Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheGogmagog" data-source="post: 2166130" data-attributes="member: 27702">Right, the classification of enemy and allies can get fuzzy sometimes.  But if an opponent chooses not to take an attack of opportunity for moving into his square, he can choose to let you through.  Simply running around through possible occupied squares won't reveal him. Hence the suggested method mentioned under invisibility in the DMG.I would also question whether you can stop in an occupied square.  At least enough to go back and re-read the circumstance and wording of references to that rule.  The rules for not stopping in an occupied square probably assume active combat.  There are exeptions, first logic, you can fit four or maybe nine (plane shift might specify that iirc) people in a 5'x5' square.  Two people in the same square just can't 'fight effectively' which is usually interpreted as 'at all'.  In the situation you described, searching for the invisible guy. I picture you moving 5' and attacking the square in front of you.  Should the invisible guy be in the square you moved into your attack wouldn't be effective.... meaning.....   what?  you hit him midswing?  Doing damage if its a light weapon, but not if it's not a weapon which couldn't be used in a grapple?  I do picture a dagger being more effective in this style of search than a twohanded battleaxe.  That would be my on the spot ruling, but I don't know if the rules support it.</blockquote>

Verification