|
The list does not say it's finite, and there are indeed spells and powers that can detect invisible creatures which are not mentioned there. As it doesn't say in that link one way or another about how movement into an invisible creature's square is handled, you must refer to the rules that actually do exist. These rules are found in the movement section. Following the clearly printed rules is not metagaming.
Bingo.
How is trying to bump into someone metagaming, but throwing flour into an area, or searching for tracks not?
Seems to come down to space covered and action required.
If a mundane action help take a notch out of the power of magic then I definitely have no issue. It is not like you pinpoint the invisible person, they still get all benefits of being invisible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying there IS a finite list to detect invisible things?
No, there isn't a finite list. That, what you refer to, is a list of some actions that can be used to typically discover, not a be all-end all list.
So being flat out pedantic, there is no way to get by the invisible guy because movement rules. Or do you think that people can just walk over a waist high retaining wall because they don't see it and it is obviously not an enemy. How about an invisible guard who is ambivalent to the party, or even just didn't notice the party as his back was to them as they came down the 5' corridor he is standing in the middle of?
|
Actually according to those rules then you only have a 50% chance to bump into an invisible creature while searching its square...
Now the argument that you cant enter an invisible creatures square at all regardless of the invisible creatures actions is not logical even with regards to the rules.
Invisible creature: is trying not to be found.
Other creature: is searching for it searches 2 adjacent squares with 50% chance to find invisible creature, fails. deciders to move into square he just searched.
DM: you cant do that it is occupied be a creature, even though he is not trying to stop your movement and in fact is trying to hide and avoid you.
At most i would give another 50% chance to bump into the invisible creature as you move through the square.
|
I'm saying that the inability to end your movement in an occupied square is simply that, you can't end your movement in the square. The rule that says that does not say "you automatically succeed a touch attack as you bump into the occupant of the square before being placed in an appropriate square." Therefore assuming that there is an invisible occupant in that square is indeed metagaming, as your character has not pinpointed the location of said creature, only you have, because you know the movement rules that your character doesn't.
So being flat out pedantic, there is no way to get by the invisible guy because movement rules. Or do you think that people can just walk over a waist high retaining wall because they don't see it and it is obviously not an enemy.
I'm pretty sure waist high retaining walls are not capable of choosing to allow someone to move through their square, being both stuck to the ground and presumably not sentient.
How about an invisible guard who is ambivalent to the party, or even just didn't notice the party as his back was to them as they came down the 5' corridor he is standing in the middle of?
No GM is going to suddenly apply combat movement rules in this situation. But if you were to apply them:
Ambivalent guard & someone moves through square: Guard chooses to let them through the square, no issue.Ambivalent guard & someone tries to end movement on square: They end their movement a square back, on the next round the above applies.
Oblivious guard & someone moves through square: Player is told something invisible is blocking their movement through that square, guard gets a perception check, if he succeeds he gets an attack of opportunity.
Oblivious guard & someone tries to end movement on square: They end their movement a square back, guard gets a perception check, if he succeeds he gets an attack of opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The list does not say it's finite, and there are indeed spells and powers that can detect invisible creatures which are not mentioned there. As it doesn't say in that link one way or another about how movement into an invisible creature's square is handled, you must refer to the rules that actually do exist. These rules are found in the movement section. Following the clearly printed rules is not metagaming.Bingo.
How is trying to bump into someone metagaming, but throwing flour into an area, or searching for tracks not?
Seems to come down to space covered and action required.
If a mundane action help take a notch out of the power of magic then I definitely have no issue. It is not like you pinpoint the invisible person, they still get all benefits of being invisible.
This question isn't about trying to bump into somebody. This question is about what happens when you unknowingly travel through an invisible person's space.
So yes, abiding by the rules that prevent that sort of movement is, by definition, metagaming. Metagaming, in this context, is simply relying on player knowledge (that would be otherwise unavailable to the character) to influence character decisions. Obviously, some level of metagaming is inherent and necessary to the system. But this isn't one of those cases.
Throwing flour or searching for tracks when your character is already aware there is an invisible creature present doesn't relying on any player knowledge that isn't available to the character.
