In the thread here, I was involved in a back-and-forth interchange that addressed the RAW regarding how Invisibility, and the Total Concealment it grants against many opponents, negates Attacks of Opportunity against the Invisible creature even when the threatening creature has some non-visual means of detecting the Invisible creature (other than Blind Sight or effects that completely negate Invisibility such as See Invisibility, True Seeing, etc.).
To my way of thinking, this is a very visucentric way to handle the scenario, and Concealment in general, and I'm interested in exploring simple alternate rules that would make creatures with a sense other than vision less disadvantaged in the Total Concealment arena.
It seems nonsensical to me to think that, for example, in the absence of any barrier or opposition to the scent of a creature reaching another adjacent creature with the Scent ability, which uses Scent as its primary method of sensory perception (such as a Dog), the Scenting creature is still totally unable to attack at the creature it smells moving out of a space it threatens. Vision is the primary sensory conduit for social and interpersonal interaction for humans, but scent is the primary sensory conduit for social and interpersonal interaction for dogs (for example). (This is one reason why dogs sniff each other when they meet rather than just look at each other as humans do. Similarly, dogs can detect subtle shifts in emotion, mood, or position by olfactory cues rather than by way of the visual triggers used by humans.)
Why should the mechanics that determine if a generic creature can respond to certain events (such as events that can trigger Attacks of Opportunity) be constructed for and limited to visual cues and constraints?
That said, I admit to being stumped as to how to go about making simple-yet-appropriate changes. >.> Any thoughts?
The creature with Scent knows that that invisible target is there. If you know that an invisible creature is there (via Scent or Perception), the creature is considered to have 50% concealment, not full concealment. Normally, you would have to make a Perception check versus the target's stealth+invisibility modifiers, but I'd say that with Scent you can just automatically perceive the enemy's whereabouts. Automatic 50% concealment.
The creature with Scent knows that that invisible target is there. If you know that an invisible creature is there (via Scent or Perception), the creature is considered to have 50% concealment, not full concealment. Normally, you would have to make a Perception check versus the target's stealth+invisibility modifiers, but I'd say that with Scent you can just automatically perceive the enemy's whereabouts. Automatic 50% concealment.
Actually, from what I could tell, since Total Concealment = 50% miss chance, and pinpointing the square(s) that an invisible creature occupies allows attacks (but not AoOs) to be directed against those squares with a 50% miss chance, the RAW allows pinpointed invisible creatures to retain their Total Concealment. The rules make no distinction as to how the pinpointing is achieved.
However, I'm not looking for an interpretation of the RAW or how the scenario would normally play out, I'm trying to find a more balanced way for creatures with a sense other than sight to interact with invisible creatures, since being invisible, it seems to me, should matter less to creatures that use a non-visual sense as their primary way of observing the world.
Just one thing to keep in mind—creatures with scent for the most part don't use it as a "primary way of observing the world." A blind cat will be much worse at attacking its foes than a cat who can see, even if it can smell them. Most creatures who truly don't need sight and can perceive the world as clearly with another sense as a seeing creature can with sight have blindsight, which penetrates invisibility.
But go on—I look forward to the homes you brew.
Actually, from what I could tell, since Total Concealment = 50% miss chance, and pinpointing the square(s) that an invisible creature occupies allows attacks (but not AoOs) to be directed against those squares with a 50% miss chance, the RAW allows pinpointed invisible creatures to retain their Total Concealment. The rules make no distinction as to how the pinpointing is achieved.
However, I'm not looking for an interpretation of the RAW or how the scenario would normally play out, I'm trying to find a more balanced way for creatures with a sense other than sight to interact with invisible creatures, since being invisible, it seems to me, should matter less to creatures that use a non-visual sense as their primary way of observing the world.
I said "full concealment", not "total concealment". Someone who is behind a wall has "full concealment", while someone who is invisible is considered to have "total concealment".
Edit: I see that the terms full/total are mixed n' matched at times and both seem to refer to 50% concealment... so that was a bad use of phrasing on my part.The rules do state that you normally have to make a Perception check to pinpoint the target so that you can direct attacks at the target instead of in the general direction. Once pinpointed, the target is considered to have "total concealment", aka 50% miss chance.
The rules for Scent state:
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet."
Although it does not say it outright, I would say that this should allow a creature with Scent to detect an invisible target without making a Perception check (unless the target specifically has no scent), and reduce the concealment to 20% since the creature is no longer just relying on vision to strike.
