AoO, invisibility and spell casting

[RObiN-HoOD]

I'd still deny the fighter an AoO if he cannot pinpoint the mage (if you recall, the original post said that the mage was NOT pinpointed).

Yes I know. I post it in the first place
The thing is that the invisible mage was in a square that he could not escape and so the fighters started slashing that point just in case they might hit the mage by chance. Although not always fair for the DM (that's me) ... This situation is a bit weird because of the meta-gaming that is involved but that's another story... I handle meta-gaming with other manners ... but my question is just about the rules ...

 

[Zenon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AoO, invisibility and spell casting

Interesting...

As far as i know, you do not ave to know what is causing the lowering of his guard to get an AoO. All that is required is that you be threatening when the guard is lowered.

Remember, the original post asked for by the rules.

By the rules an AoO occurs when the attacker threatens and the recipient does a provoking action.

it does not require the attacker to know what speific type of action is being done to allow the attack.

if you read the descriptive text, it is all about the recipient lowering his guard.

One way to see it is that all that is happening is a slash that would normally have been blocked is now getting thru because the guard was lowered.

Since spelcraft is a exclusive skill, most fighter types would not have a chance if you require spellcraft to identify that a spell is being cast.

By the exact wording of the text, you are correct.

However, I equate AoO's in my mind like HeavyG said, and he also points out the loophole in the current wording of AoOs (which is the lack of restriction of when you can take them):

A reasonable interpretation would be that your character, as a trained combatant, is able to recognize when an opponent lets his guard down and uses that opportunity to strike. This would restrict AoOs to known (or located) targets. But the rules have no such restrictions, IIRC. AFAIK, you can AoO a completely silent, invisible flying guy passing in your threatened area.

However, I can kind of support it also with some other rules:

You do not threaten an area if you are flat-footed and cannot make AoOs unless you have Combat Reflexes. You are denied your Dex bonus while flat-footed, unless you have Uncanny Dodge. (PHB pg 278 Flat-footed definition; PHB pg 25 Uncanny Dodge; PHB pg 80 Combat Reflexes)

Against an invisible opponent you are denied you Dex bonus. (PHB pg 132 Table 8-8 subnote on Attacker Invisible referencing that Defender loses Dex bonus to AC)

From these two rules, if you are denied your Dex bonus, you also lose the ability to take an AoO. Since against an invisible attacker you lose your Dex bonus, I can draw a parallel, and also see that you may lose the ability to perform AoOs, unless you are able to realize what is happening without being able to see it, and then would still have to choose the square and take the 50% miss chance anyway.

It's what make sense to me, YMMV. This is truly a case of adjucating what would happen. The rules are in one of those "gray areas", and do not clearly state what conditions must be met in order to be able to take an AoO.

 

[Petrosian]

"From these two rules, if you are denied your Dex bonus, you also lose the ability to take an AoO."

Thats not what the rules say at all.

Losing dex bonus and flatfooted are not synonymous.

I can lose my dex bonus from any number of things, including invisible enemies.

As to the original pinpoint thing...

irst he was not pinpointed by SPOT rolls before he started casting. no mention of listen checks was made. Once he starts doing something new, something hearable, most GMs would give another listen check. The listen chack can pinpoint him.

However, as further clarified, the listen check is irrelevent.

The characters already knew which hex the mage was in. They were already striking there. By some method, they had figured out the mage was there and even the Gm said he could not move from it.

The ONLY need for pinpoint is to figure out the right hex. They had already done this.

Given they were already engaging the mage, given they were already swinging into that hex, by the rules they would get AoOs with the usual 50/50 miss chance etc.

Is it so hard to believe that while people are already swinging swords at you that if you "lower your guard" then you run a chance of a blow getting thru that you would have evaded?

Thanks for the clarification on the "which hex" info.

 

[Petrosian]

With regards to the claimed loophole... that they did not list the cases where you cannot perform AoOs...

they listed the requirements for an AoO... you must threaten the area... to do that you must be able to attack the area in melee.

That does limit it a great deal... no ranged weapons, no spells, within reach, cannot be held or stunned or otherwise unable to attack, etc...

the fact that they did not add even more cases is not a loophole, its a rule.

Sure you can wish or assume that there must have been other cases they missed... but then you need to apply that standard to every other rule.

Can you cast a spell if you are standing in a field of daisies? The rules do not say you cannot, but then there are probably cases they forgot so is this one of them.

