Does being invis stop AoO?

[Christian]

To simplify things I would say you get an attack of opportunity against an invisible opponent only if you know what square he's in.

This was what I ruled when this situation came up in my game yesterday. Worked fine, nobody bitched, and wasn't hard to adjudicate. Especially since the giant crocodile kept missing his Listen checks against the invisible rogue. (The wizard talked the rogue into being a decoy to draw the monster out while the rest of the party peppered it with missiles from a safe distance. Worked great, until the thing finally got lucky and chomped him almost in half ... Oh yeah, and when the dragon showed up. )

 

[BlackBart]

If that's the case, the DM should say, "You hear someone casting a spell right next to you (let's assume he didn't hear the caster approach, so he must have either teleported or has rogue levels or something), but you don't realize it until it's too late." Casting on the defensive does not provoke AoO's, so you can't lose your attempt for the round in the scenario you gave.

And again I ask the question, how does the one threatening an invisible spellcaster make the distinction between "casting" and "casting on the defensive," or for that matter how does one tell if an invisible ranged attacker is executing a ranged attack until, as you put it, it's too late. I realize that I as DM could simply say as much, but that's just a cop-out. Common sense dictates that a creature threatening a spellcaster couldn't make the distinction and would either attempt to make an AoO, or would be forced to ignore the apparent lapse in defense that would otherwise provoke an AoO.

 

[LokiDR]

Why not? You hear someone entering your square (make your Listen check) and take a swing in that direction. It's debatable whether it's the touch attack or the movement into the square that causes the AoO...the "why" or "how" is not spelled out in the rules afaik. Bullrush uses a similar mechanic to grapple in the case of the AoO, but actually spells out that it's the movement that causes the AoO...and that leads me to believe it's the same with grapple. But it's irrelevant in any case. If you make your Listen check by 20, you know he's within a few feet of you and it doesn't matter what weapon he's brandishing, unless he used tumble or spring attack and you've ruled that it's the touch attack that causes the AoO (BTW, if this has been clarified, please let me know). It's up to the DM to let the player know whether or not he will be able to take an AoO (i.e. the enemy has tumble, spring attack, or is casting on the defensive, etc.). Bottom line is this...if the invisible guy provokes an AoO, and his enemy has some way of detecting the action causing it (by making an appropriate Listen check), then the only defense invisibility provides in this case is the 50% concealment and immunity to sneak attacks. IMO, invisibility is not meant to provide immunity to AoO's.

The touch attack provokes the AoO. See here.

For rules balance, invisibility shouldn't provided immunity to AoOs. But as I said earlier, it doesn't. You just need information about the target of the AoO, like knowing they are doing something that provokes an AoO.

Does preventing AoOs against invisible persons make it stronger? Of course. But I think the logic of the situation demands some sort of AoO ruling. Casters can't invis and run away, unless there is a clear line to run away by.

And what of know the diference between defensively cast spell and not? How can you tell if it is a monk hitting you or just a goon? You have to choose to use your AoO, so you should be able to make an informed choice.

 

[jlhorner1974]

I tend to agree with most of the others that have posted, but I want to say that I understand the opposing viewpoints. Clearly there are no explicit rules about how to deal with AoOs against invisible creatures, so you just have to house rule it (at least for now) and do what you and your players think best.

I think it makes sense that in order to get an AoO, you have to know that an invisible creature is nearby, be able to pinpoint its square, and be able to perceive somehow the event that triggers the AoO (hearing a spell being cast, hearing the creature drink a potion, etc.)

I started out thinking that pinpointing the square is important because the AoO is supposed to reflect perceiving a weakness or lapse in the enemy's defense and launching a quick strike while their defenses are down. As I wrote this paragraph though, my mind wandered to the other side:

Suppose I know an invisible creature is near me because I heard it or saw it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. Probably I've narrowed it down to three squares as I probably have a vague idea of whether it is either in front of or behind me, or whether it is on my left or right. I would say that a successful listen check can probably narrow it down to three squares.

If I hear the invisible creature drink a potion or start to cast, I can reasonably assume that an invisible creature is near me with its defenses down, so I can launch a quick strike where I think the creature is. If I guess right and I beat the miss chance, I hit. If you are willing to possibly waste the AoO because you may guess wrong, so be it.