Being told you cannot move into a seemingly empty square then having your character attack into that square because you as a player know that the only reason you can't move into that square is that there must be an invisible creature present is metagaming.
And that there is no exclusive list of ways to detect invisibility doesn't mean the methods are infinite.
Trying to bump into somebody is different than accidentally bumping into someone while ignorantly passing through their square. And if you bump into somebody, you have pinpointed their location.
Ultimately, you can't really rely too heavily on the "but the rules say this" argument when abiding by these rules overcomes the explicit methods of detecting and pinpointing an invisible character. You have generally a 50% chance of detecting someone by reaching into their square, which you really only do once you are already aware or suspicious of the general presence of an invisible creature. The "you can't move into that square method" is 100% accurate and you don't even require prior knowledge of the existence of an invisible creature, let alone knowledge of their likely or at least possible location.
"But that's how the rules work" is a hard argument to make when "that's how the rules work" seem to fairly clearly overcome how the more specific rules explicitly do work.
This post will convince no one to change their viewpoint. *shrug*
Even if A can't see B, he may still have a belief about whether B is helpless or not. Consider a tied up enemy who is clearly helpless and has one of his allies cast invisibility on him (and A knows what was cast due to a spellcraft check). If A believes that enemy to still be tied up and helpless, despite being invisible, he should be able to walk through that square despite no longer being able to see that opponent.
Is this Schrödinger's invisible cat?
There may or may not be a cat here. I will find out if there is by attempting to move into its space.
If I believe the cat is dead, I will be able to move into its space regardless. If I believe the cat is not dead, and it is in fact not dead, then I won't be able to move into its space, even if the cat is pretending in all respects to be dead.
Are you really advocating that A's belief of whether or not B is helpless should be the determining factor in this?
While I would allow this is a player specifically called it out, perhaps, I feel this is far from the default. Most normal characters are not going around thinking "Yeah, all those ants crawling around are my opponents. So is that grass. The air? Could be an air elemental in disguise waiting to choke me. And that mushroom growing on that tree over there, definitely my arch-nemesis. Heck, even the planet I'm walking around on is out to get me!"
When the ants, the grass, the air, and the darkness can meaningfully attack me, then they become affected by the spell.
Do you have a rules citation that characters you are unaware of cannot be effected by spells like prayer?
I may not be aware of the existence of a particular balor, but trust me, if its a balor, I consider it my enemy whether I know about that particular balor or not.
Whirlwind doesn't give you the ability to attack every square. It gives you the ability to attack every opponent. This is just one example, btw. There are many others abilities and attacks which target opponents which you should still be able to use on invisible opponents.
By that reasoning no one can ever attack an invisible target.
You aren't correctly applying the basic building blocks of the rules.
Basic Building Block #1: You can make a melee attack against a target that is within your reach.
Basic Building Block #2: With WW you can make a melee attack against ALL targets within your reach.
Basic Building Block #3:
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment...
Basic Building Block #4:
...though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies...
Are you making an attack when using WW? Yes, of course you are, multiple attacks in fact. The feat specifically calls out making an attack roll for each. If you are making an attack roll, you are making an attack.
Based on building block #4, if you believe an opponent is occupying a square, you can use the rules for total concealment and attack the square you think the opponent is in. This works for basic melee attacks, ranged attacks, cleave attacks, WW attacks, ray spell attacks - all attacks.
Can you provide a rules citation that WW attacks do not follow this normal pattern?
In any case, my goal was to establish that invisible things can still be considered opponents, which I believe you have granted?
Yes. I acknowledged that a long time ago. But as I pointed out, it often matters from who's point of view we are talking about. Cleric casting prayer? The caster gets to decide, not the characters effected - if he wants the orc to gain the benefits of his bless spell, he gets to, and the orc gets no say in the matter, even though the orc hates the cleric and wants to kill him. Allied player on the receiving end of a CLW spell? He can choose to try and dodge your touch, or make a save against it. Wizard casts dimension door and touches you to take you with him? He, the caster, gets to choose who he touches, but for this spell, you get to choose whether you are a willing subject or not.
If A is trying to move into B's square, unaware if B is in that square or not, can you logically show me where somehow A is not a willing participant in moving into that square? If he is a willing participant, is he not cooperating in his efforts to move into that square? If A then has met all the conditions for moving into a square, whose decision is it at that point to cooperatively (like they were allies) decision to let that happen?
