D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Invisibility and AoOs

[pingpong]

i apologize if this has been brought already...

wasnt there a lot of debates before whether an invisible opponent provoked AoOs from others?

on page 152 of the new PHB, under Total Concealment, it now says:

"You can't execute an attack of oppurtunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies"

just thought that was interesting.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bah.

More 3.5-changes-things-that-weren't-broken.

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It wasn't broken, but it surely wasn't "realistic". The game rules are supposed to be attempts to simulate a "realistic" resolution of a given game situation.

AOO's against invisible opponents just didn't fit given the reason AOO's are supposed to occur in the first place.

I'm happy since we were already playing Invisibility this way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: re

AOO's against invisible opponents just didn't fit given the reason AOO's are supposed to occur in the first place.

Subject to interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

Subject to interpretation.

-Hyp.

Bah!!! If you can't see the opportunity why should you get an opportunity attack?

It fits. I'm glad this change was made.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: re

Bah!!! If you can't see the opportunity why should you get an opportunity attack?

Because the opportunity is the fact that the opponent's dropped guard precludes him avoiding your weapon. Whether or not you can see him doesn't change the fact that he is less able to defend himself.

If we both have sticks, and I close my eyes and take a few swings at you, in all likelihood you'll handily block all of them. But if you ignore me briefly to drink a beer, there's a good chance you'll get whacked. I'm blind - I can't tell whether you're paying attention to me or not. But when you drop your guard, you're vulnerable where a moment before you weren't.

It fits. No reason to change it.

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

re

We've had this discussion before, no use rehashing it. All I know is a person doesn't stop defending themselves when you get an AOO, that is why they don't lose one iota of their AC or Dex.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: re

We've had this discussion before...

And more than once

-Hyp.

 

[satori01]

But Papa Smurf always said " An AoO is more than an opponent letting down his guard, It is an opponent letting down his guard when another can take advantage of it. A held man can no more take an AoO, than a blind man can attack that of which he has absolutely no knowledge of".

If we both have sticks, and I close my eyes and take a few swings at you, in all likelihood you'll handily block all of them. But if you ignore me briefly to drink a beer, there's a good chance you'll get whacked. I'm blind - I can't tell whether you're paying attention to me or not. But when you drop your guard, you're vulnerable where a moment before you weren't.

It fits. No reason to change it.

-Hyp.

You example works if one had general knowledge of the offenders location, and knowledge that the defender let down his guard. Most people given time can break a pinata relatively easily, after all the pinata's location is pretty much fixed.

Try breaking that pinata blindfolded when you dont know it's location, or even worse when you dont know it's location or even if it is there! You have your opionion on the matter, and that is cool Hypersmurf, dibs on the Chain wielding combat reflexed, blindfighting Fire Giant fighter if I can play with your group

Your stick example reminds me a little to much of the Simpsons episode where bart and lisa punch and kick with their eyes close, and well if anything gets in their way it deserved it.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

If we both have sticks, and I close my eyes and take a few swings at you, in all likelihood you'll handily block all of them. But if you ignore me briefly to drink a beer, there's a good chance you'll get whacked.

That depends on the 'wild swing' theory of AoOs, but unfortunately the 'wild swing' theory of AoOs does not fit the rules - specifically, the one that says 'you do not have to take an AoO when it is provoked'.

If you are blind, and madly flailing at the guy who stops to drink a beer, you can't tell that his guard is not up - so in your example you must take the AoO. This does not fit with the rules, which give you the choice - so it must be an inaccurate representation of those rules.

J