So I don't have anything overly useful to say, but the whole "you bumped into him" argument has only made me imagine a magus getting annoyed at an invisible opponent, casting shocking grasp, then moving into the opponent's square, finding out its illegal, being forced back, and discharging his shocking grasp as he touched him. Granted, that's not really the way that works, but I could see the argument of "I bumped into him, so I touched him right?"
then moving into the opponent's square, finding out its illegal...The character doesn't know it's "illegal." The character simply tries to move forward and can't, why? Because the rules say someone or thing renders it impossible. In OOC terms we call it illegal, but in IC terms the character is physically prevented from entering the square and is aware of a physical limitation to moving forward.
Sorry, but that's not it at all. The grid is a gameplay convenience, nothing more. The character is not stopped from moving forward at all. The closest legitimate representation on the game mat if a player/GM ends their character in a square occupied by another character is to place the character on the square next to the square they should have ended their turn in.
The closest legitimate representation on the game mat if a player/GM ends their character in a square occupied by another character is to place the character on the square next to the square they should have ended their turn in.Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Moving forward to end your turn and you can't move into the square you want to move into.
I'm not sure you have understood. In your previous post you said
IC terms the character is physically prevented from entering the square and is aware of a physical limitation to moving forward.
The character is not prevented from moving forward and is not aware of a physical limitation. From a gameplay perspective only, the character is moved on the game mat to the nearest legitimate position. In the turn based simulation of real-time activity it is how the game designers have chosen to represent it.
|
Thats not what I said. Read the spell.
It is exactly what you have said, several times, and it is not what invisibility say.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.
"Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions."=/= "I can choose from moment to moment who is my enemy or who is my friend."
If we accept your interpretation you can decide that your enemies are friends for the next second, cast fireball and not break invisibility as the people you targeted are "friends".
What is your goal when you step aside? Maintain invisibility so that you can avoid attacks from the guy passing in your square.
Not the goal of a friend, so you are treating him as an enemy.
As a GM, I would simply tell the player, your character bumps into something and is stopped in his or her tracks. Yes, the player could assume it is an invisible creature or it might be an invisible wall.
Really?
A person feels like a wall? Go home tonight with a friend or roommate or somebody, then turn off the lights so it's pitch black and then walk around the room until you bump into something. When you do bump into your friend, are you going to think he's a wall? Or when you bump into the wall, are you going to think it's your friend?
Not a chance.
Now, if your friend happens to be a colossal heavily armored tarrasque, it might feel a lot like bumping into the wall, but short of humongous armored creatures, EVERYBODY would know the difference.
The character doesn't know it's "illegal."
Really? Did he or did he not bump into something?
If not, then he is not prevented from continuing by anything other than metagame. If so, then he really is unable to enter the square. In that sense, "illegal" is a metagame term that describes "impossible to do it". By that definition, it really is illegal (impossible) for him to enter the occupied square because he bumped into something that stopped his movement.
I really hope he actually knows when he smacks into something and is forcibly stopped from continuing his movement - if not, he really, REALLY needs to lay off the beer (or whatever)...
The character simply tries to move forward and can't, why? Because the rules say someone or thing renders it impossible. In OOC terms we call it illegal, but in IC terms the character is physically prevented from entering the square and is aware of a physical limitation to moving forward.
Awesome, we agree completely on that point. In-character, he is physically unable to move into the square because something is there and moving into the square causes a collision.
Technically, the character wouldn't know it was an invisible person, but you can't stop the player from making an educated guess.
Why not? A rock-solid hard unyielding wall smacking me in the face when I step forward feels way, way different than walking face-first into a person. People are much softer and even the biggest person is pushed back, a bit, from the impact. The texture is different, the smell is different, and the sound is different.
Go watch an old Mr. Magoo cartoon - what you're describing is like some of the extremely cartoonish situations where Mr. Magoo walks into things and cannot tell what he walked into. It's the stuff of cartoons. It bears no reality on what a real person would feel or notice or think when colliding with a person vs. colliding with a wall.
The character is not prevented from moving forward and is not aware of a physical limitation. From a gameplay perspective only, the character is moved on the game mat to the nearest legitimate position. In the turn based simulation of real-time activity it is how the game designers have chosen to represent it.Yes. The character is physically prevented from moving forward. A PC is walking down a 10' passage and a invisible gelatinous cube is blocking the path. The PC doesn't see the creature but is physically prevented from moving forward.
That is what is happening. You cannot occupy the spot occupied by another creature because you are physically stopped from entering that spot. In OOC terms, it is an illegal move. IC, you can't physically occupy that spot.