How's that?
Just one thing to keep in mind—creatures with scent for the most part don't use it as a "primary way of observing the world." A blind cat will be much worse at attacking its foes than a cat who can see, even if it can smell them. Most creatures who truly don't need sight and can perceive the world as clearly with another sense as a seeing creature can with sight have blindsight, which penetrates invisibility.
But go on—I look forward to the homes you brew.
Sure, I grant that. I'll even go so far as to say that the vast majority of mundane critters shouldn't necessarily get to penetrate invisibility just because they have a hyper-acute sense other than sight.
I'm seriously thinking that it might be as simple as allowing sighted creatures that possess another hyper-acute sense to take AoOs that retain a miss chance. I'm not a dog, so I can't say with any accuracy that a dog could or could not detect and properly interpret the changes in smell associated with an adjacent creature drinking a potion, rummaging in a backpack, casting a spell, or moving away... From what I read about actual real-world experiments that give scientists some idea of how a dog senses the world, I think that allowing an AoO with a 50% miss chance is about on par with what I'd expect from a dog.
Maybe for certain creatures it would be innate (like a Bulette?) and for other creatures it would need to be trained (like a domesticated dog?) via Handle Animal...
I think that for creatures that lack visual sensory capability entirely and rely on other senses (but nevertheless lack Blindsight), the miss chance could be reduced to 20%.
Thoughts?
I think that for creatures that lack visual sensory capability entirely and rely on other senses (but nevertheless lack Blindsight), the miss chance could be reduced to 20%.
I think those creatures should receive Blindfight or its improved version(s?) at appropriate CRs.
I think that for creatures that lack visual sensory capability entirely and rely on other senses (but nevertheless lack Blindsight), the miss chance could be reduced to 20%.I think those creatures should receive Blindfight or its improved version(s?) at appropriate CRs.
Makes sense to me.
I was thinking about this too. It does seem odd that I could attack an adjacent invisible opponent because I have scent and know what square he is in yet couldn't make attacks of opportunity against him.
I did finally come to a conclusion that makes sense for keeping the rules as they are.
There are two reasons for getting attacks of opportunity. Performing a distracting act or moving out of a threatened square.
Let's address performing a distracting act first. From a scent-based point of view, what is my clue that the invisible creature has let their guard down or is taking a reckless action. I can't smell the invisible rogue pull his bow back and prepare to fire. Can I really smell someone standing up from prone.
Now, it gets a little messier when we talk about casting a spell with a verbal component as their is a auditory clue as well, but is the verbal component coincident when they have let their guard down. Attacks of opportunity aren't limited to casting spells with verbal and/or somatic components, so there might be some other visual cue that the enemy has let their guard down.
As for moving out of a threatened square, from a olfactory view what is the difference between moving out of the square, a 5-foot step, and withdrawing. The scent fades away when they leave, but when did the target let down its guard, so that you could make an attack of opportunity.
Also, when you talk about letting their guard down, that seems like it implies a particular opening in their defenses that you would need to target, which would require a visual means of detection. If a prize-fighter literally let his guard down, a shot to the chin would be devastating, a body shot would still be blocked.
I don't know, this is just how I ended up visualizing (no pun intended) this situation.
The rules do state that you normally have to make a Perception check to pinpoint the target so that you can direct attacks at the target instead of in the general direction. Once pinpointed, the target is considered to have "total concealment", aka 50% miss chance.
The rules for Scent state:
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet."
Although it does not say it outright, I would say that this should allow a creature with Scent to detect an invisible target without making a Perception check (unless the target specifically has no scent), and reduce the concealment to 20% since the creature is no longer just relying on vision to strike.How's that?
Well, for the purposes of resolving Attacks of Opportunity, the Scent rules go on to indicate that a creature with Scent can automatically (with no action necessary) pinpoint the location of any creature within 5'. Additionally, under the Invisibility special ability rules (as referenced by the Invisible condition, a condition that applies to any creature that is invisible), it is stated that "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." So it's a RAW-supported conclusion that the creature with Scent can automatically pinpoint the potential target of an AoO.
