Okay, so specifically the rules are that you can:
1) Attack a square that you think an invisible opponent is in, and have a 50% miss chance. DM rolls the chance if the creature is there or not so that you can't be sure.
2) Grope around with both hands to try and make a touch attack in any 2 adjacent squares.
So... what happens when you can get a bead on the target by say the scent ability or the target makes a noise that you can hear, thus giving you what direction its in, and then you just flat out shoot in that direction?
Just about any ranged or even thrown weapon should have a fairly flat trajectory over the short run, with faster weapons being able to fly flatter, so lets just say first range increment = relatively flat and level flight.
Example, lets say an archer is on a grid, and there is an invisible opponent 20 feet (4 squares) directly to their right. Archer gets the idea that the target is directly to their right, and fires their bow in a straight line.
Would/should the arrow have a chance of hitting anything in it's flightpath, regardless of whether or not the player specifically called out the square the opponent is standing in? Would/should the arrow be able to effectively "target" every single square in the line to see if it hits anything?
I'm leaning towards yes, simply because a line spell like a Lightning Bolt could potentially hit them as long as they were in one of the affected squares.
OP = Overpowered
In any event, no it doesn't work. You must target a specific square. You cannot make a line attack to try hit them if they are in any of the squares, because bows do not make line attacks. A lightning bolt works because it is specifically a line attack. Pathfinder does not simulate real life, do not try to apply realism because things breakdown very quickly when you do.
You also don't know directly to your right from scent either.
Scent
This extraordinary ability lets a creature detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell.
A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at three times these ranges.
The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
A creature with the Survival skill and the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Survival check to find or follow a track. A creature with the scent ability can attempt to follow tracks using Survival untrained. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10. The DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry's odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill in regards to tracking. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.
Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
Water, particularly running water, ruins a trail for air-breathing creatures. Water-breathing creatures that have the scent ability, however, can use it in the water easily.
False, powerful odors can easily mask other scents. The presence of such an odor completely spoils the ability to properly detect or identify creatures, and the base Survival DC to track becomes 20 rather than 10.
So, with scent you know the creature is present. You don't even know the direction. To know the direction you must spend a move action. And even then, the description if vague. You don't get to know a perfectly line between you and the enemy. It's more like you know whether it's North, North-East, East, South-East, South, South-West, West, or North-West.*
At least that is how we handle it in my group. "Noting the direction" is so vague that it doesn't really have much significance on its own.
If you had scent, you make a move action to determine direction of what you're smelling, so yes, you can determine general direction with the scent ability.
I would think at the very least there should be an issue about the invisible creature giving the intended target cover. Can't find anything about striking cover though, although it makes sense that if you were shooting an arrow at someone hiding behind a wall and miss due to the cover, that you hit the wall.
Actually, expand that out a bit.
What happens if you shoot at something you can see that happens to be behind an invisible wall? The wall would be the same as an invisible creature standing still, so by RAW wouldn't you have to attack the square that the wall is in in order to hit it?
Rulings need to be consistent here, IMO.
If you want to say its impossible to hit one invisible object unless you are intentionally aiming at it's square, then the ruling should apply to all invisible objects regardless of size. If you can hit an invisible wall by accident by firing in it's general direction, then you should have a chance of hitting any invisible object by firing in it's general direction.
I mean, its either a solid invisible thing between you and the target, or it isn't.
Actually, expand that out a bit.
What happens if you shoot at something you can see that happens to be behind an invisible wall? The wall would be the same as an invisible creature standing still, so by RAW wouldn't you have to attack the square that the wall is in in order to hit it?
Rulings need to be consistent here, IMO.
If you want to say its impossible to hit one invisible object unless you are intentionally aiming at it's square, then the ruling should apply to all invisible objects regardless of size. If you can hit an invisible wall by accident by firing in it's general direction, then you should have a chance of hitting any invisible object by firing in it's general direction.
I mean, its either a solid invisible thing between you and the target, or it isn't.
It's not actually, because the wall provides total cover. The other difference is that the invisible character is actively moving (within their square at the very least) attempting to avoid being hit. While objects do not. And a while occupies its entire continuous length, while a character does not actually fill an entire 5ft cube.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
What he's saying is:
For realism, your wall is filling the entire square too, while a target creature is not. Your arrow can enter the target creature's square and whiz by missing it, since you do not know the exact spot within the square the target is in.
