calvinNhobbes's page

320 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

LoreKeeper wrote:
I'm sure your PCs all act honorably and good (well, the xG-aligned ones at least).

Honor is a lawful trait, not good, so no, your hyperbole is incorrect.

And go out of their way to let the bad guys know that they're coming.

Once again, your hyerpbole is baseless.

Subterfuge and stealth are, after all, not something that a good and honorable person does

Good and honorable are not mutually inclusive. Perhaps you should brush up on the alignment rules.

- no no, play with the cards open and on the table.

More ridiculous hyperbole. You are comparing my objections to GENOCIDE to playing cards? Now you are simply being obtuse.

Certainly very few good parties will go the distance and setup a homeless goblin shelter and have encouraging singalongs to go with the resocialization program that will help the little gobbies integrate into society.

Ah, more hyperbole. Good parties don't murder. You must be a very unethical person to think otherwise.

It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am of course nothing but charm personified and would you be so kind to sign this little paper on the dotted line (and just again on the bottom here) - it's for my daughter's cookie fundraiser; I'm sure we'll get along swell.

I honestly find your morality to be sociopathic. You are an evil person, by d20 alginment rules or otherwise. The idea you coudl beleive genocide to be a Good act is jsut laughable. I really hope you are simply trolling and not really such a horribly evil person.



Some US soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally shot a little girl (again) - they were of course sure that the vehicle was only occupied by militants. Not, as it turned out, innocents. It was just an order to engage. Just following orders. Does that make them evil?

No, that makes them neutral. You seem to forget that morality, even in PF is not black and white, there this wonderful gray area called NEUTRAL!!!!!

thegreatpablo wrote:
I think this is the crux of the issue. A single action shouldn't change a character's (player or otherwise) alignment. It's a series of actions that slowly move you toward an alignment.

Only if that alignment is well established by past acts. If I start a campaign, and a player says their aligemnt is XG, but their first act is to go murdering innocents, guess what, you are not a good PC, I don't care what your character sheet says.

In the case of the attackers, they were lawful neutral characters who presumably have either never or very rarely done evil acts in the past.

Like I said, a neutral at best. But NOT good. So what's your point?

They are soldiers to their country first and foremost and follow orders for what they believe to be the greater good.

Greater good, lesser evil, etc. etc. are merely terms that mean the same damn thing, NEUTRAL!

LoreKeeper wrote:
That is not what I'm on about - I'm saying that it would be perfectly valid for a group of good PCs to believe they need to rescue someone, and that the least risky approach (both to themselves and in terms of collateral damage) is to kill the sleeping prison wardens.

That might be the least risky, but that would not be the good thing to do. A good PC killing a helpless person would automatically become neutral at best in any game I GM.

Any number of good characters would not have too much problems with committing localised genocide (i.e. whiping out the Thistletop goblins).

WHAT!?!?!?!? Are you friggen kidding me!?!!??! Genocide is EVIL!!!!

Perhaps it is a little contrived - but, really, I doubt it is particularly difficult to convince a party of good characters (PCs or otherwise) that a particular (objectively evil) act is in fact of grave necessity and done for good.

You sound like a BBEG...

Jeremiziah wrote:
You had me up until this point. How in the nine hells is anyone (other than James, Jason, and a few others) supposed to know why the RAW are what they are?

Read the whole thread, someone already posted a response by James, I believe, on the topic.

Why would we assume that the Stealth rules being written as they are is the result of an editorial mistake?

The evidence for this has also been posted in the this thread several times now, but I will state it again for your benefit. When PF combined other skills like balance, tumble and jump in to acrobatics, they simply cut and paste those three skills into separate sub-topics of the acrobatics skill under "cross narrow surface" (ie balance), "move through threatened square" (ie. tumble) and "jumping and falling" (ie jump). Similar for Diplomacy, where they stuck the whole Gather Information skill under the sub heading "Gather Information". Disable device and open locks, same thing. However, for Stealth they did not make any distinction between hiding and move silently. The requirement for cover or concealment was ONLY necessary to hide in 3.5, not to move silently. By this little act of editing they completely changed how the rules work. Was this their intent? The post referenced earlier in the thread would indicate not.

