Line of Sight is not explained anywhere!


Product Discussion

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

brock wrote:

I just think that the rules that are there need a little more reviewing for clarity on occasion, as evidenced by two people getting different understandings of the lines to corners stuff above. Also with respect to whether a metamagiced cantrip can still be cast at-will - another discussion that ran and ran...

I think that review needs to be done by someone completely divorced from the creation of the text and ideally of a different personality type to the author.

Paizo's stuff tends to be good (not perfect) but there is some stuff out there where the wording makes me want to stab my eyes out with my mouse!

I think I misunderstood where you were coming from. There are definitely places where there is confusion. IMO a lot of the confusion though is based on the whole expectation that the rules are going to spell out every little tiny detail.

In your example, in one place the rules say metamagic doesn't raise the spell level, yet quite a few places the book assumes that the spell level is actually raised (your cantrip example, the same wording issue also came up with regards to metamagic on wands). Another big issue is overloaded terminology the word "level" is used so often in this game it has become a joke.

My response to this is simple. Play the game the way it makes sense to you. The only time it really makes a big difference is if there is a big difference in play styles between players at a table.

If I'm sitting at a table with a bunch of new characters and a conservative GM (or if I'm GMing) I play a fairly conservative game. If I sit down at a table full of cheese-lords then I cheese it up with them. Either game is fun :)

Liberty's Edge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


a table full of cheese-lords then I cheese it up with them. Either game is fun :)

Haha, cheese-lords! I'll have to use that in a future campaign.


Githzilla wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:


a table full of cheese-lords then I cheese it up with them. Either game is fun :)
Haha, cheese-lords! I'll have to use that in a future campaign.

Just don't tell your players it was my idea when they fall into a giant vat of flaming nacho sauce.


Githzilla wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:


a table full of cheese-lords then I cheese it up with them. Either game is fun :)
Haha, cheese-lords! I'll have to use that in a future campaign.

Cheese Lord

Cheese Lord PSA


Wait does this have anything to do with the cheesewhore PRC i have heard about?

Sovereign Court

Daniel Moyer wrote:


Cheese Lord
Cheese Lord PSA

Man, Timer always freaked me out. Sure, he seemed all nice and friendly like in those PSAs, but did you ever see the original 30 minute special he was in? He was freakin' creepy!!


zylphryx wrote:
Man, Timer always freaked me out. Sure, he seemed all nice and friendly like in those PSAs, but did you ever see the original 30 minute special he was in? He was freakin' creepy!!

Oh yea, he's very creepy, but he's the first thing I thought of when there was mention of a "Cheese Lord"... followed by Mayor McCheese.


Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition is another game that defines line of sight and gives an accompanying diagram like D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4.0. I like the definition they give:

Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

If someone just isn't happy with "ask your GM if it isn't obvious" then spend $3 on one o them miniature line of sight string pully thingies. Or just use a laser pointer of your choice.

Meant more for wargames, I'm sure, but if it helps the nitpickier kind of gamer sleep at night then great.

Sovereign Court

I found the motherload: at 19 cents each there's no reason why each player shouldn't have at least 10 of these! LOL!

http://www.badge-lanyards.com/retractable-badge-reels-holders-clips.htm

Sovereign Court

DeathQuaker wrote:

If someone just isn't happy with "ask your GM if it isn't obvious" then spend $3 on one o them miniature line of sight string pully thingies. Or just use a laser pointer of your choice.

Meant more for wargames, I'm sure, but if it helps the nitpickier kind of gamer sleep at night then great.

I actually keep a few at the table. I am NOT a nitpicker, but I don't mind having the right tools around if they're desired.


I am going to risk abuse on this sarcastic thread.

I think the original posters point was valid. There has been a paradigm change from Line of Sight being a defined term back to line of sight being a common sense. Since I assume most of us came from playing 3.5 (big asssumption), I think the question was reasonable to ask.

