Move Silently while Tumbling?

[NPC]

KaeYoss, since we are talking about this in the rules forum, I'd like you to point out where your interpretation is supported by the rules. I don't think it is.

By the rules, if you make your Listen check, you know where the invisible enemy is, and therefore you can make AoO's if the enemy provokes one.

So the short answer to your question is: by making a successful Listen check.

 

[jontherev]

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.

Who is "you"? Please do not use pronouns when you are obviously replying to multiple people.

I don't see how this is unbalancing. So what? The rogue, with his ring of Invisibility, can waltz around his enemies unbeknownst to them until he finally decides to attack. Big deal. Explain how this is unbalancing. A Cleric of this level can bring someone back from the DEAD! Now, give him Improved Invisibility, and it becomes a little worse, but not any worse than a wizard with the spell popping fireballs on top of the whole party and no one having a clue where they are coming from. Sorry, I just don't see how it's unbalancing. Perhaps if you explained why...?

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.

But you'd need to pick the correct square to attack too. And, if he's moving away from you, by the time you hear him move, I'd say he's already out of range unless you have reach. I'll say it again, Listen checks do not Blindsight make. You simply don't get the same benefit here as you would if you had See Invisible up...not with normal hearing anyway. Or, at the very least, set some really high DC's if someone is trying to notice every single noise emanating from the invisible creature.

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.

Ok, I agree. How did those other than the snake know which square he was in? How did they know they were threatened? Did they make their Listen and Spot checks?

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.

Right on. The thing is, you are INVISIBLE. You want to sheathe your sword? Fine, line up the tip of the sword to the scabbard as usual, but with no worries of incoming AoO's (because they have no idea what you are doing), and then look up and let the sword fall into it's home. All your Listen Check will tell you is that you heard a sword being sheathed. Eyesight would have given you the foresight to AoO. Hearing is more like hindsight.

But generally, just because your invisible doesn't mean your invulnerable.

Really? I suppose you think my opinion on this matter makes Invisibility a munchkin's wet dream? If so, please provide something besides sheer opinion, like examples or something. I don't see it as unbalancing at all.

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.

Did you not catch the joke? The original poster of the comment had a smaller post count than the other guy. Welcome aboard mate.

 

[zeela]

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 )

I know, I was asking for that one.

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...)

I see your point. The only problem is, are you saying that since I can't hear if the rogue is tumbling by or walking by I shouldn't get an AoO? In that case we're back to - why even tumble? But if you don't tumble, and I hear you, you provoke an AoO, so I do get my attack. So you tumble to avoid that. But do I know you're tumbling? No, so I don't know I don't get to make an AoO, but I think I do, but ... aaaargl.

I would say this requires some flavor-talk on the DM's side. Kind of like if you roll at 18 to hit somebody with AC 20 who is wearing heavy armor, you probably don't actually miss, but you hit the armor which protects the character.

In this case you could say the character attempts to hit the rogue but since he's tumbling by he doesn't hit because the rogue didn't really provoke an AoO. Since this is just for flavor and he really didn't get an AoO anyway, this 'failed attempt' would of course not count against his AoOs for that round

Same with casting on the defensive. I mean, if we really try to disect this we could say that some fighter in the middle of battle wouldn't know if a spellcaster is casting defensively or not, even if the spellcaster is invisible. It's harder on the spellcaster because he is trying not to let his guard down but still concentrate on the spell, but does the fighter realize that? I don't know about that...

 

[zeela]

jontherev -

Who is "you"? Please do not use pronouns when you are obviously replying to multiple people.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anybody. I had just read the whole thread and honestly was too lazy to go back up and figure out exactly who said what. And since 'you' in English can be directed at multiple people I decided to go the easy route.

I don't see how this is unbalancing. So what? The rogue, with his ring of Invisibility, can waltz around his enemies unbeknownst to them until he finally decides to attack.

That's not quite the point I was trying to make. First of all, I am not only talking about rogues. And second, not only about invisibility cases. The point is, if you get a bonus to your move silently because you are tumbling, somebody might take advantage of that and just alwyas tumble. Why ever walk? And if there is no penalty for this. And that assumes that that character basically never provokes AoOs, as long as he has enough ranks in toumble. My point was just that I thought the DM ruled right in giving a penalty to the move silently.

