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

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

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'.

I view it as being like the Luck Domain special power.

The player roll the die. It comes up "2". The player decides "I activate my Luck Domain special power".

The PC has no way of knowing that the die roll was bad - he can only view results. Since once the result of the "2" is known, it's too late to activate the Luck Domain power, it cannot be the PC's choice to activate the power, only the player's.

I see AoOs vs invisible as the same. A character without Combat Reflexes has one chance per round to convert a wild swing with no chance of actually dealing damage, into an attack roll against an opponent whose defences are lowered. It's a player decision, rather than a PC decision.

If Falstaff the Fighter is in combat with an invisible kobold who drinks a potion, the DM informs Bob the Player "An AoO has been provoked. Do you wish to expend your AoO attempt this round?"

If Bob says yes, he chooses a square into which the AoO will be made, rolls a 50% miss chance for total concealment, and rolls his attack roll. If all of them go well, then one of his wild swings found the gap in the invisible kobold's guard. If not, then none of them did. Falstaff doesn't have any knowledge of the above interchange, just like the Luck cleric doesn't know that he rerolled a "2" - all Falstaff knows is whether the kobold got hit or not.

If Bob says no, then the wild swings still occur in the movie version... there's simply zero chance that any of them will hit, and Falstaff still has an AoO left for later in the round.

-Hyp.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

I view it as being like the Luck Domain special power.

The player roll the die. It comes up "2". The player decides "I activate my Luck Domain special power".

The PC has no way of knowing that the die roll was bad - he can only view results. Since once the result of the "2" is known, it's too late to activate the Luck Domain power, it cannot be the PC's choice to activate the power, only the player's.

Funny. Whenever I have the luck doman activate (and actually work, which it never does) I make sure that the player's skill actually failed, and success is because of a 'lucky break'.

For example, a cleric/rogue is trying to pick a lock, and flubs the roll. They yank their lock picks out and in frustration, kick the door - which knocks the last tumbler into place and the door opens.

J

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

For example, a cleric/rogue is trying to pick a lock, and flubs the roll. They yank their lock picks out and in frustration, kick the door - which knocks the last tumbler into place and the door opens.

Situation: Trying to pick a lock. The character has a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20... but the player doesn't know that. The player guesses the DC at 25.

He rolls an 11. The DM's about to tell him what happens, when... "Wait!" the player says. "I wanna reroll that one."

On the reroll - 11 again.

"The lock opens," the DM informs him.

The decision to use the power is made after the roll, but before the result of that roll is known. Thus, it has to be a metagame decision on the player's part, not a choice on the character's part... the character can't see the die roll, and the result of the die roll - the thing the character can observe - hasn't happened yet when the decision must be made.

I see the choice to expend an AoO against a provocation by an invisible opponent as a similar metagame decision by the player, rather than an in-game choice by the PC, since it's based on an event the PC has no knowledge of.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Looks like a Displacement spell now gets rid of all AoOs... even for spellcasting?

Darn, that sucks.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Looks like a Displacement spell now gets rid of all AoOs... even for spellcasting?

Darn, that sucks.

I don't think it should. After all, a creature under the effect of displacement "benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normall" (PHB 223). Compare with "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment" (PHB 152). I think this clearly indicates that you can take AoO's against displaced creatures, even though the 50% miss chance still applies. This makes sense because you can clearly see that the creature is provoking an AoO, even if the exact location is off by a couple of feet, unlike the case with invisible creatures, where you can't see that the AoO-provoking action is taking place.