If you want to move the PC to the either side and that is a legal spot, whatever, the PC knows that something physically stopped them from moving to the exact spot he or she intended to move.
If you would like to pursue that line of 'reasoning' go right ahead.
There are indeed no specific rules that say what happens when a creature moving interacts with an invisible creature.
As has been pointed out though, detecting an invisible creature by feeling around has a standard action, and a miss chance to succeed. It would be wrong for a move action to cover more squares and have no chance of failure.
If that logic can be accepted, then we know that movement won't obviously detect where an invisible creature is, which means the invisible creature is able to get out of the way well enough. Bull rush, which has also been pointed out, gives us another example of that being possible, in a situation that seems like it should be significantly harder, so the concept is not unprecedented in the rules, even if not spelled out. Letting an invisible creature treat himself like an ally of his opponent for the purpose of moving through squares seems entirely reasonable.
That just leaves the question of what do do when the opponent by chance ends up wanting to stand where the invisible creature is positioned. In this case, the most reasonable choice is to move the invisible creature, not the creature who moved, to the nearest legal square.
It would be reasonable to have moving out of the way or to another square be something that triggers a perception check and might be noticed however.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmmmmm.
Player: My guy moves 30' directly toward that ogre.
GM: OK, you only move 25' though and you have to stop in this square 10' away from the ogre.
Player: Why?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: You don't know?
GM: I know. Your guy doesn't know.
Player: What stopped him from finishing his move?
GM: The rules.
Player: What rule?
GM: That space might be occupied by some unidentified thing.
Player: You didn't say the square was occupied? What's in the square?
GM: It looks empty to your guy.
Player: So the empty square is occupied?
GM: I said "it might be occupied."
Player: Well, is it or isn't it?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: You know that doesn't help, right?
GM: *shrugs again*
Player: Well, since you won't tell me why I have to stop, and since I actually have a rule that says I move 30 feet, I am going to finish my move.
GM: You can't. You're prevented by some kind of, well, something, that prevents you from entering that last square.
Player: WHAT 'something' prevented me?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: Is it difficult terrain?
GM: No, the terrain seems fine. Just grass like the rest of the squares.
Player: Did I bump into anything? Maybe something invisible?
GM: Maybe. Your guy isn't sure.
Player: I really need to know what's going on. It's your job to describe what's happening so that I can understand it.
GM: *Sign* OK. You can't end your turn in an occupied space. The rule says you have to stop in the previous space.
Player: OK, now we're getting somewhere. The space is occupied. Is it another ogre?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: That again? Still not helping.
GM: I can't tell you what's there. Could be anything.
Player: Did I bump into it?
GM: Maybe.
Player: If I didn't bump into it, how did it stop me? I would have kept moving until I got to the ogre or until I ran into something.
GM: OK, OK, you bumped into it. Whatever it is.
Player: Is it a creature?
GM: Your guy can't tell. It's invisible. Could be a creature. Could be wall. Could be an invisible roaring bonfire.
Player: Well did I get burned?
GM: No.
Player: OK, can I safely assume it's not a roaring fire?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: Dammit. Quit that!
GM: *crickets*
Player: OK, did it feel like an immovable wall of stone?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: Is it as big as a wall? Or as small as a human?
GM: *shrugs*
Player: Could it be as small as a baseball?
GM: Could be.
Player: And yet it completely halted all of my forward progress?
GM: Right.
Player: And despite slamming into it at my full speed, I couldn't tell if it's a solid stone wall or a baseball on the ground or a relatively soft and squishy person?
GM: Right again.
Player: Why is my guy too stupid to know the difference???
GM: Because rules.
|
|
You guys know that your characters aren't aware of the mechanics of the game and the existence of a grid, right? Your character doesn't know combat takes place in initiative order and is measured in rounds of 6 seconds each how many squares they can move in the space of each 6 second interval. Your character doesn't know they should be in that square instead of the one they stopped at, they just know they are where they are currently because they ran over there in the heat of combat.
You failed to detect the person, you don't know what you hit.
Seems like there are two prongs by which the invisible-guy-wins crowd are using.
1} You failed to detect the person... because Stealth.
The obvious response to that is... have three (or more) Medium creatures link hands, or hold weapons, or spread nets between them, or, or, or, and pass three abreast sweeping a 15 foot corridor. Good news, they "can't" detect the invisible creatures... because Stealth. The invisible-guy-wins crowd thinks this makes more sense than "yeah, you're only invisible, so the guy BUMPING INTO you gets a circumstance bonus to Perception that exceeds your Stealth check."
2} You can just move (for free), or let them pass through your square (for free).