No, I'd rather assume that the rules were written the way they wanted them written, since that's what they published, and they've now had several goes at Errata releases without addressing this in any way.

Well ignorance is bliss I suppose. The fact is, I never even notice the change until DM_Blake so adamantly addressed it because I can't think of a reason why'd they change something to make it worse...

Look, approaching an opponent via Stealth is not even remotely the most efficient way of gaining Sneak Attack.

It's not just about sneak attack. In fact sneak attack is the least important thing since as you mention, sneak attack is barely affected by the new rules. What IS screwed is everything else.

Really, I wish James or Jason would just clarify the darned thing. I think the rules - as written and as intended - are fairly clear, but I get that there are scads of people who don't, and I hate that there is this level of animosity among the community about this subject. It's freaking stupid.

I also agree the stealth RAW are clear, AND worse than 3.5, so why use them unless you have to?

another_mage wrote:
However, I don't blame DM_Blake for adjudicating the rules that way, as that's how they are written. I'm thankful to have somebody that knowledgeable about the rules to ask for advice.

I agree, I completely appreciate DM_Blake's expertise because I totally failed to notice the huge effect that bit of editing had on an important part of the game.

However, DM_Blakes failure to concede the only reason the RAW happen to be that way is simply due to bad editing, and not by a conscious effort to improve the game over 3.5, is just silly in my opinion.

Maybe he just likes to argue...

I think the issue is that stealth worked intuitively in 3.5, people merely did not like the "skill tax" of having to put ranks in two skills to accomplish the goal of being stealthy. When PF combined the skills to reduce the skill tax, people assumed they worked the same as before. Unfortunately, sloppy editing by PF has resulted in the mechanics of the stealth skill not only being different from 3.5 but also completely unintuitive. That was obviously not the goal of PF.

So you can either be a rules lawyer and use the PF rules exactly as written, ie. unintuitive and arguably mechanically worse than 3.5; or you can play by rules that make sense. I personally would never play with a GM that adjudicated the stealth rules like DM_Blake proposes.

If the Paladin was also captain of the ship AND brought no one else along as first mate that was competent enough to command and sail the ship, then the paladin is a moron and doomed to failure because of his infinite stupidity not because of the morality of the situation. Stupid is as stupid does.

thegreatpablo wrote:
I tend to agree, however the situation presented above is a very real and possible problem.

With numerous options, not just two. Avialable options may change as the players make choices, but purposefully trying to thwart the players by designing a no-win situation is being a dick GM IMHO.

Making a situation so specific that it forces predetermined options onto the players is called railroading. I hate GMs that do that...

I try to follow one simple rule when GMing, I provide the problems and the players provide the solutions.

Rezdave wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Rezdave wrote:
However, I suggest using an example that is more R/L accessible than a "big hairy spider", and that would be the archetypal Tiny creature ... a normal, domestic house cat.
Just realize that your example is no different if you change it to be two huge giants and a human. The size relation is no different. Would you deny the giants flanking if the human is 5 feet away? Because in real life, it is the exact same physical situation.

If the human is outside the 3x3 squares occupied by the giants then they get flanking. If the human is inside the 3x3 squares of either giant and the two giants are side-by-side (or even separated but within Reach) then they do not.

Which is exactly what I said above, but using different sizes. The question for the flankers isn't Reach, it's overlap.


Except that it is not. If you are going to use "real-life" logic to defend your interpretation of RAW, then you need to be consistent. And that consistent logic is that huge giants would not be able to flank a medium creature that is 5 feet away.

