Yep, I'm on board with you on this wraithstrike.
Things just get a little tricky when trying to determine if invisibility's stealth modifiers apply versus a non-visual stimuli.
Imho, usually one should assume there's a significant visual component to an invisible creature's actions and apply the standard modifiers. But if they, say, stumble into and knock over a pile of pots and pans, using the audible based perception checks instead may be appropriate.
Another example might be using smell to pinpoint an invisible troglodyte (although one will have to come up with appropriate DCs on the fly, since there's no smell based perception table ;) Actually, the DCs would probably be very high for this, since the sense of smell isn't generally that accurate.
I just avoid ah-hoc modifiers when I can. Invis+stealth already has enough issues. :)
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?
Like I said, I don't troll the forums 24/7.
In a combat situation, where metal is clanging off metal and people are screaming in pain from damage being taken, it begs common sense that barring magical assistance that you can even attempt to isolate a single yell that you have no idea where it is coming from on a passive/reactive basis.
Sound is not an observable stimulus in combat any more than isolating a specific cup of water is observable in a lake.
Especially without effort or the aid of magic.
Despite the lack of RAW that makes a distinction between sound and sight, a human being's senses cannot pinpoint anything with sound. Especially something that is using stealth coupled with invisibility. The best you can do is determine direction and then guess. If you move around and try to echo-locate, that is one thing (aka move action). Standing still is another.
Now, to be fair, you aren't completely blind and deaf while in combat -- which is why I would allow for a reactive skill check with a default of 1 in order to react to "observable stimulus". But there is no way that it is even conceivable that you can do so without any effort at all whatsoever -- thus the requirement of a move action to pinpoint.
As a kid I played plenty of blind man's bluff (literally hours of this game), and I can tell you from personal experience that a human being cannot "pinpoint" a single sound like a bow being drawn while being surrounded by extremely loud ambient noise -- especially when there is significant life threatening danger that accompanies that ambient noise.
Here is the rule I am using in my descriptions:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Our disagreement is what qualifies as "observable stimulus". I've been quite clear on what I believe is and is not observable stimulus. Do you have a RAW adjudication on what specifically is and is not observable stimulus?
Other than your opinion, I have not seen any RAW examples.
Here's some help: there aren't any. A search of the term "stimulus" exists in the PRD only in the quote above". So, your and my disagreement boils down to nothing more than what you would do as a GM and what I would do as a GM.
So, kindly kick the message board warrior attitude.
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?
Like I said, I don't troll the forums 24/7.
In a combat situation, where metal is clanging off metal and people are screaming in pain from damage being taken, it begs common sense that barring magical assistance that you can even attempt to isolate a single yell that you have no idea where it is coming from on a passive/reactive basis.
Sound is not an observable stimulus in combat any more than isolating a specific cup of water is observable in a lake.
Especially without effort or the aid of magic.
Despite the lack of RAW that makes a distinction between sound and sight, a human being's senses cannot pinpoint anything with sound. Especially something that is using stealth coupled with invisibility. The best you can do is determine direction and then guess. If you move around and try to echo-locate, that is one thing (aka move action). Standing still is another.
Now, to be fair, you aren't completely blind and deaf while in combat -- which is why I would allow for a reactive skill check with a default of 1 in order to react to "observable stimulus". But there is no way that it is even conceivable that you can do so without any effort at all whatsoever -- thus the requirement of a move action to pinpoint.
As a kid I played plenty of blind man's bluff (literally hours of this game), and I can tell you from personal experience that a human being cannot "pinpoint" a single sound like a bow being drawn while being surrounded by extremely loud ambient noise -- especially when there is significant life...
Real life is not the game. A whisper has a DC of 25 at 100 feet. That is not a really hard check, but in real life you are not going to "Hear the details of a whispered conversation" at 100 feet.
Even being 15 feet away it won't happen. You can might read lips, but you won't "hear" it clearly.
You also need a rules support to claim that someone can be heard because they are invisible in mid battle. That is why I brought up yelling. So far you have no statement equating "I am invisible" to "You have no chance at hearing me during a combat."
edit:I don't have any type of attitude. You just don't want to admit you might be wrong. Which is why you won't say "ok, I don't have any proof that invisible means nobody can hear me in battle".
I am going to ask you a simple question-->What do you think the devs would say about not being heard because you are invisible?<---I am expecting for you to say "I am not a mind reader", but I am not asking you to be a mind reader. I am just asking for your opinion.
edit 2: Corrected DC to 25 instead of 35 for hearing a whisper in detail at 100 feet.
So far you have no statement equating "I am invisible" to "You have no chance at hearing me during a combat."
Deliberate mis-interpretation of statements is not exactly a subtle method of debate.
I'm not saying that you cannot be heard while invisible in battle. I'm saying that the ambient noise of combat will overwhelm the ability to isolate said sounds enough to give anything more than the idea that someone invisible is lurking about -- and then the person will need to make a decision to devote actions in order to locate them.
The DC of 25 for hearing a whisper in detail at 100 feat assumes total silence at the moment of the check.
Here's my whole point: Circumstances matter.
So far you have no statement equating "I am invisible" to "You have no chance at hearing me during a combat."
Deliberate mis-interpretation of statements is not exactly a subtle method of debate.
