6:A square can hold 2 small creatures. A gnome and a goblin could fight in a square.
|
generally solutions fall into categories;
1) RAW bumper cars: strict RAW which then allows searching for an invisible creature's square by using movement. Squares that are mysteriously impassible invite the conclusion that they have invisible foes in them.2) Invis GM Fiat: The invisible creature is allowed to be considered "friendly" with specific creatures for that creature's turn. This trades AoOs for not being detected without an actual search. The invisible creature must still make checks to move through other creature's squares and is not allowed to stop in another creature's square.
3) Invis check: Invisible creature makes Stealth/Acrobatics check to avoid detection which must be higher than the traveler's 10+Perception check or perception bonus. Somewhat an analog to using Stealth or Acrobatics.
4) Percp check: Converse of 3 where traveling creature makes a skill check vs a base invisible stealth DC. Requesting a check alerts the creature to an unusual condition.
5) Squeezing: a check rationalizes two creatures in a square but who takes the penalties?...
6) others
Regarding #2, it seems to me that the general ability to pass through a friendly creature's square assumes some basic level of coordination to avoid tripping over each other (I see you are trying to come through the west side of my square, so I'll stick to the east side for the moment it takes you to pass through). If the person passing through isn't aware the square is occupied by a 'hostile but willing to let you pass' creature, there is no guarantee they won't lurch into the east side of the square by accident (or because they were planning on turning or going diagonal at this point).
At minimum, there should probably be an acrobatics check to let the other character pass thru (so, 'no' to option #2 and 'maybe' to option #3 I guess).
Offhand, I think another solution is probably: Invisible creature has to ready an action to move out of the way if anyone enters his/her square. If they don't, RAW if someone else enters that square (you need to plan ahead a bit and learn to keep your distance if you want to be sneaky and safe).
If its like 2 or 3 halflings in a trenchcoat, have they adventured before? It could be a combat maneuver. The invisible rogue getting into flanking position. +4 for "We practiced this" conditional modifier.
Unless you are using fog of war rules, no 2 combatants have the same initiative.
|
|
6:A square can hold 2 small creatures. A gnome and a goblin could fight in a square.This is pretty much a Ratfolk Trait:
Inner Sea Races pg. 247, Advanced Race Guide pg. 150, Bestiary 3 pg. 231 ...Source
Swarming: Ratfolk are used to living and fighting communally, and are adept at swarming foes for their own gain and their foes’ detriment. Up to two ratfolk can share the same square at the same time. If two ratfolk in the same square attack the same foe, they are considered to be flanking that foe as if they were in two opposite squares.
...
I'm not certain what this has to do with the original 'can I let this guy pass through my square without revealing myself' question...
A PC ratfolk may have a ring of invisibility.
I'm just saying how I would handle it as a GM. I would handle it in a way I understand. In a combat situation, everybody's grunting"unless they are a ghost" and you could recognise one of your teammate's grunts.
|
|
A PC ratfolk may have a ring of invisibility.
I'm just saying how I would handle it as a GM. I would handle it in a way I understand. In a combat situation, everybody's grunting"unless they are a ghost" and you could recognise one of your teammate's grunts.
Okay, we seem to be on different pages here. My understanding of the basic most-recent question is:
I am invisible and prowling around with no one aware I am there.An 'enemy' proceeds to accidentally walk through my square: Can I somehow let him pass through without revealing my presence (and if so, how?) or should the RAW apply?
Neither 'small size' nor 'allies' directly come into play here...
The simplest solution to an unfriendly passing through your square would be a reflex save. DC20 for both being small. DC25 for one small and the other M sized. DC30 for both the invisible and the foe being M sized.
On a failure, the foe brushes past or bumps into the invisible creature or person. In both cases, the foe is aware of an invisible presence. It might be a haunt.
Both invisible, it's likely at least one will fail their reflex save, and both will be aware of the other. They only become visible if they engage in combat.
Well, I'm going to rock the boat a little bit, and leave rather a long answer to the o/q:
A combatant enters a area--be it a square, a hex, or space on the table where their bases would be in contact were both figures "on table"--where another combatant is present but concealed.
How does one resolve that in a Pathfinder game, by rule?
My solution is to allow the Inactive Combatant to decide whether to maintain concealment, or to engage. Engagement forces the Active Combatant to move back to the immediately vacated space, and permits the usual melee rules to be employed thereafter.
