So last night, the Gnoll Sorceror my players were facing down pulled this trick. So the cleric (gnome, who has a paladin mount (med eagle) in place of domains) says "I'm going to swoop through the cloud, trying to hit the guy." Ok, I understand the concept. So we got into a discussion over:
A. If the bird hits the gnoll, does it stop?
B. Do either of them take damage?
C. Does the cleric need to make a ride check or be thrown from the saddle if in fact teh bird comes to a dead stop?
I ended up saying "Its just an overrun attempt." And the gnoll chose to avoid it (while taking a DC15+ spell level Con check to keep casting his spells). Does that sound appropriate? Whaddya think?
Hmmm... Reflex save. I would have ruled that if the character swooped into the same space as the gnoll, he could make Reflex save, with anyhwere from a -2 to -4 penalty, to avoid it. Otherwise, they crash in a square adjacent to the gnoll and take the appropriate falling damage. The gnoll should make a Fortitude save or fall prone. Oh, and maybe take some damage, like 1d6 or 2d6. There, just three simple rolls, and the thing is settled.
Otherwise, let him attack as normal (including the fact that he may or may not be aiming into the right square, and even if he does target the correct space, he's got to get by total concealment (invisibility trumps the obscuring mist; I'm guessing the gnoll has both just so they have an even harder time pinpointing the origin of his spell effects?) and then hit the thing's AC.
Otherwise, let him attack as normal...
This is the part where it got sticky. The cleric had NO way of sensing the gnoll. He was basically trying to swing in line of squares to try and contact with the gnoll. Now under RAW, if you know what square your opponent is in, you can make an attack role with 50% miss chance. But I was not about to let him make essentially 15 attacks (5x3 square area with wings extended), even with the miss chance. If he had hit the gnoll, then your reflex/crash damage would have prolly come into play. I'm trying to see if the call i made about the type of attack (overrun) under the circumstances (flying mount, invis target, obsc mist) sounds like a sound one.
Hmmm. Interesting rules issues going on here.
First, if I understand correctly, the gnoll is invisible and inside an obscuring mist. I would rule that this is equivalent to being invisible and underwater (see DMG, page 295), and that the gnoll's displacement of mist reveals its location, though it still benefits from concealment. Of course, the cleric/mount still has to get within 5 feet to locate him, because the mist provides total concealment beyond that distance.
That would have changed the situation enough that the cleric probably wouldn't have done what he did, but let's assume that he still wanted to "swing in line of squares to try and contact with the gnoll." IMO, that can be modeled as either an overrun, a bull rush, or a grapple. If the gnoll is truly invisible and the cleric/mount has no way of figuring out his location, I'd call it an overrun and give the gnoll the option of simply avoiding the cleric/mount. If the cleric/mount knows (or can determine, by moving until he's within 5 feet of him) the gnoll's location, or wants to just pick a square and take his chances, I'd call it a bull rush or grapple (cleric/mount's choice). Alternatively, he can use the rules for "groping" to find an invisible creature (DMG, page 295): standard action to make a touch attack into two adjacent squares, subject to total concealment, etc.
Oh, one last thing: the gnoll choosing to avoid an overrun shouldn't have required a Concentration check. "In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted." (PHB, page 69.)
Hmmm. Interesting rules issues going on here.
Yeah, thats why i brought it to the experts. Good ideas there, I had forgotten about the groping rules. he he, groping rules...Oh, one last thing: the gnoll choosing to avoid an overrun shouldn't have required a Concentration check. "In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted." (PHB, page 69.)
And normally, I'd agree with you, but I didn't want the player to feel like I just totally nerfed his idea, which was a good one.
the rules for "groping" (DMG, page 295):
Thanks for the reference to the groping rules. I'll be using that one tonight (wink wink).
It sounds like the gnome was thinking of this more like a charge attempt, than an overrun or a bull rush attempt.
Overrun sounds more reasonable, and would point out to the rest of the party which square the gnoll was in for that round.
|
And normally, I'd agree with you, but I didn't want the player to feel like I just totally nerfed his idea, which was a good one.Hmmm. Interesting rules issues going on here.
Yeah, thats why i brought it to the experts. Good ideas there, I had forgotten about the groping rules. he he, groping rules...Oh, one last thing: the gnoll choosing to avoid an overrun shouldn't have required a Concentration check. "In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted." (PHB, page 69.)
I think you made life a little more difficult for yourself.
To answer your questions in the first post:A) The eagle does NOT stop if it hits the gnoll because it can't. It has fly-by attack NOT hover. Unless the eagle ran out of movement when it attacked it would have kept going.