But you'd need to pick the correct square to attack too. And, if he's moving away from you, by the time you hear him move, I'd say he's already out of range unless you have reach. I'll say it again, Listen checks do not Blindsight make.

Exactly. You still have to pick the square. And even then you have 50% miss chance. If you are willing to attempt an AoO, fine, under all these penalties, though. I would not compare that to Blindsight or See Invisibility.

Or, at the very least, set some really high DC's if someone is trying to notice every single noise emanating from the invisible creature.

I agree. You can't hear everything the creature is doing. But moving? There are clear rules on how you can hear somebody move - an opposed move silently <-> listen check. That's all.

How did those other than the snake know which square he was in? How did they know they were threatened? Did they make their Listen and Spot checks?

Would you agree with this scenario:

He was standing right next to them, was visible, on his turn activated his ring (standard action), then tried to move away. They knew where he was, they new he just turned invisible, and then made the listen check against his MS DC to hear he was moving away. So that's why he tumbled. He made the tumble DC, so no AoOs, but his modified MS wasn't high enough so they knew which direction he went.

Would that be acceptable ruling?

... please provide something besides sheer opinion, like examples or something.

I thought I was providing more than sheer opinion, that's what that whole 10 page post was supposed to be. That sentence was just to sum it up.

Did you not catch the joke? The original poster of the comment had a smaller post count than the other guy.

Yeah, after I already posted I saw that. I had to laugh, but by then it was to late, people had already read my post. DOH!

Welcome aboard mate.

Thanks!

 

[jontherev]

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.

Ok, so I'll ask you too. Why?

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.

It's +1/10' actually. The Listen skill doesn't mention that you pinpoint someone's exact location, just that you hear the noise. You then use your eyes to find them. Doing this with normal ears only from anything but melee seems unbalancing to me for what should be obvious reasons.

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.

Wrong. Check out the DMG. It's DC 20 Spot check to notice an invisible creature nearby, not to actually pinpoint it's exact location. I'm still waiting on a rule citation from you on pinpointing someone's exact location with a simple Listen check. I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you, just that I can't recall.

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,

How can you tell it's going to be a grapple, which tells you you might have a chance for an AoO? How do you even know he's unarmed?

I would hear him ruffling through his clothes searching for a potion,

How do you know what he's searching for? How much effort is going into concentrating on this foe, and how would this extra-effort effect your AC vs. other foes (sensible circumstance modifier)?

I would hear him tearing a bandage, I would hear him speaking verbal components. AFAIK, the rules support this interpretation.

Show me the rule. I'd give you the bandage tearing, and maybe the spell in melee. The point is, is that it takes a judgment call on EVERY action done by an invisible foe to determine whether an AoO is provoked or not. It's not all or nothing.

To answer the original question, yes it is covered in the rules. At least, there is no mention of a penalty, so if you think there should be, make a house rule or give a circumstance modifier. I wouldn't put more than a -5 on the MS check myself.

 

[Malakye]

From the rest of the posts it seems safe to assume that most people think of AoO, and combat for that matter, like this:

Each character is taking measured swings, waiting for an opening. There are only a few swings every round. If somebody moves by you, you only swing at them if there is a good chance of hitting (you don't swing at characters that successfully made their tumble check).

In this case, I think a lot of the discussion thus far concerning AoO's makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense is if combat is more like this:

Each character is swinging many times during the round, sometimes hacking wildly in an attempt to get a hit in. If somebody moves by you, you take a swing or two at them. (If they made their tumble check, your swing automatically misses, if they failed, you get a chance to hit).

Where this comes into play with invisibilty and such is if you are using the first example, you probably don't get an AoO when your invisible oppenent drinks a potion because you didn't know it was time to strike.

If you are using the second example, you are constantly swinging and you do get an AoO, not because you knew your invisible opponent was drinking a potion, but because he is taking the chance of trying to drink a potion while you are constantly swinging at him.

I don't have my books, so I haven't been able to look up any rules concerning these situations but I figured I would throw in the above to see if it might change your perspective on possible combat scenarios. I just hope it all made sense.

