I was wondering: If a sharpshooter uses the snipe action to peg me with an arrow, and I fail my Perception check against them, am I totally clueless? Or can I at least tell what direction the shot came from?
Also, a lot of people say that without cover or concealment, it is impossible to hide due to lack of facing. If this is true, wouldn't I automatically see the arrow once it comes out of cover or concealment? Say, for example, the sharpshooter shot me from some bushes, would I know that "he's in those bushes somewhere" because I automatically saw the arrow come out of them? Why or why not?
Let's say the sharpshooter was a visible pixie with haste. He flies out of the bushes towards me with a double move. He is roughly the same size as the arrow. flew the same distance in the same direction at roughly the same speed as the arrow. If you say that I could NOT see the arrow come out of the bushes, how is it then that I COULD see the pixie prior to my turn?
There's no rule for it. There can't be a rule for everything. Thats what DM's are for. A DM that says that you can't figure out that the arrow sticking out of your keister means you need to look behind you for the sniper is just being cheesy.
Wherever the arrow lands, the shaft should point in the general direction of where the shot was fired from.
Doesn't necessarily mean the shooter is still there, though.
Unless of course the arrow hit you, did damage but didn't stick in, then fell to the ground. In that case it will be pointing in some random direction that could have no bearing on where it came from.
I'm with BNW, the GM should be willing to give you a hint that you were shot from behind. The group I regularly play with just uses facing rules, it makes a lot of situations clearer.
Unless of course the arrow hit you, did damage but didn't stick in, then fell to the ground. In that case it will be pointing in some random direction that could have no bearing on where it came from.
Except that the arrow would have hit you somewhere and that somewhere may be accessible from only one general direction. Hit in the back? The arrow had to come from behind you...
There's no rule for it. There can't be a rule for everything. Thats what DM's are for. A DM that says that you can't figure out that the arrow sticking out of your keister means you need to look behind you for the sniper is just being cheesy.
I'm cool with that. Still, I'd like to hear what others say.
|
Having spent a lot of time with archery in real life I can tell you if an arrow is shot at you, you could tell from what direction [...]
Well, I'm not an archer but I play one on TV.
As a GM I would give any PC hit by an area the general direction where the hit came from. Since PCs are not standing still during combat, being hit with an arrow is likely to the victim a general cone-shaped idea of where the attack came from. If attacks are made from the same 5-ft square on succeeding rounds, then the angle of the cone is cut in half each time -- meaning the victim can narrow it down pretty well in a round or two. I don't have specific "rules" for this, I just eyeball it.
Of course, this means it helps significantly (both for NPCs and PCs) to move around a little bit when attacking at range. It's best for the attacker to move out of the 90-deg angle of the cone that the victim will guess the shot came from, but that's rarely practical.
In other words, I play it sort of like an automatic "detect magic" where more and more precise information is provided each round.
*insert example of logical real world action that helps you argue your case*
Remember we are playing a game and very often the rules don't have anything to do with logic.
By the rules you get hit and haven't got a clue. For every reason you argue you should be able to, there is another case that can be made for why you shouldn't. By RAW, if you think it should be possible, toss a circumstance bonus (+2 is the typical bonus I think) to the perception check and call it a day. The check is already hard enough and limiting enough that making it worse for the person attempting it is an overall penalty beyond what the game is imposing.
*insert example of logical real world action that helps you argue your case*
Remember we are playing a game and very often the rules don't have anything to do with logic.
By the rules you get hit and haven't got a clue.
Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?
Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?
The one where you failed the perception check and they are still hidden.
Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?The one where you failed the perception check and they are still hidden.
Maybe this is just me, but I assume that Sniping is so hard in general that you are supposed to have very little idea where the shot came from if you fail the perception check. That being said, I also feel that even a blind man would know at least which 180 degrees he was shot from, maybe cut it to 90 degrees with a second shot.
basically, the DM should make it as hard/easy as they want it to be, but high perception characters should still have a chance to narrow down options.If some Hide in plain sight SOB is sniping you all day, either the DM has a good reason, or he is a dick. Essentially.