It makes us subject to house rules and interpretation. Take the situation where a character was 'around a corner' and down the hall a goblin ran across the hallway between two doors. If I was a guest at DM's PRPG, I could see the DM adjudicating this three ways:

1- "I use 3.5 Line of Sight rules. The Line of Sight was down the wall, was therefore unobstructed and you see the goblin."

2- "I use PRPG line of sight, which I interpret as center of square to center to 'whatever'. You did not tell me you were checking around the corner regularily; therefore you did not see the goblin."

3- "I use a PRPG common sense definition of sight. I assumed you were seeking cover and also peaking around the corner. I gave you a check to see the goblin and the result was..[fill in blank]."

Now flip the situation around and have the PC run across the hall and the goblin being around the corner. It becomes even more emotional when the player is told the goblin had a readied action to shoot an arrow if he sees the PC. This is what causes people to get mad at each other.

Although I agree with the general concept of method 3, I don't see any of them as wrong. I could see people having some disappointment based on what different DM's and different Players were assuming. Maybe it would be better just to have said 'what you can see' rather than using the old term 'Line of Sight'.

PS I am in favor of using a grid because it clearly helps you understand where eveything is. I still have nightmares about D&D in the old days with arguments about whether the fireball fired into a room explodes out of the room and kills the party. But I also see how the grid has changed my groups style of play.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow, a reasonable, nonsarcastic response. Its nice to know there a few amongst the otherwise very hostile and sarcastic crowd. Thanks, I couldn't agree more.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
encorus wrote:

Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition is another game that defines line of sight and gives an accompanying diagram like D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4.0. I like the definition they give:

Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.

well we all know sw is just a miniatures war game so it was necessary there. Either that or the designers of sw just assumed the people who play it are complete idiots... Alternatively, I suppose its remotely possible they just plain remembered to include it. Crazy I know.


jreyst wrote:
encorus wrote:

Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition is another game that defines line of sight and gives an accompanying diagram like D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4.0. I like the definition they give:

Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.

well we all know sw is just a miniatures war game so it was necessary there. Either that or the designers of sw just assumed the people who play it are complete idiots... Alternatively, I suppose its remotely possible they just plain remembered to include it. Crazy I know.

I find it odd to see a nice comment about there being a reasonable and non-sarcastic response, then following that with an unreasonable and sarcastic response.


Blazej wrote:
jreyst wrote:
encorus wrote:

Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition is another game that defines line of sight and gives an accompanying diagram like D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4.0. I like the definition they give:

Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.

well we all know sw is just a miniatures war game so it was necessary there. Either that or the designers of sw just assumed the people who play it are complete idiots... Alternatively, I suppose its remotely possible they just plain remembered to include it. Crazy I know.
I find it odd to see a nice comment about there being a reasonable and non-sarcastic response, then following that with an unreasonable and sarcastic response.

Is there an "Irony" flag?

Liberty's Edge

jreyst wrote:
a few amongst the otherwise very hostile and sarcastic crowd.

Really?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Blazej wrote:
I find it odd to see a nice comment about there being a reasonable and non-sarcastic response, then following that with an unreasonable and sarcastic response.

Gosh, after the last what, 100+ responses have basically been really sarcastic responses about how stupid someone must be if they have to have a rule for something like this I'm not entitled to be a little annoyed? Sorry, I'll be quiet now and you all can continue stating how stupid people must be if they don't just intuitively know which rules out of the 576 pages of rules are just supposed to be GM call rules. As I mentioned once before, if PF was billing itself as a rules-light system, fine, I get it. But after 500+ pages of rules covering every other tiniest bit of minutia PF doesn't suddenly get to hand-wave an oops as "we meant to do that". Sure, maybe they did, but if so, it seems like an odd thing to purposely leave out.

I just looked and the Combat section of the rules ALONE is over 19,000 words, and over 700 paragraphs. If you want to be a hand-waving system, this is not the way to do it.

Come on, adding in 19 words for something as frequently referred to in mechanics sections of the book as this doesn't seem unreasonable.

For those apparently extremely few of you who agree with me, its ok, remain in the closet, there's still a lot of hostility about this apparently.