I can only reiterate that I find that unacceptable as well on the basis that there's no cooperation of predictability going on. Two allies, sure, because they can cooperate.* Overrun? Sure, because the overrunner is moving on a predictable path. Joe Random Warrior walking by? Not so much.
*My own argument brings up the interesting case of an invisible PC moving through his allies' squares. I'd probably allow this, but on the basis that the invisible PC is likely rubbing up against the allies from time to time, pushing the inconvenient arm out of the way occasionally, etc, and otherwise revealing their position to those allies. Those allies don't mind because... they're allies. If they didn't know who was trying to move through their square, they couldn't allow the movement.
None of these interpretations are perfect, but I can't agree with the invisible-guy-wins side.
There are plenty of ways to defeat invisibility.
Running around with your arms out trying to hit them or run through their square isn't one of them.
Hello board! came up today, looked for a while, couldn't find a real thread on it:
Situation:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).At some point, he tries to enter my square this is where I butted heads with GM.
from the GMs perspective, although he(the enemy) failed to detect me via normal means, he knows me to be in that square because he cannot enter or end his turn there. So because of mechanics, the enemy can deduce an opponent is nearby because god stops him or tells him he cannot end his turn there.
What I have seen many times in the past, and also what I attempted to do, which was silently let him slip through, forgoing any attack of opportunity so he had no reason to suspect. The response to that was, 'there is no rule that lets you let an enemy pass through your square' which is, technically correct. However, 'there is also no rule that allows for' what the GM claimed either.(which was you "sense" invisible creatures when you try to enter their square, when sensing invisible creatures is explicity what perception is for.)
Is there anything to this? Or is it just another table variance discussion? It seems unlikely that due to a mechanical hole, you can pinpoint invisible creatures without a perception check.
To me, the GMs adjudication implies the creatures involved to have a somewhat '4th wall' understanding of the game's mechanics.
"Gee steve, I can't end mah turn here....must be an divisible guy"
Whack.
Flip yourself into the otherside of that position. Would you as a player insist that you could make such a deduction? If the answer is yes, than it's the sauce for the gander argument. Since players insist that GMs MUST run NPC's by the same rules as the players.....
If they didn't know who was trying to move through their square, they couldn't allow the movement.
You sure you want to take that stance? You really wouldn't allow a character to let a bad guy pass by if that is what the player wanted his character to do?
Probably wouldn't allow them to pass would be fine, but COULDN'T?
The rules for enemies and allies make some broad assumptions about what a character wants. Usually if your enemy wants to do something, you don't want to let him. But I'd hate to play under a GM who was so tightly adherent to the rules as to not allow my character to do something that is perfectly reasonable to do. (And we are talking about very trivially reasonable, not slide down the stairs on a shield while shooting orcs in the face with my bow reasonable here). The GM here needs to acknowledge, "The rules here say this, but I can see that they don't actually cover this edge case scenario. Let me arbitrate in a way that makes sense."
The easiest way to think about the whole enemies/allies is to match up what any two characters want.
Do I want to cast a spell that will benefit the target in some fashion? Yes, I consider them an ally. Do they want to receive the buff? Yes, then they consider me an ally, thus we are allies for the purposes of the spell being cast.
Do I want to cast a spell that will be a detriment to the target? Yes, I consider them my enemy. Do they want to avoid the spell? Yes, they consider me their enemy. We are enemies.
Do I want to do something, even thinking they are an ally, that they do not want? Then we are enemies.
Do they want something, but I try to stop/prevent them? Then we are enemies.
So how does this apply to movement? If they want to move through me, and I want to let them move through me, then for purposes of them moving through me, we are allies. Either of us might have ulterior motives for allowing that movement to happen, but for that moment in time, since we both want the results, saying the rules don't allow it because we are enemies on the larger scale of things is silly.
You sure you want to take that stance? You really wouldn't allow a character to let a bad guy pass by if that is what the player wanted his character to do?If they didn't know who was trying to move through their square, they couldn't allow the movement.
Remember that we're talking about someone who's invisible.
If a bad guy verbally surrendered and was trying to run "away" but had to pass through the party, yeah, sure, I'd let them let him through. But at that point they've knowingly declared the guy a non-threat.
Know how you don't ask your fighter's player "do you want to take an attack of opportunity on your allied wizard, who is casting a spell right beside you?" Same logic applies.
But when something you can't see starts trying to get through your square, the default rule of "can't pass through opponents' squares" should apply. Otherwise you're opening your table to invisible expeditious retreat using ninjas studying the wizard for three rounds then zipping down the 5ft wide corridor to get to the back and shanking him. Using PCs as a buttress is a massive part of tactical combat.
Probably wouldn't allow them to pass would be fine, but COULDN'T?
