Where the hell did that shot come from anyways!?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This is why Seeking arrows are important. You hit them anywhere on the body :D.


No more absurd than saying it is possible to tell where a completely hidden opponent is by failing a check to detect them...

Nice strawman. Can we find the arrow sticking out of HIS rear?

Giving 90 or 180 degree's of "he could be over there" is hardly the same thing as telling where he is. As to using indirect clues to find a hidden character you can already do so, even with invisible ones. They leave tracks, and you can use their tracks to give you a clue as to their hiding place. I suppose you could argue that because there's no facing the footprints don't go in any particular direction and you can't tell which way they were moving...

Quote:
This is why Seeking arrows are important. You hit them anywhere on the body :D.

You should have to use a quote from men in tights when firing those things as the verbal activation..

Liberty's Edge

Skylancer4 wrote:

*insert example of logical real world action that helps you argue your case*

Remember we are playing a game and very often the rules don't have anything to do with logic.

When rules deviate from logic without adequate explanation is where the problems creep up. Such logical gaps can be avoided simply by writing more concise rules. There is also, of course, house rules.


Malagant wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

*insert example of logical real world action that helps you argue your case*

Remember we are playing a game and very often the rules don't have anything to do with logic.

When rules deviate from logic without adequate explanation is where the problems creep up. Such logical gaps can be avoided simply by writing more concise rules. There is also, of course, house rules.

When not knowing where you get hit from, by failing your perception check, is actually contradicting "logic" you can bring that point up again.

I'm actually arguing the logical choice in this situation.

Until then, think about that and the fact you're arguing to give away a location of someone who made a VERY difficult stealth check to someone who FAILED a perception roll.

That sounds REALLY logical to me. *end sarcasm*


GM: You get hit with an arrow for 6 pts of damage.

Player: Where did it come from?

GM: Perception Roll?

Player: Dangit! I got a 4 total.

GM: You don't know.

Player: Darnit, I know which way the arrow is sticking out!

GM: Yep, it's sticking out of your lower arm, but since you were moving around when you got hit, you aren't sure what position your arm was in when it got hit. That whole wooden shaft sinking between your arm bones and coming out the other side was a little distracting.

Feel free to alter it to any part of the body that might have been in motion.


mdt wrote:

GM: You get hit with an arrow for 6 pts of damage.

Player: Where did it come from?

GM: Perception Roll?

Player: Dangit! I got a 4 total.

GM: You don't know.

Player: Darnit, I know which way the arrow is sticking out!

GM: Yep, it's sticking out of your lower arm, but since you were moving around when you got hit, you aren't sure what position your arm was in when it got hit. That whole wooden shaft sinking between your arm bones and coming out the other side was a little distracting.

Feel free to alter it to any part of the body that might have been in motion.

I REALLY really don't like posting things like this.... But +1


GM: Yep, it's sticking out of your lower arm

player: which arm and which ways are the feathers? Lob fireball in that direction. The characters are consistantly heading in a particular direction in any given second. Unless your character is standing on the middle of a merrygo round, chances are they've been walking N S E or West for at least a good minute.

You can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. There's no reason you can't do the same thing with other indirect clues as to a hiding or invisible person's location.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

GM: Yep, it's sticking out of your lower arm

player: which arm and which ways are the feathers? Lob fireball in that direction. The characters are consistantly heading in a particular direction in any given second. Unless your character is standing on the middle of a merrygo round, chances are they've been walking N S E or West for at least a good minute.

You can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. There's no reason you can't do the same thing with other indirect clues as to a hiding or invisible person's location.

I REALLY really like posting things like this.... But +1


BigNorseWolf wrote:

GM: Yep, it's sticking out of your lower arm

player: which arm and which ways are the feathers? Lob fireball in that direction. The characters are consistantly heading in a particular direction in any given second. Unless your character is standing on the middle of a merrygo round, chances are they've been walking N S E or West for at least a good minute.

You can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. There's no reason you can't do the same thing with other indirect clues as to a hiding or invisible person's location.

Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.

The arrow is sticking out of your lower arm, the feathers are in the back of the arrow, the metal tip is dripping your blood. The metal tip grated against both bones as it went through. Your arm feels like someone rammed a red-hot poker through it. You were headed north. When you hang your arm down, the feathers are pointing toward the sky at a 75 degree angle. This is because as you were walking, you were swinging your arms, talking, gesturing as you argued with the gnome, and you have no freaking idea where your arm was when it got hit, because you were concentrating on your argument with the gnome. Why can't you figure it out? Because you failed your check!. That is the entire purpose of the dice rolls and skill checks, to see if your character was able to succeed or fail.

I realize you would rather not have the chance for failure, but, you failed the roll, you take the consequences. If you don't want to have to make checks, play a system that doesn't use dice, or read a 'find your own path' adventure book.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.

BS. There would be no reason for them to even mention footprints and the like in the first place if all you had to do was beat the Stealth check DC.


Ravingdork wrote:
mdt wrote:
Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.
BS. There would be no reason for them to even mention footprints and the like in the first place if all you had to do was beat the Stealth check DC.

I'll return your BS. Please read the quote above about perception or survival checks. Perception check allows you to find them regardless of being invisible. Survival check allows you to track their footprints. You cannot just auto-find someone who's invisible without a skill check at some point, no matter how much you wish to wish that away.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't believe anybody ever said anything about "auto-finding" anyone. Just narrowing down the possibilities.


Ravingdork wrote:
I don't believe anybody ever said anything about "auto-finding" anyone. Just narrowing down the possibilities.

Yep, which is covered by making appropriate skill checks.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't believe anybody ever said anything about "auto-finding" anyone. Just narrowing down the possibilities.
Yep, which is covered by making appropriate skill checks.

I can understand asking for a Perception check to find the tracks I guess, particularly if it is in the heat of battle. What I don't understand is having that check be against the invisibility +20 DC.

Invisibility doesn't help to hide tracks.


Ravingdork wrote:
mdt wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I don't believe anybody ever said anything about "auto-finding" anyone. Just narrowing down the possibilities.
Yep, which is covered by making appropriate skill checks.

