AoO, invisibility and spell casting

[Zenon]

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

Sorry, I know we're not being a lot of help here.

Unfortunately for you, there is no exact rule which covers the situation you describe. By the existing rules as they are written with no situational adjucating by the DM, the AoO would have been possible on you.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

It also depends on what the wizard is doing. If he is moving through the fighters threatened squares, then I give the AOO. The Fighter is slashing every square he threatens hoping to kill the invisible enemy around him.

If the wizard is casting. Then he need merely make a defensive casting roll to avoid the fighters blows as he swings blindly at the last square the wizard was in.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

AOO's are abstract attacks meant to give a fighter engaged in melee an attack because the opponent has done something that leaves his or her defenses open.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

yes! yes!! yes!!!

my point exactly.

by the rules, you know, they only limited you to areas you can attack.

that directly answers the question.

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

Exactly... the only thing that matters, by the rules, are you threatening the area... can you melee attack the area... everything else is irrelevent.

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

None do, but thats not a problem, thats just the rule.

The rule did not say that you have to be wearing boxer shorts...

thats not a loophole either.

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.

Actually it is saying "you can because it says you can"

Can you throw a fireball in the dark? no rule EXPLICITLY says you can throw fireballs IN the DARK.

Is this a loophole? No.

They cannot list explicitly every single time you can do something you normally can do. It would read like Seussian DND.

Can i AoO in the dark? yes you can Aoo in the dark.
Can i AoO against invisible? yes you can AoO vs invisible.
Can i aoO on a boat? yes you can AoO on a boat.
etc etc etc.

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.

The catch is somehow you have figured that AoO vs invisible is not covered by the basic rule. As far as i can tell, it is.

What is your adjudication for AoOs on a boat? Its not explicitly covered either.

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

Sigh... nowhere is casting cure spells on reduced creatures covered either. Nowehere is casting fireball on a boat covered either.

your game your call.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

I would call it you wishing the rule were different. They only need to have the "you have to know" rule if that is what they intended.

otherwise, the rule is clear as it stands.

threaten+action on list = free swing

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.

So how do you know when the guy first starts moving away from you whether it is a 5' step, a double move, a move-potion or a run? If threaten+action is no longer sufficient, if instead its now threaten+action+discernment what do you do about all those cases where you cannot discern the provocation when the AoO would be taken? One could just ignore that of course.

Rather than assuming that "the rule has a loophole" because it did not do the things i wanted it to do (make discernment a requirement) i would phrase it as so...

"By the rules, the answer is clear, invisibility will not prevent an AOO, threaten+action is all that is required. HOWEVER, for my games i have added a house rule requiring some degree of discernment, based case by case on GM subjective whim." This way you do not cause confusion by calling the way the rule works a loophole.

thats just me however.

 

[Petrosian]

By the existing rules as they are written with no situational adjucating by the DM, the AoO would have been possible on you.

Exactly!

 

[Zenon]

I would call it you wishing the rule were different. They only need to have the "you have to know" rule if that is what they intended.

otherwise, the rule is clear as it stands.

threaten+action on list = free swing

Yes, I agree with you here. I do wish the rule was clearer and at least stated you had to be aware of the action to take the AoO.

Rather than assuming that "the rule has a loophole" because it did not do the things i wanted it to do (make discernment a requirement) i would phrase it as so...

It's not only "what I want it to do", it is what makes any kind of common sense. My common sense tells me that in order to exploit a weakness or lack of guard, one must be able to perceive it.

"By the rules, the answer is clear, invisibility will not prevent an AOO, threaten+action is all that is required. HOWEVER, for my games i have added a house rule requiring some degree of discernment, based case by case on GM subjective whim." This way you do not cause confusion by calling the way the rule works a loophole.

thats just me however.

I do not call it by a GM subjective whim. I call it making a judgement to how this will work for all parties involved, at all times, PC and NPC alike.

You can call it a "house rule" if you'd like, I describe it as a rules clarification to close a loophole:

Main Entry: 1loop·hole
Pronunciation: 'lüp-"hOl
Function: noun
Etymology: 1loop
Date: 1591
1 a : a small opening through which small arms may be fired b : a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation
2 : a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

If you don't like loophole, call it a house rule, it matters not to me.

The clarification is simple:

You must be aware of the action that provokes the AoO to take the AoO.

This is common sense because the world is too dangerous of a place if all the fighters are contantly walking around swinging blindly at random squares just in case a flying invisible silenced creature might be travelling through them.

 

[Zenon]

Exactly!

Hey! We agree on something!