But the creature dodging your attack has nothing to do with hitting it or not.
It being invisible and you not being able to accurately tell where it is or is not is what the 50% straight miss is for.
If you succeed in your 50% roll to hit it, you still have to roll against it's AC, which includes things like it's dex bonus indicating that it is dodging.
If the ruling is that you cannot hit it, then it does not matter if it is actively dodging or standing completely, you can't hit it. Period. An invisible life size marble statue is 100% impossible to hit if you try to shoot something behind it. Under that ruling, the statue cannot provide cover for the target, because it does not obstruct the shooter's vision nor can it be hit, so there's nothing to block the shot. Aka, no cover.
If you can take cover behind an invisible stone statue, it means at least part of the statue is physically blocking the shot from getting through, which means you must be capable of hitting it by mistake while aiming at the guy on the other side.
Logically, does it make sense that an invisible wall that would provide 75% cover were it visible suddenly provides no cover at all? What about an invisible wall that would provide 50% cover?
How much cover (aka, how big/how much space does something have to fill) does something need to provide before you can accidentally hit it without aiming at it?
So... what happens when you can get a bead on the target by say the scent ability or the target makes a noise that you can hear, thus giving you what direction its in, and then you just flat out shoot in that direction?
See, RAW indeed says "target the square"... but what about a small creature who is flying 5' above the ground? Do you have to select the right "cube"?
The RAW is great for most situations, but it's quite simple to make up a situation that renders the RAW inadequate. This is why there is Rule Zero, and why organic GMs are more able to adapt than digital ones. Hence why we're playing a tabletop game with friends rather than playing an MMO.
That said, Edymnion, it's all well and good to point out these flaws in the RAW. But to imply a need for change is to imply an unrealistic demand. Just thinking of the cost from a project management perspective, the ROI is really zero. What does Paizo get out of such a change? Maybe if it's a simple fix, it can be included in a later release of errata one day, but don't count on it.
Better to figure out a snazzy houserule. Something like....
Ranged Attack Lines
"Picking a Square" is different for different attack forms. Linear ranged attacks (like bows or thrown within 1 range increment, or ray spells) instead make a line of attack. One way to determine this line is to take a piece of string or any thin item (like a ruler) and hold it as a line radiating away from the shooter. Any object, obstacle or creature whose square is in contact that line can potentially be hit, which is why there are cover rules, concealment rules, and shooting-into-melee rules. The added benefit for this method is that it also allows a ranged attacker to hit invisible or hidden creatures along a radial ranged attack line; they need not select a "square", as their attack line can cover several. The down side is that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules exist tocreate a simulation to make a fun game. They are not necessarily a description of physics and often, in order to achieve the result of a playable game, they do not make perfect logical sense.
The rules here are clear. If you are trying to hit a creature you can't see, you have to, at minimum, target the correct square the creature is in. Then you have to succeed on an attack roll vs AC. Then, if you hit, the DEFENDER gets to roll for a miss chance to avoid the hit.
Invisibility doesn't change whether something grants cover.
What he's saying is:
if, in order to hit something invisible, you have to target the square (and have a 50% miss chance).
Not anything, just invisible creatures
then when a creature is 10' behind an invisible wall, it doesn't count as cover.
because the wall can't even be hit unless you target its square. Since it can't be hit accidentally, it certainly doesn't block anything. Cover is a separate issue, which really doesn't interact with invisibility. Regardless of whether a creature or wall is invisible, if a wall is between the attacker and the target then the target gets the appropriate bonus to AC (based on how much of the target is covered).
RAW - The wall providing cover cannot be hit unless targeted, whether visible or not. The DM can always house rule that a miss will hit the cover, but that's not in the PF rules (you could hit the cover in 3.0, and perhaps 3.5 as well).
Read the wording. The operative word is blocks the line of sight or line of effect. Invisible walls obviously don't block any line of sight, so that's eliminated right away.
So, what about blocking a line of effect?
Well suppose you're a wall... in order for you to block something, you must potentially be hit instead of the stuff behind you.