I can understand asking for a Perception check to find the tracks I guess, particularly if it is in the heat of battle. What I don't understand is having that check be against the invisibility +20 DC.

Invisibility doesn't help to hide tracks.

What part of my post ever said you had to beat the invisibility DC for the tracking check? It's a straight up survival check to find and follow their tracks. That means you're moving at half movement (unless you have a class feature that lets you move normally) and you're a big fat target while you're doing it. :)


I think the problem is that people are assuming the arrow is just pricking you as opposed of slamming into your body at a good few dozen miles per hour. In general, anyone who gets shot, unless they're a giant or something that weighs literal tons, is going to feel a violent jerk when they get hit in any part of their body by a speeding projectile due to a magical property of physics called inertia. There is definitely going to be a lot more tactile feedback to go on than "I feel a sharp pain in the back of my arm," and odds are it's not going to take a lot of mental gymnastics to remember which direction said arm was just violently pushed in and therefore able to determine that the arrow came from the opposite direction.

Do the rules say this? No. Can the GM rule this however he wants? Yes. Should said GM ignore one of the most basic principles of physics in favor of "BUT THE RULES DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY etc. etc."? I guess that's up to you, but I personally fail to see how the alternative makes any more sense.


Quote:

Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.

So 1) there are checks besides perception you can use to get an idea of where the rogue is besides a perception check. 2) Why on earth isn't an intelligence , survival or heal check one of those checks? Why is the direction of an arrow less telling than a footprint?

Quote:
The arrow is sticking out of your lower arm, the feathers are in the back of the arrow, the metal tip is dripping your blood. The metal tip grated against both bones as it went through. Your arm feels like someone rammed a red-hot poker through it. You were headed north

And if you tell me WHICH arm you've just given a direction.

Quote:
When you hang your arm down, the feathers are pointing toward the sky at a 75 degree angle. This is because as you were walking, you were swinging your arms, talking, gesturing as you argued with the gnome, and you have no freaking idea where your arm was when it got hit, because you were concentrating on your argument with the gnome.

So let me get his strait. A wizard with a 20 intelligence can concentrate on a formula more complicated than the quadratic equation while having someone swing a 2 handed sword at him AND ON FIRE , but can't notice which way some feathers on an arrow are pointing because the arrow hurts too much... or the arrow hurts his friend too much?

Quote:
Why can't you figure it out? Because you failed your check!. That is the entire purpose of the dice rolls and skill checks, to see if your character was able to succeed or fail.

Thats the perception check. Noticing the rogue and discerning some useful info out of the arrow are TWO SEPERATE CHECKS, just like the perception and survival rolls are twp separate checks. What you're saying would be true if they rolled poorly on the *whatever* check to figure out where the arrow was comming from, but has nothing to do with spotting the rogue.

Quote:
I realize you would rather not have the chance for failure,

No. I would rather insane rules lawyering and DM cheese didn't completely override reality in a misguided attempt to worship on the altar of the raw. DM's like that are more interested in winning and showing their superiority over the PC's than either the RAW or the RAI OR having fun.

Raw says invisible people can give away their general locations with indirect evidence, like tracks. Reason says this rationally applies to people hiding. And arrow sticking out of you is a clue as to where it came from.

Quote:
but, you failed the roll, you take the consequences. If you don't want to have to make checks, play a system that doesn't use dice, or read a 'find your own path' adventure book.

you're assuming there's only one roll. I agree its possible to fail , but I don't think the only roll you should get to make is the perception check.


WHERE THE HELL DID THAT SHOT COME FROM ANYWAYS!?

From the Grassy Noel

Or was it the 3rd shooter in the Hedges.


Zephyr Runeglyph wrote:

I think the problem is that people are assuming the arrow is just pricking you as opposed of slamming into your body at a good few dozen miles per hour. In general, anyone who gets shot, unless they're a giant or something that weighs literal tons, is going to feel a violent jerk when they get hit in any part of their body by a speeding projectile due to a magical property of physics called inertia. There is definitely going to be a lot more tactile feedback to go on than "I feel a sharp pain in the back of my arm," and odds are it's not going to take a lot of mental gymnastics to remember which direction said arm was just violently pushed in and therefore able to determine that the arrow came from the opposite direction.

Do the rules say this? No. Can the GM rule this however he wants? Yes. Should said GM ignore one of the most basic principles of physics in favor of "BUT THE RULES DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY etc. etc."? I guess that's up to you, but I personally fail to see how the alternative makes any more sense.

Most people who are shot feel a very hard jerk, they also tend to go down clutching the shot area in pain. They also then are fighting off shock, drown in adrenaline as fight or flight responses kick in, etc.

If you ever talk to someone who has actually been injured in combat (as I have), they will tell you that the first few seconds after a surprise attack are especially disorienting, and even more so if you're actually injured. The combination of pain, surprise, and adrenaline makes it hard to get your bearings, and even harder to figure out where something came from.

So yes, you might be able to rationally say 'I got hit in my right arm, so it's unlikely he was on my left', but that statement assumes your character can completely ignore pain and adrenaline. However, pain and adrenaline aren't explicitely in the rules, but you are wanting to ignore those facts and only use the 'not in the rules' things that make your argument work. You have to apply both the good and bad if you want to go beyond the rules. In this case, I think the rules are necessarily a simplification of 'you must make perception check' which encompasses all the clues you have, arrow, hearing of arrow approaching, etc, and is counterbalanced by the pain, shock, surprise. If you fail the perception roll, the pain shock and surprise were too much for you and you are disoriented. If you make it, you overcame the pain shock and surprise and figured out where (or at least generally) where the shot came from.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:


Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.

So 1) there are checks besides perception you can use to get an idea of where the rogue is besides a perception check. 2) Why on earth isn't an intelligence , survival or heal check one of those checks? Why is the direction of an arrow less telling than a footprint?

Sure, you could make all sorts of checks. If you want to take the time. The problem is, you are assuming that all things take the same amount of time. The perception check is the first thing. It takes a second to make, it's the 'Oh my god I've been shot who shot me where are they got to get to cover oh my god' fight or flight response.

