Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 304586" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>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 swingSo 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.[/QUOTE]