I'm not saying that you cannot be heard while invisible in battle. I'm saying that the ambient noise of combat will overwhelm the ability to isolate said sounds enough to give anything more than the idea that someone invisible is lurking about -- and then the person will need to make a decision to devote actions in order to locate them.
The DC of 25 for hearing a whisper in detail at 100 feat assumes total silence at the moment of the check.
Here's my whole point: Circumstances matter.
Per the rules, it still doesn't take an active move action to hear such a sound.
Here is how the bowstring being drawn would work out, if the drawer was invisible, in the middle of a combat, by the rules (as under the description of the perception skill and descriptions of invisibility).
Base DC to hear the bowstring: 25
Terrible conditions: +5. Terrible conditions being defined as:For example, candlelight for DCs involving sight, a roaring dragon for DCs involving hearing, and an overpowering stench covering the area for DCs involving scent. (A dragon roaring pretty well covers about how loud a combat might be).
Creature making the check is distracted: +5 (being involved in combat would certainly count as distracted)
Creature or object is invisible: +20
Distance to bow: +1 per 10'
So DC 55 +1 per 10' distance just to hear it. Then on top of that, with no mention of having to be actively searching for it:
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check.
So another +20 on top to pinpoint the location when you hear it, or DC 75 +1 per 10'.
By intentionally taking a move action to listen for that sound you could reduce the DC by 5 under the premise that you aren't distracted.
So by the rules it is technically possible to pinpoint the square the sound of the bowstring being drawn came from as a reactive perception. I'm not sure it's actually possible to build a character completely focused on perception and get high enough to make that check, though you could probably get pretty close if you really wanted to focus on it.
If a character focused on perception like that, in a world of high magic, then that isn't really all that amazing an accomplishment when someone who focused on being a wizard to 20th level can create alternate dimensions with a single spell.
So far you have no statement equating "I am invisible" to "You have no chance at hearing me during a combat."
Deliberate mis-interpretation of statements is not exactly a subtle method of debate.
I'm not saying that you cannot be heard while invisible in battle. I'm saying that the ambient noise of combat will overwhelm the ability to isolate said sounds enough to give anything more than the idea that someone invisible is lurking about -- and then the person will need to make a decision to devote actions in order to locate them.
That is how I read your statement. I am not trying to misinterpret you.
Do you or do you not get a perception check if an invisible person makes a lot of noise in combat? Just to be clear I mean a free perception check just like you would get if he were standing next to you talking.
If you say yes, then we are on the same page.
If you say no, then explain why not using the rules.
Also if you say no I will ask would your GM allow you to hear you invisible party member talking because by the rules that also requires a perception check.
I am just trying to get a handle on what you are trying to say.
PS: We can assume this is all taking place in combat.
PS2: Do you think the rules for hearing someone change once you step out of combat? Why(with rules support)?
Also I agree that the 25 is with total silence but even in the real world you are not going to hear someone whisper in detail 100 feet away.
Just to be clear I am saying you will not "hear" the details of the whisper in real life. If you want a comparison a basketball court is about 95 feet long.
I'm honestly not sure what we're actually talking about anymore.
Initially, it was a concern that you should be able to avoid penalties for your attacker being invisible because they already attacked you at range. There's no rules support for that. Even if you pinpoint an invisible creature's position, that doesn't allow you (in the absence of other abilities) to negate the attacker's invisibility benefits when attacking you.
You do not need to take a move action to make a perception check while in combat. Whether you can use sound to pinpoint an invisible creature or not, the perception checks for pinpointing should not change. One can make a perception check to hear a bow being drawn and get a good idea about the direction where it is coming from, but that's not pinpointing. There are rules that tell us how to pinpoint an invisible creature. And none of the perception rules or pinpointing rules ever say anything about needing to take a move action to make such a check, unless I've missed something at some point.
If one wants to use sound to pinpoint, fine. We can use the rules to do that. But as bbangerter noted, the DC isn't 25. It's not 75 + distance (you counted the +20 from invisibility twice, as noted by Byakko) and it's arguable what conditional modifiers apply. But at the very least we're looking at a DC of 45 plus modifiers. For an invisible attacker drawing a bow 30' away, it's likely in the 50 range at least (3 from distance, 2 from background noise, possibly others). So it's not such a simple thing. Even our hypothetical adventurer with a +36 perception check is going to have a difficult time accomplishing that task. And even if s/he does, the attacker still gets all its benefits to being invisible.
I'm honestly not sure what we're actually talking about anymore...And none of the perception rules or pinpointing rules ever say anything about needing to take a move action to make such a check, unless I've missed something at some point.
I disagree. Pinpointing is an active attempt to locate a hidden creature. Thus a move action is required. In essence, you are trying to actively find the guy.
A reactive perception check would not be able to pinpoint someone that is invisible, it would, however, let the checker know that someone is there and thus give him a knowledgeable option that he isn't totally wasting his time. He now has the option to do a move action perception check that he knows might pinpoint the location of the invisible/stealthed creature.
This is slightly different than pinpointing someone that is blinded by darkness (which is a free action), because darkness is a 'natural condition' whereas invisibility is a magical effect even a high steal check is quasi magical (something a bit more powerful than just being in the dark).
And none of the perception rules or pinpointing rules ever say anything about needing to take a move action to make such a check, unless I've missed something at some point.
That's just it, the perception check rules say two different things -- one is a reactive check to "observable stimulus" (which is interpret-able) and another where there a perception check requires a move action to perform.