Is this Schrödinger's invisible cat?
There may or may not be a cat here. I will find out if there is by attempting to move into its space.
If I believe the cat is dead, I will be able to move into its space regardless. If I believe the cat is not dead, and it is in fact not dead, then I won't be able to move into its space, even if the cat is pretending in all respects to be dead.
Are you really advocating that A's belief of whether or not B is helpless should be the determining factor in this?
I think I did mention that technically you can't enter a creature's square if they're pretending to be helpless. By allowing players to break this rule in the interest of believability, you're naturally going to get into some odd situations. That is the price we pay for bending the rules.
Note that this isn't restricted to the invisibility case. If the cat is visible and pretending to be dead, but actually isn't, will you allow a player who considers that cat an opponent to enter its square? Despite the rules specifically saying that you can't enter opponent's squares?
You seem to be advocating that the rules be changed to: "You can't enter the square of a creature that considers you an opponent.", which, while reasonable, is not what the rules say.
Because I understand the context of where the rules are coming from when they say that. I'm not really arguing the hard core RAW of the rules here.
Yes, I know its the rules forum, and the hard RAW is often the point of discussion, but RAW has zero value except in understanding intent and purpose so that as a GM you can make adjustments when it makes sense to do so - like it does here.
This is an edge case. The rules seldom cover the edge cases well. I'm using the rules that do exist, and applying logic to show why the rules don't work for this edge case. They result in nonsensical results. (I know you understand this at some level based on that you'd rule someone could feign sleeping and allow an enemy into their square).
...A lot of stuff which I don't quite follow...
You don't understand how each individual rule is a basic building block? Or how to put those building blocks together to form a cohesive whole?
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment... ...though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies...THAT is exactly my point. The rules allow you to attack into the square you believe an opponent occupies. Thus, you MUST be able to consider creatures with total concealment as opponents, otherwise you would not be able to make use of the above rule at all!
And if you can consider an invisible creature to be an opponent for when you attack then it follows that you can also consider them to be an opponent when you move.
Ok, but you still haven't answered this point
If A is trying to move into B's square, unaware if B is in that square or not, can you logically show me where somehow A is not a willing participant in moving into that square? If he is a willing participant, is he not cooperating in his efforts to move into that square? If A then has met all the conditions for moving into a square, whose decision is it at that point to cooperatively (like they were allies) decision to let that happen?
You can consider him an enemy all you want, but unless you have pinpointed him you can't consider the square you are moving into to definitively contain an enemy. If you are trying to move into a square, you are assuming he is not in that square (cause otherwise you'd be making an acrobatics roll as part of your attempt to move into that square). Without the acrobatics roll you aren't treating that square as if it had an enemy in it. He isn't forced to block you just because you think he is an enemy. He gets to decide how he reacts to your actions, not you. He gets to decide to treat you as an ally for purposes of moving into his square if he wants to - to cooperate with your choice in movement.
With the WW example though, you get to choose which square to attack into, so he doesn't get to make the choice of ally/enemy status in this case, that is your choice. Like I said, the ally/enemy status has a great deal to do with the appropriate point of view in the given context for how it applies.
At the same time, it's important to know what the rules actually are and how the rules are being bent.
Yes. I hope I've made it very clear I understand what the rules actually say, but I disagree with applying them in that strict fashion for this scenario.
More of, wasn't quite sure where you were going with that long line of argument. We both seem to agree that WW can be used to attempt to make attacks on invisible opponents. If you are claiming differently, then I must've missed something.
We are in agreement in how WW works.
You seem to be implying that the invisible person gets to make all the decisions on opponent classification. However, the moving character ALSO has the right to choose who she considers to be an opponent.
Not all the decisions. The decision for this particular context. Each context is unique. In my example of orc and cleric casting bless previously, would you say the orc can declare himself an enemy of the cleric and not receive the effects of the bless spell? I'm going to assume that you would not, that you agree the cleric gets to make that decision (if I'm wrong on this please state your viewpoint).
