Readied actions, invisibility, and attacks: which comes first?

[Hypersmurf]

How would you resolve such AoOs? Do you tell the character, "You're not sure why, but you realize you're able to make an extra attack right now; if you want to do so, tell me which square you're attacking"? That just seems silly to me.

Actually, that's exactly how I did it in 3E. With the house-ruled exception that if the character had no reason to suspect the presence of invisible creatures in the area, he was considered flat-footed with respect to that invisible creature, and could not make AoOs... unless he had Combat Reflexes.

By my reading of AoOs in 3E, an AoO is not "Hey, he drank a potion, so I can suddenly swing my sword faster!" An attack roll represents more than one swing... but most of them are automatically dodged, parried, etc in the course of melee. If someone provokes an AoO, however, one of those cinematic swings that normally does not receive a die roll suddenly has a finite chance of hitting - one of those 'automatic' parries isn't there any more.

(This is also an explanation for why ranged weapons can't make AoOs - with a bow, one attack roll does represent a single arrow. Thus, when someone leaves an unexpected gap in their defences, there is no 'extra' arrow in the air ready to take advantage of it...)

Just because someone is invisible is no reason to deny the chance that one of the normally-dodged cinematic swings finds an unexpected gap in their defences. But, as normal, you must be aiming for the correct square and roll your miss chance.

Now, if you have no reason to consider there might be an invisible opponent out there, you wouldn't be trying to hit them in the first place... so those 'extra' swings wouldn't exist... hence no AoO. That's why I introduced the 'effectively flat-footed' rule. It has the side effect that an unsuspecting character with Combat Reflexes still has a chance to make an AoO on an invisible creature... and I don't think that's a bad thing.

It also means that if you have enemies and allies invisible in the same combat, and the DM says "By the way, you have the chance to make an AoO... do you want to take it?", you have to make a quick decision as to whether it's more likely to be an enemy or ally you're about to swing at...

But all that changed when 3.5 came out. I don't think denying AoOs for totla concealment is an improvement, but hey.

Why shouldn't you be able to ready a restricted charge in 3.5?

When executing the ready action you are restricted to a standard action only, so it's a perfectly viable action to ready for that situation.

You're not restricted to a standard action on your action. You have the option of taking both a move action and standard action, where that standard action happens to be the Ready action. You're not restricted. If you don't take a move action, that's your choice, not a restriction.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Interesting interpretation of AoOs, Hypersmurf. I don't much like it, though . If that's what they represent, then why do you get to choose whether to take an AoO, and why do you get only one per round, and why do you get to choose (if two or more AoOs are provoked) which one to take?

Furthermore, it supposes that someone fighting with a spear, for example, is spinning in circles stabbing into the air randomly around them all throughout a fight. That image is just silly, IMO.

Just as the player chooses to take an AoO, I think the rules indicate that a PC chooses to take an AoO. That's why I'm happy that you can't choose to take an AoO when there's no way you could know the opportunity has arisen.

(Of course, I always give an indication when creatures use their spell-like abilities: they pause in the fight, their gaze turns inward, they get a look on their face as if they're constipated, etc.)

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

If that's what they represent, then why do you get to choose whether to take an AoO...

I consider that a metagame decision - the player chooses whether or not to expend his AoO attempt for the round to convert a guaranteed cinematic miss into a potential mechanical hit.

Like the Luck domain - the player decides, based on the number showing on his d20, whether to use his once-per-day reroll before anything occurs which would alert the PC that it might be necessary. It's a player decision, not a PC decision.

... and why do you get only one per round, and why do you get to choose (if two or more AoOs are provoked) which one to take?

Game balance.

Furthermore, it supposes that someone fighting with a spear, for example, is spinning in circles stabbing into the air randomly around them all throughout a fight.

If they know there's an invisible assassin stalking them? Sure.

-Hyp.

 

[ecliptic]

I consider that a metagame decision - the player chooses whether or not to expend his AoO attempt for the round to convert a guaranteed cinematic miss into a potential mechanical hit.

I don't. As the character only has so much time to perform any action. So he can choose who he wants to strike and when. His arm just doesn't reach out and strike on its own.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't. As the character only has so much time to perform any action. So he can choose who he wants to strike and when. His arm just doesn't reach out and strike on its own.

Let's say we're making a movie of a combat.

In one round, Bob makes one attack roll, and Fred makes one attack roll. Yet when we film that round of combat, they each swing five or six times... we just don't roll dice for most of those swings. We assume that Fred sidesteps, or ducks, or parries all but one of them automatically, or that they glance off shield or armour. We only roll for one... it may hit, or it may miss, but it's the only swing that actually has a finite chance of dealing damage.

Likewise Fred's attack on Bob.

In the second round, though, Bob makes his one attack roll as normal, but Fred attempts a disarm, provoking an AoO. If we compare the footage of the first round to the footage of the second round, we see the difference. Just before Fred's 'attack roll' swing in the first round, he auto-parried a blow from Bob, by getting his sword in the way. Just before his disarm attempt in the second round, however, he is getting set for the tricky maneuver, and his sword isn't there when that normally-mechanically-irrelevant swing from Bob arrives.

Now Bob's player has a choice to make. We can assume that this purely cinematic swing will miss, as normal, with no die roll required... or, given what Fred is attempting, Bob's player can elect to expend his single AoO attempt for the round and actually roll a die for this swing.

Bob's arm isn't reaching out and striking on its own... it's simply part of the normal process of threatening an opponent that you're waving your sword in his direction. Normally, it doesn't come to anything... but if he leaves a gap in his defences, it might.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Like the Luck domain - the player decides, based on the number showing on his d20, whether to use his once-per-day reroll before anything occurs which would alert the PC that it might be necessary. It's a player decision, not a PC decision.

I don't consider the latter to be a metagame decision, either: the PC is on the verge of seeing things about to go to hell, utters a quick quick prayer, and hopes that some tiny random event will turn things out for the better. Rarely, I might say that the Gods are smiling down on the unconscious PC who's using the ability, but I'd give this Godlike power to the player.

Game balance.

I guess my interpretation both attains game balance and makes cinematic sense; that's one of the reasons I find it preferable.

If they know there's an invisible assassin stalking them? Sure.

Imagine that the imps in my game last night decided, while invisible, to use their Suggestion power on someone. They hovered right over their victim--in the victim's space--and Suggested, "Defend me at all costs!" Two allies are next to the victim, threatening the victim's space.

By your interpretation, since these guys know that there's an invisible imp nearby, they're constantly stabbing their spears and swords, swinging their axes and clubs, into all the spaces around them, including the spaces that their allies inhabit. They're spinning around doing this.

That just seems like somebody's gonna poke an eye out. It certainly doesn't seem very cinematic, unless the cinema is Three Amigos.

Daniel

 

[two]

My typical response to the line of reasoning that goes "AOO's are the automatic result of a melee attacker spinning around stabbing at all threatened squares during a round" is the simple "dark alley" scenario.

You know. Theif snatches purse from party mage and runs past the flatfooted party fighter moving down the alleyway. The fighter has combat reflexes, though, so can take an AOO. Let's say he hits and kills the thief. Wow.

Either the fighter was walking down the alleyway stabbing at all threatened squares, and does this as a normal process of walking, and the thief ran into this cuisinart of pain, or:

An AOO is an attack made from spotting an opening vs. an insufficiently defended opponent.

i.e. the fighter sees the thief attempting to slip by him in a sprint (leave a threatened area) and pokes him. One attack, one roll.

So, take your pick. I know my pick.

 

[Pielorinho]

Two, if the fighter turns out to be Cat from Red Dwarf, the first explanation almost works .

Good example!

Daniel

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I tend to use both visualizations. Hypersmurf's during melee combat and to explain combat with invisible creatures, and Two's when dealing with AoOs that are provoked in a non-combat situation, or at the very beginning of combat.

I also like Hypersmurf's visualization, because it ties in neatly with the Tumble skill, and why it's not an opposed roll. When someone moves through a threatened space, it has nothing to do with how skilled or unskilled the AoO'er is. Tumbling is the art of putting your defenses up (making those cinematic parries) even while moving. Thus, it's a set difficulty unrelated to the combat prowess of the other guy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You know. Theif snatches purse from party mage and runs past the flatfooted party fighter moving down the alleyway. The fighter has combat reflexes, though, so can take an AOO. Let's say he hits and kills the thief. Wow.

Ah, but notice that I mentioned earlier that in 3E, I let someone with Combat Reflexes take an AoO on an invisible creature even if they didn't suspect such a creature existed. So in such a situation, I consider Combat Reflexes to act like Spidey-Sense

I don't consider the latter to be a metagame decision, either: the PC is on the verge of seeing things about to go to hell, utters a quick quick prayer, and hopes that some tiny random event will turn things out for the better.

But the choice is made based on information that the PC has no access to, since the decision to reroll explicitly must be made before the outcome of the initial die roll is determined.

By your interpretation, since these guys know that there's an invisible imp nearby, they're constantly stabbing their spears and swords, swinging their axes and clubs, into all the spaces around them, including the spaces that their allies inhabit. They're spinning around doing this.

Not necessarily into all the spaces around them. Remember, at the instant that the AoO is provoked, if the player elects to expend an AoO attempt to take it, he must select a square into which that attack is made. There's no spinning required; the character is simply making the occasional jab against the chance that he might find the creature in question. Most of these will either be into the wrong square, or will be automatically evaded as with all the other cinematic, non-mechanical swings. But if a jab happens to intersect with a dropped guard in the correct square, and the 50% miss chance doesn't screw it up, and the attack roll is sufficient, he got lucky.

Of course, in 3.5, they changed the rules.

-Hyp.