One of the most important aspects of D&D is its abstractness. As for the casting vs. casting on the defensive, the player should be told what the situation is. If the invisible creature has done something to lower their guard that the PC can perceive (drinking a potion, spellcasting), the PC should be told.

In describing the action, if the party is all accounted for an it is known that an invisible creature is present, and if it does something that the PC can detect as a possible AoO trigger, the PC will probably launch a quick strike where he thinks the creature is hiding. If the creature did not actually provoke an AoO, then the PC's attack does not hit no matter what the roll was (since the creature's guard really was up), and the PC is not charged with making an AoO.

Of course, in game terms, you can't just attack whenever you want and you only roll to hit at the specific times you are allowed. But what this abstraction represents is a constant series of blows, with to hit rolls representing whether any of them got through the target's defenses. A low level fighter may swing his sword 5 or 6 times in a round but only one is of sufficient quality to have a chance to hit and do damage during that time. As characters reach higher levels (higher BAB) the character is able to turn more of those 5 of 6 blows into quality chances to hit for damage (iterative attacks).

If the character thinks there may be an AoO but there isn't, the strike falls into one of the blows that is not a quality blow that has chance to hit for damage (because the creature's defenses were up after all). If an AoO is actually provoked, then the creature's defenses are really down and the hit counts as a quality hit and has a chance to do damage.

Does this make sense? I'm interested to hear how people rationalize this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does this make sense? I'm interested to hear how people rationalize this.

That's pretty close to how I view it.

-Hyp.

 

[jontherev]

And again I ask the question, how does the one threatening an invisible spellcaster make the distinction between "casting" and "casting on the defensive,"

It doesn't matter. Explain it in-game how you like (i.e. the enemy doesn't notice the spell being cast until it's too late), but by the rules, it's irrelevant. A caster casting defensively does not provoke an AoO...period.

or for that matter how does one tell if an invisible ranged attacker is executing a ranged attack until, as you put it, it's too late.

Again, explain it in-game how you like, but there are rules for finding an invisible foe in combat in the DMG. The thousands of times that you've heard an arrow being pulled out of a quiver and nocked and being drawn back should make you more than familiar with the sound being produced from 5' away from you.

I realize that I as DM could simply say as much, but that's just a cop-out. Common sense dictates that a creature threatening a spellcaster couldn't make the distinction and would either attempt to make an AoO, or would be forced to ignore the apparent lapse in defense that would otherwise provoke an AoO.

Funny thing, common sense. My common sense tells me that if someone invisible is doing something 5' away from me that I've heard a million times before, it should be fairly easy for my brain to figure it out. Here's where the DM comes in. If it's something the PC has never seen/heard, make the DC a lot higher. Otherwise, for a common action like ranged attacks or casting a spell, it should be simple to hear and figure out from 5' away, imo.

 

[jontherev]

The touch attack provokes the AoO. See here.

Thanks for the reference, but it's no help. I've already looked there to no avail. Can anyone provide an actual quote that says flatout that touch attacks provoke AoO's. If that's the case, then spells like Harm would then provoke AoO's, which afaik they don't.

And what of know the diference between defensively cast spell and not? How can you tell if it is a monk hitting you or just a goon? You have to choose to use your AoO, so you should be able to make an informed choice.

The difference is the DM doesn't let you make an AoO vs. a monk. Versus a barehanded fighter with no IUS feat trying to punch you, you do. Explain it in-game how you like. To throw it back at you, a visible monk punches a fighter. How does the fighter know it's a monk and therefore can't attack him? Invisibility is irrelevant.

 

[jontherev]

I think it makes sense that in order to get an AoO, you have to know that an invisible creature is nearby, be able to pinpoint its square, and be able to perceive somehow the event that triggers the AoO (hearing a spell being cast, hearing the creature drink a potion, etc.)

Almost. You don't have to know the exact square to take your AoO, but if you guess wrong, you're out one of your AoO's (matters for those with Combat Reflexes).

Suppose I know an invisible creature is near me because I heard it or saw it but I'm not sure exactly where it is. Probably I've narrowed it down to three squares as I probably have a vague idea of whether it is either in front of or behind me, or whether it is on my left or right. I would say that a successful listen check can probably narrow it down to three squares.

Here the rules are clear. To find someone invisible, read the invisibility section in the DMG. You can locate the exact square of an invisible foe as a free action with a simple Listen check. For non-sneaky types, it's actually quite easy to do in combat.