In response to Hyp's arguments, I'd make the following point. Consider how it would seem that certain AoO-provoking actions should provoke AoOs even if you're invisible, if it's clear enough that the action is taking place. For instance, if someone is casting a spell next to you, you don't need to see them to know this is happening; you can hear it. Ah, but now consider this: if just hearing someone cast a spell can let you take an AoO at that square, why can't someone *fake* casting a spell by uttering the verbal component without the somatic ones, so as to draw an AoO? (Perhaps the faker assumes/knows that the opponent is not quick enough to take multiple AoOs, and wants to prevent an ally's action from drawing an AoO in the same round). Clearly, you can't get an AoO just because you *think* you can! The invisible caster's guard is either dropped or it is not, and you need to see him or her clearly to determine that. If you want to attack someone who you *think* is casting next to you, you can't just get the AoO, because you don't have enough information to take advantage of the presumed dropping of the guard. The best you could do is ready an action to attack the square where you see or hear spellcasting. Then you're free to try and to be fooled, but to take an AoO, you need not only evidence of the dropping of the guard, but rich enough information to take advantage of it. I can't really accept the wild swing theory because I don't see people flailing their weapon around into all squares within reach, which is what you'd need to do to have any chance of accidentally AoOing someone like an invisible opponent who is casting a Silent spell. Perhaps in 2nd edition AD&D, with its 1 minute rounds, but in 3.x's 6 second rounds, I just can't see it.

Cheers,
MC

 

[Hypersmurf]

In response to Hyp's arguments, I'd make the following point. ... Clearly, you can't get an AoO just because you *think* you can!

That point is not in response to my arguments at all - my view of AoOs does not require the character to think anything at all. The decision as to whether or not the AoO attempt is expended is a player choice.

I can't really accept the wild swing theory because I don't see people flailing their weapon around into all squares within reach, which is what you'd need to do to have any chance of accidentally AoOing someone like an invisible opponent who is casting a Silent spell.

And that's why I only allow it if the attacker has reason to suspect the presence of invisible opponents in the combat. If he's seen someone turn invisible; if he's made a DC20 Spot check or a Listen check to detect the presence of invisible creatures, whether or not he's pinpointed them; if someone has said "Watch out, chums, invisible bad guys!"; in those cases, I have no problem with someone keeping at least a cursory offence against all squares within reach - in the cinematic view of the combat, anyway.

"An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly."

If someone has no reason to suspect there is an invisible creature nearby, he has no reason to be keeping up that multi-square offence. Thus, my house rule is to treat such a person as flat-footed against an invisible creature. So if the guard sees you, and you turn invisible and run past him, you're going to wear an AoO (potentially). But if you turn invisible before ever going near the guard, he has no reason to suspect an invisible creature is nearby - he is treated as flat-footed, and cannot make an AoO.

Unless he has Combat Reflexes, in which case he might get a spider-sense tingle that suggests maybe he should take a jab into empty space right about now.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

The wild-swings theory also fits neither the way that normal, sane people fight (especially sane combatants wielding piercing weapons), nor the one-attack-per-round aspect of Attacks of Opportunity.

The deliberate-attack theory, OTOH, fits all aspects of AoOs, except for the fact that you used to be able to get an AoO against somebody that you didn't know was there. Now they've fixed that, making the whole system plausible.

Excellent change, IMO.

Daniel

 

[Darklone]

Wow, this might even fix the silly "I trip him with Imp Trip, then bash him, trip him again when he gets up with my AoO, bash him again for Imp Trip,..." thing. You simply have to cast a quickened Disappear. Wow.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Situation: Trying to pick a lock. The character has a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20... but the player doesn't know that. The player guesses the DC at 25.

He rolls an 11. The DM's about to tell him what happens, when... "Wait!" the player says. "I wanna reroll that one."

On the reroll - 11 again.

"The lock opens," the DM informs him.

The decision to use the power is made after the roll, but before the result of that roll is known. Thus, it has to be a metagame decision on the player's part, not a choice on the character's part... the character can't see the die roll, and the result of the die roll - the thing the character can observe - hasn't happened yet when the decision must be made.

Oh no? How about this?

Galen kneels in front of the lock, slipping the tension bar in and giving it a gentle clockwise twist. Now the pick. He could feel his hands trembling as he worked the tumblers.

[Player rolls an '11', thinks about it.]

I don't think I'm going to get this, Galen thought, the sweat beading on his brow.

[Player decides to use his reroll.]

Tymora, please...just let me get this lock, so we can get out of here. If you do, I promise I won't ask for anything else...

The lock clicks open.

...until tomorrow, Galen thinks, and smiles.

There you go - in character decision.

J

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree, drnuncheon -- I hate hate hate having players make decisions about which their characters know nothing. The luck domain and AoOs can both be rationalized in such a manner as to give the decision to the characters, and so that's how I do it.

Daniel