| HollowVessel |
I have a PC in my party who is a fan of enlarging the front line fighter and also can cast invisibility. The RAW mentioned “particularly large or slow creatures maybe have a lower miss chance” than the usual 50% but I couldn’t find a discussion on this and was looking to see how others played this if it’s come up at other tables.
My first inclination was that large creatures are double in size and take up significantly more space so (if pinpointed) the % might drop to 25%? Is this too much? When large the PC still has a +2 to DEX and regular 30 speed.
As a hypothetical what might you rule a huge invisible target’s miss chance?
I believe I remember 3.5’s GM guide mentioning a rule of thumb of dropping 5% per size category or more if base speed is reduced but would love some input!
| HollowVessel |
If its only invisibility, it will break as soon as the fighter attacks.
Otherwise, total concealment gives a flat 50% miss chance with no increase or decrease based on sized anywhere in the Pathfidner rule books AFAIK.
Sorry for not clarifying, the spell is greater invisibility. While there isn’t a specific rule about size and miss chance there is one of those bits that are a bit vague in the description of invisibility in “Special Abilities”
“If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.” (Sorry no page reference as I don’t have my books with me but used this for the quote: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/
Just wondered if anyone had opinions on what they felt “might” may warrant, how much, when to apply, etc.
I’m guessing it’s something that’s not widey utilized, but can understand it may be easier hitting something larger if you knew where it was but couldn’t see it.
| Mysterious Stranger |
I would not consider someone under an enlarge person as particularly large. If you are going to penalize the player for being large while invisible you should also do the same for monsters. If you cut the miss chance for 1 size category how much are you going to cut it for more than 1? This would mean that invisibility is useless for a lot of monsters. I could see starting to reduce the chance at huge or larger, but simply being large is going overboard.
| HollowVessel |
I did manage to find some tips from 3.5 that also speak to this coming into play from huge onward and based on speed under 30 as well, though no longer have those books so while I can’t confirm the veracity, does seem it was written by one of the designers (might be 3rd edition though)
“Because you cannot see the creature, your attack has a 50% miss chance. The Dungeon Master's Guide says the DM can waive or reduce the miss chance when the target is particularly large and slow. As a rule of thumb, you can reduce the miss chance by 5% for every size category the target is beyond Large. If the target is size Huge or bigger, also reduce the miss chance 5% for every 5 feet that the creature's current speed is below 30 feet. Also, reduce the miss chance by 20% if the attack is aimed more or less at the creature's center, or if the creature is using the squeezing rules (see page 29 in the Dungeon Master's Guide) to move into a locale narrower than its space. Finally, reduce the miss chance another 10% if the creature is particularly blocky or massive for its size category. All the reductions stack, but a miss chance cannot be less than 0. For example, a black pudding is a Huge creature with a speed of 20 feet. As an ooze, it's just a big blob, and both exceptionally blocky and massive for its size category. Attacking an unseen black pudding entails a miss chance of only 20% (base 50% -10% for size Huge, -10 for speed, -10 for mass). The example black pudding has a space listing of 15 feet (three squares by three squares). If the attack is aimed at the pudding's center square, the miss chance is 0%.”
Source: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a
Might use something like this.