Invisibility + Fighter's Mark = ??

[GoLu]

Technically, I would also think there's an excellent case to be made that the invisible creature does not get a -2 to attacks that don't include the fighter, since that seems to be based more off of the fighter's ability to keep the target's attention - but that's a hard call and the most literal interpretation seems to go the other way.

I'd go ahead and let the mark work. The fighter might not be up to anything right now, but that's mostly because it's someone else's turn. The invisible creature could reasonably still be distracted by actions performed on the fighter's last turn, which is probably how that creature was marked.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Man, wasn't D&D4e supposed to put control back in the hands of the DM? It also makes me grateful of the players I have. I wouldn't care what the rules explictly said. Are there multiple enemies and the sound of combat going on around the fighter, or is it just the single gnome? If the fighter had a bunch of commotion going on around him, I'd say no, he can't attack since there is no sight, and he must use other senses (predominately hearing i would say), which would be nigh on impossible with combat going on around him. If just the single gnome, i'd allow a perception roll since there is only one target to contend with and he can focus all his senses toward "sensing" the gnome. He would still take negatives to his attack, but would get the swing.

 

[Dracorat]

DS - the point isn't "how can we possibly handle this" but rather "what would the rules have us do?"

 

[catsclaw227]

This is an interesting topic. It's yet another one of those many rules discussions that I thought had an obvious answer - but clearly, this is not obvious.

And I think that this is the crux of the problem.

Scouring the ruleset to solve the problem is a 3.x style response to an ambiguous corner case. A paradigm shift for DMs and players may need to occur.

The core problem that Hypersmurf described on page 1 is mostly the issue. And it relates to something that Dracorat noted earlier:

Actually, it's just that when I apply rules, I apply them consistently. It has come to the point that my players expect that from me. Thus, as a result of any ruling, they will now call me on it if the ruling affects something important, such as this.

I have found in running a lot of 4e, that this just isn't the case anymore. I will tell them that sometimes they will get the +2 bonus from standing on a table and attacking (high ground), but that it MIGHT NOT APPLY later on in a similar situation.

Now, this requires a lot of trust from the players, and this is earned trust by trying to DM the game, not as adversary, but as facilitator. My players know that I am not out to screw them, and that sometimes rulings will bend one way or the other.

It is similar to the "say yes" paradigm (or 4eDMG Pg 42) that bubbles up from editions prior to 3e.

This isn't a "say yes" issue as much as it is a "make a situational ruling and keep on playing", but it's the same idea. DM makes a judgment call, and it's quite possible that it may not be consistently ruled the same way across the life of the campaign.

This is a more narrative than gamist approach, but its how I sense that 4e has progressed. DM fiat isn't always a bad thing. We did it for years in 1e and 2e, without much difficulty, but for players and DMs weaned on 3.x, it can be a bit jarring.

Personally, in my game, I would give the Fighter a perception check to see if he can notice a shift or some kind of movement. Maybe it will provoke an OA or maybe it will be the interrupt from his mark. If someone else can still see the target, I would give the fighter a bonus (to offset the penalty due to invisibility). Make a decision and don't worry about the application of the ruling for the future.

And all of this goes on in the head of the DM. To the player it goes:

DM: Your mark just went invisible.
Fighter: Can I try to hit him if he moves away? I have him marked.
DM: roll a d20
Fighter: Cool! A 17.
DM: OK, you notice that there's a shimmer in the space next to where you thought your mark was. You think he just shifted.
Fighter: [rolls Combat Challenge attack]

Or it can go like this:

DM: Your mark just went invisible.
Fighter: Can I try to hit him if he moves away? I have him marked.
DM: roll a d20
Fighter: Crap! A 10.
Wizard: I see him, he's just moving away to safety.
DM: I'll give you a bonus to your roll...
DM: OK, you notice that there's a shimmer in the space next to where you thought your mark was. You think he just moved away, so roll to hit!.
Fighter: [Rolls melee basic attack].

Just my 2cents...

 

[Dracorat]

It's a perfectly valid point, cats and in the real-time playing of the game, if I can't find the rule in a timely manner, I just make stuff up that seams reasonable. I do try to avoid the grind-to-halt.

But you can't hand-wave a rules system either. If it goes so far as to spell out rules, it should account for how the rules interact. Yes, it's not the detail of 3E but in some areas, it seems to lack sufficient detail.

Really, I got my answer a while ago, but the way the debate has progressed has been pleasing. Much thanks to all the contributors. (Even DracoSuave, who for a while probably thought I was attacking his answers, which was never my intent.)

For the record, there will be no Immediate Interrupt allowed from henceforth against invisible characters unless a check can sufficiently identify the action as a shift versus any other possible action. As you cannot take an OA for a run action versus an invisible foe, I cannot in my own mind justify a perception check for the shift either, which is to me, a more deliberately measured action than a break-and-run, yet with no characteristic that could identify it as a shift specifically, absent seeing it happen.

I won't modify the mark penalties (-2 to hit other characters), but if you're going to control the movement of a marked target, you need to know where it's at and what it's doing, within reason. Simply knowing it's moving isn't sufficient, IMO.

If an errata comes out with this addressed, I'll revist it, of course.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Yes but I believe this system was designed to be just that. Its not 3e. The DM must make the rule on the fly, and try to be fair. There may just not be a specific rule to the specific problem your having.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sorry about the necro, but I came upon this in the errata:

Invisible Creatures and Stealth:
If an invisible creature is hidden from you (“Stealth,” page 188), you can neither hear nor see it, and you have to guess what space it occupies. If an invisible creature is not hidden from you, you can hear it or sense some other sign of its presence and therefore know what space it occupies, although you still can’t see it


So, unless the invisible creature succeeds on its stealth check, the Fighter still knows exactly where it is, which means it is aware enough to be able to Immediately Interrupt on a shift.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, unless the invisible creature succeeds on its stealth check, the Fighter still knows exactly where it is, which means it is aware enough to be able to Immediately Interrupt on a shift.

How does one follow from the other?

Just because you know which square I'm in, does it automatically mean you know which action I am taking in that square?

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

If I know what square you are in at all times, I know your movement. If I know your movement, I know you're shifting. If I know you're shifting, I know all I need to know for Combat Challenge.

 

[balard]

No, he can have been pushed, slided, teleported, and end up exactly in the same square if he shifted.