The question is not whether or not you see the sniper, it's whether or not you see the arrow coming at you. It is a valid point given all the, IMO ridiculous, commentary on these boards about how perception works.
By RAW it is a DC 0 to see the arrow because it's right there out in the open coming at you. Since there are no facing rules, if you COULD see the arrow then you DO see the arrow. And if you can see the arrow as soon as it breaks cover from the bushes you'll know where the sniper that shot it is.
Now this is the part where you say that the Perception rules only apply to seeing/hearing creatures.
Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?The one where you failed the perception check and they are still hidden.Maybe this is just me, but I assume that Sniping is so hard in general that you are supposed to have very little idea where the shot came from if you fail the perception check. That being said, I also feel that even a blind man would know at least which 180 degrees he was shot from, maybe cut it to 90 degrees with a second shot.
basically, the DM should make it as hard/easy as they want it to be, but high perception characters should still have a chance to narrow down options.
If some Hide in plain sight SOB is sniping you all day, either the DM has a good reason, or he is a dick. Essentially.
That is fine, but the abstract nature of combat and mechanics in the rule set don't give you that information. As has been said, for every reason you say you can tell, another example could be given why you cannot. The game doesn't get that specific for a reason as it would introduce all sorts of other things (back to facing, more rules for everything that entails and the side issues, bogging down of the game play, etc.). Hit points aren't just defined as health, it is a combination of many things. Seeing as there are no rules for facing it is assumed all characters are in fact "looking around" and in constant awareness of their surroundings. If that is the stated assumption of the game, does it not follow that at any point the character is in fact moving around? It also follows because of that stated assumption that being "shot in the back gives me an idea" means your back could in fact be any direction at any particular point in time so the possibilities are basically endless.
Yes the DM could make it as hard or as easy as they want, but as we are currently in the Rules Forum we should be paying attention to the rules of the game. That being said, if the DM is trying to play with the rules as written in the core book we are left with two things. The failed perception check means you don't know where the attack came from and if the DM wishes to make it easier they can grant a circumstance bonus to increase the characters chances with the perception check.
The question is not whether or not you see the sniper, it's whether or not you see the arrow coming at you. It is a valid point given all the, IMO ridiculous, commentary on these boards about how perception works.
By RAW it is a DC 0 to see the arrow because it's right there out in the open coming at you. Since there are no facing rules, if you COULD see the arrow then you DO see the arrow. And if you can see the arrow as soon as it breaks cover from the bushes you'll know where the sniper that shot it is.
Now this is the part where you say that the Perception rules only apply to seeing/hearing creatures.
The problem with this... Well here, if you could see the attack coming would you not also be allowed to apply your DEX modifier and NOT be considered Flat Footed?
Sure, why not? The sniping rules say nothing about your opponent being flat footed.
Sure, why not? The sniping rules say nothing about your opponent being flat footed.
So then by your reasoning, you can tell exactly which square an person with greater invisibility is in because you see the arrow leave their possession on it's way to hit someone.
For what it's worth, this isn't my reasoning. This is the common thought process of the majority of posters on this forum. I fully believe that the lack of facing makes the game poorer and we house rule it in.
Now, to answer your question: Yes, you certainly could tell the square and invisible shooter fired from. You could even attack back, however you have to target the square and deal with concealment penalties to hit. But that's just the way invisibility works anyway.
For what it's worth, this isn't my reasoning. This is the common thought process of the majority of posters on this forum. I fully believe that the lack of facing makes the game poorer and we house rule it in.
Now, to answer your question: Yes, you certainly could tell the square and invisible shooter fired from. You could even attack back, however you have to target the square and deal with concealment penalties to hit. But that's just the way invisibility works anyway.
