I just realized that the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook never explains the very important term line of sight. It uses the term over and over again, all over the book, without any explanation whatsoever! This is a major omission that would probably have all those who are not familiar with 3.5 play the game in a wrong way!
3.5 had a nice diagram explaining it (actually, 3.5 had many more diagrams in its combat chapter, which proved really useful). I guess that Pathfinder was supposed to have a similar diagram, but in the end it wasn't included in the book, leaving this highly important term completely unexplained!
I just realized that the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook never explains the very important term line of sight."Line of sight" in PfRPG means the same thing it means in the real world.
In the real world do you move and act on a grid of 5' squares? Sorry, but it's definitely not self-explanatory. There are very specific rules as to how to determine line of sight on a grid, and those are missing from the book.
I believe the term you are looking for is "Line of Effect" and it is explained in the magic system rules:
"Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect."
You have sight on anything that you can see, so unless there is a reason you can't see something (i.e. it is invisible, it is too dark and you don't have darkvision, it is outside of your visual range limit (which isn't define in any version of D&D for 'normal' vision), you are blinded somehow (multiple ways), there is something giving the target either complete cover or complete concealment, or it has successfully hidden from you (with a stealth check opposed by your perception check)) then you see it.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah; line of sight and line of effect are similar, but different, things.
Line of effect is the complicated one. Line of sight is easy; if you can see something you can see it. For the most part, this is the same as line of effect, but some things block line of effect but not line of sight, like glass or a wall of force.
Line of sight cat is line of sight.
Line of sight cat is line of sight.
The future of the gaming industry, folks! See how the brightest stars shine.
Wow, one of my favorite D&D 3.0 designers (yeh Sean, I'm looking at you) posting on my thread; how cool is that? :)
Even with its rules-light approach, D&D 4E took the time to clearly explain how to calculate line of sight and how it is different from line of effect.
Without a clear rule for line of sight a player can have quite a few questions: do I draw the line from the middle of my square? Can I draw it from a corner? From a side? From anywhere I want? What happens if the line touches a wall but doesn't go through it; do I then have line of sight then?
I don't think getting rid of the diagram explaining Line of Sight from PHB 3.5 in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook was a good idea. Pathfinder should be the more streamlined version (and for the most part is) of the game, and omitting the explanation of a basic concept is just confusing.
And while I'm on the subject: another diagram that was omitted from the combat chapter is the one for missing with a thrown weapon, so there's no rule to cover that now anymore. Not as important as line of sight, but still, would have been nice to have that one in the book.
Encorus can you point out where the term line of sight is used, and how it is difficult to understand that you can see anything that isn't unseen?
Line of effect I can understand needing some clarification or explanation for, Line of sight is such a common term in modern parlance and sight is such a basic thing I don't see how someone couldn't understand you see everything unless there is a specific reason you can't see it (again, such as invisibility, blindness, successful hide check, something solid in the way).
Until a condition renders something unseen, then you can see it. Everything that renders something unseen specifically states it does so, if it doesn't state you can't see it then you can.
I mean if there is a huge gate at the end of the hall way and there are 20 medium skeletons in the hallway I can still see the gate plain as day, as it is right there not hiding, not invisible, and with nothing in the way of my sight. If a wall blocks my view that's simple to handle I can't see the gate until the wall is out of my way.
The perception check makes it even easier: If the DM thinks there is a chance you would notice a feature you roll perception, with the modifiers given on it's charts.
Second Nitpick: There isn't a need for missing with a thrown weapon, unless you mean grenade like weapons which are covered in the "throwing Splash weapons" section in combat:
"If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares."
While charts are nice the text is usually enough to understand how to treat a situation, especially since so many charts in the 3.5 series were flat wrong.
|
And while I'm on the subject: another diagram that was omitted from the combat chapter is the one for missing with a thrown weapon, so there's no rule to cover that now anymore. Not as important as line of sight, but still, would have been nice to have that one in the book.
In the description of throwing an acid flask (or is it alchemist's fire?) there is a description of how to handle grenade-like missiles. Is that what you're looking for?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also... where we could, we tried to simplify the 3.5 rules where we could.
Line of sight is, as folks have mentioned, a relatively simple term that doesn't really need over explanation and diagrams to make sense. Line of Effect is a bit more complex in that it doesn't really make sense on its own, and thus it gets a lot more rules. If this approach doesn't work for you... the rules for line of sight in 3.5 work perfectly as is, and had we felt that they needed to be in the PRPG, they would have looked just like 3.5's rules.
The chart for where a thrown weapon goes when you miss is another example of over complication that we decided to downplay... but as with Line of Sight, the rules in 3.5 still work fine with PRPG.
