Except that in Bob's case, you haven't fully represented the analogous rules in Calvinball that relate to all of the rules about Invisibility.
Yes, we have. You quoted them yourself. You cannot make an AoO against a creature with full concealment. Invisibility grants full concealment. Over with, done, finito. You have to negate the invisibility to get the AoO. Blind SIGHT does this. Blindsense and scent do not.
For example, going back to creatures with the scent ability, the analogous Calvinball rule here might be "Creatures with the scent ability can tag players who have a red ball as though they did not have a red ball."
It might be in some parrallell universe but here its not.
The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
-As with blind sense, the creature is pinpointed, but still has full concealment. NOTHING you quoted , and nothing about scent, remotely negates that, or even hints at negating that. Furthermore your specific objection is answered in the rules
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.
-Scent lets you know what square they occupy. Thats it.
Including that rule, it should be clear that the uniform unqualified statement "Bob cannot be tagged" is false, since conditions exist where he could potentially be tagged.
-Yes, one of which i listed (blind SIGHT) I don't know why you keep pretending i've stated that something with blind sight wouldn't be able to get an AoO on an invisible critter.
See invisibility would work as well. Nothing remotely hints that scent would. I don't know why you're trying to argue to the contrary.
"A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one."
That statement means scent works the same on both visible and invisible creature. It doesn't even mention vision or total concealment, neither, for that matter, does the scent ability, why would you assume the statement references those?
BigNorseWolf: There´s no need to get so confrontational about it.
Basically, Doskious´ entire reasoning revolves around Invisiblity saying ¨"A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." ¨ He´s understanding that to mean Mr. Scent can effectively SEE Mr. Invisible... The other reading, played out by the actual mechanics of Scent, is that ´detect´ equals ´pinpoint´ and Scent does nothing to get rid of Concealment. This is the issue, perhaps Doskious will see this clearly when it´s explicitly dealt with, but getting overly confrontational doesn´t help anybody understand the rules better. If Doskious´ reading of the ´detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one´ IS accepted, then the rest of his logic makes sense.
BigNorseWolf: There´s no need to get so confrontational about it.
Alright alright, i'll dial back the foam.
BigNorseWolf: There´s no need to get so confrontational about it.Alright alright, i'll dial back the foam.
Hey thanks! I was not thrilled at the foam, but I was willing to take it, but less foam is peachy! ^_^ Truly, BNW, I never meant to imply that you said that "something with blind sight wouldn't be able to get an AoO on an invisible critter," and I'm really sorry if that's how my remarks read. I was trying to indicate a number of ways that non-visual senses could allow a creature to ignore Total Concealment from invisibility, which I believe includes both Blind Sight and Scent, and that if such a circumstance existed, your example was, respectfully, incomplete.
Basically, Doskious´ entire reasoning revolves around Invisiblity saying ¨"A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." ¨ He´s understanding that to mean Mr. Scent can effectively SEE Mr. Invisible... The other reading, played out by the actual mechanics of Scent, is that ´detect´ equals ´pinpoint´ and Scent does nothing to get rid of Concealment. This is the issue, perhaps Doskious will see this clearly when it´s explicitly dealt with, but getting overly confrontational doesn´t help anybody understand the rules better. If Doskious´ reading of the ´detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one´ IS accepted, then the rest of his logic makes sense.
Thanks for understanding my perspective, and I respect that you disagree with it.
Let me be clear: if a creature has Total Concealment that stems from some source other than Invisibility, such as dense foliage, heavy rain, certain other spell effects (like either Fog Cloud or Web beyond 5'), or literally *any* other source than an invisibility effect, I firmly agree that such a creature would benefit from Total Concealment from another creature with the Scent ability. In these scenarios, which can happen with some regularity, the creature with scent could pinpoint the Totally Concealed creature if it was within 5' but would not get any attacks of opportunity against it. Additionally, if a creature was invisible and also in other conditions that granted Total Concealment, the creature with Scent would still not be able to take attacks of opportunity, since some effect other than invisibility provides Total Concealment.
I still believe, however, that the specific text in the Invisibility rules that says "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one," means that in the case where a creature's only source of Total Concealment is an Invisibility effect, the creature with Scent can detect the invisible creature as though it could see the invisible creature, which (much like True Seeing or See Invisibility) negates Total Concealment, and thereby allows for the possibility of Attacks of Opportunity.
Scent does nothing to get rid of any kind of Concealment **unless** that Concealment comes from an invisibility effect and nothing else.
Explicit example:
Creature #1 ("The Suspect") is invisible (as the result of a potion of Invisibility he gulped down 9 rounds ago) and fleeing from authorities across a featureless flat plain in broad daylight. Aside from shadows cast by creatures on the plain, there are no shadows.
Creature #2 ("The Dog") possesses the Scent ability and is in pursuit of The Suspect.
Combat rounds start as The Dog ends its turn directly behind The Suspect and threatening the square that The Suspect occupies. The Suspect acts first in the round, followed by The Dog.
Round 1:
The Suspect:
The Suspect continues to flee, and in doing so leaves a square threatened by The Dog. Normally, this would provoke an Attack of Opportunity. However, The Suspect has the Invisible condition (per the spell effects of Invisibility) which reads as follows: "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability." From there, we move to the Invisibility special ability text which says, in part, "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." The Dog has the Scent ability, so he can detect The Suspect as he would detect The Suspect if The Suspect were visible. Since there are no effects in play that would preclude The Dog from taking an Attack of Opportunity against a visible target leaving a square he threatens, The Dog can clearly take an Attack of Opportunity.