As above, yeah, by default couldn't. Sure, there'll be exceptions where maybe you're expecting someone invisible going by, but that's not the norm.
The rules for enemies and allies make some broad assumptions about what a character wants. Usually if your enemy wants to do something, you don't want to let him. But I'd hate to play under a GM who was so tightly adherent to the rules as to not allow my character to do something that is perfectly reasonable to do.
You're overthinking what I'm saying, and taking it into exceptional territory. You're also playing this backwards; you're thinking this is punitive against players/PCs. It's NOT. It's protecting PCs from more abuses than it causes. What I'm doing is preventing NPCs/monsters from doing something unreasonable, sneaking through your square without following the rules. Sure, there are edge conditions where that might not benefit the players, but that's where a GM shines; being sensibly flexible.
To be clear: I don't in any way think being invisible (alone) should allow you to evade physical detection without adhering to other rules, using actions and checks where appropriate. That's my standpoint.
But I'm the same guy who's been known to disallow the "I throw a bag of flour" technique. I'm torn, but nothing about invisibility suggests you'd be visible as an outline in flour, or rain. Because your visibility is altered by a magic illusion. However, your footprints in the mud... those are physically real, and they're not invisible. So yeah. Invisibility is a complicated state, and I try to rule fairly and sensibly.
(And we are talking about very trivially reasonable, not slide down the stairs on a shield while shooting orcs in the face with my bow reasonable here). The GM here needs to acknowledge, "The rules here say this, but I can see that they don't actually cover this edge case scenario. Let me arbitrate in a way that makes sense."
As above, I'm flexible. But not so flexible that I'm going to let some player say "hey, what do you mean the monster who walked through me found me?!? Not cool, I would've um, mentally considered him an ally and dodged out of his way, without spending any actions or making any roles." Sorry. No. I'll dare say "lame".
The easiest way to think about the whole enemies/allies is to match up what any two characters want.
Do I want to cast a spell that will benefit the target in some fashion? Yes, I consider them an ally. Do they want to receive the buff? Yes, then they consider me an ally, thus we are allies for the purposes of the spell being cast.
Not that simple. Take beguiling gift. Sorry, let me rephrase that...
/me casts beguiling gift
/me hands bbangerter a potion of inflict moderate wounds
So. You, being a non-undead, you're going to get hurt by this potion. The potion you're compelled to use. Doesn't mean you'll like the results. So shouldn't you get a saving throw to take half damage from the potion? Shouldn't you get saves if it was a poison?
What it I'd just used charm person so you thought I'm an ally, but the potion is undeniably hurting you?
It's complicated. And some of these questions aren't simple to answer. I'd absolutely, positively expect table variance with the examples I just gave. And GMs who play it out differently from the way I do aren't wrong. They just see things differently from the way I do.
Do I want to cast a spell that will be a detriment to the target? Yes, I consider them my enemy. Do they want to avoid the spell? Yes, they consider me their enemy. We are enemies.
Do I want to do something, even thinking they are an ally, that they do not want? Then we are enemies.
Do they want something, but I try to stop/prevent them? Then we are enemies.
So how does this apply to movement? If they want to move through me, and I want to let them move through me, then for purposes of them moving through me, we are allies. Either of us might have ulterior motives for allowing that movement to happen, but for that moment in time, since we both want the results,...
I don't accept that, in general. I DO see that it CAN be a useful way to look at things, but I don't agree entirely. Again, you're not wrong.
I'll let a PC who has an ability like Selective Channel exclude a vampire who has just surrendered by "considering him an ally". Sure.
I'd even let a PC allow that vampire to move through their square, as long as both parties are consciously agreeing on that act. But that's the key. It's agreed upon. And THAT is NOT what this thread is about.
But when something you can't see starts trying to get through your square, the default rule of "can't pass through opponents' squares" should apply. Otherwise you're opening your table to invisible expeditious retreat using ninjas studying the wizard for three rounds then zipping down the 5ft wide corridor to get to the back and shanking him. Using PCs as a buttress is a massive part of tactical combat.
You seem to have conflated the situation.
Original post is:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).
The character standing still is the one invisible, not the one who is moving. The invisible character can see he is moving towards him, and trying to enter his square, and ought to be able to squeeze to the side to allow them to pass if he wishes to.
If the character moving is the invisible one, that is a different story, the standing character can't know to try and move to the side to let him pass.
But even taking your invisible ninja's moving to shank the wizard example, if the fighter blocking the hallway says "I want to squeeze against the wall so the ninja I just saw vanish can move past me", I let him. See, both parties are willing participants again. If one party is not a willing participant, then no luck, you do not get a free pass. The both parties being willing participants is the key here.
