have a question. On the last session I casted a splinterbolt in melee range of a large creature, and to avoid the AoO I casted it defensively, and passed the DC. However, making a ranged attack in melee range also provokes an AoO. So I was attacked and got hit, but the splinterbolt was launched anyway.

Did we played it well or did we do something wrong? If you can help me or if this has been discussed before and you could point me to it I would be grateful.

Thanks for your help :smallsmile:

[Morphie]

So, nothing? I've already looked for it on the regular books but still can't find any insight on what to do when both things happen at the same time (casting a spell and doing a ranged attack with it).

Thanks for your help. :smallsmile:

[Vertharrad]

It doesn't matter that you did a ranged attack since that's apart of the spell there shouldn't have been an AoO. If the enemy still attacked you then you and the DM need to talk about whether or not this DM wants concentration and or casting defensively in their campaign. Your DM adjudicated this wrong.

[Frosty]

Morphie, your DM did it completely correctly. The casting of the spell and the ranged attack are two separate actions, and provoke separately.

[Khedrac]

As you can tell from the above two posts, it's not a clear area. I think if you try the Simple RAW question you will get the same two answers with lost of "logic" and related rules quotes to back up the positions.

As far as I am aware the rules are silent on this issue, which to me implies your DM is right, but I think most (me included) house-rule it to not provoking.

[Andezzar]

The rules are absolutely clear on this:
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity.Your DM was wrong.

[TuggyNE]

Sadly, your DM was wrong by strict RAW. However, arguably they made a good ruling, and RAW here is dysfunctional.

Specifically, ranged attacks in general are nowhere stated to provoke; only making a ranged attack as a standard action provokes (and since neither spells that allow ranged touch attacks nor the regular ranged full attack meet this condition, neither provoke).


It doesn't matter that you did a ranged attack since that's apart of the spell there shouldn't have been an AoO.

Not relevant; the same action can in some cases provoke more than once (as we can see from the fact that movement is specially exempted from provoking more than once). Or do you want to allow archers to full-attack freely from point-blank without suffering AoOs? The rules basis is precisely the same, as mentioned above.


The rules are absolutely clear on this:Your DM was wrong.

The rules are unambiguous, yes, but that's the wrong quote, since it only applies to touch-range spells (which this was not). Nor would I exactly say they are clear, since so far no one in the thread has correctly identified the precise issues involved.

[Andezzar]

The rules are unambiguous, yes, but that's the wrong quote, since it only applies to touch-range spells (which this was not). Nor would I exactly say they are clear, since so far no one in the thread has correctly identified the precise issues involved.It is the right quote and applies to all touch spells. I did not quote enough to make it perfectly clear though:
Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

The definition of Touch Spell (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_touchspell&alpha=T) does not limit the selection to spells with Range: Touch. the criterion is that the spell is delivered to an unwilling target by a touch attack. As quoted above those come in two varieties: melee and ranged.

[TuggyNE]

It is the right quote and applies to all touch spells. I did not quote enough to make it perfectly clear though:

No, you really didn't. Let's try this again, keeping track of the header sizes.
Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

So far so good, it's clear we're talking about touch spells that have a range of touch and a target of a creature touched.


Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

And here things get strange, because "armed attack" is only relevant for unarmed strikes, which are in melee: ranged attacks just don't care, and you provoke* no matter whether you're armed or not. However, we can see that they're overloading the term "touch". Fortunately, the context suggests that "touching an opponent" literally means reaching out and brushing your fingers against them or whatever, not merely hitting them with a (potentially ranged) touch attack. That is, it's melee-only.

From another perspective, this bit is a digression on the nature of touch attacks in general, like a parenthetical reminder, despite the section being chiefly about touch-range spells and the touch attacks thereof. The writing is not stellar and it is easy to get confused.


Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

And we are unambiguously back to touch-range spells, with a bit more context to show what they mean. (No, you cannot fire scorching ray with your fist into someone you punch.)

* Well, you should provoke, at least; you certainly provoke if you're armed with a bow and firing a single arrow as a standard action! Even if you're firing a hand crossbow with one hand and holding a dagger in another (armed, to the point of being able to take AoOs yourself) you still provoke.