If I hear the invisible creature drink a potion or start to cast, I can reasonably assume that an invisible creature is near me with its defenses down, so I can launch a quick strike where I think the creature is. If I guess right and I beat the miss chance, I hit. If you are willing to possibly waste the AoO because you may guess wrong, so be it.

One of the most important aspects of D&D is its abstractness. As for the casting vs. casting on the defensive, the player should be told what the situation is. If the invisible creature has done something to lower their guard that the PC can perceive (drinking a potion, spellcasting), the PC should be told.

That's right.

In describing the action, if the party is all accounted for an it is known that an invisible creature is present, and if it does something that the PC can detect as a possible AoO trigger, the PC will probably launch a quick strike where he thinks the creature is hiding. If the creature did not actually provoke an AoO, then the PC's attack does not hit no matter what the roll was (since the creature's guard really was up), and the PC is not charged with making an AoO.

This isn't how the rules for AoO work. You don't detect a possible trigger. It's either triggered or not, period. It's not the most simplistic rule, so attempts to explain it may not make sense. Just use it.

Of course, in game terms, you can't just attack whenever you want and you only roll to hit at the specific times you are allowed. But what this abstraction represents is a constant series of blows, with to hit rolls representing whether any of them got through the target's defenses. A low level fighter may swing his sword 5 or 6 times in a round but only one is of sufficient quality to have a chance to hit and do damage during that time. As characters reach higher levels (higher BAB) the character is able to turn more of those 5 of 6 blows into quality chances to hit for damage (iterative attacks).

If the character thinks there may be an AoO but there isn't, the strike falls into one of the blows that is not a quality blow that has chance to hit for damage (because the creature's defenses were up after all). If an AoO is actually provoked, then the creature's defenses are really down and the hit counts as a quality hit and has a chance to do damage.

Does this make sense? I'm interested to hear how people rationalize this.

I try to not rationalize 3E rules as much as possible. It cuts down on the headaches. I disagree with your analysis of combat. I see each attack as a measured blow, not random swinging. To me it makes much more sense that a 1st level fighter can only swing a greatsword once or twice, but a 20th level fightert who has mastered the weapon, can swing it a lot more. As an example, if I (a novice I assure you) were to pick up a greatsword, I doubt I could swing it more than twice with any accuracy or strength in 6 seconds. This makes more sense to me, but know that you're not alone in your opinion, as HS atests.

 

[LokiDR]

Does this make sense? I'm interested to hear how people rationalize this.

I see two problems in your interpretation:

First, nothing says that a person is attacking continually. There aren't a series of feits as there are in some other systems (ShadowRun). Instead, you get one roll per attack. You roll for every swing. This may not make sense in a general view of combat, being very chaotic, but it is the view D&D uses.

Second, there is no way that I know of to "misuse" an AoO. A person can not, by the rules that I recall, attempt to AoO a square because they want to. The combatant knows that a target has lowered their guard. You only get one AoO normally. Do you want to use it or not. You may miss, but all AoOs assume you have a chance to hit.

In D&D, the combat system is a lot less abstract than other systems. That is why I view the AoOs as a specific swing of your weapon, not just lucky flailing. Lucky flailing is an attack at a random square. AoOs are always described as much more deliberate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Instead, you get one roll per attack. You roll for every swing.

Or you roll for every swing that has a chance of actually causing damage.

It seems unlikely that the 20th level fighter can swing his greataxe four times faster than the 5th level fighter. It's just that the swings he makes are more consistently dangerous.

This analogy only works for melee, of course - arrows and thrown weapons are definitely one launch per attack roll. There's no parrying and footwork going on.

AoOs are always described as much more deliberate.

Spring Attack, Tumble, Cast Defensively are all ways that you can avoid provoking an AoO with an action that normally would. I don't see this as the opponent deciding "Oh, he's tumbling... I guess I won't try and hit him after all" - I see it as just reducing the chance that he'll actually hit to zero. In a cinematic view, it's easy to imagine the villain taking a swipe at the rogue with his axe, and the rogue diving over the blade, rolling, and continuing past. The movement would normally provoke an AoO - but because of Tumble, there was no chance for the villain to actually hit him. Rules mechanics say don't bother rolling, don't use up an AoO... but that doesn't mean the axeman just stands there and watches him go past without making an effort to chop him down...

-Hyp.