But if you, the invisible wall, can't be hit, you're not blocking anything are you?
See where this is going?
See, the RAW is great for 95% of situations. But it's not a magical holy scripture that covers everything. There are flaws, situational flaws especially, and arguing against such flaws when they are revealed isn't very noble IMO. I'm all for a game that makes sense and doesn't have players saying "I can't do that because 'it's the rules' ??? That's stupid!", crossing their arms, and me knowing, on some level, that they're making sense and I'm shoehorning their ideas into the rules like some dictator.
Cover is a separate issue, which really doesn't interact with invisibility. Regardless of whether a creature or wall is invisible, if a wall is between the attacker and the target then the target gets the appropriate bonus to AC (based on how much of the target is covered).
RAW - The wall providing cover cannot be hit unless targeted, whether visible or not. The DM can always house rule that a miss will hit the cover, but that's not in the PF rules (you could hit the cover in 3.0, and perhaps 3.5 as well).
So just how exactly do you describe that situation?
If the target gets all of the benefits of cover, including full cover, but the cover cannot be hit... then what exactly happens when you fire at somebody behind a full cover granting invisible wall? RAW says you cannot make an attack on someone behind full cover, so do the gods come down and physically prevent the archer from drawing his bow on someone hiding behind an invisible brick wall? Does the arrow just suddenly veer off at a 90 degree angle to avoid hitting it?
That said, Edymnion, it's all well and good to point out these flaws in the RAW. But to imply a need for change is to imply an unrealistic demand. Just thinking of the cost from a project management perspective, the ROI is really zero. What does Paizo get out of such a change? Maybe if it's a simple fix, it can be included in a later release of errata one day, but don't count on it.
Never said anything about changing the RAW. Its a discussion about what looks to me to be an oversight in the RAW and the best way to handle it if it should ever come up.
And just for the sake of the conversation, an invisible wall is not just a thought experiment here. A Wall of Force spell is specifically said to be an invisible wall, so it stands a very good chance of coming up in any game with a 9th level Wizard in it.
The DM could say "you can't attack him" or the attack simply misses (If I was the DM I would describe it as the arrow glancing off something solid, but others might do it differently)
But anything like that would reveal the presence of an invisible object/creature, which was the original point of the thread.
Which gets back to either the invisible object is capable of interfering with the shot and hence giving itself away, or it is not capable of interfering which opens up the whole "well if it can't interfere with a shot, then it means anything that is invisible must also be intangible unless specifically targeted, and incapable of providing cover" thing.
If that arrow does anything but travel in a perfectly straight line every single time, no matter if you had 5,000 archers shooting a nearly solid wall of arrows through that square, then it must be possible to use a fired arrow to detect an invisible object/creature without specifically targeting that square.
Its a fun disconnect between common sense and literal letter of the law.
Kind of like this (potentialy NSFW) Robot Chicken skit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SlWegS2sS0
Walls and creatures are distinctly different.
The rules, simply put, don't allow you to make a line attack with an arrow to try to find invisible creatures. You must target the square, period.
If you want to make house rule to simulate better realism, fine. But please note, it is a house rule. Not how the rules of Pathfinder actually work.
And this is the rules forum, so were are giving you the answer by the rules. You came here asking for help understanding the rules.
But if you knew how you wanted it to work, why bother asking? If you didn't already decide how you wanted it to work why do you refuse to accept the answer according to the rules?
The rules don't specifically say the arrow would hit the invisible wall that is in front of the invisible person. They do.say that total cover means there is no line of affect. Therefore it is safe to assume that whatever is providing total cover is what the arrow hit. You are free to come up with your own flavor but the rules are consistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Hit' has a specific meaning in the game rules. It doesn't mean bumps against, is blocked by or anything else. It means interacts in such a way that damage is rolled. When you make an attack roll, for example, many of the misses you roll may well 'hit' the creature or his armor but they are not hits as pathfinder defines the term.
So yes, an invisible wall that you don't target the square of can never be hit. That doesn't mean your arrow won't encounter the wall and fail to hit your target, it just means you won't roll damage against the wall.
You guys do realize what you're advocating... right?
Replace your invisible wall with a second invisible creature. Now you're shooting past an invisible creature at an invisible creature. What changes ?