Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Nor do immediate reactions say you need to be aware... but assuming you do not means a Readied Action can trigger off something you have no way of observing.
-Hyp.
Invisibility + Fighter's Mark = ??
- Thread starter Dracorat
- Start date
Nor do immediate reactions say you need to be aware... but assuming you do not means a Readied Action can trigger off something you have no way of observing.
-Hyp.
James McMurray
First Post
"I ready an action to drop my sword when the dragon is two miles away from it's treasure." If you don't have to be aware of the trigger you now have an infallible way of knowing when it will be safer to try to sneak into the dragon's lair, because you can ready that action from half a mile away.
Unless the trigger involves magic, it seems pretty clear just from common sense that you'll need to be aware that the trigger occured. It's impossible to react to something that you don't know is happening. If it does involve magic, it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis to see if the magic involved could detect things that the character couldn't.
Unless the trigger involves magic, it seems pretty clear just from common sense that you'll need to be aware that the trigger occured. It's impossible to react to something that you don't know is happening. If it does involve magic, it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis to see if the magic involved could detect things that the character couldn't.
)James McMurray
First Post
If common sense doesn't work and they insist that you can be unaware of something and still react to it, just say "ok" and bust out your preplanned encounter that abuses the hell out of it. The DM has infinnitely more resources than the players, and is thus infinitely more capable of abusing any loophole or vague rule they want to exploit. It's like a nuclear arms race between the U.S. and 13th century Mongolia.
Dracorat
First Post
Yes, yet I loathe that approach.
Usually, we resolve to the gentleman's approach of not setting up such things to occur instead. We may be rules lawyers, but we still like working as a team (even me as the DM - I am known to do stuff like say "Psst - did you use your action point yet?")
Usually, we resolve to the gentleman's approach of not setting up such things to occur instead. We may be rules lawyers, but we still like working as a team (even me as the DM - I am known to do stuff like say "Psst - did you use your action point yet?")
James McMurray
First Post
Yeah, it's definitely the last ditch effort, but it sounded from your last post that it might be necessary. I was probably reading too much into it.
Dracorat
First Post
Actually, it's just that when I apply rules, I apply them consistently. It has come to the point that my players expect that from me. Thus, as a result of any ruling, they will now call me on it if the ruling affects something important, such as this.
They ask where I got the decision from, so that they know what to expect in the future. They aren't looking to argue with me, but instead understand how and when the rules apply.
I do sometimes tell them that I am making the decision based upon common sense ruling, but that's an admission of a house rule. It is important to me that when I do this, I really seek out that it was necessary. It also avoids unpredicted situations where the ruling is actually taking over another rule I was unaware of.
Perhaps as a failure on my part to be elaborate about what I was looking for, the first responses were made with an assumption that we were making rules and their explanations on the fly. Yet, I was really challenging the assumption, not the end result.
And I was having a hard time expressing that I didn't need explanations really - I needed (for lack of a better description) the legalese only, even if that came down to "There's no such rule" - because then, as a DM, I knew to make the judgment call confident in the necessity of such a call.
It will really seem like an unnecessary standard for anyone to try to hold to - making hard and fast rules decisions at every possible point - but for me and my friends, it works well for us. We derive comfort from such "stability" in rules.
We are actually not uncreative for it, though at initial appearances, one might think so. Instead, we simply express the possible in terms of game mechanics and let predictability (of the rules) take hold.
HTH
They ask where I got the decision from, so that they know what to expect in the future. They aren't looking to argue with me, but instead understand how and when the rules apply.
I do sometimes tell them that I am making the decision based upon common sense ruling, but that's an admission of a house rule. It is important to me that when I do this, I really seek out that it was necessary. It also avoids unpredicted situations where the ruling is actually taking over another rule I was unaware of.
Perhaps as a failure on my part to be elaborate about what I was looking for, the first responses were made with an assumption that we were making rules and their explanations on the fly. Yet, I was really challenging the assumption, not the end result.
And I was having a hard time expressing that I didn't need explanations really - I needed (for lack of a better description) the legalese only, even if that came down to "There's no such rule" - because then, as a DM, I knew to make the judgment call confident in the necessity of such a call.
It will really seem like an unnecessary standard for anyone to try to hold to - making hard and fast rules decisions at every possible point - but for me and my friends, it works well for us. We derive comfort from such "stability" in rules.
We are actually not uncreative for it, though at initial appearances, one might think so. Instead, we simply express the possible in terms of game mechanics and let predictability (of the rules) take hold.
HTH
Daniel D. Fox
Explorer
Firstly, Total Concealment confers Invisibility as a state, as page 281 in the PHB. When invisible:
INVISIBLE: You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision. You have combat advantage against any enemy that can’t see you. You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can’t see you.
What are the requirements for Combat Challenge?
What about attacking invisible creatures?
INVISIBLE: You can’t be seen by normal forms of vision. You have combat advantage against any enemy that can’t see you. You don’t provoke opportunity attacks from enemies that can’t see you.
What are the requirements for Combat Challenge?
Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target.
What about attacking invisible creatures?
If you’re fighting a creature you can’t see—when a creature is invisible, you’re blinded, or you’re fighting in darkness you can’t see through—you have to target a square rather than the creature.
So no, you cannot make an immediate interrupt BECAUSE your mark is no longer active. At that point, you're attacking a square, NOT a creature/target. Common sense tells us that if you cannot see someone, you cannot mark them. Therefore, if someone disappears from sight, they are no longer marked (whether they're invisible, ran away, teleported across the countryside or rode a horse off into the sunset). Otherwise, people could state they they're going to attempt to attack the King while standing in the threshold of their house (while the king is 100 miles away), "miss the attack" by swinging their sword and then the King would be marked.
It's common sense, folks. You can't see the foe, you cannot mark him. If a foe disappears, he is no longer marked. 
Last edited:
Dracorat
First Post
The foe had an immediate interrupt that when he took damage that he would become invisible. See the Gnome Illusionist - this was a DM crafted mob with the same reaction ability on it.
In that situation, the fighter had already attacked a non-invis creature, thus making it markable. It came invis as an interrupt of its own in response to damage received.
This is in contention to:
In that situation, the fighter had already attacked a non-invis creature, thus making it markable. It came invis as an interrupt of its own in response to damage received.
This is in contention to:
DracoSuave
First Post
It isn't true either. Marked isn't a condition removed by invisbility. Warlocks/Paladins could tell you that.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Hard Moves (in D&D)
