Does being invis stop AoO?

[IceBear]

Well, the "wild flailing" was just one way of looking at it. It wouldn't work most of the time. Usually, I'd do as others have stated. They become aware that there is an invisible creature nearby and start attacking a square. If the creature is in that square and performing an action that might cause an AoO, then the attacker gets a "free" chance to cause damage.

Sorry for the "wild flailing" image. It was just to give a gross example of how an AoO might work against an invisible creature. Invisibility is a powerful ability and already limits AoO against the user to almost 100%. Stating that it stops AoO completely is a bit too much. With the way I see it, the attacker has a 1 in 8 chance of picking the right square and then only a 50% chance of hitting.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

BTW - I don't think either view explains the one AoO per round. If you're fighting someone who drinks two potions you only get one AoO so neither view (AoO is a function of the attacker or AoO is a function of the defender) really explains that. I'm sure the one AoO per round was simply a game balance rule with no real basis.

For what it's worth, I used to be in the "if you can't see them, you can't AoO them" camp so I do know where you're coming from. I just see the 1 in 8 chance of picking the right square to attack coupled with the 50% miss chance as being sufficient now (I've come to dislike too much invisibility )

IceBear

 

[BlackBart]

I have a general problem with granting attacks of opportunity against invisible foes because: How do you know they are provoking one? Can you tell the difference between a spellcaster casting on the defensive or not if they are invisible? Is that guy really quaffing a potion? Was that a spell like ability or a supernatural ability that guy just used? Did that guy just bend down to pick something up? Is he retrieving a stored item? Maybe you know precisely where they are(really good spot check), but it makes little conceptual sense that you can take advantage of a momentary lapse in defense that you couldn't recognize until that lapse had, well, lapsed. Just my two cents.

 

[ruleslawyer]

That's how I run it; common sense rules. If you don't know that your opponent has taken an action triggering an AoO, you can't make one. Note, of course, that it is possible to figure out that your opponent is taking such an action; for instance, I allow AoO (subject to the need to pick a square and 50% miss chance) for spellcasting with verbal components on a successful Listen check.

 

[IceBear]

That's because you're looking at AoO as a function of the attacker? You're attacking someone who is invisible. That attack isn't one attack roll - it's several swings, feints, etc. The attack roll is to determine if these series of maneuvers penetrate the defenses and cause damage. If that person does something to trigger an AoO, then he isn't defending himself as well as before and you get an extra roll to see if you do damage.

An AoO does not equal an extra swing. It's an extra chance to do damage because of something the DEFENDER is doing...it's not the attacker. If you look at it from that perspective, an AoO against an invisible foe isn't that hard to swallow. You still have to pick the right square to attack into in the first place to get this extra attack.

IceBear

 

[LokiDR]

BTW - I don't think either view explains the one AoO per round. If you're fighting someone who drinks two potions you only get one AoO so neither view (AoO is a function of the attacker or AoO is a function of the defender) really explains that. I'm sure the one AoO per round was simply a game balance rule with no real basis.

For what it's worth, I used to be in the "if you can't see them, you can't AoO them" camp so I do know where you're coming from. I just see the 1 in 8 chance of picking the right square to attack coupled with the 50% miss chance as being sufficient now (I've come to dislike too much invisibility )

IceBear

I am still in the "no AoO against an invisible creature" camp, but I also dislike the overuse of invisibility. I think a relatively low listen check and use the primary action to choose a square and attack should suffice.

 

[Quidam]

That's because you're looking at AoO as a function of the attacker? You're attacking someone who is invisible. That attack isn't one attack roll - it's several swings, feints, etc. The attack roll is to determine if these series of maneuvers penetrate the defenses and cause damage. If that person does something to trigger an AoO, then he isn't defending himself as well as before and you get an extra roll to see if you do damage.

An AoO does not equal an extra swing. It's an extra chance to do damage because of something the DEFENDER is doing...it's not the attacker. If you look at it from that perspective, an AoO against an invisible foe isn't that hard to swallow. You still have to pick the right square to attack into in the first place to get this extra attack.

IceBear

And yet the attacker must choose to take the AoO. As has been mentioned, there's only one allowed per round and if the attacker didn't have the choice of letting an AoO slip by, you could force him to waste it on the first chance to come by.

It's an action the ATTACKER makes based on their perception of the way the defender is definding themselves.

 

[IceBear]

Good point about the attacker choosing. I don't think the one per round means diddle either way. If I'm the attacker and the defender opens himself up twice I don't think it matters who it's a function of - you would get two shots in if the rule wasn't for game balance.

However, since you're right about the attacker choosing to take the AoO or not (I've never seen anyone not choose so it slipped my mind), then I'm back in the no AoO against an invisible person camp. Sorry, if I'm just zealous to find a way to weaken invisiblity a little

IceBear

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, since you're right about the attacker choosing to take the AoO or not (I've never seen anyone not choose so it slipped my mind)

It can happen - especially when you have characters deliberately provoking an AoO so that they (or someone else) can do something else with impunity later in the round... but their opponent sees it coming and elects to wait.

First time I saw it happen was a fighter choosing not to make the AoO against the kobold with the spear, because he knew that then the one with the mallet would be able to run past him to ring the alarm bell...

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

Oh I know it can happen and why (I just hadn't seen it in my games so I didn't consider it), but it does sink the argument that it's just an extra attack getting through rather than the attacker exploiting a weakness. Since the attacker chooses, then he must be aware of the weakness, and if he can't see the weakness then how can he choose to exploit it?

IceBear