|
Author
|
Comment
|
 Infiniti2000
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 1:48 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Darkness
You're thinking of it in the wrong way. Don't think of it as a touch attack against the opponent. It is a touch attack against an object. That's what differentiates it from spells like shocking grasp. This is no different (IMO) than an attempt at disarming, wherein the caster is targeting one of his opponent's items. It is a touch attack, true, but the AC is the Dex modifier of the opponent plus the size modifier of the object plus 5 for being in someone's position (if I remember this correctly). That is not as easy as a touch attack against the opponent. Add in the AoO and it is not unbalancing at all.
Coupling it with invisibility is just a very good tactic, but I would consider it an "attack", thus negating the invisibility.
|
Caedrel
Here for a while
(4/9/03 2:39 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
And since it is an attack against an object, it's not a viable tactic against creatures that don't carry anything that you could target - for example, beasts, oozes and animals. Some of these things might have something you could target - a collar or something - but I'd think those "hard to reach" objects should probably get a cover bonus to their AC as well as the usual hassles.
And yes, IMC D'Gran ended his turn standing next to the archer - on her turn, she unloaded all three attacks on him, but only the first beat the 50% miss chance. Next round, D'Gran turned invisible again and slipped out of the darkness - I presumed no AoO because she couldn't see him...
It was very funny when the archer made her way closer to the sound of her team mates' voices, engulfing them in the darkness too  They were the ones yelling at her to throw away her bow
|
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/9/03 5:08 pm)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
"I presumed no AoO because she couldn't see him..."
Maybe its just me not understanding the rules for AoO, but I have allowed them in cases where PCs/NPCs couldn't see the target of the AoO.
For example, just last night my players were fighting Ookmaan in his lair. The fiendish kuo-toan priest was getting whompped on by a paladin (lvl  , cleric of Pelor (lvl 11) and monk (lvl 11) and he decided to flee. He cast on the defensive getting off a darkness spell and then moved. The movement provoked an attack of opportunity and since they all knew where he was before he moved, I gave them the opportunity to strike. There was the normal 50% chance miss due to total concealment and they had to choose the square to swing into. The square was obvious as it was moving out of the threatened square that provoked the AoO.
In the case of an invisible opponent trying to move through a threatened square ... I'd still give an AoO, as invisibility does not mask sound or the other subtle clues that "something" is passing very close by. In that case, I use the Listen and Spot Check rules for detecting invisible creatures. If they don't "pinpoint" the invisible creature then they must just choose a square to swing into and hope for the best. However, if they do "pinpoint" it then they get the AoO, but still suffer the penalty for total concealment.
An invisible warrior in full plate marching right past you will be much easier to "pinpoint" with a Listen Check (DC 0, but must beat it by 20 to pinpoint) then an invisible rogue trying to move silently (the Listen Check must beat the rogue's Move Silent check by 20)
|
Cordo Crowfoot
Here to stay
(4/9/03 5:13 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
Heck with Saving Throw: None D'Gran could have just cut out the middle man and cast it directly on her. That's what he did IMC to the PC he had a grudge against.
|
ZansForCans 
Here for a while
(4/9/03 7:54 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
{Maybe its just me not understanding the rules for AoO, but I have allowed them in cases where PCs/NPCs couldn't see the target of the AoO.}
This has always been a tough one for me to decide once and for all on. I've never found anything in the RAW that gives special benefits to invisibilty against AoO's (especially the DMG 78-79 where it would be, I would think). Strangely though, 1/2 cover negates the possibility of an AoO even though 100% concealment doesn't.
But what about when you start taking other senses away by using Move Sliently or silence? It's probably best to go case-by-case at some level.
Group Editing & Authoring Support
flexible campaign management for the web
info :: demo |
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/9/03 8:27 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
"But what about when you start taking other senses away by using Move Sliently or silence? It's probably best to go case-by-case at some level."
If you can't use a Spot Check (because of magical darkness) and can't use a Listen Check (because of magical silence) then I would have to say the chance of a successful AoO are slim to none. It could be argued that under such conditions that AoO could even be provoked ... as the other senses: touch, smell and taste (ugh) are not sensitive enough to detect the vulnerability which leads to a AoO.
However, I don't think is right to deny an AoO just because the opponent is are invisible as there is always a chance, albeit small, that the invisible opponent can be pinpointed with a very high Spot Check.
|
Siobharek 
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 11:19 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
Cordo sez.Quote:
Heck with Saving Throw: None D'Gran could have just cut out the middle man and cast it directly on her.
But you can only cast it on an object, not a creature.
And yeah, good point with the disarm analogy. Yesterday evening I replaced the devil guest in the Outer Fane with a Draegloth (sp? half-drow/half-fiend from the Monsters of Faerun) assassin who's part of the drow's entourage. I can't wait for him to use that tactic on my gang. 