Encorus can you point out where the term line of sight is used, and how it is difficult to understand that you can see anything that isn't unseen?
"Line of Sight" is used, as a mechanical phrase, in several places in the rules. See here.
Line of effect I can understand needing some clarification or explanation for, Line of sight is such a common term in modern parlance and sight is such a basic thing I don't see how someone couldn't understand you see everything unless there is a specific reason you can't see it (again, such as invisibility, blindness, successful hide check, something solid in the way).
While it might be obvious to some, I am generally of the opinion that if it is a "mechanical" term, with specific reference in the rules, it should be defined.
Is 5' square defined anywhere in the rules? (Answer: no)
I'd argue that "5' square" is a much more important rule term than "line of sight", and yet no one seems to have any issue with not knowing how to define it. The 3.5 explanation for line of sight was long, unwieldy, and boiled down to exactly common sense: if they don't have total concealment, you have line of sight.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a clear rule for line of sight a player can have quite a few questions: do I draw the line from the middle of my square? Can I draw it from a corner? From a side? From anywhere I want? What happens if the line touches a wall but doesn't go through it; do I then have line of sight then?
I'm a little disappointed that your specific, straightforward questions weren't answered by those who dismiss Line of Sight as a concept too simple to warrant explanation. However, I think the rules do address your questions:
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
So, I would answer your questions by saying you must draw line of sight from any one corner of your space, and if any line from your chosen corner to any corner of the target's space touches or crosses something you can't see through, then you don't have line of sight.
Is 5' square defined anywhere in the rules? (Answer: no)
I'd argue that "5' square" is a much more important rule term than "line of sight", and yet no one seems to have any issue with not knowing how to define it. The 3.5 explanation for line of sight was long, unwieldy, and boiled down to exactly common sense: if they don't have total concealment, you have line of sight.
If I can draw an unblocked line from one corner of my square to one corner of the desired/target square, and the target does not have any form of concealment, do I have line of sight?
For that matter, do I have line of sight if the target has 20% concealment? 50%?
Do I have line of sight if I am large and can see over a barrier to where the target hides?
Sure, make a DM call, but 3.5/PF is generally not a "free-form" GM-call type of system. To determine something that depends on a specific circumstance (line of effect/line of sight) it seems to me that including one or two sentences would have been a good idea.
Sure, I can GM-call it. I can do that with the entire system if I want to. However, if I want to play free-form I'll play a rules-light system like Castles & Crusades. Pathfinder/3.5 is by no means a rules-light system.
Certainly in the big picture its a very minor complaint, I'm just saying, it seems like it should have been described.
So, I would answer your questions by saying you must draw line of sight from any one corner of your space, and if any line from your chosen corner to any corner of the target's space touches or crosses something you can't see through, then you don't have line of sight.
It would have to be total concealment to stop line of sight. I'd say you have line of sight as long as there's a single corner on your square and a single corner on your opponent's square that you can connect with a line. Otherwise they have at most only partial concealment.
|
|
If I can draw an unblocked line from one corner of my square to one corner of the desired/target square, and the target does not have any form of concealment, do I have line of sight?
yes, that is a completely unimpeded view
For that matter, do I have line of sight if the target has 20% concealment? 50%?
Yes, you still see part of the guy peaking out from behind the tree he's hiding behind. Arrows may stick in the tree 20% of the time, or in the table he's popping up and down from 50% of the time, but you still see where he's at (unless he moves and you fail a perception).
Do I have line of sight if I am large and can see over a barrier to where the target hides?
yes, but the target still has cover.
also, the diagram for cover pretty well explains line of sight, when reading the text for cover as well.
Sure, make a DM call, but 3.5/PF is generally not a "free-form" GM-call type of system. To determine something that depends on a specific circumstance (line of effect/line of sight) it seems to me that including one or two sentences would have been a good idea.
"The GM is not a robot." --Monte Cook
The game doesn't define a lot of things that have the exact same definition as the real-world version of that term. Examples:
line of sight
backpack
prone
sheathe
drop
hour
foot
In fact, much of the game is devoted to explaining (1) things that don't exist in the real world, and (2) terms that don't mean the same thing in the game as they do in the real world. So if the game doesn't have a definition for something, and the non-game language you're using *does* have a definition for that something, then use the non-game definition.
If I can draw an unblocked line from one corner of my square to one corner of the desired/target square, and the target does not have any form of concealment, do I have line of sight?
For that matter, do I have line of sight if the target has 20% concealment? 50%?
Do I have line of sight if I am large and can see over a barrier to where the target hides?
I already answered these: if the target does not have total concealment relative to you, you have line of sight to it. It's really that easy. I promise.
