Tiny creatures that do not somehow have reach have to enter a creature's square to attack. Say that tiny creature (a familiar perhaps) is invisible from greater invisibility. It is attacking a creature (or using aid another to help his companions).
If someone wants to attack that invisible creature, they have to target that square if they do not have some way to actually see the creature (see invisibility, for example). If they attack the square, do they risk hitting the non-invisible creature?
For that fact, if the non-invisible creature attacks it's own square to hit the tiny invisible creature, does it risk hitting itself?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and yes. Just to counter.
Now we're back to where we started.
There is no rule in Pathfinder which makes it possible to accidentally hit an ally with non area-of-effect weapons. Shooting into melee doesn't do it, trying to hit an enemy in the same square doesn't do it, trying to hit an enemy that's grappling an ally doesn't do it. It would be very inconsistent if hitting an ally became possible in this one niche case.
There is no rule in Pathfinder which makes it possible to accidentally hit an ally with non area-of-effect weapons. Shooting into melee doesn't do it, trying to hit an enemy in the same square doesn't do it, trying to hit an enemy that's grappling an ally doesn't do it. It would be very inconsistent if hitting an ally became possible in this one niche case.
That makes sense. Along those same lines, if two invisible creatures were in the same space, and you knew one was your companion and the other was an enemy, you wouldn't suffer any additional penalties for attacking the enemy--just the same invisibility penalties, correct?
@Jeff Merola - I appreciate that you have added to the conversation, but I wasn't intending for it to be a yes or no question. I actually wanted to understand the ruling on this particular scenario so that, if something similar happened in the future, I would be more educated and better prepared to handle it. Your answer of "No, and no" was not an acceptable answer for me, personally.
Yep. Might not be realistic, and of course if the GM wants to do it differently they can, but by default you would not run a risk of hitting your ally.
I can definitely understand that. I wouldn't want to punish the players for it either by making it more dangerous. Thanks, I can apply that to a lot of scenarios we've got coming up in our game. :-)
|
Actually, the real question to think about would be small or medium invisibles, one an dally in the next square from you, and an invisible enemy on the square past your invisible ally, and you are wielding a reach weapon.
Does the invisible ally provide cover to the invisible enemy?
.
.
.
.
.
.
XXXXX
XYAEX
XXXXX
Where Y is you with a reach weapon, A is your invisible ally, and E is an invisbile enemy in a square that you can attack. X is empty squares.
|
|
kinevon, your first line was a little hard to decipher. But if what you're asking is what I think you're asking: yes, an invisible creature still provides cover to things behind it.
Sorry, it was fat fingers, and spell check not pointing it out to me.
Actually, the real question to think about would be small or medium invisible creatures, one an ally in the next square from you, and an invisible enemy in the square past your invisible ally, and you are wielding a reach weapon.
Mainly because the whole concept gives me headaches.