If you fail it, you can try to fall back to other things. Knowledge survival checks if you can find some footprints to follow (while trying not to get shot). Or you can try to make an intelligence check to calculate where it came from based on the arrow direction. But that's not something you're doing in the heat of combat if you have a choice, because it requires you to stop, take a breath, and think. That's very hard to do when you have adrenaline pounding in your ears and blood leaking from your arm and a wooden shaft grating against your bones each time you move.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
The arrow is sticking out of your lower arm, the feathers are in the back of the arrow, the metal tip is dripping your blood. The metal tip grated against both bones as it went through. Your arm feels like someone rammed a red-hot poker through it. You were headed north

And if you tell me WHICH arm you've just given a direction.

LOL, all I've told you is that didn't travel through your chest. Think about the positions your right arm goes through during a typical discussion with someone where you're making gestures. RIght arm pointing toward the right, archer is on your left side, he fires, and hit's your arm. Or, Right arm pointing forward down the road and the archer is behind and to the right and puts it through your arm. In both cases, the arrow could be sticking out of your arm with the same angle. So the arrow doesn't help.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
When you hang your arm down, the feathers are pointing toward the sky at a 75 degree angle. This is because as you were walking, you were swinging your arms, talking, gesturing as you argued with the gnome, and you have no freaking idea where your arm was when it got hit, because you were concentrating on your argument with the gnome.

So let me get his strait. A wizard with a 20 intelligence can concentrate on a formula more complicated than the quadratic equation while having someone swing a 2 handed sword at him AND ON FIRE , but can't notice which way some feathers on an arrow are pointing because the arrow hurts too much... or the arrow hurts his friend too much?

No, that is not what I said. I said that the guy with the arrow could absolutely see where the fletching was in his arm, it just doesn't help because it points up at the sky (see example above).

As to the wizard with the 20 intelligence, that affects his perception roll, and he has a much better chance of making it. If he fails it, he was distracted and didn't see. Intelligence isn't a guarantee of ability to perceive. If it was, wizards wouldn't have perception checks, they'd just know everything that happened around them. He saw the arrow sticking out of his friends arm, and said 'OH MY GOD! WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!' and he panicked a little and looked in every direction but the right one. Again, we are talking about responding in the heat of combat, not the Wizard sitting there at the camp fire 3 hours later calculating the exact angles the arrow had to have hit at.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Why can't you figure it out? Because you failed your check!. That is the entire purpose of the dice rolls and skill checks, to see if your character was able to succeed or fail.

Thats the perception check. Noticing the rogue and discerning some useful info out of the arrow are TWO SEPERATE CHECKS, just like the perception and survival rolls are twp separate checks. What you're saying would be true if they rolled poorly on the *whatever* check to figure out where the arrow was comming from, but has nothing to do with spotting the rogue.

So, every time you fail a check, you get a new one for something else? No, that would slow the game way too far, and how do you draw the line at that point?

The rogue failed his perception check for the trapfinding, now he wants a perception check to notice the tile that is slightly higher than the others, and then one to notice the old blood stains, and then a survival check to notice the rats tracks avoid that part of the tunnel, then a another check and another check.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:

I realize you would rather not have the chance for failure,

No. I would rather insane rules lawyering and DM cheese didn't completely override reality in a misguided attempt to worship on the altar of the raw. DM's like that are more interested in winning and showing their superiority over the PC's than either the RAW or the RAI OR having fun.

Raw says invisible people can give away their general locations with indirect evidence, like tracks. Reason says this rationally applies to people hiding. And arrow sticking out of you is a clue as to where it came from.

And I don't like people who want to ignore the rules because it's inconvenient to them. Sorry. The rules do the best they can to simulate (SIMULATE) a false reality. They are a balance between utility, accuracy, versimilitude and fairness. A lot of things are abstracted. Part of that abstraction is that we don't want to make 3 dozen rolls. To work what you want, you'd also need to make rolls to avoid being panicked at taking damage (note that pain is abstracted completely out of the system, that arrow sticking out of your arm doesn't even affect the rolls, how about that bit of realism? You aren't arguing to give any wounded character a -5 to his checks are you?), then a perception check to notice the hiding guy, then another check to find footprints, then a third to follow the footprints back to the hidden guy. You see where this is going? You're asking for 10 minutes of searching to find 'secondary evidence' all in the surprise round of combat. That's kind of the point, it's a round of combat, it's a couple of seconds, and you're being attacked, you're not playing a computer game where you can pause the action and scan the surroundings in detail looking for that one leaf out of place.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:

but, you failed the roll, you take the consequences. If you don't want to have to make checks, play a system that doesn't use dice, or read a 'find your own path' adventure book.

you're assuming there's only one roll. I agree its possible to fail , but I don't think the only roll you should get to make is the perception check.

How many checks do you want in one round then? 2? 3? 10?


mdt wrote:
Zephyr Runeglyph wrote:

I think the problem is that people are assuming the arrow is just pricking you as opposed of slamming into your body at a good few dozen miles per hour. In general, anyone who gets shot, unless they're a giant or something that weighs literal tons, is going to feel a violent jerk when they get hit in any part of their body by a speeding projectile due to a magical property of physics called inertia. There is definitely going to be a lot more tactile feedback to go on than "I feel a sharp pain in the back of my arm," and odds are it's not going to take a lot of mental gymnastics to remember which direction said arm was just violently pushed in and therefore able to determine that the arrow came from the opposite direction.

Do the rules say this? No. Can the GM rule this however he wants? Yes. Should said GM ignore one of the most basic principles of physics in favor of "BUT THE RULES DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY etc. etc."? I guess that's up to you, but I personally fail to see how the alternative makes any more sense.

Most people who are shot feel a very hard jerk, they also tend to go down clutching the shot area in pain. They also then are fighting off shock, drown in adrenaline as fight or flight responses kick in, etc.

If you ever talk to someone who has actually been injured in combat (as I have), they will tell you that the first few seconds after a surprise attack are especially disorienting, and even more so if you're actually injured. The combination of pain, surprise, and adrenaline makes it hard to get your bearings, and even harder to figure out where something came from.

So yes, you might be able to rationally say 'I got hit in my right arm, so it's unlikely he was on my left', but that statement assumes your character can completely ignore pain and adrenaline. However, pain and adrenaline aren't explicitely in the rules, but you are wanting to ignore those facts and only use the 'not in the rules' things that make your argument work. You have to apply...