[Morphie]

Hello again, thanks for your insights so far.

I don't know if it helps, but the Splinterbolt spell is made with a ranged attack, not a ranged touch attack.
I'm still divided about this, the DM's ruling was based on something similar that happened before, but I would like to know if there is something wrong. I ended up just killing the enemy (a mimic) on the surprise round but got glued to it at the same time, which just seems a bit strange.

[Maginomicon]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule is that any given opportunity cannot provoke more than one attack of opportunity. That is, casting a spell provokes, and making a ranged attack in melee provokes, but that doesn't mean everyone that threatens you gets in two AoOs. It's a question of whether the action provokes at all "yes or no".


Some abilities allow you to make more than one attack of opportunity per round. Most such abilities, unless they say otherwise, don’t let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity. If the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, however, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity. Each provoking act represents a different opportunity. Multiple attacks of opportunity otherwise follow the rules for normal attacks of opportunity.

[Fax Celestis]

Of note: splinterbolt isn't a touch spell, melee or ranged.


SPLINTERBOLT
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Druid 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One or more streams of splinters
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You extend your hand toward your foe, flicking a single sliver of wood into the air, and a splinter larger than a titan’s javelin whistles through the air.

You must make a ranged attack to hit the target. If you hit, the splinterbolt deals 4d6 points of piercing damage. A splinterbolt threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18–20. You can fire one additional splinterbolt for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three at 11th level). You can fire these splinterbolts at the same or different targets, but all splinterbolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously. A creature’s damage reduction, if any, applies to the damage from this spell. The damage from splinterbolt is treated as magic and piercing for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Material Component: A splinter of wood.

So yes, you made a ranged attack in melee, you provoked. An argument could be made for "same action can't provoke twice", but really you should have five-foot stepped first.

[TuggyNE]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule is that any given opportunity cannot provoke more than one attack of opportunity.

But where is that stated? There is a specific rule that a single move action to move around will not provoke twice, but that if anything might suggest rather the opposite general rule.

In particular, your RC quote does not state or imply anything like that.

[Darkprophet232]

...and to avoid the AoO I casted it defensively, and passed the DC. However, making a ranged attack in melee range also provokes an AoO. So I was attacked and got hit, but the splinterbolt was launched anyway.:

(Emphasis mine)

As you did not provoke from casting the spell, but did fire a ranged attack in melee, you did prove an AoO. The DM ruled properly.

[TuggyNE]

(Emphasis mine)

As you did not provoke from casting the spell, but did fire a ranged attack in melee, you did prove an AoO. The DM ruled properly.

That's a good point. Even if there is a general rule or principle that the same action cannot provoke more than once, it only did, in this case, provoke once, out of the two possible provocation times.

[Morphie]

But should I had been given any penalties to my attack? In theory the AoO comes before my action, and I got glued to him as a consequence of that. But the bolts still were launched and I almost killed the guy with the spell.
The reason I couldn't back away from him before casting the spell was that I was riding my animal companion and was planning on having him attack it as well, which it did, and it killed him.

So, the DM's ruling was good? That's good to know, I'm glad that we played it the right way :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

So, the DM's ruling was good? That's good to know, I'm glad that we played it the right way :smallsmile:

It wasn't strict RAW, but that's chiefly because strict RAW is quite silly in this one particular respect. (Well, lots of others too, but here there's only one place it doesn't make sense.)

[Pickford]

Morphie, your DM did it completely correctly. The casting of the spell and the ranged attack are two separate actions, and provoke separately.

This is incorrect.

The text of attacks opportunity indicates only two things provoke, moving out of a threatened square and performing a distracting action.

While Attack (ranged) shows up as one of the things that provokes, it is important to note what that act is defined as:


With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.

Spells aren't weapons and don't provoke for any other reason than the casting in and of itself.

[Fax Celestis]

Spells aren't weapons and don't provoke for any other reason than the casting in and of itself.

Weaponlike spells are weapons, and making a ranged attack with a weaponlike spell would provoke.

[Darkprophet232]

While Attack (ranged) shows up as one of the things that provokes, it is important to note what that act is defined as:



You must make a ranged attack to hit the target.