Well for what it is worth, the common thought process of many posters also leads into long arguments about what is and isn't realistic in a fantasy game, causes people to post about at best, tangential house rules, in simple straightforward posts regarding questions like "we are going to be using X rule in our next game, I've done a search and not many people seem to talk about it, why?", and resort to "trolling" once they seem to realize they can't make a point better than the other gal/guy.
That being said, the "common thought process of the majority of posters" isn't what I'm interested when I'm in the Rules Forum. I'm interested in what the actual RAW says, I'm interested in figuring out how the game works within the constructs created by the game mechanics.
As for your take on the rules. The invisibility rules state no where that you can in fact target someone who attacks you with a ranged attack. The ONLY reference there is that I can find in the PFRPG core book, is in regards to MELEE attacks and another regarding REACH MELEE attacks. Your reasoning (or the common thought process you are defending) is based on a "it doesn't say it so this how I think it should work" mentality. RAW doesn't back you on this as it is silent on that particular subject and so you are making something up that makes sense to you (or using someone else's made up rule as it made sense).
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm saying that just because it may be the majority opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being right in regards to RAW.
I don't think RAW actually covers this. Does the perception check against the sniper count for the arrow as well? It really does not say that I can see. As pointed out, this is the Rules Forum so the assumption should be that the poster is asking how to handle this by RAW. I don't think it could be answered by RAW definitively, so if that is whats asked, maybe it should be FAQed.
For me, when Raw fails to give a definitive answer, I apply the best common sense decision I can as a DM.
Even by Real life example, it would be hard to say definitively whether you would notice or not. In general terms, an arrow shot from a recurve or longbow will speed along at approximately 150-250 fps, while an arrow shot from a compound bow will zip along at approximately 230-350 fps. That means that if you are within 30', the arrow probably covers the distance in about a sixth of a second. I do armored reenactments where we shoot each other with arrows with blunt heads and use bows that are 35 lbs or less, those arrows fly far slower and I can tell you that I notice the arrow in flight perhaps a third of the time unless I notice the archer shooting, and only from the front arc (I know I know, we don't have facing rules). You do general know when you get hit, where on your body you were hit and from that you can generally deduce a direction give or take 30 degrees or so. You can say "Well the shot came from that general direction and there are some bushes over there, so the archer must have come from them", but in a fantasy game, we don't really know that. The archer could be under greater invis, could have used shot on the run, could be a shadow dancer using shadows to hide in plain sight. Me as a DM, if the arrow hit I would give the general facing the shot came from and that's it, no range information. If it missed, maybe not even that.
I don't think it could be answered by RAW definitively
And that's the whole point. I started this thread as a kind of social critique/parody on the ridiculousness that can come out of the Perception vs. Stealth discussions plaguing these boards.
Simon Legrande and SkyLancer4, above, kindly point out some of the ridiculousness of adhering to RAW strictly.
Which tells me that...maybe the RAW isn't wrong. Maybe it's the viewpoints/opinions/interpretations of some of these crazy rules lawyers out there that's wrong.
...and yes, I know, I'm one of those crazy rules lawyers--which I think makes it all the more poignant.
Having said that, please continue to discuss the OP seriously. It may well be enlightening, or at least entertaining.
Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?The one where you failed the perception check and they are still hidden.
which isn't contradicted, at all, by knowing if the character is North south east or west of you.
...and yes, I know, I'm one of those crazy rules lawyers--which I think makes it all the more poignant.
Well, you're not JUST one of the crazy rules lawyers. You're running the asylum :)
I think general logic would let you know "roughly" what direction the arrow came from.
i.e. behind you, left, right, above, in front of.
After that- its all perception checks. If the guy/gal is hidden and you don't make the check then you don't see them. Assuming they didn't shoot you from in front of you, that's all I'd likely let you get.
