| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing about this is that for all the should and should nots , the rules are pretty clear on how this works. If they are invisible then you are denied your dex against their attacks. How you come to grips with that is your deal, the rules don't explain how it work, just what it does. Many things of the rules don't make sense, like a gargantuan dragon's bite being deflected by a halfling using crane wing. I don't have any idea WHY it should work, but rules say it works.
Krith, bbangerter has answered pretty much as I would have (perhaps better).
Seeing a floating sword does nothing to see the creature's body.
Flour or Tar should count similarly to glitter dust.
Being on Fire does not mean you see the entire body.
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.
Flour will momentarily reveal presence. It does NOT defeat invisibility.
Tar will cover a creature, and will also reveal presence, it is random in thickness and color, making it difficult to determine when and where an attack is coming. Is it effective enough to break invisibility? GM call.
About the DC to hear the bow, you forgot some modifiers.
DC 25: hear a bow being drawn
DC +3: distance 30'
DC +5: Terrible conditions (battles are loud)
DC +5: Distractions (you are in combat)
DC +20: Creature is invisible
========
DC 58
Even with a Perception base of +36 (per OP), you cannot pinpoint the square.
/cevah
The creature being invisible does not add to the hearing perception DC. Of course, making a hearing perception check to notice a bow being drawn doesn't pinpoint the square either.
That would require a GM call, as the RAW does not differentiate sight vs. sound.
Even without the +20 Invisible, a DC 38 is still NOT automatic vs. base 36. You only need a 2, but that needs a roll.
/cevah
Cevah, perhaps you should reread my post.
Did I say flour counts similar to glitterdust? Checking...NOPE. I said flour *should* count similar to glitterdust. That is quite a different statement and was stated in the context of a response to bbangerter's post where he said common sense should not be thrown out when reading RAW. We already knew the RAW on this.
Additionally, throwing a bit of flour to pinpoint someone is something ENTIRELY different from covering them in flour (which is the discussion at hand). *Covering* a creature in flour is not represented by the rule you quoted and thus GM adjudication would be required. Heck, it would be required to figure out a way to cover them in flour.
Please do not quote me and then respond to a point I did not make as if I made it.
|
Senko,
You absolutely are dodging the arrow. Remember, everything happens in 5' squares. The target can only move within that square during an opponent's attack, so there's no taking cover or moving away from the archer, trying to prevent him from targeting the PC, etc.; there is only twisting and turning to avoid the arrow.And remember, in this, I'm not talking about completely dodging the arrow. I'm talking about having the chance to defend against the Sneak Attack. If the PC doesn't know where the archer is, then yes, they can't defend against the SA (see the original post and the first attack). The PC can twist or turn away in either situation.
Gauss,
If you want specific examples, here are a few that could quite realistically occur in a game:Invis creature picks up a sword and attacks. Sword is completely visible, yet, per RAW, the PC has no idea where the attack is coming from and can't defend himself.
Invis creature gets covered in flour or tar. You see a white creature or a black creautre, in its entirety, yet, per RAW, the PC has no idea where the attacks are coming from (and still has a 50% miss chance).
Invis creature fails a save versus a fire spell that causes the creature to catch on fire. Invis creature is now wreathed in fire, yet, according to RAW, you still don't know where the creature is.
I disagree but I don't think we're going to convince the other to me it doesn't matter if it's a five foot square or a fifty foot one you can still see where he's aiming left, right, high, low and you can see when he's releasing the shot which allows you to react to him. Without those ques your dodging the arrow itself and without special training that's moving too fast for you to react to by the time it becomes visible. Otherwise deflect arrow would be a combat manoeuvre like full attack not a feat/class ability because anyone could do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that in order to pinoint an invisible attacker, a perception check must be made and perception checks in combat require a move action. It's not free just because the character gets shot at by a invisible foe.
This means that while the character being targeted by the invisible archer is looking for said archer, he is limited to one standard action (his move action being consumed by the perception check).
Moreover, because it is a move action and not an immediate action, the perception check *must happen on his turn* and cannot be done while being attacked by the invisible archer.
