Invisibility + Fighter's Mark = ??

[Dracorat]

That's my understanding as well Draco.

It would seem that even death of the marking party isn't a condition for removal either.

The only conditions for a mark going away that I can find are that they are marked by another mark or the end of the next round has occurred without a refreshing mark.

 

[DreamChaser]

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?
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.

All this says, is that you'd suffer the standard chance of missing the creature...the logic actually supports that a fighter can still use his interrupt on an invisible creature. It would be a perception check vs stealth to know the creature was moving (through hearing, feel, smell, etc) but the attack can still happen.

DC

 

[unan oranis]

The DM shifts the invisible creature one square, decides weather the creature wishes to make a stealth check to be hidden.


failed or no stealth check:
the fighter is aware the creature has moved one square. perhaps it is a shift. perhaps not. The fighter declares he is using his free attack from his marking ability; the dm must concede that the attack is legal, unless of course the creature walked there instead of shifting.

successful stealth check: the fighter is unaware his opponent has moved, but since his dm is a rules lawyer the player has declared that every two microseconds he is attempting to use his free attack, and just to be sure he is using it in every direction ten times over. After the first several thousand rejections of the decleration are made, finally he gets a bite as the creature shifts away from him.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well in this case, apparently the monster is only invisible to the fighter, so how it works:

Monster: 'I shift.'
Fighter's ally: 'Dude, he's totally shifting.'
Fighter: 'I am now aware that he is shifting. HASSAN CHOP!'

Fighter still has a -5 to hit the guy tho.

 

[Dracorat]

successful stealth check: the fighter is unaware his opponent has moved, but since his dm is a rules lawyer the player has declared that every two microseconds he is attempting to use his free attack, and just to be sure he is using it in every direction ten times over. After the first several thousand rejections of the decleration are made, finally he gets a bite as the creature shifts away from him.

You only get one immediate interrupt until your turn comes back around. No where do the rules say it only "counts" if you made a valid declaration.

Thus, it sucks you used up the first time you randomly decided to use it as a result of nothing happening at all.

That's my anti-munchkin rules lawyering.

There's a difference between being a rules lawyer and being a munchkin.

 

[unan oranis]

You only get one immediate interrupt until your turn comes back around. No where do the rules say it only "counts" if you made a valid declaration.

Thus, it sucks you used up the first time you randomly decided to use it as a result of nothing happening at all.

So according to you; a declaration of an immediate interrupt - that turns out to be invalid - does not expend the power/ability, but it does count toward the limit of one per turn.

but what to stop me from opening my mouth and declaring again 2 microseconds later? would that not then be two times I've expended my "once per round" declaration ability? And then the universe would explode wouldn't it?

That's my anti-munchkin rules lawyering.

There's a difference between being a rules lawyer and being a munchkin.

Hey i'm not the one handing out universe exploders to my players.

 

[DracoSuave]

but what to stop me from opening my mouth and declaring again 2 microseconds later?

A modicum of common sense and a willingness to put aside your determination to ignore the DM's 'no you can't' in exchange for not being a disruptive influence upon the game in general.

Once a DM says 'No,' and you've made your point clear, there's a certain point where it's no longer rules lawyering and it's just whining and verbally browbeating a DM, holding the game hostage for the other players, until you get what you want. It's a childish temper tantrum at that point, and it's a disservice to the hobby.

That sort of player doesn't get to come back next session.

 

[Dracorat]

claring again 2 microseconds later? would that not then be two times I've expended my "once per round" declaration ability? And then the universe would explode wouldn't it?

Nothing, but no matter the validity, the answer thence forth is "no" - no matter what outcome may have been possible had you not expended.

Plus, what DracoSuave said.

 

[unan oranis]

A modicum of common sense and a willingness to put aside your determination to ignore the DM's 'no you can't' in exchange for not being a disruptive influence upon the game in general.

Once a DM says 'No,' and you've made your point clear, there's a certain point where it's no longer rules lawyering and it's just whining and verbally browbeating a DM, holding the game hostage for the other players, until you get what you want. It's a childish temper tantrum at that point, and it's a disservice to the hobby.

That sort of player doesn't get to come back next session.

heres my point:

me: I get to attack the badguy because of my mark!

dm: sorry, the badguy hasn't actually triggered that ability. (shifts badguy away)

me: I get to attack the badguy because of my mark!

dm: no

me:uh, he triggered the ability, don't I get to attack?

dm: no, you get to ask if you can attack. you can only ask once per round though. Therefore you cant ask again, now, which means you cant attack. but you would have if you hadn't asked the first time.

me: I think your confusing me with my character. for example, I have technically allready asked twice, and could ask again (technically) many times. To me it sounds more like you would like to ad-hoc that invisibility grants immunity to opportunity attacks *and* free attacks from a fighters mark...

dracosuave: You are a big baby!

me: *You* are a big baby!

dracosuave: No! you are!

me: ok, im a big baby.

dracosuave: No! you are a big baby!

me: (to the dm) you guys related?

 

[evilbob]

This is an interesting topic. It's yet another one of those many rules discussions that I thought had an obvious answer - but clearly, this is not obvious.

I would have said that because the fighter doesn't know the action is taking place and cannot target the creature even if someone told him it was, the fighter cannot take his immediate interrupt action against the target. I mean, just because the creature triggers an immediate interrupt, it doesn't mean the fighter automatically gets his action - what if the fighter were unconscious, or the creature were on the other side of a door or was in some other way impossible to target? It's not 100% automatic - it just happens when you are able to make it happen.

This is the "common sense" answer, and it still fits within the rules as well. In fact, this whole situation is strikingly similar to the "Hunter's Quarry" errata: "nearest enemy" became "nearest enemy you can see." This mechanic works similarly enough that I would presume a similar line of reasoning/errata would be applied.

Technically, I would also think there's an excellent case to be made that the invisible creature does not get a -2 to attacks that don't include the fighter, since that seems to be based more off of the fighter's ability to keep the target's attention - but that's a hard call and the most literal interpretation seems to go the other way.