Think of it this way, it is simply a matter of a discrete scale and rounding errors that are part of a game and not real life. If you reduce the scale so that fine creatures take up one square with a reach of one square, and scale everything up from there, your "real-life" logic falls apart.

Moreover, note that:

SRD wrote:
Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. 25 Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square.

So rules already exist that more than one creature can occupy a square. In fact, two tiny creatures MUST occupy the same square if they are to be engaged in melee combat. They do not magically move to two different squares once they attack.

King of Vrock wrote:
It cannot end it's turn in an illegal space so must return to last legal space it occupied.

Except, that is not RAW, that is a houserule, but whatever floats your boat.

Cutting all the ropes to save the ship and doom the overboard sailor: Neutral

Not cutting the ropes in order to save the overboard sailor but putting everyone else at risk: Good but stupid

Cutting all but one rope and jumping overboard to possibly save the overboard sailor but risking your own life: Good and heroic

Now, if the paladin knows he is a sucky swimmer and his chances are basically impossible, then he should cut all the ropes. There is nothing wrong with a paladin, or any good PC, performing Neutral acts. Only doing Evil things is a problem.

another_mage wrote:
However, if you really want a mind-bender, think about a Stirge grappling a medium creature. What square does the Stirge occupy while drinking blood? :-)

Not much of a mindbender. Tiny creatures occupy the squares of their target (at least in d20, serious, was this changed in PF? because I don't see it if they did). It made even more sense in d20 since grappling creatures occupied the same space, but in PF grappling foes are merely adjacent, except in the case of tiny or smaller creature as explained above (assuming they didn't specifically change this).

Rezdave wrote:

I have to agree with Gray and Squirrel on this.

However, I suggest using an example that is more R/L accessible than a "big hairy spider", and that would be the archetypal Tiny creature ... a normal, domestic house cat.

If a friend and I are both holding swords and standing on opposite sides of a house cat and the cat is trying to keep an eye on both of us at the same time, then clearly we are flanking it and both gain a bonus.

However, once the cat attacks me with its Reach 0', it is effectively right-on-top-of-me. This means that to hit it my buddy is basically also swinging at me! So maybe he technically gets a bonus to hit the cat, but he sure better take his time and effectively take a penalty (i.e. "called shot") to avoid hitting me.

Basically, as I see it any potential flanking bonus is canceled out by the presence of the "ally" ... call it a circumstance penalty, called shot penalty or soft-cover.

I just know that my buddy better not be taking a full-on swing if that cat's running around between my legs or has jumped up on me to try and scratch my face.



Just realize that your example is no different if you change it to be two huge giants and a human. The size relation is no different. Would you deny the giants flanking if the human is 5 feet away? Because in real life, it is the exact same physical situation.

another_mage wrote:

Moving Through A Square wrote:
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.

However, this does not allow said creature to end its movement there.

Moving Through A Square wrote:
Ending Your Movement: You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

I guess they changed it in PF.

d20 wrote:
Creatures may occupy the same square if they are three or more size categories different
If a Tiny creature enters a square in order to attack, then it provokes an AoO from the target creature. If the Tiny survives the AoO, then it can attack. After the attack, it must return to the last legal square it occupied.

Guess they changed that too, not that way in d20.

d20 wrote:
Two tiny creatures can occupy the same space as a medium creature, and provide each other flanking.

Dire Squirrel wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding the question.

Nope, understand if perfectly.

Of course two medium creatures can flank a tiny creature -- my question is what happens when that tiny creature is in the same square as one of the medium creatures. This is a situation which cannot happen with medium + huge (or medium + anything else for that matter).

Actually, that is not true. Creatures three size categories difference can occupy the same space no matter what. Therefore, a medium PC can occupy the same space as a gargantuan creature. For creatures smaller than small, a difference of only two size categories is sufficient.

The argument that you cannot flank a creature which is underfoot makes sense here.

If you say so, you can just as easily come up with an explanation of why flanking would be allowed. Having to dodge around to avoid being squished should provide a bonus to an ally.

