Mmm very intersting. Also food for thought. U go thru an allys square without any checks, does that mean someone whos invisible and wants to remain undetected is qble to let someone thru their space as well?
Since alice is provoking AoO, im wondering if invisble person would trip when provoked and then do a 5 step move?
edit-if they decided to do the trip it still wouldnt discern their location either. But im still thinking an enemy could let someone thru their square without revealing their presense just like an ally can go thru another allys square. Question then would said creature allow that to pass up damaging an enemy or woukd they give up a snack to remain invisible. And before i forget if they coukd also "see" the person running at them and be able to react to it.
|
We've always played that an invisible foe can allow you to pass through the square, per Overrun.
Don't remember if we gave a free Perception check, but it would make sense, it would be at -20 (invis w/ movement), rather than -40 (invis w no movement), so that's helpful. Thinking about it though, if someone is running through squares, she's not going to be particularly perceptive. The rules account for this by having her move, then stop and listen. I'm not aware of of a RAW penalty for Perception-while-moving.
Maybe go with allow Alice to try it, allow Bob to move out of the way, but in order to make Perception checks (at -20, not -40, if he moves), Alice has to move at half speed. Otherwise she moves at full speed and gets a Perception check at the end.
There are no rules for this one way or the other. I would just allow the invisible person to have the option of letting the other person pass by.
I'm wondering how this is in terms of AoOs from the invisible Bob. When Alice tries to enter his square, she tries to leave her own which borders his. I think he should get an AoO from that, whether Alice ends up in his square or is prevented from entering it.
Also, while this auto detect method is cheesy, I think it's wrong if the invisible person should get a free nondetection pass for anyone going through his square without using improved overrun. In the non-cheesy scenario where Alice is fighting the invisible Bob and the monster Charlie, she tries to withdraw from Charlie, but moves without knowing it into the square of bob. Without the cheese on the platter, no one I play with would argue Bob should by default unnoticed allow Alice through.
So can Bob choose when he wants to block people and when he wants to sidestep?
Anyway, the no-go-thing in any scheme would be for Alice to end up in the same square as Bob.
|
I've allowed it in the past. To some amusing results. My solution: allow Alice to move into bobs squares, if he can act let him move, giving Alice a PER check against bobs stealth+20. If he can't act then she runs into him, since she's effectively running into an invisible object she needs to make a reflex save or fall flat. Bob can attack as she moves, she's leaving a square he threatens, but this will pinpoint his square.
I would say you have to use the concealment rules in order to see if you successfully bump into Bob. 50% chance of success. Which I image Bob would not mind.
Any creature can decide who to treat as an ally. When you take a prisoner's surrender, you can then immediately start applying healing and they can voluntarily fail their save if they wish, for instance. If someone is subject to charm person, they'd start treating their enemies as friendly and allow moving-through. It stands to reason then that an invisible creature could do the same for this purpose.
There isn't RAW this precise though.
We house rule this:
If character A is invisible, and character B doesnt know exactly where he is, he can prass through character's A square, even though they are enemies, because character A can easily either do an attack of opportunity or step aside to let character B walk through, as if they were allies.
IMO, the rules for not being able to pass through an enemy square is because they threaten that square.
My players have a different method of detection, they go around attacking squares randomly until something is hit.
The last time this came up, my group devised a novel solution. The DM was using the "he can choose to sidestep a character trying to enter his square" ruling.
So our Ninja responded by turning himself invisible and running around the room, saying, basically "if he can't see he, he can't move out of my way!".
Amusing anecdote aside, in games I run, only an invisible foe who is also using stealth ever has their location considered to be unknown. Just being invisible, I allow my players full knowledge of their location, just to nip metagame strategies like this in the bud.
Players generally, I've noticed, only resort to out of the box or bizarre solutions to problems if they feel that they have no other options.
Also, NPC's that I have use stealth + invisibility usually try to get as far away from the PC's as possible, just on the off chance someone would blunder into their square.
Not the answers I'm sure anyone was looking for, I know, but there's no other fair way to do this, that I can think of. Logically, I'd say it should be a CMB vs. CMD check (which provokes) upon trying to enter the enemy square, but with a 50% miss chance due to invisibility.