If the moving character is trying to find the invisible character, he shouldn't get to do it by walking around (if the invisible character doesn't want to be found), there are already rules for reaching into two adjacent spaces with your hand to try and locate them, and those are the rules that should be used.
Know how you don't ask your fighter's player "do you want to take an attack of opportunity on your allied wizard, who is casting a spell right beside you?"
Sure, but if the fighter tells me he wants to take the AoO, I stop the action and let him, not tell him the rules don't allow him to attack his allies. For purposes of that AoO the wizard and fighter are no longer allies.
But I'm the same guy who's been known to disallow the "I throw a bag of flour" technique. I'm torn, but nothing about invisibility suggests you'd be visible as an outline in flour, or rain. Because your visibility is altered by a magic illusion. However, your footprints in the mud... those are physically real, and they're not invisible. So yeah. Invisibility is a complicated state, and I try to rule fairly and sensibly.
Maybe you should start allowing it (up to you of course, your game, your house rules) but based on this portion of the invisibility spell this is a real tactic.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.
Unless they can tuck ALL of the flour into their clothing somehow.
Or even explicitly as allowed by the rules:
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 if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints.
Not that simple. Take beguiling gift. Sorry, let me rephrase that.../me casts beguiling gift
/me hands bbangerter a potion of inflict moderate woundsSo. You, being a non-undead, you're going to get hurt by this potion. The potion you're compelled to use. Doesn't mean you'll like the results. So shouldn't you get a saving throw to take half damage from the potion? Shouldn't you get saves if it was a poison?
Do I know what spell you are casting at me? If so, I can choose to treat you as an enemy and take my saving throw. If I don't know the spell, and think you are going to buff me, I'd probably choose to purposefully fail my save (just like I'd purposefully fail my save if you cast CLW on me - I'm allowed to make a save against that spell if I want to, but given its beneficial I'd generally fail the save on purpose).
Do I know its a poison potion or IMW potion? If so, even if I purposefully fail the save vs beguiling gift, I can choose separately on the save vs the potion (or again purposefully fail the save if I want the potion to affect me for some reason).
I'd even let a PC allow that vampire to move through their square, as long as both parties are consciously agreeing on that act. But that's the key. It's agreed upon.
Agreement here, as noted above. But the thread is about trying to circumvent the rules for finding invisible creatures (touching two adjacent squares with your hands) by using metagame mechanics and movement to find them. Really both characters in this thread are in agreement, one wants to move into a square, the other doesn't want to get bumped into, but the GM in the scenario used the metagame aspects to allow the movement to pinpoint the character.
|
|
Allowing an ally to pass through your hex isn't trivial. As I have shown a few posts ago, it has consequences. Both character are squeezed while they share the hex.
Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.
When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.
A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square.
To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
So it is not "I step aside and let the ally pass", it is "I place myself in a way that allow my ally to pass trough my square, while he move himself in a way that allow him to pass through the space I left empty. That positioning cost both of us 4 points of AC and 4 points from the to hit while we are in the same square, as a added cost my ally pay as he was traversing 2 squares, not 1."
So mowing through a ally square require the cooperation of both parties, with the guy passing through doing most of the work.
So let's look our guy situation:
- invisible guy position itself in a way that would allow an ally to pass, getting some hefty penalty. Essentially he place himself flat on a side of the square.
- the enemy enter the square without knowing that there is an opponent there. So he has his weapon ready, he is dodging to avoid possible ranged attacks and so on. He isn't using the narrow space left open by the invisible character to move, he is using all the square.
Even using the most favorable interpretation and saying that the moving player is making a unintended overrun of the invisible character it mean that the invisible character is suddenly moving away from the enemy path, i.e. he isn't using stealth and he is moving. So he get only the benefit of invisibility while moving and he is giving a new stimulus. Perceiving him at worst has a DC 20 (plus range) and everyone get a new perception check.
No Diego, that bit you're quoting still only applies to when a creature is squeezing anyway.
You and I are allies standing in a field. I want to move through your space. You let me. Nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but we're in a 5' hallway instead. When I move through your space, nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but now I am an ogre in this 5' hallway. I'm already squeezing before I even start my turn, because I'm large in this narrow hallway. Now when I move through your space I'm squeezing and the usual squeezing penalties apply to me but not to you because you're not squeezing - nowhere in the bit you're quoting (or anywhere else to my knowledge) does it say the ally allowing me to pass must also squeeze (even though it seems like it should say that).
|
|
No Diego, that bit you're quoting still only applies to when a creature is squeezing anyway.