You can make that rule, but just be aware you will be allowing a small PC flanked by two huge creatures to simply tumble into the square of the huge creature to eliminate the flanking. Moreover, what if the huge creature is an ally, would the small creature be immune to flanking by other enemies? By your logic, it should be.

If you take a real life example, the answer is also NO. Just think about a big hairy spider runnig between and around your legs, trying to bite your toe. Why would it be easier to hit this pesky spider just because you have an ally standing next to you?

By that logic, two huge giants should not be able to flank a medium sized PC, but that is obviously not the case.

I think it is good to think about it in terms of physical vs mental maturity. For example, even though humans can be physically mature and able to reproduce at 14 or even younger these days, it has been shown that the prefrontal cortex (that part of the brain responsible for inhibition, ie maturity) does not fully develop until much later (25+)

In the case of elves, you may say they physically mature similarly to humans but to reach full mental and cultural maturity (and therefore gain all those racial bonuses and skills) takes many more decades.

AvalonXQ wrote:
If Interpretation A makes the rules work and Interpretation B would generate a contradiction, the assumption is that Interpretation B is probably not what was intended.

I interpret teh alignment systems like TOZ, ie killing is never Good, and I have never had problems with rule contradictions or validity.

Therefore, that means there must be more than one way to play alginment RAW, including that killing is never Good.

Wow, glad we can all agree!

AvalonXQ wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
AvalonXQ, I have a question, in game terms, why do you believe killing Evil must be a Good act? What would change if it wasn't?

Because then heroes vanquishing evil foes aren't spending their time doing good deeds. I think heroes who are mainly spending their time combating and defeating the truly evil are following a good path. Under the interpretation that these acts are neutral, they're following a neutral path instead.

Or do you believe this distinction doesn't hold much real meat?

First, why does stopping evil have to mean killing them? Can you not fight and defeat something without killing it? Especially in a world full of magic. The mercy enchantment exists for a reason!

Second, IF killing was Neutral instead of Good, why would that prevent stopping Evil from being a Good deed. Like the example given, killing the Dragon (Neutral) to protect innocent village (Good) is still a good deed, yes?

Third, doing a Neutral act does not make a Neutral path! I think that distinction is ludicrous!

AvalonXQ, I have a question, in game terms, why do you believe killing Evil must be a Good act? What would change if it wasn't?

AvalonXQ wrote:
No, you are wrong. Killing can be good or evil. You can houserule your paladins into pacifism all you want in your games though!

Nope, you're wrong. And why would I have to make a LG character a pacifist? Good characters can kill things, but it is not a good act. Do you not understand this concept?

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Aha. Just the answer I was looking for.

I knew it was ;)

Now, they protect the Using their class abilities to disarm, demoralize, and subdue the opposition? Or kill them?

The disarm, grapple, and subdue rules exist for a reason. Killing the opposition should only be done for self survival, and then it would be a Neutral act, not a good one. Which is ok since Paladins can do Neutral things.

Remember, Smite is divinely granted. If violence=evil, a divine class ability primarially used for violence should not be granted by Good dieties.

Violence does not necessarily mean Evil. It can be Neutral.

AvalonXQ wrote:

And if they kill the innocent, it's an evil act.


And if they kill an evil creature oppressing the innocent, it's a good act.

Wrong, that is Neutral

This isn't a difficult idea;

I guess it is for you

you can find it in the Bible if you like.Or in basically any fantasy story ever.

Which are irrelevant to the discussion about terms DEFINED in a game.

But since you like to mention the Bible, I personally don't think it is an example of Good as defined by d20. I would consider it LN.

AvalonXQ wrote:

You're wrong. Violence can be used justly, and it is right and good, not just neutral to do so.
From the sound of things, you're a pacifist. No wonder you have problems adjudicating "good" and "evil" in your game -- the D&D concept of good includes violence, and that goes against your own moral system.
Sorry, but you're wrong about D&D. If you don't like what it says, ignore it -- but don't try to act like pacifism is part of the D&D ideal of good. It's just part of yours.