A "by the rules" question cannot be answered by assuming anything not listed that you would like to have listed is a loophole.

Well, not reasonably.

 

[Neverwinter Knight]

OK, if they knew the hex, then I'd let them make attacks, but still...

Is it so hard to believe that while people are already swinging swords at you that if you "lower your guard" then you run a chance of a blow getting thru that you would have evaded?

No, this is not hard to believe, but an AoO is an active action by an attacker, provoked by someone. If the fighter cannot see, hear or otherwise sense the provocation, why should he get it?
An AoO is not a passive thing as: OK, I cast a spell and lowered my guard, so I got caught up in the sword of the blindly stabbing fighter. It should be: As I saw the mage cast a spell, I knew I could take the opportunity and strike at him while he concentrated.

Therefore, as a DM, I will not give the fighter an AoO. But, of course, maybe I decide this against the rules. IMC I sometimes rules logic and gameflow over rules, as I'm sure you do as well.

 

[Petrosian]

Therefore, as a DM, I will not give the fighter an AoO. But, of course, maybe I decide this against the rules. IMC I sometimes rules logic and gameflow over rules, as I'm sure you do as well.

Indeed i do, but for this topic we have in the original post "please asnswer by the rules only" so i tend to follow the rules.

 

[Zenon]

"From these two rules, if you are denied your Dex bonus, you also lose the ability to take an AoO."

Thats not what the rules say at all.

Losing dex bonus and flatfooted are not synonymous.

I knew I should have clarified this because the literal minded would pick it apart.

The parallel between the rules is an interpertation of the intent behind them, it is not what the rules say. You are correct.

However, by the rules, if an attacker is blinded, deafened and suffering from the effects of a Feeblemind spell which reduces his Int to 1, but has a melee weapon in his hand, he threatens an area. If an invisible, flying, magically silenced defender does anything within the threatened area which is on the list as "provokes an AoO", the attacker automatically gets an AoO on him, whether the attacker knows he's there or not.

Whether or not they're standing in a field of daisies is irrelevant.

Please point out any passages that refute the above example, I'd be curious to see them.

There comes a time when the explicit situation is not covered by the rules, so instead of blindly saying "I guess you can because it doesn't say you can't" as the DM you must judge how this situation is covered in your game.

Note the "In Your Game". Substitute "In Your Campaign" if you wish.

The only thing that coveres such a situation is in the DMG, pg 9 under Adjucating:

Ofter a situation arises which isn't explicitly covered by the rules.

bulleted point: Look to any similar situation that is covered in the rulebook. Try to extrapolate form what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.

If you notice, that is what I have done. I have compared similar(note that it is similar, not "exact situation") and extrapolated a ruling for that situation.

What I have done with these rules has been to make a judgement. Nowhere is the above situation cover in the rules.

I agree with Neverwinter Knight's post.

 

[Zenon]

With regards to the claimed loophole... that they did not list the cases where you cannot perform AoOs...

they listed the requirements for an AoO... you must threaten the area... to do that you must be able to attack the area in melee.

That does limit it a great deal... no ranged weapons, no spells, within reach, cannot be held or stunned or otherwise unable to attack, etc...

the fact that they did not add even more cases is not a loophole, its a rule.

Sure you can wish or assume that there must have been other cases they missed... but then you need to apply that standard to every other rule.

Can you cast a spell if you are standing in a field of daisies? The rules do not say you cannot, but then there are probably cases they forgot so is this one of them.

A "by the rules" question cannot be answered by assuming anything not listed that you would like to have listed is a loophole.

Well, not reasonably.

Somewhere in this should most likely be the statement that "the person taking the AoO must be aware of the action that provokes it". That they did not clarify this in the rules is, to me, a loophole. Feel free to call it whatever you like.

IMC you have to know about the action that provokes the AoO. This is a standard and is applied evenly to PC's and NPC's alike.

 

[Zenon]

Indeed i do, but for this topic we have in the original post "please asnswer by the rules only" so i tend to follow the rules.

Then the correct answer is: "There is no exact rule which covers this, it is up to the DM to adjucate it. This adjucation can be different from game to game."

 

[RObiN-HoOD]

Then the correct answer is: "There is no exact rule which covers this, it is up to the DM to adjucate it. This adjucation can be different from game to game."

Ok then, how about a "the closest thing to the rules" ?