| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We came upon a weird problem with Invisibility during play and I was wondering if someone here can help us solve it.
Normally, you must use Acrobatics to tumble or use Overrun to go through an enemy square. But what if you're Invisible? (and the enemy is unaware of you being there invisible to being with) Can you move through them normally?
Now what happens if it tries to move through your space without any knowledge of you being there? Does it just stop and automatically bump into the invisible creature? Or does it pass freely?
Had this problem come up when one of my players, invisible, was trying to move past a Large Ogre Zombie in his way. The argument was he should've been able to walk through, but no ruling says that. We kinda had to go with the Acrobatics check. Then the zombie, unaware, was time to move and it needed to move through the square he was occupying, leading to the next dilemma.
Any thoughts?
Invisible implies neither inaudible nor (especially) intangible. An acrobatics check is definitely warranted, and if you fail you're blocked and he gets an attack of opportunity (because you moved into his square), though being invisible protects against the latter somewhat.
If a creature moves into your square while you're invisible, you have two options: simply let them pass (as if avoiding an overrun), block them (revealing your presence but not counting as an attack so you stay invisible), or take an attack of opportunity when they move in (sacrificing invisibility) which also blocks... or when they move out the other side, as tactics may dictate.
Since they didn't spend an action on an overrun, they're automatically blocked if you choose to make them so; that's why the second option doesn't sacrifice invisibility. Them plowing into you is not a hostile action on your part. Of course if you've got greater invisibility, stick with 1 or 3. :)
|
We came upon a weird problem with Invisibility during play and I was wondering if someone here can help us solve it.
Normally, you must use Acrobatics to tumble or use Overrun to go through an enemy square. But what if you're Invisible? (and the enemy is unaware of you being there invisible to being with) Can you move through them normally?
Now what happens if it tries to move through your space without any knowledge of you being there? Does it just stop and automatically bump into the invisible creature? Or does it pass freely?
Had this problem come up when one of my players, invisible, was trying to move past a Large Ogre Zombie in his way. The argument was he should've been able to walk through, but no ruling says that. We kinda had to go with the Acrobatics check. Then the zombie, unaware, was time to move and it needed to move through the square he was occupying, leading to the next dilemma.
Any thoughts?
I played through this myself recently. Although there were some things that added variables.
1) The individual moving invisibly through squares was an invisible Tiny creature (a Kitsune in fox form) and the threatened? squares were occupied by Medium creatures (mostly humans)
2) The Kitsune was an acrobat of no small skill.
3) Invisible Kitsune RULE!!!
4) Really good stealth on the Kitsune's part.
The GM ruled that due to size differences, stealth of the character, and invisibility that no roll was required.
Just my 2cp, not that it's even relevant.
1) The individual moving invisibly through squares was an invisible Tiny creature (a Kitsune in fox form) and the threatened? squares were occupied by Medium creatures (mostly humans)
This is a good point... if you could move through and occupy the creature's square normally because of size differences, you could make a Stealth check (at +20 for invisibility, but probably also -10 for normal-speed movement) to avoid being noticed. If the creature beats you, they get an AOO as normal (again, with all the penalties for attacking an invisible creature) but you're not blocked because you wouldn't be in the first place.
it seems you are more asking for a "how should it work logically" than a "what does Raw say" so I'll approach it from that direction.
Assuming you aren't in combat.
Remember, you are a person inside a /5 ft/ square. if you, invisible, see Rob the Zombie coming at you.. You can move out of the way, even inside a 5ft square. Just.. step aside, and let him pass on through. Shouldn't be a big deal.
During combat however, its somewhat more complicated. During combat, people are moving, shifting, dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. I would think staying invisible and not hitting the creature would be more problematic.
As to you moving through their squares..
The same logic would apply. If you see someone standing there it should be (relatively) easy to move through their square, if they are not in combat. the GM might want to impose some sort of penalty (if there isn't already one) for getting very very close to them.
In combat though I'd go for the acrobatics thing. Afterall, they Are moving.. In this case though I would probably rule yuo can automatically go through the square, with the Check to determine whether you bump them on the way by.. (prompting a check to see if they notice).
