Eldritch blast and AoOs

[martixy]

So I've been reading through the description of Eldritch blast and it seems to me that by RAW the ability is close to unusable in melee.

See, it is a ranged attack spell-like ability. Correct me if I'm wrong but that means you provoke not one but two! AoOs every time you EB in melee! I haven't seen this addressed in any discussion or handbook yet. Am I missing something here?

[Celestia]

It only provokes one AoO. There is, in fact, nothing that double provokes. That wouldn't even make sense.

[Venger]

So I've been reading through the description of Eldritch blast and it seems to me that by RAW the ability is close to unusable in melee.

See, it is a ranged attack spell-like ability. Correct me if I'm wrong but that means you provoke not one but two! AoOs every time you EB in melee! I haven't seen this addressed in any discussion or handbook yet. Am I missing something here?

Unless otherwise specified, slas provoke aoos.

Eldritch blast is a sla which doesn't specify otherwise.

Eldritch blast provokes one single aoo if you use it while an enemy is in melee distance of you.

It does not provoke an aoo for firing a ranged weapon while an enemy is standing next to you because eldritch blast is not a weapon. That's what you're missing.

[Troacctid]

Even if it did provoke twice, in order to make more than one attack of opportunity, the enemy would have to have the Combat Reflexes feat (which is not super common for NPCs), and you could still get them down to one by making a Concentration check to cast defensively.

[Psyren]

I haven't seen this addressed in any discussion or handbook yet. Am I missing something here?

Yeah, you are - why in the heck are you using the regular blast in melee? It has 60ft range at least.

[Venger]

In addition to the things already mentioned, an action can only provoke aoos once. You can't take more than 1 aoo against an opponent if they only do one thing that provokes it.

[Thurbane]

I'm not sure if I agree with the above assessments.

using an EB (or other SLA) provokes and attack of opportunity (unless you cast defensibly).

Using a ranged attack also provokes an AoO.

The same standard action is provoking 2 separate AoO, by my reading (and the way my group has always played it).

As per Rules Compendium p.19:


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.

As per the tables on RC p.8 "Attack (ranged) is one act the provokes, while "Use spell-like ability" is a separate act that also provokes.

[Celestia]

I'm not sure if I agree with the above assessments.

using an EB (or other SLA) provokes and attack of opportunity (unless you cast defensibly).

Using a ranged attack also provokes an AoO.

The same standard action is provoking 2 separate AoO, by my reading (and the way my group has always played it).

As per Rules Compendium p.19:



As per the tables on RC p.8 "Attack (ranged) is one act the provokes, while "Use spell-like ability" is a separate act that also provokes.
So, the level one fighter can only make one attack on his own turn but is fast enough to make two attacks in the middle of someone else's action? That's dysfunctional at best and illogical at worst.

[Thurbane]

So, the level one fighter can only make one attack on his own turn but is fast enough to make two attacks in the middle of someone else's action? That's dysfunctional at best and illogical at worst.

Obviously he would need the Combat Reflexes feat to pull it off, but no more illogical or dysfunctional than other large chunks of RAW.

[Venger]

So, the level one fighter can only make one attack on his own turn but is fast enough to make two attacks in the middle of someone else's action? That's dysfunctional at best and illogical at worst.

sure it's illogical, but it's not dysfunctional.

[Thurbane]

So here's some other stuff that may be (somewhat) relative to the discussion (note: I'm happy to reconsider my stance, if it's proven to be wrong):


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).


Even if you're allowed several attacks of opportunity each turn, you make a single melee attack against a foe that provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Should that same foe, however, do something else later during his turn that provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you can make another attack of opportunity if you are able.


The Combat Reflexes feat allows you to make one extra attack of opportunity per point of Dexterity bonus you have. You still can make only one attack of opportunity for each opportunity that your foe gives you. For example, if you have Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity score of 15 you can make up the three attacks of opportunity each turn. You could make all three of them against the same foe, provided that the foe does three different things that provoke attacks of opportunity. If your foe is a spellcaster and he casts a spell while you threaten him, you can make only one attack of opportunity in response to that spell (even though you are entitled to three attacks of opportunity this round). If, on the other hand, the spellcaster picks up a dropped item, you could make an attack of opportunity against him. If the character then casts a spell, you could make a second attack of opportunity against him. If one of your allies bull rushes the spellcaster and moves him 5 feet, you could make a third attack of opportunity against him.


Multiple Attacks of Opportunity
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.

