# Moving into square occupied by invisible & hidden creature



## boakham (Apr 11, 2010)

Does anybody have any thoughts on how to resolve a situation where a PC moves into a square occupied by an invisible and stealthed (hidden) creature?

I can't see anything about it in the PHB anywhere. 

I considered just taking it that the PC bumps into the invisible creature and hence breaks the stealth, maybe even incurring an AO at the same time, but I'm reluctant to use this rule because it could be used by the PCs to deliberately find a stealthed creature without perception checks.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Apr 11, 2010)

I've only had this happen once before and we just tried to follow the rules. You can't move into an occupied square so the moving PC then knows that that square is occupied and can't enter it. Occupied by what is unknown, but you can infer its the invisible enemy.

Burning up a movement action in the hopes of finding an invisible enemy by bumping into it seems a reasonable (rules-wise) use of a movement action, but might not be the best idea if you can definitively spot it with a successful perception check as a minor action.

Now, when it comes to the PC's being invisible, I'd ask for a skill check to allow the enemy to "pass through" the invisible PC's square because it sounds cool and cinematic. But when the PC's are trying to find the invisible guy, I allow them to try whatever sounds "reasonable" (because they are awesome!)


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Apr 12, 2010)

Not having looked up the rules for this I know that I handle it this way:

Invisible monster has 2 choices to make, allow the PC to move thru or allow the PC to bump into it (still invisible but square is known and PC's are still -5 to hit it).

If the PC stops in its square I use the same rules about being prone and standing up in a square with another character in it.

Its much more logical this way.


----------



## Markn (Apr 12, 2010)

Rules are pretty clear - you can't enter a space that an enemy occupies.  Invisible matters not.  

If a player tries to enter the sqaure, the DM says that he can't and has to choose a different path (square).  Most players, other than newbies, will figure out this means an invisible enemy.  The invisible guy still gets the benefit of full concealment and so anyone attacking him still suffers a -5 penalty to the attack roll.  That penalty is severe enough that it will make some players think twice about attacking the invisible guy even if they know his location.  

Although this may seem a klunky way of handling the rules, it really isn't in practice.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Apr 12, 2010)

edit: nevermind...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 12, 2010)

Of course you can allow an enemy to enter your square. When you are allowed to let an ally pass, then of course you can allow an enemy to pass. The difference is thatthe enemy will usually not try to coordinate with you, so i would have you roll a stealth check vs passive pereption. If you fail, the enemy will notice you (hear you, bump into you etc.)
The most obvious thing you do, when the enemy tries to enter your space is making an Opportunity attack since it tries to leave a space adjacent to you and then he knows for sure you are there.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 12, 2010)

boakham said:


> Does anybody have any thoughts on how to resolve a situation where a PC moves into a square occupied by an invisible and stealthed (hidden) creature?




I wasn't sure what would happen either, so I got my girlfriend to stand in the middle of the room and I closed my eyes to turn her invisible.  When I tried to walk through the room I totally figured out where she was!

I'd easily allow for ye invisible creature to take an opportunity attack or attempt to step out of the way (probably along with some new iteration of a stealth and/or perception check).


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 12, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Of course you can allow an enemy to enter your square. When you are allowed to let an ally pass, then of course you can allow an enemy to pass. The difference is thatthe enemy will usually not try to coordinate with you, so i would have you roll a stealth check vs passive pereption. If you fail, the enemy will notice you (hear you, bump into you etc.)
> The most obvious thing you do, when the enemy tries to enter your space is making an Opportunity attack since it tries to leave a space adjacent to you and then he knows for sure you are there.



Of course =! RAW. No one can pass through a square occupied by a hostile anything, unless they use a power that says they can or it is 2 size categories larger. 

The reason the answer is hard to find, is it is under Stealth. Invisible says "See Stealth."

*Enemy Activity*: An enemy can try to find you on its turn. If an  enemy makes an active Perception check and beats your Stealth check  result (don’t make a new check), you don’t remain hidden from that  enemy. *Also, if an enemy tries to enter your space, you don’t remain  hidden from that enemy.*

Meaning you are still invisible, but they know you are there, exactly as if they had minor action'd a perception check and beat your stealth check. This DOES provoke an OA (and the hidden status ends if it is a normal hidden thing, if you are invisible till you move and/or EoNT from a power that exception takes precedence over the normal "attack = lose hidden" thing).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 12, 2010)

I am pretty sure that attacking does cause you to lose the hidden status in melee. But you are still invisible.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 12, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am pretty sure that attacking does cause you to lose the hidden status in melee. But you are still invisible.



No, you lose hidden and invisible... under normal circumstances. It is sort of confusing because "hiding" makes you invisible. But you can lose "hidden" i.e., people know what square you're in, without becoming "visible." But if you lose cover (assuming you don't have Chameleon) and became invisible via a stealth check, you become both unhidden and visible, unless etc., Further complicating it are powers that say "you remain hidden till x." Since 4e is an exception based system, you're hidden, even if normally you would become unhidden. Dishonorable Tactics, Rogue utility 16 comes immediately to mind, but there are others, including an armor and a couple feats IIRC. 