Just my .02.
-S
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But what if you're Invisible?
Now what happens if it tries to move through your space without any knowledge of you being there?
Invisibility doesn't change any of this.
You still need to Acrobat around and the Ogre still needs to get through, tho he would have to stop (just like running into a wall) or the DM could fudge and allow the ogre to turn his move into an overrun or something.
The rules on size differences and sharing space are also in force, so really small should be fine for moving through.
|
Okay, correct me if/where I'm wrong:
1. You're invisible and want to move through an enemy's space.
2. You have to make an Acrobatics check to do so without provoking an AoO (I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but let's run with it).
3. Whether you succeed or fail the Acrobatics check, you make it through the space (as per the Acrobatics skill).
4. If you fail the Acrobatics check, the enemy gets an AoO.
5. You're invisible, which means you have total concealment, thus opponents can't make AoO's against you unless they can see invisible.
Therefore, the upshot is that you make a meaningless Acrobatics check to automatically move through the enemy's space and automatically avoid any AoOs.
Is this right? I mean, it makes sense--an invisible person should easily be able to walk by someone who doesn't know they are there. According to the spell, you get a +20 to your Stealth check when moving, so it'll be really tough for the person to even know you're there.
Okay, correct me if/where I'm wrong:
1. You're invisible and want to move through an enemy's space.
2. You have to make an Acrobatics check to do so without provoking an AoO (I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but let's run with it).
3. Whether you succeed or fail the Acrobatics check, you make it through the space (as per the Acrobatics skill).
4. If you fail the Acrobatics check, the enemy gets an AoO.
5. You're invisible, which means you have total concealment, thus opponents can't make AoO's against you unless they can see invisible.Therefore, the upshot is that you make a meaningless Acrobatics check to automatically move through the enemy's space and automatically avoid any AoOs.
Is this right? I mean, it makes sense--an invisible person should easily be able to walk by someone who doesn't know they are there. According to the spell, you get a +20 to your Stealth check when moving, so it'll be really tough for the person to even know you're there.
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.
When you failed to acrobatics check, you were in his square, then you moved back to your own square and are no longer pinpointed.
|
|
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.When you failed to acrobatics check, you were in his square, then you moved back to your own square and are no longer pinpointed.
That seems reasonable, but that's not what the Acrobatics skill states. Failing the skill check simply results in an AoO, as I understand it.
|
|
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.
But I claim #5 is not wrong. It doesn't matter if you know what square a enemy character is in--you can't make an AoO against that enemy. That's pretty clearly stated in the rules.
What you are suggesting is a perfectly reasonable way of handling things at the table, but I'm still looking for a clear explanation in the rules.
You have to make an Acrobatics check to do so without provoking an AoO (I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but let's run with it).
-This is also problematic. The rules don't directly say what happens if you fail the check to move through an opponents space. Since you need to make a check to move through the space at all (you're not just avoiding an AoO you're doing something the rules otherwise prohibit you from doing) the most likely result of a failed check is that you can't move through. This was the 3.5 faq answer iirc.
Hey, found the pathfinder one
Q: If a character fails an Acrobatics (tumble) check when attempting to move through an opponents square, are they stopped, or do they get through and suffer an AoO?
A: (James Jacobs 3/26/10) If you fail an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, you stop in the square you were left to make the attempt to go through that creature's square and your movement for that turn ends. If that square is occupied (say, you ran through three wererats in a narrow tunnel only to fail on the fourth), you fall prone in that square. If you have any more move actions left in a turn, you could try again, of course. [Source]
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq
|
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.
"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
It explicitly does not matter if the opponent knows what square you are in. Total concealment, as with invisibility, means no AoO.
|
|
You have to make an Acrobatics check to do so without provoking an AoO (I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but let's run with it).
-This is also problematic. The rules don't directly say what happens if you fail the check to move through an opponents space. Since you need to make a check to move through the space at all (you're not just avoiding an AoO you're doing something the rules otherwise prohibit you from doing) the most likely result of a failed check is that you can't move through. This was the 3.5 faq answer iirc.
