| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire discussion has been crazy.
It boils down to "Your imaginary toon can't walk into that imaginary space in that imaginary world because rules".
Everybody seems to be forgetting about:
Imagination. Fun. Story telling. Common sense. Rule 0. And a few other things might go on that list too.
I'll quote myself from page one:
Sure, sure, there is no RAW for it. But that's why we have GMs.
So now the rules-lawyers (of which I am one) can argue endlessly that the RAW doesn't allow what the OP wants and the OP's GM followed the exact hair-splitting RAW. But the GMs can say "Oh, yeah, it's kind of like the overrun rules but it's even easier to avoid the enemy since, in an actual overrun, the enemy sees you and wants to engage you, while here he doesn't. So yeah, you can avoid him."
That's easy enough for any GM who's stepping out of the rules courtroom and stepping into the role of a a guy who wants the game to make some sense and be fun.
This is why we have GMs. Those who wear the mantle should keep this in mind.
I repeat.
Gm's should keep their role in mind. It's not about being a rules lawyer. Everybody hates the rules lawyers at the table. Even other rules lawyers. Especially other rules lawyers.
Don't be that guy.
Play for fun. Do what makes sense. It simply makes sense that an invisible and undetected guy could let another guy walk past, even very close, so close that they could both fit in a standard elevator which is very close to a 25-square-foot area. Yep. The RAW says it can't be done. But this time the RAW doesn't make sense.
Be a GM.
Don't be a rules lawyer.
|
I don't know what the DC is to detect something when you walk into it, but assuming he failed such a check:- He doesn't know he failed a perception check, but he does know that he tried to walk somewhere and failed. I'm having a hard time of thinking of plausible explanations for what could have stopped him beyond 'something invisible'.But he didn't walk into it. He couldn't even enter the square; how could he bump into something in the square if he couldn't even enter the square? The DC to detect an invisible creature is an opposed stealth check and, as stated in the OP, the guard in question failed that check. He, literally, has no clue why he couldn't bring himself to move into that 5x5 region, but the GM had him attack into it anyway. That's the definition of metagaming. Just because you can't think of a plausible explanation for what else could have stopped him doesn't mean that he can't think of one. If he succeeded at the perception check, then the explanation he conceived of would have been "Oh, there's an invisible douchebag in my way," and he'd probably get to stabbing. But he didn't. He failed the check and what, exactly, went through his mind is inconsequential; the result of the check is that the guard did not reach the conclusion that there was a creature in the way and should not have acted as if there was one. But he did. Hence, the GM started metagaming, making it perfectly acceptable for the players to do so as well.
You present it through mechanics. The it is you that are thinking about it in a meta-game sense.
It is easy to say that as you are trying to walk through you bump into something and cannot continue through that exact path.
|
|
2 people moving through a 5x5 space with no contact in the slightest that would confirm there is another being in that space is just not logical.
Average person is roughly 2-2.5 feet wide? Fair? With nothing of bulk on them they barely fit. That is side by side with both riding the edges of the space.
Average person is 1-1.5 feet thick? Fair? So one is broad and the other is sideways they fit with a bit of space...in a best case scenario.
I'm a spy on a stealth mission. I've just shut down all the power in the complex. You're walking down a five-foot corridor in pitch darkness. I have night-vision goggles on so I can see you coming. I press myself against the wall in the hope you'll pass by without noticing me. I'm one foot thick. You're two feet wide. That gives us two feet of clearance. If you walk directly down the middle, that leaves a six inch gap between us.
But it seems to me that whether you slam into me, brush against me, or walk past me without noticing is mostly a matter of luck. Any rule that is aiming for true realism would have to take in so many factors as to be almost unplayable.
How is the guard even walking in pitch blackness?
|
|
This entire discussion has been crazy.
It boils down to "Your imaginary toon can't walk into that imaginary space in that imaginary world because rules".
Everybody seems to be forgetting about:
Imagination. Fun. Story telling. Common sense. Rule 0. And a few other things might go on that list too.