(emphasis mine)

Specific trumps general, and you can't get much more specific than the spell description telling you it's a ranged attack.

[Maginomicon]

But where is that stated? There is a specific rule that a single move action to move around will not provoke twice, but that if anything might suggest rather the opposite general rule.

In particular, your RC quote does not state or imply anything like that.

It talks about how a given opportunity doesn't provoke more than once unless explicitly stated in the ability text of the person making an AoO.


Does hideous blow provoke an attack of opportunity?

Yes. As a spell-like ability, using hideous blow provokes attacks of opportunity just as any other spell-like ability would. A warlock who relies on this invocation should consider investing ranks in the Concentration skill so that he can use it defensively.

Note that the act of using the invocation, not the act of making the attack, draws the attack of opportunity, since the warlock delivering hideous blow is considered “armed” (just like a spellcaster delivering a touch spell).
That is, eldritch blast is an SLA, so it provokes an AoO, and converting it into a melee attack means the act of attacking doesn't provoke, but it's still an SLA and thus provokes. It reiterates that a little later...

As I’ve read and interpreted the description, a
warlock’s hideous blow shape allows you to release eldritch blast with a melee attack. Does this mean that when you make a melee attack with the warlock’s weapon, he or she can choose to release the blow energy into the attack, or does he have to prepare the hideous blow and then make the melee attack to deliver the extra damage?

Hideous blow is a shape invocation that you apply to your eldritch blast in the same standard action that it takes you to use the eldritch blast. So the warlock uses hideous blow to shape the eldritch blast and then makes the melee attack with that eldritch blast in the same standard action.

It should be noted that even though hideous blow allows you to make a melee attack, using an eldritch blast in this way still provokes an attack of opportunity from any enemy that threatens you.

I should mention though that even though it all happens in the same "action", an AoO is a different "opportunity" in-itself and thus could provoke its own AoO. They'd be resolved in "Last In, First Out" order.


Is it possible for an attack of opportunity to provoke an attack of opportunity? For example, a fighter attempts to trip a cleric. The cleric chooses to make a sunder attack against the fighter’s weapon as his attack of opportunity. Does the sunder attack then provoke an attack of opportunity from the fighter?

Yes. An attack of opportunity is adjudicated just like any other attack, and it is subject to the same rules (including provoking additional attacks of opportunity). This can lead to odd situations where as the reason for the original action no longer exists. If this starts to confuse you, just remember that D&D combat is an abstract representation of battle, and not necessarily a precise second-by-second representation of every maneuver. Even the “sequential” nature of D&D combat—I make my attacks, then you make your attacks, then I make my attacks, and so forth—is an artificial creation used to keep combat moving quickly.

Using the example you provide, the fighter is indeed allowed to make an attack of opportunity against the cleric. (This attack could, in turn, provoke yet another attack of opportunity from the cleric, but the cleric could make such an attack only if he were allowed more than one attack of opportunity in a single round.)

These attacks are performed in a “Last In, First Out” sequence. The last attack of opportunity declared is the first one resolved, with the remaining attacks resolved in reverse order of their declaration, assuming the character can still make the attack. If the fighter drops the cleric with his attack of opportunity, the rest of the attacks in the sequence — including the cleric’s attack of opportunity and the fighter’s original trip attack — do not occur. The actions are still “spent,” however — the fighter doesn’t get to use that original attack on some other target (although if he has other attacks remaining he can take them as normal).

While making all decisions about a spell (such as choosing targets) can happen when the casting is finished, they don't have to be. Making a ranged attack in a spell is part of the action of casting the spell, and thus isn't its own opportunity. The language of the above strongly implies that all AoO questions are considered in the same way as an "OR-combination" of booleans: If any of them are true, it provokes.

Furthermore, it's explicitly stated that you only provoke an AoO when you begin casting.

Casting a spell that takes 1 standard action or longer to cast provokes attacks of opportunity. You provoke attacks of opportunity only when you begin casting the spell, even though you might continue casting for longer. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must succeed on a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + spell level) or lose the spell.

[TuggyNE]

It talks about how a given opportunity doesn't provoke more than once unless explicitly stated in the ability text of the person making an AoO.