The problem with that is that it's a zillion times easier to just throw flour on the floor! The more complexity you add to a non-standard task, the less likely it would ever be used.
By RAW you have different methods to detect an invisible creature without magic or special equipment.
The first is a perception check:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Second is a special standard action:
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action.
Third are special skills to find tracks or scents, etc.
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
Detecting 'there is something invisible' and pinpointing an invisible creature are two different things. Detecting something is a free perception check, pinpointing is at least a standard action.
The example above would break the rules if you allow to pinpoint with moving through a square containing an invisible creature. A hasted creature can easily move 60ft. (12 squares = same as 6 standard actions) as a move action! If a GM allow this there is no reason to use the special 'detect invisible' standard action!
The RAW dont have a solution for this question so it is up to the GM.
Assuming that Alice and Bob are at least mature enough to think about this rationally, have Alice describe exactly what she's doing to roughly 30 sq ft of space in 6 seconds trying to find something she doesn't know is there. Hopefully, she'll realize how ridiculous this sounds. Now factor in that that "thing" can move? It becomes even more difficult. I agree with Yure's stand that a 5ft by 5ft square is more than enough to let someone by.
I think if someone in my group did this I would not only give the +40 roll to stealth regardless of Bob's movement, since Alice cannot do the search of a 6 squares with the same attention as the rule for searching for invisible objects. I'd also still apply the 50% miss effect due to Bob being able to sidestep. A square is considered an enemy square because there is an enemy actively trying to keep you out of that square. In this case, Bob's square is not opposed, since he's not actively trying to stop Alice.
The other method I'd use is have both make their moves, and if they both happen to end their turns on the same square, have Alice make the normal perception check. Again, this simulates the fact that Alice cannot effectively search all that are in that fast a fashion, and is only doing a cursory search at best, but may get lucky and run into him.
Because, honestly, think about how this would really look. Alice comes into an area, and knows that Bob is invisible in the room. She then starts running around *hoping* that she runs into him. She doesn't know where or when, so couldn't be braced or ready for any kind of impact. Bob on the other hand sees her plain as day, and can try to avoid her, but since she's running around randomly, might not guess where she's going next, and bump into her.
Last time this came up I actually required it to be an overrun check (including the usage of a standard action). Still a 50% miss chance. However that was with invisible foes who did not wish to allow the PCs to pass by.
Key point as far as "the rules" goes: entering an opponent's square isn't an illegal move - only *ending* your movement there is. You can move in if you have a reach of 0', if you're tumbling through, etc. Saying that a foe can't treat you as an ally, when it is to their advantage to do so, is a bit silly.
However, if Alice was invisible as well, and couldn't be side-stepped by Bob, I'd then treat it as an overrun with the normal 50% miss chance (which might mean no one notices, if perception checks are poor).
If invisible and they start running around, the GM shoukd start rolling percentage dice cinstantly behind the screen weither the player is near or far away to throw them off.
Even if there is no invisible creature as well hehehe
Back in the 3.x days, there was this one time our GM put an invisible monster against us. Our barbarian (which was surprisingly clever for his 8 int) asked the GM what was the room dimensions (8x4), and suggested that we all lined up on the wall, then charged all at once the opposite way of the room.
Basically we all bullrushed the enemy and got his location because he couldnt get away from all 4 of us at once.
Or the ninja could simply throw alchemical fire on Bob and watch the fire run around, or maybe stab Bob and the bloody trail would be enough for people to find him.
|
The rules say that you can try to find invisible creatures in 2 squares during a round if you try bumping into them:
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
This tactic is simply an attempt to cheat the rules and invent a "clever" way to find someone invisible. But isn't clever at all, it is simply an attempt to invent a bug to win a game.
As several other attempt to get extra benefits by bending the rules or trying to create loopholes than don't exist it is only annoying for the other players and the GM.
I should add thee "overrun" portion of this plan fails with no target or idea wberd th target is you can't just move around then coinciddntally make theoverrun role in the correct square.
Th combat maneuver itself provides nothing to allow for it.
It is in no way "cheating". People here have been quite clear that RAW doesn't cover this tactic and that we entered house rule territory... At least it was clear to me. How can you call house rules "cheating"?
You can not do it (or it has no game effect) if there is no RAW support.
House rules are made or at least are approved by the GM. Everything else is cheating.