I'll quote myself from page one:
Sure, sure, there is no RAW for it. But that's why we have GMs.
So now the rules-lawyers (of which I am one) can argue endlessly that the RAW doesn't allow what the OP wants and the OP's GM followed the exact hair-splitting RAW. But the GMs can say "Oh, yeah, it's kind of like the overrun rules but it's even easier to avoid the enemy since, in an actual overrun, the enemy sees you and wants to engage you, while here he doesn't. So yeah, you can avoid him."
That's easy enough for any GM who's stepping out of the rules courtroom and stepping into the role of a a guy who wants the game to make some sense and be fun.
This is why we have GMs. Those who wear the mantle should keep this in mind.
I repeat.
Gm's should keep their role in mind. It's not about being a rules lawyer. Everybody hates the rules lawyers at the table. Even other rules lawyers. Especially other rules lawyers.
Don't be that guy.
Play for fun. Do what makes sense. It simply makes sense that an invisible and undetected guy could let another guy walk past, even very close, so close that they could both fit in a standard elevator which is very close to a 25-square-foot area. Yep. The RAW says it can't be done. But this time the RAW doesn't make sense.
Be a GM.
Don't be a rules lawyer.
Ah. You have become the final arbiter about how everyone should play. Good call. Some people prefer more realism in these things.
Also. One-half side of a ping pong table is 22.5 square feet a little less than 25 square feet. You think that two fully grown adult people, dressed for battle in medieval armour and weapons at the ready "easily" can pass through that with no contact?
Your elevator? " In office buildings elevators are usually wider than the are deep so as to more readily handle the movement into and out of the cabs in an efficient manner. They are usually approximately 6.5 to 7 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet deep (front to back) and have doors that are 3.5 to 4 feet wide. In residential buildings the cab sizes very somewhat from these dimension but not by much."
There is nothing wrong with how you want it played. There is no reason to shout down on people who don't play it like you do.
OilHorse,
1. I didn't "shout down" anybody. I appealed to GMs to use reason and to remember that the game should be fun. Not just a contest to see how well we can follow RAW.
2. I've never walked across a ping pong table. But I bet everybody reading this has been in an elevator; I think it's still a helpful analogy.
3. Nobody said anything about "dressed for battle in medieval armor with weapons at the ready". Certainly not the OP, though I grant it's come up a few times in the crazy discussion. For all I know, the OP was a skulking rogue with sheathed weapons wearing nothing more than a leather vest. And the enemy might have been much the same. I can get about 6 of those in an elevator without touching. I don't know how many would fit on a ping pong table (no frame of reference) but given your dimensions, I'd say at least 4 or more.
4. Finally, it seems as if you're looking to make it harder than it needs to be, just to justify disallowing it. Using a smaller area (ping pong table) than an actual 5' square, assuming bulky armor and assuming that the invisible guy cannot even control how or where he holds his weapon, all to "prove" that it can't be done.
Again, I appeal to fun.
The OP was invisibly hiding and that player was having fun. Then the GM dropped a big old RAW bombshell and broke the fun. My contention is that it was no fun for that player. Possibly for other players too, depending on how much this became an argument at the table.
In the real world, where we don't have "squares" that confine us to elevator-sized areas of the battlefield, people CAN be invisible (dark night) and still see enemies (light amplification equipment) and we CAN allow the seen enemy to pass right by, in kissing range, without a collision. It happens.
It can't happen in Pathfinder because RAW.
Again, I say that's why we have GMs, to occasionally object to RAW and let players have fun.
First, I did not read all 209 posts... So if this was covered, my bad...
Ending Your Movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
If you let the guard enter your square by doing nothing (volunteering to be helpless), he can end his movement there. If his perception roll failed, he doesn't know you are there.
|
|
Do we have rules for detecting invisible targets? Yes, we do.
Is entering an occupied square one of those rules? No, it isn't.
Saying that failing to enter a square gives such an information is, therefore, meta-gaming.