So, by default, the rules state that the archer's target cannot pinpoint the archer until his turn comes around.
Cevah, perhaps you should reread my post.
Did I say flour counts similar to glitterdust? Checking...NOPE. I said flour *should* count similar to glitterdust. That is quite a different statement and was stated in the context of a response to bbangerter's post where he said common sense should not be thrown out when reading RAW. We already knew the RAW on this.
Any you mine. :-)
I responded to your point about how flour should work with a UE quote of how it does work.
I then went on to emphasize that the reveal was momentary, and not a multiple round effect. This is not a response to anyone, as it had not been mentioned specifically before. It might also be some RAW that not everyone was aware of. The note about not defeating invisibility is again an emphasis of the UE quote.
Please do not quote me and then respond to a point I did not make as if I made it.
Given the only other response was about a DC, and the quote of you said nothing about DC, I don't see how that could be construed as a response to you.
/cevah
Cevah, you responded to my post as if I were quoting RAW. I was not, I was specifically responding to bbangerter's post about how it *should* work, not how it *does* work.
As for not being a response to me, I was not addressing the section of your post regarding DCs. You absolutely did take my flour comment out of context and posted a response to my flour comment as if I had made a statement that I did not.
Cevah, you responded to my post as if I were quoting RAW. I was not, I was specifically responding to bbangerter's post about how it *should* work, not how it *does* work.
As for not being a response to me, I was not addressing the section of your post regarding DCs. You absolutely did take my flour comment out of context and posted a response to my flour comment as if I had made a statement that I did not.
How is it out of context when I quoted your entire post?
/cevah
Because your response was taking my post as a single post rather than part of a response to another post and the discussion that it was part of. Thus, you took it out of context.
To put it another way: My response was how it *should* run, not how the rules run it.
But your response was as if I had stated how the rules run it and that I was wrong.
That is out of context. Quoting an entire post without considering the context of the discussion can still be out of context.
Don't forget that in order to pinoint an invisible attacker, a perception check must be made and perception checks in combat require a move action. It's not free just because the character gets shot at by a invisible foe.
This means that while the character being targeted by the invisible archer is looking for said archer, he is limited to one standard action (his move action being consumed by the perception check).
Moreover, because it is a move action and not an immediate action, the perception check *must happen on his turn* and cannot be done while being attacked by the invisible archer.
So, by default, the rules state that the archer's target cannot pinpoint the archer until his turn comes around.
Being invisible doed not restrict you from perception checks you would get anyway. In addition if you beat the perception DC then the invisible creature is located. The perception check is not worth less just because you didn't use a move action.
Being invisible doed not restrict you from perception checks you would get anyway.
That is correct. However, while in combat, you are pretty well distracted by the threats that immediately surround you...and as has been demonstrated, you can't really re-actively pinpoint an invisible attacker at range after he shoots at you with an arrow based on the mere existence of an arrow thumping into something nearby. Especially since stealth never ends after the attack
The rule exists under the Take 10: when not threatened (aka in combat), you can take 10 which amounts to a passive or unknowning reactive perception check. However, per the OP description, that threat exists based on immediate circumstances -- no take 10 -- which means you are required to perform a move action to make the check.
In combat, you can "take 1" to allow just your modified perception skill to determine awareness and not have to take a move action, but you likely won't be very successful against a good stealthy opponent.
In addition if you beat the perception DC then the invisible creature is located. The perception check is not worth less just because you didn't use a move action.
See my "take 1" above. When you are threatened, you *have* to take at least a move action in order to make a perception check, otherwise, you make stealth essentially useless unless otherwise invisible -- and at the point where an opponent can use greater invisibility, you'll have true sight going anyway.
Being invisible doed not restrict you from perception checks you would get anyway.