Hey, found the pathfinder one
Q: If a character fails an Acrobatics (tumble) check when attempting to move through an opponents square, are they stopped, or do they get through and suffer an AoO?
A: (James Jacobs 3/26/10) If you fail an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent's square, you stop in the square you were left to make the attempt to go through that creature's square and your movement for that turn ends. If that square is occupied (say, you ran through three wererats in a narrow tunnel only to fail on the fourth), you fall prone in that square. If you have any more move actions left in a turn, you could try again, of course. [Source]
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq
That's nice of James to provide his opinion. Staff replies in forums are unofficial, per the developers. And, in this case, James is wrong. The tumbler failed to proceed through the fourth wererat; his movement ends inintentionally in an occupied square that he can't occupy, and he moves back to his last unoccupied square or a closer open square.
|
|
Okay, correct me if/where I'm wrong:
1. You're invisible and want to move through an enemy's space.
2. You have to make an Acrobatics check to do so without provoking an AoO (I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but let's run with it).
3. Whether you succeed or fail the Acrobatics check, you make it through the space (as per the Acrobatics skill).
4. If you fail the Acrobatics check, the enemy gets an AoO.
5. You're invisible, which means you have total concealment, thus opponents can't make AoO's against you unless they can see invisible.
You cannot move through an opponent's square unless the opponent is helpless. You can use Acrobatics to move through the opponent's square. Failing the Acrobatics check means you 1) take the AoO, and 2) don't move through the square. That you don't move through the square is not clearly stated, but must be the case. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a restriction on moving through opponent's square; it would merely provoke an AoO. Acrobatics can be used untrained, and thus anyone can always attempt and fail an Acrobatics check to move through opponent's square.
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.But I claim #5 is not wrong. It doesn't matter if you know what square a enemy character is in--you can't make an AoO against that enemy. That's pretty clearly stated in the rules.
What you are suggesting is a perfectly reasonable way of handling things at the table, but I'm still looking for a clear explanation in the rules.
As was stated before, you fail the check and stop in the square you were in before the attempt was, location is known, AoO goes off.
|
|
As was stated before, you fail the check and stop in the square you were in before the attempt was, location is known, AoO goes off.
(5) Is wrong, you are essentially giving away where you are during the acrobatics check when you fail. At that point the opponent knows which square you occupy and can attack it with appropriate penalties for the situation. The acrobatics check fails, you provoke the attack moving into its square, it swings in its own square at an invisible opponent.But I claim #5 is not wrong. It doesn't matter if you know what square a enemy character is in--you can't make an AoO against that enemy. That's pretty clearly stated in the rules.
What you are suggesting is a perfectly reasonable way of handling things at the table, but I'm still looking for a clear explanation in the rules.
Sky, total concealment, and therefore invisibility, explicitly prevents AoO. That your location is known is irrelevant. There is no AoO.
|
So the concensus (and what I agree with) indicates the following based on RAW...
(1) You need to make an Acrobatics check or Overrun CMB to pass thru a square while you are invisible. NOTE, Overrun is a combat maneuver and would end the effects of normal invisibility.
(2) If you fail the check (remember to apply penalties to the CMD due to the invisibility) you stop your movement in the last legal square you occupied
(3) The target does not get an AoO since total concealment blocks it. However, the target knows you are there and could use said information to take a normal attack against you during its next turn. This assuming you did not have remaining actions that would allow you to move again. Could be a good bluff-like techique to distract the target.
Sky, total concealment, and therefore invisibility, explicitly prevents AoO. That your location is known is irrelevant. There is no AoO.
I would completely agree except there is the heading "ignoring concealment." If the character is bumped into they should get a perception check to notice the invisible creature. Using non visual information said invisible creature may be spotted and an AoO made against it. Obviously if the check fails no go, but invisibility isn't completely allowing you to disregard AoOs.
|
|
I would completely agree except there is the heading "ignoring concealment." If the character is bumped into they should get a perception check to notice the invisible creature. Using non visual information said invisible creature may be spotted and an AoO made against it. Obviously if the check fails no go, but invisibility isn't completely allowing you to disregard AoOs.Sky, total concealment, and therefore invisibility, explicitly prevents AoO. That your location is known is irrelevant. There is no AoO.