Can you? Yes, but it's still meta-gaming; one possible definition of 'meta-gaming' is using the rules in a level above their intention to obtain a benefit not initially included on the rules' set; in this case: using a rule of movement to detect invisible targets.
I'm not judging anyone on this, but personally, I prefer playing with the least presence of meta-gaming.
Is there a finite list of actions to determine these things? Nope.
I agree that the tactic is dubious. If it gets hard ruled that the move action works in a game then it needs to be even across the board. I would then rule that the move action gets declared and is enacted to completion, that is a strict reading of the "move" move action.
Your monk with the 200'move and crazy high perception wants to be the mobile invisibility detector? Giddy up. Tell me how you move and how far you will make your move action. You then run the full move amount and make your perception at the end to see if you even detected him. I will also require all the rolls like I said in my other reply. Wanna narrow down the square the DC goes up. This applies to everyone, PC and NPC alike. There would be no move until you find and then stop and attack. Good luck against Greater Invis, because then you open yourself to AoO like crazy.
Really there is nothing meta like you want to describe it. Guy found an invisible obstacle in the area he was trying to move through.
You say he didn't perceive the invisible guy, ok. Why does the invisible guy get to act like he is a ghost? He isn't. WAnna avoid the guy going through your space, I think that you better roll some checks on your own. Not "just cause" I wanna avoid. Which is what it seems people want when they throw out "rule 0" and "rule of cool" as a defense of their opinions.
Dr. Stryx:
By what rule are you becoming voluntarily helpless? You can't just magically give yourself conditions if it suits your purposes.
So, just to be clear.
If I'm curled up on the floor, and sleeping (and therefore helpless), you'd let an enemy character move into my space.
But if I'm curled up on the floor, and only pretending to sleep (eyes, closed, not moving, even breathing pattern) you would 1) Not let the enemy enter my space. 2) Even though he failed his sense motive vs my bluff (fake sleeping) check, automatically know that I'm faking based on the fact he can't enter my space?
|
|
Dr. Stryx:
By what rule are you becoming voluntarily helpless? You can't just magically give yourself conditions if it suits your purposes.
So, just to be clear.
If I'm curled up on the floor, and sleeping (and therefore helpless), you'd let an enemy character move into my space.
But if I'm curled up on the floor, and only pretending to sleep (eyes, closed, not moving, even breathing pattern) you would 1) Not let the enemy enter my space. 2) Even though he failed his sense motive vs my bluff (fake sleeping) check, automatically know that I'm faking based on the fact he can't enter my space?
Are you doing this in the middle of combat though? I think that is the basis of all of this.
If in combat you took appropriate actions "on your turn" and told the DM how you wish to be considered helpless, incurring the penalties associated with that condition. No doubt that it should be considered.
Want to do any of that after your turn as a reaction? Errrmmm...I dunno. You don't get to take any actions except certain free ones and immediate actions, and falling prone is not widely considered one of those free actions you can take.
Expect much table variance in your plan.
I don't play PFS. One of the reasons I choose not to play PFS is reasons just like this. It is basically pointless to argue anything rules related that is not set in stone. This is very much house rule territory with a sprinkling of RAI.
PFS handles this sort of thing the same way any other table does, by having the DM make a decision.
The fact of the matter is there are rules that tell you how to find invisible creatures with touch and they do not include zig-zagging back and forth with move actions until you find a square you can't enter or end your movement in.
Except some people here are arguing that this is exactly how you can do it. No, the rules don't say "do it this way" but the rules do say that it will work. For, uh, reasons.
For example, two posts above yours, Numerak (indirectly) advocates this very thing. By his response, the rules prevent you from entering this imaginary "square", roughly the square footage of a common elevator, even if you don't know there is a person standing there invisibly. Even if that person is TRYING to let you in. The RAW says "NO!!!" so it must be no.
Then he goes on to say you can finagle the "ally" rules by pretending your enemy is your ally to get around this hard-coded rule.
He's right. That's all true. Except the ally finagling might be more of a judgement call than an actual rule.
