Does being invis stop AoO?

[LokiDR]

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.

Ok, that isn't very clear. Try PH, p. 137, left column. "Attack of Opportunity" is the first in the listed sequence. If that isn't enough, check the top of the next column.

Move In: To maintain the grapple, you must move inot the target's space. Moving, as normal, provokes attacks of opportunity from threating enemies, but not from your target.

The touch attack then pretty clearly provokes the AoO.

Spells are a different matter. With harm, you only need to touch the person, not get a hold of them. I believe there is a specific passage in the PH about a person being considered armed when they have a touch spell cast. Casting the spell still provokes an AoO though.

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.

There is a difference between a bar-room brawler and a skilled martial artist. Any person can see that in action. That you see them is the point. They might sound the same, being the same sort of action, but one is done with skill and the other is not.

Against an invisible person you get no dex bonus to AC, and they recieve a +2 to hit you. The rogue can sneak attack you with impunity, at least untill he is visible. How can you react to a punch well enough to punch the person first, but not react to the rogue?

The best option, in the case of grapple/punch without IUS is assume the person has their guard down when the are visible. If they become visible upon attacking, you get your AoO, just after they hit (or miss) you.

 

[jontherev]

Ok, that isn't very clear. Try PH, p. 137, left column. "Attack of Opportunity" is the first in the listed sequence. If that isn't enough, check the top of the next column.

The touch attack then pretty clearly provokes the AoO.

Those passages do not prove your point. All it says is that grappling provokes an AoO and to maintain your grapple, you have to move into your ALREADY-GRAPPLED foe's square, provoking AoO's from those threatening your square. Grappling creatures don't threaten an area.

There is a difference between a bar-room brawler and a skilled martial artist. Any person can see that in action. That you see them is the point. They might sound the same, being the same sort of action, but one is done with skill and the other is not.

That's a pretty good explanation, but a barroom brawler could just be a fighter with the IUS feat. The line blurs...

Against an invisible person you get no dex bonus to AC, and they recieve a +2 to hit you. The rogue can sneak attack you with impunity, at least untill he is visible. How can you react to a punch well enough to punch the person first, but not react to the rogue?

I don't know how, but you do as per the rules. I'm not sure comparing sneak attack to the monk's use of IUS is fair.

 

[LokiDR]

Those passages do not prove your point. All it says is that grappling provokes an AoO and to maintain your grapple, you have to move into your ALREADY-GRAPPLED foe's square, provoking AoO's from those threatening your square. Grappling creatures don't threaten an area.

If the fact that the AoO comes before the touch attack, hell, before anything else in the grapple, there is no explanation that will satisfy you.

That's a pretty good explanation, but a barroom brawler could just be a fighter with the IUS feat. The line blurs...

Any person who has ever encountered a person capable of fighting with their fists will be able to tell the difference. That is what the feat/ability is for. That is something you see. Lets face it, people have always depended on their eyes more than their ears.

I don't know how, but you do as per the rules. I'm not sure comparing sneak attack to the monk's use of IUS is fair.

Well, you are the one arguing the strict rules side of this argument. And if one type of standard attack can not be likened to another, there is no point in trying to disscuss standard rules. Besides, we all know the monk needs all the help he can get

 

[LokiDR]

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.

The mechanic is 1 roll->1 shot for missle weapons. Missle weapons have a lot of equivalence to melee weapons (rapid shot->TWF). Melee weapons should then be seen in a similar fashion as missle weapon. Not formal logic, but it seems a pretty straight line for me.

As for your 20th level character swinging 4 times more, think of this. That 20th level character could survive a fall at terminal velocity. The 5th level character doesn't have a prayer. Let us not talk of unlikely.

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.

Do you ever use up an AoO on a Spring Attacking opponent?

You only get 1. There is no rule for a person bluffing you into using that 1 AoO when you don't have a chance, so his buddy can move in. You don't see an opening, you don't get a chance. It is called an Attack of Opportunity. You can not capitalize on an opportunity if you don't know about it.

You choose to take the AoO or not. A deliberate choice.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you ever use up an AoO on a Spring Attacking opponent?

You only get 1. There is no rule for a person bluffing you into using that 1 AoO when you don't have a chance, so his buddy can move in.

That's right.

Rules-mechanics-wise, the defender doesn't get to roll a die. He doesn't use up an AoO. There is no attack.

Cinematically, there's nothing to say the defender didn't swing his axe to no rules-mechanical effect.

In the same fashion, one can say "Alacazam" four or five times in a round, but rules mechanics state that only one of those has the effect of activating your wand.