Based on my assumption of how you will answer that, it is then clear that while both parties get to decide who their allies and enemies are, often times the end meaning of who is ally/enemy only matters from one of those individuals points of view. Would you agree with that perspective as a whole (even if you don't agree with it for the OP question)?
I generally believe that the active character is the one who gets to decide who is and isn't an ally/opponent for their actions.
I disagree with that, but fair enough. There are more cases where that is the correct stance to take then not, I just wouldn't apply it as a blanket rule.
By the same logic, the person actively using a move action gets to decide who is an ally or opponent for their move action.
Back to acrobatics. If the moving character wants to act like an enemy, shouldn't he be making an acro roll to move into my square then? Shouldn't he be attacking the square with his weapon if he has reason to believe you occupy it? Or in other words, if he wants to treat you as an enemy, shouldn't he act in a manner consistent with that? (Our kids do what we do, not what we say). Using normal movement is not acting in accordance with what you are declaring. That would be like a cleric casting CLW and claiming he gets to automatically touch his dhampir friend because they are allies - the actions don't match the stated view.
|
|
If only there were rules for someone on the alert for an invisible enemy, something involving checking squares to try to find them...
Which is not a finite list.
Also allowing you to allow someone to freely move through your square while you are invisible will open up the the ability to move through an enemies square while invisible with no checks.
|
|
How do you consider an unknown opponent at all, in any way? And knowing in general terms that they exist does not count. If you have no idea whatsoever the opponent is THERE rather than somewhere else entirely then, as far as you are concerned, he diesn't exist and you aren't adjsting your stance in response to a creature who is not there. Meanwhile, the invisible creature does know you are there, can plainly see where you are, and IS adjusting its stance in response to you. So if two people have their meters set to 'ally' then its an ally. If one has no stance at all in regards to someone and the other has ally, ally. If one had opponent and the other no stance, opponent. If both have opponent, opponent. If one has ally and the other opponent, opponent. You cannot set a stance towards a creature you are unaware of.
This is all house rules.
Stances and how much of a square you actually occupy and ally/foe meters.
The closest there is to adjusting your stance is really the rules in acrobatics. You may want to claim "allowing an ally to move through your square", but there is no rule showing that someone who is unaware(but in the context of the OP at least) is assumed to be on the same side.
I find it reasonable to say that the invisible character needs an acrobatics check to allow the moving character to pass them. I would also follow that with Stealth (sans invisibility bonus) vs Perception (with favourable bonus).
I find it only fair to believe that while the invisible character wants to share the space, the moving character won't, or at least won't feel the need to and will occupy as much of it as it wants.
I think invisibility should grant a significant bonus to achieving such things.
How do you consider an unknown opponent at all, in any way? And knowing in general terms that they exist does not count. If you have no idea whatsoever the opponent is THERE rather than somewhere else entirely then, as far as you are concerned, he diesn't exist and you aren't adjsting your stance in response to a creature who is not there. Meanwhile, the invisible creature does know you are there, can plainly see where you are, and IS adjusting its stance in response to you. So if two people have their meters set to 'ally' then its an ally. If one has no stance at all in regards to someone and the other has ally, ally. If one had opponent and the other no stance, opponent. If both have opponent, opponent. If one has ally and the other opponent, opponent. You cannot set a stance towards a creature you are unaware of.This is all house rules.
Stances and how much of a square you actually occupy and ally/foe meters.
The closest there is to adjusting your stance is really the rules in acrobatics. You may want to claim "allowing an ally to move through your square", but there is no rule showing that someone who is unaware(but in the context of the OP at least) is assumed to be on the same side.
I find it reasonable to say that the invisible character needs an acrobatics check to allow the moving character to pass them. I would also follow that with Stealth (sans invisibility bonus) vs Perception (with favourable bonus).
I find it only fair to believe that while the invisible character wants to share the space, the moving character won't, or at least won't feel the need to and will occupy as much of it as it wants.
So, randomly blundering through a square has a 100% chance of making contact with an invisible creature, but a deliberate attempt to do so has only a 50% chance to do so. Yeah, that makes sense.
|
|
Less than 50% actually, even after getting past the concealment you still have to succeed at a touch attack.
Also allowing you to allow someone to freely move through your square while you are invisible will open up the the ability to move through an enemies square while invisible with no checks.