It is possible to locate (pinpoint) an invisible creature. It will still have total concealment. It will still not be the target of AoO. The square could be targeted, with a miss chance, as part of a normal attack.
"Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character."
But as to the AoO, what you are talking about is identifying the square or squares, not negating the concealment. Pinpointing the square is necessary but is insufficient. You may have used perception to locate the square, but they still have total concealment.
"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
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).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an
opponent with total concealment, even if you know what
square or squares the opponent occupies
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn’t always
effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn’t provide
any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.
Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater
distance than other characters with the same light source.
Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted
opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the
location of an invisible character. An invisible character
gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40
bonus on Stealth checks when not moving
(even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out
where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
So yes if you dont make an acrobatics to move through there square you bumb them they then make a perception versus your stealth with +20 the GM might give them a bonus or not dont know of a listed one,remember you bumped them you arent holding them, if they make it they can make the AoO with the usual miss chance
So yes if you dont make an acrobatics to move through there square you bumb them they then make a perception versus your stealth with +20 the GM might give them a bonus or not dont know of a listed one,remember you bumped them you arent holding them, if they make it they can make the AoO with the usual miss chance
No. As pointed out above even if you know where they are you can't make the attack. If you want to houserule it otherwise, go for it. But its not raw.
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment , even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.
What if you have scent when an invisible creature passes by you?
They still have total concealment so as written no AoO
You would need blind SIGHT (not merely blind sense, scent, tremorsense, ) to negate invisibilities negation of the AoO.
To each their own, when the RAW rules have something titled "Ignoring Concealment" I take it literally. As I try to do with all discussions regarding RAW.
|
|
To each their own, when the RAW rules have something titled "Ignoring Concealment" I take it literally. As I try to do with all discussions regarding RAW.
To each there own, agreed. I understand total concealment to provide multiple benefits. Not knowing where someone is is one of them. Not being able to AoO is another. The text of ignore concealment and invisibility refers is on the topic of pinpointing, or knowing where they are. The text provides the idea that the invisible creature can be pinpointed; this effect of concealment is ignored by a successful perception check. It says nothing about then being able to AoO and there is text that knowing where they are is explicitly insufficient for taking the AoO. But, if extending ignoring concealment to ignoring all aspects of total concealment, that is, that having perceived the location is akin to see invisible or that having made the perception check is akin to the concealment afforded by darkness when confronted with someone with darkvision, then you well may come to a different opinion.
As you've said, to each their own, and pats on the back to everyone for a reasonable discussion.
You would need blind SIGHT (not merely blind sense, scent, tremorsense, ) to negate invisibilities negation of the AoO.Actually with regard to Invisibility
Actually, with regard to Invisibility, Invisibility grants total concealment unless something says it doesn't.
Blindsense specifically states that creatures it can't see still have total concealment, and all the benefits that entails.
Scent and Tremorsense both allow you to pinpoint a creature. Pinpoint is defined as locating the square an invisible creature is in. Pinpointing does not negate invisibility or total concealment.
With the exception of Blindsight, all other forms of perception are inferior to vision and their limitations are described. They don't negate or bypass invisibility or anything else unless something specifically says they do.
You would need blind SIGHT (not merely blind sense, scent, tremorsense, ) to negate invisibilities negation of the AoO.Actually with regard to Invisibility
Actually, with regard to Invisibility, Invisibility grants total concealment unless something says it doesn't.
Blindsense specifically states that creatures it can't see still have total concealment, and all the benefits that entails.
Scent and Tremorsense both allow you to pinpoint a creature. Pinpoint is defined as locating the square an invisible creature is in. Pinpointing does not negate invisibility or total concealment.
With the exception of Blindsight, all other forms of perception are inferior to vision and their limitations are described. They don't negate or bypass invisibility or anything else unless something specifically says they do.
While the Concealment rules preclude AoOs against creatures with total concealment, and the "Ignoring Concealment" text specifically calls out invisible creatures as enjoying total concealment (please note, this is the only place in the rules that I could find such a declaration), the Invisibility spell grants the target the Invisible condition, which says "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability." (Emphasis mine.)