[Darrin]

Rules Compendium p.19[/B]]

Multiple Attacks of Opportunity
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.
(emphasis added)

This is my take, based on the bolded/italics statements: If an action can provoke for multiple reasons, such as casting a spell that allows you to make a ranged attack, then that action only counts as a single opportunity for the purposes of determining the number of AoOs it provokes.

[martixy]

What @Thurbane cited is the reason I was so confused. I kept looking through the action tables and the RC and Eldritch Blast fit both description.

Next question being does that mean that one act provides two opportunities? Or can any action only ever provide one opportunity?

What Darrin quoted doesn't resolve the conflict unambiguously, but a max of 1 opportunity per any action does seem logical, so.... eh...

Still not sure what to think. There may be situations where the opposite seems logical as well.

[Psyren]

Hideous Blow only provokes once (using an SLA). Regular Eldritch Blast meanwhile should provoke twice (using an SLA, using a ranged attack in melee.) They are closely related, but ultimately still separate, acts. In both cases, you can cast defensively to negate the SLA-based provoke, which in Hideous Blow's case would make it not provoke at all.

[Darrin]

What Darrin quoted doesn't resolve the conflict unambiguously, but a max of 1 opportunity per any action does seem logical, so.... eh...


There's still some ambiguity, but if you read through the "Attacks of Opportunity" section in the PHB (page 137), it says there are only two situations that can create an "opportunity" for an attack: Moving out of a threatened square, and performing a distracting action in a threatened square.

There's language in there that specifies that you can only provoke once in the first case (moving out of a threatened square), so moving out of multiple threatened squares only provokes once.

It's not stated in ironclad text that a distracting action that can provoke multiple ways only creates a single opportunity, but that's my understanding of what the designers intended.

[BowStreetRunner]

My take:

Assuming that using Eldritch Blast is a single action that counts as both a Spell Like Ability and a Ranged Attack then it would count as a single act that provokes an Attack of Opportunity in two ways.

If the Warlock in question has an ability that allows him to use Spell Like Abilities without provoking AoO <OR> one that allows him to make Ranged Attacks without provoking AoO then the act would still provoke an AoO. He would need both abilities to employ Eldritch Blast without provoking an AoO at all.

Even if he has no such abilities though, the single act of using Eldritch Blast still only provokes a single AoO. The person making the AoO can choose either method of provoking as their means of making the attack, and in some cases there might be an advantage to using one or the other if the attacker has an ability that depends on the type of trigger for an AoO.

The assumption here is that using Eldritch Blast is a single action. I see nothing in the rules that suggests that a Warlock performs one action to cast the SLA and a second action to make the attack. Everything I have seen suggests that using Eldritch Blast is a Spell Like Ability that takes a standard action to perform. However, if someone can show me where it is treated as a separate action from making the ranged touch attack, I would be happy to read the reference in the rules.

[Nebuul]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm):


Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.[emphasis added] 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.

Note: Attacking with a touch spell does not provoke attacks of opportunity, neither melee nor ranged

As long as you cast defensively, you will not receive attacks of opportunity against you even for firing a ranged eldritch blast.

[Khedrac]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm):

Note: Attacking with a touch spell does not provoke attacks of opportunity, neither melee nor ranged

As long as you cast defensively, you will not receive attacks of opportunity against you even for firing a ranged eldritch blast.

Except, "touch" attack and a "ranged touch" attack are different things - so I'm afraid the quote does not apply.

Edit: the key word is the "therefore" - it shows that the not provoking is a consequence of the "being armed" and being armed does not stop ranged attacks from provoking. If it did then you would get more archer builds and the abilities that stop them provoking would be pointless.

[Celestia]

Except, "touch" attack and a "ranged touch" attack are different things - so I'm afraid the quote does not apply.

Edit: the key word is the "therefore" - it shows that the not provoking is a consequence of the "being armed" and being armed does not stop ranged attacks from provoking. If it did then you would get more archer builds and the abilities that stop them provoking would be pointless.
Actually, it's "melee touch attack" and "ranged touch attack," both of which are subsets of the general "touch attack" term, as can be seen in the third sentence of that very same quoted passage.

[Mordaedil]

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if releasing a ranged touch attack provokes an attack of opportunity. I dunno if you can hold it either though.

[Thurbane]

I know it's not 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses this directly:


Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)

[Psyren]

I know it's not 3.5, but Pathfinder addresses this directly:

^ In addition, Pathfinder specifies (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qdd) that even closely related triggering actions can still provoke separately. For example, Greater Trip + Vicious Stomp causes an enemy you trip to provoke twice - once for being tripped, and once for falling prone - even though you only tripped them once and they only fell once.