Although, this allows for this funny conversation:
Player: My PC walks over here.
GM: Uh, well, that only partially works. After the first three squares, you feel a mystical need to use Acrobatics to tumble through that fourth square.
Player: Why?
GM: I dunno. You just do.
Player: Can you explain that better?
GM: Well, the first three squares went OK. YOU walked normally, no problems. But then at this fourth square, some karmic mystical energy in the universe seems to prevent you from walking into that square. But you instinctively know that you might be able to enter it if you tumble.
Player: Why?
GM: Reasons.
Player: How do I know about the tumbling?
GM: Uhhhh, instinct, I suppose.
Other Player: Hey, Fred, stop there and ready an action to attack. On my turn I cast Glitterdust on that mystical tumble square.
But back to your point, the RAW says you cannot enter that space. So if you want to zig zag around until you find the square that you mystically karmically cannot enter for no reason, go for it. It will work. By RAW.
Unless you have a GM who actually makes common-sense table calls.
|
|
By "Karmic mystical energy" you mean physically prevented?
Simple common sense table call, maybe?
There just isn't a finite list of ways to determine where an invisible object is.
Just like there isn't a way to freely allow two opposed people to occupy the same space even for a brief moment.
I don't see how making the call that 2 people in a space about the same area as half a ping pong table easily, automatically, miss each other. Especially when you factor in that they are considered to be hustling about dressed in armour and brandishing weapons.
I think common sense actually tells us that there will be some sort of contact.
I think common sense actually tells us that there will be some sort of contact.
When was the last time you rushed into an elevator as the doors were closing and ran into someone else already in the elevator?
Common sense would tell us they *might* run into each other at best. When one of those people is trying to avoid getting run into (and the other person has no idea they are there).... that lowers the chances further. It would be a fair house rule to say there is a x% chance they run into each other. Or to have the moving individual roll perception. It is entirely unwarranted for it to be an automatic detection.
Dr. Stryx:
By what rule are you becoming voluntarily helpless? You can't just magically give yourself conditions if it suits your purposes.
So, just to be clear.
If I'm curled up on the floor, and sleeping (and therefore helpless), you'd let an enemy character move into my space.
But if I'm curled up on the floor, and only pretending to sleep (eyes, closed, not moving, even breathing pattern) you would 1) Not let the enemy enter my space. 2) Even though he failed his sense motive vs my bluff (fake sleeping) check, automatically know that I'm faking based on the fact he can't enter my space?
This is a good question so let me try to answer it.
From my earlier posts, I proposed that for two creatures to be considered non-opponents for something they need to be mutually cooperative or agreeable about whatever it is.
In this case, if you are pretending to be asleep you can be considered cooperative to the enemy entering your square. The enemy, on the other hand, is also "cooperative" to entering your square - he sees the sleeping body and is willing make the necessary movements to adjust for it to enable him to occupy the square.
Or put another way, you are choosing to treat the enemy as a non-opponent by feigning sleep and not reacting to his presence. He is treating you as a non-opponent (at least not an active/current one) since he believes you to be asleep and a non-threat. Since you mutually consider each other non-opponents for the purposes of this square-entering, he qualifies to enter your square.
Granted, the rules also say you can't end your turn in another creature's square, but I feel it's reasonable to make an exception in this case since this is an unusual situation. I admit this is a bit of a Rule 0, but this is part of the GM's job.
So if person A does not know there is a person B in the square, is it fair to say that A is cooperating in trying to enter the square? (He is trying to walk there after all). Could we not say B can then choose to cooperate as well and let him?
Let's take this further, B is pretending to be asleep, like above, but is also invisible, so A doesn't even know he is there, can A enter the square? Okay, now B, instead of pretending to be asleep has pressed themselves tightly against the wall? Can A enter the square? At what point do we make the distinction between A that B isn't pretending to be sufficiently helpless that A can no longer enter the square? Does B have to be pretending to sleep to be considered helpless? Or could B be pressed against the wall and saying "I'm feigning helplessness" and allow A to enter? Could he do it while standing in the middle of the square? If not, why not? Because if he was under a hold person spell he would be. So why can't he choose to pretend to be paralyzed for the same effect?