The invisibility special ability entry says, among other things, "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," as well as, "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one."
The former quote raises the question of whether the failure of an Acrobatics check to move through an enemy-occupied square always results in the invisible creature striking the enemy, may result in striking the enemy, or never results in striking the enemy, and in relation to this, whether or not this explicit knowledge is sufficient to void total concealment and allow an AoO.
The latter statement is rather more explicit, and is, as far as I can tell, the only explicit statement regarding the interaction of scent and invisibility. I therefore must conclude that an invisible creature does not get the benefit of any degree of concealment from a creature with scent, and such a creature could execute attacks of opportunity against an invisible opponent who lacked any other source of total concealment.
Note, I believe that the notation in the Scent ability that denotes the ability to pinpoint the location of a scent was designed to be a general statement allowing for smelly objects, as well as creatures, to be located.
Actually with regard to Invisibility
When you say actually you're supposed to correct me. You haven't.
In regards to invisibility they can still has a miss chance but it limits base on direction they are looking
No. It does not. There is no rule for facing in pathfinder. there was no core rule for facing in 3.5, or 3.0. There are no rules for facing. You cannot become invisible simply by moving your lead figure behind their lead figure while its your turn and they are stuck in the stop motion nature of the game.
so I would say in order to pinpoint movement through their field of Vision would require a stealth vs Perception check while they would still be Denied an AoO, they may still get to strike at the opponent.
This is completely self contradictory. An AoO IS a strike at an opponent. How can they be denied one and still take it?
The rules specifically say that you cannot get an aoo on an invisible creature even if you know where it is. Blind SENSE lets you know where it is.
If you are within 5 ft of a creature that is invisible and you have scent I would say it would a contested roll of Survival vs Stealth. Otherwise they know where you are and total concealment is voided.
This is a house rule. it has no place in a rules discussion unless there is something completely borked about the rules.
Now
Tremorsense (Ex)A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text.
Does not use visual. there for it would be a Stealth vs Perception check to pinpoint your location and you would not have total concealment.
If the sense was good enough to negate invisibility it would have tremor sight or something. If it doesn't , it still needs to see to attack.
Here's how I would rule it.
1) Zombies are Undead. Undead are immune to Mind-affecting effects. Invisibility is a Mind-affecting Illusion. Ergo, the character is not Invisible to the zombie.
From here, I will assume instead a situation where a character is using Invisibility against an opponent vulnerable to it.
2) Creatures cannot make Attacks of Opportunity against opponents that have full concealment relative to them. Since the character is Invisible, he cannot be targeted by AoOs in this case.
3) Creatures cannot move through opponents' spaces unless those opponents are Helpless. Even though the opponent is unaware of the Invisible creature, it is not Helpless, and as such Acrobatics use is still necessary.
4) Penalties to Armor Class apply also to CMD. Because the opponent is unaware of the invisible creature, it loses its Dex bonus to Armor Class; for this reason, I would rule that it loses its Dex bonus to CMD.
5) In the event of a failure in trying to tumble through the occupied square, the invisible creature would stop in the square it tried to tumble out of and its Move action would end. Because it has full concealment, the opponent does not get an Attack of Opportunity; because the opponent does not deal damage to the invisible creature, it doesn't risk falling down.
Enjoy.
Here's how I would rule it.
1) Zombies are Undead. Undead are immune to Mind-affecting effects. Invisibility is a Mind-affecting Illusion. Ergo, the character is not Invisible to the zombie.
From here, I will assume instead a situation where a character is using Invisibility against an opponent vulnerable to it.
2) Creatures cannot make Attacks of Opportunity against opponents that have full concealment relative to them. Since the character is Invisible, he cannot be targeted by AoOs in this case.
3) Creatures cannot move through opponents' spaces unless those opponents are Helpless. Even though the opponent is unaware of the Invisible creature, it is not Helpless, and as such Acrobatics use is still necessary.
4) Penalties to Armor Class apply also to CMD. Because the opponent is unaware of the invisible creature, it loses its Dex bonus to Armor Class; for this reason, I would rule that it loses its Dex bonus to CMD.
