No, I'm saying ... That you get a rough direction when struck in by a creature with reach.
Yes, and you're also saying that direction is meaningless in Pathfinder:
There is no facing, as there is no facing you can't assume an attack strikes anywhere in particular, which is what you are assuming saying an attack hit your X from Y direction and Z location. Your [sic] making up reasons for it to work without providing rules to back up what you want to happen.
The rules explicitly and directly contradict this. Attacks do have a direction, and characters can tell which direction attacks come from without needing to make any kind of roll.
And because the rules don't say you get indication of origin of ranged attacks, as they do with melee attacks
The rules do not specify either ranged or melee. The rules say that when you are struck by an invisible creature, you know where it is. You can be struck by a ranged attack just as you can be struck by a melee attack.
by failing to roll a perception check for that explicit purpose...
Once again, you're making a straw man argument with this. To wit, you are inventing an argument that is superficially similar to my argument, but is not the same as my argument, and "defeating" it. This is a textbook straw man. Quoth Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
My argument has exactly jack to do with Perception checks. Perception does not enter the equation. However, you continually harp on the "You're getting such and such information by failing a Perception check!"; this is a misrepresentation of my position, and an attempt to sway the reader by using loaded words ("you're getting something by failing").
The character gets the information by being attacked. There is no Perception check required to know this information. He does not get the information by failing the check; he gets the information regardless of whether he even attempts the check. It is automatic information.
Yes, and you're also saying that direction is meaningless in Pathfinder:
No, I'm saying basing your assumption that you know where a ranged attack comes from based on where it hit you (an undefined, made up location) when there is no facing to make it matter is meaningless. Big difference...
The rules explicitly and directly contradict this. Attacks do have a direction, and characters can tell which direction attacks come from without needing to make any kind of roll.
The rules say struck and then say reach has an exception to knowing exactly where it came from. They say nothing about attacks from range. Seeing as this knowledge isn't given by the rules (which lack wording about ranged attacks, but do refer to reach and melee attacks) the only other way to get that information is by making a perception check. You failed the check to see who attacked you, ranged attack hits you, ranged attack isn't a melee attack and therefore doesn't give you indication of attack location.
The rules do not specify either ranged or melee. The rules say that when you are struck by an invisible creature, you know where it is. You can be struck by a ranged attack just as you can be struck by a melee attack.
So you're going to tell me that your interpretation of the rules, by grouping ranged attacks into the "struck" wording, gives you total and complete knowledge of the exact square from which the attack came from. But when a simple melee reach attack is performed you only get "general idea of location." At least my interpretation makes sense...
I'm not pinning my argument on perception, because if you made it, it would be moot, you'd know where it came from. The fact of the matter is I'm working on the premise the check was failed. You're argument is that because the unseen attacker is hitting the target with a ranged attack they get knowledge of the square that the attack originated just like if it were a non reach melee attack. That makes NO sense. None.
At least my interpretation has some sort of logic to it, it actually makes sense. Melee is exactly known, reach is rough estimate, ranged is nothing. Yours: Melee is exactly known, reach is rough estimate, ranged is exactly known.
Man, do you have to continually lie about my position? I'm done with this discussion until you can actually tell the truth about what I'm saying, if indeed you're capable of it at all; it doesn't appear so through two pages.