Does being invis stop AoO?

[RigaMortus]

Re: 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.

That is technically a house rule. Let me know what page of any of the Core Rules books it is in. I wish it were that simple, then there would be no debate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re

Let me know what page of any of the Core Rules books it is in.

... and all the Iajutsu-based characters will rejoice

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

-Hyp.

Hold on. You argue that, by the rules, when the invisible person provokes an AoO, a person can take it, right? I agree that, in a strict sense, that is what the rules say.

Now you go on to explain it by saying a person is always flailing about, trying to hit the invisible person. That isn't directly supported by the rules at all, thought it is one way to view combat. But the game isn't based on cinimatics, it is based on seemingly balanced rules.

But what about a mage with a dagger? I don't imagine them swinging all the time. What if you don't know an invisible person is in the combat? I see the "flailing" idea of AoOs as being more complicated in the details. You certainly don't swing in all directions all the time, but there isn't any facing in D&D. See the problem with cinimatic explanation?

I know that my side of this debate isn't strict rules, but I think it can be cut down to just a few rules. So, to AoO a person you must:
a) threaten the person
b) the person must provoke an AoO
c) you must know exactly where the person is
d) you must know the person provoked an AoO

Since I don't see your side, what would be your specific rules about when you would and would not get an AoO? For example, could I run out of sight, invis, and run up to a monster with reach?

 

[IceBear]

Using Hypersmurf's idea of cinematic vs rules, couldn't a, b and c be sufficient - you know where the invisible person is and you attack there and because he is doing something that lowers his guard (ie AoO) you get to see if your attack gets through.

Here's the problem I see:

1) Other than being able to see invisible creatures there is really no way to 100% know that it is doing something to provoke an AoO (at least without it getting weird - is it really running away or just making noise so it sounds like it, etc).

2)If the attack is getting through because of the defender lowering his guard, how exactly is the attacker choosing to use his AoO.

At this point I think I just want to say - No Dex bonus, no AoO (I know, it's a houserule) as it's just easier to deal with

IceBear

 

[Hypersmurf]

What if you don't know an invisible person is in the combat?

In the event that a person is unaware of the existence of invisible creatures in the vicinity, I would consider them as flat-footed with respect to those creatures, and hence ineligible for AoOs (unless they have Combat Reflexes).

If someone knows there is an invisible creature about (either he made the DC 20 spot check to sense "something's out there" or he saw them turn invisible in the first place), they're not considered flat-footed, merely denied Dex bonus. Dex bonus isn't enough to prevent AoOs.

I know that my side of this debate isn't strict rules, but I think it can be cut down to just a few rules. So, to AoO a person you must:
a) threaten the person
b) the person must provoke an AoO
c) you must know exactly where the person is
d) you must know the person provoked an AoO

Whereas I view the AoO rules as being a) and b), plus e) you are not flat-footed, or you have combat reflexes.

It's not necessary to pinpoint an invisible creature to attack them - you select a square and roll your miss chance along with your attack roll. Wrong square? No hit. Miss chance comes up? No hit. Bad attack roll? No hit.

But it's possible to successfully hit an invisible, non-pinpointed target, and in my opinion if he provokes an AoO within a threatened area, he suffers the potential consequences.

Since I don't see your side, what would be your specific rules about when you would and would not get an AoO? For example, could I run out of sight, invis, and run up to a monster with reach?

It would be a judgement call, I think, on how long you'd been away. If the monster had reason to suspect there were hostile invisible creatures in the area, he'd get his AoO. With a ten foot reach, there are a whole lot of squares to choose from, so there's a good chance he'd miss.

If he had no reason to believe there were any hostile invisible creatures around, he wouldn't (without Cobat Reflexes).

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2)If the attack is getting through because of the defender lowering his guard, how exactly is the attacker choosing to use his AoO.

It's a player meta-decision. You can elect whether or not one of your cinematic movements has a chance of capitalising on the lapse in defences.

DM: Do you want to spend your AoO this round? One has just been provoked.
Player: Sure, why not?
DM: Pick a square.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Summing it up

1) The simplest solution is no dex->no AoO.

2) Strict reading of the rules says: they provoke, you swing at them. You only suffer from 50% miss chance.

3) The most complete way to deal with AoO vs invis if you view AoOs as deliberate character actions are the guidelines listed above. There isn't much in the way of judgement, since the guidelines can make it pretty clear (if you add a listen DC for "doing specific AoO provoking"), but it isn't supported by the rules directly.

4) The best way to handle AoO vs invisible if you see attacks as continuous is a DM judgement call, pick a square and roll. You may waste the AoO, but you have a chance to hit. It makes common sense, based on one view of combat, but there is always a judgement call on the part of the DM about whether you consider an invisible person is around (assuming failed spot DC 20).


Does this cover the possibilities? Did I misinterpret anyone? I don't think there is much use in discussing further. I am not going to convince Hyp, and he isn't convincing me . Based on how you view combat, and how much trouble you want bother with, pick one.