No, it says that e.g. Combat Reflexes ("abilities [that] allow you to make more than one attack of opportunity per round") does not allow you to make multiple AoOs on a single provocation. That's quite a different thing.


That is, eldritch blast is an SLA, so it provokes an AoO, and converting it into a melee attack means the act of attacking doesn't provoke, but it's still an SLA and thus provokes. It reiterates that a little later...

I'm not seeing a good parallel here, since no information is given as to whether two AoOs would be provoked, in the hypothetical case of hideous blow provoking as an unarmed attack would.


While making all decisions about a spell (such as choosing targets) can happen when the casting is finished, they don't have to be. Making a ranged attack in a spell is part of the action of casting the spell, and thus isn't its own opportunity. The language of the above strongly implies that all AoO questions are considered in the same way as an "OR-combination" of booleans: If any of them are true, it provokes.


Furthermore, it's explicitly stated that you only provoke an AoO when you begin casting.

So, if you cast a touch-range spell in melee range of someone with Combat Reflexes, but do not deliver it on that target, but instead use your move action to move out of their threatened area and deliver it to another target as part of casting that touch-range spell, do you not provoke AoOs for that movement?

I'm just wondering exactly where the line for "is part of casting/is not part of casting" falls, and what rules support there is for that. Me, I'd consider it far simpler and rather more sensible to just separate them all out.

(There's also the obvious fact that the RC quote there has no direct bearing on this at all: it only exists to tell you that you don't keep provoking for the actual act of standing there and casting for the whole casting time if it's longer than a round. Keep rules scope in mind.)

[Curmudgeon]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule is that any given opportunity cannot provoke more than one attack of opportunity.
Nope, none that I know of. AoOs occur because of specific provocations. If one action happens to hit multiple provocations (for example, one move action can leave multiple threatened squares) then it needs an explicit exception in the rules to not cause an AoO for each of those cases.

Here's an easy example: a bull rush executed as a standard action normally provokes an AoO. If you succeed on the opposed Strength check, you push the opponent back and can, if you wish, move with them. That movement can also provoke an AoO if you leave a threatened square. So that's one action provoking two AoOs.

Edit: Here's the relevant footnote to the Rules Compendium Actions in Combat table which covers this:
1 This column indicates whether an act provokes attacks of opportunity when it is performed in a threatened square. An asterisk (*) after a “Yes” or “Maybe” entry in this column indicates an that the action provokes an attack of opportunity only from the target of the action. Even if this column reads “No,” you usually provoke an attack of opportunity if you move out of a threatened square.

[Pickford]

Weaponlike spells are weapons, and making a ranged attack with a weaponlike spell would provoke.

You are incorrect. Here is the definition of weaponlike spells from the Complete Arcane (also, as a tip off for future reference, you should know that the word 'like' does not mean 'is'):


For the purpose of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories

@Dark Prophet: A ranged attack describes the types of modifiers used (i.e. dexterity) as opposed to a melee attack, which uses strength for the to-hit modifier. There are some additional differences detailed in the Complete Arcane.

@Curmudgeon: Technically you are correct "edit: The best kind of correct!" that two opportunities may provoke from the Bull Rush...however they provoke from two different people. (The initial act would provoke from the target, and the movement could only be exploited by a third party)

[Darkprophet232]

@Dark Prophet: A ranged attack describes the types of modifiers used (i.e. dexterity) as opposed to a melee attack, which uses strength for the to-hit modifier. There are some additional differences detailed in the Complete Arcane.

A ranged attack is a ranged attack (unless it is a ranged touch attack, which the rules do say won't provoke, but this spell is not an RTA). You can try to split hairs all you like, but the spell is very clear that the caster must make a ranged attack, and the PhB is also very clear that ranged attacks made in melee provoke AoOs.

Also, CAr never states that weaponlike spells aren't actually ranged attacks. It does state that you can critical with them, when certain modifiers may be used, that you can take weapon feats to improve them, rules for non-lethal damage and a few other things that are irrelevant to this conversation.