Um, no it doesn't? The occupant of the square determines if they will allow creatures through it, not the person attempting to move through.
I guess if they're letting their own invisible allies through their square you could take advantage of that but otherwise there's no reason to assume that they'll allow you through their square.|
|
So, randomly blundering through a square has a 100% chance of making contact with an invisible creature, but a deliberate attempt to do so has only a 50% chance to do so. Yeah, that makes sense.How do you consider an unknown opponent at all, in any way? And knowing in general terms that they exist does not count. If you have no idea whatsoever the opponent is THERE rather than somewhere else entirely then, as far as you are concerned, he diesn't exist and you aren't adjsting your stance in response to a creature who is not there. Meanwhile, the invisible creature does know you are there, can plainly see where you are, and IS adjusting its stance in response to you. So if two people have their meters set to 'ally' then its an ally. If one has no stance at all in regards to someone and the other has ally, ally. If one had opponent and the other no stance, opponent. If both have opponent, opponent. If one has ally and the other opponent, opponent. You cannot set a stance towards a creature you are unaware of.This is all house rules.
Stances and how much of a square you actually occupy and ally/foe meters.
The closest there is to adjusting your stance is really the rules in acrobatics. You may want to claim "allowing an ally to move through your square", but there is no rule showing that someone who is unaware(but in the context of the OP at least) is assumed to be on the same side.
I find it reasonable to say that the invisible character needs an acrobatics check to allow the moving character to pass them. I would also follow that with Stealth (sans invisibility bonus) vs Perception (with favourable bonus).
I find it only fair to believe that while the invisible character wants to share the space, the moving character won't, or at least won't feel the need to and will occupy as much of it as it wants.
Then you are not reading what I said...
I don't think it should be 100% either way, but it makes sense that moving your whole body in close (the same space) gives a greater chance to make contact that waving a weapon/hand in an adjacent space.
In the OP scenario...and thus what all this discussion is about...a moving character is forced to share the space with an invisible character.
The rules say this is not allowed. The rules also say that you can allow your allies to pass freely through your space.
The problem is that the moving character does not think it needs to share a space with an ally to pass through it, thus he will not make way to allow another to be in that space at the same time so he uses his whole space naturally as he moves through it.
Now, I don't think the moving character should automatically know someone is there by being blocked (or squeezed, or w/e else), nor do I think that the invisible character should get a free pass on avoiding either.
Thus I see skill checks (acrobatics plus stealth vs perception, as I have mentioned) as a very reasonable way to handle it. And I admit that this is a change from how I initially started the thread,but not too recent as I have stated this a few times in this thread.
Big part here is that this is all house rules, and we are in the rules section.
|
|
Acrobatics: ^1^ This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
Invisible: Do not provoke AoO when they move due to total concealment.
Ergo, you can move through opponents without any Acrobatics roll.
Doesn't matter if they're invisible, except that if you're not, you provoke from them.
|
If you are going to resurrect a 5 year old thread, please get the rules straight:Acrobatics: ^1^ This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
Invisible: Do not provoke AoO when they move due to total concealment.
Ergo, you can move through opponents without any Acrobatics roll.
Doesn't matter if they're invisible, except that if you're not, you provoke from them.
PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 193 ...Source
Opponent: You can’t move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
If you do somehow have the ability to enter an opponent's square (due to relative size or special ability), you will provoke an attack of opportunity unless specifically stated otherwise (such as with the acrobatics skill).
So no, being invisible does not let you pass freely through an opponent's square.
Acrobatics: ^1^ This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.
Invisible: Do not provoke AoO when they move due to total concealment.
When moving in this way, you move at half speed... If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.
Attempting to move Acrobatically through a space has a bunch of penalties beyond AoOs.
Also, this threat is (mostly) about a visible creature moving through an invisible creature's space. The invisible creature could get an AoO against someone doing that.
In every game I’ve been a part of, when something like this occurred it was always ruled that the invisible creature makes an acrobatics check with the same DC for moving though an enemy square to avoid detection.
maouse33 this is the 2nd post you've necro'ed for no reason. How long before you move to a graveyard of a sleepy village and start killing townsfolk for your undead army?