First of all of the pain and adrenaline you are describing would be very situational. A 14th lvl character with over a hundred HPs that gets hit for 10-12 hps does not IMHO have an arrow sticking through their arm. An arrow through the arm is very severe. A 3rd lvl mage that has 15 HP and gets hit for 12, yea maybe you can say they have an arrow sticking through their arm. HP points are an abstract concept so its hard to say and I for one don't try. There are many historical examples of people getting struck by arrows and continuing to fight on. It depends on all kinds of variables but I can tell you this, moving or not, you can tell a general direction within 45 degrees or so which direction you were shot from just from the impact most of the time you get shot.

Second, I totally agree with some of the other posters above, you are not giving away the location of the shooter, just a vague direction. Inside in a corridor sure this is narrow and it would be, outside a 45 degree arc over the full range of a weapon leaves a whole lot of squares the shooter could be in.

Third, I agree with the statement that the perception check to notice the shooter, does not cover whether or not you can tell direction. You can if you choose give another check for this.


Theo Stern wrote:

First of all of the pain and adrenaline you are describing would be very situational. A 14th lvl character with over a hundred HPs that gets hit for 10-12 hps does not IMHO have an arrow sticking through their arm. An arrow through the arm is very severe. A 3rd lvl mage that has 15 HP and gets hit for 12, yea maybe you can say they have an arrow sticking through their arm. HP points are an abstract concept so its hard to say and I for one don't try. There are many historical examples of people getting struck by arrows and continuing to fight on. It depends on all kinds of variables but I can tell you this, moving or not, you can tell a general direction within 45 degrees or so which direction you were shot from just from the impact most of the time you get shot.

Second, I totally agree with some of the other posters above, you are not giving away the location of the shooter, just a vague direction. Inside in a corridor sure this is narrow and it would be, outside a 45 degree arc over the full range of a weapon leaves a whole lot of squares the shooter could be in.

Third, I agree with the statement that the perception check to notice the shooter, does not cover whether or not you can tell direction. You can if you choose give another check for this.

First, the HP system doesn't work for pain and adrenaline, that's why it's not in the system. If you take a real world example of a fighter, a marine, and you take one right out of boot camp (1st level) and one who's been on 10 tours (level 20), and shoot both in the chest with a 45, they both scream and fall down and die. The one with 10 tours doesn't magically shrug the bullet off and say 'Merely a flesh wound'. Again, we're back to the system being an abstraction of reality, not reality. When you try to mix the two, wierd things happen.

Second, I never said they couldn't get a general direction, I usually give a 180 degree arc. The above posters seem to be arguing that you get to make 2 or 3 checks in one round to find the guy, each one different from the first. That's a bit cheesy to me. Especially if the character fails their roll by say 10 or more.

Third, if that's how you wish to play it in your game, go for it.


mdt wrote:
Theo Stern wrote:

First of all of the pain and adrenaline you are describing would be very situational. A 14th lvl character with over a hundred HPs that gets hit for 10-12 hps does not IMHO have an arrow sticking through their arm. An arrow through the arm is very severe. A 3rd lvl mage that has 15 HP and gets hit for 12, yea maybe you can say they have an arrow sticking through their arm. HP points are an abstract concept so its hard to say and I for one don't try. There are many historical examples of people getting struck by arrows and continuing to fight on. It depends on all kinds of variables but I can tell you this, moving or not, you can tell a general direction within 45 degrees or so which direction you were shot from just from the impact most of the time you get shot.

Second, I totally agree with some of the other posters above, you are not giving away the location of the shooter, just a vague direction. Inside in a corridor sure this is narrow and it would be, outside a 45 degree arc over the full range of a weapon leaves a whole lot of squares the shooter could be in.

Third, I agree with the statement that the perception check to notice the shooter, does not cover whether or not you can tell direction. You can if you choose give another check for this.

First, the HP system doesn't work for pain and adrenaline, that's why it's not in the system. If you take a real world example of a fighter, a marine, and you take one right out of boot camp (1st level) and one who's been on 10 tours (level 20), and shoot both in the chest with a 45, they both scream and fall down and die. The one with 10 tours doesn't magically shrug the bullet off and say 'Merely a flesh wound'. Again, we're back to the system being an abstraction of reality, not reality. When you try to mix the two, wierd things happen.

Second, I never said they couldn't get a general direction, I usually give a 180 degree arc. The above posters seem to be arguing that you get to make 2 or 3 checks in one round to find...

I thought you were implying that, my mistake. I give 45 Degrees, but its all good, and I don't actually require another check, but I don't see anything wrong with it


I too do not buy the fact that any character, regardless of their level, would simply be hit by an arrow, stoically look at it and rationally analyze the direction of the shaft to triangulate the position of the shooter *without any type of check*.

In the abstraction that HPs represents, I think that it is fair to assume that the target reacted in such a way to *somehow* reduce the lethality of the shot. That may involve some instantaneous reflexes and violent movements. As a matter of fact, who says the arrow is still pinned in the target, or that it even penetrated deep enough to be pinned in the flesh.

That being said, I'm sure it would be fair to assume that the target would have a good enough impression of the direction of the shot to warrant a perception check, but I disagree that this should be automatically successful.

'findel


Quote:
Sure, you could make all sorts of checks. If you want to take the time. The problem is, you are assuming that all things take the same amount of time. The perception check is the first thing. It takes a second to make, it's the 'Oh my god I've been shot who shot me where are they got to get to cover oh my god' fight or flight response.

People that can't control that reaction to some extent don't take up adventuring. I've had a pitbull on my arm, tried to shake it off, and after a few seconds realized it wasn't going anywhere and managed to sit down, hold still and wait for the owner.

Quote:
If you fail it, you can try to fall back to other things. Knowledge survival checks if you can find some footprints to follow (while trying not to get shot). Or you can try to make an intelligence check to calculate where it came from based on the arrow direction. But that's not something you're doing in the heat of combat if you have a choice

Your other choice is a sniper 100 feet away with an impossible to make perception roll... so yes Mr Wizard do some basic trig.