[Nebuul]

3.5 addresses this directly, too. It very clearly states that touch attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Then it states that touch attacks are broken into two categories: ranged and melee. It is explicit in its rules regarding this.

[Thurbane]

3.5 addresses this directly, too. It very clearly states that touch attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Then it states that touch attacks are broken into two categories: ranged and melee. It is explicit in its rules regarding this.

Not exactly: as per you own quote "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

I'm not sure that parses to ranged touch attacks, which (at least IMHO), could not be considered "Touching an opponent".

My belief is that the quote you provided applies specifically to melee touch attacks, and to differentiate holding a touch charge (and not provoking an AoO) from making a standard unarmed attack (which does provoke an AoO).

My take on all of this is that the RAW is murky.

[Mordaedil]

It's not that hard to rule on the spot though. Did he cast defensively? Let him fire the dang spell while ignoring the advantage of range.

[Celestia]

Not exactly: as per you own quote "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

I'm not sure that parses to ranged touch attacks, which (at least IMHO), could not be considered "Touching an opponent".

My belief is that the quote you provided applies specifically to melee touch attacks, and to differentiate holding a touch charge (and not provoking an AoO) from making a standard unarmed attack (which does provoke an AoO).

My take on all of this is that the RAW is murky.
I have no idea how you could possibly reach that conclusion. A "touch attack," in the game definition, is simply an attack that targets "touch AC." It does not require physical touching. Would you rule that melee touch attacks are no longer melee touch attacks when used with reach spell even though they are mechanically still melee touch attacks that just so happen to be usable at range? No, of course not. That is a complete contradiction of mechanics. Ranged touch attacks are touch attacks, not only because of their name but because they are defined under the general touch attack entry. That same entry also declares that touch attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity, a rule which comes before the division of melee and ranged touch attacks. It, therefore, unquestionably applies to both. There is no subjectivity here, no murkiness. It is simple, RAW fact. You don't even need to read between the lines to see it.

[Psyren]

I have no idea how you could possibly reach that conclusion. A "touch attack," in the game definition, is simply an attack that targets "touch AC." It does not require physical touching. Would you rule that melee touch attacks are no longer melee touch attacks when used with reach spell even though they are mechanically still melee touch attacks that just so happen to be usable at range? No, of course not. That is a complete contradiction of mechanics. Ranged touch attacks are touch attacks, not only because of their name but because they are defined under the general touch attack entry. That same entry also declares that touch attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity, a rule which comes before the division of melee and ranged touch attacks. It, therefore, unquestionably applies to both. There is no subjectivity here, no murkiness. It is simple, RAW fact. You don't even need to read between the lines to see it.

But the rule isn't looking for "touch attacks." It's looking for "touching an opponent with a touch spell" specifically. Nothing you stated above is relevant.

[Celestia]

But the rule isn't looking for "touch attacks." It's looking for "touching an opponent with a touch spell" specifically. Nothing you stated above is relevant.
Oh, I see. The section under the Touch Attack heading has nothing to do with touch attacks. Why didn't I realize that? It makes so much sense.

[Psyren]

Oh, I see. The section under the Touch Attack heading has nothing to do with touch attacks. Why didn't I realize that? It makes so much sense.

Nice try, but that section covers a lot of subtopics besides provoking AoOs. It's not the "Touch Attacks That Don't Provoke" section.

[Celestia]

Nice try, but that section covers a lot of subtopics besides provoking AoOs. It's not the "Touch Attacks That Don't Provoke" section.
All topics which are related to touch attacks. Touch attacks explicitly come in two forms: melee and ranged. There is no mystic third option that only applies to spells which are the only ones that don't provoke. Touch spells specifically say to roll either melee touch attacks or ranged touch attacks, not spell touch attacks. You're trying to bend RAW with colloquial semantics to promote the absurd notion that one action can somehow provoke two simultaneous interrupt attacks from the same individual.

[Snowbluff]

Playing Devil’s Advocate here a little bit, I’d say firing in point blank would only provoke once. The rules for AoO say the action provokes the attack of opportunity. Since there is only one action, I’d say it only counts as one trigger.

The Pathfinder example makes sense without a ruling needed. Different, alternative triggers don’t necessarily follow the base rule in the first place.

[Thurbane]

But the rule isn't looking for "touch attacks." It's looking for "touching an opponent with a touch spell" specifically. Nothing you stated above is relevant.