Show me where *anything* describes a perception check as anything other than a reactive check (the only example I can come up with is that a perception check to check for traps). Which would make requiring a move-action based perception check completely superfluous because a reactive one accomplishes the same thing without the loss action economy.
Hell, even the description for a move action perception check is contradictory -- actively searching for stimulus. According to Wraithstrike, if the stimulus is there, you get a check, making using a move action to do so being a waste of an action.
Krith, show us where perception allows you to hear the exact position of a bow being drawn.
Hint: you can't because all it says is that you hear it.
You are the one that stated you could hear it's position. I can quote you again if you'd like.
Your example is again flawed.
Can you hear the bow being drawn? Yes
Does hearing the bow being drawn give you the location? No! Although you MIGHT get direction (GM fiat there). In order to get location you must use the rules for pinpointing an invisible creature.
Without pinpointing the creature will you have to guess the creatures location in order to try to put the creature in one of the Faerie Fire squares? Yes.
A worthy effort, but I feel you have a few things wrong.1) The DC to hear the bow being drawn is only for just that. If the character is actually attacking with the bow, you must then head over to the stealth section, and use rules for sniping and/or similar modifiers. The DC actually turns out to be a lot easier. (I had an example on the previous page to illustrate this)
The stealth rules apply to hearing/finding the character, not to the bow being drawn. That is a different set of circumstances, and is a much easier thing then finding them because they drew their bow. Note also that the check to know where they are at because they attacked would come AFTER they'd already drawn and released the arrow. You *might* hear the bow being drawn, but you will very likely know where they are AFTER they attack. My post was specifically addressing the perception check needed to hear the bow being drawn.
2) A battle should certainly not be terrible conditions (perhaps you underestimate how loud something like a dragon's roar probably is?), unless it's a really big fight. A small party of PCs in a dungeon would likely suffer Unfavorable conditions, or none at all if they're fairly quiet and being attacked by someone trying to be stealthy.
My reply was to Quintain, who is making the claim that in combat you cannot possibly hear a bow being drawn. I used the worst possible conditions. There could certainly be more favorable conditions to make things easier.
3) Being in combat doesn't necessarily mean you're distracted. This could go either way, per GM call, but if a PC is specifically trying to find and attack an invisible foe, and isn't being directly attack by nearby combatants, this probably shouldn't apply.
Pretty sure I covered this, though not fully expanded upon.
By intentionally taking a move action to listen for that sound you could reduce the DC by 5 under the premise that you aren't distracted.
4) For a purely audible perception check, there shouldn't be a penalty to hear something based on being able to see it or not. I know it doesn't specifically say this, but come on... Sure, you could say the magic also aids vs sound, but there's plenty of mundane, non-magical, ways for people to be effectively invisible too.
I agree. I was merely stating the RAW. GM adjudication for circumstances is perfectly fine.
5) Even if you enforce the +20 DC to hear something for invis, it doesn't stack with your quote. This is the same modifier they're talking about, not an additional one.
There are two +20 modifiers in play. The first is to notice the presence of an invisible creature - this does not mean you know exactly where it is, only that it is present. (You probably already knew that anyway if it was actively attacking you in previous rounds, but it would be the same DC to know that it is still present, and hasn't wandered/run off). There is an additional +20 stacked on top of that to pinpoint the location - wherein you know exactly what 5' square it is in.
The -20 to invisibility for being in combat doesn't apply to the bow itself. The bow is just a thing - it is not 'in combat'. As noted above detecting the location of the creature (as opposed to the bow) is much more likely due to additional modifiers.
My reply was to Quintain, who is making the claim that in combat you cannot possibly hear a bow being drawn. I used the worst possible conditions. There could certainly be more favorable conditions to make things easier.
To clarify, my intent was not to state that you cannot hear the bow being drawn, but you would not be able to isolate out the sound of a single bow being drawn from the background noise of combat.
Example: You have 1 invisible archer, with two other enemies nearby (within say 10 feat of each other...one is an archer, the other a melee combatant). Can anyone honestly say that a human would be able to isolate the sound of a bow being draw between the invisible archer and the visible archer given they are in close proximity and they are both shooting inside the same 6 second window while being attacked?
That is why the combat is so important to the scenario. The focus required in combat in order to actively defend yourself is incredible (for a modern equivalent, take a look at offensive linemen in football and how they will often focus on one defensive lineman and completely miss a linebacker on a blitz).
The perception/stealth rules are such a mish-mash of illogical and contradictory rules with modifiers that are so ridiculous so as to defy description -- hell, Paizo had to re-word stealth so that you could actually sneak up on someone, which is kinda the whole point with stealth in the first place.
Krith,
You are adding the rule that Perception, as a blanket rule, allows you to determine the location of the thing you are perceiving. Please show the line that enables you to determine the location of the thing you are perceiving.
There is no such line. Perception does not enable people to determine location except via GM fiat. It is a very vague skill that you are trying to be too specific with.
For everyone trying to find out the DC to hear the bow check, even if want to add in the +20 for being invisible (not sure why) keep in mind the archer is not stealthed (broke on first attack) and, per Invisible rules, it's a -20 DC for the Invisible character "being in combat," so even if you're adding the +20 for being Invisible, you need to counter it with the -20 for being in combat.
Just an FYI on all your modifiers...