Quote:
because it requires you to stop, take a breath, and think. That's very hard to do when you have adrenaline pounding in your ears and blood leaking from your arm and a wooden shaft grating against your bones each time you move.

And yet wizards manage to do it EVERY TIME they concentrate on their spells. While on fire.

Quote:
LOL

Knock that off. Its rude, disrespectful,and COMPLETELY unwarranted by anything you've managed to present so far

Quote:
all I've told you is that didn't travel through your chest. Think about the positions your right arm goes through during a typical discussion with...

And now you're assuming that the situation will warrant some ambiguity as to facing. I talk with my hands enough to be Italian, but i don't spin around like a top the way you'd have to do to be REMOTELY Plausible for your scenario. What happens if someone shoots the taciturn dwarf?

Quote:
No, that is not what I said. I said that the guy with the arrow could absolutely see where the fletching was in his arm, it just doesn't help because it points up at the sky (see example above).

Yes, it IS what you said, because unless its pointing strait UP it is also pointing left or right.

Quote:
As to the wizard with the 20 intelligence, that affects his perception roll, and he has a much better chance of making it.

Perception (Wis)

Quote:
If he fails it, he was distracted and didn't see.

Why is the difficulty of deducing the arrows direction directly correlated with the difficulty to spot the rouge in the first place?

Quote:
Intelligence isn't a guarantee of ability to perceive. If it was, wizards wouldn't have perception checks, they'd just know everything that happened around them. He saw the arrow sticking out of his friends arm, and said 'OH MY GOD! WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!' and he panicked a little and looked in every direction but the right one.

How does anyone survive a fight in your campaigns?

Quote:
Again, we are talking about responding in the heat of combat, not the Wizard sitting there at the camp fire 3 hours later calculating the exact angles the arrow had to have hit at.

Yes. The wizard can only warp reality itself with the power of his mind. We can't possibly expect the mathematical brilliance "feathers that way. Bad guy that way."

Quote:
So, every time you fail a check, you get a new one for something else?

What did i say that REMOTELY gave you that impression?

Quote:
No, that would slow the game way too far, and how do you draw the line at that point?

The perception check is free whenever he snipes. I'd allow you to try one check regarding each arrow.

Quote:
The rogue failed his perception check for the trapfinding, now he wants a perception check to notice the tile that is slightly higher than the others, and then one to notice the old blood stains

Those would all be part of the original perception check. However Spoting the rogue and determining his relative location from the arrow are two independent things. If we're going to push that down a slippery slope, you wind up with being unable to find him via his tracks. (which is against raw)

Quote:
and then a survival check to notice the rats tracks avoid that part of the tunnel, then a another check and another check.

unless they're adventuring in the new york city subway the rats shouldn't weigh enough to set off the traps. Candy to the rogue for trying though. I'd certainly allow that as a heads up that the rogue might want to raise his alertness level for a particular corridor.

Quote:
And I don't like people who want to ignore the rules because it's inconvenient to them. Sorry.

You mean the rules that you're ignoring because you want the sniper to be unfindable? Because unlike some i've supported my decision with the raw.

You're acting as though you have a specific rule that's being contradicted. If you do, you haven't demonstrated it yet. I on the other hand have a specific rule (tracking the invisible) that shows a general trend that indirect evidence from people you see can lead to getting some idea of where they are. YOu have nothing. You need to produce some rules that say I'm wrong if you're going to treat it as though I'm breaking the rules rather than your personal sense of balance between utility and accuracy. You're being slavishly devoted to rules that don't exist.

Quote:
The rules do the best they can to simulate (SIMULATE) a false reality. They are a balance between utility, accuracy, versimilitude and fairness. A lot of things are abstracted. Part of that abstraction is that we don't want to make 3 dozen rolls. To work what you want, you'd also need to make rolls to avoid being panicked at taking damage (note that pain is abstracted completely out of the system, that arrow sticking out of your arm doesn't even affect the rolls, how about that bit of realism? You aren't arguing to give any wounded character a -5 to his checks are you?)

That's an acceptable break from reality, and inherently part of the rules. The idea that you can't find a hiding or invisible person by other means is AGAINST the very rules you're relying on.

Quote:
then a perception check to notice the hiding guy, then another check to find footprints, then a third to follow the footprints back to the hidden guy. You see where this is going? You're asking for 10 minutes of searching to find 'secondary evidence' all in the surprise round of combat.

No, the arrow hitting was the surprise round . There could easily be another arrow incoming, then people could start making checks.

Quote:
That's kind of the point, it's a round of combat, it's a couple of seconds, and you're being attacked, you're not playing a computer game where you can pause the action and scan the surroundings in detail looking for that one leaf out of place.

No, but i'm not playing as me either. I'm playing as a skilled ranger who IS good enough to notice that 1 leaf out of place with an arrow in his arm and an orc on his blade.

Quote:
How many checks do you want in one round then? 2? 3? 10?

The perception check is free. I'd only allow one type of check once per arrow.

What you're doing is called the slippery slope argument.

Quote:
Second, I never said they couldn't get a general direction

... you're arguing with people who said to give a general direction.


mdt wrote:
First, the HP system doesn't work for pain and adrenaline, that's why it's not in the system. If you take a real world example of a fighter, a marine, and you take one right out of boot camp (1st level) and one who's been on 10 tours (level 20), and shoot both in the chest with a 45, they both scream and fall down and die. The one with 10 tours doesn't magically shrug the bullet off and say 'Merely a flesh wound'. Again, we're back to the system being an abstraction of reality, not reality. When you try to mix the two, wierd things happen.

Unless he's the Black Knight.

"Tis but a scratch!"


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:

Yes you can get an idea of where an invisible person is by their tracks and other indirect evidence. It's called making a successful perception or survival check. You cannot get that information if you can't make your check successfully.

So 1) there are checks besides perception you can use to get an idea of where the rogue is besides a perception check. 2) Why on earth isn't an intelligence , survival or heal check one of those checks? Why is the direction of an arrow less telling than a footprint?

Intelligence check could tell you general information such as the arrow came from in front, left, right, or behind and that the shooter couldn't be more than 1100 feet away.