On a sidenote, I hope it didn't look like I was being sarcastic towards encorus. Even though I replied to his post I was just using it to make my point, that its not too hard to include a simple single sentence to cover something like this, and apparently designers of other systems thought it might be important enough to include it. My point was that SW is clearly not a miniatures wargame, nor did the designers of sw likely consider their target market to be so stupid they couldn't get the concept of line of sight.

Ok, my flame-resistant suit is back on, everyone may continue now.


jreyst wrote:
For those apparently extremely few of you who agree with me, its ok, remain in the closet, there's still a lot of hostility about this apparently.

I might point out, just from the last page, that you seem to be accurate, but that 99% of the hostility on this last page is coming from you and your posts.

Edit: I'm not even seeing the level of animosity you describe on this thread. Sure there is stuff that is over the line, but from your description, all I can seem to gather is merely disagreeing with your stance is enough for you to label someone's post as sarcastic and insulting.


Blazej wrote:
jreyst wrote:
For those apparently extremely few of you who agree with me, its ok, remain in the closet, there's still a lot of hostility about this apparently.
I might point out, just from the last page, that you seem to be accurate, but that 99% of the hostility on this last page is coming from you and your posts.

A wise man once said "We all measure one another with our own ruler."

Or something like that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Blazej wrote:
jreyst wrote:
For those apparently extremely few of you who agree with me, its ok, remain in the closet, there's still a lot of hostility about this apparently.
I might point out, just from the last page, that you seem to be accurate, but that 99% of the hostility on this last page is coming from you and your posts.

5% <> 99%

You may want to recalculate. Now should I go back to the beginning of the entire thread and compare from there?

Page 1 (posts 1-50) - Posts from jreyst: 7
-- number hostile? 0
-- number sarcastic? maybe 1?

Page 2 (posts 51-100) - Posts from jreyst: 3
-- number hostile? 1
-- number sarcastic? 1

My 1st post on page 2, post #56 overall, is the first I would call genuinely hostile and sarcastic.

Page 3 (posts 101-121) - Posts from jreyst: 3 (counting this one, 4)
-- number hostile? 2
-- number sarcastic? 2

On this last page there are 20 (now with this one, 21) posts. I posted three times. The first post on this page was not hostile or sarcastic at all. The second was admittedly hostile. The third post was defending the second post. This post is simply to illustrate your poor grasp of math.

So, I have posted a total of 14 times out of 121. Even if you said that every single one of my posts was offensive and hostile, that would give me, at most, about a 10-11% offensive to cordial ratio. I doubt anyone could genuinely say that every single one of my posts was offensive or hostile.

Regardless, this thread was started by encorus. The very first response, from Eric Meepo, was arguably sarcastic. Then, through the remainder of the 50 posts on page 1 I counted at least 15 responses to the original question that were rude at best, offensive at worst. The responses were sarcastic and occasionally insulting.

So now, on page three, after over a hundred posts, I make one sarcastic remark in frustration over the previous 100 posts of rudeness, and suddenly its about the pot calling the kettle black? Some people have some skewed vision here.

Encorus, I feel for you. I am in complete agreement with you. There have been a few people who have posted logical reasonable responses. I thank them for that. I only wish that people who don't really have anything constructive to say basically wouldn't say anything.

Ok, insults can commence once more.

I swear, sometimes I wonder why I ever bothered putting d20pfsrd.com together.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

jreyst wrote:
The very first response, from Eric Meepo, was arguably sarcastic.

In general, when I'm trying to be sarcastic, I either start my own humor thread, or I post a response using one of my sarcastic avatars. In this thread, my response was a genuine attempt to address the point in the OP. Namely, the rules do not include a game-specific definition of the term "line of sight," so one can rely only on the dictionary definition.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

encorus wrote:
Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.

I keep seeing this (someone saying line of sight was defined in 3.5), but I can't find it in the SRD. Someone mind handing me a link showing line of sight (not effect) was defined in 3.5?


