I checked for previous posts and FAQs on the subject, but came up empty. Do you have to be aware of your attacker in order for them to provoke the AoO from CAGM? The rage power doesn't read that you do, but it seems like you would need to be aware of them in order to get the AoO. But maybe not?
I checked for previous posts and FAQs on the subject, but came up empty. Do you have to be aware of your attacker in order for them to provoke the AoO from CAGM? The rage power doesn't read that you do, but it seems like you would need to be aware of them in order to get the AoO. But maybe not?
If you aren't aware of an attacker, it's difficult to justify an attack of opportunity. That said, the only thing I can find in RAW is that flat-footed characters cannot make attacks of opportunity (unless they have Combat Reflexes). Losing one's Dex bonus to AC isn't the same thing as flat-footed, so by RAW it would seem that the barbarian gets his AoO anyway. YMMV.
I checked for previous posts and FAQs on the subject, but came up empty. Do you have to be aware of your attacker in order for them to provoke the AoO from CAGM? The rage power doesn't read that you do, but it seems like you would need to be aware of them in order to get the AoO. But maybe not?
My take: They commit to the action, which provokes. The AoO is resolved. Their action resolves.
So if the Barbarian is flat-footed and doesn't have combat reflexes, the action still provokes, but he is unable to take the AoO.
If the attacker is invisible, I would do it like thus:
1) Invisible rogue attacks
2) Invis breaks
3) Barbarian smacks rogue
4) Rogue finishes attack, including the +2 from being invisible, and sneak attack, etc.
It doesn't really make sense, but I think that's the most fair way to do it.
I wasn't sure if the CAGM power specific rule replaces the general "unable to make AoO when unaware of your opponent" rule, or if it was an oversight in writing the rage power.
Also, Grick, how would you do it if it was greater invisibility? Barbarian fails his perception check versus stealthy character and is unaware of the attack. RAW says he still gets his CAGM AoO as far as I can tell, although I agree that it doesn't really make sense.
Also, Grick, how would you do it if it was greater invisibility? Barbarian fails his perception check versus stealthy character and is unaware of the attack. RAW says he still gets his CAGM AoO as far as I can tell, although I agree that it doesn't really make sense.
Aha, I found it!
Invisibility: "Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Total Concealment: "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."
So I think I would change my earlier answer.
Invisible rogue attacks CAGM Barbarian. He provokes, but Barb can't take the AoO because invisibility grants total concealment.
If it's improved invis, he can do a whole full attack that way.
If it's normal invis, it breaks after the first attack. Any attack after the first will not benefit from invis. (+2 attack, sneak attack, AoO prevention from total concealment, etc.)
Thanks Grick! I held off on answering this one due to the fact that the rules are hard to tie together to make a case by RAW and I didn't have the time. I am glad someone found the time to dig through it all.
Also, Grick, how would you do it if it was greater invisibility? Barbarian fails his perception check versus stealthy character and is unaware of the attack. RAW says he still gets his CAGM AoO as far as I can tell, although I agree that it doesn't really make sense.Aha, I found it!
Invisibility: "Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Total Concealment: "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."
So I think I would change my earlier answer.
Invisible rogue attacks CAGM Barbarian. He provokes, but Barb can't take the AoO because invisibility grants total concealment.
If it's improved invis, he can do a whole full attack that way.
If it's normal invis, it breaks after the first attack. Any attack after the first will not benefit from invis. (+2 attack, sneak attack, AoO prevention from total concealment, etc.)
Well done!
Aha, I found it!
Invisibility: "Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Total Concealment: "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."
So I think I would change my earlier answer.
Invisible rogue attacks CAGM Barbarian. He provokes, but Barb can't take the AoO because invisibility grants total concealment.
If it's improved invis, he can do a whole full attack that way.
If it's normal invis, it breaks after the first attack. Any attack after the first will not benefit from invis. (+2 attack, sneak attack, AoO prevention from total concealment, etc.)
Nice! That makes sense, too. I had not found that particular ruling for concealment and AoO. Well done, I say! And thanks to boot. *grin*