Now I realize that 'facing doesn't exist' but c'mon. Facing exists. We all know it does- its just a combat simplicity to ignore it but sometimes you Have to use Some facing or the game world just falls apart. Times like "which direction did the arrow come from".
So imo: front/behind/left/right: yes.
"second bush to the left" with a failed perp check? No.
-S
I think general logic would let you know "roughly" what direction the arrow came from.
i.e. behind you, left, right, above, in front of.
After that- its all perception checks. If the guy/gal is hidden and you don't make the check then you don't see them. Assuming they didn't shoot you from in front of you, that's all I'd likely let you get.
Now I realize that 'facing doesn't exist' but c'mon. Facing exists. We all know it does- its just a combat simplicity to ignore it but sometimes you Have to use Some facing or the game world just falls apart. Times like "which direction did the arrow come from".
So imo: front/behind/left/right: yes.
"second bush to the left" with a failed perp check? No.-S
I agree 100%. The problem is, there are no facing rules in the book. And we all know how rules lawyers can get when a rule isn't specifically spelled out in the book.
That being said, the "common thought process of the majority of posters" isn't what I'm interested when I'm in the Rules Forum. I'm interested in what the actual RAW says, I'm interested in figuring out how the game works within the constructs created by the game mechanics.As for your take on the rules. The invisibility rules state no where that you can in fact target someone who attacks you with a ranged attack. The ONLY reference there is that I can find in the PFRPG core book, is in regards to MELEE attacks and another regarding REACH MELEE attacks. Your reasoning (or the common thought process you are defending) is based on a "it doesn't say it so this how I think it should work" mentality. RAW doesn't back you on this as it is silent on that particular subject and so you are making something up that makes sense to you (or using someone else's made up rule as it made sense).
The problem is, RAW doesn't say. If you look at the combat rules chapter you will see that invisibility grants concealment. You may not know exactly where the shooter is but you can attack into the square you think his shot came from. If you aim at the wrong square you miss, if you aim at the right square you have a miss chance.
The fact is, RAW does specifically say that if a rule isn't clearly defined then the GM should do so. (I believe this argument is ongoing in another thread.) So yes, RAW does back up the argument by being silent and leaving the call up to the GM.
Just because the game doesn't tell you that you can't tell where the arrow came from, doesn't mean that you can. The game doesn't say you can't set water on fire with a torch, but it doesn't say you can either.
If you're getting sniped, take cover and keep making Perception checks or simply get out of dodge. Try to run away if you have to. However, invalidating someone's ability to hide doesn't seem the way to go, and is incredibly abusive.
GM: "Well you have no idea where the guy is, but I guess the arrow came from this direction here, and given the way stealth works, he hasn't moved, so feel free to cluster-bomb this area with fireballs and stuff."
If you wanna talk realism, perhaps the target stumbles about when struck, making it more difficult to determine where the original hit was. Maybe the target isn't shot in the back. Maybe the archer adjusted for wind conditions and fired it from higher or lower or a little more to the right. Maybe your character wasn't paying attention.
RAW: I don't see any reason to reveal the sniper's location nor general location with something that amounts to an attempt to invalidate the sniper's skills with "Well, I look for the direction the arrow came from". It doesn't say you can't, but it doesn't say you can either.
which isn't contradicted, at all, by knowing if the character is North south east or west of you.Would you like to quote some rules to that affect?The one where you failed the perception check and they are still hidden.
But it is, you went from knowing absolutely nothing to knowing something.... By failing a roll.
The problem is, RAW doesn't say. If you look at the combat rules chapter you will see that invisibility grants concealment. You may not know exactly where the shooter is but you can attack into the square you think his shot came from. If you aim at the wrong square you miss, if you aim at the right square you have a miss chance.
The fact is, RAW does specifically say that if a rule isn't clearly defined then the GM should do so. (I believe this argument is ongoing in another thread.) So yes, RAW does back up the argument by being silent and leaving the call up to the GM.