Maintaining concealment requires the Inactive Combatant to take a 5' Step to an adjacent space as an Immediate Action, and make some sort of GM-set Stealth Check; unless the GM frequently has Players make Perception/Stealth Checks during melee movement, making an opposed check gives the game away and negates the intent of the Inactive Combatant. If the Inactive Combatant succeeds in their Stealth Check, they remain concealed (Invisible) and retain the ability to act on their Initiative Turn. If they miss their Stealth Check, they are pushed 5' along the direction of movement of the Active Combatant, and are engaged.
Here's why...
My foundational premise is to remember that rules conflicts occur during game play, and therefore, my role as GM is to adjudicate them within the scope of the current game situation. The fundamental consideration for me as a GM is therefore intent. Determining intent isn't as vague or notional as it might appear, because game situations inform intent rather nicely.
The Active Combatant and the Inactive Combatant both have an intention, made evident by their preceding Actions and their own declarations. In the original situation, the Active Combatant--the Drow--is moving towards a destination; they are not simply wandering about, nor are they specifically searching for concealed combatants. The Active Combatant's intent is to Move from 'A' to 'B'.
The Inactive Combatant--the Invisible Ninja--is employing concealment (Invisibility) for a reason which is unfortunately not illuminated in the OQ. Whatever the Invisible Ninja ultimately means to do--make a Sneak Attack, slip away unnoticed, or simply observe the other combatants--it is reasonable to presume from the information provided that maintaining their concealment (Invisibility) is their paramount concern.
The Active Combatant has an objective, and their objective is not to discover an Invisible Ninja they have no idea is present. On the other hand, the Inactive Combatant's objective is to to remain concealed (Invisible), and they can clearly observe the approach of the Active Combatant.
I want to preserve the intent of both combatants, where I can. Certainly the rules--even the RAW--support me in that effort, even if they can always be read so as to support a different conclusion by some one determined to create disharmony.
My first decision is that leaving both combatants in the same rea is clearly a poor choice, because the Minimum Space Abstraction (a 5'x5' square) was chosen as the area occupied by one person-sized (Medium) combatant. It is explicitly forbidden by rule, as well.
So how might one employ the rules to adjudicate this general situation?
Firstly, it is clearly considered possible for two combatants to move in close proximity to one another in Pathfinder, because Friendly combatants are able to move through the Minimum Space Abstraction (a 5'x5' square) without jostling each other, slowing one another down, &c; they just glide by. The rule is so broad that the main exception is singled out: a Friendly combatant cannot Charge through an ally's space.
So...it seems reasonable to assert that a Neutral or Enemy Inactive Combatant could manage the task of avoiding an enemy combatant as they move through the space they occupy, at some cost and some risk of detection. The Invisible Ninja is likely to be particularly good at this, but at the moment, I want to focus on the general case, rather than specifics.
Secondly, an Inactive Combatant who is visible is permitted to simply step away from an Overrun attempt, which is really the best the Active Combatant could assert as their privilege in this situation; they don't know the Inactive Combatant is in front of them, after all.
So...it seems reasonable to assert that a combatant is permitted to Move the minimum distance abstraction (a 5' Step) in order to avoid an Opponent, as well as manoeuvering to allow an Ally to pass through their space.
Thirdly, a Reflex Saving Throw is an attempt to manoeuver out of the way of an attack or effect.
Fourthly, the Action Economy is rife with examples of Inactive Combatants being permitted to "do things" which are "quasi Actions" as a reaction to activity and events around them. Fleeing is an obvious example.
So, it is clearly understood that the Action Economy's poor synchronisation to the abstraction of Initiative Order requires a major investment in rules exceptions, This further supports an asynchronous resolution of the situation.
Given the Active Combatant is not deliberately seeking to find concealed foes, that Inactive Combatants--even without a Readied Action--are permitted to react to events, and that the most similar melee situation permits the target to evade by making an asynchronous Movement of 5', the resolution is fairly clear:
The Inactive Combatant must decide to either maintain concealment, or to engage. Engagement forces the Active Combatant to move back to the immediately vacated space, and permits the usual melee rules to be employed thereafter. To maintain concealment, the Inactive Combatant must take a 5' Step to an adjacent space as an Immediate Action, and make some sort of secret Stealth Check; unless the GM frequently has Players make Perception/Stealth checks during movement, making an opposed check gives the game away and negates the intent of the Inactive Combatant. If the Inactive Combatant succeeds in their Stealth Check (against a GM-set Difficulty), they remain concealed (Invisible) and retain the ability to act on their Initiative Turn.
The GM might charge the Inactive Combatant a Move Action, or charge off an Opportunity Attack, or find some other way to kludge together the nightmare that is Actions in D20 FRPGs. The OQ had the Inactive Combatant charged 5' of Movement.
The real issue, of course, is the ugliness that is the D20 Action Economy, whether in V1 or V2.
KAH