Charging through an Invisible Opponent

[Pinotage]

Here's the situation: There's a long 10 ft wide corridor and an invisible opponent is coming up it towards the PCs. The PCs know the opponent is advancing towards them. They all decide to charge down the corridor, two abreast, hoping to 'bump' into the opponent. How would you adjudicate this? Overrun? Or could the invisible opponent simply avoid them altogether?

Pinotage

 

[RainOfSteel]

Here's the situation: There's a long 10 ft wide corridor and an invisible opponent is coming up it towards the PCs. The PCs know the opponent is advancing towards them. They all decide to charge down the corridor, two abreast, hoping to 'bump' into the opponent. How would you adjudicate this? Overrun? Or could the invisible opponent simply avoid them altogether?

Pinotage

Is the "opponent" one or two squares wide? Given the way the above is phrased, I'm going to assume one square (if it were two squares wide, it would have no hope of simply "dodging" at least some of the PCs charging it).​

Since there is a rule about "squeezing" past things (PHB p. 148), then I'd rule this would fall under that. However, a couple of factors introduce themselves.​

1) Does the PC being squeezed past know the attempt is under way?​

2) Does the invisible opponents have some special skill or locomotion that would help it out?​

The PC being squeezed past should be allowed to make an extra spot attempt vs. invisible creatures at reduced penalities. First, the invisible creature is moving, second, the invisible creatures is attempting to shoulder past the PC in the squeeze maneuver. I'd say the spot penalty would only +5, or maybe DC 25 total (vs the DC 40 I normally assign to spot stationary invisible creatures).​

If the PC successfully spots the invisible creature during the squeeze maneuver, I'd grant a free Attack of Opportunity (if one hadn't already been taken; subject to Feats on both sides).​

If the invisible creature has special Feats or Skills (like Jump or Tumble), or wall-clinging, etc., I'd wing something to allow that to help.​

For example: The invisible opponent has Tumble, and rolls it. At DC 20 (reduced because the Tumbler is invisible), the opponent would zig-zag right by the PCs; but a failure would indicate an automatic spot success and a free AoO.​

EDIT---

Oh yes. The other rules, including penalties, for Invisibility, Squeezing, and failed Tumble attempts, all still apply.​

 

[smetzger]

I was thinking overrun at first but I think that bull rush is equally valid.

Here is what I would do, which is not 100% btb...

When the attackers enters the square of the invisible man, the invisible man gets an AoO.
If the invisible man does _not_ take his AoO. Roll for the invisiblity miss chance; if it comes up a hit let the attacker chose bull rush or overrun (either choice allows him to have 'detected' the invisible creature). If, however, its a miss then the attacker has not detected the invisible man; treat as an overrun and the invisible man can chose to avoid and will go undetected.

If the invisible man takes his AoO, let the attacker chose either bull rush or overrun.

Of course if the invisible man is a monk he is just going to jump over everyone

RainO'Steal: tumbling rules would apply if the attackers ended their charge and had not yet 'encountered' the invisible guy, and the invisible guy then decided to try and tumble passed the oafs. Or the invisible guy has a readied action to tumble past them; in which case let him make his tumble check and the attackers get spot and listen checks.

 

[RainOfSteel]

smetzger,

In the above, I was discussing it as if it was the "opponent's" turn (there was a question if the opponent could avoid the PC's altogether, which wouldn't apply it it were the PC's turn).​

If it's the PC's turn, I'd go more along the lines you suggested.​

 

[smetzger]

smetzger,

In the above, I was discussing it as if it was the "opponent's" turn (there was a question if the opponent could avoid the PC's altogether, which wouldn't apply it it were the PC's turn).​

Ah, but with an overrun the opponent can chose to avoid.

 

[Pinotage]

Thanks! This have been very helpful!

Pinotage

 

[Gaiden]

Here's how I'd handle it:

Opponent's attempting to barrel in to invisible guy make standard touch attacks vs. invisible opponents provoking AoO's as normal. If they all fail their 50% miss chance, then they bypass the guy and nothing happens - end there.

If any would successfully hit (making the touch attack and not failing the miss chance), then I would let them grapple/bull rush or whatever it was that they wanted to do.

There are a few caveats to this of course. The first is the invisible guy's AoO - if he takes it, I would immediately let them know what square the invisible guy was in but still force 50% miss chances.

If the invisible guy had a readied action to move through them (had not used up all of his actions already) he would get a tumble check. The readied action tumble check could be run in one of two ways - make it a standard DC 25 like moving through a hostile square normally is. Alternatively, because you could say that the two opposing parties are actively going against one another - they are specifically trying to find him and he is specifically trying to get through them, the most obvious mechanic to me seems like an opposed role. They already have something like this set up for tumble in S&F (IIRC). Have the invisible guy roll a tumble check vs. the attackers bull rush/grapple check. The invisible guy would have to make one check for each attacker that was rolling (and pertained to the square he was in).

 

[Romnipotent]

50% miss chance, if the opponent wants to attack its fine, its actually an overrun at that point -_- so they can side step