You and I are allies standing in a field. I want to move through your space. You let me. Nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but we're in a 5' hallway instead. When I move through your space, nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but now I am an ogre in this 5' hallway. I'm already squeezing before I even start my turn, because I'm large in this narrow hallway. Now when I move through your space I'm squeezing and the usual squeezing penalties apply to me but not to you because you're not squeezing - nowhere in the bit you're quoting (or anywhere else to my knowledge) does it say the ally allowing me to pass must also squeeze (even though it seems like it should say that).
No Blake. It apples to sharing squares. it don't matter if you are in the middle of a field or in a narrow corridor. What matter is if you what to pass in that exact square or not.
It is the same thing as the charge lanes. There is this friend along the direct route to the enemy? You can't charge, even if there are kilometers free on your friend left or right.A medium sized creature space is 5'*5'. If you share that you "have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up".
No Diego, that bit you're quoting still only applies to when a creature is squeezing anyway.
You and I are allies standing in a field. I want to move through your space. You let me. Nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but we're in a 5' hallway instead. When I move through your space, nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but now I am an ogre in this 5' hallway. I'm already squeezing before I even start my turn, because I'm large in this narrow hallway. Now when I move through your space I'm squeezing and the usual squeezing penalties apply to me but not to you because you're not squeezing - nowhere in the bit you're quoting (or anywhere else to my knowledge) does it say the ally allowing me to pass must also squeeze (even though it seems like it should say that).
No Blake. It apples to sharing squares. it don't matter if you are in the middle of a field or in a narrow corridor. What matter is if you what to pass in that exact square or not.
It is the same thing as the charge lanes. There is this friend along the direct route to the enemy? You can't charge, even if there are kilometers free on your friend left or right.A medium sized creature space is 5'*5'. If you share that you "have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up".
No Diego, that is in the section about squeezing and is talking about moving past creatures while squeezing not moving past creatures itself being squeezing. What it is saying is that even in a narrow space you can still squeeze past another creature while moving but cannot end in their square. You are NOT considered squeezing just for moving through another creatures square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Diego, that bit you're quoting still only applies to when a creature is squeezing anyway.
You and I are allies standing in a field. I want to move through your space. You let me. Nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but we're in a 5' hallway instead. When I move through your space, nobody squeezes because we were not squeezing in the first place.
Same thing, but now I am an ogre in this 5' hallway. I'm already squeezing before I even start my turn, because I'm large in this narrow hallway. Now when I move through your space I'm squeezing and the usual squeezing penalties apply to me but not to you because you're not squeezing - nowhere in the bit you're quoting (or anywhere else to my knowledge) does it say the ally allowing me to pass must also squeeze (even though it seems like it should say that).
No Blake. It apples to sharing squares. it don't matter if you are in the middle of a field or in a narrow corridor. What matter is if you what to pass in that exact square or not.
It is the same thing as the charge lanes. There is this friend along the direct route to the enemy? You can't charge, even if there are kilometers free on your friend left or right.A medium sized creature space is 5'*5'. If you share that you "have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up".
Still no.
This is what the Combat section says about moving through an ally's space:
Moving Through a Square
You can move through an unoccupied square without difficulty in most circumstances. Difficult terrain and a number of spell effects might hamper your movement through open spaces.
Friend
You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
that's it. Period. If they wanted you to "squeeze" through the square, they would have said "See the squeezing rules". They didn't say that. No mention of squeezing or of penalties at all.
Because they don't apply.
Now, elsewhere (Just a little ways down the page) are the "Squeezing" rules that describe how big creatures can fit into small spaces. When using these rules (because you're a big creature in a small space) you must apply the squeezing penalties. In this section it says that squeezing creatures are allowed to squeeze past their allies - because if it didn't say this, people would wonder if the NORMAL rules for passing through an ally's square apply when you're already squeezing. Me, I would think probably not. If you're already drying to stuff an ogre into a narrow hallway, and he has an orc friend directly in his way, how does he squeeze even more to fit through? I might think he couldn't, but this rule says he can. Problem solved.
What it doesn't say is to extrapolate the problems of being an ogre in a narrow hallway to all other creatures - do two cats have to squeeze past each other in that same hallway? Two mice? NO, and no.
Neither do two humans or any other two medium creatures - they all simply use the rules I quoted in this post.
Hello board! came up today, looked for a while, couldn't find a real thread on it:
Situation:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).At some point, he tries to enter my square this is where I butted heads with GM.
from the GMs perspective, although he(the enemy) failed to detect me via normal means, he knows me to be in that square because he cannot enter or end his turn there. So because of mechanics, the enemy can deduce an opponent is nearby because god stops him or tells him he cannot end his turn there.