Survival check could tell you which of those directions I listed for the intelligence check is relative to North. The only time it applies to finding someone/thing hidden is if you look for tracks and follow them.

Heal check will tell you that your injury was caused by the arrow.

The footprint can be tracked back to a specific square, the arrow cannot. That arrow could have come from any square within 1100 feet with line of sight to the target. The most you can get from the arrow is what squares have line of sight to the point of impact.

As for those tracks, where are you looking for them? 50 feet from the person who was hit? 100 feet? 200 feet? 500 feet? How long will it take you to find them? What is the shooter doing while you are looking for those tracks?

When you get hit, do you freeze in place to determine the direction of the arrow or do you look around for the shooter?

Failing that initial perception check means a long slow process of searching every possible square where the shot might have come from, or at least eliminating ones it could not have.


Quote:

Intelligence check could tell you general information such as the arrow came from in front, left, right, or behind and that the shooter couldn't be more than 1100 feet away.

Left right back front is probably all i'd give too. The argument here seems to be whether you get that or not.

Quote:
Survival check could tell you which of those directions I listed for the intelligence check is relative to North. The only time it applies to finding someone/thing hidden is if you look for tracks and follow them.

D&D doesn't have an investigation skill. I might use it for general knowledge of hunting and shooting bows, as its something the PC's might take as opposed to Knowledge: Ballistic projectiles or profession Hunter.

Quote:
Heal check will tell you that your injury was caused by the arrow.

A good roll might indicate the direction. Again, baring an investigate skill heal sometimes gets pressed into service as post mortem examination

Quote:
The footprint can be tracked back to a specific square, the arrow cannot. That arrow could have come from any square within 1100 feet with line of sight to the target. The most you can get from the arrow is what squares have line of sight to the point of impact.

And, as you said above, Front back left right.

Quote:
As for those tracks, where are you looking for them? 50 feet from the person who was hit? 100 feet? 200 feet? 500 feet? How long will it take you to find them? What is the shooter doing while you are looking for those tracks?

In my group? Cursing out my wind wall.

Quote:


Failing that initial perception check means a long slow process of searching every possible square where the shot might have come from, or at least eliminating ones it could not have.

Which can be signifigantly narrowed down by giving a vauge direction.


We can argue all we want about whether RAW supports one view or the other, I for one don't think there is enough support in RAW to definitively say either is right. I can tell you this though, I have been in combat re-enactments with hundreds of armored fighters per side and been shot more times then I can count all over my body with blunt arrows and I can tell you this, definitively without any doubt. Heat of battle and chaos of battle aside, you can tell the general direction a shot came from just based on feeling the impact, period, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. You can argue all you want about theory, but I KNOW this to be true from experience.


Laurefindel wrote:

I too do not buy the fact that any character, regardless of their level, would simply be hit by an arrow, stoically look at it and rationally analyze the direction of the shaft to triangulate the position of the shooter *without any type of check*.

Would you say the same of a visible fireball launched by an invisible caster?

What about a lightning bolt?

The arrow is no different.

In the game world where you can swing a polearm in a 5' corridor both infront of and behind you without pause, I wouldn't have this be a cause for concern.

You get to know the direction the arrow came from.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

I too do not buy the fact that any character, regardless of their level, would simply be hit by an arrow, stoically look at it and rationally analyze the direction of the shaft to triangulate the position of the shooter *without any type of check*.

Would you say the same of a visible fireball launched by an invisible caster?

What about a lightning bolt?

The arrow is no different.

Yes, I would probably say the same: I don't think that character can stoically respond and rationally analyze a response to any of these types of attack.

Whether one can instinctively react and - with enough experience - do an "educated guess" about the source of the attack is a whole different matter. I do think that this instinctive reaction still requires a skill check, whereas more intuitive or experienced characters would have a better chance of succeeding than others.

That being said, I agree that there are few difference between a projectile (such as an arrow) and a magical projectile (or "projectile-like" effect). I'd probably give the target a bonus on the perception check from the fact that it is bright or relatively slow moving or creating a trail of smoke etc - perhaps to the point of granting an auto-success on the check - but it would remain a skill check nonetheless. Similarly, penalties would be imposed for bad visibility, doziness, Wisdom drain etc as usual.

[edit] Perhaps I'm missing something. Are there any RAW stating that one automatically knows the point of origin of a spell?[/edit]

But this is neither here nor there; as a DM, I'd expect the victim of such an attack to succeed some kind of check to determine with enough precision the source of the attack to warrant a riposte. A check implies the possibility of failure at which point I'd tell the player that the attack came "from that side over here" (designate large area on map).

[edit2]To a great extent, I agree that one should know the direction of a ranged attack (bar some conditions that would alter or negate its perception). Where we might disagree is whether or not this knowledge should be precises enough, without a skill check, to warrant a deliberate riposte (as opposed to sent a fireball this way and hope to get lucky).[/edit2]

'findel

Sovereign Court

Well if you want to be kind as a DM you could always say if you fail the Perception DC by 4 or less you get the general direction of the shot.

--Vrocket Launcher Tag


People are trying to equate knowing the direction of an attack and knowing the exact square the attack came from. That's absolutely ludicrous and does those posters a major disservice. Longbows have a maximum range of 1,000 feet (1,100 for composite longbows). A 90 degree cone of "thattaway" leaves 785,400 square feet of possible sniper locations.


Zurai wrote:
People are trying to equate knowing the direction of an attack and knowing the exact square the attack came from. That's absolutely ludicrous and does those posters a major disservice. Longbows have a maximum range of 1,000 feet (1,100 for composite longbows). A 90 degree cone of "thattaway" leaves 785,400 square feet of possible sniper locations.

I'm perfectly fine with 'it came from the left' or 'someone behind you hit you'. I may have misunderstood some of the posts, but it seemed like people were wanting to look at the arrow and say 'Well, it hit me in the chest, so it's gotta be straight ahead along that line' even if they failed a perception check.

EDIT: Oh, and if someone rolls a 1 on their perception check, I in my games at least, either give them the wrong direction or tell them they have no idea where it's coming from.