One of my groups has two Rogues, and only the DM and I actually understand the stealth rules. In my experience they are incredibly frustrating and confusing.


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 12, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> No, you lose hidden and invisible... under normal circumstances. It is sort of confusing because "hiding" makes you invisible. But you can lose "hidden" i.e., people know what square you're in, without becoming "visible." But if you lose cover (assuming you don't have Chameleon) and became invisible via a stealth check, you become both unhidden and visible, unless etc., Further complicating it are powers that say "you remain hidden till x." Since 4e is an exception based system, you're hidden, even if normally you would become unhidden. Dishonorable Tactics, Rogue utility 16 comes immediately to mind, but there are others, including an armor and a couple feats IIRC.
> 
> One of my groups has two Rogues, and only the DM and I actually understand the stealth rules. In my experience they are incredibly frustrating and confusing.




I find them surprisingly simple and useful, compared to the 3.5 grapple rules.

Are ya total cover/superior concealed?  
--Ya?  Make your stealth check.  
--No?  Don't.  

Then:

Do you lack any cover/concealment?  Ya?  You lose stealth.  
Did something bump into you?  Ya?  You lose stealth.
Did someone beat your stealth with perception?  Ya?  You lose stealth.
Did you attack someone? Ya? You lose stealth.

Then:

Did ya move far?  Recheck that stealth.

Lastly:

Do you have something that says you do something out of order?  Ya?  Then do that.  Very few of those things are 'at-will' type situations so there's no point wrapping your head around them needlessly.  


The flowchart for stealth is actually simpler than that for... say... resolving an attack power.


----------



## Skallgrim (Apr 13, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> *Enemy Activity*: An enemy can try to find you on its turn. If an  enemy makes an active Perception check and beats your Stealth check  result (don’t make a new check), you don’t remain hidden from that  enemy. *Also, if an enemy tries to enter your space, you don’t remain  hidden from that enemy.*
> 
> Meaning you are still invisible, but they know you are there, exactly as if they had minor action'd a perception check and beat your stealth check. This DOES provoke an OA...




This is the key element, to me. There's a risk involved in looking for a hidden enemy by blundering around.  

First, you have to move into it's square. If you are playing your character honestly, the PC might not really know where that is. 

Second, by attempting to move into that square, you are leaving a square adjacent to an enemy, so they get to attack you with Combat Advantage with an OA. 

Finally, even though they are no longer hidden, they are still invisible, so you still are -5 to hit them. 

It's not really like "Aha! I found you!"

It's more like "Aaaaarg!  I think I just found the pointy end of the drow!".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 13, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> No, you lose hidden and invisible... under normal circumstances. It is sort of confusing because "hiding" makes you invisible. But you can lose "hidden" i.e., people know what square you're in, without becoming "visible." But if you lose cover (assuming you don't have Chameleon) and became invisible via a stealth check, you become both unhidden and visible, unless etc., Further complicating it are powers that say "you remain hidden till x." Since 4e is an exception based system, you're hidden, even if normally you would become unhidden. Dishonorable Tactics, Rogue utility 16 comes immediately to mind, but there are others, including an armor and a couple feats IIRC.
> 
> One of my groups has two Rogues, and only the DM and I actually understand the stealth rules. In my experience they are incredibly frustrating and confusing.



No, stealth rules are very easy...

I thought it was clear that we speak of beeing invisible because of beeing invisible (spell/total concealment etc.) Then you only lose hidden status. You still have TOTAL CONCEALMENT. Attacking or beeing bumped doesn´t change that. You just have a reasonable chance that a blind swing into the direction could actually hit something.

If you however find someone who was hidden because of total cover and you go around the corner, the enemy loses a) hidden status, b)total cover so no penalty applies anymore.

Stealth rules only become complicated when trying to exploit them. Otherwise they are pretty straightforward.


----------



## Aulirophile (Apr 13, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, stealth rules are very easy...
> 
> I thought it was clear that we speak of beeing invisible because of beeing invisible (spell/total concealment etc.) Then you only lose hidden status. You still have TOTAL CONCEALMENT. Attacking or beeing bumped doesn´t change that. You just have a reasonable chance that a blind swing into the direction could actually hit something.
> 
> ...



Yeah, no. I understand them just fine, and my group takes my word that it works the way I say it does (I'm an RPGA DM, so.....), but THEY don't get it. Of all the people I know in RL who play 4e, about 3/4 are baffled by the stealth rules, no matter how many times you explain it. 

Way to make assumptions though. Classy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 13, 2010)

I didn´t try to imply that you don´t understand them. I thought you implied that i didn´t do so...

... sorry...

... It is good that your players just trust your rulings there. It is usually the best solution. I am always glad when my players just tell me what they want to do, I say "roll the dice" and go on with describing what happens.

I am also glad that stealth rules are really logical, so noone will complain and it will work smoothly. Noone will even try to exploit rules because of a not so well written line.

(I am not sure if anyone of my group really understands most of the stealth or combat advantage rules tbh. but noone really bothers. Except one very annoying player who makes ad hoc ruling very very annoying...)


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 14, 2010)

Skallgrim said:


> It's more like "Aaaaarg!  I think I just found the pointy end of the drow!".




I thought ALL their ends were pointy!


----------