5) In the event of a failure in trying to tumble through the occupied square, the invisible creature would stop in the square it tried to tumble out of and its Move action would end. Because it has full concealment, the opponent does not get an Attack of Opportunity; because the opponent does not deal damage to the invisible creature, it doesn't risk falling down.
Enjoy.
1. Illusion is a glamer not a mind affecting so yeah you can vanish from the undead.
|
Normally, you must use Acrobatics to tumble or use Overrun to go through an enemy square. But what if you're Invisible? (and the enemy is unaware of you being there invisible to being with) Can you move through them normally?
It's not really covered in the rules well. I would suggest an acrobatics check as normal but with a fairly hefty circumstance bonus. Perhaps +20 which puts it in the realm of most characters can auto-succeed but particularly clumsy characters with armor check penalties will fail against challenging opponents.
Edit: added a little context ;)
It's not really covered in the rules well. I would suggest an acrobatics check as normal but with a fairly hefty circumstance bonus. Perhaps +20 which puts it in the realm of most characters can auto-succeed but particularly clumsy characters with armor check penalties will fail against challenging opponents.
which part the Invisable or the moving through occuipied squares?
|
|
It's not really covered in the rules well. I would suggest an acrobatics check as normal but with a fairly hefty circumstance bonus. Perhaps +20 which puts it in the realm of most characters can auto-succeed but particularly clumsy characters with armor check penalties will fail against challenging opponents.which part the Invisable or the moving through occuipied squares?
I edited to add some context.
I edited to add some context.It's not really covered in the rules well. I would suggest an acrobatics check as normal but with a fairly hefty circumstance bonus. Perhaps +20 which puts it in the realm of most characters can auto-succeed but particularly clumsy characters with armor check penalties will fail against challenging opponents.which part the Invisable or the moving through occuipied squares?
Still dont get Whats not coverd the moving through the square or doing it invisable?
So why would you make the acrobatics check even harder for someone who is invisable? I assume that you mean you would add +20 to the check to move through the square while invisable.
Actually with regard to InvisibilityWhen you say actually you're supposed to correct me. You haven't.
In regards to invisibility they can still has a miss chance but it limits base on direction they are lookingNo. It does not. There is no rule for facing in pathfinder. there was no core rule for facing in 3.5, or 3.0. There are no rules for facing. You cannot become invisible simply by moving your lead figure behind their lead figure while its your turn and they are stuck in the stop motion nature of the game.
so I would say in order to pinpoint movement through their field of Vision would require a stealth vs Perception check while they would still be Denied an AoO, they may still get to strike at the opponent.This is completely self contradictory. An AoO IS a strike at an opponent. How can they be denied one and still take it?
The rules specifically say that you cannot get an aoo on an invisible creature even if you know where it is. Blind SENSE lets you know where it is.
If you are within 5 ft of a creature that is invisible and you have scent I would say it would a contested roll of Survival vs Stealth. Otherwise they know where you are and total concealment is voided.This is a house rule. it has no place in a rules discussion unless there is something completely borked about the rules.
If the sense was good enough to negate invisibility it would have tremor sight or something. If it doesn't...Now
Tremorsense (Ex)A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text.
Does not use visual. there for it would be a Stealth vs Perception check to pinpoint your location and you would not have total concealment.
RE: Facing: Agreed, this game has no facing. Characters are generally assumed to be able to look in all directions at all times.
RE: Contradictory statements: The statements identified are contradictory, or at the very least unclear. However...
RE: AoOs and invisible creatures. Technically, the rules specify that AoOs cannot be directed at anyone or anything with Total Concealment, and later note that, in general, invisible creatures have Total Concealment. The rules never state explicitly that Invisible creatures are not subject to AoOs, even though this is the case in the vast majority of applications. Note that while the Concealment rules never mention the spell effect See Invisibility, it is nevertheless the case that an invisible creature lacks any sort of concealment based on invisibility from a creature under the effects of See Invisibility.