RAW states all the rules are fodder for GM, I'm not saying that isn't true even if it weren't spelled out BUT once we get into that we are also leaving the realm of RAW. This is a fundamental problem with the game in many ways. "Here is a list of everything you need to play the game but nothing matters because the DM says so..." A RAW game is in essence only using the DM as repository for information needed for the game to continue. The PC's do or say something, the DM gives the response for the situation and the RAW gives the mechanics for resolutions.
The game is functional because over all it is a set of rules dictating what you can do (the "rule") and what you can't do (stated exceptions to the "rule"). This is a fundamental truth for the game and why saying "something is so because it doesn't say it in the rules" is wrong. They absolutely positively COULD NOT create a game where it was a list of things you cannot do. By strictest sense, RAW shows us what is available, what can be done and the general constructs created by the interweaving rules cover the vast majority of situations fine. Sometimes there are things that aren't completely covered and we have to fall back on what few rules are actually provided and "go with it" even when it may not "make sense" as that is what a RAW game "is."
The game is functional because over all it is a set of rules dictating what you can do (the "rule") and what you can't do (stated exceptions to the "rule"). This is a fundamental truth for the game and why saying "something is so because it doesn't say it in the rules" is wrong. They absolutely positively COULD NOT create a game where it was a list of things you cannot do. By strictest sense, RAW shows us what is available, what can be done and the general constructs created by the interweaving rules cover the vast majority of situations fine. Sometimes there are things that aren't completely covered and we have to fall back on what few rules are actually provided and "go with it" even when it may not "make sense" as that is what a RAW game "is."
You don't need to convince me, I'm with you on this. This is the way the group I'm in plays the game. But one day you may find yourself in a group that doesn't interpret the rules the way you do. That's when the lawyers pop out and start arguing their cases to the detriment of the game and the rest of the players. You can't necessarily say they don't have a valid point because the rules aren't specific enough on whatever they're arguing. Sometimes "because the GM said so" is the only proper way to rule a situation.
|
DM: "Your charecter is shot in the back by an arrow"
Player: "I turn around and look to see where it came from."
DM:"Perception check please."
Player: 15 (or any other failing number really)
DM: "You don't see anyone"
In this exchange no extra info was given for failing a check, because the idea started with the assumption that the PC would look in direction where the arrow could of caome from.
A smart PC and a smart person will then ask for more details on the surondings (while they take some cover from that direction) and try to narrow down where the person could be hiding.
Player: to other PCs "I can't see him but he could be hidden in the ruins over there or possibly invisible everyone stay alert and look out"
This exchange meets all logic and all rules,except the thing about an arrow immedaiatly becoming visibe due to lack of facing and cover.
Despite what several people have said, I think that the RAW do say something.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
This seems to be talking about melee, but does indicate that you have a general idea of where the attacker is. Since in an extreme case (Colossal creature with a reach weapon) the attacker could be 60 feet away, it's not unreasonable to apply this to ranged weapons as well. (Or you could decide that it applies for any type, since it does not explicitly state melee and you could "strike" someone with an arrow or a bolt.)
If you do apply the rule above, you either learn the square of the attack or the general location. Since general location is not defined, this still leaves it up to the GM, although a ranged weapon, "within a 60/90/120/180 degree cone" seems like a perfectly reasonable answer for the general direction.
But it is, you went from knowing absolutely nothing to knowing something.... By failing a roll.
If you want to make them succeed at a roll i'm sure you could assign a -20 DC to find your own rear, with a +2 bonus from the arrow sticking out of it...
If you want to make them succeed at a roll i'm sure you could assign a -20 DC to find your own rear, with a +2 bonus from the arrow sticking out of it...
But it is, you went from knowing absolutely nothing to knowing something.... By failing a roll.
Go figure, it's a shame that anywhere in a 180 degree angle could be where the arrow came from and that by the rules your arse is any one of the 360 degrees around you as there is no facing.