 

[jontherev]

jontherev -
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anybody. I had just read the whole thread and honestly was too lazy to go back up and figure out exactly who said what. And since 'you' in English can be directed at multiple people I decided to go the easy route.

It wasn't insulting, I just couldn't tell who you were talking to.

That's not quite the point I was trying to make. First of all, I am not only talking about rogues. And second, not only about invisibility cases. The point is, if you get a bonus to your move silently because you are tumbling, somebody might take advantage of that and just alwyas tumble. Why ever walk? And if there is no penalty for this. And that assumes that that character basically never provokes AoOs, as long as he has enough ranks in toumble. My point was just that I thought the DM ruled right in giving a penalty to the move silently.

Ok. If someone spends the skill points on tumble, they get to use it. Of course they should take advantage of it. And they won't always tumble either. In combat, sure, but what is your beef, with the tumble skill? If you think that skill is overpowered, change it or use the alternative rules in Song and Silence. I think it's fine, but let's not get into a discussion about it in this thread please. That seems to be your real problem. So you think a -10 was fair? Ok. I'd probably go with a -2 since the armor check penalty covers this area already.

Would you agree with this scenario:

He was standing right next to them, was visible, on his turn activated his ring (standard action), then tried to move away. They knew where he was, they new he just turned invisible, and then made the listen check against his MS DC to hear he was moving away. So that's why he tumbled. He made the tumble DC, so no AoOs, but his modified MS wasn't high enough so they knew which direction he went.

Would that be acceptable ruling?

Sounds good to me. Now it's just a matter of what that pesky modifier is, if any.

Yeah, after I already posted I saw that. I had to laugh, but by then it was to late, people had already read my post. DOH!

You can edit your posts by clicking the 'edit' button. It's a nice feature...

 

[NPC]

Okay jontherev, thanks for referring me to the books, because I've been playing invisibility wrong. Doh!

First. You're right. A simple successful Listen check does not reveal the exact square of an invisible enemy. However, if you beat the Move Silently DC set by the enemy by 20 (fat chance) then you do pinpoint the enemy. So I was almost right.

Second, you're right about the Scent ability as well. It allows you to detect the general location of invisible opponents, but not pinpoint them, unless they're within 5' of the creature. In our game the snake was within 5' of the rogue, so luckily we didn't muff that ruling.

Overall, though, it looks like I've been adjudicating invisibility incorrectly. First, I've been denying Spot checks (wrong) and then allowing a Listen check success to pinpoint location (wrong).

But I'll still hold that being invisible doesn't make you immune from AoO's, provided the enemy has pinpointed the exact square you're in (by whatever means). But I'll agree with you that the AoO should be adjudicated on a case by case basis, depending on what the player is doing.

After all this we come back to the point that tumbling silently might be a viable choice for a detected, invisible rogue who would like to get away from danger without suffering AoO's. I'm leaning toward the following ruling:

Tumbling Silently
Add +5 to the Tumble DC. If the player misses the Tumble check, then he has made some noise while tumbling, assign a -5 penalty to the Move Silently check.

Thoughts everyone? Too harsh?

 

[zeela]

jontherev -

Ok. If someone spends the skill points on tumble, they get to use it. Of course they should take advantage of it. And they won't always tumble either. In combat, sure, but what is your beef, with the tumble skill? If you think that skill is overpowered, change it or use the alternative rules in Song and Silence. I think it's fine, but let's not get into a discussion about it in this thread please. That seems to be your real problem.

What seems to be my problem? Actually, I don't think tumble is overpowered, and I wouldn't want to change it. In general, I am hesitant when it comes to house rules because I don't feel I could possible think of all the scenarios I might unbalance by changing the rules...

So I have nothing against the house rule, I just didn't like the suggestions about actually giving a bonus to the MS when you tumble. Since I didn't know the names before I finally did go back and found the posts:

Posted by Nish on 09-14-2002 03:06 PM:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Roland Delacroix
I know D&D ain't real life, but the first thing we learn in aikijutsu was how to roll and tumble so we don't get hurt when thrown. When we do it we are almost silent. If anything I think Tumbling would give a BONUS to Move Silently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having had a similar experience myself, I'm inclined to agree. My vote goes to no extra penalty. In fact I might be inclined to give a +2 synergy bonus to MS for having 5 ranks in Tumble, if tumble weren't already such a useful skill.

