Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 4599408" data-attributes="member: 9789">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification