Invisibility + Fighter's Mark = ??

[Dracorat]

The thought of using hearing to detect did come to mind, but then that places a problem with the no OA part of invisibility. If I can allow the immediate interrupt on the basis of hearing a shift, it makes no sense I couldn't allow an OA on the same basis.

DracoSuave, I appreciate the answers you gave. I am looking for a different sort of answer though. More of a "crunch" answer.

Asking for one is not an attack on you, nor a diminishment of the answers you did provide. If nothing else, I am sure someone else will probably come here at some point for this information and be able to read a good interpretation of what they can do or not, put in the context of story-telling instead of rules-lawyering.

For now, though I really need the rules lawyering. That is the reason I persist, in light of your response - not to spite you.

Thanks for the participation you have provided.

 

[DracoSuave]

Alright.

1) Opportunity Attacks are not Immediate Interrupts. So keep that out of the head.
2) Immediate Interrupts do not say you need to be aware of the trigger.

Therefore it triggers.

That's that.

However, if you disagree with that, then 'You must be able to detect the target' means that you must have some determination as to whether you can detect the target. Meaning roll it.

Immediate Interrupts are not the same as Opportunity Attacks and have differing fluff behind the crunch, so don't substitute one for the other in your logic space. They aren't analogous, even in the case of the Fighter's Combat Challenge.

 

[Dracorat]

'You must be able to detect the target'

Is that somewhere? If so, I'm missing it and in which case I would resolve to solving it with a roll, even though it still screams out "wrong" to me.

Mechanically I know that OAs and Interrupts are different actions with different conditions and without controverting evidence, I would have to allow it. I am basically making sure I didn't miss anything because at this point, I'd allow it solely based upon my understanding of the rules. (Unless you show me a place that says you must be aware in which case I'd resort to the opposed check first.)

I know I am not constrained to a strict reading of the rules but have found that voluntarily being as strict as possible leads to a better run game (at least with my play style).

For most people, they'll just make a decision and never think about the decision again.

I made the decision (the enemy used the RUN action as a double move) and made a note to ask ENWorld.

 

[DracoSuave]

'You must be able to detect the target'

Is that somewhere? If so, I'm missing it and in which case I would resolve to solving it with a roll, even though it still screams out "wrong" to me.

:facepalm:

You missed the point.

The strict rules about it is a blank slate. There's nothing saying you can't immediately interrupt an action that you cannot see. (which is not the same as cannot detect). There's nothing saying either way and you as a DM have to make a call. You can't even HAVE set rules in such an instance because there's too many variables that make an interpretation right one with this time, but not right this other time. It's part of a DM's skillset to be able to make these calls in such a manner that is logical from the manner of the story run and the situation at hand. You can't give 'strict rules lawyer' advice in a situation like this because there IS no strict rules law in this situation. That's why you'll get suggestions rather than strict rules argument.

That said, if you determine that you need to be able to -detect- the invisible guy then there's rules available to determine how to detect him. It's a Stealth/Perception situation. If you end your thinking at the previous paragraph however, then you just allow the immediate interrupt.

However, the interrupter needs to be able to guess which square the provoking shifter was in before he shifted. This may be easy and trivial, or it may be difficult and impossible, that can only be determined in context of the battle itself.

 

[Dracorat]

OK, I'll give you that I missed you were being sarcastic.

But then my response to you should indicate that I'm looking for a very strict reading of the rules. The rest I can do or not do at my whim, but it's important to me that I always know exactly what the rules say. Any variation is then a house rule.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sadly, the 'strict rules' is 'Do your job, DM.'

It might seem like wild-west country after the tight rules mechanics of 3rd ed, but it's how it was in 2nd and 1st editions, and in most other roleplaying games on the market these days, save Rolemaster, which sucks.

 

[Dracorat]

I am able to handle things at the table. I expect however, to be able to come here, since it's the source I trust most, in to the "Rules" forum no less, and ask what the rules are and receive at minimum a somewhat definitive answer. Which is what I'm asking for.

Right now, I understand them to be that the attack is allowed. I want people versed in the rules to corroborate or providing controverting evidence. That is all.

All debate about how we can justify it or about even whether people feel it is appropriate to DM with a heavy hand is inconsequential to the question I asked.

Edit: And I understand that your position is that the maneuver is allowed per rules. Until/unless I hear otherwise, that is also mine. Until I see otherwise, I will handle it or not at my descretion, but I'll know that's the best the rules had to offer and that I missed nothing - absent someone else piping up with rules to the contrary.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Really, I can't see how DracoSauve was being sarcastic. He clearly set out the rules as they exist, and the options on how to extrapolate from them.

Dracorat, you seem to be getting upset at DracoSauve for not giving you a firm ruling based on the D&D rules when THERE IS NO SUCH RULING to be had. Quite simply, the rules don't explicitly cover your question. The fact that they don't isn't DracoSauve's fault.

Keeping insisting on a solid rules based ruling one way or another really isn't productive. Its like insisting that we show you in the rules where it says how good your character is in the sack - no such thing exists, but we can extrapolate from the rules that do exist.

Dr. Ruminahui - shrink with a spear

 

[Dracorat]

Respectfully Dr - I disagree with all your points.

I was not being sarcastic to him, I was being very clear as to what I'm looking for and the statement that "them's all the rules say" is all I needed to answer the question.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, he did say that "them's the rules" as it were - I guess you didn't catch that.

And no one accused you of being sarcastic - I instead noted that DracoSauve wasn't being sarcastic like you accused him of.

So perhaps this misunderstanding all boils down to a bit of failed reading comprehension.


Dr. Ruminahui - shrink with a spear