That is correct. However, while in combat, you are pretty well distracted by the threats that immediately surround you...and as has been demonstrated, you can't really re-actively pinpoint an invisible attacker at range after he shoots at you with an arrow based on the mere existence of an arrow thumping into something nearby. Especially since stealth never ends after the attack
The rule exists under the Take 10: when not threatened (aka in combat), you can take 10 which amounts to a passive or unknowning reactive perception check. However, per the OP description, that threat exists based on immediate circumstances -- no take 10 -- which means you are required to perform a move action to make the check.
In combat, you can "take 1" to allow just your modified perception skill to determine awareness and not have to take a move action, but you likely won't be very successful against a good stealthy opponent.
In addition if you beat the perception DC then the invisible creature is located. The perception check is not worth less just because you didn't use a move action.
See my "take 1" above. When you are threatened, you *have* to take at least a move action in order to make a perception check, otherwise, you make stealth essentially useless unless otherwise invisible -- and at the point where an opponent can use greater invisibility, you'll have true sight going anyway.
I did not say anything about taking 10, and taking 10 had nothing to do with requiring a move action. Those are two different things. Even in combat you can get your automatic checks. What the taking 10 rule is saying you can't be so casual while making the skill checks due to a distraction or danger at hand. There is nothing that says you must use a move action.
Example:
A creature is hiding in a room.
Combat starts.
The creature yells. The reason does not really matter
By the rules you need a perception check to hear the creature.
By your logic since you are in combat nobody can hear the creature yell.
Also, I never said anything about pinpointing based on an arrow.
By the rules you get the same perception checks no matter if someoen is invisible or not, and if you beat the DC then you pinpoint the creature.
You have not cited any rules to counter that.
By the rules you need a perception check to hear the creature.By your logic since you are in combat nobody can hear the creature yell.
No, by what I stated is that no one can pinpoint the creature without a move action perception check. -- This simulates actively looking for the creature -- if you are in combat.
A reactive perception check is a "take one" type of check that allows you to hear it -- but since you are in combat, you cannot pinpoint without actively looking/listening.
|
The creature being invisible does not add to the hearing perception DC. Of course, making a hearing perception check to notice a bow being drawn doesn't pinpoint the square either.
A character using stealth gains a +20 bonus to their stealth roll to set the DC for perception checks to notice the invisible creature. Nothing in the rules indicates that bonus only applies to sight-based perception checks.
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
Also, all this discussion of pinpointing an invisible creature's square seems to indicate you know exactly where the invisible creature is standing. A medium size creature occupies about 1 square foot of that area...so you can determine that a medium creature takes up approximately 4% of that area. The remaining 96% of that area is empty. Let's say that a medium creature actually occupies 10% of that 5 foot square; now you only have 90% empty space.
But even all of that is irrelevant. Creatures attacked by an invisible creature are denied their dexterity bonus to AC. Anyone denied their dexterity bonus to AC is can be sneak attacked. No other suppositions matter. No mundane means are allowed to totally negate invisibility. Few magical means are allowed to totally negate invisibility. Of all the rules I've seen discussed here, this is probably the one with the least ambiguity.
|
Second, you wrote "Especially since stealth never ends after the attack." Which is wrong and actually the opposite is almost always true (Sniping being the exception). Per the PRD:"Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
So yes, the first attack does break stealth even though the archer is still invisible. Now that the archer is no longer stealthed and is "in combat," which per invisibility rules gives a -20 to the DC to notice, the perception check to know where the archer is becomes the distance modifier.
Now once the archer's turn ends, that -20 goes away and becomes a +20 for standing still, however, as they full attacked, they cannot stealth until their next turn.
Being stealthed or not doesn't really matter for sneak attacks from invisible foes. They are still invisible and you are denied your Dex to AC. Therefore, their sneak attack applies.
In melee combat, being able to see your opponent's body position and how they shift their weight allows you to dodge their strikes. If they are invisible, you are denied that Dex bonus to your AC. It works similarly for ranged attacks. If you can't actually see their body moving, you can't use Dex to defend yourself.
Being invisible is like a constant, auto-succeeding feint in combat. Doesn't matter if they know where you are, they still can't see it coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would require a GM call, as the RAW does not differentiate sight vs. sound.