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. Edited by: Siobharek at: 4/9/03 11:21:10 pm
|
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 11:25 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
But you do not have to cast the darkness at a weapon. If you want to be really nasty, you could cast it on the armour of the opponent and that should be just as easy as a normal attack roll.
As far as AoO on invisible opponents, that is silly. How can you see there is an oppening to exploit? Besides, you lose your dexterity against such an opponent (just as you lose your dexterity bonus in total darkness), so you could be considered flat-footed. Flat-footed people in general cannot make attacks of oppertunity. Anyway, it has never been a question in my gaming groups. Invisible opponents do not trigger AoO for moving. Hack, you would not even know in what direction the character is moving and you make you AoO when you move out of the square.
|
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 11:37 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
Oh, but I am going to cast it on the PC's armour! His helmet, to be exact, while hanging invisible upside-town on the ceiling courtesy of a spider climb spell.
(I love this smiley)
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/9/03 11:45 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
Well, at least you can remove a helmet as a standard action. If you cast it on the characters plate mail it will take several rounds and somehow I doubt that will be done in the middle of a fight.
|
Siobharek
Still here? Wow.
(4/10/03 12:01 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
You may be right. Oh well, the dhaergloth has 10' reach, so he should be able to smack it on the breastplate.
Siobharek
...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. |
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/10/03 12:09 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
"As far as AoO on invisible opponents, that is silly."
So what your saying that a invisible warrior in full platemail who is clanking right past you is impossible to detect and therefore attack? Or that an invisible mage can cast any number of non-offensive spells right next to you without provoking a single AoO? IMO, that is silly.
If allowing AoO against invisible opponents is silly then call me looney!
|
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/10/03 12:57 am)
Reply
|
Re: Darkness
No, you get the attack of oppertunity because you note an opening in the defense of the opponent, not because he happens to be there. Simply by hearing him move, which has a rather high DC (if I remember correctly the DC to pinpoint an invisible opponent is 20), you don't know where he is exactly and wether he is actually creating an opening you could exploit. Remember, byt the rules a PC can opt not to make an attack of oppertunity. How can you chose not to do something, if you don't even know the option is there in the first place? You also cannot take AoO when flat-footed, which once against suggests a character consciously reacts to a situation the character can observe from happening.
|
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/10/03 1:54 am)
Reply
|
Blinded attacks of opportunity
So ... you WOULD let an invisible mage cast non-offensive spells with impunity while in a threatened square?!? Certainly you must beat the Listen DC of 0 by 20 to "pinpoint" him but that's not impossible for a well trained character. I don't know, my players would give me all sorts of funny looks over that one.
There's something just not right here.
1) A visible warrior moves into and out of a square you threaten provoking an attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter if he's got a sword or a banana in his hand. Right?
2) A warrior, a mere 10 feet away from you, activates a ring of invisibility then moves into and out of a square you threaten. By sheer luck, you pinpoint him with both a Spot AND Listen Check as he moves through the threatened square yet you don't get an attack of opportunity. Why? It is the act of moving out of the threatened square which provokes the attack of opportunity. You pinpointed him with Listen and Spot but still no attack of opportunity?
Now if you say that you are not allowed skill checks outside your turn ... fine, no Listen and Spot Checks then no AoO as you can't attack what you can't perceive. However, if you are allowed skill checks outside your turn (like a Sense Motive vs. Bluff) then I think a AoO should be allowed if those checks are successful.
BTW, I didn't realize that losing your Dex bonus to AC was the same as being flat-footed. It was my impression that you are flat-footed only during the suprise round and before your initiative in the first round of combat. I'll have to check my PHB to see if AoO are denied when you are denied your Dex bonus. If you can't make AoO while being denied your Dex bonus then I must conceed to your wisdom, otherwise ... to each his own campaign.
|
madfox
Still here? Wow.
(4/10/03 2:52 am)
Reply
|
Re: Blinded attacks of opportunity
It all depends on your idea of what exactly an attack of oppertunity is. In my eyes it is based on visual cues. By simply listening, you do not know whether your oponent did a double move retreat or a single move/other action action. Can you hear that somebody is grabbing a potion and quaffing it (especially since by the time you hear the drinking it is already finished)? Now some people state that you constantly make attacks during battle on all squares you threaten and that preventing the attack of oppertunity is an active action from the opponent. Now if you use that argument, I can see why you would get an Attack of Oppertunity even on invisible opponents.
Anyway, you did ignore my main argument: a character can chose NOT to make an attack of opportunity. In fact, in more then enough situations it is tactically sound not to make one, because a character can only have 1 per round. If you can chose not to make the attack of oppertunity, then making the attack is a reaction to what the opponent is doing and not the automatic result of the opponents actions. So you HAVE to see or somehow know what your opponent is doing. Please, tell me how you discern the difference between the double move action and a single move or casting and casting on the defensive or that the person attacking you is using a dagger or his fists purely by listening? That should be a lot more difficult then pin pointing the location in which an opponent is standing.
