|
Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.11/02/2004http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
I knew I had seen that ruling somewhere. Eh, I guess that settles that. Seems kinda anti-climatic though.
Should we just keep arguing it for awhile for the sake of it?
I'm not passing it off as RAW. I'm passing it off as a piece of critical thinking. I'm passing it off as a easily understood conceptual idea. RAW neither favors nor is against the abstraction. Developers sometimes talk about the abstraction (feel free to search the forums, you'll find them). There is an abstraction of grid locations. An abstraction of rounds (real world everyone takes their actions near simultaneously - the round merely represents a 6 second interval of action - taken in the abstract concept of turns). There are abstractions of other things as well - the rules talk about some of these things, but they never talk about them being abstractions - they talk about them as being game mechanics.RAW should ALWAYS be tempered by GM adjudication - but the rules forum doesn't care about that.I believe you stated the forum is for RAW discussion only.
If you would like to have a pow wow and sit around a campfire and talk as DMs or Players, then sure I agree with you on a lot of things.
However, you can't take the stance that RAW this and RAW that, then turn around and say, hey now lets just do what makes sense in any give situation.
You are sending out mixed signals.
Oh, my mistake. RAW also doesn't tell us where the grid squares should be. The map might be wrong. Guess we are at an impasse.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
Maybe it is bad form to post a rule, from 3.5 on a Paizo forum, but after reading an old 3.5 book and comparing the carbon copy that is in the pathfinder book, I felt that quoting a ruling on the open gaming license at this point (page four) was necessary.
This is even better - it settles it very effectively. A direct quote from 3.5 from which pathfinder is based upon. If the description of a rule is the same then the rule is the same as it worked in 3.5. If the rule is written differently, the rule has changed - this is common knowledge among rules forum perusers. So it used to be total concealment prevented threatening. That language no longer exists - I wonder why that is? If it is the same why did they change the wording. If its not the same... well we know where that leads us.
A further reading of the article linked also shows some minor changes in how you threaten, but it is basically the same:
As noted earlier, you threaten all the squares on the battlefield into which you can make an armed melee attack. The diagrams on pages 308-310 in the Dungeon Master's Guide show the areas that Medium and bigger creatures threaten when armed with regular weapons and with reach weapons.
It goes on for several paragraphs, talking about reach weapons, creatures with multiple natural weapons when some of those claws are already occupied, etc - nothing really relevant to this.
Notable missing is that phrase "even when it is not your turn" - seems Paizo felt this needing some clarifying in that regard - to point out that threatening occurs all the time, not just on your turn.
And here is another little tidbit
Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe.
This sounds familiar. Okay, PF total concealment doesn't include that 'You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks' bit, but it also doesn't include 'You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you'. It only has the 'you cannot make an attack of opportunity' bit. Purely an oversight? At least this gives you guys some possible ground to stand on - but I don't believe it was an oversight, keep reading.
Of course PF rules for basic Cover removed the AoO part for basic cover completely. Cover in PF does not prevent an AoO like it did in 3.5. Looks like they nerfed all of these abilities downward to be less advantageous. Or they made multiple oversights in regards to concealment rules in PF?
Okay, I just want to double check, if you are blind you don't provide flanking, but can still receive flanking bonus, correct?
That depends on which side of the fence you are arguing from in this thread.
One side says no, you don't provide a flanking bonus. One side says you do. I'd recommend you read the rules on threatening squares in the combat section (under the heading of Attacks of Opportunity). Understand under what conditions you threaten. Then read the rules on total concealment (this is the effect of being blind in combat) and see how that modifies the rules on threatening. Then you have to decide, does taking away the ability to make an Attack of Opportunity also take away my ability to threaten - that is what this entire thread discussion boils down to.
This document is actually really good, here is another tidbit, from rules already quoted
Cover: You threaten a creature that has cover against your attacks, but you cannot make an attack of opportunity against such a foe.
Back in the 3.5 days here is a condition under which a creature can threaten, but cannot take AoO's. Direct proof that the ability to take an AoO does not coincide with the ability to threaten. These are separate conditions and while they often work hand in hand, there are cases where they work independently.
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.
sage advice answers from 3.5 are often misleading and confusing when applied to Pathfinder, so it's best NOT to go there for advice.
As for Sage Advice... not only did those rulings apply to a different game, but they were hardly infallible.sage advice answers from 3.5 are often misleading and confusing when applied to Pathfinder, so it's best NOT to go there for advice.
While a formal word on THIS topic is still pending (if it ever comes) there has been at least one instance of a Sage Advice ruling being explicitly ignored in PF. The most recent Paizo FAQ said swapping grips on a weapon, or changing a weapon from one hand to another hand is a free action. Sage Advice ruled it as a move action (equivalent to drawing a weapon). I'm sure Grick remembers that loooong thread :). I don't know of any other cases where they go against Sage Advice. I also don't know of any cases where they incorporate it - but I've never really looked either.