What if B had been previously tied up, successfully used an escape artist check, could he pretend to still be tied up and helpless?
If B was a shapeshifter, and A was not aware of that fact and thought B was his buddy, can B let him move through his square?
All of these examples show that the sensible ruling is that B can choose to allow A to enter his square if that is what B wants to do, and that is what A is trying to do. Or in other words, B can feign helplessness (for purposes of enemies moving into his square). I don't need a specific rule in the rule books to tell me that is a valid option. It doesn't even really matter what the context is, feigning sleep, feigning paralysis, feigning allies with player A, etc.
So back to B is invisible and A doesn't know where he is at. If A is trying to find B, there is a rule in place for that - touch attack vs two adjacent squares. If A is just moving though, he is cooperating in that he is trying to move into a square, B should likewise be able to cooperate, thereby satisfying the requirements that both players be mutually cooperating (like being allies). As I noted in another post a moment ago, a x% chance of them bumping into each other anyway, or a perception check from A, could well be in order. But the automatically bumps into/mystical rules force prevents it fails the common sense test.
|
|
I think common sense actually tells us that there will be some sort of contact.When was the last time you rushed into an elevator as the doors were closing and ran into someone else already in the elevator?
Common sense would tell us they *might* run into each other at best. When one of those people is trying to avoid getting run into (and the other person has no idea they are there).... that lowers the chances further. It would be a fair house rule to say there is a x% chance they run into each other. Or to have the moving individual roll perception. It is entirely unwarranted for it to be an automatic detection.
The standard elevator cab is a 6-7 × 5-6 area. On average we are talking about a 36 Sq ft area, half again the size of what we are talking about.
Both myself and the people in the cab will be actively allowing each other into that space.
If per chance the person in that cab and myself were enemies, enemies to the point of fatal consequences, I figure either the person in the cab will block me out, or I am knocking them down.
None of that also includes the idea we are both wielding weapons and wearing medieval armours.
Now all that aside. If you have read any of my posts you will see that I will actually ask for a variety of rolls to avoid a collision and detection.
I do not actually believe that a collision, or detection, is automatically successful or unsuccessful.
|
The fact of the matter is there are rules that tell you how to find invisible creatures with touch and they do not include zig-zagging back and forth with move actions until you find a square you can't enter or end your movement in.Except some people here are arguing that this is exactly how you can do it. No, the rules don't say "do it this way" but the rules do say that it will work. For, uh, reasons.
For example, two posts above yours, Numerak (indirectly) advocates this very thing. By his response, the rules prevent you from entering this imaginary "square", roughly the square footage of a common elevator, even if you don't know there is a person standing there invisibly. Even if that person is TRYING to let you in. The RAW says "NO!!!" so it must be no.
Then he goes on to say you can finagle the "ally" rules by pretending your enemy is your ally to get around this hard-coded rule.
He's right. That's all true. Except the ally finagling might be more of a judgement call than an actual rule.
Although, this allows for this funny conversation:
Player: My PC walks over here.
GM: Uh, well, that only partially works. After the first three squares, you feel a mystical need to use Acrobatics to tumble through that fourth square.
Player: Why?
GM: I dunno. You just do.
Player: Can you explain that better?
GM: Well, the first three squares went OK. YOU walked normally, no problems. But then at this fourth square, some karmic mystical energy in the universe seems to prevent you from walking into that square. But you instinctively know that you might be able to enter it if you tumble.
Player: Why?
GM: Reasons.
Player: How do I know about the tumbling?
GM: Uhhhh, instinct, I suppose.
Other Player: Hey, Fred, stop there and ready an action to attack. On my turn I cast Glitterdust on that mystical tumble square.
Or you could not be silly and have it go
Player: My PC walks over here.