So at any one point in time that arrow could have come from half the places (behind you), which is anywhere around you.
You don't know where your own rear is even with a roll, no facing. Thanks anyways.
I was wondering: If a sharpshooter uses the snipe action to peg me with an arrow, and I fail my Perception check against them, am I totally clueless? Or can I at least tell what direction the shot came from?
Also, a lot of people say that without cover or concealment, it is impossible to hide due to lack of facing. If this is true, wouldn't I automatically see the arrow once it comes out of cover or concealment? Say, for example, the sharpshooter shot me from some bushes, would I know that "he's in those bushes somewhere" because I automatically saw the arrow come out of them? Why or why not?
Let's say the sharpshooter was a visible pixie with haste. He flies out of the bushes towards me with a double move. He is roughly the same size as the arrow. flew the same distance in the same direction at roughly the same speed as the arrow. If you say that I could NOT see the arrow come out of the bushes, how is it then that I COULD see the pixie prior to my turn?
This isn't really a hard one to answer. You know the sniping rules, and you don't need to make a check to know you've been hit in the back (whether or not the arrow's still in your back).
So whoever shot the arrow (assuming they made their Stealth check to snipe) must have been in the direction of your 'rear squares' (i'm aware of the lack of facing in RAW - i'm applying the flanking term).
So, commonsense will tell your character that he's *somewhere* behind you. In other words, you're not totally clueless (ie. you know the direction) but especially for such a hard check it should actually be useful.
This isn't really a hard one to answer. You know the sniping rules, and you don't need to make a check to know you've been hit in the back (whether or not the arrow's still in your back).So whoever shot the arrow (assuming they made their Stealth check to snipe) must have been in the direction of your 'rear squares' (i'm aware of the lack of facing in RAW - i'm applying the flanking term).
So, commonsense will tell your character that he's *somewhere* behind you. In other words, you're not totally clueless (ie. you know the direction) but especially for such a hard check it should actually be useful.
Problem is there is no "you've been hit in the back"... There are no facing rules, there are no rules saying you get hit HERE. There is a reason for it.
So yeah you know you got hit, but you don't know where and you don't know where it came from if you fail the check. Using something like "I got hit in the arse so I know it is behind me" is bullocks. The perception check is made, you fail you don't know where it came from. If the DM wants to give you a +2 circumstance bonus because they are nice, cool. They can justify it by saying you got hit in a particular area (which is completely made up anyways) and there is your bonus.
It still comes down to you either making or failing the perception check. The check isn't hard, the person making the stealth check for sniping is the one who has it rough. Given the penalty if you can't make the perception roll you probably didn't take any skill ranks of it and deserve to be clueless until one of the other party members makes the roll and points them out.
You don't know where your own rear is even with a roll, no facing. Thanks anyways.
Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of ruling it that way. If you can use a search check at DC 30 to find a cunningly hidden secret door, but are literally incapable of finding your own rear something has gone horribly wrong.
I was wondering: If a sharpshooter uses the snipe action to peg me with an arrow, and I fail my Perception check against them, am I totally clueless? Or can I at least tell what direction the shot came from?
Also, a lot of people say that without cover or concealment, it is impossible to hide due to lack of facing.
Yes, the game does not involve facing, but it does involve a notion of direction. Direction is used in case of cover, line of sight etc.
Like other posters before, I agree that it would be reasonable to ask from which general direction the projectile came from. Without facing, your DM wouldn't able to tell you "from behind you" or "from your left flank", but he/she can point at the map and say "from around here".
'findel
You don't know where your own rear is even with a roll, no facing. Thanks anyways.Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of ruling it that way. If you can use a search check at DC 30 to find a cunningly hidden secret door, but are literally incapable of finding your own rear something has gone horribly wrong.
No more absurd than saying it is possible to tell where a completely hidden opponent is by failing a check to detect them...
