Need Help with Invisibility Rulings

My gaming group is using "mid-level" magic for the first time (i.e. above character level 6). I've got a couple weeks off from the game and I'm trying to solidify our rules on a few tricky points. Tonight I've been working on Invisibility, and I'd like to get some aid from the community at large.

I've already read and understood (I hope) the official rules. But it seems like there are some areas open to interpretation. I didn't put this in house rules because first and foremost I want to know the intent of the rules of the game. Anything I disagree with I can then work on house rules for.

Invisibility and Attacks of Opportunity:
I'm considering ruling that you do not provoke AoOs while invisible due to the wording on this WOTC sample combat description (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/gs/gs20020118a):

"DM: Since you're still invisible, you can get up to the wall without drawing an attack of opportunity from the barbarian."

This specifically talks about moving past an opponent, however, and not necessarily any other situations that may cause an AoO. For example, moving through someone's square or casting a spell while adjacent to someone.

This seems to fit with my painting of AoOs as deliberate actions taken by characters who are aware of a weakness and capitalize on it. After all, you may choose not to take an AoO, which suggests you are aware of an opening and take it. So, while you may be able to use spot or listen to pinpoint your enemy's location, you cannot see the opening to capitalize on it. You are better off readying an action that if you detect an invisible person within range you will attack it.

Does this seem to fit the intent of the rules? I know many people disagree with this.

Attacking a Line of Squares
In a recent session, a flying invisible Ogre Mage fled down a long 20' wide hallway. The party's rogue wanted to fire blindly down the hall in hopes of hitting him. On the spot, I ruled that you must always specify a target square for your attack, and he did, and missed (I mean, come on, fat chance of that working). Having some time to think about it, I wonder if there isn't a better way. I cannot find anything in the rules that suggest you can do anything but attack a single square, however. Is this strictly house-rule area?

Finding an Invisible Person
The rules state that you can make touch attacks into two adjacent squares each turn in an attempt to uncover an invisible person in them. However, I've had to make spot judgments on things like this:

An invisible enemy is moving (at half speed) down a 10' wide hallway towards a doorway at the end of it. A flying wizard wants to fly down the hallway and block the doorway. His move rate while flying is sufficiently faster than the invisible enemy's foot speed that this will work.

First off, is there any chance the flying wizard will accidentally "bump" the enemy? He's trying (flying while waving his staff in front of him like a blind man's cane). I rolled a flat percentage chance and it came up bad -- but this seems like something there should be a rule for. What if it isn't a flying wizard but a bull-rushing/running barbarian? Picture a big guy with his arms wide open running at full speed hoping to catch the sneaky invisible person in his arms. Is there any way to turn that intuitive image into something that fits the actual rules?

Second, once he blocks the doorway, how best should we handle the mechanics of the invisible enemy trying to sneak by the wizard? He's going to have to move through the wizard's square, something that normally would imply an attack of opportunity ... but he's invisible (heh). The wizard is actively moving around trying to "catch" the invisible enemy. In hindsight, it's probably best to have this as a readied action: if I detect anything trying to get past me, I attack it. But is that the only option allowed under the rules (again, AoO while invisible plays a huge part here).

Thanks for any feedback. Sorry if I'm covering ground already covered!

You're going to get differing opinions on whether or not invisible creatures provoke attacks of opportunity. Personally, I rule that invisible creatures do NOT provoke attacks of opportunity, and this doubles in meaning that you cannot make attacks of opportunity when blind.

Attacking a whole line of squares? Definitely NOT. Even if you're firing that arrow down a straight 5' wide corridor, you have to pick one square.

For your LAST option, you're going to have to combine the rules with common sense. Even though in a COMBAT sense a person takes up a 5' square, they do not OCCUPY that entire 5', even if you can stretch your arms out that far. An invisible wizard can press himself against the wall, duck, huddle in a corner, ANYTHING to evade detection. The barbarian doesn't get an automatic attempt to find the wizard as he is running past each square.

Now, in certain situations, you're going to have to use DM's discression.

What if that Barbarian picks up a large table, which nearly fills the corridor, and runs down the hall holding it out in front of him? Well, there's no RULE for this, and due to the confined space the invisible wizard is probably going to be denied the 50% miss chance of invisibility... in spite of the rules.

Invisibility and Attacks of Opportunity:
I'm considering ruling that you do not provoke AoOs while invisible due to the wording on this WOTC sample combat description (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/gs/gs20020118a):

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, while Gamestoppers was a good idea, it was spoiled by numerous inaccuracies. When there are a few glaring and obvious errors in the articles, it's hard to give it credibility to clarify ambiguous points.

After all, you may choose not to take an AoO, which suggests you are aware of an opening and take it.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'm firmly ensconced in the opposing camp - AoOs are not prohibited by invisibility - so I won't be of much use to you here

Attacking a Line of Squares
On the spot, I ruled that you must always specify a target square for your attack./quote]

Good ruling.