No, you are wrong. Killing is neutral at best, not good. You can houserule how ever you want for your games though!

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
get Martial Weapon Prof's? And full BAB? And Smite Evil?

To protect the innocent.

AvalonXQ wrote:

Wrong. :-p

It's good.

So, what if you kill a Neutral person to stop them from doing evil? Is that good too? What about killing a good person to stop evil, is that good? How about if I kill a Neutral person to stop them from doing Neutral things, what is that? If kill an evil person to stop them from doing something good, is that also good?

AvalonXQ wrote:
Wrong. Justly killing evil = good.

Wrong :P

That is Neutral.

AvalonXQ, how about you take a breath and cool the jets. You seem to be getting a little emotional. When you start arguing over whether you really insulted someone or not, you should just apologise and move back to the actual topic of discussion.

AvalonXQ wrote:
And they're also allowed to do Good acts, which is what slaying the evil dragon ravaging the countryside is.

No, that is a Neutral act. Which is ok. Neutral acts are awesome! Why does everything have to be Good or Evil when we have such an easy to use middle ground that is Neutral?

It's not something to be remorseful over; it's something to be celebrated. And it always have been, in fantasy literature and in actual real-world religious texts.

But we are not talking about fantasy literature, or real world religion, we are talking about terms defined in a game.

Good != pacificm. Killing != evil.

Agreed. But also Killing != good, ever. And Good = no killing.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
It could be Neutral, yes. My stance is that it could never be good. Depending on if you believe Lawful to mean 'follows laws' then a trial and execution under the law would be a Lawful act.

Ah, cool, we are on the exact same page then.

AvalonXQ wrote:

I'm sorry, but it is indisputable that good-aligned outsiders and dieties kill evil beings, and are acting according to their alignment when they do so.

ere's no way that paladin would be granted the Smite ability if killing evil creatures were anything but a good act. Destroying evil in the service of good is a good act.

That's because Good outsiders and Paladins are allowed to do Neutral acts. Nowhere in the rules does it state Good aligned characters can only do good acts. Moreover, a Paladin will never fall if all he does is Neutral acts. The only requirement is that he does not do Evil acts, not that he ONLY do Good acts.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.
I view it differently. I think killing him after the war would be Neutral, either by trial (LN) or other less legal methods like assasination(CN). Of course, if you did him any unnecessary harm or pain besides the execution, ie. torture, then that would be Evil.
Absolutely, hence my 'Neutral at best' statement. It certainly isn't Good.

Well, I think you could kill Hilter without a trial after the WWII and not consider it Evil. If a mob caught him and killed him for his war crimes, I'd consider that CN, or maybe even LN depending on what you consider vigilante justice to be (cue Batman references!)

AvalonXQ wrote:
No, I disagree. Killing evil isn't evil -- it's good. Killing the innocent is evil.

And I disagree with that as well. Just following what the SRD states on alignment, killing can not be a good act. Killing for one's own survival (like an animal) is at best Neutral. Killing someone for personal survival would likewise be a Neutral act. Nothing wrong with that, doing Neutral stuff is awesome!

KenderKin wrote:

good that your here.....

I'm like a moth to a flame! I really tried not to get sucked in this time, but I am weak... ;)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Killing Hitler before WWII would have been an Evil act. Killing him afterwards would have been an Evil act. Bringing him to court, judging him, and executing him would be a Neutral act at best.

I view it differently. I think killing him after the war would be Neutral, either by trial (LN) or other less legal methods like assasination(CN). Of course, if you did him any unnecessary harm or pain besides the execution, ie. torture, then that would be Evil.

Caineach wrote:
PCs do it all the time and no one questions it. I see people clearing out entire villiages of goblinoids to the man and many worlds think this is a good act.

