The problem I have with Bob considering Alice as his ally for the purpose of sidestepping is that Alice doesn't consider Bob her ally.
She's trying to cover all the space; what's stopping her holding out her arms by her side?
Anguish wrote: One more anecdote involving the same player... in a different campaign they got into a game of Battleship with an invisible cleric. The player's paladin would move then use detect evil to check a cone.
My rules to myself: I always picked one specific square the cleric moved to. No cheating. If the cone picked him up, so be it. Further, of the paladin ended his move in the right square, he'd learn the location. Simple. Fair.
There have been times I've run invisibility differently, but I think this one was - by far - the most memorable my players ever had.
With the area detection the paladin will only know that there is someone/something evil in the area, nothing more. He need 3 rounds to know the location of that something.
èquote=Detect Evil]1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.
2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.
If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.
3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.
Avatar-1 wrote: The problem I have with Bob considering Alice as his ally for the purpose of sidestepping is that Alice doesn't consider Bob her ally.
She's trying to cover all the space; what's stopping her holding out her arms by her side?
[sarcasm]
Yes poor Alice should be allowed cheek 3 squares with each step.[/sarcasm]
The rules allow a character to check 2 squares as a standard action by groping. Anything that allow a player to check more than that with that kind of action or using a less demanding action is purposely changing the rules.
That's why I always plan to have a keg of floor in an extradimensional place. Make great cookies with the right skill, and help with those bloody ninjas!
If Bob can't see Alice, I won't let him have the sidestep, but I would let the 50% miss chance. Plus, Alice should have to cover all the squares with her movement. If Bob moves, there's a lot of chance she'll miss him.
I like this situation anyway.
There's many way to deal with this situation:
-Alice was impatient and creative, but her strategy is "risky": she moves, she's easier to percept, and she has a lot of chance to miss Bob.
-Bob can just wait to percept something to act, using his +20 on discretion to stay undetected.
-Everyone could make a perception check each round (move action). To avoid repetitive rolls, just let them take 10, and/or use the standard way: Standard to cover 2 squares.
-Everyone can just wait the other one's invisibility to finish.
-One could try to escape.
-One could stop his invisibility to taunt the other one.
-One could burn the room, call friend, etc etc...
Diego Rossi wrote: With the area detection the paladin will only know that there is someone/something evil in the area, nothing more. He need 3 rounds to know the location of that something.
èquote=Detect Evil]1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.
2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.
If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.
3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.
We know that. He was using the ability to try to limit the search area. "Is he in that cone or not?" That is to say, we ran it as it's written. Of course, after two or three rounds it became clear the cleric was himself moving around, which is when some clue lights turned on and better tactics were employed.
Smallberries wrote: Here's the problem. Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is morally reprehensible. I'm not kidding. The core book says that players can make their own choices for themselves (which I concede), and Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is abrogating her choice to try to find him with a move action. That is, she did not choose an overrun action, so the step-aside rule given in the overrun section should not apply. Only the movement rules should apply (i.e., you hit an illegal square, you stop.) If you do it any other way, you've broken one of the core rules.
Just typing that makes me feel ridiculous. But that is his (Alice's) argument more or less. I disagree with it, and if you do too, please bear in mind that it is my version of an argument I disagree with, so give it as much benefit of the doubt as you can.
I know there are other ways to deal with invisibility, and so does he. It's more about the principle of the thing.
I hear you. But the converse is equally arguable. Alice is in turn arguing to remove Bob's moral right to decide Alice should be passed on without interference. Alice is attempting to force hostility upon another creature. I'd think that if Alice's player wants to play the "morality" card, a simple alignment shift to Lawful Evil would be fair.
This is what happens when you suspend reason and simply follow a logic chain to its grisly unpleasant end.
Smallberries wrote: We now have a guy named Matt dissing mat tactics. I know that extra "t" and the capital "M" makes a difference, but come on. M(m)at(t)? Don't discuss mat tactics, it makes you look shallow.
Ok, kidding. I'm actually in perfect agreement with you.
Here's the problem. Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is morally reprehensible. I'm not kidding. The core book says that players can make their own choices for themselves (which I concede), and Alice believes that letting Bob step aside is abrogating her choice to try to find him with a move action. That is, she did not choose an overrun action, so the step-aside rule given in the overrun section should not apply. Only the movement rules should apply (i.e., you hit an illegal square, you stop.) If you do it any other way, you've broken one of the core rules.
Just typing that makes me feel ridiculous. But that is his (Alice's) argument more or less. I disagree with it, and if you do too, please bear in mind that it is my version of an argument I disagree with, so give it as much benefit of the doubt as you can.
I know there are other ways to deal with invisibility, and so does he. It's more about the principle of the thing.