GM: [hmm, there's an invisible creature in a square he wants to move through. The rules don't 100% cover this but the intent is pretty clear you shouldn't be able to just walk into invisible creatures to find them since you need to use your standard action and make touch attacks to find someone invisible, so I'll let him pass by without incident as he isn't treating the square as being occupied by an enemy and the creature isn't going to take hostile action like an attack of opportunity or otherwise attempt to impede his movement.] Okay sure, anything else?
None of that also includes the idea we are both wielding weapons and wearing medieval armours.
Full plate doesn't add much in the way of size of a character. I've seen full plate in real life. If I were to wear some on my 6' height, not quite 2' wide frame it would add, at an extreme, 6 inches to my width at most. And most characters aren't wearing full plate, many are in leather, or a chain shirt, both would be negligible.
Likewise, if I'm holding a sword, I generally wouldn't be holding it to the side of me, I'd be holding it in front of me to allow me to parry against attacks coming from either side.
A spear? Pointed in front of me.
A dagger? Not being enough to matter.
Pick or an axe? Probably held at the shoulder, ready to swing like a baseball bat, or in a downward arc.
Halberd? Held like a spear, or possible a staff, but again one end forward.
No weapon would add significantly to a characters width.
|
|
None of that also includes the idea we are both wielding weapons and wearing medieval armours.
Full plate doesn't add much in the way of size of a character. I've seen full plate in real life. If I were to wear some on my 6' height, not quite 2' wide frame it would add, at an extreme, 6 inches to my width at most. And most characters aren't wearing full plate, many are in leather, or a chain shirt, both would be negligible.
Likewise, if I'm holding a sword, I generally wouldn't be holding it to the side of me, I'd be holding it in front of me to allow me to parry against attacks coming from either side.
A spear? Pointed in front of me.
A dagger? Not being enough to matter.
Pick or an axe? Probably held at the shoulder, ready to swing like a baseball bat, or in a downward arc.
Halberd? Held like a spear, or possible a staff, but again one end forward.
No weapon would add significantly to a characters width.
When each person is broadly taking ~2' of space, each little bit taken for armour, shields and weapons is a fair amount used in a limited space.
You say you would have 6" used via plate armour...how about a shield and a weapon...they both don't go in front of you, there is movement to the sides of these things...you don't walk, or hustle, like a board, all upright.
But the point is to say that 2 bodies are naturally using up a fair chunk of a small space. Adding anything that will add to their bodies eats up more of that space, thus increasing to potential to cause them to make contact, even unintentionally.
The rules allow you to let someone move through your space. Allies can explicitly do so, so all you need to do to let someone pass thorough your square is consider them an ally for a moment.
The prohibition on two critters occupying the same square is at the end of one creature's movement, not in the middle. So the whole wandering around the battlefield hoping to be prohibited from entering a square only works on the last square of your movement, not the intervening ones.
When each person is broadly taking ~2' of space, each little bit taken for armour, shields and weapons is a fair amount used in a limited space.You say you would have 6" used via plate armour...how about a shield and a weapon...they both don't go in front of you, there is movement to the sides of these things...you don't walk, or hustle, like a board, all upright.
But the point is to say that 2 bodies are naturally using up a fair chunk of a small space. Adding anything that will add to their bodies eats up more of that space, thus increasing to potential to cause them to make contact, even unintentionally.
A dozen people can fit into an elevator. You really think two in armor and gear couldn't even if one isn't intentionally sharing the space? You are also assuming both characters are wearing full plate, shield, and holding a large weapon, when in actuality a lot of characters will be in medium, light, or no armor. And less than half will have shields.
Have you ever watched or participated in a karate sparring match? If the two sparring aren't within 3' of each other, no blows are going to land - and that's when both can see each other, and both are trying to maneuver to get into a position to hit the other guy. If one were invisible and didn't want to get touched?.... its not happening except by sheer luck.
The rules allow you to let someone move through your space. Allies can explicitly do so, so all you need to do to let someone pass thorough your square is consider them an ally for a moment.