I already answered these: if the target does not have total concealment relative to you, you have line of sight to it. It's really that easy. I promise.
If it's really that easy how come that 3rd Edition, 3.5 and 4E all included a diagram and accompanying text to explain it?
I have several situations in my mind in which I'm sure that without a rule I will get different interpretations from different people. As I said earlier, it is not self-explanatory on a grid.
Some of the others on this thread claim that the rule for Line of Sight can be extrapolated from the rules for cover. I tend to agree - but that just proves that it's not such an easy thing to figure out.
I think that the Pathfinder Core Rulebook takes some things which are not clear to new players for granted. It's as if it's intended for people who played 3.5. That's a pity, as I thought it's supposed to attract new people to the hobby, or those that have skipped 3.5. See my other thread for another example of such an assumption. The 3.5 PH was clearer and more friendly for new players.
I already answered these: if the target does not have total concealment relative to you, you have line of sight to it. It's really that easy. I promise.
If it's really that easy how come that 3rd Edition, 3.5 and 4E all included a diagram and accompanying text to explain it?
Because they fail at common sense, and don't expect the players to actually apply their intelligence?
[/sarcasm]
Until you actually pointed it out, I have never had a player (even a brand new player that's never touched a die before) actually have a problem understanding line of sight.
I already answered these: if the target does not have total concealment relative to you, you have line of sight to it. It's really that easy. I promise.
Fine. Add one line in the PRD/Book:
Line of Sight: You have line of sight to any target which does not have total concealment to you.
That's all of 98 characters (counting spaces) and 19 words. It could be inserted into the Glossary section along with Line of Effect (which is not there either).
Sure, it should be obvious.
Sure, people can just "assume" that's what line of sight means.
But in the real world you will have the DM saying one thing and every player saying something different.
Again, while I couldn't care less about this wording being missing (I prefer rules-light systems anyway), I think it was a mistake and should be there for new players and DM's.
In short, I say thee "bleh. I would have included the one sentence in the glossary section, just because."
Or the player can ask - can I see him and the DM can aswer yes or no.
If the DM says yes then you do have line of sight, if the DM says no then you don't.
Backpack: A pack that you wear on your back, with which you carry stuff with.
Fannypack: A pack that is not, funnily enough, worn on your fanny. Expect tourists to be wearing one during your stay in Fantasyland(tm).
Horse: A thing you ride.
Sword: A sharp thing you stick people with.
Armor: The thing you wear that keeps the sharp things from sticking you.
What do all of these things have in common?
All of them depend on, or refer to, real (and important) mechanics.
Backpack, Fanny Pack, Napkin, do not have any connection to real mechanics, and therefore can be referred to off-hand, informally.
Again, some of you may be fine with not having a formal definition for a real game term, and to you I say, "cool".
Some of you may prefer that anything which is an official term, that is referred to in multiple places in the rules, should have a short official definition somewhere.
I accept that in a 500+ page book they had to make some judgment calls as to what needs to be in the book and what doesn't. In that respect, fine, leave it out. Its probably obvious to 90+% of players and GMs. In the PRD, which is not limited on space, I say add it in. I mean, really, why not? What would it hurt?
Default Answer:
What's a piton? a whetstone? Sure I can look them up in the dictionary but if I'm playing in some dudes grimy basement its doubtful he's going to have one laying around. *I* know what those things are, but I think to the average person they are not obvious.
I guess that's about all I have to say. If you disagree, cool. If not, cool.
Personally, I'd rather have the $10 I saved by Paizo not having to define every term that is defined identically to its real-world definition.
|
|
If you continue down this path it will create a snowball effect, i.e.:
How much can I put in my backpack?
How much can I put in my pockets?
Where are the age categories for monster x?
Can I drill a hole through Golarion and come out on the other side?
If my spellbook gets wet will the ink run?
Can have an imaginary friend instead of an animal companion?
Do they have rules for allergies?
This is the sort of thing that feels like someone is actively trying to _not_ understand the concept. If you need a set of diagrams and measurements to explain to you what you can see by looking, things have gotten way too complicated.
This is the sort of thing that feels like someone is actively trying to _not_ understand the concept.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Also, I don't know what it means when the armor proficiency section of the cleric class doesn't mention heavy armor. Am I not proficient with heavy armor because it isn't mentioned? Or am I proficient with heavy armor because it doesn't say that I'm not proficient? These armor proficiency concepts are so hard to understand.
sigh...
How much can I put in my backpack?
See, I would have liked something like
Backpack: A backpack is a basic leather satchel strapped to your shoulders. A normal, medium-sized backpack can hold roughly 50 pounds of gear within it. Reduce the total weight of the contents by 10% to reflect the improved weight distribution when in the pack. It is a move action to retrieve an item stored in a backpack.