Even without the +20 Invisible, a DC 38 is still NOT automatic vs. base 36. You only need a 2, but that needs a roll.
/cevah
RAW does differentiate between the senses, look at Bloodhound, +8 with Scent based PER rolls. This tells us they expect bonuses and penalties based on what sense you're using (there are many other examples as well). I will agree that there is some ambiguity there though.
I also want people to understand what a 36 perception is capable of though: They could detect a creature burrowing beneath them (DC 25) while asleep (DC +10), from 10' away (+1). When you get to this level you are far more than human, and talk of what is realistic really isn't *ehem* realistic. Couldn't a being who could sense a critter burrowing beneath them while they were asleep, from 10' away, conceivably pinpoint an invisible creature and watch with HD clarity the arrow come straight at them? Sure, it doesn't sound any more far fetched from what they can already do.
Not that any of this changes the fact that RAW says you lose DEX, so that's what happens.
Quintain, a few things about what you wrote:
First, Perception is a reaction to stimulus. Per the PRD:
"Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
If you miss the observable stimulus (ie person attacking you) and then want to use a move action on your turn, you can, however, whenever something presents an observable stimulus, it's a free roll.
Yes, the key is "observable stimulus". There is no way that someone that is engaged in combat and thus observing threats against his person that are immediate and proximate will be able to see an arrow coming at him at 300ft per second that starts ~30ft away. No chance. It is not physically possible (barring the use of magic) to track an arrow in flight unless you know where it originated from or are looking down it's flight path at the time it launches and you know to look for it ahead of time. And since the start of the launch of the arrow is invisible, there is no observable stimulus from which to base your roll.
The only "observable stimulus" is the thwack of the arrow into whatever it hit when it missed it's target. At that point, you can deduce the route that it took, but given all the archer feats that allow you to shoot around and ricochet things, that is where you get your move action to actively search for the archer.
Second, you wrote "Especially since stealth never ends after the attack." Which is wrong and actually the opposite is almost always true (Sniping being the exception). Per the PRD:"Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."
So yes, the first attack does break stealth even though the archer is still invisible. Now that the archer is no longer stealthed and is "in combat," which per invisibility rules gives a -20 to the DC to notice, the perception check to know where the archer is becomes the distance modifier.
Now once the archer's turn ends, that -20 goes away and becomes a +20 for standing still, however, as they full attacked, they cannot stealth until their next turn.
Kirth, the archer in question was using Greater invisibility, not regular invisibility, which does not end after an attack. There was no sniping going on, because sniping would have be superfluous.
Being invisible is like a constant, auto-succeeding feint in combat. Doesn't matter if they know where you are, they still can't see it coming.
Exactly. Not being able to see it coming means no observable stimulus until after the attack is resolved. This by itself prevents a reactive perception check and as a result requires a move action on the target's turn in order to locate the invisible archer.
Quintain what if an invisible person yells?
You would know which 5ft square it came from, but you wouldn't know where they were pointing their arrow or when they were going to release.
This statement is wrong. Stealth and invisibility are two separate things. I'm well aware the archer is using Greater Invisibility (I posted the scenario), however, that doesn't do anything to Stealth. Stealth is a skill with it's own rules. Invisibility is a condition with it's own rules. The rules of Stealth say it breaks with an attack. Nothing in the rules for invisibility change this. Therefore, the archer is still invisible, however, he cannot also gain the advantage of Stealth.
I'm starting to get confused. Weren't you trying to claim that the archer would no longer get sneak attack? If he is still invisible, he still gets sneak attack as per the rules. Like you said, there's no point bringing reality in to the equation of a gamist system, so that's basically it. Why is there still an argument going on if you agree?
Quintain,
You're still missing a lot and not understanding what I'm saying.
Mr.Q has not responded to my question about yelling, which I have asked twice. I am assuming he has dropped the case or he is trying to find a way around my question. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the rules leave this ambiguous in terms of hearing perception vs sight perception.