The prohibition on two critters occupying the same square is at the end of one creature's movement, not in the middle. So the whole wandering around the battlefield hoping to be prohibited from entering a square only works on the last square of your movement, not the intervening ones.
The rules do not allow you to move through an opponent's space. It states this explicitly.
The actively moving creature certainly has a say in who it believes to be an opponent. It doesn't have to treat you as an ally just because you're treating it as one.
If it doesn't know that I am there the it cannot treat me as anything.
Player A must be aware of B and believe that he is helpless to move into his square (assuming no use of other skills/abilities). If Player A does so, Player B then has the option of either allowing him (by treating him as an ally) or taking an AoO (by treating him as a foe... who effectively has failed a non-attempted acrobatics check).
Let me make sure I've got this right.
In a previous post you said:
A could enter B's square if B was helpless, or pretending to be helpless. (B is not invisible in this first pair of scenarios).
If however B is invisible, and helpless, A can enter his square, but if B is invisible and only pretending to be helpless, then A cannot enter his square? The only change being that in the first set of scenarios, B is not invisible, while in the second, B is invisible.
There are no rules for pressing yourself against a wall in combat, as you are considered to be occupying the entire square.
Sorry, it was meant as descriptive fluff of one of many possibilities for how to explain how it would work.
Btw, I would apply the same logic for AoE effects that harm "enemies". If you're trying to land such a spell on an invisible opponent you know is in the area, it will work. However, if you're just tossing them out on an empty field for fun, it's not going to affect a bad guy who just happens to be there unseen.
Huh? A fireball tossed out will hurt everyone in the area. Ally or enemy, visible or invisible, indiscriminately. Not knowing the invisible bad guy is there won't protect him from being burned.
If you are talking about a spell though that has
Range: Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Then no, it will never effect the invisible guy because you need to see him to be able to target him in the multi-target spell.
For the whole enemies/allies thing, sometimes A gets to decide what the state between A and B is. Sometimes B gets to decide. It all depends on the situation. And sometimes it has to be mutually agreeable that both are allies for them to count as allies.
If B casts a harmful (or beneficial) spell, he gets to decide who he believes is an enemy or ally and should be affected as a result. A gets no say in the matter.
This also covers your WW question. B doesn't get to decide what squares A's whirling blades swing into, A does. So clearly A can make an attempted attack against an invisible opponent (subject to the normal miss chance vs invisibility).
Or if A and B are normally allies, and A wants to move through B, B can decide to NOT let him, even though the rules say allies can move through each other. B has decided that A is not his ally at the moment.
So in the invisible B scenario, A doesn't automatically get precedence on whether they are being treated as allies or not. A having no knowledge of where B actually is, should be at the disadvantage here, leaving B the choice of allowing A to enter his square or not. Leaving that call to A is extremely unfair to B who spent resources to become invisible. Or in other words, A wants to move into a square. If B isn't in that square he gets to. If B is helpless he gets to (it doesn't even matter if B is visible or not, just the fact that he is helpless means A gets to move there). And I've shown that B can choose to also act helpless, therefore even if B isn't helpless, but wants to pretend to be, then A gets to move into the square. This is clearly B's choice and A gets no part in it by just trying to move into a square that may or may not contain B.
Up thread someone talked about a GM doing this to his PC's to find them, until the party had their super fast monk just run around the map every time they encountered an invisible monster. And while it is true that touching two squares isn't the only rule for finding invisible creatures, when the position being taken allows this kind of clear abuse of the intent.... the GM needs to step back here and go "There is something wrong with this picture, let me make a reasonable adjustment to prevent that kind of abuse." It should be noted that the rules also make no mention of using metagame knowledge as a valid way of detecting invisible opponents either. So declaring that there are several ways to find invisible opponents does not make running around a valid way.
bbangerter:
The visibility of B doesn't matter. What matters is whether A considers B an opponent and also non-helpless. If A believes B to be either a non-opponent or helpless, it's reasonable to let him move (or attempt to move) through the square.