Thanks though necronus for pointing out the word difference. I mistakenly took what was printed in the site referenced as the actual original ruling of total concealment. But now understand it was an update to the original rules. And I now understand where your viewpoint is coming from. I don't agree with the Sage Advice ruling - but if I were playing 3.5 I'd have to suck it up or house rule it out. Now I'll be interested in seeing if Paizo makes a ruling on it.
Unless the developers of pathfinder, want to rule otherwise, at this point it seems very obvious that you do not threaten while being blind.
This is still highly debatable for pathfinder. Though with full information out now on how 3.5 was written, then updated, at least the view point can be better understood. My feeling is this thread has fully run its course now.
Grick, it is easy to quote someone else's words, and use them to prove that what you were right, when in fact you are wrong.
Grick never says "I'm right your wrong". He simply quotes rules, posts by developers both in official and unofficial capacities - and leaves you to draw your own conclusions.
I think Grick is actually a robot with a search engine refined for the Paizo site.
I going break by promise to not jump in here, as I feel the need to say PLEASE STOP, in regards to the going back and forth about rules dilemmas. (This recent bit about 3.5 rules at least added something new, even if ultimately we don't know whether it's relevant or not).
There is an overall question in regards to how to approach a rules dilemma that is important here (or call them absurd situations, contradictions, etc, that doesn’t matter so much).
If a given piece of RAW creates a rules dilemma then does that mean:
A) the underlying rule(s) is/are negated until reconfirmed by developers.
B) the underlying rule(s) stand unless we are told otherwise by the developers, and we address each individual rules dilemma on it’s own merits (perhaps FAQing them if we can’t find a RAW resolution).
If your answer is A) then disregard the below part of RAW about threatening squares that is central to this debate, as there is already several potential rules dilemma examples (threatening something you don’t even know is there for one). Hit FAQ and use whatever definition for “threatened creature” you want, until, if and when, the developers chime in on this. There should be no further rules dilemma (with the below part from RAW since it's not now RAW) so there is no further need to bring them up.
If your answer is B) There is no need to try and defend the RAW. They are what they are. We should acknowledge and address the individual rules dilemmas individually (hopefully in new threads) to see if they are really dilemmas and need to be FAQ’d or can be resolved RAW, such as bbangerter started to do with ethereal creatures. But PLEASE, quit arguing about the rules dilemmas within the frame of mind that those that agree with A) have or this thread will continue grow like a tumor, as the potential dilemma examples may not stop. Every time you try to argue against that rules dilemma to show that it doesn’t actually conflict with the RAW you are providing oxygen and nutrient to that tumor. Also When you go on to discuss these rules dilemmas please note the following, since it seems to be missed by some (bolding by me).
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
So just attacking the outside of the square, such as a wall, doesn’t threaten the whole square. The ttack needs to be considered a melee weapon. It says "Generally", "not always". This gives us some wiggle room for logic and common sense. Maybe someone on this thread said “always” but they were wrong. Don’t treat it as always for coming up with rules dilemmas to make your point.
Last thing and I am done. If you agree with A) then I would ask you to really consider if this is how we should approach rules dilemmas. Seems to me that if we approach rules dilemmas this way the rules for Pathfinder would dissolve away like the brain of someone with Mad Cow disease, since like I stated before if you try hard enough you can probably find a absurd situation with any rule out there.
or this thread will continue grow like a tumor
That's frequently the point when one or two people keep a thread going long past resolution.
If the thread was:
Post 1: Threaten in the dark?
Post 2: Yep.
Post 3: I don't like that, I want the rule to be different.
*end*
Nothing would ever come of it. But a 10-page thread where people get heated and posts start getting removed draws attention. So some people will continue to argue (or cease arguing but continue to post about how they're right and everyone else is wrong) in order to goad people into responding, prolonging the thread in hopes of getting Paizo to address their pet peeve.
|
|
... I would ask you to really consider if this is how we should approach rules dilemmas. Seems to me that if we approach rules dilemmas this way the rules for Pathfinder would dissolve away like the brain of someone with Mad Cow disease, since like I stated before if you try hard enough you can probably find a absurd situation with any rule out there.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I think many of those situations you find absurd were rather useful in establishing there was more than one way to interpret the rules, a few double standards, and most importantly there was more to the threatened rules than what could be found in Pathfinder.
I cannot speak for others, but I pulled out 3 different versions of the Core Rule book to verify they all said the same thing because I knew I had read more rules about threaten then I could find in the PRD.