I was wondering: If a sharpshooter uses the snipe action to peg me with an arrow, and I fail my Perception check against them, am I totally clueless? Or can I at least tell what direction the shot came from?
Also, a lot of people say that without cover or concealment, it is impossible to hide due to lack of facing.
Yes, the game does not involve facing, but it does involve a notion of direction. Direction is used in case of cover, line of sight etc.
Like other posters before, I agree that it would be reasonable to ask from which general direction the projectile came from. Without facing, your DM wouldn't able to tell you "from behind you" or "from your left flank", but he/she can point at the map and say "from around here".
'findel
When dealing with a completely invisible opponent who hits you with a reach weapon the best thing you can get is "over in this direction." When dealing with a ranged attack there is nothing saying that is possible. Nor should it be if you fail the perception check against the guy/gal taking a -20 on their stealth check. That is a HUGE penalty and there should be some sort of benefit to making it, namely not being detected.
This isn't really a hard one to answer. You know the sniping rules, and you don't need to make a check to know you've been hit in the back (whether or not the arrow's still in your back).So whoever shot the arrow (assuming they made their Stealth check to snipe) must have been in the direction of your 'rear squares' (i'm aware of the lack of facing in RAW - i'm applying the flanking term).
So, commonsense will tell your character that he's *somewhere* behind you. In other words, you're not totally clueless (ie. you know the direction) but especially for such a hard check it should actually be useful.
Problem is there is no "you've been hit in the back"... There are no facing rules, there are no rules saying you get hit HERE. There is a reason for it.
So yeah you know you got hit, but you don't know where and you don't know where it came from if you fail the check. Using something like "I got hit in the arse so I know it is behind me" is bullocks. The perception check is made, you fail you don't know where it came from. If the DM wants to give you a +2 circumstance bonus because they are nice, cool. They can justify it by saying you got hit in a particular area (which is completely made up anyways) and there is your bonus.
It still comes down to you either making or failing the perception check. The check isn't hard, the person making the stealth check for sniping is the one who has it rough. Given the penalty if you can't make the perception roll you probably didn't take any skill ranks of it and deserve to be clueless until one of the other party members makes the roll and points them out.
Arrow hits character and does damage-
Player: where did the arrow hit me?DM: your not sure
Player: What do you mean I am not sure, that arrow hurt, how can I not know where it hit me?
See the problem here? Facing rules or no if I was the player, I would be like "what do you mean I don't know where I was hit, that's ridiculous, I may not have seen the arrow, but I can feel where it hit". Telling the player where they were hit does not give away the shooters location, they could be anywhere in a 45 degree arc at least and could be at any range.
Arrow hits character and does damage-
Player: where did the arrow hit me?
DM: your not sure
Player: What do you mean I am not sure, that arrow hurt, how can I not know where it hit me?See the problem here? Facing rules or no if I was the player, I would be like "what do you mean I don't know where I was hit, that's ridiculous,...
DM: What was your perception check again?
Player: [insert result less than the stealth check]DM: Yeah you're not sure, what do you do?
There is no problem, you just want there to be one to get info you shouldn't have. Get over it and role-play it out. As for it being ridiculous we are talking about a fantasy game where ridiculous things are happening on a regular basis. What race were you playing again? Oh yeah [insert any race besides human], that isn't ridiculous nor is the fact that practically every class basically has some sort of extraordinary ability that has no basis in reality. That isn't ridiculous either...
A perception check to see someone shooting you should not cover whether or not you can tell where you were hit IMHO. I can tell you having been shot in reenactments and in paintball plenty of times. I often can't tell who shot me or exactly where they are, But I can tell where I was hit on my body 100% of the time without fail. I know its a fantasy game where the fantastical happens and I know its a simplified combat simulation. But for me, whenever it can make sense within the context of a fantasy game, it should and not knowing where you are hit simply makes no sense to me.
