I threw an eldritch knight that specialized in invisibility and melee combat at my players today.
One of the players, upon realizing his foe had magically disappeared, immediately announced that he was looking for the knight's footprints.
After all, the knight was wearing full plate and thus would make some rather deep prints in the earth. This would reveal his location to the PCs the moment he moved from his square, it was reasoned.
I said that, that was fine, but because they are paying attention to the ground I would make them flat-footed against the invisible knight.
To which they responded, "But we are already flat-footed because he is invisible."
"Oh. Yeah. Okay then, well, since you are distracted from combat looking for the most recent set of footprints, I'm going to rule that you take a -2 circumstance penalty to AC."
"How are we any more distracted really? He's the only foe, and we can't see him. It's not like we can see his sword swing coming at us or anything anyways."
*sighs*
.
.
.
When your players come up with simple and creative ways around invisibility, how do YOU handle it as GM? How would you recommend I handle the above situation?
|
You seem to always come up with unique and exciting challenges, and one day I'd be honored to play in a game you run.
That said, I am not sure why there would need to be any other specific penalties over and above what attacking an invisible foe would bring?
Directly from the PRD: "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
For attacking the guy (in essence swinging at the foe's estimated placement in the 5 foot square, I would provide the +4 AC from cover, and also disallow AoO as if the target had total concealment, as mentioned here :
"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment)."
To track the guy, I would have the PCs roll a Survival roll, opposed by the NPC with his +20 per the spell listing.
Unless you have sonar or radar or something else, tracking, following, and sensing an invisible opponent is supposed to be very difficult. Its magic, its not supposed to be "fair".
Or you play by the rules and make them make a perception check vs the EK's stealth maybe?!? The EK gets a +20 to his stealth check...which with full plate on and I assume no ranks in stealth will mean pretty low still. And that's it.
What's with the exclamation point? It doesn't lend well to a friendly tone.
As Bomanz quoted, it is perfectly within the rules to identify his location by his footprints. Even with his square known they still must contend with the 50% miss chance.
I don't personally believe looking for easy to find footprints in the heat of battle warrants a Perception check (not unless there are a bunch already, which isn't the case here).
In any event, I said he specialized in invisibility. He has max ranks in Stealth, it's a class skill (shadow bloodline), and he has Skill Focus in it to boot.
Not that it matters since Stealth hides him and not his trail.
|
p564 of the Core Rules states
"Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment."
If you guess the location of an invisible creature:
"If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy’s not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn’t know whether the attack missed because the enemy’s not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance."
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack." There are however a number of modifiers, not least your eldrich knight's Stealth check. However combat is a -20 modifier...
"If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location."
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
I've not checked but I believe nothing stops you attempting to grapple an invisible character once you have detected them, except the 50% miss chance.
That said its very powerful, especially when combined with precision attacks (although none in this case) and the sorcerers ability to multi cast should it be dispelled.
There is a nasty feat Sidestep that allows a 5ft step in the event of a missed attack upon you... Very nasty if there is no way of detecting the invisible character but taking a swing...
|
Is the EK making those footprints easy to look for? Although he is wearing heavy armor, he can also be surprisingly light on his feet. That is what Stealth ranks are supposed to represent, I think.
If you're fighting in falling snow, then okay. He can't hide his footprints. And if you're fighting in shallow water, rain, or a swamp, it's also going to be hard for him to hide footprints. He'll have a penalty in mud. But looking for footprints in grass? Or on stone? Good luck.
As a GM, I would never allow invisibility to be defeated without a roll or at least some kind of action. But when somebody suggests something clever, I do need to make sure that gets rewarded.
In the above example, if the character in question is good at looking for tracks, I would give him or her a bonus on the Perception roll to find the invisible person. Maybe ask for a Survival roll to see how big the bonus is, though I hate asking for two rolls in one action. Maybe you could grant a +2 bonus for every 5 ranks in Survival. But if the fight is taking place on ground that does not leave good tracks (bare stone, for example), it would not be possible to gain any bonus.
Oh, I just had an idea! How's this?
"All right, you may search for tracks. It's a full-round (or maybe standard?) action instead of a move action, but you get a +X bonus on your Perception roll because you're so good at finding tracks, and this environment is wet/soft enough for that to work."
In this particular situation I would do three things.
First, have him use stealth or survival to avoid leaving a trail (stealth for urban areas and survival for wilderness), in addition to using stealth to avoid making a sound.
Second, have him be still and ready actions to cast spells on them in addition to opportunity attacks when they pass by him.
Third, let him use some spells to his advantage. Don't know what spells he has though but he could easily fool them by using Prestidigitation to make them believe he has moved elsewhere or use other spells in a similar manner.
Or you play by the rules and make them make a perception check vs the EK's stealth maybe?!? The EK gets a +20 to his stealth check...which with full plate on and I assume no ranks in stealth will mean pretty low still. And that's it.What's with the exclamation point? It doesn't lend well to a friendly tone.
As Bomanz quoted, it is perfectly within the rules to identify his location by his footprints. Even with his square known they still must contend with the 50% miss chance.
I don't personally believe looking for easy to find footprints in the heat of battle warrants a Perception check (not unless there are a bunch already, which isn't the case here).
In any event, I said he specialized in invisibility. He has max ranks in Stealth, it's a class skill (shadow bloodline), and he has Skill Focus in it to boot.
Not that it matters since Stealth hides him and not his trail.
Foot prints are not that easy to make. Also a perception check is intentionally vague just for this reason.
It doesn't matter the fluff -- mechanically you roll the d20 add your perception bonus and compare to the stealth check of the other person.
How you explain what you do or don't see is completely up to the GM --
Success "At first the invisibility throws you off but you quickly trace his foot prints and think he's right there."
Failure "As you try and look for the foot prints all the recent activity and the grass makes it hard to note exactly where he is... the hard packed dirt doesn't make it any easier."
I could see a GM bonus of +2 on the perception checks if it's muddy or very still water (unlikely since they are fighting in said water) but otherwise it's just a perception versus stealth.
After all the players are trying to percieve the guy's location -- regardless of the "how" (and honestly this is loophole territory -- "Oh I'm not looking for him -- I'm looking for his footprints!" "Great you find foot prints -- to bad you don't know what set of foot prints is his most recent." "I'm not targeting him with my fireball -- I'm just shooting it in his general direction, so my invisibility shouldn't wear off!" would be incredibly similiar in logic).
Well abraham said it nicely so I should just leave it at that...but, your doing it again RD. Your looking for an excuse or loophole or whatever so you can "win". You keep saying you like to play by the rules...but you don't.
If you don't have anything nice to contribute to the thread, DON'T.
*reads how other GMs would handle it*
And I thought I was being harsh on my players already. I had no idea that I was (apparently) being nice about letting them "auto-see" the correct foot prints.
Using Survival to find tracks left by invisible creatures is a neat tactic I never thought of. The DC is certainly lower (Being invisible gives +20 to stealth and pinpointing adds another +20 to the DC.)
Using Survival like this would be a full-round action, but you could then point out his location to others as a free action.
Well abraham said it nicely so I should just leave it at that...but, your doing it again RD. Your looking for an excuse or loophole or whatever so you can "win". You keep saying you like to play by the rules...but you don't.If you don't have anything nice to contribute to the thread, DON'T.
*reads how other GMs would handle it*
And I thought I was being harsh on my players already. I had no idea that I was (apparently) being nice about letting them "auto-see" the correct foot prints.
Whether it is nice depends on the terrain. Being invisible has nothing to do with weight so the footprints should be there. Now if you were on hard ground, that would be nice(more generous than I would be). If combat started they are not flat-footed. Flat-footed is a very specific condition, much like stun or nauseated, that is very hard to apply.
|
|
as a GM I had situation like this long ago but this is how I handled it -
the players point out they are looking for footprints - I advise them that there are many footprints in this room already some of which are yours - it appears well traversed so finding new ones willl be hard
they offered to make a search check (now I would use perception or survival) - I made this a high DC & they needed to make this every round to keep track of them amongst all the other prints
They enjoyed this & while difficult I think it was a memorable fight
you can also point out that as everyone else moves around new prints will be made!!
so unlike other posters I think you can ask for a roll without trying to win the encounter since as a DM you should never do this - you should be making it challenging yet fun still & I believe this is your intent
also I agree I love some of the ideas you come up with
good luck
Cee
I still think that if everyone is standing still except for the invisible guy, his forming footprints would be easy to find (like, no need for a check kind of easy), barring something like hard pavement or packed dirt.
EDIT: The above assumes everyone is standing relatively close together, such as in the same room. I might ask for a check if the invisible guy is some distance from the part.
I would probably give them a circumstance bonus to a Perception check for being astute. Besides, if he's an invisible EK in metal armor, and they're being still, they should at least have a decent chance to hear him right?
|
|
When your players come up with simple and creative ways around invisibility, how do YOU handle it as GM? How would you recommend I handle the above situation?
As far as I see it, the perception check itself, as well as the +20 to stealth for invisibility effectively incorporates most aspects of "I now look...but in a creative way."
The way I do it is to provide a +2 circumstance modifier to the perception check vs. his stealth check. As for applying a penalty for distraction or something, I normally wouldn't. Why punish the players for being engaged in the game?
The +2 modifier basically becomes a way of providing a reward for the creativity without either nerfing the critter nor derailing the session in debate.
I still think that if everyone is standing still except for the invisible guy, his forming footprints would be easy to find (like, no need for a check kind of easy), barring something like hard pavement or packed dirt.Try it.
Now try it with someone swinging at you.
I don't see it happening.
Also everyone would NOT be standing still, but rather would be defending themselves.
-James
You give me an invisible man and I will indeed put it to the test. I will stand in a 15 x 15' grass field while Mr. Invisible walks around me. I will look for his foot prints and point them out. If we could actually do such a things, I can pretty much guarantee you I would it in a matter of seconds.
Having somebody swinging at me makes little difference as I can't see them swinging at me anyways. I'm just as likely to get hit if I'm watching out for it as I am if I wasn't watching out for it. You CAN'T watch out for something you can't even see. That's the whole point of invisibility.
If, however, I'm dedicated to finding the guys emerging foot prints, barring poor lighting conditions, extreme distances, or other negative circumstances, I'm going to see it. I'll likely be attacked in the process, but I was under attack anyways.
On the other hand, if I wasn't looking for the footprints, then I AM likely to miss them, as you say (and as this video shows).
I still think that if everyone is standing still except for the invisible guy, his forming footprints would be easy to find (like, no need for a check kind of easy), barring something like hard pavement or packed dirt.Try it.
Now try it with someone swinging at you.
I don't see it happening.
Also everyone would NOT be standing still, but rather would be defending themselves.
-James
You give me an invisible man and I will indeed put it to the test. I will stand in a 15 x 15' grass field while Mr. Invisible walks around me. I will look for his foot prints and point them out. If we could actually do such a things, I can pretty much guarantee you I would it in a matter of seconds.
Having somebody swinging at me makes little difference as I can't see them swinging at me anyways. I'm just as likely to get hit if I'm watching out for it as I am if I wasn't watching out for it. You CAN'T watch out for something you can't even see. That's the whole point of invisibility.
If, however, I'm dedicated to finding the guys emerging foot prints, barring poor lighting conditions, extreme distances, or other negative circumstances, I'm going to see it. I'll likely be attacked in the process, but I was under attack anyways.
On the other hand, if I wasn't looking for the footprints, then I AM likely to miss them, as you say (and as this video shows).
There are a couple of test like these. The guy in guy in the gorilla suit kicked my butt. There is also one where people just walk away, and various other things happen.
|
Don't really see that kind of tactic as getting around Invisibility. Sounds more like the party dealing with the spell responsibly and thoughtfully.
You've got a bunch of PC's probably standing around as still as they can looking quite paranoid as the baddie their fighting disappears. A suggestion to look for moving footprints would probably be made verbally by someone in the party which of course would allow the baddie to hear that and likewise stand still and remain quite difficult to detect.
Spot check and go seems like it'd be more then enough unless your standing on say a sandy beach, wet mud or snow of course. Tall grass might be a issue as well (to say nothing of the wild pokémon that inhabit there) but just moving about would be relatively difficult hence the +20 to stealth modifier.
Even if they notice the footprints moving they're only going to have a vague kind of "the baddie is in this square...probably, I think" kind of chance of hitting him. If you'd really like to keep up the suspense make sure to roll the miss chance even if they swing as squares he's not in. Helps keep them guessing.
Honestly I'd be more worried if the party all formed up a lone and started marching around until they got to a square they couldn't enter cause there was someone in it. Always more curious how to handle that honestly. :/
|
|
Honestly I'd be more worried if the party all formed up a lone and started marching around until they got to a square they couldn't enter cause there was someone in it. Always more curious how to handle that honestly. :/
I can see a way of handling that.
1) If the character ends their move on the same square then they automatically know that the bad guy is there and take a auto 5 ft step away.
2) If the character walks through the same square then the normal miss chance or DM perception check in secret as the bad guy shifts slightly to stay out of the way.
The +2 modifier basically becomes a way of providing a reward for the creativity without either nerfing the critter nor derailing the session in debate.
I agree creativity should be rewarded if it is a reasonable idea. Of course the bad guys has heard the suggestion and that might lead to a smart caster might down a potion of fly and that suggestion falls to the wind. It all depends on how smart and well prepared the bad guy is.
|
If the players are holding completely still in order to JUST keep track of emerging footprints, then they have an effective dex of 0. Not not dex bonus of flat footed, but -5 to ac and reflex save dex of 0. And since they are holding still and not even defending themselves, they are also helpless and can be CDGed. If they wanna do ALL that so they don't have to roll, okay sure they can hold completely still. Remember not moving a square is not the same as not moving at all.
If the players are holding completely still in order to JUST keep track of emerging footprints, then they have an effective dex of 0. Not not dex bonus of flat footed, but -5 to ac and reflex save dex of 0. And since they are holding still and not even defending themselves, they are also helpless and can be CDGed. If they wanna do ALL that so they don't have to roll, okay sure they can hold completely still. Remember not moving a square is not the same as not moving at all.
I doubt most GMs would rule so harshly. Also, who said they were holding still to the point of practical paralysis?
|
|
But how would you feel if your character were stealthy and invisible, and the DM allowed every single monster to find your square unerringly without even a perception roll because they were "looking for your tracks"?
I suspect you'd hate that. It would be very annoying; you built your character to be very stealthy and the DM just makes it irrelevant. You'd probably ask for a perception roll, at the least. And you'd be right to do so.
But how would you feel if your character were stealthy and invisible, and the DM allowed every single monster to find your square unerringly without even a perception roll because they were "looking for your tracks"?
I suspect you'd hate that. It would be very annoying; you built your character to be very stealthy and the DM just makes it irrelevant. You'd probably ask for a perception roll, at the least. And you'd be right to do so.
Wow. I hadn't thought about it from the other side. You're absolutely right. I'd be pissed! And rightfully so!
I'll think on it some more.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But how would you feel if your character were stealthy and invisible, and the DM allowed every single monster to find your square unerringly without even a perception roll because they were "looking for your tracks"?
I suspect you'd hate that. It would be very annoying; you built your character to be very stealthy and the DM just makes it irrelevant. You'd probably ask for a perception roll, at the least. And you'd be right to do so.
Wow. I hadn't thought about it from the other side. You're absolutely right. I'd be pissed! And rightfully so!
I'll think on it some more.
How would you feel if the DM ignored the terrain and you kept getting attacked when you could have stopped it, if you knew what square the guy was in? Invisibility used at the wrong time(in sand,snow, mud) should not negate the circumstances. Everything has a time and place to be used even invisibility.
Keep in mind that seeing tracks does not mean you are completely shutdown. It just means you can't do everything you could do in better circumstances. If you are worried about the tracks use fly. It is a low level spell.
I'm curious to know how you guys would treat an invisible opponent in a heavy rain.
I'm curious to know how you guys would treat an invisible opponent in a heavy rain.
I think IRL you would notice, but I would not take it that far. I think the book's examples of noticing tracks in things like snow is a fair sense of immersion. I think it(the rules) suggested leaving foot prints on a dusty floor to be more accurate, but foot prints on a dusty floor are pretty hard for me to notice unless I am looking for them. Snow and mud actually has depressions that are pretty hard to miss. I always look at myself on the receiving and giving end of any rule as a player and DM before I make a decision or suggestion. I am not always the DM, and if I do something as a DM then it is set as precedent for it to happen to my PC.
I'm curious to know how you guys would treat an invisible opponent in a heavy rain.I think IRL you would notice, but I would not take it that far.
I was thinking of treating it like being underwater. In addition to the normal effects of rain (-4 perception and ranged attacks, snuffs fire) the invisible guy gets concealment 20% rather than true invisibility.
|
|
As far as invisible in heavy rain I'd probably just use the inverse of "Terrible Conditions" in the Perception modification chart. That's -5 on the DC to see your target.
Unless the target is in heavy rain and you are not it would be hindering your vision as much as making him easier to see. I wouldn't downgrade invisibility to concealment due to rain.
.
..
...
....
.....
I'd bring a dog. Scent should help find him.
No, wait, dogs are cheap...
I'd bring *twenty* dogs.
::
Rock to Mud? There he is!
::
AOE?
::
Lot's of string set up in the area - he may be great at sneaking but how's his acrobatics?
If we're looking for footprints I'm hoping he doesn't create illusions or fly!
|
|
Not RAW, but I'd handle it using the "aid another" mechanic to allow the character to aid their perception using the survival (track) skill. If you're feeling generous include the extension to give a bigger bonus for very high rolls i.e. 10-19 = +2, 20-29 = +3 etc.
This way, the terrain issues are all covered by the tracking roll.
Generally, if the players can come up with a way to make use of a second skill to help with the first, and this is a good example, this is an easy way to determine the effect. Call it "situational synergy". I find a flat +2 seems unrealistic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK so this is how the rules appear to spell it out to me...
As detailed in the post above invisibility does not stop your footprints being seen.
“Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location. An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.”
To see footprints, Survival skill states:
Follow Tracks: To find tracks or to follow them for 1 mile requires a successful Survival check... Alternatively, you
can use the Perception skill to find a footprint or similar sign of a creature’s passage using the same DC.
The DC depends on the surface and the prevailing conditions, as given on the table.
Surface Survival DC
Very soft ground 5
Soft ground 10
Firm ground 15
Hard ground 20
Very Soft Ground: Any surface (fresh snow, thick dust, wet mud) that holds deep, clear impressions of footprints.
Soft Ground: Any surface soft enough to yield to pressure, but firmer than wet mud or fresh snow, in which a creature leaves frequent but shallow footprints.
Firm Ground: Most normal outdoor surfaces (such as lawns, fields, woods, and the like) or exceptionally soft or dirty indoor surfaces (thick rugs and very dirty or dusty floors). The creature might leave some traces (broken branches or tufts of hair), but it leaves only occasional or partial footprints.
Hard Ground: Any surface that doesn’t hold footprints at all, such as bare rock or an indoor floor. Most streambeds fall into this category, since any footprints left behind are obscured or washed away. The creature leaves only traces (scuff marks or displaced pebbles).
If you move at half speed you can make it harder to see your footprints (DC+5). Stealth does not have any impact upon this. Line of sight and ability to see the tracks would.
Under Perception it states “Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.”
So I believe you could locate a person you knew was there with a perception or survival roll of 20 in this instance using a move action. They would still have all the benefits of invisibility, but you would know what square they occupied.
However you would probably not know the Eldrich Knight was there until they had acted as they have +20 Stealth and they are a stealth build.
|
|
The Core Rulebook states:
Rain: Rain reduces visibility ranges by half, resulting in
a –4 penalty on Perception checks. It has the same effect
on flames, ranged weapon attacks, and Perception checks
as severe wind.
You might rule as an alternative in the case of invisibility that it instead provided favourable conditions (+2) to perception checks to see invisible. However, this would only lead to a net -2 on your check if you apply both modifiers.
You might rule as an alternative in the case of invisibility that it instead provided favourable conditions (+2) to perception checks to see invisible. However, this would only lead to a net -2 on your check if you apply both modifiers.
Getting a bonus to an impossible to beat check isn't really a bonus, is it?
|
|
You could house rule the Partial Concealment, but I don't see it being that much of an advantage. There is no rule for it.
From a flavour point of view, there is rain infront of the individual, rain behind them. There might be some splashing if it were really heavy rain, but would you benefit from something that has a negative impact upon visibility if you were relying upon sight anyway?
You may be more likely to see their foot prints/ foot steps however in puddles etc.
I'd say next time...
the fight takes place on a wooden floor or stone floor so there aren't any foot prints.
next time give him bracers of armor (and a potion of fly!).
Throw in some boots of elven kind while you're at it to help with that stealth check.
Too many great comments on this page but yeah, I'd say your players were clever. Maybe in this situation, instead of the +2 bonus to attack roles (for the invisible creature) only give the invisible enemy +1 since your players were clever at using their surroundings.
as far as the rain question, I think you could argue that a heavy rain would help the PCs determine the square the invisible creature was in so you could grant them a bonus (up to you, depending on the precipitation) on their perception check to find them (locate the square).
If their target is invisible, PCs already have a 50% miss chance to hit but adjusting that down to 20% for the rain seems too low so maybe find something in the middle (30-35% miss chance).
.
..
...
....
.....
How do you deal with Invisibility?
We don't. We simply shut our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.
I'm curious to know how you guys would treat an invisible opponent in a heavy rain.
Do you remember the movie "Memoirs of an invisible man"?
That's exactly how I would rule invisibility in rain (or flour, or dust).The outline is visible, pinpointing is possible, and (depending on the lighting conditions) I would only give him partial concealment (i.e. 20% miss chance).
Not as extreme as Glitterdust, but still very annoying for an invisible opponent.
I would play it by the RAW mostly.
+20 to stealth check.
Stealth is modified by armor check penalty which accounts for the full plate.
The players being creative and thinking to look for foot prints in the dirt might warrant a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to their perception checks.