Wait... What just happened? I was perfectly on board with the HOUSERULE of Alice running around trying to find Bob, but now you are telling me that Alice's player is arguing against Bob being allowed to let Alice pass? I was against Diego saying that it was cheating because at first it sounded like a fun little houserule but now I'm thinking Diego is right. Alice's player is trying to get an UNFAIR advantage by bending the rules. And him arguing that Alice isn't treating Bob as an ally so Bob cannot let her pass through his square is simply stupid. Alice cannot see Bob, but Bob can see Alice which means Bob can react to what Alice is doing but Alice cannot react to what Bob is doing. Tell the player that if what Alice is doing is checking each square so thoroughly that Bob would have no chance to let her pass that we are going by the old rule of 2 square's searched per standard action! End of discussion!
I agree with Lifat and I agree with Anguish and I agree with Diego. I also agree with Matt. You know this makes me crazy.
Let me try to square the circle here, because the debate has gotten a little heated. In my most recent post, I was fronting Alice's argument. Not mine. That's important to note.
I think we're all kind of on the same page here, in terms of letting Bob have an "out." He can step aside and let Alice pass through his square. Alice still has a chance of finding him but it's not a mortal lock. Both sides have a chance of success and failure; this seems fair to me.
The problem is that Bob's "step-aside" action is not covered in the CRB. There's nothing in there that specifically allows one to let an opponent pass through one's square, there's nothing that says it is an immediate action (to be taken when it's not your turn), and there's nothing on how attacks of opportunity might work in that situation. There's nothing. Going strictly by the RAW, Alice has a case. I want to disrupt that case with a ruling from Paizo declaring her to be nuts. Pretty much everyone else is on board with this, except for Paizo and Alice.
'Sall I'm sayin'.
Ok, let's try another approach.
What would be the reaction of the players if a BEEG had a few scores of goblins running around and trying to bump into invisible PCs to pinpoint them?
They will not like it and probably will say that the GM is cheating and stacking the deck against them. But if this tactic work for the PCs, it work for the NPCs too.
I'm not saying you are but in general DMs need to stop being so afraid to do something outside of the rules. Page 396 gives the rule that your rulesx are law. It doesn't say crb or suffer hanging. You don't have to cite something from crb to be justified in making a ruling. Letting players be little drama queens to pout and cry tyranny to get their way needs to end. Listen for reasonable arguments from your players, ponder on it a moment, make a ruling and move on. Player tantrums that something is "morally reprehensible" sh ouldnt affect your decision. Tell them to live with it and move on or go play pfs.
Edit and diego is right. These type of players are only diehard raw when it suits them. The only principle is he wants his way
Diego Rossi wrote: Ok, let's try another approach.
What would be the reaction of the players if a BEEG had a few scores of goblins running around and trying to bump into invisible PCs to pinpoint them?
They will not like it and probably will say that the GM is cheating and stacking the deck against them. But if this tactic work for the PCs, it work for the NPCs too.
Considering he could just have all of them bombard the place with alchemist fires, this is fine. Hell, it's exactly how a "horde master" type of BBEG should be using his minions for utility.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
So let me get this straight -- Alice actually thinks it is more difficult (in this case, impossible) to get out of the way of somebody who cannot see you and who is walking through your square without trying to run over you than it is to get out of the way of somebody who sees you and is actually trying to run over you?
Smallberries wrote:
Here's the tactic: Alice is fighting Bob, who is invisible. Alice uses her movement to run through as many squares as she can, because if she encounters an enemy square, she must stop - because you cannot run through an enemy square. This allows her to identify the square Bob is in, and if she happened to do it on her first move action, she can now attack Bob as a standard action.
My thinking is, Alice's movement is tantamount to an overrun. Bob is entitled to step aside, as per the overrun rules, and let her through. I think she should be allowed a perception check, perhaps with a bonus, to notice that she passed through an enemy square, and alter her action accordingly (i.e., if she makes the perception check, she can stop and attack Bob's square).
One player in my group has a real problem with this. His argument is that since Alice did not declare an overrun, she is not doing an overrun, and none of those rules should apply - Bob should not be able to step aside and let her through. She moves, encounters an illegal space (Bob's square), and stops, thus identifying his square.
My thinking is that Bob does not know that Alice has not declared an overrun. All he knows is that she's trying to move through his space. He should be allowed to let her move through his space as if it were an overrun, even though she didn't intend one.
I've looked at a number of Pathfinder forums and this question comes up every so often, but I have not seen a clear, rules-based answer to this question.
There is a rule in the core book that outlines how you go about finding an invisible creature: it takes a standard action, it only checks two squares at a time, and there's a 50% chance of failure each time. This says to me that it's supposed to be really hard to find invisible creatures. The "run around until you bump into something" tactic seems to circumvent that difficulty, which I don't like. My view is you're not supposed to be able to thwart a spell with a move action.
