Need Help with Invisibility Rulings

[LokiDR]

Hyp's solution on AoOs is the one that fits the most rules (but not all). If you are worried about being offical, that would be the way you want to go.

Even Hyp will agree you shouldn't get an AoO when you don't know there is an invisible person around. This is technically a house rule but one I think nearly every one agrees on.

If you see AoOs as deliberate, as I do, figure out some criteria for AoOs to act as your house rule. Here is the house rule I use. You must have your dexterity bonus in general to take an AoO. To AoO an invisble person, you must be aware of an oppent, know the location of said opponent, and know the opponent has provoked an AoO.

Spot check DC 20, or decent listen check, then you need a listen check of 25 (0 +5 for combat distraction +20 for pinpoint) to know a person is casting a spell next to you. Higher DCs for drinking potions or other AoO actions. None for certain actions like a touch attack as part of a graple.

Note this makes invisibility more powerful than it would have otherwise have been. That means a shift in balance, as people will want to be invisible more often. It does mean invisiblity will have more uses in combat for running away, which leads to more interesting encounters in the end, IMO.

If you want to see me and Hyp debate this (to no solid conclusion) you can go here

I would agree on the ruling you made on attacking a line of squares. I would also agree that you can't run through a lot space "checking" for invisible people. The best bet for the wizard is go to door, close it, and try to bar it with his staff. The invisble person is going to have to move to the door and at least open it. That is at least a full round.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I really hate to disagree with the almighty Hypersmurf... because he rocks...

Wow, cool... a fan club!

What did I do?

-Hyp.

 

[SnowDog]

<double post>

 

[SnowDog]

Thanks again, everyone. I knew this was a Pandora's Box of Worms, but I was hoping to at least see the insights into why people decide what they do, and how they rule.

Before this thread I was leaning towards nullifying all AoOs while invisible, but felt really scuzzy about it. Now I'm leaning towards coming up with something a bit more complex; allowing AoOs only when the opponent can pinpoint you and is aware you're triggering an AoO. It's not ideal, but it feels better to me than the random whack-a-mole of not telling the player why they're being allowed an AoO (no insult intended to Hypersmurf's approach; I'd obviously need to see it in action before I decided how it felt, but that's my first gut feeling).

Of course, Loki's assertion that this makes invisibility more powerful is something I am a little concerned about, as none of the PCs in my players' party have invisibility. But, that's their choice, really. Heh.

Note, after reading the linked thread, I'm leaning more towards "AoOs are concrete actions taken by characters" not the "AoOs are an abstract mechanic for something that is happening anyway". This is mainly because IMC we refer to AoOs in character already -- things like distracting a foe to trigger an AoO and then having your ally rush by are justified by saying "You leave yourself wide open, and while your enemy takes a wild swing at you, Bob rushes past the distracted enemy to escape." Our decisions on whether to take AoOs are in-game, in-character decisions -- a stupid fighter takes the first AoO he is granted in a round. The cunning one may let one slide hoping for a better opportunity.

 

[Ozmar]

For those of you who allow AoO against detected invisible people moving past you, then how do you adjudicate a situation where a character detects an invisible person moving past them in a general melee and gets an AoO, but doesn't take it because the player (not the character) knows that its his invisible mage ally, and not the invisible mage enemy they are fighting?

In other words, how do you handle it when a character detects an invisible AoO-provoking character? Do you just depend on the roleplaying capacity of your players, or do you impose an additional check to determine if they identify their ally correctly, or do you just make 'em swing away, or what?

Ozmar the Curious

 

[LokiDR]

Of course, Loki's assertion that this makes invisibility more powerful is something I am a little concerned about, as none of the PCs in my players' party have invisibility. But, that's their choice, really. Heh.

They will learn over time, and spells like glitterdust, see invisibility, faery fire, and invisiblity purge will likely become more popular. It is no worse than flying.

 

[LokiDR]

For those of you who allow AoO against detected invisible people moving past you, then how do you adjudicate a situation where a character detects an invisible person moving past them in a general melee and gets an AoO, but doesn't take it because the player (not the character) knows that its his invisible mage ally, and not the invisible mage enemy they are fighting?

