Invisible Cover

[Atras]

If you are a ranged Archer, and you take your two shots at an enemy, do you think those two attack rolls should be with a -2 for cover, even if you can't see (and are unaware of) the invisible enemy between you and your target.

 

[Mummolus]

I'd rule no, because the invisible enemy obviously isn't obstructing your aim. I might have the archer roll a "mysterious" percentage die though, since they'd have a good chance of hitting the enemy between them and their target by mistake.

 

[Chris Knapp]

I'd rule yes. Cover is cover. Now, I'd adjust the player's roll in my head by -2 to see if it actually hit. If the player somehow KNOWS that his roll should have hit (based upon previous attack success or failure) then he should be allowed to have some kind of "ah ha!" moment, whether its an actual perception check or a simple raising of my eyebrows and a sly look.

 

[I'm A Banana]

By RAW, they get cover -- doesn't matter. Invisible creatures don't affect your aim per se, but they are meaty shields all the same. If I make a wall out of meat and hide behind it, even though it may be invisible, you still have to pass through it to get to me.

Still, you'd probably be aware of any shot that suddenly went askew because something was standing in its way, and thus aware of the creature there. Invisible isn't hidden -- most of the time, you're aware of where an invisible creature is, and aware that there's a creature there, too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I thought creatures no longer provided cover in 4e. (Also, couldn't the invisible guy get out of the way, since you can't see them, unless they specifically wanted to take the hit?)

 

[Chris Knapp]

I thought creatures no longer provided cover in 4e. (Also, couldn't the invisible guy get out of the way, since you can't see them, unless they specifically wanted to take the hit?)

Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

 

[was]

I'd rule yes...the invisible enemy standing between the archer and the target decreases his chance of hitting the target.

 

[bganon]

Absolutely yes, cover has nothing to do with line of sight. Would you allow a huge invisible wall of force to block arrows? Of course you would. Anything that partially blocks line of effect grants cover. It doesn't matter if anyone can see it or not.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, but invisible concealment wouldn't apply.

Unless you could see invisibility.

In which case it would.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I'd also say that, just like moving into a square where an invisible creature is results in your movement stopping, and the creature losing concealment, an arrow stopped by the invisible creature would do the same...it would now be revealed.

Further, if I was DM'ing, I'd be tempted to make the attack go against the invisible creature *first*, using its defense stats, then if it missed the invisible creature, the attack would go on through to its original, visible target. I'd do this all in my head, so the attacking player wouldn't know anything was odd unless he hit the invisible creature first, then the first paragraph would apply.

But that's just me.