Mounted and concealed

[pvandyck]

I and my horse are invisible (or inside an Obscuring Mist spell). If someone chooses to fire an arrow at one of the 4 squares my mount and I occupy, which one of us is hit? Random?

pvandyck

 

[Infiniti2000]

Oddly enough, per the rules, it would be whoever was the intended target. The only randomization in targets is when you are grappling. If this isn't to your liking (or your DM's liking, or whatever), let us know if you're interested in houserules on it.

 

[FireLance]

I think the pertinent question is: how does the archer know where to shoot? I assume this is a case of total concealment and not just concealment since most creatures can still distinguish targets that are merely concealed.

If he has some way to distinguish one target from another, e.g. blindsense or a Listen check that beats both the mount and rider's Move Silently checks, he should pick one target to aim at.

If he is only aware of one target, e.g. he has tremorsense (and is only aware of the mount), or his Listen check only beats the Move Silently check of either the rider or the mount, then that should be the target he is aiming at.

If he is shooting randomly and happens to pick the right square, then which target he is aiming for should be determined randomly, too.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oddly enough, per the rules, it would be whoever was the intended target.

There is no intended target.

"You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."

The Lone Ranger and Silver are in the mist somewhere. You can't attack the Lone Ranger; he has total concealment. You can, however, attack into a square that you think he occupies.

Since you're not attacking the Lone Ranger, he isn't 'the intended target'. The only target is the square...

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

Agree with hype. And I probably would go with a 75% chance to target mount, 25% to target person if you actually beat the concealment.

 

[Macbrea]

This brings up an odd case I used to do. I was wondering what the opinions of people where on this one. My sorceror used to cast from horseback alot during a outdoors campaign. Frequently, I would toss an invisibility spell on my horse and an improved invisibility spell on myself. If a caster riding on the back of a horse casts a spell does this count as an attack made by the horse? Thereby breaking it's invisibility or not.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If a caster riding on the back of a horse casts a spell does this count as an attack made by the horse? Thereby breaking it's invisibility or not.

It does not count as an attack. There's some ambiguity if you charge, however. But, IMO, unless the horse actually attacks at the end of a charge, I would not remove his invisibility.

Additionally, unless you have see invisible running, I'm not sure how I would rule the riding. There are no rules about riding invisible mounts.

Since you're not attacking the Lone Ranger, he isn't 'the intended target'. The only target is the square...

The target isn't the square itself, it's something in the square. This is probably just a typo by you, but it's an important and subtle distinction. In any case, this provides a lot more vagueness than I originally realized. If you have to consider each creature that could be located in the square, do you also have to consider each object? I mean, objects are valid targets, so don't you have to consider anything and everything that could be attacked if you don't just consider the intended target?

As a simpler example, let's consider an invisible rogue standing on a chair, fighting a fighter. The fighter (cannot see invisible) attacks into the square containing the rogue and the chair. The fighter could conceivable attack the chair, and isn't it as valid a target as the rogue? Intriguing.

 

[Stormrunner]

My on-the-fly rulings:
If the invisible mount doesn't attack, and doesn't aid your attack (e.g. by charging) it stays invisible.

Your mount is generally one size step larger than you, which is roughly twice the size. So I'd say a 2 in 6 chance to hit the rider, and a 4 in 6 chance to hit the mount. For a much larger mount (e.g. riding a dragon) it might only be a 1 in 6 or even 1 in 8 chance to hit the rider.

invisible Rogue on an invisible chair - if the fighter is trying to hit the rogue, hitting the chair instead seems like it would count as missing the rogue - that is, as part of the % miss chance. How many ways can he miss? He could strike too high, or too low, or too far to the left, or too far to the right. Only if he strikes too low would he reasonably hit the chair, so call it a 1 in 4 that he hits the chair on a miss. The only reason to account for the chair at all is that the fighter's blow could smash it or knock it over, causing the rogue to fall (or at least make a Dex check to land on her feet).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Per the rules, the chair doesn't even have to be invisible. As long as the fighter "attacks into the square" anything in the square, visible or not, could be a target.

 

[moritheil]

Per the rules, the chair doesn't even have to be invisible. As long as the fighter "attacks into the square" anything in the square, visible or not, could be a target.

Oh, that's totally awesome. I'm going to rule that when my players are attacking a square with an invisible guy in it and a downed ally that they have a chance to hit their fellow player's corpse and/or dropped items.

("And . . . . you hack Bob's head off. Way to go!")