Part of the OP was based on the ambiguity of the Perception skill. Assuming there is no facing and the fact that without cover something is visible with a DC0 Perception check, is the arrow visible as soon as it breaks cover?

I still maintain the stance that even RAW says it's the GM's call.

PRD wrote:


The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.


Theo Stern wrote:
We can argue all we want about whether RAW supports one view or the other, I for one don't think there is enough support in RAW to definitively say either is right. I can tell you this though, I have been in combat re-enactments with hundreds of armored fighters per side and been shot more times then I can count all over my body with blunt arrows and I can tell you this, definitively without any doubt. Heat of battle and chaos of battle aside, you can tell the general direction a shot came from just based on feeling the impact, period, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. You can argue all you want about theory, but I KNOW this to be true from experience.

Great you got the tee-shirt, now once you can do all the things a CHARACTER can it might not be comparing apples to oranges. You're not the character, there are things assumed in the simplification of the game, like no facing or not being able to make a perception check at a certain distance. What it comes down to is just because it could happen that way in real life, means Jack and Squat in game. Reality has no bearing here where magic takes hold. You can not like it and can house rule it, but by RAW there is no "you get a general direction of the attack" clause for ranged attacks from an unseen attacker, the only clause is for melee attacks. In a game based on rules creating a web of things you can do and exceptions to the rules, there is nothing saying you get a general direction.

If you want to rule that way, fine do it in your game, but don't try to pass off made up rulings without anything to back them up besides your desires in the Rules Forum.

If you disagree with the fact that RAW only mentions getting the information about attacks from unseen opponents in melee. Click the FAQ button and hope Paizo decides to errata/FAQ it the way you want.

Until then:
1) You failed a perception check against the guy taking a -20 so you don't know who hit you.
2) It wasn't a melee attack so you don't get the general direction of where the attack came from.

That is what RAW has to say about the situation. If as the DM you want to be nice, feel free to change it. If the DM gives you that information, your DM is being nice so you should be grateful.


Skylancer4 wrote:
not being able to make a perception check at a certain distance.

No such rule.

Quote:
it wasn't a melee attack so you don't get the general direction of where the attack came from. That is what RAW has to say about the situation.

That rule is not restricted to melee attacks.


Simon Legrande wrote:
I still maintain the stance that even RAW says it's the GM's call.

Can we please get over the fact that rule 0 exists and stop saying "just rule 0 it" in the Game Rules forum? It does nobody any good and just serves to add more noise to the signal:noise ratio. It's understood by every single person to ever play the game that the DM gets the final call. Saying "But DM!" is useless in any discussion of the rules. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't clarify anything.


<@><@> you all still arguing. hehe.

Oh well wish ya good luck with Rule 0.


Zurai wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
not being able to make a perception check at a certain distance.
No such rule.

No such rule spelled out, I agree, but at 1100 feet you are taking a what penalty to make a perception check? Oh yeah, one that makes it impossible to succeed even with epic skill levels. The constructs of the game enforce rules even if they aren't specifically called out.

Zurai wrote:
Quote:


it wasn't a melee attack so you don't get the general direction of where the attack came from. That is what RAW has to say about the situation.
That rule is not restricted to melee attacks.
PFRPG pg 563 wrote:


... strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location...

It doesn't say attack, it says strike, it then goes to say if the creature has reach you fail to pinpoint it exactly. As in if it were standing right next to you and struck you (in melee), you would know where the attack came from. And if it had reach and struck you (in melee), you would have a general idea where it came from. Seems fairly straightforward to me, doesn't say anything about ranged attacks.

Otherwise it would have made mention of range instead of just reach. Otherwise it would haves said any attack made, not when you are "struck" and then go to put an exception on it that is completely impossible (ranged weapons don't have reach so there is no need to note an exception).

If you want to take it further, fine you know what struck you, the arrow, it is either sticking out of you or laying at your feet. That still doesn't help you to determine the location of the creature that made the attack. You just know where the arrow (which struck you) is, because you failed your perception check.


Skylancer4 wrote:
It doesn't say attack, it says strike

Since when can you only be struck by melee attacks? If I throw a stone at you, do I not strike you with it? If Zeus fires a lightning bolt at you, does he not strike you down? Nowhere in that rule does it specific melee attacks.

Quote:
Seems fairly straightforward to me, doesn't say anything about ranged attacks.

Nor does it say anything about melee attacks. You have to extrapolate just as much to limit it to melee attacks as I do to apply it to ranged attacks. Actually, more; you have to make additions to two places, I have to make additions to one.

Quote:
(ranged weapons don't have reach so there is no need to note an exception).

Amusingly, reach weapons function as ranged weapons in several places in the rules. Furthermore, it makes no sense from either a gamist nor a simulationist point of view that a creature could attack you from 60 feet away with a colossal longspear vs a colossal flight arrow and you wouldn't know where the arrow was coming from, but would automatically know where the longspear was coming from. Since it makes no sense under any circumstance, it's a fairly simple leap of logic to say, "hey, this is probably not how the designers intended this rule to work".

Quote:
If you want to take it further, fine you know what struck you, the arrow, it is either sticking out of you or laying at your feet.

No, this is just you being pigheaded. If this were the case, it wouldn't work for anything at all; "Fine, you know what struck you, the sword/axe/claw/tooth/tail/etc, which is currently stuck in your side, oh wait, now it's gone". And, actually, ammo is destroyed when it hits, so the arrow is (by the rules) neither stuck in you nor laying at your feet.


Quote:
but by RAW there is no "you get a general direction of the attack" clause for ranged attacks from an unseen attacker

But by raw there is no "you don't get a general direction of the missile attacks" either, dropping the question back into the DM's lap and allowing the injection of sanity into the discussion. There's no rule that says you fall down when you die, so therefore you MUST remain standing up and anything else is a rant worthy deviation from the almighty raw.


Zurai wrote:
No, this is just you being pigheaded. If this were the case, it wouldn't work for anything at all; "Fine, you know what struck you, the sword/axe/claw/tooth/tail/etc, which is currently stuck in your side, oh wait, now it's gone". And, actually, ammo is destroyed when it hits, so the arrow is (by the rules) neither stuck in you nor laying at your feet.