I don't think the rules are ambiguous. If we switch it around, and say you're blinded instead of the attacker being invisible, the same rules apply. The blinded condition has nothing to do with hearing, and you are still denied your DEX.
Blind Fighting feat represents a character training his other senses well enough to fight when he can't see. If you allow a hear perception check to negate the effects of being blind, that feat becomes a waste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hearing a sound is not the same a seeing the action. People who are blind but with excellent hearing still cannot see hand gestures. They are still unaware of key elements of activities.
In any case, Greater Invisibility is not ambiguous, if you hear them (perception check) then you pinpoint their square. But using Perception does not in any way allow you to avoid the loss of Dexterity (there are other methods that are not perception related) from an Invisible attacker.
Simply put, the rules on this are clear, if you are being attacked by someone with Greater Invisibility you lose your dexterity unless you have a special ability that says you do not. Perception is not such an ability.
RAW is bad, m'kay?
Blind Fighting feat represents a character training his other senses well enough to fight when he can't see. If you allow a hear perception check to negate the effects of being blind, that feat becomes a waste.
As well as Uncanny Dodge / Improved Uncanny Dodge class features
Mr.Q has not responded to my question about yelling, which I have asked twice. I am assuming he has dropped the case or he is trying to find a way around my question. :)Quintain,
You're still missing a lot and not understanding what I'm saying.
No, I don't happen to troll the message boards 24/7, so your premature declaration of victory is just that, premature.
Secondly. So what if he does yell? It's immaterial to the situation.
Lastly, if he did yell, can someone in combat discern which specific 5' square a yell comes from?
He might be able to tell distance or direction in an approximate arc from his location, which is a deduction on his part, but it still wouldn't allow for pin-pointing of the archer.
So, your question is immaterial. He doesn't know the source...it's no different than trying to back track the path of the arrow. Is it in a cave with echoes? The simple fact of him being in combat and being able to deduce the origin of a yell is highly unlikely, and would take more effort than a simple reactive perception check.
If the archer yelled, I would say "you hear a yell". He would have to take a move action to try to discern location.
Gauss,
I disagree. Nothing in Invisibility states hearing them pinpoints them. It does reference using Perception to pinpoint them. I'm not arguing that.What I'm saying is:
1. Invisibility doesn't effect hearing.
2. Hearing a bow being drawn is a hearing-based Perception roll.
3. Nothing in RAW says hearing only allows "pinpointing" to a 5' square
4. Therefore, it works just like any other perception check and you are aware of exactly where the bow is.Jodokai,
Since the above scenario allows the knowing of exactly where the bow and arrow are, regardless of the archer being invisible, there is an ambiguity in the RAW regarding Hearing Perception being effected by Invisibility as hearing should not, by RAW, be effected by Invisibility.Also, see the Blinded condition which states:
"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."
At no point do we learn from RAW what can or cannot be overcome while being blinded when accustomed to being blind, but certainly we can assume the RAI for this statement is that the other senses compensate for the loss of sight and negate (at least in part) the negatives of not having sight.
I know it's not RAW, but I'd go with a +36 Perception as being at least the level of perception of your average blind person who's adjusted to being blind.
And how does any of this change the fact that the archer still has total concealment against the defender? Again, being aware of where the bow is does not necessarily mean you can adequately defend yourself.
That's ultimately what this all boils down to. Can you figure out the square a person is attacking you from? Yes. This has never been in dispute. What you cannot do is adequately defend yourself, even though you know roughly from where you are being attacked, because (absent other abilities that negate the benefits of Invisibility) you cannot see your attacker.
Invisibility doesn't really impact hearing. But, you can still have concealment from somebody, even though they can hear you.
Krith, dont set up a situation where you use hearing to be aware of the location of a bow being drawn and then tell people that hearing cannot pinpoint a square. That is disingenuous.
In your situation you said "However, as a character is aware of where the arrow is coming from based on hearing Perception,"
Thus, you are establishing that based on a hearing you have pinpointed the square.
If you expect people to take your discussion seriously try not to contradict yourself.
