Invisibility poll

[Sotiris]

[Goblin-King]

RAW: The only thing the spell does is make the barbarian untargetable. So 2. The barbarian still blocks the way.
I believe this is the right way to play it.

But IF you insist to make it a bit more realistic, I'd rule that monsters can move through invisible characters, but never end their turn on the same square.
So in your scenario, the orc can leave the room and move south, but there is no way he can ever target the dwarf.

Another good question. Since crossbows and spells require LoS, can you shoot through an invisible character?

[clmckay]

I always considered the character to be invisible, not non-corporeal (is that the right word?), so in the example above the orc is being shoved back (blocked) by "something" he can't see.

I've never considered the crossbow issue. I think it would allow a shot to be made......hmmmm interesting. The spell says the invisible hero can't be attacked. I think I'd go with this: you can shoot through and attack a hero behind the invisible one. I think an argument can be made that the bolt would miss the invisible hero - through him dodging or just because he doesn't take up that much "space" so a fired bolt really needs to be aimed at something to hit it - and would say fly over his shoulder.

Just my quickly typed thoughts.

[slev]

Thematically it's wrong, but rules-wise, all the spell does is prevent Northen Wasteland Barbie from attacking or being targeted. All other aspects work like normal.

[torilen]

If the orc runs into the barbarian, attempting to leave the room, the barbarian is going to
have to defend himself (technically). The way I see it, this would negate the whole "cannot
attack" part of the spell, and he would become visible again.

Think about it...blocking a doorway to keep some crazed monster from running through it
is going to take an overt, aggressive act, much like a front line of a football team, smacking
into each other.

[Big Bene]

What exactly happens is open to debate, but there's nothing in the spell description that implies that the barbarian figure is removed from the board. He is simply "invisible" to the other figures, meaning he cannot be attacked, but the players still know where he is (would be impractical to keep track elsewise). The only base for the idea the orc could move "through" the barbarian would be the fact that the figure is removed, which it isn't. So the barbarian is still in place, both in representation (the figure) and in person in the game world, and blocks the square he's standing on. What happens if the orc trys to move on this square? By the rules, strictly, he just can't. But of course, one could play a bit more "openly" and reason that the orc (as opposed to the EWP) does not know the square is occupied and may such "bump into" the barbarian. But then again, without any further house-ruling, one would assume he just feels some obstacle he can't see and cannot go further in that direction.

[Count Mohawk]

I voted that the Barbarian still blocks the way. Since the spell is called "Invisibility" rather than "Intangibility", it only makes sense that the Orc cannot pass through him. (I have played video games where the one term is used to imply the other, but that particular form of invisibility was magical "one-way" intangibility where the affected character could attack enemies but could not be attacked back.)

Now, if the Orc had a Longsword or similar, he could of course hit the Dwarf with that, since the Heroes can do the same thing with their own diagonal weaponry regardless of Invisibility.

If the orc runs into the barbarian, attempting to leave the room, the barbarian is going to
have to defend himself (technically). The way I see it, this would negate the whole "cannot
attack" part of the spell, and he would become visible again.

I'm operating on the assumption that the spell's "no-attacks" clause is purely for gameplay purposes, though, since in practice invisible characters often do make attacks while invisible. In flavor terms, defending oneself is different from actively attacking the monsters (a weak excuse, but it's the best I could get atm). It's a poor sort of invisibility where the enemy can break it by accidentally finding you in the midst of a melee.

Adding on to Big Bene's thoughts, yes, the Orc could try to push through the invisible Barbarian, but it would be exceptionally dumb to knowingly walk into sword range of an enemy you cannot see. Maybe he would do it if he was afflicted by a fog of rage or something, but at that point we're no longer talking Invisibility interactions so much as role-play house-rules.

[knightkrawler]

Thematically it's wrong, but rules-wise, all the spell does is prevent Northen Wasteland Barbie from attacking or being targeted. All other aspects work like normal

including his figure may not be moved through or a move ended in his square.

[slev]

Thematically it's wrong, but rules-wise, all the spell does is prevent Northen Wasteland Barbie from attacking or being targeted. All other aspects work like normal

including his figure may not be moved through or a move ended in his square.

Exactly.

In games like this the flavour text is one thing, the mechanics is another.

[mitchiemasha]

What Big Bene said...