In other words, how do you handle it when a character detects an invisible AoO-provoking character? Do you just depend on the roleplaying capacity of your players, or do you impose an additional check to determine if they identify their ally correctly, or do you just make 'em swing away, or what?

Ozmar the Curious

To prevent exactly this problem, invisible characters should be taken off the board/battlemat. If there are multiple invisible creatures, you wouldn't know anyway. If your mage friend was the only invisible person the character knew about, it doesn't make much sense to take an AoO.

In other words, depend on the PCs to not metagame, but don't make it easier for them.

 

[Murrdox]

I think this is one reason that I'm going to say that Invisible creatures don't provoke AoO...

It also means that if there are both allied and enemy creatures invisible in combat, any creature moving through a threatened square provokes an AoO. The player needs to decide, without knowing whether it's an enemy or ally, whether he wants to take that AoO. The risk is hitting your friend.

I would NOT want to deal with this as a game mechanic.

A Fighter and his Wizard friend are fighting an enemy Wizard. Then EW turns invisible. The FW does likewise. The fighter then miserably fails both spot checks to figure out where the wizards are. But suddenly a wizard is casting a spell next to him, so he can take an AoO. Let's even make it a non-verbal spell, so the Fighter can't recognize his friend's voice.

Now, OUT OF GAME, I've got 2 players, one of whom turned invisible, and ran up and cast a protection spell on his ally. Now, my players and I have to argue about whether or not its feasible for his character to attack the spell caster, or whether he expects his friend to cast a spell on him so he'll allow it.

This is bad, because the PLAYER KNOWS that his friend cast a spell on him, but he has to play as if he doesn't have that knowledge. And I certainly don't feel like having any invisible character pass me notes describing what they're doing so no one in the party has a clue what's going on.

As a DM, I would NOT want to deal with this. It's simpler just to say that Invisible opponents do not provoke AoO. I wouldn't even say that a bull rush, disarm attempt, or grapple check would provoke one. This is namely because you make your AoO BEFORE the action of the provoker finishes... thus you see someone about to grapple you, and you make a stab at him with your sword before he can get ahold on you and start the grapple. The wizard reaches into his component pouch to start casting a spell, and the fighter sees the wizard lower his quarterstaff a bit, and stabs at the opening.

If 3.5 came up with some concrete rules on dealing with invisible opponents and AoO, I'd go with them, assuming they're less complex than grappling rules currently are.

For the record, my personal view of AoO, like Hypersmurf was saying, is attacking openings in a person's defenses. Attack rolls DO mean more than one swing of the sword and such however. I view an AoO by saying that when someone drops their defenses, you begin concentrating your swings on that area, thus taking advantage of the OPPORTUNITY to get in an attack... hense the name.

But we could debate this all year, as Hyper and Loki pointed out... those are just my thoughts.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In other words, how do you handle it when a character detects an invisible AoO-provoking character? Do you just depend on the roleplaying capacity of your players, or do you impose an additional check to determine if they identify their ally correctly, or do you just make 'em swing away, or what?

I'm fortunate in that the party I DM that has a sorcerer with invisibility is a PbEM party, and in my FTF game they haven't really used the spell.

So I can send someone a private email saying "An AoO has been provoked. Wanna take it?"

... and they don't know who or how it's been provoked.

It's much more fiddly in a FTF situation.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

I think this is one reason that I'm going to say that Invisible creatures don't provoke AoO...

I would NOT want to deal with this as a game mechanic.

For the record, my personal view of AoO, like Hypersmurf was saying, is attacking openings in a person's defenses. Attack rolls DO mean more than one swing of the sword and such however. I view an AoO by saying that when someone drops their defenses, you begin concentrating your swings on that area, thus taking advantage of the OPPORTUNITY to get in an attack... hense the name.

Actually, Hyp would say the person dropped their defense and one of your multiple swings that would not have otherwise hit gets a chance to.

The problem is that turning invisibility into immunity from AoOs is that it turns a usefull second level spell into a very powerful spell. Invis is already powerful. Removing AoOs slides into breaking game balance. If you want that simplicity, you might want to change the level of the spell.