I question it all the time as a DM. Such an act of genocide would get any Good PC on the express train to Neutral town in my games, and that's assuming this is during war time. If they were murdering and pillaging just for personal profit, hello Evilville.

Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the method of problem solving is very different. 1 is actually logical and methodical, the other is very scatterbrained.

Except that both examples you gave are very logical. One is merely in the form of an equation, the other is simply a similar logic as a word problem. Furthermore, just because you don't understand someone's logic does not make it illogical.

Both get to the same end result. 1 is lawful, the other is chaotic.

I don't agree. Either one could be either one.

Preplanning and organization are lawful traits, they see to put order into your life.

Not necessarily. A group of bandits organized together to preplan how to rob the merchant caravan are not Lawful in my understanding.

My point is that Sherloch Homes's defining characteristic is his ability to put everything into its place, and this makes him lawful.

Except it doesn't. That makes him INT.

The fact that he fits every other definition of chaotic the book has does not matter as much as this 1 thing.

Then perhaps we should instead provide a more logical conclusion, that personal organization does not mean Lawful, and instead Holmes is in fact Chaotic in alignment with a high INT.

meatrace wrote:
what is he?

About to go postal would be my guess. ;)

So you can learn history through wisdom?

In game, no. In real life, yes.

Glad the skill system supports that.

It doesn't, which I never stated it did. So why make such a comment?


Int represents your capacity for knowledge and your ability to solve a problem. You don't have to use methodical thought processes to solve problems.

One person can use A+B=C and C+D=E.

Annother thinks If E is true, and I have A, does Z work? No, guess D might, oh looks like d is just a part of it and I need C. Can I get C from a, perhaps B will do it.

Those might be two different thought processes, but they are BOTH logical, methodical, analytical, or whatever other synonym you care to use. Both examples use reason, ie. rational ordered thought, ie. logic, ie. analysis, ie. INT as defined by the game.

Both people are inteligent in game terms, they just approach the problem differently. 1 is very lawful, the other is chaotic.

Which was EXACTLY my point to begin with. INT, ie reasoning, ie. logic, ie. analytical thought, is independent of alignment.

Caineach wrote:
You can learn and reason without doing it methodically or annalytically.

Yes, that is by real world experience, which is modeled by WIS in game terms

There are personality tests devoted to how people learn. 2 people can be equally intelligent, if there were some theoretical way of universally measuring it, and approach problems in completely different ways.

Of course, because such tests do not do a very good job of delineating between INT and WIS as they are defined in game. But that does not change the fact that INT, as far as the game is concerned, models orderly rational thought, ie logical.

I am not talking about the difference between street smarts, common sense, or anything modeled by wisdom. I am refering to how people approach a problem, which everyone does differently.

But you are talking about that. Intuition is a powerful form of intelligence in the real world, which is modeled by WIS in game terms.

Caineach wrote:
Being annalytical and logical is 1 way to approach a problem, and a very lawful, organized way.

I suppose I simpy don't equate being personally organized to being Lawful in alignment. If that was the case it would make playing a thief with OCD impossible...

LilithsThrall wrote:
There are other ways of understanding the world which aren't logical or analytical and, yet, help a person reach their desired goals.

Yes, that would fall under common sense, street smarts, or whatever, which I find to best modeled by WIS in the d20 gaming system.

d20srd wrote:

INT: learning and reason
WIS: common sense and intuition
LilithsThrall wrote:
"analytical" and "logical" isn't the same as "intelligent".
MW Dictionary wrote:

To reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

So yout INT score models your ability to think in a orderly rational way. Sounds like INT does model logical and analytical thinking. So... ya...

I would think being analytical and logical has more to do with one's INT score, than morality or ethics.

In other words, I think any alignment can be analytical and logical.

For INT, I simply use the appropriate knowledge check. If the player makes their check, then the character knows the relevant piece of information.