RE: Scent: While the quoted text is a houserule, as I mention earlier, the Invisible condition references the Invisibility special ability, which indicates that "A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one." Since the Invisibility spell grants its target the Invisible condition, and creatures with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one, then if an invisible creature has no source for Total Concealment other than invisibility, a creature with scent can, for all mechanical purposes, see it, and it does not enjoy invisibility-based concealment of any sort from such a creature.
RE: Tremorsense: While I concur that tremorsense is insufficient by itself to negate Total Concealment, and therefore is insufficient to allow Attacks of Opportunity to be made against an invisible creature, Tremorsense does allow for nearby creatures to be pinpointed, which in turn allows the Tremorsensing creature to execute an attack that has some chance of striking its intended target. In the case of Invisibility or other effects granting Total Concealment, the chance that an attack against a pinpointed foe is successful is 50%. Thus, while the creature needs some effect that negates Total Concealment to be able to make Attacks of Opportunity, it need not negate Total Concealment to make regular attacks on its own turn. Similarly, if a Tremorsensing creature were to ready an action to attack a pinpointed foe contingent on that foe moving within range, the Tremorsense would be sufficient to direct that attack against a pinpointed invisible foe while such a foe was attempting to avoid attacks of opportunity while moving past or through the Tremorsensing creature's space. This attack would, of course, still retain the usual 50% miss chance in the absence of any mitigating effects other than Tremorsense.
>--------
Of the most significance is the need to recognize that most of the combat rules are presented in the context of the sensory predilections of the creatures that are most likely to be using them. Since humans most often rely on sight to inform our various motions and motor function decisions, it is perfectly natural to arrive at the conclusion that a creature that relies on sight will be unable to be aware of the potential for an attack against a creature that is, by whatever means, totally concealed, and therefore would not be capable of executing attacks of opportunity against such an opponent.
While considering non-human creatures, however, it must be admitted that there are several with primary sensory modes that are non-visual, and that as such it should not be surprising or at all out of line for these creatures to be able to respond to non-visual cues that remain innately undetectable to an average human, and to do so in a sufficiently sophisticated manner so as to be able to ignore the issue of an effect concealing a creature from view, and based on that ability to ignore concealment, should be able to execute AoOs against vulnerable opponents that it can sense. A creature with Blindsight is one such creature, a creature with Scent is another.
"I would suggest an acrobatics check as normal but with a fairly hefty circumstance bonus. Perhaps +20..."
What makes you think I am adding to the DC?
Have to learn to read other peoples post properly before asking them stupid questions. Bad bad Talonhawke
|
|
Thanks for all the responses. It's clear that the rules don't specifically address the situation, but you all have provided solid reasoning for how to handle this situation. It's up to my DM to figure out how he wants to handle it.
I'm playing an inquisitor who casts invisibility and tries to get in flanking position (so he can use the teamwork feats). Normally, I'll just go around the opponent. But this one guy was standing in a doorway...so I thought I'd just sneak through his square and set up the flank. Botched the acrobatics. Maybe next time I'll just invisibly overrun and see how that works. Then, after I fail the combat maneuver and have to move back 2 squares, we can debate whether the opponent gets an AoO now that I'm visible. I expect he would, not for the overrun, but for the movement.
RE: Contradictory statements: The statements identified are contradictory, or at the very least unclear. However...
there is no however about it. You directly contradicted yourself. You "interpreted" the rules with the sophistry that there is no attack of opportunity but there would be an attack brought on by the opportunity caused by the failed tumbling roll. Its nonsensical.
RE: AoOs and invisible creatures. Technically, the rules specify that AoOs cannot be directed at anyone or anything with Total Concealment, and later note that, in general, invisible creatures have Total Concealment. The rules never state explicitly that Invisible creatures are not subject to AoOs
Yes, they do explicitly state it. They do not DIRECTLY state it, but they do explicitly say it. Bob is playing calvinball.
Bob has a red ball.
One cannot be tagged when you have a red ball.
You don't need to spell out that "Bob cannot be tagged". Arguments that bob can be tagged are TRYING to break the rules, and the english language along with it.
RE: Contradictory statements: The statements identified are contradictory, or at the very least unclear. However...there is no however about it. You directly contradicted yourself. You "interpreted" the rules with the sophistry that there is no attack of opportunity but there would be an attack brought on by the opportunity caused by the failed tumbling roll. Its nonsensical.