What I have seen many times in the past, and also what I attempted to do, which was silently let him slip through, forgoing any attack of opportunity so he had no reason to suspect. The response to that was, 'there is no rule that lets you let an enemy pass through your square' which is, technically correct. However, 'there is also no rule that allows for' what the GM claimed either.(which was you "sense" invisible creatures when you try to enter their square, when sensing invisible creatures is explicity what perception is for.)
Is there anything to this? Or is it just another table variance discussion? It seems unlikely that due to a mechanical hole, you can pinpoint invisible creatures without a perception check.
To me, the GMs adjudication implies the creatures involved to have a somewhat '4th wall' understanding of the game's mechanics.
"Gee steve, I can't end mah turn here....must be an divisible guy"
Whack.Your GM made a bad call, there are rules to move through someones square that he could use as the basis for this. For this scenario Acrobatics seems applicable. (Overrun which would be more applicable if the creature is charging.)
The enemy effectively makes an Acrobatics check with a result of 'it doesn't matter what he rolls, you are not blocking it'.
It doesn't matter that he is not trying to do...
This is definitely a misapplication of the acrobatics rules. You have to choose to use acrobatics to move through a threatened area, because it's an ability with several restrictions. Note that you can't do it at all if you're wearing medium or heavier armor, etc.
|
|
Let's say you are right about squeezing.
We still have a situation that is the equivalent of an involuntary overrun. If the invisible creature move aside to avoid the moving character:
- it is giving out a new stimulus to perceive it;
- it isn't using stealth anymore and it is moving, even if within the same square, so the DC to perceive it is 20.
Let's say you are right about squeezing.
We still have a situation that is the equivalent of an involuntary overrun. If the invisible creature move aside to avoid the moving character:
- it is giving out a new stimulus to perceive it;
- it isn't using stealth anymore and it is moving, even if within the same square, so the DC to perceive it is 20.
1. I think not. The moving guy gets one chance during his move to make a reactive Perception check at the point that is most favorable. That's the point with the lowest penalty for distance. That could be anywhere between 0 and 10 feet. He doesn't get a bonus Perception check for entering the square unless there is a collision. Since I think there is no collision, I'm not granting a bonus Perception check.
2. Why did he stop using Stealth? Just because a guy lumbers around nearby, or in this case, so nearby that they're in the same square, doesn't mean the invisible guy starts singing and dancing and drawing attention to himself. Whatever Stealth check he made most recently is still in force.
|
|
Let's say you are right about squeezing.
We still have a situation that is the equivalent of an involuntary overrun. If the invisible creature move aside to avoid the moving character:
- it is giving out a new stimulus to perceive it;
- it isn't using stealth anymore and it is moving, even if within the same square, so the DC to perceive it is 20.1. I think not. The moving guy gets one chance during his move to make a reactive Perception check at the point that is most favorable. That's the point with the lowest penalty for distance. That could be anywhere between 0 and 10 feet. He doesn't get a bonus Perception check for entering the square unless there is a collision. Since I think there is no collision, I'm not granting a bonus Perception check.
2. Why did he stop using Stealth? Just because a guy lumbers around nearby, or in this case, so nearby that they're in the same square, doesn't mean the invisible guy starts singing and dancing and drawing attention to himself. Whatever Stealth check he made most recently is still in force.
1: "best time for the check" is exactly when the guy is acting to avoid being touched.
And:Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
You are saying that a guy acting outside his turn isn't an observable stimulus and isn't different from the invisible guy mowing and using stealth on his turn?
BTW: you don't get a reactive perception during your movement, you get a reactive perception during the invisible guy turn when he move under stealth.
The stimulus is him moving or acting, not standing still while you move.
2:
a) the invisible guy is acting, so he give out a stimulus
b) he is not changing square but he is acting, and doing that out of turn.
What kind of action is avoiding an overrun? Undefined, but I would compare it to a reflex save. So, essentially, what is he doing? Making a sudden movement to avoid being hit by the guy passing through the square. You call that a stealthy move?
Stealth is free if made as part of your movement, but the guy isn't changing his position.
Consider that situation without invisibility, It is a starlit night so characters get concealment but not full concealment : a guy enter a stealthed character square and the character move to avoid being touched. You would allow him to roll stealth?
|
But when something you can't see starts trying to get through your square, the default rule of "can't pass through opponents' squares" should apply. Otherwise you're opening your table to invisible expeditious retreat using ninjas studying the wizard for three rounds then zipping down the 5ft wide corridor to get to the back and shanking him. Using PCs as a buttress is a massive part of tactical combat.
You seem to have conflated the situation.