You don't see an opening, you don't get a chance. It is called an Attack of Opportunity. You can not capitalize on an opportunity if you don't know about it.

That's one interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Why in the world would an invisible caster want to reveal his location by bluffing to cast a spell? If you cast on the defensive, you don't provoke an AoO period...whether the caster is invisible or not is irrelevant. However, you can still give the guy a Listen check to notice the not-so-smart invisible caster talking/bluffing nearby, and if he doesn't hear the caster move away right after that (using the Move Silent/Listen check IF he does move), he'll be able to full attack him on his next turn, suffering only the 50% miss chance, assuming he made the Listen check to notice him talking/bluffing. Not a tactic I would ever use.

There are plenty of reasons why he would do this given the circumstance. Too many to list here I am sure (since anyone can basically make up any type of excuse why one would do this).

Ex: Invisible mage is dominated by an the evil wizard which is hoping to trick his over-zealous Paladin friend into frantically swinging at his invisible friend (mistaking him for another Invisible Stalker that was thrown at them earlier), hopefully killing the dominated invisible mage, thus killing him while also forcing the Paladin to lose his Paladinhood because that is what evil people do. Ok, it's a bit of a stretch, but like I said, you can come up with any reason why. The reason isn't in question here, the AoO is.

But you still didn't answer the question. I'm not talking about "making a full attack" against talking/bluffing mage on his next turn. I'm wondering what the difference is between "talking" (or bluffing a spell) vs. just normally casting a spell and why casting a spell while invis would provoke an AoO while talking (again, bluffing a spell) would not?

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are plenty of reasons why he would do this given the circumstance. Too many to list here I am sure (since anyone can basically make up any type of excuse why one would do this).

An obvious one is if he figures that his chance of getting hit by the AoO - attack roll plus 50% miss chance - is less than his chance of flubbing the Cast Defensively Concentration check.

I'm wondering what the difference is between "talking" (or bluffing a spell) vs. just normally casting a spell and why casting a spell while invis would provoke an AoO while talking (again, bluffing a spell) would not?

Because talking doesn't require the concentration and attention that casting does, and doesn't leave you as open to attack.

It again depends on one's interpretation of AoOs. If you view it as "Hey, he's distracted, I'll hit him!", invisibility makes a difference. If you see it as "Ow, I was distracted, that one got through", it doesn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Invisibily prevents attacks of opportunity. Anytime you are disallowed a Dex bonus, you do not get an attack of opportunity as it is the equivalent of being flat-footed.

Only a person with combat reflexes feat can take an attack of opportunity while denied their dex bonus.

Most characters are denied their dex bonus against invisible opponents, thus only somone that kept their dex bonus versus invisible opponents can take an attack of opportunity.

Its very simple to deduce this by reading the rules. It is not ambiguous nor open to debate.

 

[RigaMortus]

Because talking doesn't require the concentration and attention that casting does, and doesn't leave you as open to attack.

It again depends on one's interpretation of AoOs. If you view it as "Hey, he's distracted, I'll hit him!", invisibility makes a difference. If you see it as "Ow, I was distracted, that one got through", it doesn't.

-Hyp.

Fair enough. Although I still disagree (until there is an official ruling, hopefully in 3.5 if not sooner) I found some evidence to support your theory.

I took a look at Aoo again, looking for anything which would support the theory that you need to perceive what your opponent is doing in order to make an AoO. Well I couldn't find anything that implied that, but I did find that "a combatant in melee lets her guard down, and she is not on the defensive as usual." This implies that ANYTIME they let their guard down, they are no longer on the defensive. It doesn't mention that the opponents need to see or perceive her with her guard down. She either is being defensive or not, and she makes that determination by her actions.

Then it goes on to say that, "combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack for free." So it seems the only qualifiers are that the opponent has to put their guard down (which THEIR actions determine) and have to be near you for you to make an AoO against them.

Now again, to me common sense and even the spirit of the rule would imply you need to perceive someone "taking their guard down." And there are a LOT of spells (and feats for that matter) that break the rules as well. By the strict reading of the rules, you have a valid point. By the spirit of the rules (and the invisibility spell) I still think you need to be aware (as in, see) of the actual action which drops one guard.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

Anytime you are disallowed a Dex bonus, you do not get an attack of opportunity as it is the equivalent of being flat-footed.

Absolutely and completely untrue.

Flat-footed people lose their Dex bonus. That doesn't mean someone denied his Dex bonus is flat-footed.

-Hyp.