If you want to cover multiple squares, use an area effect. Alchemist's Fire isn't bad - since if you get lucky and set him on fire, he's pretty obvious to everyone for a round or two, and if you hit him with splash damage, it would be reasonable to assume you could pinpoint him until his action (although that would be up to the DM).

Finding an Invisible Person
The rules state that you can make touch attacks into two adjacent squares each turn in an attempt to uncover an invisible person in them.

First off, is there any chance the flying wizard will accidentally "bump" the enemy? He's trying (flying while waving his staff in front of him like a blind man's cane).

Click to expand...

Remember that you can always allow someone to pass through your square. That's normally used by allies when they want to let their barbarian buddy past... but if you're invisible, and let your opponent pass through unhindered, he won't know you're there...

If you want to find someone by trolling squares, that's what the touch-attack rule is for.

Second, once he blocks the doorway, how best should we handle the mechanics of the invisible enemy trying to sneak by the wizard? He's going to have to move through the wizard's square, something that normally would imply an attack of opportunity ... but he's invisible (heh).

Click to expand...

What's your point? (Ahem.)

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

Invisible Spellcasters

Spells must be cast in a "strong voice" (PHB:151). The DC to detect "People talking" in a regular voice is 0 (PHB:71). So, even in the midst of combat (+5 Listen?), it should be easy to overhear a spellcaster and attack them. Hearing them move is DC 10. For locating them by sound, see the DMG (DC 20, IIRC?).

Interesting, so far

Thanks for the replies so far, everyone. Some thoughts:

So, even in the midst of combat (+5 Listen?), it should be easy to overhear a spellcaster and attack them

Click to expand...

Yes. Pinpointing an invisible spellcaster is a listen check at DC 20 (0 for speaking, +20 for pinpointing) + 1 per 10 ft distance, according to the DMG. It also states that you get one Listen check per round as a free action to try and detect an invisible perfson. Should we grant combatants an extra listen check during their opponent's turn once they start casting a spell? Hmmm. Of course, rounds are fluid, etc., etc....

So, those that do allow invisible characters to provoke AoO, how do you handle it? When the enemy performs an action that would normally provoke, all threateners are granted spot/listen checks to see if they can pinpoint the enemy's spot, and then they are granted their AoO if they do? I can tell you my players would like that (as so far they have never used invisibility, only been in fights with NPCs who do ). However, normally once you miss something with your spot check, you don't get another spot check for the same thing unless something big changes or you spend a full round looking (listen is different).

If you want to cover multiple squares, use an area effect.

Click to expand...

Ok. My archer will just have to suck it up, I guess. I think this may belong more in the "game balance" camp than the "realistic" camp and I'll explain it that way.

Thanks again for the comments on the "trolling for contact" comments. When we were playing that session, I hadn't found the "two touch attacks" rule yet. That should help alleviate the pain .

Re: Interesting, so far

So, those that do allow invisible characters to provoke AoO, how do you handle it? When the enemy performs an action that would normally provoke, all threateners are granted spot/listen checks to see if they can pinpoint the enemy's spot, and then they are granted their AoO if they do?

Click to expand...

I grant them the AoO whether or not they pinpoint the square... but if they haven't, they need to guess which sqaure they want to attack, just like with any other attack against an invisible opponent you haven't pinpointed.

-Hyp.

I really hate to disagree with the almighty Hypersmurf... because he rocks... but I just don't see how an invisible character can provoke an AoO by sheathing his weapon, for example. In too many AoO situations, there's no way for the character making the attack to KNOW that he is able to take an AoO. He certainly can't make an AoO when an opponent leaves one of his threatened squares if he doesn't know what square that opponent is in in the first place! Similarly, how is a person who's been blinded going to know that the fighter he was engaged with just dropped his sword, and raised a crossbow to fire at him point blank? Since AoO depend on your opponent dropping his defenses, as it were, it just makes more sense to me that you have to be AWARE that your opponent dropped his defenses in order to take advantage of the situation.

Just a commentary though... don't want to hijack this thread for yet another AoO thread.

I'm going to join the camp opposing AoO's if invisible.

Hopefully this is something that is addressed in 3.5.

I usually handle invisible AOOs based on sound. If an invisible person is moving through the threat area of an opponent, the opponent gets a listen check (versus the invisible persons Move Silent). If the Listen check succeeds, they know there is *someone* trying to get past them and get their AOO. If the listen check fails, then the opponent is unaware and gets no AOO. The same applies for any situation in which the invisible person is doing something other than stand still. Therefore, if the oppoent is deaf or in an area of silence, THEN there is no way to detect an invisible person (other than physically, like you bump into them or they attack you) and no AOOs are granted.

I also wouldn't allow AoO's against an invisible opponent- UNLESS there were some way of the attacker to know they have a chance to hit while the invisible thing is distracted. Some obscenely high Listen check, maybe. Or maybe if an ally who could see invisible shouted "Now, swing NOW!"

uh. No listen check required for that. Unless the shouter had a sore throat, maybe.