| GM Jeff |
All questions with invisibility involve the invisibility spell, where the spell ends if you make an attack.
1. An invisible character moves past a monster (moves out of a threatened square), does that monster get an attack of opportunity?
2. An invisible character makes a ranged attack adjacent to a monster, does that monster get an attack of opportunity?
3. An invisible rogue makes an attack on a monster, does he add sneak attack damage?
4. An invisible rogue makes a full attack, missing on his first attack, does he have the +2 bonus to attack for being invisible on other attacks in the full attack? Sneak attack damage?
5. An invisible character melee attacks a monster. That monster has a readied action, "If anything attacks me, I want to move 30 ft. away." What happens?
| Adamantine Dragon |
1. If the monster in question can see invisible, yes, otherwise, no.
2. If the character is invisible, then they would turn visible during the attack. Some GMs would rule this gives an attack of opportunity, others would say not. I'm not sure the rules are clear on this one. If the character has improved invisibility and stays invisible, no attack of opportunity, unless the monster can see invisible.
3. If the monster can not see invisible and is attacked by an invisible rogue, this generally will allow for sneak attack damage. There are probably some corner cases and odd exceptions, but generally it will work.
4. If the rogue is invisible, then by the time of the second attack he will be visible and will not gain any benefits from invisibility. If he has improved invisibility then he remains invisible and receives the benefits of invisibility for all attacks.
5. As stated, when the invisible melee character attacks, the attack will resolve and the monster will move 30 feet away. The monster will not avoid the attack. A GM could rule on a full attack that only the first attack succeeds before the readied action triggers.
| Oladon |
It's also worth mentioning here that provoking an AOO and executing an AOO are two different things -- I often see them lumped together in this forum, but for rules purposes they're distinct events.
AD's answers are correct, but allow me to expand on them...
1. The character moving does provoke, but the monster can't execute the AOO because the invisible character has total concealment.
2. Same as #1.
3. Yes -- this is separate, but the rogue adds SA any time its target is "denied his dex bonus to AC", which is specified in the invisible condition.
4 & 5. See AD's.
| Bill Dunn |
1. Page 197 of the Core rulebook says no AoO against targets with full concealment. Invisibility is defined, in part, as providing total concealment. So no AoO on invisible characters... unless something penetrates that total concealment like the ability to actually see invisible creatures.
2. Same answer as #1
3. Yes. Invisible attackers strip Dex bonuses and whenever that happens (even if the creature had none other than a penalty or +0) sneak attack conditions are met.
4. Most people would say no. The complication here is that the first attack strips the invisibility, but it's still the rogue's action when his next attacks fall. Does the game really support the target being able to react to any attacks after the rogue's first? It doesn't with respect to being conventionally flat-footed as if losing initiative. Should it here? And can a rogue character define his attacks, coming from non-iterative sources like a pair of daggers, as being simultaneous and thus get sneak attack on both?
5. I'd say the invisibility falls simultaneously with the attack so any readied action predicated on being attacked and intended to interrupt the attack action would fail to interrupt the attack. I would probably disabuse the PC of trying this particular ready action anyway. It trades being subject to an attack for being subject to an AoO for moving out of the threatened range. That AoO could even be at a higher attack bonus than the attack aimed at the readying PC (if the PC was target of a second or third iterative attack, for example). It's probably just a bad strategy.
| Grick |
4. Most people would say no.
Sean K Reynolds (Designer): "Your first attack breaks the invisibility. It doesn't matter if you're using TWF, natural attacks, or iterative attacks: when that first attack happens, invisibility ends, and all your other attacks are made without the benefit of invisibility."