Move Silently while Tumbling?

[Kae'Yoss]

Where does it say that concealment negates AoO? As far as I know, a character would still get an AoO against an invisible opponent that did something that would normally provoke one.

Funny, that! Now that I looked invisibility and concealment up, I can't find a reference to AoO and 100% concealment. But it's only logical that you don't get an AoO against an enemy with full concealment: You may know he's there, but you can't see him because he's totally concealed from you. So you can't see when he lets down his guard and take advantage of it.

 

[Astlin]

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdcombatmodifiers.html

Cover and Attacks of Opportunity

An attacker can't execute an attack of opportunity against a combatant with one-half or better cover.

Astlin

[edit] Er... nm. It does not mention aoo and concealment at all.

 

[bret]

Funny, that! Now that I looked invisibility and concealment up, I can't find a reference to AoO and 100% concealment. But it's only logical that you don't get an AoO against an enemy with full concealment: You may know he's there, but you can't see him because he's totally concealed from you. So you can't see when he lets down his guard and take advantage of it.

In character, combat isn't some sort of strobe light effect with everyone acting in turn and then waiting six seconds before acting again. People are constantly moving, attacking, etc.

I'm not a real fan of it, but my rationalization is that the person who lets up their guard gets clobbered by a blow that they would have otherwise dodged. The attacker would still have to know what area the invisible person is in and make a roll for concealment, but they would get an AoO.

This makes more sense with some of the ways to open up an AoO than others. If you start climbing a rope, you are basically ignoring the other guy and even a poorly aimed blow could not be defended against. Others (such as move and do something) are much harder to justify.

If someone can show that invisibility or full concealment does negate AoO, I would be very interested. It is one of the things that several GMs have problems with.

 

[Shallown]

Remember tumble does not always mean... well.. tumbling or acrobatics. Someone on the board once said that it could also be dodging and weaving like a football player when he is about to be tackled.

I have used Moving silent and Tumbling when entering a room when I didn't know if someone was waiting to ambush me or not. so I can see when it might be used.

I think the problem is that the Move silent goes from -4 for a normal move rate to a -20 for charging or running. That is quite a spread I think it is reasonable to set up some DC's based off those in the book to do things with tumble. I don't think of these as house rules but using the present rules to create DC's and just writing them down.

We have had rogues use tumble to pick up a weapon while tumbling and trying to avoid the attack of Opportunity and other such actions. Makes for a more dynamic game.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[jontherev]

In character, combat isn't some sort of strobe light effect with everyone acting in turn and then waiting six seconds before acting again. People are constantly moving, attacking, etc.

I'm not a real fan of it, but my rationalization is that the person who lets up their guard gets clobbered by a blow that they would have otherwise dodged. The attacker would still have to know what area the invisible person is in and make a roll for concealment, but they would get an AoO.

This makes more sense with some of the ways to open up an AoO than others. If you start climbing a rope, you are basically ignoring the other guy and even a poorly aimed blow could not be defended against. Others (such as move and do something) are much harder to justify.

If someone can show that invisibility or full concealment does negate AoO, I would be very interested. It is one of the things that several GMs have problems with.

If you can't see someone (full concealment...total darkness, invisibility, etc.) AT ALL, then you won't notice most/all activities that normally trigger AoO's, right? In this case, the snake "sees" you because of his Scent ability. Most of the time though, this isn't the case. If you can't see me pull out a potion and drink it, how are you going to catch me off guard and attack me?

 

[NPC]

jonthrev you make a good point, if I fail my Listen check vs. your Move Silent check, then yes, I agree with you.

But if I make a successful Listen check, I detect you (i.e. I can "see" you) and I can hear what you're doing, therefore I can make an AoO if you provoke one.

 

[jontherev]

jonthrev you make a good point, if I fail my Listen check vs. your Move Silent check, then yes, I agree with you.

But if I make a successful Listen check, I detect you (i.e. I can "see" you) and I can hear what you're doing, therefore I can make an AoO if you provoke one.

Hmm, well first of all, I'm not sure I agree that a listen check pinpoints the exact 5' square of an invisible foe. Maybe if they are really close by, but what if they were 150' away from you? I don't think so. I will have to check the DMG on that rule unless someone else would like to post the rule. I think you have to make a DC 20 Spot check and a Listen check (modified by Move Silent) to know which square he's in. Or, as a move-equivalent action, you can grope around in one square to see if anything occupies it.

The rule is actually irrelevant in this case anyway. Let's say you made your Listen check and spotted the invisible foe. Fine. So, now you know where he is exactly (until he moves again). You still can't see him and you still don't know what he is doing. Making one Listen check does not mean you get temporary Blindsight. Unless you have the ears of Superman, you can't tell whether he is about to start a grapple with you (usually provoking an AoO), pull out a potion and drink it, bind a wound, or cast a spell in melee (assuming the vocal component can be used at the very end).

Actually, the snake would not sense many of these actions which provoke AoO's either. He could sense movement related AoO's, but that's about it...and maybe casting a spell (smell the component used) in melee. YMMV.

 

[zeela]

I think we are confusing real life with game balance here. There are many situations in the rules where reality is sacrificed for the sake of fairness and balance. So that's great that in martial arts you learned to roll and tumble and you were almost silent. To you it might be very realistic to give a bonus to a MS when tumbling. But what about game balance?

Let's see. What are the benefits of moving silently? If you are invisible, you can move without your opponents hearing you, which means they won't know where you are and have a pretty crappy chance of guessing the right square.

