Convoluted AoOs with Ranged Threat Question

[Gelcur]

If I have Combat Reflexes and the Ranged Threat feat from Dragon 350 which reads: "When armed with a ranged weapon, you threaten every square within 15 feet. If a target in this threatened area takes an action that provokes an attack of opportunity, you may make one ranged attack at your highest attack bonus against that target. You may only use this feat once per round, and this counts as all of your attacks of opportunity for that round, even if you are normally allowed more than one."

And the Arrow Mind spell is cast as well: "threaten all squares within your normal melee reach" (5 ft)

If say someone within 5' provokes an AoO and I use Arrow Mind to attack them. Then someone 15' out provokes an AoO can I still use Ranged Threat?

If Combat Reflexes gives me 5 AoOs a round, as long as I use Ranged Threat last can I make all my AoOs?

The section of Ranged Threat that I bolded confuses me.

[Venger]

specific trumps general. ranged threat wastes all your aoos. do not pass go. do not collect 200gp.

[Gelcur]

specific trumps general. ranged threat wastes all your aoos. do not pass go. do not collect 200gp.
So it wastes all the remaining AoOs. It doesn't become unusable if I don't have all my AoOs for the round to feed it?

[Blue Jay]

So it wastes all the remaining AoOs. It doesn't become unusable if I don't have all my AoOs for the round to feed it?

It confuses me too. By RAW, I think you won't be able to use Ranged Threat if you've already used one of your AoOs for the round. But personally, I would probably rule your way, and let it just be "all remaining AoOs for the round." Or, I might just house rule it to something like, "To use this ability, you must expend X of your allotted AoOs for the round."

[KillianHawkeye]

So it wastes all the remaining AoOs. It doesn't become unusable if I don't have all my AoOs for the round to feed it?

No, it uses ALL your AoOs for the round. Not all you have left, all of them, period.

[Venger]

So it wastes all the remaining AoOs. It doesn't become unusable if I don't have all my AoOs for the round to feed it?

No, there's nothing in the text to suggest that.

I think what you're asking is:

1) You use an aoo with a normal melee weapon and don't use ranged threat
2) You then have an aoo provoked and have an opportunity to use ranged threat

yes you can still use ranged threat

[Gelcur]

I think what you're asking is:

1) You use an aoo with a normal melee weapon and don't use ranged threat
2) You then have an aoo provoked and have an opportunity to use ranged threat

yes you can still use ranged threat

Yes, this is what I am asking, my original example used Arrow Mind spell for step 1.

So as long as I use the Ranged Threat feat as my last AoO I can take all my previous ones with non-Ranged Threat options. Obviously as soon as I use Ranged Threat to make an AoO I cannot make any more AoOs that round.

[Blue Jay]

No, there's nothing in the text to suggest that.

A strict reading of "all your AoOs for the round" is "if you can make 5 AoOs per round, then you have to expend 5 AoOs to use this feat."

Arguably, the writer's intention was that you can't make a Ranged Threat AoO in the same round that you make any other AoOs.

But, it's also possible that the intention was, "After you've used this feat, you cannot make any more AoOs this round."

I personally feel like the first interpretation seems more likely. I wouldn't necessarily rule that way myself, but I feel like that's the RAI.

[KillianHawkeye]

All means all. If you've used one, how can you use them all to activate Ranged Threat? Seems like pretty simple math to me.

[Venger]

It confuses me too. By RAW, I think you won't be able to use Ranged Threat if you've already used one of your AoOs for the round. But personally, I would probably rule your way, and let it just be "all remaining AoOs for the round." Or, I might just house rule it to something like, "To use this ability, you must expend X of your allotted AoOs for the round."


A strict reading of "all your AoOs for the round" is "if you can make 5 AoOs per round, then you have to expend 5 AoOs to use this feat."

Arguably, the writer's intention was that you can't make a Ranged Threat AoO in the same round that you make any other AoOs.

But, it's also possible that the intention was, "After you've used this feat, you cannot make any more AoOs this round."

I personally feel like the first interpretation seems more likely. I wouldn't necessarily rule that way myself, but I feel like that's the RAI.


All means all. If you've used one, how can you use them all to activate Ranged Threat? Seems like pretty simple math to me.
You are both fabricating additional restrictions where none exist.

If it meant "you can only use this when you have made no other aoos this round from any other source," then it would say that. It doesn't, so that isn't how it works.

[KillianHawkeye]

You are both fabricating additional restrictions where none exist.

If it meant "you can only use this when you have made no other aoos this round from any other source," then it would say that. It doesn't, so that isn't how it works.

Except it kind of does say that. "This counts as all of your attacks of opportunity for that round" isn't particularly ambiguous.

If you have 4 apples and you have two friends, and Friend A asks for one apple, and Friend B asks for all of your apples, you cannot physically do what they're both asking of you. Friend B knows that you had 4 apples, and he won't be happy with only 3. You can argue that Friend B is a selfish jerk, but that's beyond the scope of this exercise. The point is that you and he both know you aren't giving him all of your apples.

[Venger]

Except it kind of does say that. "This counts as all of your attacks of opportunity for that round" isn't particularly ambiguous.