I wouldn't apply the -20 for being in combat, if the invisible person is standing 30' away from everybody else. But that's just me.
I wouldn't even say that stealth broke after the 1st attack given that invisibility ensures total concealment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All,
Everyone keeps referring to Pinpointing from my last comments.Remember, Pinpointing is it's own thing in Pathfinder and it is never mentioned in the Perception rules. Anyone who is saying that by making the Perception check to hear a bow being drawn, you are able to "Pinpoint" the location, is wrong. It's not in the rules for Perception. You're adding your own house rules to RAW, which is fine, but don't come on here and say that your house rule is RAW.
No, but the rules say you use Perception checks to pinpoint.
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.
Since Invisibility doesn't affect hearing, I'm taking it out of the equation and not using the Invisibility rules for hearing the sound of a bow draw; I'm using the Perception rules which clearly state what is needed.
I disagree, but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that even if you perceive somebody via hearing, they are still invisible to you and you're still denied your dexterity bonus.
I understand there are some hard-core loving invisibility peeps on this site that want to apply the +20 to everything, however, that's not how the condition works; it clearly states it only effects visual perception, from the PRD: "While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt."
True. The next line also says such creatures are impossible to detect via vision. That means that the +20 to Perception checks is relevant to other methods of detection. In other words, the Perception DCs are harder, not because seeing the creature is harder (that's impossible), but because other methods of detection are more difficult when you can't rely on sight. Detecting a creature you can't see is 20 DC harder than detecting one you can see.
This isn't real life. In Pathfinder, a non-blind character with a -2 Wis modifier and no points in Perception won't see a visible person right in front of them 5% of the time. Is there anyway this happens in real life, no. This same character is just as likely to notice a person standing 180' feet away. That's just how it is.
That's also how real life works. You've never walked into a room and not noticed somebody standing in the corner because you weren't paying attention? You've never been so engrossed in something that a person walks up to you without you noticing? PF is not real life, undoubtedly. But I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Also consider this scenario for a possible second round of combat, for those who want to add in "seeing the bow's aiming point is what allows you to defend yourself" or "there's not enough time from hearing the draw to firing the arrow to effectively defend yourself":
PC decides to ready a casting of Faerie Fire with the condition to trigger their casting being hearing the draw of the bow.
Let's assume the PC makes the check, whatever the modifiers, and casts the spell, outlining the Archer in Faerie Fire.
The PC still can't see the bow or where it's aiming, he can only see the Archer's outline, but can still react to the shot.
First, the enemy is completely outlined. It's not just a little faerie fire cutout. The creature is completely outlined. All of it. All the folds of fabric. All the lines of the weapons it is carrying. All the creases of its armor. All of it. And, the spell explicitly states that the creature does not benefit from the concealment granted by Invisibility. So why wouldn't a PC be able to tell where a person is aiming? Aside from that, you've routinely said you're not addressing the real world. But this point is addressing a "real world" point (your idea of being outlined by faerie fire is different than actually seeing somebody).
In fact, for all those arguing the time to react isn't there, this sequence show's there's actually plenty of time to react to the sound of the bow being drawn. Granted this is a breakdown based on the rules of initiative, but just listing it to show those that think "there's no time to react between the sound of the bow draw and the arrow being released" that there is, in fact, plenty of time in Pathfinder.
This is specifically where you're making the real world argument you've stated you're not actually making. First, the reaction isn't and never has been to the sound of the bow being drawn. The defensive action has to be against the sound (and sight) of the bow being fired. That's the point where the arrow becomes visible. That's the point when a defensive action can be taken. Avoiding a shot that hasn't been fired yet is pointless; but that's what happens if you react when the bow is drawn, rather than fired.
So again, if you want to get to the realism argument, there's no time to react.
Also, those that think you can't make out the differences between sounds that easily, or while in combat, that's exact what a high Perception does; it allows you to notice these things.
"Notice" is not the same as "pinpoint the exact location of".
And again, I'm still not sure what your ultimate point is right now. The rules do not allow you to negate invisibility by making a check to hear a creature. That a creature with Greater Invisibility has attacked once already is irrelevant. You lose Stealth by making an attack. You lose the benefits of the Invisibility spell by making an attack. You do not lose the benefits of the Greater Invisibility spell by making an attack.
This idea that you should be able to know where a character is after they've made a ranged attack while invisible has no basis in the rules. You can't even do that when a creature attacks you with reach on a melee attack. Why should the results be better when the attacker makes a ranged attack.
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.
I am honestly asking what you are arguing in favor of at this point, because I'm not sure. Is it just that you don't like the rules re: invisibility? You mentioned there being gaps earlier, but there really aren't any that you've demonstrated. Do you still think you shouldn't be denied your DEX bonus to AC on subsequent attacks from an invisible attacker?
Krith, again I ask:
Please show the line that enables you to determine the location of the thing you are perceiving.
Your entire premise of using Perception to hear the bow being drawn and subsequently hit the creature with Faerie Fire is based on locating the thing you are perceiving. Until you can show the line that allows you to do that you are not based in "RAW".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note to self: Avoid stealth/invisibility threads.
|
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.
Yes you heard the noise of a bow being drawn quick tell me where is it being aimed at you, the Wizard eating a meal next to you or the dukes son on the other side of the clearing? That's what the op is claiming from hearing a bow drawn he knows where it's aimed and when the person will shoot before he has initative.