I'm not certain that just having Scent is sufficient to mitigate any of the miss chance. Perhaps having more than one sensory organ to detect smells would do so (which I imagine that a scent-based sightless creature would possess, not that I can cite one that presently exists). Similarly, a creature with Tremorsense can potentially be considered to have "more than one" tactile sensory organ inasmuch as the creature uses its entire body as a tactile sensory organ, and should be able to differentiate signals arriving over time at different bodily locations with some degree of accuracy sufficient for triangulation. Tremorsensing creatures with at least binocular vision, whoever, might not have developed that degree of differentiation, since their vision probably allows for better (optically-based) triangulation and depth perception.
I was thinking about this too. It does seem odd that I could attack an adjacent invisible opponent because I have scent and know what square he is in yet couldn't make attacks of opportunity against him.
I did finally come to a conclusion that makes sense for keeping the rules as they are.
There are two reasons for getting attacks of opportunity. Performing a distracting act or moving out of a threatened square.
Oooo.... I missed the AoO part of the original post! I don't see how having Scent would tell you whether or not the enemy was vulnerable, just that he was next to you. If that target moved away, the creature with Scent wouldn't truly know for sure how far that enemy moved...it's not like Scent allows the creature to 'see' its target as if it had an Aura of Odor.
On the other hand, you should get an AoO against a spellcaster that starts casting a spell with verbal components right next to you.
I was thinking about this too. It does seem odd that I could attack an adjacent invisible opponent because I have scent and know what square he is in yet couldn't make attacks of opportunity against him.
I did finally come to a conclusion that makes sense for keeping the rules as they are.
There are two reasons for getting attacks of opportunity. Performing a distracting act or moving out of a threatened square.
Let's address performing a distracting act first. From a scent-based point of view, what is my clue that the invisible creature has let their guard down or is taking a reckless action. I can't smell the invisible rogue pull his bow back and prepare to fire. Can I really smell someone standing up from prone.
Now, it gets a little messier when we talk about casting a spell with a verbal component as their is a auditory clue as well, but is the verbal component coincident when they have let their guard down. Attacks of opportunity aren't limited to casting spells with verbal and/or somatic components, so there might be some other visual cue that the enemy has let their guard down.
As for moving out of a threatened square, from a olfactory view what is the difference between moving out of the square, a 5-foot step, and withdrawing. The scent fades away when they leave, but when did the target let down its guard, so that you could make an attack of opportunity.
Also, when you talk about letting their guard down, that seems like it implies a particular opening in their defenses that you would need to target, which would require a visual means of detection. If a prize-fighter literally let his guard down, a shot to the chin would be devastating, a body shot would still be blocked.
I don't know, this is just how I ended up visualizing (no pun intended) this situation.
I can see (heh) where you're coming from. Vets have assured me that yes, a dog can smell the difference between a person lying down and standing up, and can track the change in the scent-location in realtime. As far as withdrawing and taking a 5' step go, as compared to just moving, my visualization calls for the dog to *try* to bite at the departing creature whenever possible - the only one in which the dog has even a chance at success is the case where the creature is moving, though. With the 5' step, the movement could be undertaken over the entirety of the turn, inching away slowly, or it could be that the dog tries to bite but can't connect. With the withdraw action, the withdrawing character is being very careful and guarded, and thereby negates the success of any attacks that might be launched.
I admit that my interpretation here relies on the acknowledgement of combat as an abstraction and requires a greater scope for attack-based interaction to be accepted as valid. In this context, I would suggest that most combatants only get one AoO because the act of connecting for damage unbalances them slightly, and after that attack, they have to regain it. Similarly, a first level fighter might swing his sword a number of times equal to a 15th level fighter, but the latter has much more experience in making each swing actually connect.
As regards non-movement based AoOs, I'm given to understand that dogs can detect changes in mood, emotion, stress, and attitude via smell alone. Perhaps the dog can smell the concentration that the spellcaster requires to fire off a spell, or can smell the focus that the Rogue has on something not nearby (again, I admit that last one especially is slightly farfetched, but I don't know if "Focus" comes in a near flavor and a far flavor...).
As far as "letting your guard down" goes, since the combat engine that the game uses is body-location-agnostic, so too is the requirement for the identification of a particular opening. The game lacks facing, so a fighter carrying a shield enjoys the shield bonus to attacks from all sides, not just his "front and shield side." The denial of an AoO on those grounds is flimsy at best, in my view, though I do understand your point.
If that target moved away, the creature with Scent wouldn't truly know for sure how far that enemy moved...it's not like Scent allows the creature to 'see' its target as if it had an Aura of Odor.