At first my strategy for arguing was to simply establish there were unspoken rules. This was done with examples I came up, including the one with ethereal creatures threatening squares.
When faced with a conflict, most healthy groups will look for more information to resolve it. Because the disagreement was expressed, a more thorough investigation will be conducted. When the group makes a decision, it will be based on additional information that probably wouldn’t have been obtained had the conflict not occurred.
The rest of Laura's article can be found at: http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10385718/conflict-in-the-workplace-conf lict-can-be-positive-and-productive
This is what I would like to think of as happening here, when necronus pointed out:
Concealed Creatures: You don't threaten any creature that has total concealment against you (though you can attack into the concealed creature's space and hope for a hit). The blindsight special quality negates foes' concealment when they're within range. Some special qualities, such as blindsense and scent, can reveal an unseen foe's location but don't negate concealment. Similarly, you can use a Listen or Spot check to locate an unseen creature, but that does not negate concealment, so you cannot make an attack of opportunity against that foe.11/02/2004http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a
As for this...
That's frequently the point when one or two people keep a thread going long past resolution. ... So some people will continue to argue (or cease arguing but continue to post about how they're right and everyone else is wrong) in order to goad people into responding, prolonging the thread in hopes of getting Paizo to address their pet peeve.
I really do hope this was not the case with this thread, but if it bothers you; it might be wise if you ask yourself 'why do I bother participating/reading?'
Later everyone.
|
So, lets look at Blinded again.
Blinded: The Creature cannot see. It takes a -2 penalty to AC, loses its Dex bonus to AC (if any), and takes a -4 penalty on most Str and Dex based skill checks and on opposed perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
now looking at both the total concealment above, and seeing the change to threaten (action vs. turn), I still don't see, other than the 3.5 Skippy guy, why a blind person would not threaten.
I believe that Pathfinder has been friendlier to the Rogue, which plays a part in all this.
I, like some others, do see why necronus is so riled up about this, but really, it doesn't change my opinion about it.
Blind, flailing guy with sharp knife still provides Flanking for the Rogue. I do see, though, that some GMs would rule the other way. I am fine with that.
|
|
I still don't see, other than the 3.5 Skippy guy, why a blind person would not threaten.
I would recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_Williams as an excellent source of information about Skip Williams.
As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?
He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.
New to the party here - could someone briefly summarize what, if any, progress has been made since Grick's interpretation of RAW at the start of the thread?
Threatened Squares: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
You must threaten in order to make an attack of opportunity. If you can make a melee attack into that square, you still threaten, even if you can't make an AoO.
...
None of those people (except the invisible ones) can make attacks of opportunity, yet all of them can threaten if they're armed, and thus all of them can provide a flanking bonus if positioned properly.
"If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity."
Being able to make an AoO is dependent on threatening, it's not the other way around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New to the party here - could someone briefly summarize what, if any, progress has been made since Grick's interpretation of RAW at the start of the thread?
Most agreed with Grick's viewpoint.
Those who didn't were basing their viewpoint off of a Sage Advice column from 3.5 in which:
Total concealment prevented both AoO's and threatening.
Concealment prevented AoO's, but did not prevent threatening (the ability to take an AoO and the ability to threaten are not synonymous, but are separate mechanics).
Sage Advice columns implication to Pathfinder unknown - Paizo may or may not agree with any rules descriptions from Sage Advice - but Paizo is not bound to it for backwards compatibility purposes or otherwise. Paizo could still rule on this to favor either side of the viewpoint, or something in between.
But the difference is that attacking an invisibe ninja's square on your turn is a concious choice that requires you to know (or at least assume) that the ninja is in that square. On the other hand a shadowdancer using Hide in Plain Sight does not prevent others from using AoOs on him and when he moves through a threatened square automatically provokes an AoO from the enemy.He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?
Taking an AoO is a conscious choice as well.
Taking an AoO is a conscious choice as well.But the difference is that attacking an invisibe ninja's square on your turn is a concious choice that requires you to know (or at least assume) that the ninja is in that square. On the other hand a shadowdancer using Hide in Plain Sight does not prevent others from using AoOs on him and when he moves through a threatened square automatically provokes an AoO from the enemy.He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?
An argument could be made that it is not, namely from this rule:
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to.You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round.
An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
It's not really arguable. I moved the bold in your quote. It's a voluntary decision.
AgreedWait, we agreed on something? Damnit, now the world is going to come to an end.
He has probably just misread you. :)
It can always get worse.
|
|
He would be able to take an AoO. Just as he would be able to make a melee attack on his turn against an invisible ninja within melee range. If the enemy doesn't know the ninja is there, would it make the attacks it could make in either case? Probably not.As an interesting aside, does this mean that if a shadowdancer with Hide in Plain Sight walks through an enemie's threatened square that the enemy immediately gets an AoO even though he does not know that the shadowdancer is there?