James Risner wrote:
encorus wrote:
Two characters have line of sight to each other if there's at least one clear line between their spaces. A line that nicks a corner or runs along a wall does not provide line of sight.
I keep seeing this (someone saying line of sight was defined in 3.5), but I can't find it in the SRD. Someone mind handing me a link showing line of sight (not effect) was defined in 3.5?

Line of Sight was defined in a diagram with text on page 139 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. The text was:

"Two creatures can see each other if they can trace at least one clear straight line from any part of one creature's space to any part of the other creature's space. The line is clear if it doesn't cross or even touch squares that block line of sight.

I don't know if this text was ever in the SRD, especially as it was part of a diagram. I think actually this is why it's not in Pathfinder. They removed the diagram and so the overlaying text, explaining line of sight, was removed together with it, most likely unintentionally. They probably just forgot to include the text elsewhere.

Dark Archive

*Sigh* I'm sorry for thinking you were being sarcastic and answering you sarcastically back, jreyst.

Grand Lodge

Duncan & Dragons wrote:


1- "I use 3.5 Line of Sight rules. The Line of Sight was down the wall, was therefore unobstructed and you see the goblin."

2- "I use PRPG line of sight, which I interpret as center of square to center to 'whatever'. You did not tell me you were checking around the corner regularily; therefore you did not see the goblin."

3- "I use a PRPG common sense definition of sight. I assumed you were seeking cover and also peaking around the corner. I gave you a check to see the goblin and the result was..[fill in blank]."

Now flip the situation around and have the PC run across the hall and the goblin being around the corner. It becomes even more emotional when the player is told the goblin had a readied action to shoot an arrow if he sees the PC. This is what causes people to get mad at each other.

Although I agree with the general concept of method 3, I don't see any of them as wrong. I could see people having some disappointment based on what different DM's and different Players were assuming. Maybe it would be better just to have said 'what you can see' rather than using the old term 'Line of Sight'.

Actually, those are two different things. "Line of Sight" is about position and intervening terrain. You can, for example, have LOS to an invisible creature, even if you can't see them. "What you can see" becomes an issue of not just LOS, but also lighting, special vision modes (low-light/dark/blindsense/blindsight), magical effects (invisibility/see invisible), skills (stealth/perception), and concealment. Granted, if you don't have LOS you've pretty much established that there's total concealment, but that's only one factor in "what you can see."

In d20, the assumption is that if the target doesn't have any concealment (from darkness, fog, underbrush, etc.) then anyone with LOS to the target sees them, automatically, and they trigger any relevant readied actions. If there's some form of concealment and the target is attempting to be stealthy (or the DM otherwise determines that the concealment is sufficient to warrant it by itself), then perception checks are in order. The results of the perception check (if one is needed) would determine whether the readied action goes off or not.

Also, in the referenced situation, you'd have to factor in conditions like blindness, invisibility, etc, but I'd rather not complicate things even more.

All this doesn't resolve the LoS issues (which after years of playing 3E/3.5 resolves to "unobstructed corner to corner, somewhere") and the fact that it's not defined in PRPG, but as long as the rules are applied consistently by a group, it doesn't really matter. You can go center-to-center, center-to-corner, corner-to-corner -- as long as everyone agrees on what it means in the group, you should be good.

Still, an official definition would have been nice so that people from different groups can all agree on it (especially important for Pathfinder Society play).

Duncan & Dragons wrote:


PS I am in favor of using a grid because it clearly helps you understand where eveything is. I still have nightmares about D&D in the old days with arguments about whether the fireball fired into a room explodes out of the room and kills the party. But I also see how the grid has changed my groups style of play.

Totally agree. I'd much rather have a grid because it eliminates at least one form of what's been referred to as "assumption clash" between players (and the DM).


encorus wrote:

Line of Sight was defined in a diagram with text on page 139 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. The text was:

"Two creatures can see each other if they can trace at least one clear straight line from any part of one creature's space to any part of the other creature's space. The line is clear if it doesn't cross or even touch squares that block line of sight.

