Does an invisible character (but not silenced and so on) provoke AoOs? When a ranger shoots a bow while threatened, or a Wizard casts a spell in threat range, or even when a Rogue runs through some threatened squares, do these actions provoke attacks of opportunity if the action-takers are invisible? I ruled that no they do not provoke AoOs, but I can see a case for them doing so too.
Interestingly enough, this never actually came up in the past until today, so perhaps it is not so important, but I it would still be nice if it were clarified.
Erm, wrong forum - can you please move the topic? Thanks!
Does an invisible character (but not silenced and so on) provoke AoOs? When a ranger shoots a bow while threatened, or a Wizard casts a spell in threat range, or even when a Rogue runs through some threatened squares, do these actions provoke attacks of opportunity if the action-takers are invisible? I ruled that no they do not provoke AoOs, but I can see a case for them doing so too.
Interestingly enough, this never actually came up in the past until today, so perhaps it is not so important, but I it would still be nice if it were clarified.
My ruling in the past regarding this issue involves making secret perception checks for anyone who might be capable of taking an AoO - if they can perceive that someone is provoking the AoO, they can take it, although unless they have some means of mitigating Invisibility (Tremorsense, Blindsense, etc.) they still enjoy the 50% miss chance. The Perception DC is either the usual DC to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature, modified by any statements the provoker makes (like, "I'm casting as quietly as I can," or "I'll try to still my string after I loose the arrow.")
Depending on the situation, sometimes I grant a flat +2, sometimes I call for a stealth check. Since talking is a free action that can be taken out of turn, sometimes I'll have particularly alert individuals who might not get an AoO themselves make the check also, since if they manage to shout a warning, other AoO-capable folks might be less unaware (ex: "He's casting fireball right between you, get him!").
Obviously, this increases the workload for dealing with Invisibility and similar spells, and there are plenty of times that I won't have NPCs or monsters take the AoO even if they could, either because they're focused on something else (the fighter that just bashed my nose) or they don't think they'll hit (the Cohort Bard with low physical stats). For PCs who might notice, tho, I always try to make the check and give the option, if only to provide a just sense of value to those skill points spent on Perception, or opting for a high Wisdom score.
I can easily see ruling the other way, though, in the absence of an ability that specifically deals with detecting Invisible opponents, like Tremorsense, etc. I prefer a greater potential for reasonable realism within the rules-framework, which usually involves more complexity.
Just my thoughts...
~Doskious Steele
|
From the SRD. Unless something has changed in PRPG, this shouldn't be any different. [Emphasis mine.]
An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
In summary, an invisible creature has total concealment. You cannot take AOs against a creature with total concealment.
-Skeld
From the SRD. Unless something has changed in PRPG, this shouldn't be any different. [Emphasis mine.]
An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.In summary, an invisible creature has total concealment. You cannot take AOs against a creature with total concealment.
-Skeld
Thanks! This explains it fully - I guess since I never had the situation come up in 3.X edition and couldn't find the info in the Pathfinder RPG, I assumed it hadn't been clarified. With the two quotes you posted, however, the rules are crystal clear. It seems my intuition was correct on this one when I did the ruling.
Once again thanks!
Does an invisible character (but not silenced and so on) provoke AoOs? When a ranger shoots a bow while threatened, or a Wizard casts a spell in threat range, or even when a Rogue runs through some threatened squares, do these actions provoke attacks of opportunity if the action-takers are invisible? I ruled that no they do not provoke AoOs, but I can see a case for them doing so too.
Interestingly enough, this never actually came up in the past until today, so perhaps it is not so important, but I it would still be nice if it were clarified.
My ruling in the past regarding this issue involves making secret perception checks for anyone who might be capable of taking an AoO - if they can perceive that someone is provoking the AoO, they can take it, although unless they have some means of mitigating Invisibility (Tremorsense, Blindsense, etc.) they still enjoy the 50% miss chance. The Perception DC is either the usual DC to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature, modified by any statements the provoker makes (like, "I'm casting as quietly as I can," or "I'll try to still my string after I loose the arrow.")
Depending on the situation, sometimes I grant a flat +2, sometimes I call for a stealth check. Since talking is a free action that can be taken out of turn, sometimes I'll have particularly alert individuals who might not get an AoO themselves make the check also, since if they manage to shout a warning, other AoO-capable folks might be less unaware (ex: "He's casting fireball right between you, get him!").
Obviously, this increases the workload for dealing with Invisibility and similar spells, and there are plenty of times that I won't have NPCs or monsters take the AoO even if they could, either because they're focused on something else (the fighter that just bashed my nose) or they don't think they'll hit (the Cohort Bard with low physical stats). For PCs who might notice, tho, I always try to make the check and give the option, if only to provide a just...
This is an interesting system, but it might indeed add a bit too much complexity.
...This is an interesting system, but it might indeed add a bit too much complexity.
I should perhaps note that I usually use a fully automated software suite to assist me in making these rolls when I DM.
Also of note is that, Invisibility being sight-dependent, creatures that have a means of operating normally in the absence of vision (i.e. creatures with Blindsight) are still capable of taking Attacks of Opportunity, inasmuch as Concealment does not apply to them.
This ability makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures and must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object).
I instituted my broader interpretation as a result of prior experiences with Dragons, who only possess Blindsense (which still acknowledges total concealment), and adventurers armed with Invisibility, minor illusions - minor image and mirror image, and the Resilient Sphere spell. And a very sneaky rogue. >.<
Since move silently and hide have been merged into stealth, and that invisibility gives a +20 to stealth, when you are invisible now, you are also more silent.
Since move silently and hide have been merged into stealth, and that invisibility gives a +20 to stealth, when you are invisible now, you are also more silent.
Unless we specify that Invisibility gives a +20 to stealth checks involving sight only.
I mean, the various races have bonus to Perception which are sense-based (Elves to sight and hearing, Gnomes to smell and touch, and so on); it should be a natural evolution of the bonuses given by the various spells, IMHO.
Unless we specify that Invisibility gives a +20 to stealth checks involving sight only.
I mean, the various races have bonus to Perception which are sense-based (Elves to sight and hearing, Gnomes to smell and touch, and so on); it should be a natural evolution of the bonuses given by the various spells, IMHO.
We could. But I don't like this idea. Perception should be made simpler without difference to each sense, or kept as before (listen and spot).
I don't see the point to have consolidated skills and using difference in the same skill, and tracking different modifiers to them.
Since move silently and hide have been merged into stealth, and that invisibility gives a +20 to stealth, when you are invisible now, you are also more silent.
Unless we specify that Invisibility gives a +20 to stealth checks involving sight only.
I mean, the various races have bonus to Perception which are sense-based (Elves to sight and hearing, Gnomes to smell and touch, and so on); it should be a natural evolution of the bonuses given by the various spells, IMHO.
I think this is partly included in the description of DCs of different perception rolls. Since you've got a roll to notice a creature moving (by sound), which isn't depend on stealth unless they move silently, you've got ways to notice the invisible character.
It might be a good idea with a specific table for difficulties on spotting invisible characters by other means than sight. Then various modifiers to the DC of the roll could be clear cut (such as armor, size and racial features).
I think perception skill should be greatly simplified...
It's a roleplay issue. As long as the invisibly party is making reasonable attempts to stay out of reach (passing on the opposite side of the other's weapon arm, etc) then no AoO. Brazenly crossing directly in front of the other guy... you takes yer chances.