Please note the relevant text, as far as I can determine, from the section regarding Concealment, that is, the passages that define how the determination of the pertinence of Concealment or Total Concealment is made:
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment."
"If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you."
"Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character."
The first and second statements seem to be phrased as wholly general rules that present the uniform conditions for determining the effects, if any, of Concealment. The third statement, which contains the clause upon which is based the argument against Scent allowing Attacks of Opportunity against invisible foes, is a very specific statement that deals with invisible creatures opposed by sighted foes. Simple high school English allows for the sentence to be restructured as follows: "Sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible creature although invisibility provides total concealment." College-level English allows the statement to be modified as follows, based on the clear fact that Concealment and Total Concealment are not Conditions (as evidenced by their absence from the Conditions glossary) but a factor that varies based on the involved participants: "Sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible creature although invisibility provides total concealment [from them]," or, "Sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible creature although invisibility provides total concealment [from sighted opponents]."
While The Dog is a sighted opponent, it is also a "Scented" opponent, and it is via Scent that The Dog can detect and take an AoO against The Suspect.
(Edited for spelling)
Let me be clear: if a creature has Total Concealment that stems from some source other than Invisibility, such as dense foliage, heavy rain, certain other spell effects (like either Fog Cloud or Web beyond 5'), or literally *any* other source than an invisibility effect, I firmly agree that such a creature would benefit from Total Concealment from another creature with the Scent ability.
Doesn't that seem just a LITTLE odd to you? That an invisible creature moving away from a dog gets an AoO, but not if the dog is blindfolded, in complete darkness, fog, or dense folliage? What's the difference there? The dog can't see any of them, but he can use his nose to see the invisible creature standing 5 feet away from him, but not the same creature in the area of a deeper darkness spell? For fun, what happens if its an invisible creature in a deeper darkness spell?
You're relying on
1) A specific phrase in the invisibility section to the exclusion of the paragraphs explaining how scent works.
2) A very narrow reading of that phrase and
3) The assumption that every scented creature is a sighted creature. Absent that assumption, the logic works like this.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the scent ability can detect a visible creature by being within 30 feet of it, tell its direction with a move action, and pinpoint its square by being within 5 feet of it.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature by being within 30 feet of it, tell its direction with a move action, and pinpoint its square by being within 5 feet of it.
Scent isn't true seeing, you know what square they are in, but you still have miss chance and can't take an AoO. does scent prevent the flat footed and +2 from being invisible? You know what square the Invisible creature is in, but not when he's about to smack you in the face, nor when he's about to run.
Scent pretty much negates the need to locate what square the invisible creature is in, not the total concealment, not the attack bonuses and not the AoO protection.
Let me be clear: if a creature has Total Concealment that stems from some source other than Invisibility, such as dense foliage, heavy rain, certain other spell effects (like either Fog Cloud or Web beyond 5'), or literally *any* other source than an invisibility effect, I firmly agree that such a creature would benefit from Total Concealment from another creature with the Scent ability.Doesn't that seem just a LITTLE odd to you? That an invisible creature moving away from a dog gets an AoO, but not if the dog is blindfolded, in complete darkness, fog, or dense folliage? What's the difference there? The dog can't see any of them, but he can use his nose to see the invisible creature standing 5 feet away from him, but not the same creature in the area of a deeper darkness spell? For fun, what happens if its an invisible creature in a deeper darkness spell?
You're relying on
1) A specific phrase in the invisibility section to the exclusion of the paragraphs explaining how scent works.
2) A very narrow reading of that phrase and
3) The assumption that every scented creature is a sighted creature. Absent that assumption, the logic works like this.A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the scent ability can detect a visible creature by being within 30 feet of it, tell its direction with a move action, and pinpoint its square by being within 5 feet of it.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature by being within 30 feet of it, tell its direction with a move action, and pinpoint its square by being within 5 feet of it.
I apologize, I am, in fact, an idiot. >.> You are essentially contending (quite correctly I now see) that the interaction of Scent and invisibility in the invisibility rules could read "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature via Scent as it would a visible one via Scent." (Italics emphasise my added text.) And Scent only pinpoints, nothing more. My Dog don't hunt.
I capitulate, I apologize for my obtuseness, I thank you for your kind corrections! (My Dog rolls on his back, exposing his vulnerable belly in a sign of submission.) XD Sorry, yes, I was wrong! Carry on!
I apologize, I am, in fact, an idiot. >.> You are essentially contending (quite correctly I now see) that the interaction of Scent and invisibility in the invisibility rules could read "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature via Scent as it would a visible one via Scent."...
Huh. An internet discussion that reached a resolution.
*keels over in a heart attack from surprise*
I apologize, I am, in fact, an idiot. >.> You are essentially contending (quite correctly I now see) that the interaction of Scent and invisibility in the invisibility rules could read "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature via Scent as it would a visible one via Scent."...Huh. An internet discussion that reached a resolution.
*keels over in a heart attack from surprise*
<performs CPR>
Nooooooo!
XD
Seriously, I honestly didn't see that before and, while it took me a number of attempts to see it in what was said, you clearly did either explicitly or intuitively.
Clearly, Invisibility is a potent mechanism for avoiding AoOs.
Did a miracle happen when I was gone!? ;-)
THanks for cooperating, BigNorseWolf: I know having a bloodthirsty predator as your avatar comes with responsibilities in keeping up that image, but I think you did right in this case.. ;-)