My reply was to Quintain, who is making the claim that in combat you cannot possibly hear a bow being drawn. I used the worst possible conditions. There could certainly be more favorable conditions to make things easier.
To clarify, my intent was not to state that you cannot hear the bow being drawn, but you would not be able to isolate out the sound of a single bow being drawn from the background noise of combat.
Example: You have 1 invisible archer, with two other enemies nearby (within say 10 feat of each other...one is an archer, the other a melee combatant). Can anyone honestly say that a human would be able to isolate the sound of a bow being draw between the invisible archer and the visible archer given they are in close proximity and they are both shooting inside the same 6 second window while being attacked?
For us mere mortals, absolutely not. For someone with a +50 to their perception skill? And certainly a creature such as a bat could distinguish almost exactly where such a sound is originating from.
So the fact that it is in combat isn't really all that important except to note that being in combat makes hearing other things harder.
Understand, I don't agree with Krith in the least that simply hearing the bow string would allow you to dodge the arrow. Not in the real world and not in the RAW of Pathfinder - regardless of what your perception roll is or how many times a permanently invisible attacker has made attacks against you.
For us mere mortals, absolutely not. For someone with a +50 to their perception skill?
The bonus to the perception skill isn't as material to pinpointing the location as the active use of the skill. Even at +50 (which would obviously have the aid of magic) it requires *effort* to do what is being talked about when you are in danger of being killed.
+1 to the above posts. (but please replace "effect" with "affect" x10 *wince*)
This idea that you should be able to know where a character is after they've made a ranged attack while invisible has no basis in the rules.Hang on, there's still people arguing that you can't pinpoint an invisible creature via other senses? The only real ambiguity is which modifiers apply.
Also, you most certainly can ready an action versus the sound of a bow being drawn (if you can hear it), not just upon being fired. I don't even know why you would claim otherwise.
Anyway, *throws hands in air*. I don't think I want to participate in this thread further. Laters.
No. We're arguing that you can't negate the benefits an invisible attacker gets to his/her attacks by being invisible simply because you can hear a bow being drawn. And again, the argument isn't that hearing wouldn't allow a person to pinpoint - it's that hearing a bow being drawn while you're in the midst of being on the receiving end of a full attack doesn't necessarily let you pinpoint the attacker. You can't pinpoint the square of a melee attacker with reach just because you were attacked; why should it be different for a ranged attacker?
Readying an action for hearing a bow being drawn is one thing. What is being argued is that the second attack made in a round by an invisible archer shouldn't benefit from you being flat-footed. There is absolutely no basis for this in the rules.
Invisibility doesn't effect hearing.
The rules for hearing are covered by Perception.
Perception allows you to know where a sound is coming from (and not just it's 5' square)
Since Invisibility doesn't effect hearing, the rules for Invisibility should not be applied to hearing Perception checks.
If you succeed on a hearing Perception check that alerts you to imminent danger, you should be able to defend yourself against that danger, even if it's coming from an Invisible creature, because you're not aware of it based on Sight, but based on Hearing, which isn't effected by Invisibility.
But the rules don't even work this way for melee attacks when someone is standing right next to you. Why should it be any different for ranged attacks?
If you're attacked by an invisible TWF Rogue with a BAB of +11 and all three relevant feats, you're (possibly) in for a world of hurt. You're denied your DEX to each and every one of those attacks, barring other relevant abilities. Each of them that hits applies sneak attack. This is straight up rules on the page and absolutely, unequivocally how they are intended to function.
Do you believe it's supposed to be different than this for ranged attacks? Why?
Once more, you can be fully, without a doubt, 100% aware that you are being attacked by an invisible opponent, and you can absolutely, without a doubt, 100% know exactly what square that attacker is in (you have both perceived and pinpointed the person - it happens automatically when you're hit with a melee attack from an adjacent attacker), and you are still denied DEX against every single one of that attacker's attacks. Pinpointing an invisible creature does not matter; pinpointing does not allow you to avoid incoming attacks any better. All pinpointing does is give you the opportunity to attack back once it's your turn to go. All pinpointing is is a specific application of Perception.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Perception doesn't say anything about knowing the exact location of a sound. That you can hear a bow string being pulled doesn't mean you know precisely where it is. There's nothing in the Perception rules that tells us what you're claiming.
For instance, if you are ambushed by a hidden sniper, and you hear the bow being drawn, does that mean you automatically know where the sniper is during the surprise round? No. You still have to beat the sniper's Stealth check. That you've heard the bow being drawn (and from that might even get a narrow direction from where the sound came) doesn't mean that you know precisely from where the sound emanated. It works no differently with an invisible attacker - you might know that a bow has been drawn and generally from what direction, but there's nothing in the rules that tell us that hearing the bow being drawn lets you know that your attack is 20' away, directly NNW of your current position.
And even if you do figure out what square your ambusher is in, if you haven't beaten the Stealth check, the attacker still has total concealment against you. Hearing the bow being drawn lets you act in the surprise round; it does not let you negate invisibility.
The bonus to the perception skill isn't as material to pinpointing the location as the active use of the skill. Even at +50 (which would obviously have the aid of magic) it requires *effort* to do what is being talked about when you are in danger of being killed.
For us mere mortals, absolutely not. For someone with a +50 to their perception skill?