If you have 4 apples and you have two friends, and Friend A asks for one apple, and Friend B asks for all of your apples, you cannot physically do what they're both asking of you. Friend B knows that you had 4 apples, and he won't be happy with only 3. You can argue that Friend B is a selfish jerk, but that's beyond the scope of this exercise. The point is that you and he both know you aren't giving him all of your apples.

kind of says that ≠ says that

Your example has nothing to do with anything.

Once more, if it said "you cannot make any aoos this round prior to using this feat" you would be right. It doesn't, so you're not.

[KillianHawkeye]

I understand that you and I disagree what the word "all" means, which is weird since it's such a simple word, but I guess that's just what the world has come to with all the anti-intellectualism and "Fake News" BS these days. Since I have no means of forcing you to accept the basic meaning of everyday words, we find ourselves at an impasse with no common reference point for communication of any kind.

Left with but a final recourse, and in the hopes in our parting that we bear each other no ill will, to tip my proverbial hat to you and tell you "Good day!" :smallamused:

[Menzath]

I think the author of the feat was a bit odd in the wording indeed. But with the last sentence (s)he did take into account having more than one AoO a turn, and worded it so that all AoO's are used when using this feat, not all remaining, but all.
Not some. All.
All is not a part, or section. So with all being a cut and dry absolute, there doesn't seem like more to discuss.

[Venger]

I think the author of the feat was a bit odd in the wording indeed. But with the last sentence (s)he did take into account having more than one AoO a turn, and worded it so that all AoO's are used when using this feat, not all remaining, but all.
Not some. All.
All is not a part, or section. So with all being a cut and dry absolute, there doesn't seem like more to discuss.

Please quote the part of the rules that prohibit making other aoos earlier in the round before using the feat.

[Menzath]

Please quote the part of the rules that prohibit making other aoos earlier in the round before using the feat.

I don't beleive I have to, i think rather we need a quote of the part of the feat where it says it requires less than all uses of your AoO's.

You can make AoO's before using this feat, I am not contesting that, but i am saying that in doing so it prohibits you then from using this feat till you have all your uses back again.

Edit:after looking up the feat, one of the prequisites is combat reflexes. So having multiple AoO's was taken into account when making the feat, it really is just terribly written.

[Falontani]

using someone else' analogy

If I have 2 friends and I have 4 apples, and friend A asks for an apple and I give him an apple I now have 3 apples. Then friend B asks me for all my apples. Since I now only have 3 apples I can give him all my apples, since that is only 3 apples.

Now if Friend A asks for an apple at the same time that Friend B asks for all my apples, then I can only fulfill one request

I believe this is where the confusion seems to lie, some believe the first option is correct then you should be able to make as many aoo's as you can, and as long as you have 1 aoo left in the round you can still use ranged threat

HOWEVER

if the second option is correct then you may only use ranged threat if you have all your maximum number of aoo's.

Now what happens if you somehow boost your total number of aoo's after performing ranged threat? in both above situations you never promised all your future apples


Edit:after looking up the feat, one of the prequisites is combat reflexes. So having multiple AoO's was taken into account when making the feat, it really is just terribly written.

I believe this is the true correct statement in this whole debacle

[Venger]

Edit:after looking up the feat, one of the prequisites is combat reflexes. So having multiple AoO's was taken into account when making the feat, it really is just terribly written.
I think we can agree on that much, at least


using someone else' analogy

If I have 2 friends and I have 4 apples, and friend A asks for an apple and I give him an apple I now have 3 apples. Then friend B asks me for all my apples. Since I now only have 3 apples I can give him all my apples, since that is only 3 apples.

This is how the feat actually works as written.

If you somehow gained another attack of opportunity after you'd used ranged threat, you could use it as normal, because you paid ranged threat's cost when you used it.

[Gelcur]

Well I'm glad I at least got people talking about this obscure feat.

I must say when the apple analogy was given it convinced me in the opposite direction than the KillianHawkeye intended. My mind went straight to this example.

If I have 2 friends and I have 4 apples, and friend A asks for an apple and I give him an apple I now have 3 apples. Then friend B asks me for all my apples. Since I now only have 3 apples I can give him all my apples, since that is only 3 apples.

I wonder if there is any other similar situations, requiring all of something, in 3.5 D&D?

[Menzath]

To be honest, I would still argue the feat requires and uses all AoO's as written, but if anyone we're to use it in a game I ran I would say it only uses one regardless since it is only usable once per turn and mundanes need every edge they can get.

Also since melees with that abberent feat for extra reach and a reach weapon can AoO to 15 from level one, spending those extra feats as an Archer should be worth it. Especially when you start hitting bigger creatures whose reach is already 15 or more.

[Venger]

To be honest, I would still argue the feat requires and uses all AoO's as written, but if anyone we're to use it in a game I ran I would say it only uses one regardless since it is only usable once per turn and mundanes need every edge they can get.

Also since melees with that abberent feat for extra reach and a reach weapon can AoO to 15 from level one, spending those extra feats as an Archer should be worth it. Especially when you start hitting bigger creatures whose reach is already 15 or more.

Inhuman reach, for future reference. I'm a big fan of it in melee builds centered around aoos. It alone won't get you 15 feet of reach, though, you'd need something else (I'm a fan of deformity (tall)) for 15 feet, but you couldn't do all those at level 1 due to the taxes involved.