Original post is:
Im invisible. I move. (for intents of this consider every stealth to beat any perception to detect)
An enemy goes to move through the square I am now in (coincidence).
The character standing still is the one invisible, not the one who is moving. The invisible character can see he is moving towards him, and trying to enter his square, and ought to be able to squeeze to the side to allow them to pass if he wishes to.
If the character moving is the invisible one, that is a different story, the standing character can't know to try and move to the side to let him pass.
But even taking your invisible ninja's moving to shank the wizard example, if the fighter blocking the hallway says "I want to squeeze against the wall so the ninja I just saw vanish can move past me", I let him. See, both parties are willing participants again. If one party is not a willing participant, then no luck, you do not get a free pass. The both parties being willing participants is the key here.
If the moving character is trying to find the invisible character, he shouldn't get to do it by walking around (if the invisible character doesn't want to be found), there are already rules for reaching into two adjacent spaces with your hand to try and locate them, and those are the rules that should be used.
...
Know how you don't ask your fighter's player "do you want to take an attack of opportunity on your allied wizard, who is casting a spell right beside you?"0
Here is a part of my issue with your stance.
The game breaks things up onto an order for ease of equality for getting people to do their actions. The invisible guy did not actually just move and stop to look around and ponder the ways of the universe.
The mechanics break it up into and order and turns, but it is actually a fluid series of actions. Everyone is doing their actions within the same 6 seconds that make up the round.
As the invisible guy reaches the end of his actions within the round the enemy is also in the middle of what he is doing. There just isn't any more time for the invisible guy to react anymore.
From the little information given in the OP I don't think that the GM made a wrong call in having the guy know something was in the way of his movement. I agree that he should get to make a perception check with a bonus. I don't think the invisible PC should get free movement to avoid. The invisible PC does not lose any of the positives of the spell, and as such is hard to detect.
I also think the "decides who is a foe" clause is a large part of the problem as it subject to abuse in many cases. Using that clause is a nasty piece of metagame thinking...and when the OP complained about how others were using metagame thoughts and then chose to use that phrase as proof of thinking he is in the right, just proved to me that he has his knickers knotted up and is being hypocritical.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it a little ridiculous to give someone the ability to check for something invisible, which is usually limited to a standard action that checks two squares and requires a touch attack per square, as a free thing for the 4-8 squares that constitute their normal movement without requiring a roll?
No matter what, something ridiculous is happening - they're either exceeding the amount of squares for the normal searching rule, they're making illegal moves through enemy squares, or their movement is just mysteriously stopping without being allowed to act on it. It's bad results all the way around, you just have to figure out which one offends your sensibilities the least.
Since I don't think it has been mentioned, there is another rules loophole to let the opponent move past, just in case the "pretend they are allies" thing is too far fetched.
The alternative way is to willingly make yourself helpless, so the opponent is allowed to move through your square unimpeded by RAW, unless you present an obstacle even when unconscious or otherwise helpless - this presumably won't apply to most PCs.
|
|
After reading the posts I have figured out how I will rule in my games.
1. I will let the invisible party determine if the enemy can move through their square. As Snowblind states they can determine that the enemy is an ally and since they are the ones in control of the square I think it is their decision.
2. If the enemy ends their move in a square occupied by the invisible party they bounce back to the last/closest legal space and know they bumped off of someone. This makes sense to me as I have bumped into people in open areas that are not paying attention and just move in the same direction as me when I try to avoid them.
There should always be a flat 50% chance that you will just miss any invisible character by swinging, groping, feeling, or moving into their square if they don't want you to touch, bump, or feel them.
Sure. But what's the chance to hear them trying to avoid you from less than 5' away, frantically dodging (in armor?) and probably breathing a bit hard? A hasty footstep that falls too hard? You don't have to touch something in a square to know it's there, and I think it would be really hard not to be heard even if you avoid being touched.
And how many adventurers/monsters are bathing regularly? You can probably just smell them.
And how many adventurers/monsters are bathing regularly? You can probably just smell them.
Every single one of my players purchases soap when they create their characters. I see it on every single equipment list. Yet to this date not a single one of them has ever uttered the phrase "My character is getting out his/her soap and going to go take a bath."
I did have one player have his rogue use his soap...to make an impression of a key.
2) Wrong on many counts:
* Dick has has no ability to move aside as this is not specified in the rules.
This has been covered before. You can move aside to allow someone to pass by by treating them as friendly.I will concede that this is perhaps possible, although very meta-gamy. Note that just because you can potentially allow someone to pass through your square doesn't mean there is no contact involved in the process.
It is no more meta-gamy than the GM saying the invisible character cannot step out of the way. If the GM is going to use one metagame concept then why not use another?