Can you supply a rules quote to back this up? That it requires active effort in combat?
It is true that perception is sometimes an active effort, but no where in the rules does it tell us when active effort is required as opposed to passive stimulus.
At best you can claim that when you GM you run it that way because you feel it should work that way.
But let's go back to your example of two archers, and my pointing out that a bat would be able to pinpoint the source location of the sound. Do you believe a bat could do this? (Yes or no). And if a bat could do it, could a super human, with the aid of magic, not do the same thing? If no, why not?
The bonus to the perception skill isn't as material to pinpointing the location as the active use of the skill. Even at +50 (which would obviously have the aid of magic) it requires *effort* to do what is being talked about when you are in danger of being killed.
For us mere mortals, absolutely not. For someone with a +50 to their perception skill?
Can you supply a rules quote to back this up? That it requires active effort in combat?
He claims I misrepresented him so I brought up an example of someone talking in combat as well since it is also sound based, and asked him to cite the rules and explain why he thought it would work a certain way.
I also wanted him to use rules on explaining why he thought hearing someone yell that was invisible would also not get a free(no move action) check.
His idea from what I understand is that in real life you would be too distracted to notice an invisible person's noise however that has no basis in the rules.
Maybe I am misunderstanding him, but all he has to do is give specific examples in combat to clear this up.
This is the link with the actual questions in case I am misremembering what I asked.
Hang on, perhaps I see the misunderstanding now.
Just because you can pinpoint a creature with sound, doesn't mean it denies an invisible attacker's bonuses for being invisible. It merely lets you know what square they are in.
I may have been imprecise when I said you can't pinpoint a creature with hearing. You can. However, my point is that it's not as simple (typically) as making a DC25 Perception check.
I'd allow a DC25 Perception check to notice the bow of an invisible or hidden creature being drawn. I would not allow a DC25 Perception check to overcome invisibility or stealth. As I said to Krith, at most a DC25 Perception check (against an invisible/stealthed attacker) will let you act in the hypothetical surprise round and perhaps give you a positive modifier on your Perception check to pinpoint the creature, since you already have an indication of its general location.
And we are completely in agreement that detection or even pinpointing do not overcome invisibility. Krith appears to think otherwise. It was mainly this that I'm addressing. We might be able to quibble about which situations get which modifiers and what the actual DC to hear a bow being drawn by an invisible attack is. But there is absolutely no room for disagreeing with the fact that even if you pinpoint an invisible creature, or identify that creatures location with a perception check, the creature still has total concealment against you and applies all the relevant bonuses when it attacks, including denying you your DEX (absent other relevant abilities, of course).
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Perception doesn't say anything about knowing the exact location of a sound. That you can hear a bow string being pulled doesn't mean you know precisely where it is. There's nothing in the Perception rules that tells us what you're claiming.Dude, it's right here:
"It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check."
That's clearly saying that with a +20DC, you can pinpoint a creature with a perception check. Hearing based perception checks are just as valid as sight based ones.
Specifically with regard to this, I agree. I actually made the same point earlier. The purpose of my edit was to argue from Krith's perspective. He is under the impression that making a hearing-based Perception check to discern the location of an invisible foe is separate from the rules on pinpointing such a creature. He thinks pinpointing has nothing to do with hearing and since the Perception entry itself doesn't at all mention pinpointing, it's adjudicated only under the specific Perception rules. Hence his conclusion that hearing an invisible foe is good enough to overcome the benefits the foe has from being invisible.
If that is the case (that Perception and pinpointing are separate things, rather than Perception being the vehicle through which you pinpoint an invisible creature - which is what I have been arguing), then there needs to be specific rules in the Perception entry that tell us you can specifically locate a creature using hearing, as opposed to simply getting a general feel for the creature's location. There is no mention of such a thing in the Perception entry. All that information is in the section on pinpointing.
But let's go back to your example of two archers, and my pointing out that a bat would be able to pinpoint the source location of the sound. Do you believe a bat could do this? (Yes or no). And if a bat could do it, could a super human, with the aid of magic, not do the same thing? If no, why not?
A bat locates creatures through echolocation, does your character that has the +50 percpeption have echolocation? Meaning does he actively transmit ultra-sonic sounds in order to perceive his surroundings?
No?
Then your bat analogy is flawed. Having a +50 to your perception doesn't give you the ability to echo-locate. You'd have to have a specific spell cast in order to gain that extra-ordinary ability.
Pinpointing is an active attempt to locate someone, a reactive check is just that, reactive. It is in the definition of the words themselves.
There are no in-game examples of how perception vs opposing an invisible opponent are supposed to be played (which is the whole reason for this thread, incidentally).
Here is the quote:
Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Now, it is applied in game thusly:
While in combat, if you do anything in relation to your invisible attacker, and you have not already pinpointed him, you are intentionally searching for stimulus (you have to make a check to beat his stealth).
Ergo, move action.
Moreover, pinpointing can be foiled surprisingly easy: All the archer has to do to foil all the passive pinpointing attempts that you guys say the defender is entitled is take a 5' step after all his attacks are done. Once that 5' step is taken, all your reactive perception checks are rendered moot.
If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
It's really that simple.
Lastly, it falls down to common sense: in order to remain in stealth, the hiding character has to dedicate move actions to perform this activity, it stands to reason that someone that is focusing on this stealthed opponent should also have to dedicate an equal amount of time and effort to find him.