I don't know if this text was ever in the SRD, especially as it was part of a diagram. I think actually this is why it's not in Pathfinder. They removed the diagram and so the overlaying text, explaining line of sight, was removed together with it, most likely unintentionally. They probably just forgot to include the text elsewhere.

See, that's already wrong.

I can find plenty of examples where it is possible to trace at least one clear straight line from some part of square A to some part of square B and without passing through any obstacle, and yet be completely certain that the creatures in A and B cannot see each other.

A
WWWWWWWWWWWB

In my little text diagram, A represents the square your fighter is standing in. B represents the square containing a kobold. W represents a wall. North is up.

It is quite possible to trace a clear line from the NE corner of square A to the NE corner of square B without passing through the wall. Assuming there are no other obstacles, this line would be clear and unbroken and by the 3.5 definition would mean that the fighter and the kobold could see each other.

But if that kobold is standing with his back against the wall, especially if he's positioned towards the south edge of his square (he is a small creature after all), there is no real way they can see each other.

All of this is technical mumbo jumbo that points to why defining hard and fast LOS rules can be fruitless. In this example, the DM is going to override the rules and not allow them to see each other.

As long as the DM has to step in and intervene and make judgment calls about the rule, the rule itself is questionable.

I don't blame Pathfinder at all for dropping the questionable LOS rule and leaving it up to the DM (even if it was just an oversight - or maybe not).


DM_Blake wrote:
But if that kobold is standing with his back against the wall, especially if he's positioned towards the south edge of his square (he is a small creature after all), there is no real way they can see each other.

This is represented by his Hide check. By default, a creature is considered to take up its entire space.

Grand Lodge

Zurai wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
But if that kobold is standing with his back against the wall, especially if he's positioned towards the south edge of his square (he is a small creature after all), there is no real way they can see each other.
This is represented by his Hide check. By default, a creature is considered to take up its entire space.

Furthermore, he's considered to have concealment/cover, which is what makes the hide (PRPG: stealth) check possible.


Thorkull wrote:
Zurai wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
But if that kobold is standing with his back against the wall, especially if he's positioned towards the south edge of his square (he is a small creature after all), there is no real way they can see each other.
This is represented by his Hide check. By default, a creature is considered to take up its entire space.
Furthermore, he's considered to have concealment/cover, which is what makes the hide (PRPG: stealth) check possible.

Exactly. To state the precise chain of circumstances:

Because the character cannot draw a line from one of the corners of its square to every corner of the kobold's square, the kobold has cover relative to the character.

Because the kobold has cover, it can make a Stealth check to hide.

It it succeeds at that Stealth check, as DM_Blake assumed it did, then it has total concealment relative to the character.

Because total concealment is defined as having line of effect to the target's square but not line of sight to the target, the kobold is thus out of the character's line of sight.

Grand Lodge

Zurai wrote:
Thorkull wrote:
Zurai wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
But if that kobold is standing with his back against the wall, especially if he's positioned towards the south edge of his square (he is a small creature after all), there is no real way they can see each other.
This is represented by his Hide check. By default, a creature is considered to take up its entire space.
Furthermore, he's considered to have concealment/cover, which is what makes the hide (PRPG: stealth) check possible.

Exactly. To state the precise chain of circumstances:

Because the character cannot draw a line from one of the corners of its square to every corner of the kobold's square, the kobold has cover relative to the character.

Because the kobold has cover, it can make a Stealth check to hide.

It it succeeds at that Stealth check, as DM_Blake assumed it did, then it has total concealment relative to the character.

Because total concealment is defined as having line of effect to the target's square but not line of sight to the target, the kobold is thus out of the character's line of sight.

Hate to disagree with you, but I'd phrase it thusly:

"Because the character cannot draw a line from one of the corners of its square to every corner of the kobold's square without passing through the wall (which is opaque and solid), the kobold has cover and concealment relative to the character.

"Because the kobold has concealment, it can make a Stealth check to hide.

"If it succeeds at that Stealth check, as DM_Blake assumed it did, then the character cannot perceive (see) the kobold.