Yeah, that's my reading too.


Playing Devil’s Advocate here a little bit, I’d say firing in point blank would only provoke once. The rules for AoO say the action provokes the attack of opportunity. Since there is only one action, I’d say it only counts as one trigger.

Actually, the rules (as per RC) actually say that each "act" provokes an AoO. I don't believe act is a defined game term, so hence the murkiness of RAW.


Each provoking act represents a different opportunity.

...honestly, at the end of the day, I'd call the interpretation of these rules an "ask your DM" scenario.

Just a side question: what is the group consensus on casting a spell that is a ranged attack, but not a ranged touch attack? Say, Icelance (SC p.119). Would we all agree that casting that spell then making the ranged attack is two AoO?

[Troacctid]

I would say it represents one "act" and therefore provokes one opportunity attack, even though it provokes for two different reasons.

[Nebuul]

It is a touch attack. Buy definition, you touch your opponent with it. Your argument is ignoring that. There is literally no question here. In 3.5, using a touch attack never provokes an attack of opportunity.

[Snowbluff]

Actually, the rules (as per RC) actually say that each "act" provokes an AoO. I don't believe act is a defined game term, so hence the murkiness of RAW.


Technically, the PHB supercedes the RC. Also, screw the RC. :smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

Technically, the PHB supercedes the RC. Also, screw the RC. :smalltongue:
That's true if your game doesn't include the Rules Compendium, but otherwise, RC is quite clear that it is intended to take precedence over previous publications.

[Venger]

That's true if your game doesn't include the Rules Compendium, but otherwise, RC is quite clear that it is intended to take precedence over previous publications.

Nope. Primary trumps secondary, so the rules compendium can collect rules into a single location to make them easier to find, but it has no authority to actually change anything.

[Troacctid]

Nope. Primary trumps secondary, so the rules compendium can collect rules into a single location to make them easier to find, but it has no authority to actually change anything.
Yes, and specific trumps general, and RC's declaration that it supersedes the old rules is more specific than the general rule of primary and secondary sources. Furthermore, RC is itself the primary source for rules primacy, so it has precedence over the errata documents you're referring to. I'm sure I must have gone over this before.

[Venger]

Yes, and specific trumps general, and RC's declaration that it supersedes the old rules is more specific than the general rule of primary and secondary sources. Furthermore, RC is itself the primary source for rules primacy, so it has precedence over the errata documents you're referring to. I'm sure I must have gone over this before.

Primary trumps secondary trumps specific trumps general. Consequently, as I and many others have said many times before, RC has no authority to change anything.

[Troacctid]

Primary trumps secondary trumps specific trumps general. Consequently, as I and many others have said many times before, RC has no authority to change anything.
Really? A general rule from a primary source trumps an exception from a secondary source? That makes basically everything dysfunctional. Any ability, any feat, anything that creates an exception to a general rule in the PHB, it doesn't work. Mage Slayer? Primary source says mages can cast defensively to avoid attacks of opportunity, sorry! Flyby Attack? Ooh, sorry again, the PHB is the primary source on movement and actions in combat, and it contradicts your feat, so you're out of luck. Wild Mage? No dice, the primary source clearly says you roll once, not twice. Warforged? Well, the Monster Manual is the primary source for construct traits, so it overrides the living construct subtype—enjoy full construct immunities!

This isn't even going into the fact that, as I said, RC is the primary source for this topic.

[Psyren]

Primary trumps secondary trumps specific trumps general. Consequently, as I and many others have said many times before, RC has no authority to change anything.

As I have said every time this BS was tried, it means primary sources can never be overridden. So when the PHB says there are 11 base classes, no specific source can ever add to that number. Also, what Troacctid said.

[martixy]

Nope. Primary trumps secondary, so the rules compendium can collect rules into a single location to make them easier to find, but it has no authority to actually change anything.

I was really hoping we wouldn't get into this argument.

Can't we just let it go and allow RC to do the job it was created to do?

Like, regardless of text, on a meta level, the sheer existence of the book and the resources that went into creation and publication should already tell you, it was meant to supercede previous text rules. Leave it for the dysfunction thread maybe?

[Remuko]

I was really hoping we wouldn't get into this argument.

Can't we just let it go and allow RC to do the job it was created to do?

Like, regardless of text, on a meta level, the sheer existence of the book and the resources that went into creation and publication should already tell you, it was meant to supercede previous text rules. Leave it for the dysfunction thread maybe?

have to agree wholeheartedly with this.