I'd like to allow the tactic, but...
Closest Rule : Overrun. Learn it, love it.
Best thing to look at is this: When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. - Ow, I hit an invisible something. I now have three choices, Attempt to go around, attack it or overrun. That is the only 3 choices you have. 50% miss chance if attacking :)
This tactic is called an overrun. The creature can move to the side as a free action and let the creature pass, or it can stand it's ground, or make an attack of opportunity. Which means tell the player that he is taking a standard action when doing so that's part of a move action to overrun. After all he is looking for a creature, and then he may choose to run through it, or not. Character gets that choice. But he provokes an attack of opportunity, or the monster can "Let the creature pass."
Smallberries, allowing someone unhindered passage through your space is not an action. PCs don't have to spend any action to allow it, so NPCs have the same. Allowing pass-through never costs the stationary creature. Also witness Acrobatics; no action cost to the defender if someone tumbles through.
Incidentally, using Acrobatics to evade might also not be unreasonable. Given the Alice-PC is blind (to Bob), there's only a 50% chance of "hitting" to start with. A nice low DC might work. 'Cuz skill documentation isn't exhaustive; creative uses are encouraged.
Oh right, your player isn't reasonable.
[][][][][]A[][][][]
[][][]B[][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][]C[]
Using this messed up diagram if Person A was trying to find an invisible person I'd give him a 50% chance if he happened to go through their square and was within like 10 feet. But the invisible person is C and Person A is wandering around in a snake pattern or however to find him? Cmon. Lets be real. It's like playing Marco Polo with no Polo. Unless its a tiny room he could avoid the guy all day regardless of rules system imperfections.
Diego Rossi wrote: Ok, let's try another approach.
What would be the reaction of the players if a BEEG had a few scores of goblins running around and trying to bump into invisible PCs to pinpoint them?
They will not like it and probably will say that the GM is cheating and stacking the deck against them. But if this tactic work for the PCs, it work for the NPCs too.
And here is another excellent point against allowing the I run all over the place untill I hit the invisible character. I think Diego has finally convinced me that even though I thought it could be a funny houserule at first I would vote against it as a player and not allow it as a GM.
If it was a group I trusted not to take things too far with this cute little houserule then MAYBE. But I would never allow it without allowing Bob to "sidestep".
She wants to play by the rules yet bend them, do the same.
Quote: Moving Through a Square: 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.
Quote: Helpless
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier).
Just have bob declared himself helpless the moment before she step into the square. Being helpless doesn't mean he has to lay on the floor. One of the way you can become helpless is by being 'completely at an opponent's mercy'.
For the 1/2 second she runs through the square he is helpless. He puts his weapons to his sides, steps to the far side of his square and exposes his throat to her.. helpless. As soon as she leaves the square he is in, he ends his helpless condition.
This would leave him open to being couped, but she could move freely though his square. He could even make a stealth check and hide (mind you his DEX is treated as zero while helpless).
I would always have assumed that this tactic would work. (Another situation where this would come in handy: an enemy cleric has cast a darkness spell that the party cannot dispel or see through in a 50 foot by 50 foot room. The cleric is channelling negative energy every round. What are the party's options?)
Also, just because you can let someone through your square doesn't mean they wouldn't notice you as they were passing through. If you were walking down a narrow corridor in pitch darkness, do you think you'd be able to tell if you passed another human being who was trying to hide from you?
But if you want an excuse to ban it: if you can run through six squares as a move action and automatically connect with any enemies on the way, then that would be a really convenient way to deliver touch attacks.
Matthew Downie wrote: I would always have assumed that this tactic would work. (Another situation where this would come in handy: an enemy cleric has cast a darkness spell that the party cannot dispel or see through in a 50 foot by 50 foot room. The cleric is channelling negative energy every round. What are the party's options?)
Also, just because you can let someone through your square doesn't mean they wouldn't notice you as they were passing through. If you were walking down a narrow corridor in pitch darkness, do you think you'd be able to tell if you passed another human being who was trying to hide from you?
But if you want an excuse to ban it: if you can run through six squares as a move action and automatically connect with any enemies on the way, then that would be a really convenient way to deliver touch attacks.
I agree, the tactic should work; it just should not be guaranteed to work. Both sides should have a chance of success or failure. That's why I think the tactic should be treated as an unintentional overrun: let the concealed person step aside, and give the overrunner a free perception check to notice that he's passed through an opponent's square. There are refinements that people have brought up, such as the 50% miss chance, and stealth considerations, which I'd like to incorporate. Unfortunately, until I get the fundamentals cleared up, I'm never going to get that far.