"The character still has both line of effect and line of sight to the kobold's square, but because he cannot perceive the kobold he cannot target it with attacks or spells (although he could target the square or adjacent squares with area attacks that might include the kobold)."

My point is that LoS is a determinant in "What you can see", but it is not the only one. "What you can see" is not a determinant in LOS. As I stated before, you can have LoS and LoE to an invisible creature without actually being able to see them. You can have LoS and LoE to creatures when you are blind, but you still can't see them.

You can have LoS but not LoE to a creature -- for example, if they're standing behind a wall of force (or even a glass window).

You cannot have LoE but not LoS to a creature (since LoE requires LoS).


No, you cannot have line of sight to an invisible creature. You can have line of sight to its square, but not to the creature itself. Invisibility is defined partially by granting total concealment, and total concealment is defined as lack of line of sight.

Grand Lodge

Zurai wrote:
No, you cannot have line of sight to an invisible creature. You can have line of sight to its square, but not to the creature itself. Invisibility is defined partially by granting total concealment, and total concealment is defined as lack of line of sight.

I'll preface this by saying that you're correct in clarifying that point. However, in researching it, I opened a can of worms in definitions for concealment, LoS, invisibility and invisibility (the spell).

PRPG CRB Page 567 defines "Invisible" as being unseen, but doesn't discuss the concealment effects or LoS issues.

PRPG CRB Page 302 has the invisibility spell, but doesn't mention concealment, or LoS issues.

PRPG CRB Page 196 has the definition of "Concealment" as being any time "any line from [a] corner of your square to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment." It also says "Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you." It also says, under Ignoring Concealment on Page 197 that "Although invisibility provides total concealment..."

In fact, this entire section reads like a reference to the 3.5 SRD.

The "Invisibility" special ability on Page 563 says, "Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)." That's the only reference to concealment and invisibility (the special ability) or the condition of being invisible. The spell, invisibility doesn't reference it, and even the special ability description doesn't say that it grants total concealment -- it just implies that it does in say that you "still benefit" from it.

*sigh*

This is a bit of a mess.

Goes back to the OP's statement that LoS really does need to be defined. Looks like Invisibility (the special ability) and Invisible (the condition) could use some clarification, too. Then invisibility (the spell) could be defined as making the recipient Invisible (the condition) or granting the recipient Invisibility (the special ability).

LoE is defined clearly on Page 215, and references line of sight:

"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."

We could derive the definition of LoS from this to be:

"A line of sight is a straight, unblocked path. A line of sight is blocked by a solid barrier, fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight."

That still doesn't define it in terms that are useful on a battle mat, though.

That's a long way to say, that, by the rules as written, you're right in that you can't have LoS to an invisible creature, just to the creature's square.

Now, I don't agree with the RAW. You still have LoS, because the line is unbroken, just as the LoE is unbroken. You can see the whole square and through the square. Hence, IMO, you have LoS to the whole square and everything in it even if you can't actually see the invisible creature in the square. I hope the distinction I'm drawing makes sense -- one is a rules mechanic involving blocking/concealing terrain (including fog, etc.) and the other is a rules mechanic involving perception.

Don't get me started on what I found in the Cover rules...


How is this conversation still going on? Line of Sight means you can see it, if you can't see it, you don't have Line of Sight. Everything else is just rules-lawyering over plain sense.

Dark Archive

I know, right? 'Tard cookies for everyone!


DM_Blake wrote:
A wise man once said "We all measure one another with our own ruler."Or something like that.

My teacher in elementary school said "You should keep your ruler to yourself, no one wants to see it."

----------------------
And for the record, I wasn't sarcastic or ignorant in MY posts. "Cover and Concealment" is the answer to any ruling questions involving NOT having "Line of Sight". If there is no obstruction, there is no need to question "Line of Sight".

Sovereign Court

What the f&!# is this thread about?


Pax Veritas wrote:
What the f!@! is this thread about?

It started when someone assumed LoS was still a defined term and wanted to know where the definition was in the rules.