So you see, I really wasn't referring in any way to changing the way tumble works, I was replying to posts that had to do with moving silently and tumbling, which was the topic of this thread. I'm sorry if you felt my reply was in the wrong place...

So you think a -10 was fair? Ok. I'd probably go with a -2 since the armor check penalty covers this area already.

I wasn't referring to the -10 NPC suggested, but the actual ruling the DM made, which was a -5. I know armor check penalty covers your armor's noise while moving silently, but this was more for the funky somersaulting etc. But to tell you the truth, I could probably be convinced of a -2.

You can edit your posts by clicking the 'edit' button. It's a nice feature...

I know, I saw. Like I said, by the time I re-read and noticed it was a joke it was already to late. There was already a reply to my post. Why go back and change it now? It would make it so the thread doesn't make sense. This way some people got a laugh out of my screw-up. But just to put an end to this I edited it saying that I got it.


NPC:

Tumbling Silently
Add +5 to the Tumble DC. If the player misses the Tumble check, then he has made some noise while tumbling, assign a -5 penalty to the Move Silently check.

I don't completely understand. Do you mean that if you miss by more than 5, you provoke attacks of opportunity (the tumble fails), and make noise, if you fail by less then 5, then your move silently has a -5 modifier, and if you make the modified tumble check, then your move silently roll is unmodified?

If I interpreted your suggestion correctly, I would say it sounds complicated, but it does actually not sound bad, because it would account for the fact that somebody with lots of ranks in tumble is better at it and has an easier time tumbling 'differently' to try to be silent. hm....

 

[jontherev]

Okay jontherev, thanks for referring me to the books, because I've been playing invisibility wrong. Doh!

First. You're right. A simple successful Listen check does not reveal the exact square of an invisible enemy. However, if you beat the Move Silently DC set by the enemy by 20 (fat chance) then you do pinpoint the enemy. So I was almost right.

Second, you're right about the Scent ability as well. It allows you to detect the general location of invisible opponents, but not pinpoint them, unless they're within 5' of the creature. In our game the snake was within 5' of the rogue, so luckily we didn't muff that ruling.

Man, I'd forgotten just how MANY rules there were in the DMG on this. Check that Scent ability out again, cuz I thought the way it read (under Invisibility, not Scent), that it pretty much works as well as blindsight vs. invisibility. I'm away from the book again.<sigh> I could be wrong though...

Overall, though, it looks like I've been adjudicating invisibility incorrectly. First, I've been denying Spot checks (wrong) and then allowing a Listen check success to pinpoint location (wrong).

But I'll still hold that being invisible doesn't make you immune from AoO's, provided the enemy has pinpointed the exact square you're in (by whatever means). But I'll agree with you that the AoO should be adjudicated on a case by case basis, depending on what the player is doing.

Agreed.

After all this we come back to the point that tumbling silently might be a viable choice for a detected, invisible rogue who would like to get away from danger without suffering AoO's. I'm leaning toward the following ruling:

Tumbling Silently
Add +5 to the Tumble DC. If the player misses the Tumble check, then he has made some noise while tumbling, assign a -5 penalty to the Move Silently check.

Thoughts everyone? Too harsh?

It doesn't make sense to me to alter the Tumble DC. I would just give a small penalty, if anything, to the MS check. There are armor check penalties and armor-type restrictions built-in to these skills already. Now, circumstance penalties could certainly come into play depending on the terrain, which could possibly effect both skills. In summary, I lean towards no penalties for combining the 2 skills. Just my opinion.

As an explanation...someone with no ranks and a +1 Dex bonus, wearing chainmail, not only is fairly loud when moving, but isn't trained in the skill. He probably has lots of loose equipment that jingles around. A rogue in studded leather with 9 ranks of MS and a +5 Dex knows what he's doing. He has prepared his gear as to make minimal noise, because he EXPECTS to sometimes move around acrobatically and maintain stealth simultaneously.