P.S. If you are blindly sticking to RAW, you might as well have all perception checks take 20 given that they are reactive to "observable stimulus" if you apply the "Try again rules".
Reactive + observable stimulus + Try again = Take 20 on Perception.
He claims I misrepresented him so I brought up an example of someone talking in combat as well since it is also sound based, and asked him to cite the rules and explain why he thought it would work a certain way.
How does one determine if someone else is speaking? It isn't just the sounds being transmitted -- it is the visual cue of the mouth moving in specific ways that the listener recognizes as words he understands.
Watch a badly dubbed Chinese Martial arts film for examples.
Quitain,
Stealth is separate from Invisibility, you're combining the two. You can be Stealthed and Invisible, Stealthed but not Invisible, and Invisible but not Stealthed. Stealth breaks on an attack, unless sniping, even if you have full concealment, even if you are Invisible. You would still need to do a move action to re-apply Stealth (note: you don't need to USE a move action to use Stealth, but it is attached to a move action). As the Archer did a full attack, he no longer has a move action to reapply Stealth with.
No, you are irrationally separating the two. "Stealthed" is a MMO term. In Pathfinder, there is no "stealthed" condition. Invisibility is a enhancement bonus to stealth and it provides total concealment -- automatically considered hidden, resulting in a 50% miss chance on attacks.
You would apply the stealth rules to someone that is invisible as you would someone who is using their stealth skill actively (using it actively allows for better results, obviously).
Scent is a specific rule that changes how Smell works. Saying you're going to play with Hearing working like Smell is fine, but it would be a house rule.
Saying that sound allows for precise perception checks like vision for humanoid characters is just as much a house rule.
I can guarantee that for humans, hearing is in no way shape or form as precise as vision.
Edit: There is a definitional difference between noticing and pinpointing.
Noticing is a reactive action. Hearing is a reactive action.
Pinpointing is pro-active action. Listening is a pro-active action.
You absolutely have to keep them separate in order to apply stealth/perception/invisibility properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth,
Your problem is that you think that the knowledge that an invisible creature is present allows for effective defense -- it doesn't.
Effective defense vs invisibility means that the defenders are able to use their dexterity modifier to their armor class. They can't. The rules for invisibility specifically state this: all the attacks (regardless of all other issues being discussed here) are considered sneak attacks by RAW.
Yes, the defender can try to take actions with the knowledge that an invisible creature is present. That is immaterial. He still cannot effectively defend against any attacks from the invisible creature so the defender is subject to sneak attacks while defending, and has a 50% miss chance when trying to counter-attack.
In order to counter attack, he has to try one of two things: pin-point the attacker's 5' square (using a move action to make a perception check to beat the attacker's stealth score), or guess.
If he guesses and guesses wrong, he automatically misses in his attacks. If he guesses and guesses right, he still has a 50% miss chance on his attacks.
Noticing is not the same as pinpointing. Noticing something is "...a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."
Pin-pointing allows for the sure knowledge that someone is out there and moreover in which 5' square they reside ensuring that you know that your attacks aren't wholly going to waste.
Otherwise, you are left with guessing.
Hear the sound of battle is a DC -10 Perception check.
Nobody has said Perception doesn't cover senses other than sight.
PCs cannot defend against arrows in flight without taking a specific feat to do so. And you must be "aware" of the attack and not flat-footed. What "aware" means could be subject to debate.
Whether you want to adjudicate a visible sword being wielded by an invisible attacker differently, that is fine. There is some grey area at that point.
Ultimately, in your scenario the PC is reacting to the sound of the bow being drawn. This is different than the sound of a bow being fired. And you cannot react to an arrow that is already in flight unless you have a specific ability that lets you.
You are denied your DEX against invisible attackers, even when attacking at range. It is flat out stated in the rules: If your attack is invisible, the target loses its DEX. Period. End of discussion. If you do not have any particular abilities that alter this base state, you are denied to DEX against an invisible attacker, no matter how good your Perception check is. This is how the rules are written and intended to work.
If you want to say an invisible creature wearing visible Full Plate isn't effectively invisible, that seems like a reason way to handle the situation as a GM. I would likely do the same.
But an invisible creature wearing full plate isn't even in the same ball park as being able to react to an arrow that becomes visible after it has already been fired.
If you want to say an invisible creature wearing visible Full Plate isn't effectively invisible, that seems like a reason way to handle the situation as a GM. I would likely do the same.But an invisible creature wearing full plate isn't even in the same ball park as being able to react to an arrow that becomes visible after it has already been fired.
I wouldn't even do that. The rules for a picked up object remaining visible are for those that are essentially held in the hand. Armor is worn in his scenario. It would become invisible.
\\ Picking nits, I am :P
Okay to all those wondering why Hearing is covered just like Sight, Taste and Touch under Perception, and not some other rule...
Perception from the PRD:
"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."
First off, the argument that Perception doesn't say "Hearing lets you know exactly where something is" is ridiculous. As you'll notice in the above, it doesn't say you can exactly notice where something is with Sight, Touch or Taste either. All it says is that this skill incorporates all five senses.
The rules for Scent gives us a supplemental to how Scent specifically is used. If you want to transfer the rules of Scent to Hearing, that would take a house rule.
