Mageslayer and invisible opponents

[Hypersmurf]

But you said that a flat footed character doesn't threaten during his opponent's turn.

That thread had two branches, depending on whether we considered 'can make AoOs' and 'threaten' to be essentially synonymous. The quote you just referenced was only in reference to one branch - the one that created the loop.

The two had different implications - if we consider them to be synonymous, a flat-footed character does not threaten. If we consider them to be distinct, a character with IUS does not threaten.

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron]

That thread had two branches, depending on whether we considered 'can make AoOs' and 'threaten' to be essentially synonymous. The quote you just referenced was only in reference to one branch - the one that created the loop.

The two had different implications - if we consider them to be synonymous, a flat-footed character does not threaten. If we consider them to be distinct, a character with IUS does not threaten.

-Hyp.

I still can't see what's your opinion on the matter: does a character who can't make AoO threaten?

We know that we cannot consider the two branches distinct, cause we know that a character with IUS does threaten: thus a flat footed character does not threaten.

 

[Hypersmurf]

We know that we cannot consider the two branches distinct, cause we know that a character with IUS does threaten: thus a flat footed character does not threaten.

We know that a character with IUS can make AoOs. We don't know if he threatens.

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron]

We know that a character with IUS can make AoOs. We don't know if he threatens.

-Hyp.

So, we don't know if he threatens (sic!).

But, what about a flat footed character?

Does he threaten?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, we don't know if he threatens (sic!).

But, what about a flat footed character?

Does he threaten?

If we say that "threatens" and "can make AoOs" are equivalent, the IUS character threatens, and the flat-footed character does not.

If we say that "threatens" and "can make AoOs" are not equivalent, the IUS character does not threaten, and the flat-footed character is not prevented from threatening.

-Hyp.

 

[Gaiden]

Does the feat work if your opponent can't see you?

Would a wizard be aware that he can't cast defensively if he doesn't know that you are there, or if he doesn't know where you are?

I don't think this is RAW, but there is a common sense approach with how to handle this feat: there is no reason a caster would know that he can or cannot cast defensively (not unless he has gone up against a mageslayer in the past and then you demonstrate with your ability or he has foreknowledge that you have a similar ability). Thus, a caster would generally act as he would normally, i.e. cast defensively. If he successfully casts defensively, the mageslayer still would get an AoO. If he botches the spell trying to cast defensively, then he botches the spell.

After going up against this feat several times, the mage should realize there is no point in casting defensively as he is only hampering himself in possibly botching the spell. He either should move away or just eat the AoO and hope to beat the concentration check if he casts in place.

Just reinterpret the text of Mageslayer to read as: when a caster attempts to cast defensively, even if successful with his concentration check, you still get an AoO against him.

There, problem solved.

 

[Aaron]

If we say that "threatens" and "can make AoOs" are equivalent, the IUS character threatens, and the flat-footed character does not.

If we say that "threatens" and "can make AoOs" are not equivalent, the IUS character does not threaten, and the flat-footed character is not prevented from threatening.

-Hyp.

I understand it.

What I'm asking is: what you say.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I understand it.

What I'm asking is: what you say.

I think it's up to the DM which branch he wants to take, and I'm not running a game...

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron]

I think it's up to the DM which branch he wants to take, and I'm not running a game...

-Hyp.

So, if someone else starts a thread with the question "does a flat footed character threaten" your answer would be "it's up to the DM"?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, if someone else starts a thread with the question "does a flat footed character threaten" your answer would be "it's up to the DM"?

I'd say "It depends on whether the DM considers 'threaten' and 'able to make AoOs' to be equivalent", and use IUS as an example to show an effect of the two readings.

In the initial reply to this thread, I've taken the point of view that the two are not synonymous - it's possible to have a square into which you can make a melee attack (the definition of threatening) even if you are unable to make an AoO into that square. But the other point of view exists.

-Hyp.