If you're invisible, do you still have to make acrobatics checks to move through an enemy's square? (through the occupied square is usually a DC of CMD+5)
And if yes, what happens if you fail? You just can't move, but you're still invisible, or do you become visible again and provoke the AoO?
Background is that my Ninja is about to level to 2nd level and I'm pondering if Vanishing Trick is already worth it, mostly to move into flanking position for sneak attacks without provoking.
Last fight that would have only been possible by moving through an enemies square, and I'm wondering if being invisible would have helped me with that.
Interesting question.
I'd say the DC to move through an opponent's square composes of two things: Being able to gracefully 'limbo dance' past or under him while at the same time not leaving yourself open to attack.
Now the second part wouldn't be a problem for an invisible creature but it would still have to be careful not to touch or bump into the opponent. I think I would have the invisible character roll vs the opponent's CMD-5 in this case.
If the roll is failed, it means he bumped into the opponent, provoking an AoO with a 50% miss chance but doesn't become visible since it is not an offensive action.
I don't think there is anything in the RAW handling this, this is merely what I would rule ad hoc, maybe it helps. You should definitely talk to your GM about this though.
If you're invisible, do you still have to make acrobatics checks to move through an enemy's square? (through the occupied square is usually a DC of CMD+5)
And if yes, what happens if you fail? You just can't move, but you're still invisible, or do you become visible again and provoke the AoO?
Background is that my Ninja is about to level to 2nd level and I'm pondering if Vanishing Trick is already worth it, mostly to move into flanking position for sneak attacks without provoking.
Last fight that would have only been possible by moving through an enemies square, and I'm wondering if being invisible would have helped me with that.
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.
In my opinion, and to answer your question, no. The only reason you would be using acrobatics in that situation is to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, but you are invisible which means you have total concealment, thus attacks of opportunity cannot be made against you, and even if they could, the opponent would still have a 50% miss chance while attacking the space it thinks you are in, if she guessed right that is.
That's my answer and I'm sticking to it...until proven wrong :)
I was just looking into this last night. Moving isn't attacking so the vanish wouldn't come off. I'd say you have to make the Acrobatics check still, but they get the 'attacker invisible' penalty to their CMD (even though you're not really attacking). If you fail, they are denied their AoO because you have total concealment.
normally, acrobatics (tumble) checks are made to avoid AoOs, which you don't provoke if you're invisible. tumbling through a square, though, lets you do something normally considered illegal in terms of rules, namely moving through an occupied square. so you still have to make that acrobatics check.
as a GM i might see favorable circumstances for you, depending on the specifics of the situation, and give you +2 on your acrobatics check.
i also agree with Nickademus42 on the CMD penalty
Ok, thanks guys. Seems there is no 100% clear ruling about this situation in the rules, so I'll check with my GM how he sees it.
I disagree. The rules give us guidelines on how to handle the situation; my only question is whether it counts as a roll or not.
Your opponent cannot see you, and as such, he removes his Dexterity and Dodge bonuses from his CMD (any penalties that apply to AC also apply to CMD). You get a +2 to the roll (p. 195).
If you succeed the check, you move through his space. If you fail, you (normally) trigger an attack of opportunity; however, because you have full concealment against your opponent, he cannot perform attacks of opportunity against you. If you are damaged while using Acrobatics, you must make a second roll against the same DC or fall prone. This means that, if there are no complications, this is a roll with no difference between success or failure because he won't be striking at you even if you fail the roll.
Now, rolls have classically been described as used for when 'success is not certain'. Success in the above case is certain, so some DMs may declare that it is not a roll. While many people would therefore remove it to simplify things, it is important for DMs to consider because some effects may give the recipient a +1 to his next roll only, and therefore, whether it is or is not a roll is not equivalent.
I don't recall if Pathfinder has any such stipulation, so Pathfinder may require a roll anyway.
Now let's complicate the issue. An ally of the fighter is standing ten feet away with a whip. He readies an action to strike the tumbling character as he tumbles through, succeeds against miss chance, and hits his armor class, dealing damage. The character has now been dealt damage while using acrobatics, and as such, must make a second check at the same DC or fall prone.
So if the character must make a second Acrobatics check at the same DC, and the original DC was a check where success or failure didn't matter -- then now it does, because failure means the character falls prone.
But if the original tumble does not require a roll by the rules, then being required to make a second roll at the same DC may be a puzzling issue. The normal DC could be used for simplicity, as it would be unusual for an attacker to suddenly be unable to force a tumbling character to fall prone.
Normally, you cannot enter an opponent's space without an Acrobatics check. The check isn't just to avoid the AoO, it's to be able to move through the square at all.
Being invisible doesn't allow you to enter an opponent's space, so you still have to make the roll. If you fail, you can't move and you technically provoke, but the opponent can't take the AoO. You didn't attack, so you're still invisible.
Attacking while invisible normally grants a bonus to hit, and a penalty to AC. Since you're not attacking, you don't get this bonus, but I think it's reasonable that tumbling would be easier while invisible, and these bonuses would be an accurate representation of that.
You don´t trigger an AoO, that is right. Unless the enemy has something like tremorsense or sense or other means to locate you. Also you could be located with Perception, but then the miss chance still applies and you still don´t get the AoO.
About the rest:
You have to make the check because you move through the enemy´s square.
If you fail, you loose your move action and stand there or you have to take a second move action.
If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.