Short and simple.
|
|
The rules say that you can try to find invisible creatures in 2 squares during a round if you try bumping into them:
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.This tactic is simply an attempt to cheat the rules and invent a "clever" way to find someone invisible. But isn't clever at all, it is simply an attempt to invent a bug to win a game.
As several other attempt to get extra benefits by bending the rules or trying to create loopholes than don't exist it is only annoying for the other players and the GM.
It is in no way "cheating". People here have been quite clear that RAW doesn't cover this tactic and that we entered house rule territory... At least it was clear to me. How can you call house rules "cheating"?
I also disagree that the tactic OP described would be in any way annoying or irritating, but rather fun and creative. I don't see the harm so I happily add the house rule to allow it. Now if it was PFS then naturally the tactics described would be disallowed.
You can make one attack in a round. so you can't try to overrun every square in a 60' move.
This is an attempt to attack 12 squares using a move action.Acceptable if you play Toon, not if you play Pathfinder. If your GM is ok with playing Toon Pathfinder more power to your group, if the player is trying to browbeat the GM into allowing this in a normal game he trying to cheat inventing rules for his profit.
|
|
Personally speaking I don't see it as a major slide in the system and I kind of resent you calling it "toon pathfinder". The reason I would be on board with this is because you often end up in situations where it is impossible for the group to find the invisible enemy, with no way to actually defend themselves against it. Therefore I tend to allow creative and fun ways of finding an invisible person such as spreading out flour on the floor to track the invisible creatures foot prints or the like.
There are half a ton of ways to detect invisible opponents, with mundane or magical means, respecting the rules and tone of the game.
"I run around trying to bump into the enemy." is a silly way that is appropriate for a silly game.You can really call it a serious way to play?
Silly games have their place, you can play Pathfinder as a silly game and have a lot of fun, but is general tone is more serious than that.
If someone where to try that tactic at a table where I am playing it would ruin my pleasure in playing unless I did know from the start that the intention was to play a silly session of Pathfinder.
Personally speaking I don't see it as a major slide in the system and I kind of resent you calling it "toon pathfinder". The reason I would be on board with this is because you often end up in situations where it is impossible for the group to find the invisible enemy, with no way to actually defend themselves against it. Therefore I tend to allow creative and fun ways of finding an invisible person such as spreading out flour on the floor to track the invisible creatures foot prints or the like.There are half a ton of ways to detect invisible opponents, with mundane or magical means, respecting the rules and tone of the game.
"I run around trying to bump into the enemy." is a silly way that is appropriate for a silly game.
You can really call it a serious way to play?
Silly games have their place, you can play Pathfinder as a silly game and have a lot of fun, but is general tone is more serious than that.
If someone where to try that tactic at a table where I am playing it would ruin my pleasure in playing unless I did know from the start that the intention was to play a silly session of Pathfinder.
It compares to real life, this tactic is not that silly. Some people in real life do very dumb things, so some character might do something like this when they can't think of anything better to do. I dumb Paladin who blinded by they believe might not be able to think any other ways that is different from what they have learnt from the church. So you can't blame him to do things like this when he was not taught to deal with invisibility.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: Why do you find it silly? Think of how you would react in real life to someone invisible. Is it really so unfeasible that you'd be running around the room with your arms stretched out just to try and catch this invisible someone? As far as I know this is a ROLE playing game, which means that what should dictate our characters behaviour isn't necessarily the most effective way, but instead the most plausible way that the character in question would react to the situation.
To find someone/something invisible and with a weapon or the capacity to harm me?
Assuming I am courageous enough not to run away, running around the room with my arm outstretched is very low on my list of options.
The first thing that came to my mind was to take the fire extinguisher from the wall and use it to blanket the area with CO2 or extinguishing powder. Great way to pinpoint his location, cover it with a coating of powder or condensed air moisture and maybe even damaging it.
Second idea grab the fire hose and do the same.
At home? run to the kitchen and grab a flour packet and a knife. open the flour packet and throw the content in the general direction of the danger. Even if it don't cover the invisible creature in flour it will cover the floor and give me a chance to find the invisible creature.
Close and possibly bar a door between it and me. When he attempt to break the door I will know exactly where it is.