Now it has many elements including:

1- People who can't see needing LoS
2- People who don't have LoS on what can be seen without LoS rules
3- Paizo staff who gracefully exited when things got ugly; I think they had line of sight on cookies
4- People trying to provide concealment for the LoS argument by providing a smoke screen discussion on visibility
5- People could not see someone else’s point; so they made wrong assumptions and took offense; but the other person did not see (although they were flat footed) and the attack missed; other people did see and assumed they were attacked
6- People were genuinely rude
7- Lilith described how nice life is with cookies and no grid; apparently nice people see other nice people, but not on a grid and no LoS is involved; has anyone ever sent Lilith cookies?
8- Some people were fencing in prose and quotes on page 2; some of it had LoS blocked by <Spoiler: Show>
9- Some guy likes being a programmer who reads; Someone else liked not being a programmer
10- Some statistical analysis of each other’s sarcasm on page 3
11- I visited d20pfrpg.com; it is really good; it has LoS defined but there was no Line of Effect to most posters on this thread because there was no link
12- Apparently some of us went into a closet on page 3; this blocked LoE & LoS but it was too dark to see; Noloelos is my new PCs name
13- People who are exasperated by this thread not dying, but they usually quickly turn invisible...

I think I missed a Perception Check and did not see something in this thread. My wife says I miss a lot of Perception Checks. At least I think that is what she said because my daughter had to tell me about it later. Sometimes if you do not have LoS on what your wife says, it has LoE on your love life....

[D&D rolls a Diplomacy Check and gets a...]


Pax Veritas wrote:
What the f~~! is this thread about?

Some folks want a rule to tell them what their characters can see.

Liberty's Edge

o_O

The Exchange

Duncan & Dragons wrote:

Sometimes if you do not have LoS on what your wife says, it has LoE on your love life....

At least this thread produced one true statement :)

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you can't see a target, you don't have line of *sight* to a target.

If this is true, you can't make ranged attacks while blinded or against invisible creatures, even if you have somehow pinpointed their location. True?

(If so, that's a new one on me.)

Also, it took me far too long to find this thread, so I'm flagging my post to have this thread moved to Rules Questions. Thankee!

Contributor

Not true. Line of sight ("can I see it?") and line of effect ("can I draw a straight line between me and it without any interposing barriers?") are different things.

I have line of sight to an orc on the other side of a wall of force. I don't have line of effect to him. I can see the orc, I just can't attack him.
I have line of effect to an invisible stalker standing right next to me. I don't have line of sight to him. I can attack the orc, I just can't see him.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Not true. Line of sight ("can I see it?") and line of effect ("can I draw a straight line between me and it without any interposing barriers?") are different things.

I have line of sight to an orc on the other side of a wall of force. I don't have line of effect to him. I can see the orc, I just can't attack him.
I have line of effect to an invisible stalker standing right next to me. I don't have line of sight to him. I can attack the orc, I just can't see him.

Technically speaking, the rules for ranged attacks in the Core Rulebook state that you can make a ranged attack to any creature you have line of sight to. So, by RAW, Tom's right.

Contributor

Zurai wrote:
Technically speaking, the rules for ranged attacks in the Core Rulebook state that you can make a ranged attack to any creature you have line of sight to. So, by RAW, Tom's right.

(1) That sentence should read "line of effect" to be perfectly accurate.

(2) The rules also say on page 197 that you can still attack a target if you have line of effect but not line of sight (well, technically you're attacking the square, but it amounts to the same thing).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Zurai wrote:
Technically speaking, the rules for ranged attacks in the Core Rulebook state that you can make a ranged attack to any creature you have line of sight to. So, by RAW, Tom's right.

Technically, you would still have Line of Sight to the target when blind but you wouldn't be able to see them.

Granted this may seem non-intuitive, but Line of Effect (can you draw a line between you and the target that doesn't get blocked) and Line of Sight (can a sighted person see the target or a part of the target) concern themselves (at least to my reading of the rules) with these two issues without regard to whether or not the PC in question has the ability to utilize these rules.

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Line of Sight is not explained anywhere! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion