Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re
It depends if you're talking about the Combat Reflexes situation I'm discussing above - which I freely admit requires an interpretation that strictly speaking qualifies as a House Rule - or AoOs against invisible creatures once combat has already been initiated.
In the general case where someone knows there are invisible creatures about - perhaps they made the Spot or Listen check to know that "something's out there", or they saw them turn invisible, or someone who can detect invisible creatures has alerted them... it is my belief that the rules allow for an AoO if the invisible creature takes an action that provokes one while in a threatened square. (Others disagree.)
It comes down to a difference of opinion on "What is an AoO?"
There are two major schools of thought.
One is "Look! He left an opening. I'll hit him while he's vulnerable!" This view of AoOs, obviously, requires perception of the target's actions. It is not, however, the view to which I subscribe.
My view begins on PHB p123, Attack Rolls:
"An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly."
Normally, all of those other "several attempts" and "wild swings" have no rules-mechanics chance of striking the opponent - they are defeated by his defences. But if those defences are not there - if he is drinking a potion, for example - then one of those "several attempts" or "wild swings" that would normally be dodged or deflected automatically suddenly has a finite chance of connecting. It is not necessary for the attacker to know, in-character, that the defences have dropped for that wild swing to connect.
Out-of-character, the player has the opportunity to decide whether he wants to expend an AoO attempt and make an attack roll. If he decides no, the wild swing misses. If he decides yes, the wild swing has a chance to connect, based on an attack roll. If the target is invisible, he has to choose a square and roll a miss chance as normal. The player doesn't know who, or what action, provoked the AoO - he just knows the option is there. The character only knows that one of the blows of his sword struck home through lapsed defences... or not.
One of the things I like most about this interpretation is that it explains why ranged weapons don't get AoOs. You're not firing four or five arrows for every attack roll, like the swings of a sword... you're only firing one. Thus, there are no 'spare' arrows in the air if the target happens to drop his defences at the wrong moment. The "see an opportunity and take it!" school don't have this explanation of why a ranged weapon doesn't get to make AoOs available to them.
Where it does fall down is that there is no explanation for why a character cannot make an AoO on a completely unexpected, unsuspected invisible opponent who tries to creep past them. The House Rule I incorporate to make sense of this is to consider anyone who does not suspect the existence of invisible creatures nearby flat-footed with respect to those creatures, even once combat has been joined, until they do have reason to suspect.
... and that's why I allow someone with Combat Reflexes to make AoOs on unsuspected invisible opponents - because they can make AoOs while flat-footed.
-Hyp.
It depends if you're talking about the Combat Reflexes situation I'm discussing above - which I freely admit requires an interpretation that strictly speaking qualifies as a House Rule - or AoOs against invisible creatures once combat has already been initiated.
In the general case where someone knows there are invisible creatures about - perhaps they made the Spot or Listen check to know that "something's out there", or they saw them turn invisible, or someone who can detect invisible creatures has alerted them... it is my belief that the rules allow for an AoO if the invisible creature takes an action that provokes one while in a threatened square. (Others disagree.)
It comes down to a difference of opinion on "What is an AoO?"
There are two major schools of thought.
One is "Look! He left an opening. I'll hit him while he's vulnerable!" This view of AoOs, obviously, requires perception of the target's actions. It is not, however, the view to which I subscribe.
My view begins on PHB p123, Attack Rolls:
"An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly."
Normally, all of those other "several attempts" and "wild swings" have no rules-mechanics chance of striking the opponent - they are defeated by his defences. But if those defences are not there - if he is drinking a potion, for example - then one of those "several attempts" or "wild swings" that would normally be dodged or deflected automatically suddenly has a finite chance of connecting. It is not necessary for the attacker to know, in-character, that the defences have dropped for that wild swing to connect.
Out-of-character, the player has the opportunity to decide whether he wants to expend an AoO attempt and make an attack roll. If he decides no, the wild swing misses. If he decides yes, the wild swing has a chance to connect, based on an attack roll. If the target is invisible, he has to choose a square and roll a miss chance as normal. The player doesn't know who, or what action, provoked the AoO - he just knows the option is there. The character only knows that one of the blows of his sword struck home through lapsed defences... or not.
One of the things I like most about this interpretation is that it explains why ranged weapons don't get AoOs. You're not firing four or five arrows for every attack roll, like the swings of a sword... you're only firing one. Thus, there are no 'spare' arrows in the air if the target happens to drop his defences at the wrong moment. The "see an opportunity and take it!" school don't have this explanation of why a ranged weapon doesn't get to make AoOs available to them.
Where it does fall down is that there is no explanation for why a character cannot make an AoO on a completely unexpected, unsuspected invisible opponent who tries to creep past them. The House Rule I incorporate to make sense of this is to consider anyone who does not suspect the existence of invisible creatures nearby flat-footed with respect to those creatures, even once combat has been joined, until they do have reason to suspect.
... and that's why I allow someone with Combat Reflexes to make AoOs on unsuspected invisible opponents - because they can make AoOs while flat-footed.
-Hyp.