In the end though you are correct that this is something for each DM to make discision on. The core rules completely ignore the situation and my arguments are all circumstancial.
Side-note: losing your dexterity bonus is not the same as being flat-footed, I said it was similar enough. You are right though as an argument it is a bit weak, especially since characters with uncanny dodge do not lose their dexterity bonus against invisible opponents.
|
Kylearanon
Here for a while
(4/10/03 3:13 am)
Reply
|
Re: D'Gran big bad evil guy ? Why ?
Quote:
1) A visible warrior moves into and out of a square you threaten provoking an attack of opportunity. It doesn't matter if he's got a sword or a banana in his hand. Right?
Hehe, Trithereon, I just sit here trying to imagine a warrior threatening a draegloth with a banana .... somehow this thread has gotten all weird ... 
... hmm, maybe he could use this specific tactic with a dire ape 
Kyle
|
Trithereon
Here quite a while
(4/10/03 4:30 am)
Reply
|
Re: Blinded attacks of opportunity
I think there must be some middle ground on this issue.
I didn't mean to ignore your main arguement, I just think some actions which are so inherently dangerous that they provoke AoO regardless if you can actually see them do it or not.
I conceed that it'd be extremely difficult to determine if an invisible opponent is drinking a potion or retrieving an stored item just by a Listen Check. Therefore I conceed that not all actions which provoke an AoO should do so if done while invisible.
However, trying to move in close quarters past an armed opponent while invisible (or past one who is blinded by darkness or who has his eyes shut) is risky business. If a trained warrior senses (through Listen or Spot) that "something" is trying to slip past him and that "something" is moving through threatened squares then how can you justify not allowing him what would normally be an AoO?
Is an invisible character so completely invulnerable to AoO that he can run circles around his hapless opponent, moving from one threatened square to the next all the while taunting him with loud insults?
I don't think so, but I could accept it if my DM told me that how he plays it. However, I certainly wouldn't call my DM silly if he did allow an AoO against such a bold and risky maneuver.
|
ronin
Here for a while
(4/10/03 6:47 pm)
Reply
|
re: blind AoOs
I think you should be able to take an AoO against an invisible opponent if you are aware there is an invisible opponent near you. I would define that as follows:
Make a spot check vs. the DC of 20 to notice an invisible creature is in the area. If this is made then it is up to the PC to decide what they want to do at this point. They could assume the invisible creature is near enough to take a swipe at or they can try to pinpoint the location of the creature.
If they do the former they choose a square and make an attack roll. The miss chance gets rolled if they are fortunate enough to choose the correct square. If that does not happen there is no need unless you wanted to make the PC believe he has targeted the correct square for some reason.
If they choose the latter then they must let you know how they choose to pinpoint the creature. The only way that comes to mind in the time frame allowed is a listen check. If this is successful then they can target the correct square, if not it's back to the above option. If they happen to target the correct square and hit the creature then I roll the 50% miss chance.
This way works well for me since the DC for the spot check is defined. The listen check can vary obviously and that needs to be decided beforehand or quickly during play. I like to let the PCs make their own rolls so I record every PC's spot and listen then add the modifiers myself. I also generally ask for random d20 rolls for no reason just so they wont get accustomed to the "rolling a 20 sider means something is happening" habit.
Making an AoO against an invisible opponent should be possible but alot of that depends on what the opponent is doing at the time. This method seems to work well for our group.
ronin
|
ronin
Here for a while
(4/10/03 7:02 pm)
Reply
|
re: blind AoOs
After reading my post I need to add a couple of things.
The listen check for the PC is opposed by a move silently check made by the creature. This could be a DEX check if the enemy has no ranks in move silently.
I would not allow an invisible creature to be pinpointed in this manner unless they were in an adjacent square to the character attempting to locate them. If they are not then I would just give them a direction that they hear the noise in and an approximate distance (depending on how well they did on the listen check).
Thats it.
ronin
|
Kylearanon
Here for a while
(4/10/03 11:27 pm)
Reply
|
Re: re: blind AoOs
That sounds quite okay for me. Only I would add one thing, ronin. After detecting there is an invisible being in the area around you (DC20-check) I would probably have to name half the battle-field (like with a shield-spell) where the invisible creature could be. After all he seemed to have seen something and knows the general direction.
Apart from that I am also really fine with the rule that an invisible being gets no AoO´s. On my first days on this board somebody told me (and believe me, I do everything to add realism to the game) that sometimes you just have to go with the rules, even if they doesn´t make always sense. And realism does not always further fluid gaming.
Kyle
|
Okay -- Your Turn
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies