This came up last session, and we were not certain how it should be resolved.
The enemy drank a potion of invisibility and started to flee. The rogue made her perception check to determine what square the enemy was in and attempted to grapple. The rogue made the CMB check and passed the 50% miss chance, so the enemy was grappled.
On her turn, the enemy tried to escape the grapple. This is normally a CMB check, which is based on attack stats. Should the escape attempt break invisibility?
You are basically making an attack roll, so there is an argument that it should break invisibility. OTOH, you are not going to harm anyone (even indirectly), so there is an argument that it should not. Does it make a difference if you Escape Artist instead of CMB?
This came up last session, and we were not certain how it should be resolved.
The enemy drank a potion of invisibility and started to flee. The rogue made her perception check to determine what square the enemy was in and attempted to grapple. The rogue made the CMB check and passed the 50% miss chance, so the enemy was grappled.
On her turn, the enemy tried to escape the grapple. This is normally a CMB check, which is based on attack stats. Should the escape attempt break invisibility?
You are basically making an attack roll, so there is an argument that it should break invisibility. OTOH, you are not going to harm anyone (even indirectly), so there is an argument that it should not. Does it make a difference if you Escape Artist instead of CMB?
Escaping a grapple does not directly or indirectly do harm to the grappler so no, either way the escapee does not become visible (though invisibility isn't as great a boon inside a grapple as it is outside).
I would rule it that trying to escape a grapple wouldn't ruin invisibility, but trying to reverse it would. But that's a little weird to handle because you force them to declare their intent before the rules require you to do so.
Developer
|
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
It's not perfectly clear, but as an escape attempt is in no way a direct attempt to harm, I'd say that escaping is not an attack for the purposes of the spell's description. Reversing the grapple would be.
I look at it this way. The end result of either a successful CMB check or a successful escape artist check is the same. I cannot conceive of the escape artist breaking invisibility, therefore a CMB check with the same end result would not either.
I would rule it that trying to escape a grapple wouldn't ruin invisibility, but trying to reverse it would. But that's a little weird to handle because you force them to declare their intent before the rules require you to do so.
I force players to declare their intent before they make the roll, anyway. I don't know what the rules say to that, or whether this changes anything (you become visible after the attack not before, so at the time you reverse the grapple, you're invisible no matter when the rules or the GM wants to to tell what you're going to do with your grapple check.
And I'm quite sure there are other abilities that work differently depending on whether you want to escape or reverse the grapple.
The structure of the rule implies you decide after the CMB roll or escape artist check
If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can).
I'd rule it breaks normal invis, because it's a combat attack roll, which can result in a combat attack roll result, but also because that's often how it's depicted in fiction - invisible magic creature gets tackled or grabbed, the jig is up. Leprechaun appears while struggling to escape. Greater invis would be the Invisible Man version where he says invisible.
|
Developer
|
The structure of the rule implies you decide after the CMB roll or escape artist check
I'd rule it breaks normal invis, because it's a combat attack roll, which can result in a combat attack roll result, but also because that's often how it's depicted in fiction - invisible magic creature gets tackled or grabbed, the jig is up. Leprechaun appears while struggling to escape. Greater invis would be the Invisible Man version where he says invisible.
As written, you may be right. Which brings up the unfortunate situation where the same thing done via Escape Artist keeps you hidden. RAW is RAW.
I'm houseruling that you declare what you try to do on a grapple beforehand, but that's me. And for this forum, which deals with the RAW or RAI, it does seem to break invisibility.
Which brings up the unfortunate situation where the same thing done via Escape Artist keeps you hidden. RAW is RAW.
I thought that too at first, but the way the rule is constructed this is actually a rare case where apparently you can use a Skill check as an attack roll. "Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler" makes no distiction whether the success was from CMB or Escape Artist. So, assuming the reversal would count as an attack, likewise there shouldn't be a distinction re the impact on invis.
Also, thinking more about it - Since the grappler must maintain the hold, the implication is invisible person's CMD would represent the non-attack wriggling away, just like how defending yourself with your AC doesn't break invis, while the CMB is about doing something affirmativly offensive against the opponent to defeat their hold.
|
Developer
|
Also, thinking more about it - Since the grappler must maintain the hold, the implication is invisible person's CMD would represent the non-attack wriggling away, just like how defending yourself with your AC doesn't break invis, while the CMB is about doing something affirmativly offensive against the opponent to defeat their hold.
Your correctness again rains from the heavens. Good catch. I've been running grapples wrong, it seems.
If you did break out of a grapple, wouldn't you then need a CMB check to reverse it? Which, at that point, it would certainly break Invis.
You should declare why your rolling before you roll on ANY dice roll. That's how the game is played. To do it any other way is CHEATING.
Player: Oh look, my gunslinger rolled a 1...good thing that was his Sense Motive check to see if the enemy is trustworthy.
GameMaster: Um. They're the enemy, trustworthy they are not.
Player: Uh, yes. *rolls a natural 20* And that is my attack roll against the BBEG standing 80 feet away behind several henchmen. Automatic success!
Does anyone else see the absurdity of not declaring in advance? The game breaks down.
|
Developer
|
You should declare why your rolling before you roll on ANY dice roll. That's how the game is played. To do it any other way is CHEATING.
Player: Oh look, my gunslinger rolled a 1...good thing that was his Sense Motive check to see if the enemy is trustworthy.
GameMaster: Um. They're the enemy, trustworthy they are not.
Player: Uh, yes. *rolls a natural 20* And that is my attack roll against the BBEG standing 80 feet away behind several henchmen. Automatic success!
Does anyone else see the absurdity of not declaring in advance? The game breaks down.
Well in this instance, the rules allow you to declare a grapple check if you've been grappled, roll it, and then say if you break out or reverse it. You still have to declare it's a grapple check (or escape artist), you can just decide to break out or reverse once failure or success is determined. At least that's how I understand it now. I agree you can't just roll a d20 and afterwards say, "well, I guess I'm not crafting armor, onto this grapple business"
The problem I see lies with the RAW of grappling. There is no other instance that I can think of where you get to decide what your action does after you've already rolled it. Realistically (I know, bad word), the movements involved in escaping a grapple vs. reversing one or moving a grappled character vs pinning it or just punching it in the head are entirely different. If you take the logical step and split this one rogue instance of being able to be vague about your actions into a declaration of separate actions, the entire problem goes away.
You should declare why your rolling before you roll on ANY dice roll. That's how the game is played. To do it any other way is CHEATING.
Player: Oh look, my gunslinger rolled a 1...good thing that was his Sense Motive check to see if the enemy is trustworthy.
GameMaster:
Um. They're the enemy, trustworthy they are not.Your character believes them to be dear friends, and he's pretty sure the beholder is his beloved aunt polymorphed.
Fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware simply making an attack roll in and of itself doesn't break invisiblity. Its the attack that customarily follows that causes the invis to fail. Maybe I'm parsing too finely, but the spell itsef distinguishes between direct harm and indirect harm, so I see no difficulty in distinguishing between wriggling to get away and wriggling to get a better grip.
So, there aren't many (if any) things that can disrupt an action once that action has started. They either happen before or after. So let the grapplee make the grapple check then decide whether to reverse (an attack) that would break the invisibilty, or escape and stay invisible.
|
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
It's not perfectly clear, but as an escape attempt is in no way a direct attempt to harm, I'd say that escaping is not an attack for the purposes of the spell's description. Reversing the grapple would be.
I look at it this way. The end re sult of either a successful CMB check or a successful escape artist check is the same. I cannot conceive of the escape artist breaking invisibility, therefore a CMB check with the same end result would not either.
Initially I really liked your logic here, but after thinking it over, there may be a flaw.
As far as getting out of a grapple, I view the Escape Artist skill to be the character's ability to squirm his way out. However, I can also easily see using CMB to escape a grapple being an elbow to the ribs, stomp to the foot, or or another similar move. I am more inclined to say that using CMB to escape the grapple would spoil the Invisibility.
CMB is opposed by CMD, Combat Mmaneuver Defense.
You are opposing a defense. CMB states "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll...". CMB = Attack = break invisibility.
Escape Artist is what you are doing, and if you do it well enough (i.e. beat DC), you succeed. EA = skill = stay invisible.
Once you succeed, you have a choice to reverse the grapple. That is clearly an attack, even if you use Escape Artist.
/cevah