Given that the action in movement that usually provokes an AoO is "leaving a threatened square" I'm not sure how knowing how far your enemy moved has anything to do with the question. I'm certain that a dog has some instinctive grasp of the area that it threatens, and it seems to me that the dog should be able to have a go at biting at something he smells leaving that space regardless of whether or not he can see it.
I was thinking about this too. It does seem odd that I could attack an adjacent invisible opponent because I have scent and know what square he is in yet couldn't make attacks of opportunity against him.
I did finally come to a conclusion that makes sense for keeping the rules as they are.
There are two reasons for getting attacks of opportunity. Performing a distracting act or moving out of a threatened square.
Oooo.... I missed the AoO part of the original post! I don't see how having Scent would tell you whether or not the enemy was vulnerable, just that he was next to you. If that target moved away, the creature with Scent wouldn't truly know for sure how far that enemy moved...it's not like Scent allows the creature to 'see' its target as if it had an Aura of Odor.
On the other hand, you should get an AoO against a spellcaster that starts casting a spell with verbal components right next to you.
What if the spellcaster chanted some mumbo jumbo while readying an action to brain the you with his quarterstaff? Do you start to take the AoO, the suddenly stop because the rules kicked in and realized you don't get an AoO?
You have to be able to tell the target is actually letting his guard down. It like hearing someone say, "I'm letting my guard down now, feel free to over extend yourself"
I can see (heh) where you're coming from. Vets have assured me that yes, a dog can smell the difference between a person lying down and standing up, and can track the change in the scent-location in realtime. As far as withdrawing and taking a 5' step go, as compared to just moving, my visualization calls for the dog to *try* to bite at the departing creature whenever possible - the only one in which the dog has even a chance at success is the case where the creature is moving, though. With the 5' step, the movement could be undertaken over the entirety of the turn, inching away slowly, or it could be that the dog tries to bite but can't connect. With the withdraw action, the withdrawing character is being very careful and guarded, and thereby negates the success of any attacks that might be launched.
You only get an AoO in certain situations. An attack made in not one of those situations is just an attack, something the dog can't do during someone else's turn.
Being very careful doesn't negate the chance of success of an attakc, other wise taking full defense would do the same.
What if the spellcaster chanted some mumbo jumbo while readying an action to brain the you with his quarterstaff? Do you start to take the AoO, the suddenly stop because the rules kicked in and realized you don't get an AoO?
You have to be able to tell the target is actually letting his guard down. It like hearing someone say, "I'm letting my guard down now, feel free to over extend yourself"
DM: You hear chanting from the square adjacent to you.
Player: Is it magic?DM: Roll me a spellcraft check.
Player: 30.
DM: You recognize the verbal components of a Shocking Grasp spell.
Player: I swing at the sound.
DM: He was casting Defensively, your AoO fails.
OR
DM: Make the attack roll, choose high or low for concealment.
Makes sense to me.I think that for creatures that lack visual sensory capability entirely and rely on other senses (but nevertheless lack Blindsight), the miss chance could be reduced to 20%.I think those creatures should receive Blindfight or its improved version(s?) at appropriate CRs.
To be honest, they probably already do. Blind-Fight, however, doesn't allow creatures that have it to take AoOs against invisible creatures, though, as far as I can tell:
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
The segment on Ignoring Concealment makes no mention of Blind-Fight interacting with concealment in any way, so in the absence of that, by RAW, an Invisible creature would still retain Total Concealment and would not be subject to AoOs, per "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."
Even Improved Blind Fight is of no use, since it only extends the effects of Blind-Fight to cover pinpointed targets within 30 feet.
Greater Blind Fight (reqs 15 ranks Perception, Improved Blind Fight) does finally resolve the issue, with the statement "Your melee attacks ignore the miss chance for less than total concealment, and you treat opponents with total concealment as if they had normal concealment (20% miss chance instead of 50%)." The second clause, that demotes Total Concealment to Concealment is what allows AoOs to be directed against invisible foes.
:P
<shrug> I dunno. >.> The fact that the feat-based, mundane option to allow AoOs against Invisible targets requires 15 HD is somewhat galling, given that See Invisibility is a 2nd level spell for all arcane casters, alchemists, inquisitors, and a 3rd level spell for bards. That said, perhaps allowing regular dogs an AoO even with a 50% miss chance is a bit much, I'm not sure now.