So, lets go over this again:
In your situation someone (the target) has used a Perception check using 'hearing' as the basis to locate (pinpoint) an invisible creature (the attacker) using a bow.
That is your situation that YOU set up.
Now, based on that...the creature is still denying the target his dexterity bonus. Why? Because the target may know where the attacker is but cannot see him. Sight is required, sound can help you pinpoint but not avoid being defenseless unless you have a special ability that says otherwise.
Krith,
There is nothing that would enable you to 'know exactly where it is' via hearing other than the rules on pinpointing. Thus, you must be using those rules. If you are not using the rules on pinpointing then you are firmly outside of the rules and I suggest you seek out the house rules forum.
Gauss,
I disagree. Nothing in Invisibility states hearing them pinpoints them. It does reference using Perception to pinpoint them. I'm not arguing that.
The rules state that getting a perception DC of X pinpoints them. Either you get X or you did not. If the DC is 75, and you get a 76 then you pinpoint them. That is in the book.
If you have a counter that says defeating the DC of X still does not allow pinpointing then quote it.
Mr.Q has not responded to my question about yelling, which I have asked twice. I am assuming he has dropped the case or he is trying to find a way around my question. :)Quintain,
You're still missing a lot and not understanding what I'm saying.No, I don't happen to troll the message boards 24/7, so your premature declaration of victory is just that, premature.
Secondly. So what if he does yell? It's immaterial to the situation.
Lastly, if he did yell, can someone in combat discern which specific 5' square a yell comes from?
He might be able to tell distance or direction in an approximate arc from his location, which is a deduction on his part, but it still wouldn't allow for pin-pointing of the archer.
So, your question is immaterial. He doesn't know the source...it's no different than trying to back track the path of the arrow. Is it in a cave with echoes? The simple fact of him being in combat and being able to deduce the origin of a yell is highly unlikely, and would take more effort than a simple reactive perception check.
If the archer yelled, I would say "you hear a yell". He would have to take a move action to try to discern location.
Actually you posted it since the first time I asked and two since the rules say some perception checks are immediate in response to observable stimuli, which noise is, then no move action is needed. Now if you have a quote saying ____ changes observable stimuli into a move action then provide the quote.
Like I told the last post the rules say if you bypass a perception of X you get to pinpoint the location. Do you have a rules exception?
Gauss,
I never said hearing the bow draw lets you pinpoint anything. I said hearing the bow draw lets you know exactly where it is. "Pinpointing" in Pathfinder is a specific thing that is used for Invisible creatures.Nothing in hearing the bow draw in the Perception rules refers to pinpointing, therefore, if that's how you're using hearing, you're not using RAW.
First are you discussing RAW or RAI(how the devs would call it if they were here)?
With that aside===>The rules never say that pinpointing is done by sight, and pinpointing is not exclusive to invisibility either.
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 hiding creature can also not be seen, and the creature with scent can also be blind.
Also if the creature is invisible there is no reason why he can not be pinpointed. Are you now saying the archer is not invisible.
Invis is just a modifier to the perception DC.
If invis is not adding to the DC then he is out in the open so the perception DC is likely a nonfactor unless he is very far away.
I think people often underestimate how effective hearing is, especially if that's the only sense you have to rely on. Even as an untrained commoner, I can determine fairly well where a nearby noise is coming from. For a heroic player, who often has to deal with invisibility and generally has superhuman abilities, it should be no surprise that some of them can pinpoint a creature's locations without actually seeing it.
Note, even if you pinpoint a creature's location without sight, you're still at a significant disadvantage. This is why they still get a +2 to hit you, deny you your dexterity bonus to AC, and have a 50% chance to avoid all your attacks.
I agree, but to clear things up, I also think perception is a combination of senses, and sight can also be a factor even if you can't see the creature.
Maybe the invisible archer with a perception DC of 75(the number is not really important) kicked up some dust, or shuffled his feet, and you see the impression in the dirt.
How it is flavored does not matter. What matter is whether or not the DC was met.
PS: I think we agree. I was just using your post to clear things up.