A perception check to see someone shooting you should not cover whether or not you can tell where you were hit IMHO. I can tell you having been shot in reenactments and in paintball plenty of times. I often can't tell who shot me or exactly where they are, But I can tell where I was hit on my body 100% of the time without fail. I know its a fantasy game where the fantastical happens and I know its a simplified combat simulation. But for me, whenever it can make sense within the context of a fantasy game, it should and not knowing where you are hit simply makes no sense to me.
Not knowing where you were hit is one thing, knowing where you were hit and using that as a way to determine where the attack came from is another. Trying to "reason" it should be possible cause you should know is bad, pushing it to get something you shouldn't know when you fail a roll is worse.
The game is fundamentally based on abstracts, even the damage. You actually have no clue where or how you got hit, it is all fluff with no meaningful use when someone says you got hit for X in Y area. It means nothing. With that said, you don't know where you got hit because the game doesn't care. There is no hit table or differentiation for where or how it happened.
Feel free with it not making sense but that is how it works in Pathfinder, just like 3.5 or 3.0 or any of a number of games. If you want to use fluff and give that erroneous information fine, go for it, but don't use the fluff to give a mechanical advantage. That is basically saying "It is because I say so" even though the game doesn't take that stuff into account for a reason.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
I am not saying first of all, I would let the players know where the shooter is, I said I would let them know a 45 degree arc of direction, that's it. Under the targeting rules, that does not let someone target a square by any stretch.
Whether the game cares from a perspective of hit table differentiation is not at all relevant to me.
I know the game is fundamentally based on abstracts but I don't think what I am proposing detracts from the game in anyway, I think it makes it better from an immersion perspective and I don't think there is anything in RAW to support which of our approaches is technically right or wrong. Of course any DM can house rule anything, but within the RAW in the case where RAW does not cover something, each DM rules as they will. I don't agree with your ruling, you don't agree with mine, neither of us is right or wrong as the RAW does not cover it, so lets let it go and agree to disagree and move on. I don't think either of us is ever going to get the other to come to their point of view
I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
I am not saying first of all, I would let the players know where the shooter is, I said I would let them know a 45 degree arc of direction, that's it. Under the targeting rules, that does not let someone target a square by any stretch.
Whether the game cares from a perspective of hit table differentiation is not at all relevant to me.
I know the game is fundamentally based on abstracts but I don't think what I am proposing detracts from the game in anyway, I think it makes it better from an immersion perspective and I don't think there is anything in RAW to support which of our approaches is technically right or wrong. Of course any DM can house rule anything, but within the RAW in the case where RAW does not cover something, each DM rules as they will. I don't agree with your ruling, you don't agree with mine, neither of us is right or wrong as the RAW does not cover it, so lets let it go and agree to disagree and move on. I don't think either of us is ever going to get the other to come to their point of view
If you want to argue that RAW not covering it means it works fine, but RAW doesn't say A LOT of things and that doesn't mean it should happen.
RAW says that unseen creature hits you in melee, you know what square it happens to be in when the attack is made. RAW also says that if that unseen creature hits you in melee and has reach you have a general idea of where it came from. RAW is silent on ranged attacks, so basically what it comes down to is melee attacks give you that information and ranged attacks don't. Is that what was intended? Who knows! But what it states is what happens, your argument hinges on it not stating it doesn't happen. I'm much more comfortable basing my argument on RULES than the lack thereof. I'd have to say RAW is on my side on this one, not yours, even if it wasn't RAI.
It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is a matter of reading the rules and working within the confines of the rule set. If you want to ignore that and do it your own way, feel free. But I'll stick to what is written in the book and it says the detection happens in regards to melee combat, not ranged.
Removing facing was done from 3.0 to 3.5 for miniatures reasons. Same as the bases changed.
In my games just because you perceive in 360 doesn't mean you AUTOMATICALLY SEE behind you...yes you get a perception check, with your other senses, hearing or smell typically.