What if the spellcaster chanted some mumbo jumbo while readying an action to brain the you with his quarterstaff? Do you start to take the AoO, the suddenly stop because the rules kicked in and realized you don't get an AoO?
You have to be able to tell the target is actually letting his guard down. It like hearing someone say, "I'm letting my guard down now, feel free to over extend yourself"
DM: You hear chanting from the square adjacent to you.
Player: Is it magic?
DM: Roll me a spellcraft check.
Player: 30.
DM: You recognize the verbal components of a Shocking Grasp spell.
Player: I swing at the sound.DM: He was casting Defensively, your AoO fails.
OR
DM: Make the attack roll, choose high or low for concealment.
Agreed, the *character* can try to make an attack that mechanically cannot succeed because the AoO was not actually provoked. This works because the *character* is unaware of the mechanics, just that his attack missed and didn't disrupt the spell.
What if the spellcaster chanted some mumbo jumbo while readying an action to brain the you with his quarterstaff? Do you start to take the AoO, the suddenly stop because the rules kicked in and realized you don't get an AoO?
Yes! (Why not? At least, why not if "you" refers to the character?) The combat mechanics are an abstraction!
You only get an AoO in certain situations. An attack made in not one of those situations is just an attack, something the dog can't do during someone else's turn.
*Players* can only execute AoOs in certain situations, and a *player* trying to execute an attack while it's not his turn in the absence of AoO mechanics, or some other mechanics that allow him to, is trying to do something that the rules prohibit. *Characters* who are described in narration as swinging and missing, however, are not breaking any rules at all.
Being very careful doesn't negate the chance of success of an attakc, other wise taking full defense would do the same.
Again, while this is true in the abstract mechanics that the players use to resolve combat, it's not necessarily true from a narrative perspective. In fact, a character using Total Defense who is attacked and undamaged as a result of his Total Defense could be described quite accurately as having successfully and prudently negated the success of the attacks of his foes.
I would posit that the reason that creatures with Scent don't get to make AoOs is because you can't *smell* when a character is doing something that would *provoke* an AoO.
(Does farting draw AoOs? Perhaps a discussion for a different thread.)
Creatures with finer "extrasensory" perceptions, however, could - see blindsight, as opposed to blindsense.
I would posit that the reason that creatures with Scent don't get to make AoOs is because you can't *smell* when a character is doing something that would *provoke* an AoO.
(Does farting draw AoOs? Perhaps a discussion for a different thread.)
Creatures with finer "extrasensory" perceptions, however, could - see blindsight, as opposed to blindsense.
So a dog can't smell when someone moves away from him? Seriously? No offense, but that's not something that I can really swallow. >.>
Sure *I* can't smell that well, I'm only human. But just because I can't do it does not mean that I can't imagine that some other creature could do it...
Wikipedia has the following to say about dogs and their senses of smell:
While the human brain is dominated by a large visual cortex, the dog brain is dominated by an olfactory cortex.[97] The olfactory bulb in dogs is roughly forty times bigger than the olfactory bulb in humans, relative to total brain size, with 125 to 220 million smell-sensitive receptors.[97] The bloodhound exceeds this standard with nearly 300 million receptors.[97] Dogs can discriminate odors at concentrations nearly 100 million times lower than humans can.[110] The wet nose is essential for determining the direction of the air current containing the smell. Cold receptors in the skin are sensitive to the cooling of the skin by evaporation of the moisture by air currents.[111]
To me, that seems to at least be grounds for admitting the possibility that dogs could smell well enough to be entitled to AoO potential against invisible targets.
So a dog can't smell when someone moves away from him? Seriously? No offense, but that's not something that I can really swallow. >.>
Sure *I* can't smell that well, I'm only human. But just because I can't do it does not mean that I can't imagine that some other creature could do it...
To me, that seems to at least be grounds for admitting the possibility that dogs could smell well enough to be entitled to AoO potential against invisible targets.
Now you're arguing science, not game rules. Science doesn't belong in the game. The scent rules only allow you to pinpoint within a 5 foot square - definitely *not* enough to tell when someone is moving (At least, not before it's too late.)
Though my riposte would be that the simple act of moving away doesn't draw an AoO - see Withdraw and 5-foot step. It's doing something *else* and moving that draws an AoO.