Actually I didn't have to change anything twice, in my example I was pointing out that an attack that is "reach" HAS to be melee. As the exception was reach and so HAS to be melee, the initial condition it is modifying would HAVE to be melee as well. I just happened to put it there as it was appropriate and I was trying to be thorough with the copied text.

Pigheaded, says the person suggesting that you should get an indication of where an attack came from BY FAILING a perception roll... As for your quoted section, that happens to be exactly what happens when an invisible or unseen creature attacks you. There it is! Oh wait I attacked it there and missed. Well because the attack missed it must have moved, or did it(?) because there is a chance the attack missed anyways for not being able to see it. Did you make your perception check? No?? Well damn, you don't know where it is now do you...

There is no facing, as there is no facing you can't assume an attack strikes anywhere in particular, which is what you are assuming saying an attack hit your X from Y direction and Z location. Your making up reasons for it to work without providing rules to back up what you want to happen.

FYI, destroyed doesn't mean cease to exist, it means unusable.


+1 Skylancer on the failed perception roll denying any further knowledge. Finally figured out the whole non-facing issue lol


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
but by RAW there is no "you get a general direction of the attack" clause for ranged attacks from an unseen attacker
But by raw there is no "you don't get a general direction of the missile attacks" either, dropping the question back into the DM's lap and allowing the injection of sanity into the discussion. There's no rule that says you fall down when you die, so therefore you MUST remain standing up and anything else is a rant worthy deviation from the almighty raw.

There is a rule for melee, this "sets the stage" as the game is once again a set of rules for what you can do and the exceptions to those rules. All those can do's and exceptions interweave to provide the platform. If you can do it for melee, but it isn't stated to be available to be done for ranged it isn't possible by omission. Take it further and include the rules for stealth which stay you can stay hidden by succeeding on a stealth check with a -20 penalty and you have an attack from some unknown area against someone who at any one point is facing all directions with no indicator of direction.

I'm saying you can't do it because it isn't allowed by the rules of the game (AKA what you can do). You're saying it is possible because it doesn't say it isn't (AKA I'm making stuff up cause I like it).

How come there is a certain set of people who every time they cannot come up with something "better" always reverts to some form of the "you're dead" argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand? It says a lot about them....


Quote:


There is a rule for melee, this "sets the stage" as the game is once again a set of rules for what you can do and the exceptions to those rules. All those can do's and exceptions interweave to provide the platform.

And there's no rule for going to the bathroom in the game either. I suppose nobody pees. There's no rules for growing facial hair, i suppose no one shaves (or dwarves beards stay the same length from birth?) There's no rules for a lot of things, thats what the DM is for.

Not everything you can do is listed in the rule books. The lack of it being there isn't the same as saying "its not there, you are violating the raw."

Violating reality and sense to the degree you're trying to should have at least some basis in the raw or game mechanics... it does not.

Quote:
against someone who at any one point is facing all directions with no indicator of direction.

This is not what the rules say. the rules don't say that someone is a constantly spinning top with a rotational period of zero. The rules say that in combat it doesn't matter which way they're facing, they still get the perception checks and ability to react to opponents. This is due to the stop/go nature of the game. If you could gain an advantage against an opponent by merely comming at them from behind there would be nothing to prevent a character from walking around to the back of another and stabbing him there while he can't turn or move because its not his turn.

Quote:
I'm saying you can't do it because it isn't allowed by the rules of the game (AKA what you can do) You're saying it is possible because it doesn't say it isn't (AKA I'm making stuff up cause I like it).

Its not because i like it. Your argument so far hasn't been anywhere near convincing enough to warrant accusations of dishonesty on ANYONE's part here. I'm saying its possible because

1) There is no rule against it
2) It should be possible in real life, which is is a perfectly legitimate means of adjudicating a non magical effect that the rules are silent on.

Quote:
How come there is a certain set of people who every time they cannot come up with something "better" always reverts to some form of the "you're dead" argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand? It says a lot about them....

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.


The more I read the forums, the more I believe ignorance is bliss.


Skylancer4 wrote:
Pigheaded, says the person suggesting that you should get an indication of where an attack came from BY FAILING a perception roll...

You get an indication regardless of Perception check. It's not even related to Perception. You're trying to make a straw man out of fresh green grass. It just doesn't work. In fact, the implication of your statements is that you never know which direction an attack from an invisible creature comes from, which blatantly contradicts the rules. You can't have it both ways; either location matters (which we know for a fact is true because you know the direction an invisible attack came from), or it doesn't. You keep claiming the latter, and that cannot be given the rules as written.


Zurai wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Pigheaded, says the person suggesting that you should get an indication of where an attack came from BY FAILING a perception roll...
You get an indication regardless of Perception check. It's not even related to Perception. You're trying to make a straw man out of fresh green grass. It just doesn't work. In fact, the implication of your statements is that you never know which direction an attack from an invisible creature comes from, which blatantly contradicts the rules. You can't have it both ways; either location matters (which we know for a fact is true because you know the direction an invisible attack came from), or it doesn't. You keep claiming the latter, and that cannot be given the rules as written.

It doesn't work? Read again, try to apply some sort of reading comprehension this time.

No, I'm saying you do know where (which square) it comes from when you are struck in melee. That you get a rough direction when struck in by a creature with reach. And because the rules don't say you get indication of origin of ranged attacks, as they do with melee attacks, you don't know where it came from. There is nothing "straw man" about it. My position is that there are rules for when you get the knowledge, because the attack isn't listed as giving that knowledge, the opponent doesn't get that knowledge.

The apparent other view requires something to be assumed that isn't in the rules (that ranged attacks give indication) and further go against the rules by giving away information that should not be gotten (indication of where the attack originated) by failing to roll a perception check for that explicit purpose...

Go look up straw man argument instead of using it incorrectly. It might be appropriate for some of the posts you may decide to use it against (or troll) since you've picked it up on the internet forums but not this one.


Ok you two, I already quit posting in this thread because people were acting like school children. If you look up a few dozen posts, you'll see posts were deleted for just the name calling and insult flaming you two are doing now. I'm sure if the powers that be have to delete posts again, they'll just lock the thread.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Where the hell did that shot come from anyways!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.