Otherwise, Sight, Hearing, Touch and Taste all work the same, under the rules of Perception. If a PC touches a football with his hand, you would know where that object is based on Touch; you wouldn't say, you know there's a football somewhere in your 5' square. Likewise, if a PC bites an apple, the DM wouldn't describe the situation as "You know there's a taste of apple somewhere in your 5' square."
Again, Perception incorporates Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight and Hearing. Smell has other rules provided under Scent, so it functions differently. The other four senses do not, so they function the same.
Therefore, if you play that Sight, Touch and...
I am still waiting for you to tell us where the line in Perception states you know where something exactly is. You are the one saying this is RAW. Please show that.
Lets put this another way: Perception allows you to hear something on the other side of a wall. Do you expect to know exactly where that something is? If so, please show where in the rules it states this.
Please stop dodging this question. I have asked it three times and you have yet to provide the quote.
If you want to say an invisible creature wearing visible Full Plate isn't effectively invisible, that seems like a reason way to handle the situation as a GM. I would likely do the same.But an invisible creature wearing full plate isn't even in the same ball park as being able to react to an arrow that becomes visible after it has already been fired.
I wouldn't even do that. The rules for a picked up object remaining visible are for those that are essentially held in the hand. Armor is worn in his scenario. It would become invisible.
\\ Picking nits, I am :P
I think a fair argument can be made either way on that, honestly. The rules talk about items being picked up because that seems like a relatively plausible scenario. Putting on an actual suit of armor after becoming invisible just seems silly. It likely wasn't addressed because nobody would have considered it a reasonable possibility.
A bat locates creatures through echolocation, does your character that has the +50 percpeption have echolocation? Meaning does he actively transmit ultra-sonic sounds in order to perceive his surroundings?No?
Given that a character with such a high perception rating is likely using the aid of magic? Maybe? I don't know. The rules don't tell us. The magic might function by a form of echolocation. It might work by making sounds waves visible in the color spectrum. It might work by allowing the user to sense minor tremors that originate from the bow string, through the archers body, through his boots into the ground, and over to the listener. It could be a sixth sense that as real world humans we cannot describe in any fashion because we have no experience with it.
Simply put, the rules don't get into the nit picky details and provide alternate rules sets for different types of magic. The rules don't want to be that specific, so they are general. The point I was making was that if a real world creature like a bat could do it, it isn't really a stretch to suggest that magically aided creature could do the same in some form or another.
Here is the quote:
Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Now, it is applied in game thusly:
While in combat, if you do anything in relation to your invisible attacker, and you have not already pinpointed him, you are intentionally searching for stimulus (you have to make a check to beat his stealth).
So you quoted that intentionally searching is a move action. This is not what is being debated though. You need to quote anything that says in combat perception checks require intentional action by the character. You need to provide a rules quote to link those together.
I will show a counter example though.
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).
Does the creature stuck have to take a move action to gain this knowledge? No. (Foiling that knowledge by afterwards taking a 5' step isn't really a part of this discussion, it doesn't change the fact that at the time the attack was made the defender did know where the attacker was).
But let's look more at the pinpointing. Say the stealthing and invisible creature completely fumbles its stealth check when it 5' steps. The GM might fluff that as:
It bumped into the suit of armor in the hallway.
It stepped into a puddle of water it didn't realize was there.
It brushed against the rotted tapestry hanging against the wall.
It stepped on something sharp and let out a cry of pain.
The icy surface they are fighting on let out an audible cracking noise as the weight shifted.
It kicked up a cloud of dust as it moved.
It really doesn't matter, but would any of these require an active perception check by the defender? No. These are all observable stimuli (observable not being strictly limited to visual stimuli). Many are sight based (despite the creatures invisible state), but some are audible. Examples for smell or other senses could easily be added too.
The higher the defenders passive perception roll the more likely it is to pick up on more subtle clues.
P.S. If you are blindly sticking to RAW, you might as well have all perception checks take 20 given that they are reactive to "observable stimulus" if you apply the "Try again rules".Reactive + observable stimulus + Try again = Take 20 on Perception.
Take 20 is always an active perception. Take 20 is taking time and patience to look for something. Take 20 is the investigative officer who goes over a murder scene with a magnifying glass. Take 20 also cannot be done in combat.
When a character or creature has plenty of time, and is not faced with threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, he/it can take 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the check, just calculate the result as if the die had rolled a 20.
PS: If you are going to user other parts of the rules to try and make a case for your position, you should actually take the time to look up those rules and understand how they work. Yes we all make mistakes and sometimes misquote, or misremember things, I will assume that is the case here that you'd forgotten that detail. I merely make the suggestion so you can avoid that kind of mistake in the future.
Try again checks are not something you get an infinite number of in a microsecond. If something makes a sound you either passively heard or you didn't. If it continues making sound over a long duration you can get more checks. Or if it makes a different sound you get a new check. But other than the case of a ongoing stimuli such as the example I just provided, try again checks are almost always a active thing.
For invisibility there is a check to see if you know there is an invisible creature present, and the rules then tell us that with an additional +20 you can pinpoint the location. That is, if based on all factors the current DC to notice is 20, but you beat the roll with a 40 or more, you not only are aware of the presence, but you are aware of its exact location. If you beat the 20 but didn't beat the 40 though you could then take a move action to try again and get another roll to try and pinpoint the location. If you failed again you could even take your standard action to try yet again to pinpoint the location.