For WIS, I use sense motive checks as a kind of insight or intuition into a situation. Ex, when the party goes to open the door carved with ancient arcane runes, and doesn't check for traps first, I have them roll DC 10 (or whatever depending on how obviously dangerous I think the situation is) sense motive check. They fail, then the action proceeds as described; they succeed, and I ask "Are you sure you don't want to check for traps first?" They can either stop and check for traps or proceed as before, it's up to them.

DM_Blake wrote:
Seems to me, it should be equally easy to do the same thing horizontally, like if your wall is taller than you, but you're standing at the end of it.

Agreed, I wonder if there is some way to finagle the rules to allow this situation, similar to the low wall scenario I outlined of move-standard-free, without introducing some loophole that would be abusive.

Ogre wrote:
I like this a lot. Only downside is you are pretty screwed if someone gets into melee with you.

Thanks! Yep, cover or not, if you bring a bow to a melee fight, you be screwed ;)

DM_Blake wrote:

Pathfinder combat absolutely does not allow this to happen. You MUST stick yourself out into the line of fire, take your shot, then stand there until all your enemies shoot back at you. Extremely un-lifelike, unrealistic, and uncinematic. Not to mention, un-fun. Having to eat a dozen arrows so that you can fire one, all because there is no way, even if you're Hasted, to make a shot like that, is plain silly. Shame on you RAW, for being so silly!

But wait! There's hope. Sniping. This is exactly what sniping allows you to do. Thanks to Sniping, the RAW are not so silly and unrealistic.

With sniping, we can execute that lovely cinematic, and real-life, maneuver of sticking our head (and weapon) out from behind cover, taking a shot, and getting back to cover without being shot back by every enemy on the battlefield.

Ah, I get it, you want to expand the Sniping rules to also cover this scenario. Gotcha!

Interestingly, you can do this by RAW for low walls. Lying prone, move action to stand up, standard action to attack, and free action to drop prone. I use this one all the time. The attacker will still have cover even when standing, and full cover when prone. It forces people to use ready actions to attack the "sniper", wasting their action if the attacker happens not to stand up that turn.

I think I would rather have something like that expanded to cover the scenario of attacking around wall corners you've outlined than using the stealth rules. I think that would be more consistent.

DM_Blake wrote:
calvinNhobbes wrote:
In your example, I would not allow the attack to even happen, sniping or otherwise.
Now here's where we don't agree, because RAW gives us the Sniping rule. What in the world do we need that rule for if not for exactly this situation?

Sniping or not, you still need LOS to make an attack, or at least LOE. From your example, the sniper would have to shoot through the cover to hit the target. That is not possible by RAW or in real life in your diagram. Move the target one square to the right and now you can attack it. You can either just attack normally, which means the target knows where you are but you get cover, or you can try sniping; if you fail the target knows you are behind the corner, if you suceed the target still has no idea where you are. In either case you still need to have LOE.

DM_Blake wrote:
Sniping was designed for what we have seen in every Cops-and-Robbers movie, or Cowboys-and-Indians, or every John Wayne movie ever made. People around a corner or behind a rock or behind a car or inside a doorway (off to the side). They "pop out" or "Pop up" and fire off a shot, then "duck back" to hide again. Over and over, until they kill the bad guys or get killed themselves.

Really? That is not how I've thought of sniping. What you describe is how I always described the simply use of cover.

For me, the sniping rules imply something like a guy up in a bell tower with a rifle. If you make the roll, no body has any clue where you are.

If the sniper does not have LOS from the square they are in, then they cannot attack.

In your example, I would not allow the attack to even happen, sniping or otherwise.

Cartigan wrote:
"Why are the unobserved characters not observed if they do not meet any other requirements to use Stealth"

A creature that does not meet the requirements to use Stealth, is by definition observed. So it is impossible for an unobserved creature not to meeting the requirements for Stealth, by definition.

1 to 50 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>