How much can I put in my pockets?
Pockets aren't in the equipment list.
Where are the age categories for monster x?
I would say age categories are the same for all creatures that die- Adult, Middle-aged, Old, and Venerable. As for how old a creature must be to fall within one of those categories, its not mechanically important for virtually any monster other than dragons. Apparently all monsters are adult.
Can I drill a hole through Golarion and come out on the other side?
Start digging, I'll let you know when something interesting happens.
If my spellbook gets wet will the ink run?
There really isn't a mechanical term in that sentence which requires definition. Am I missing something?
Can have an imaginary friend instead of an animal companion?
Sure, and it has imaginary abilities.
Do they have rules for allergies?
Asking for a term referred to in many places in the rules to have a simple few words attached to it in a glossary section is crazy, I get that. As for allergies, they do have rules for diseases and afflictions, though they are generally uninspiring.
On that note...
Disease A: 1d6 Wis damage
Disease B: 1d4 Str damage
Disease C: 1d2 Cha damage
Disease D: 1d4 Int damage
Disease E: 1d6 Str damage
Disease F: 1d8 Dex damage
<yawn>
Poison A: 1d2 Con damage
Poison B: 1d2 Con damage
Poison C: 1d6 Con damage
Poison D: 1d3 Con damage
Poison E: 1d3 Str damage
Poison F: 1d2 Dex damage
Poison G: 1d3 Int damage
Poison H: 1d3 Wis damage
Poison I: 1d2 Str damage
Poison J: 1d3 Str damage
Poison K: 1d2 Dex damage
Poison L: 1d2 Str damage
Poison M: 1d3 Con damage
Poison N: 1d3 Str damage
Poison O: 1d3 Dex damage
Poison P: 1d3 Con damage
Poison Q: 1d4 Con damage
<double yawn>
Let's look at curses...
Curse A: target transforms into a lizard
Curse B: target ages 1 year
Curse C: target must reroll any roll decided by the GM and take the worse result
Curse D: target transforms into a wolf under the GM's control until the next morning
WHOA! Those are cool! Now we're talking something interesting!
How much can I put in my pockets?Pockets aren't in the equipment list.
Explorer’s Outfit: This set of clothes is for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra accessories you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat.
I can't buy "a pocket" now can I?
And yes, this is silly, I admit it.
I can see it = I have line of sight.
I'm close to choosing not to have line of sight on this thread.
Who said that?!
//doesn't have LoS on vic
I wouldn't yawn at this one for too long. Kinda deadly unless you can extract it relatively quickly.
Poison C: 1d6 Con damage
Sure its deadly. I'm not arguing that, merely that its not terribly interesting.
How about...
Ash Spider Oil
This oily substance causes an almost instant, intensely burning, painful reaction in the area touched.
Type poison, contact
Save Fortitude DC 20
Onset 1 minute
Frequency 1/round for 6 rounds
Effect 1d6 fire damage
Cure 2 consecutive saves
Freezing Palm Oil
This oily paste is created from the leaves of the black palm tree. If this oil makes contact with an open wound the victim finds it difficult to move, then becoming frozen in place, and then finally, dead.
Type poison, injury
Save Fortitude DC 20
Onset 1 minute
[b]Frequency 1/minute for 3 minutes
Effect:
- 1st save: slowed
- 2nd save: paralyzed
- 3rd save: death.
Fannypack: A pack that is not, funnily enough, worn on your fanny. Expect tourists to be wearing one during your stay in Fantasyland(tm).
It depends on which side of the Atlantic you are on :)
|
|
Oo, oo I want to play!
* Can good clerics cast obscure object spontaneously?
* If my mighty-bow wielding barbarian Intimidate (demoralize)s a goblin, when that goblin moves I get an AoO, right?
If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten opponents in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you.
|
I close my eyes willfully ending line of site. But since I'm a 3.5 char op kind of guy I RAW and draw an unobstructed line from my self to the target of my hate therefore making LOS.
Seriously if you can't figure out that you can't see an whatever your trying to view due to an obstruction then, well probably no LOS.
Fine. Add one line in the PRD/Book:
Line of Sight: You have line of sight to any target which does not have total concealment to you.
Not particularly wanting to add to this thread, but I'd make that:
Line of Sight: You have line of sight to any target which does not have total concealment to or total cover from you.Edit: Nevermind... total concealment is defined by Line of Sight.
And you know what Freud said about the colour blue, don't you?
Odd, I just sent in something that references line of sight. Could have sworn I had read a definition in the book. Must have been thinking about line of effect instead.
Discussions like these make me happy that I don't use minis or a battlemap.
Why? Is line of sight magically not relevant to non-battlemap fights?