Naturally, if B is feinting to be helpless, it's not likely to change A's opinion if he can't see this bluff.I'm not talking about spells like fireball which hit everything. I'm talking about spells which specifically affect opponents, like the Prayer spell. If you cast Prayer and are unaware that a foe is nearby, it won't give them a penalty. If you cast Prayer knowing an invisible foe is nearby, then it will affect them.
If A can't even see B (even if he knows B is around) he can't make any decisions about B being helpless or not.
The prayer spell is the most compelling piece you've put forth so far for your argument IMO.
1) It is like fireball in that it effects everything in the area. Even if you don't know an invisible guy is there, it still effects him. Contrary to your statement
However, if you're just tossing them out on an empty field for fun, it's not going to affect a bad guy who just happens to be there unseen.
Its area of effect is
Area: all allies and foes within a 40-ft.-radius burst centered on youNot all allies and foes you know about. Just like fireballs area is all creatures in the blast radius - indiscriminately.
2) Since you know who all your allies are, you can choose, benefit those people. Anyone else that happens to be in it (whether I can see them or not), curse them. As an addendum, if a player told me they wanted to run it in reverse - they can see enemies X, Y, Z, curse them, bless anyone else who happens to be hanging around invisibly, I'd let them take it from that point of view and run it accordingly - that could mean they bless an invisible enemy (but my default way to run it would be bless the known allies, curse everyone else).
2a) There is a further possible edge case here where an invisible ally is in the area, but the caster doesn't have any idea they are there, or that said person is an ally even if they did know they were there. A GM could just say "It's magic, the god powering the spell knows, and makes it do the right thing" or a GM could still curse them, since from the casters point of view, this extra character is an unknown, therefore don't take the risk. But it is an edge case that is not really covered by the rules - a GM would have to make the call there.
This also covers your WW question. B doesn't get to decide what squares A's whirling blades swing into, A does. So clearly A can make an attempted attack against an invisible opponent (subject to the normal miss chance vs invisibility).Whirlwind Attack only allows attacks against opponents within reach. Thus, if you are allowing WW attacks to potentially hit an invisible foe then this immediately implies that you can consider an invisible creature an opponent.
If you can can consider an invisible creature an opponent, then you can't move through their square due to the rules of movement specifically stating that you cannot do so.
Attacks can also only be made against creatures. Except for that part in the invisibility rules that state you may attack a square that you think a creature is in. With WW, if you have reason to believe an invisible creature is occupying a square that you threaten, and since WW is an attack, you may attack the square, and thus the creature, in it.
The idea that being invisible gives me FEWER options than if I was visible is at the core of why I disagree with you.
So I've already shown that you can feign helplessness (while visible), and thus allow a creature into your square, let's go one step further and take the helplessness part out of the equation all together.
No characters invisible.
A wants to move through B's square. B wants to let him. They are enemies though. Don't you think it nonsensical to tell A and B, "Hey, you both want this thing to happen, but because you are enemies, this thing you both want isn't allowed to happen? If you'd been allies, it would have been no problem." Yes, yes, the rules say enemies can't move through each other (w/o an acrobatics roll at least). But the rules are coming from the viewpoint that enemies are trying to stop each other from doing something. This is why the GM exists to pick out the edge cases and make a sensible ruling on things (just like you correctly did with the first feigned sleeping scenario I presented).
The visibility of B doesn't matter.
I completely agree. That's why I presented the helpless case with both visible and non-visible versions. You say here it doesn't matter, yet you say you'd run it differently for the invisible version. Why? That difference means you think the visibility does matter.
|
|
Interesting. There is a finite and specific list of invisibility detection. Care to post a link to it?Or you could not be silly and have it go
Player: My PC walks over here.
GM: [hmm, there's an invisible creature in a...
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.
...
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
Also goes on to list various other methods of detecting invisible creatures, such as them attacking, picking up a visible object, following tracks, scent, blindsight... It does not however list metagaming the movement rules as a valid means of detecting an invisible creature.