What are the benefits of tumbling? Even those enemies who heard you (or who can smell you with scent, or who can see invisible creatures) will at least not get an AoO on you. This will protect you if somebody makes the listen DC.

So, you suggest to give a bonus to MS when tumbling? Why would any rogue in their right mind, or anybody with ranks in both, ever move without tumbling? Especially if they are a halfling or such who can only move 20ft anyway.

So back to game balance. What you are suggesting is that this rogue or anybody with some ranks in both, could never be heard and never provoke AoOs. Any 10th level or so rogue will have anouth ranks and magic items to not fail the tumble or set close to impossible listen DCs. I don't think that sounds balanced, it makes invisibility way to powerful.

---

Regarding provoking AoO's when invisible. Correct, if you don't see somebody, you might not know what they are doing. Might, that is, if you rely only on your eyes. That's what the listen check is for. In this case we are talking about a move, so it's easy. You should be able to make a listen check to know if somebody that you know is invisible is trying to get by you through severl squares you threaten. If you make it, you get your AoO. You still have the 50% miss chance etc for concealment. There is a big difference between concealment and physical cover.

Also, I agree that a listen check would only work this way if the opponent was very close to you anyway. Otherwise it would maybe let you know the general direction the invisible person moved to or something like that. In this particular case though the character was right next to opponents, was trying to move through several threatened squares.

And also, jontherev, you're right in that you'd only know where he is until he moves again, but in this case that's all they needed. Of course you don't gain blind sight because of one listen check, but you can attempt to keep making listen checks if the invisible character keeps moving around.

On the other hand I could see that ruling whether you provoke an AoO if you pull out and drink a potion while invisible and standing next to an opponent could be harder. The opponent doesn't necessarily know you're letting your guard down. Could make it a full-round action because you are trying to be extra quiet, or let the DM set a listen DC to here the character drinking. Different options depending on the situation.

But generally, just because your invisible doesn't mean your invulnerable. I fully agree with you, Bret.

---

Also, a lot of people argued that he should be able to do these things because he is a rogue. But let's forget that for a minute. How would you all answer this question if you didn't know it was a rogue? The specific question here was "Can a characther move silently while tumbling? What should the DC penalty on the tumble be? Or the negative skill modifier on the move silently?" It doesn't have anything to do with the class. Would you all feel different if it had been the party's monk? Or the wizard? Or, behold, the barbarian (all of which would most likely not wear armor with an armor check penalty)?

---

Having said all that I think a lot of us could come up with plenty of situations where one ruling doesn't apply, or this is different or that... In the above case I think the DM made an OK decision. And the DM is always right anyway, especially if something is not specifically mentioned in the rules.

Thanks for listening.

PS: Please don't make a comment regarding my post count. Just because I may be new to this particular board doesn't mean I'm new to DnD or that I don't know the rules. Thanks.

[ edit: OK, I get it, it was a joke all along. My bad. ]

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Regarding provoking AoO's when invisible. Correct, if you don't see somebody, you might not know what they are doing. Might, that is, if you rely only on your eyes. That's what the listen check is for. In this case we are talking about a move, so it's easy. You should be able to make a listen check to know if somebody that you know is invisible is trying to get by you through severl squares you threaten. If you make it, you get your AoO. You still have the 50% miss chance etc for concealment. There is a big difference between concealment and physical cover.

Also, I agree that a listen check would only work this way if the opponent was very close to you anyway. Otherwise it would maybe let you know the general direction the invisible person moved to or something like that. In this particular case though the character was right next to opponents, was trying to move through several threatened squares.

You might think that, but, again, you don't have very much experienc, which I can by your post count.
(Of course, I don't believe that, but you practically forced me to say it )

Seriously: What you say makes sense.

But there another thing to consider. Let's say that there's a wizard invisible right beside you (you know where he stands). Now he starts to cast a spell (you can hear that because he starts to chant). Now you get an AoO, don't you? But what if he's casting defensively? How can you tell?
Same problem with the Moving Rogue (TM): He's moving through squares you threaten. But how? Is he running round you in circles, or is he just getting away from you? Is he tumbling so you won't gain an AoO? How can you tell whether he's tumbling, or whether he succeeds in his tumble check (OK, that might be easy: people falling on their face is somewhat distinctive...)

To be short about it: You know where the guy is standing, but you don't know whether he let's his guard down (don't tell me you can hear whether a wizard is casting defensively)

 

[NPC]

jonthrev, what zeela said. I totally agree with her that not provoking AoO's while being invisible is unbalancing and AFAIK, not by the rules.

As to your point about pinpointing the exact square of an invisible opponent 150' feet away, I believe there is a Listen check penalty of -2(?) per 10 feet(?) of distance you are from the target. So on a rough estimate, I'd give a minus 30 penalty to the Listen check in your example. Obviously only a few highly buffed/skilled/itemed guys are going to make that. And if you're trying to find an invisible rogue at 150', forget about it.

IIRC, you never make a Spot check against an invisible opponent. What's there to spot? So no, I wouldn't don't do a Spot/Listen combo check to find invisible opponents. A "normal" creature with no special abilities must use his Listen check to find invisible opponents. Other combinations of skills are houserules, IMO.

And I disagree with you about what you can sense from the Listen check. Yes, if I make a successful Listen check, I would hear the enemy moving towards me to start a grapple, I would hear him ruffling through his clothes searching for a potion, I would hear him tearing a bandage, I would hear him speaking verbal components. AFAIK, the rules support this interpretation.

You say the rules are irrelevant here but I don't think so. This is the rules forum afterall. We're trying to find out how, by the rules, to resolve moving silently while tumbling.