Also, let me address a one other thing that has come up, about this tactic being ridiculous. For example, MattR1986's post about it having basically no chance of working. Others I think have made similar observations. This tactic is for close-quarters. Of course you wouldn't use it in a big room, or when the bad guy is known to be far away. It's for 5 or 10 foot corridors, small rooms, etc., which are common in a lot of dungeon layouts. So it's not ridiculous per se, and I think some version of it should be allowed. What else are you going to do? A player declares a double-move action over as many squares as he can cover, and you say, sorry, that action is not allowed, because there's an invisible guy nearby? I don't think so. That level of latitude needs to be granted to the player.
Let me give my friend's argument as best I can. He's saying that the movement rules are clear: they say, in no uncertain terms, that you cannot pass through an enemy square. Period. There are exceptions, such as acrobatics and overrun, that let you do it. But in all those cases, the player decided and declared that alternative form of movement (acrobatics, overrun, etc.). Since he did not declare one of those alternatives, their respective "exception" rules should not apply; only the movement rules apply, and those rules do not allow movement through an opponent square, or the ability to let someone through your square. Allowing the opponent to step aside or otherwise thwart this move action violates one of the principles of the game, i.e., that players get to make their own decisions for their character. Making him do an overrun when he had not declared one violates that principle; it's removing his freedom of choice in what form of action his character takes.
Now, there's no need to rehash this too much, a number of people have already addressed a lot of this stuff. My problem is the player treats these rules (or rather, his interpretation of them) as chiseled stone and doesn't understand how unreasonable that is. I like Anguish's approach that you can let someone through your square as if they were an ally, and that it does not take an action to do so. My problem is that since that is not spelled out in 12-point type in the CRB, the player simply rejects it.
Now, I don't want to invite a lot of "Oh, man, your player is a (whatever)" type of posts. He's a good player in most respects, and has been GMing his own game for a couple years and is pretty good at it. He just has some blinders on when it comes to some of these rule interpretations. This is why I'm going to the source, hoping (against hope, I guess) that Paizo will give me a ruling. That's the only satisfactory outcome - I can say, see? The Paizo developers have added it to the FAQ. Then he has to accept the outcome. And I'll say this, if their ruling supports his position, I'll accept it too.
I stated how I could maybe see it in a small room or up close. I would say he needs to double move and be within 10 feet to surprise the person by running into him. Running down a 5 foot corridor would be part of what I'm talking about also since he has no where to get out of the way. And no one is telling him what action he can and can't take. He can sit there and choose to wander or drool on himself if he so chooses. The point is if its a large space you can tell him that tactic is pretty much impossible and he'd be wasting his turn to do it.
He can argue what he *thinks* the rules state till his ass bleeds. Don't let someone rules try to bully lawyer you into the ground. You decide the scope and what you think the intent of the rules are. What does it talk about? LETTING someone go through your square. He is trying to move through someone's square. He is being given permission so that the invisible player treats him as an ally regardless of whether he wants him to be an enemy. It's not "I'm giving you permission to let me move through your square." It's not his decision, its the decision of the person in the square. The implication is you 5 foot step to let them by or squeeze or whatever. If he wants to try to make a grab at a square he thinks is the right one or its a space that the person couldn't move out of the way, go for it. Page 396 says your word is law, so if you want to change a rule it is within your right to do so. If he wants to get that technical you can solve this pretty quickly by reminding the invisible player he can ready an action and when the person gets close, he uses a move action to get away so there's almost zero chance of bumping into him.
Don't let someone give you the "I've been DMing for derp years so my way is right, you noob" speech. Again it is YOUR game. Don't let someone bully you into following strict raw if you don't want to. He wants 12 pt font? Page 396, kiddo. If he doesn't "accept" your rules you can tell him to hit the curb.
That's a fair point, but I don't like using the "my way or the highway" argument.
Except that's really what it comes down to in D&D. People are going to have differing opinions on everything under the sun from flavors of ice cream to what they think the rules mean. They're also going to usually interpret things in a way that benefit themselves. That's why the game says you are the referee. Would you want to watch an 8 hour sports game where both teams argue indefinitely whether it was a foul or not until someone finally agrees or doesn't want to argue anymore? Or have a lengthy debate every time the ref made a call? I doubt it. That's why refs are there to mediate and keep the game moving on disagreements.Their decision ultimately stands regardless of whether someone disagrees. They're not perfect but its better than the alternative. You are the final decider where your opinion is the final say. It is ultimately your way or the highway. If his ego is so out of wack that he's Mr. "I'm always right" and can't handle that he isn't the final decider on the rules, you are, then he needs to gtfo. Part of your role is to try to make good decisions quickly to keep the game moving. It is not a democracy. Listen to player input, but don't let them guilt trip you into the "boo hoo I'm a victim and you're a tyrant" routine.
I can almost guarantee he wouldn't allow that crap when he DMs.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