RE: AoOs and invisible creatures. Technically, the rules specify that AoOs cannot be directed at anyone or anything with Total Concealment, and later note that, in general, invisible creatures have Total Concealment. The rules never state explicitly that Invisible creatures are not subject to AoOsYes, they do explicitly state it. They do not DIRECTLY state it, but they do explicitly say it. Bob is playing calvinball.
Bob has a red ball.
One cannot be tagged when you have a red ball.You don't need to spell out that "Bob cannot be tagged". Arguments that bob can be tagged are TRYING to break the rules, and the english language along with it.
Except that in Bob's case, you haven't fully represented the analogous rules in Calvinball that relate to all of the rules about Invisibility. For example, going back to creatures with the scent ability, the analogous Calvinball rule here might be "Creatures with the scent ability can tag players who have a red ball as though they did not have a red ball."
Including that rule, it should be clear that the uniform unqualified statement "Bob cannot be tagged" is false, since conditions exist where he could potentially be tagged.
I reiterate that, as a result of the Scent ability interacting with Invisibility rules, as well as the Blind Sight ability interacting with Invisibility rules, a creature being invisible does not always automatically mean that the creature always has total concealment from everyone.
Since creatures with Total Concealment are not subject to Attacks of Opportunity, and there are some cases where Invisible creatures do not enjoy Total Concealment, there are some scenarios wherein Invisible creatures can provoke Attacks of Opportunity. That's not sophistry, that's cold hard logic.
In my remarks, I identify specific scenarios that involve non-visual sensory perception and discuss, based on the full set of rules regarding each non-visual sense at hand, how the designated sense interacts with the concept of Invisibility as defined in the rules.
Your evaluation (both previously and in the case of Bob and his red ball) ignores large portions of the rules to arrive at a conclusion that may be satisfactory to you but is, as a result, unsupported by the rules as written.
I freely admit that if the rules for Bob's situation are limited to what you identified, that your conclusion that Bob cannot be tagged is self-evident. In this case, however, the example of Bob and his red ball is insufficiently similar to the case of certain non-visual senses (Scent and Blind Sight, for example) interacting with Invisibility, and therefore represents an uninformative exercise.
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).
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
Total concealment is defined as lacking line of sight, not line of smell or anything else. Even if a sighted opponent can "notice the location" of an invisible creature, they still do not have line of sight. Therefore, the invisible creautre still has total concealment and cannot be the target of an Attack of Opportunity, barring true seeing, see invisiblity etc.
Scent lets you Pinpoint ADJACENT creatures, Pinpoint meaning DETECT their location. When Scent is elsewhere (such as in Invisibility) referred to as DETECTING Invisible creatures, I would focus on that aspect... To ´detect´ something essentially means to detect it´s PRESENCE, not any other info. In this case, it also implies it´s location a grid is known, but no other info. Just because you have Pinpointed/Detected an Invisible creature doesn´t mean it is no longer Concealed vs. you... After all, if you are attacked by an Invisible creature you also Pinpoint/Detect it, and Concealment isn´t lost in that scenario.
To follow up on Joana´s point, a creature with Scent detects an Invisible creature´s location in an adjacent square: That doesn´t give them LoS to the Invisible creature, meaning besides the effects for melee attacks, targetted spells simply can´t be targetted against the Invisible creature, though AoE spells of course can be sent in that direction.
I WOULD say that it would MAKE SENSE if you are CONTINUALLY able to Pinpoint a Creature´s square from both it´s starting position to it´s ending position, that you should be able to take an AoO. In the case of Scent, this would only apply to creatures provoking by moving from one adjacent square to another adjacent square, since otherwise you can´t ´see´ both squares needed to spot the AoO-provoking movement... For Blind-Sense it would be as long as the provoking movement (on a square by square basis) starts and ends within Range. Concealment Miss Chance would still apply, of course. I´m 99% sure that this is against RAW, which directly says that if Concealment applies, you can´t take the AoO, but I still think it makes sense for my stated reasons.