In the case of the invisible ninja walking past an enemy, the enemy would not be able to take an attack of opportunity. This is per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Invisibility, which establishes invisibility grants total concealment; and per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Concealment, which clearly states "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies." This is quite clearly spelled out in the rules.
In the case of the Hidden-In-Plain-Sight shadowdancer walking past an enemy, the enemy would be able to take an attack of opportunity. This is per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/shadowdancer #TOC-Hide-in-Plain-Sight-Su- which says "A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."; and per http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light, which only ever establishes concealment (20% miss chance) but not total concealment... And so does not establish a condition with verbiage about attacks of opportunity.
@Thrikreed
The part about the shadowdancer's HiPS is irrelevant since the shadowdancer does not need to be IN dim light to use it, just within 10 ft.
So it comes back to the argument of if you are using stealth to "hide in plain sight" do you gain any form of concealment since you cannot be seen? IF you do I would say you gain total concealment and therefore could still not execute an AoO.
My GM in his use of common sense plays using stealth from someone that fails their perception to spot you as you being invisible. NO not the condition invisible, you do not gain all the stuff from being invisible, only that you have total concealment from the person you are hiding from, and you get sneak attack. Is this RAW, probably not as it is constantly argued for no reason, but by god if someone doesn't use common sense at a table........who will?
|
|
@Thrikreed
The part about the shadowdancer's HiPS is irrelevant since the shadowdancer does not need to be IN dim light to use it, just within 10 ft.
So it comes back to the argument of if you are using stealth to "hide in plain sight" do you gain any form of concealment since you cannot be seen? IF you do I would say you gain total concealment and therefore could still not execute an AoO.
My GM in his use of common sense plays using stealth from someone that fails their perception to spot you as you being invisible. NO not the condition invisible, you do not gain all the stuff from being invisible, only that you have total concealment from the person you are hiding from, and you get sneak attack. Is this RAW, probably not as it is constantly argued for no reason, but by god if someone doesn't use common sense at a table........who will?
I am reminded of a snippet of article I've read on wikipedia, which modified for gamers, goes something like this:
'When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the game, not your own common sense. Exhorting another writer, GM, or player to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the game, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve the game in that instance.'
If you want to see the rest article, unmodified, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means
As to the invisibility that isn't invisibility, how does that interact with everything that interacts with invisibility? A couple of examples would include interactions between a invisible-that-is-not-invisibility character and see invisibility and invisibility purge? While such a ruling is fine for a home campaign, in large groups of players this is just the first glance inside a Pandora's box I do not really want explore the depths of.
As to your rather justifiable opinion that stealth should have some benefit, I agree. There should be some benefit for being stealthed. What if I told you there was a better frame work for one?
Perhaps a little out of context, but still seemingly pertinent I'd start with "Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC." from http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Surprise; replacing the italicized text with "because they have lost track of an enemy, but they are only flat-footed in regards to that enemy;". Next read up on the benefits for http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Flat-Footed, which already needs to be fixed to makes sense for feats like Catch-Off Guard and Shatter Defenses. I'd consider making an 'unaware Condition'. Finally, I'd take these modified rules to my GM or the Paizo community and ask them what they thought.
Effectively the same benefit but with tighter wording and a firmer foundation in the rules.
On the other hand if you want to use your opinion of common sense (or lack of it) to justify not playing by the rules or as a plea to be excused from doing so; please do not allow me to distract you.
Catch Off-Guard and Shatter Defenses have no business using the wording Flat-footed in their descriptions. They should deny Dex bonus to AC instead. Flat-footed and losing your Dex bonus are confusing enough as it is.
Wow that seemed oddly insulting towards me...the last part at least...my point was simple and not insulting to you in any way
The way "I play" had nothing to do with it...I play based on how the GM wants to read the rules. I have had to play certain rules differently depending on the GM but I never found it as a plea to be excused from doing so
I'm sure if my current GM got on the forums he would probably apologize to you since his view of the rules somehow hurt you...I will see if I can get him to do so
|
|
Catch Off-Guard and Shatter Defenses have no business using the wording Flat-footed in their descriptions. They should deny Dex bonus to AC instead. Flat-footed and losing your Dex bonus are confusing enough as it is.
Flat-footed denies dexterity (which is the purpose of these feats), however it does more than these feats intended, so I can definitely see your opinion receiving validation from an official source; should said official sources be presented with it, take the time to consider it, and then take the time to make an official statement.
Though this weakens my suggestion for rewording flat-footed, I think it strengthens my other suggestion...