Open ground? Try to reach an area with sand/water/snow where the creature progress become visible.
Plenty of options, running with my arm outstretched to get hit several times for free is very low on the list.
|
|
Take a long weapon and try to sweep a large area at once. (you were speaking of a real situation, so not bound by the game rules of attacking only 1 square or groping to search 2 of them)
Spill my water on the floor to make its progress visible.
Game world:
Throw my packet of powder (I have 2 in my character equipment, and he can cast glitterdust, a character that can't cast a anti-invisibility spell should have them).
|
|
Game world:
Throw my packet of powder (I have 2 in my character equipment, and he can cast glitterdust, a character that can't cast a anti-invisibility spell should have them).So in other words you have no qualms about characters trying to circumvent invisibility, you just think the way that OP described it was silly? So you are saying that my characters should always think about "What if we run into an invisible creature?" Better bring a packet of powder just in case! Really, everyone incapable of dealing with invisible people should do that?
I will give you the water thing however. That seems like the smart thing to do. But what if the character isn't smart? Or what if, god forbid, that the player didn't think about that option?
It is a standard item available in game:
Powder
Price 1 CP; Weight 1/2 lb.
Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals whether an invisible creature is there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
And in a world where magic exist and invisible creatures are common a professional adventures should bring with him what is needed to help defeat them.
There is no need for him to be the one that had the idea of using chalk powder or flour. He will know plenty of tales of heroes that used it to defeat an evil invisible thing.
Any creature can decide who to treat as an ally.Anguish, could you point me to where this is stated in the rules? I could not find it in the various sections I looked at. If the Paizo staff does not address my question, this would help me make my case to the player.
Thanks!
This could be rough... I'm pretty sure I've arrived at that understanding over a few years of forum posts by folks like James.
First up, the Core FAQ says:
Ally: Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
That's just a baseline, establishing that since you consider yourself an ally, you are.
Then there are the spells bane and bless, which are 50ft bursts but only work on your enemies or allies, respectively. Clearly the caster gets to decide who is and is not an ally, or else the spells couldn't pick and choose who to apply to.
Next up, there's the confused condition, which states "A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies."
So when you're not confused, you can tell the difference between ally and foe. You get to make that decision. If you were thinking about taking someone's surrender, you might exclude them from a bane spell. While I can't find a specific "you can do X" rule, when you assemble how the concept of "ally" works, it seems pretty obvious that it's subjective. Unless under a charm or a compulsion, you decide who your allies are. Not the DM, not Paizo, you, the player.
Hopefully that helps.
|
|
Ah, the fun of a player arguing rules with a GM.
Sometimes this is best solved by simply popping open two beers (or sodas depending on the age) and having a chat about why a GM and player are fighting about anything.
Players are supposed to trust their GMs to provide a fun day/evening/etc. Even if there was a rule for your specific situation, a good GM can explain to his players that he wants to run things a certain way because he's pretty sure it will be more fun for everyone involved. If this encounter doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, you can allow them to do anything. Heck, as a GM you can stop a combat at any point and say "the bad guys surrender". Your primary goal is to ensure everyone's having fun and you're advancing your story/adventure forward.
At any rate, I had a similar situation about 2 weeks ago with a half-dozen invisible players and some huge elementals moving around a battlefield without knowing where any of the players were.
The way I run it consistently is that if you're invisible, as a free action (out of turn even) you can decide if you are treating another creature as friendly or hostile. Thus as Alice moves around or through Bob, he can decide he's "friendly" to Alice. He doesn't get an AoO, and as there's a precedent set in overrun, Bob can simply sidestep and allow Alice to pass through his square. Alice doesn't get a free overrun, as she's not declaring/using a standard action for the maneuver (and may have double moved anyway).
However, say that Alice wanted to charge Tom, who is Bob's visible ally (and Alice's enemy) and in order to charge Tom, she'd need to go through invisible Bob. This is a hard one, because if Bob is acting as an ally it's no different than Alice charging through your average townsfolk who happened to be in the way. The way I rule this is that the charge was affected by the presence of "something" (in this case briefly acting as an ally, like an ally in your way during a charge) along the charge path. Because you brushed against something, you lose the ability to charge (you can still attack as long as you only covered your movement speed or less). You could make a Perception check to figure out exactly where during your charge you brushed up against something. Depending on the result, I may indicate a single square or a general area.