[Pickford]

A ranged attack is a ranged attack (unless it is a ranged touch attack, which the rules do say won't provoke, but this spell is not an RTA). You can try to split hairs all you like, but the spell is very clear that the caster must make a ranged attack, and the PhB is also very clear that ranged attacks made in melee provoke AoOs.

Also, CAr never states that weaponlike spells aren't actually ranged attacks. It does state that you can critical with them, when certain modifiers may be used, that you can take weapon feats to improve them, rules for non-lethal damage and a few other things that are irrelevant to this conversation.

No, you are conflating two distinct things. The PHB defines a ranged attack thusly:


Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon.

Spells are not weapons, they only benefit from the feats if you take them for the appropriate types of weaponlike spells.

Oh, before we go further, here is the definition of a ranged weapon given on the same page:


A thrown or projectile weapon designed for ranged attacks.

That does not include spells, the two things are distinct events. Casting the touch spell provokes, but attempting to make a melee strike with it does not (whereas normally one would need improved unarmed strike to avoid provoking).

[Fax Celestis]

That does not include spells, the two things are distinct events. Casting the touch spell provokes, but attempting to make a melee strike with it does not (whereas normally one would need improved unarmed strike to avoid provoking).

Irrelevant. The spell in question is not a touch spell. Splinterbolt creates a giant splinter--a projectile, if you will--and then requires you to make ranged attack rolls with it.

Casting splinterbolt allows the caster to make ranged attacks, not ranged touch attacks. It is functionally equivalent to launch item or firing a longbow, except you also create the items that are being fired.

EDIT: For reference, here is the spell in question. I quoted it before, but apparently I need to quote it again:


Splinterbolt
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Druid 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: I standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft/2 levels
Effect: One or more streams of of splinters
Duration: Instantaneous.
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You must make a ranged attack to hit the target. If you hit, the splinterbolt deals 4d6 points of piercing damage. A splinterbolt threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18—20.

You can fire one additional spinterbolt for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three at 11th level). You can fire these splinterbolts at the same or different targets, but all splinterbolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

A creature’s damage reduction, if any, applies to the damage from this spell. The damage from splinterbolt is treated as magic and piercing for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Material Component: A splinter of wood.

[Darkprophet232]

Can you please explain to me how flicking a piece of wood in a ranged attack is not using the splinter as a weapon?

[Pickford]

Irrelevant. The spell in question is not a touch spell. Splinterbolt creates a giant splinter--a projectile, if you will--and then requires you to make ranged attack rolls with it.

Casting splinterbolt allows the caster to make ranged attacks, not ranged touch attacks. It is functionally equivalent to launch item or firing a longbow, except you also create the items that are being fired.

No, I won't. It is a spell effect, not a weapon (though it may behave similar to a weapon in 'some' respects). That is requires a ranged attack roll is immaterial, it only provokes because you cast a spell and for no other reason.

Do you have any textual reason for the position you were taking, or is it just a gut check? I have found no textual evidence for what you are suggesting.

edit: And launch item doesn't pertain, the spell is cast 'on an item' which is then thrown. That's 'two' actions.

[Darkprophet232]

...It is a spell effect, not a weapon...

Now you're just being obtuse. The spell creates a projectile, then the character flicks it. Because the physical object is a spell effect does not change that it is a ranged weapon.

Things can both be spell effects and weapons; there is no precedence for saying they can't.

[danzibr]

This reminds me of a post I made recently. What exactly is a weapon?

I think a weaponlike spell is not a weapon. RC gives us a presumably comprehensive regarding how they can be buffed, so to speak, but beyond that... I dunno.

[Fax Celestis]

No, I won't. It is a spell effect, not a weapon (though it may behave similar to a weapon in 'some' respects). That is requires a ranged attack roll is immaterial, it only provokes because you cast a spell and for no other reason.

Do you have any textual reason for the position you were taking, or is it just a gut check? I have found no textual evidence for what you are suggesting.

RotG: All About Ranged Attacks (Pt IV) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070731a)


Magical Effects as Ranged Attacks

Rules and feats that apply to ranged attacks can apply to things other than projectile or thrown weapons, as noted here.