B) Only the gnoll would take damage. See A
C) No
You would not be making 15 attacks due to wingspan or anything else like that. It is NOT an overrun attempt unless the player said he was just trying to overrun the gnoll. The gnoll would get the benefit of 50% miss chance from invisibility, as concealment NEVER stacks.
So the situation you described should go like this.
Cleric: I guide my eagle to the square where I last saw the gnoll. (Player moves his minature 30 ft to the square whee he would be able to attack the gnoll. Roll the miss chance (kind of pointless to roll an attack roll if the miss chance fails) and then the attack roll. The eagle hits and does damage. Now the eagle can finish its move of 50 feet because it has Fly-by Attack.)
Even if the cleric or the mount didnt know the exact square the gnoll was in, it would still be a fly-by attack unless the player announces otherwise.
Ok, I see what you are saying here. What made it interesting is that the Gnoll was invisible before he popped the mist. The player had NO idea which square he would have been in, only that he was somewhere inside the 20x20 blob of fog. If he had an AoE spell, we would be fine, but hes a cleric who doesn;t cast spells. ugh...
First, if I understand correctly, the gnoll is invisible and inside an obscuring mist. I would rule that this is equivalent to being invisible and underwater (see DMG, page 295), and that the gnoll's displacement of mist reveals its location, though it still benefits from concealment. Of course, the cleric/mount still has to get within 5 feet to locate him, because the mist provides total concealment beyond that distance.
I had a similar issue come up in my game last night. The party was facing an invisible opponent, and the wizard had already burned his Glitterdust spell. Things were looking rough, until the player came up with an alternate solution – Obscuring Mist.
Now, Invisible creatures in water are revealed by the hole they make in the water (they still have concealment, just not total concealment). Likewise, I’m pretty sure that throwing flour or paint on an invisible creature would also reveal its presence. So if the mist from Obscuring Mist is so dense as to give creatures 5 feet away concealment and give creatures 10+ feet away total concealment, is it dense enough for the hole in the mist caused by an invisible creature 5 feet away to reveal its location (negating the total concealment of invisibility, but still granting it concealment from the mist itself)? Or, is the mist so dense that you are simply unable to see the hole in the mist and it has no impact on invisible creatures whatsoever (although it still grants concealment / total concealment to the party)?
I went ahead and ruled that the hole in the mist revealed the location of the invisible creature, partially because it was an inventive solution and I didn’t want a TPK, but I could see it going either way. I didn’t remember that Vegepygmy had already opined on this until I searched the archives this morning, but I’d still like to know what the rest of you think. Does Obscuring Mist reveal the presence of invisible creatures?
I'd say "Yes and No".
There /is/ an inherent problem with Obscuring Mist as a counter to invisibility in that if you are any further than 5 feet from the invisible creature, they have total concealment against you regardless of their invisibility. You just don't see them.
However, I'd say that if you were within 5 feet, be that from some sort of 'sweep' in which you run (or fly) through the area, or just where you happen to end your movement (or a lucky happenstance), then their square would be pinpointed in spite of their invisibility. They'd still get the benefit of the 50% miss chance against attacks, however (or perhaps suffer effects similar to a glitterdust spell).
As for making a 'sweep', I think handling it as an overrun was a good idea. I'd say the same for a character running along the ground trying to do the same thing - or mounted on a horse, or whatever.
As for handling an attack... Make them ready an action to make the attack. They don't know when, exactly, they're going to make the attack, or even if the opportunity will present itself. But they're 'ready' for it, so that seems the best course of action. They can either finish their movement if they have fly-by-attack or spring-attack, or stop if they don't (or choose to stop).
I suppose they could use their free actions to call out the square the enemy is in, but that also seems a complicated mess all its own.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I went ahead and ruled that the hole in the mist revealed the location of the invisible creature, partially because it was an inventive solution and I didn’t want a TPK, but I could see it going either way. I didn’t remember that Vegepygmy had already opined on this until I searched the archives this morning, but I’d still like to know what the rest of you think. Does Obscuring Mist reveal the presence of invisible creatures?
I think obscuring mist has a chance. I would probably rule that anyone within 5 feet of the invisible creature's square could make a DC 20 Spot check to see the silhouette in the fog. 50% miss chance would still apply.
Jeez, is it resurrect Ender's threads day? :)
Yes, actually. I had marked it in my calendar.
Its true – he sent out a memo. And thanks for the replies. I’m glad my ruling wasn’t too far off from the collective opinion of the regulars here.