In the case someone ends their turn in a square with an invisible creature, I simply shunt the invisible creature. It's the easiest thing to do.
In the case of two invisible creatures moving about the room, I apply a 50% chance they bump into each other.
Common sense should be applied to a game where the rules aren't clear. Mark out a 5x5 area and stand somewhere perfectly still. Blindfold someone in an adjacent 5x5 area and ask them to move forward ten feet. See how easy it is to avoid them. In most cases, you may not need to do a single thing except watch your blindfolded friend advance.
It is in no way "cheating". People here have been quite clear that RAW doesn't cover this tactic and that we entered house rule territory... At least it was clear to me. How can you call house rules "cheating"?You can not do it (or it has no game effect) if there is no RAW support.
Nonsense. There's no RAW for a lot of things that one can logically do, and it's up to the GM to make rules for the appropriate situation.
Just because there's no rules for it, it is not impossible for a character to run willy-nilly all over a place where she thinks an invisible person might be. If she bumps into the person, she would then know where he is, or was at that moment anyway.
I'm not saying it would be an effective tactic, or should be, because most likely the invisible person could move out of her path as she approaches, and could certainly move after she bumps him. But if he were otherwise occupied, or she was invisible too, or it was dark, or something else happened, it could work.
Now, the OP's scenario of 'run around until you find a square you can't enter, and that's where the invisible dude is' doesn't work -- clearly not. But saying it doesn't work because there's no rules for running around and bumping into an invisible person isn't the way to look at it.
Thanks, Anguish, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I think I can do something with the info you brought.Also thank you Lifat for bringing in some more focus to the debate. I think we're more or less in agreement on this issue, and I appreciate you going to bat against some of the counter-arguments here.
We are kind of getting off in the weeds here regarding tactics vs. invisibility and stealth, and alternative ways to deal with those things. Let me formulate a corollary question to the Paizo staff, should they choose to answer it. The rules stipulate that you cannot go through an opponent's square, with exceptions for acrobatics and overrun. The question is: can you allow an opponent through your space, as an immediate action? You can do it when they've declared an overrun attempt. Ok. Can you do it at all times? My answer is yes. I'd like Paizo's answer, because this dude I'm fighting with is immune to cogent argument.
Ouch. You're in a rough spot.
I've been in a similar spot with a clever (but not at all obstinate) player. He wanted to carry around flour to toss in the air to reveal invisible creatures. I thought about it, and sighed.
From there I paused the game and explained my position. It told him, "I want to reward clever thinking but this time I'm screwed." I expanded. See, I could see a day that I described an awesome setup and just happened to say "it's raining", for atmosphere. Then comes the invisible creature, and my player will no doubt point out the rain reveals them. Messes up an encouter because I'm building atmosphere. The knife cuts both ways though, I pointed out. I reminded him there'd be a day when I get asked the weather and say "it's a gentle sandstorm" or "there's a lot of dust in the air", and the party won't be able to use invisibility because of my arbitrary decision.
I said that as a compromise to realism, I think of invisibility as magic that compensates for simple small things like rain or dust or flour, creating the illusion it's not disturbed. Macro interactions like stepping in mud or knocking things over or opening doors were beyond what it could mask, but don't ask "why can't I see the guy's outline in fog or smoke?"
I concluded that not having invisibility neutered too easily made it more useful to the player as well, and finally asked if he could accept my position and intention.
Not being an asshat, he could.
Maybe pointing out that you in turn won't escalate will help. I mean, a giant with reach and a Large longspear should be able to gently check... maybe six squares every square it move, just by lightly swinging the spear. This is a realism arms-race that the PCs can't win. Skip reach and just point out how many squares wide a Huge bad guy is. Uck.
One more anecdote involving the same player... in a different campaign they got into a game of Battleship with an invisible cleric. The player's paladin would move then use detect evil to check a cone.
My rules to myself: I always picked one specific square the cleric moved to. No cheating. If the cone picked him up, so be it. Further, of the paladin ended his move in the right square, he'd learn the location. Simple. Fair.
There have been times I've run invisibility differently, but I think this one was - by far - the most memorable my players ever had.
Rule zero. Alice can accept your decision, or quit the game.