Spells: Any spell that requires you to make a ranged attack roll to aim the spell is subject to all the rules that govern ranged attacks, including most feats that improve ranged attacks.

All spells that produce rays fall into this category. Other spells that have effect entries and produce effects that you throw or otherwise propel away from you also count as ranged attacks, provided that you actually use the effect at range. (See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions) and page 175 in the Player's Handbook for a discussion of effect spells.) Other spells might also work as ranged attacks; check the spell's description to be sure.

From page 175 of the Player's Handbook:


Effect: Some spells, such as summon monster spells, create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it (for example, "The insect plague will appear 20 feet into the area of darkness that the nagas are hiding in"). Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile (a summoned monster, for instance), it can move regardless of the spell's range.

Ray: Some effects are rays (for example, ray of enfeeblement). 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.

Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can't see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect. Example: obscuring mist.

Spells with area entries never function as ranged attacks, nor do most spells that have target entries (unless you must make a ranged attack to hit the target).

Sometimes a spell works as a ranged attack, and sometimes it doesn't, depending on how you use the spell. For example, the produce flame spell is an effect spell that you can use for either melee or ranged combat. Produce flame counts as a ranged attack only when you're hurling flames.

Other Magical Effects: Any magical effect that you aim at a single target and that requires you to make a ranged attack roll to hit your target also counts as a ranged attack. For example, the warlock's eldritch blast power from Complete Arcane functions as a ranged attack. If you use a blast shape invocation to change your eldritch blast so that it covers an area (such as eldritch cone), it no longer functions as a ranged attack -- the modification makes the blast work more like an area spell.

[danzibr]

RotG: All About Ranged Attacks (Pt IV) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070731a)
That's insightful. Time to read more RotG.

However, I've had people tell me RotG is not always accurate by RAW.

[Curmudgeon]

However, I've had people tell me RotG is not always accurate by RAW.
Rules of the Game articles are all by Skip Williams, and contain a mix of official and house rules. The accuracy issue is twofold:

Skip doesn't always distinguish his house rules from the official D&D rules.
Sometimes he just screws up and makes mistakes. However, WotC just leaves those articles around, unchanged, despite the errors.

[Pickford]

RotG: All About Ranged Attacks (Pt IV) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070731a)

Interesting quote. I find the part just 'after' what you bolded most interesting however:


For example, the warlock's eldritch blast power from Complete Arcane functions as a ranged attack. If you use a blast shape invocation to change your eldritch blast so that it covers an area (such as eldritch cone), it no longer functions as a ranged attack -- the modification makes the blast work more like an area spell. Bolding is mine.

The WotC 3.5 D&D FAQ has this to say:


Does eldritch blast damage count as “weapon damage”
for the purpose of inspire courage and other effects that
add to weapon damage rolls?
No. Even though the eldritch blast is treated as
“weaponlike” for the purpose of certain feats, it’s not a
weapon.

So. Eldritch blast is both a ranged attack, and not a weapon.

Incidentally, CArc even provides a list (on page 85) of ways that weaponlike spells 'are' like weapons:


Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. You can even use a number of combat-enhancing feats from the Player's Handbook to improve the effectiveness of weaponlike spells, as noted in Chapter 3 of this book.

Also, and this is probably where some confusion here lies, Ranged Attack Roll is generic formula for making a hit (i.e. 1d20+bab+dexmod+sizemod+rangepenalty)

Note, in the case of spells there is no range penalty, because there is no range increment. Nor for that matter does it provoke except in that it is a spell casting.

[Darkprophet232]

Pickford, that is, as has already been explained to, irrelevant. Eldritch Blast is not analogous because it is a ranged touch attack. It has a different set of rules because of that. The spell we are talking about is a normal range attack.

Can you find any rules about spells that are ranged attacks and do not also provoke? So far all you've had are touch attacks, which no one had disputed you on.

[Fax Celestis]

So. Eldritch blast is both a ranged attack, and not a weapon.

Irrelevant. Performing a ranged attack while in a creature's threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity.


Table: Standard Actions

{table=head]Action | Attack of Opportunity
Attack (melee) | No
Attack (unarmed) | Yes
Attack (ranged) | Yes
[...] | [...][/table]