I don't play MMOs and I don't care for anime.
Anyone care to invalidate my opinion?
I don't play MMOs and I don't care for anime.
Anyone care to invalidate my opinion?
You surely play Diablo!!!
Or Minesweeper!
No and no. Keep searching.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
haha... no, no, and no.
Could it be that I desire the ability to sneak out from cover without any corrupting influence from the games that millions love and play?
Seriously. The rogue starts behind cover/concealment. He makes a stealth check, and if he fails he gets spotted right away. If he succeeds, he can sneak at half speed and shank a dude in the back. If he succeeds by a lot, he can move and get one attack.
This requires a successful skill investment and some good planning, just to put up comparable damage to what a fighter can do every round (move and strike). What's the big deal? It's flavorful and awesome, and doesn't require facing rules. That similar tropes exist in video games only serves as evidence that it is an enjoyable mechanic!
The blog variant rocks. I say this as a hardcore RPG hobbyist and principle GM.
wraithstrike, I allow something very similar in my games to what you're considering. So far I don't have it written down in legalese, but I can describe it (and welcome criticism).
[For the purpose of the following post, I use the term 'stealth conditions' for shorthand. Stealth conditions are conditions that allow you to attempt to stealth. For most characters this simply means cover or concealment.]
In my games, a creature may attempt to stealth while being observed; but it must have a stealth condition relative to a creature to stealth against it. Once a character is stealthed, it is possible to move from an area with stealth conditions and through an area without stealth conditions as long as it is done quickly -- that is, before the turn has ended. Similarly, a successful Stealth check allows a stealthed creature to leave an area with stealth conditions and attack a creature unnoticed. Once an attack has completed, the attacker is no longer stealthed.
If any of a stealthed creature's stealth conditions are removed outside of its turn, its stealth fails against creatures it no longer has stealth conditions relative to. For example, a rogue can successfully stealth against a guard by quickly darting from behind one pillar to another, even if the space between them is clearly viewable. However, if the guard walked behind the line of pillars on his turn, the rogue would no longer have cover and his stealth would fail against the guard.
I still have some fiddly things to do. I want to clarify that blur does not allow you to stealth, but before I simply call it miss chance instead of concealment, I want to see how it should interact with other effects (if a feat allows you to re-roll against concealment, perhaps it should still work against blur).
In my next game, I'm probably going to change scorching ray so that the rays are fired consecutively instead of simultaneously, which is how I'm currently running them -- a character with sneak attack, scorching ray and invisibility could hit an enemy's touch AC without Dex bonus to AC and get sneak attack on each strike. I want rogue-casters to be viable, but not overly-effective. Still, that's more of a problem with the spell than rogue-casters.
I also want to disentangle the rules for creatures behind total cover, creatures with total concealment, and invisible creatures and make them more consistent. Perhaps stealth bonuses shouldn't come from being invisible, but should come from having total concealment (why does being invisible make you harder to detect when you're in a different room and cannot be seen anyway?). I also like the +2 to attack while hidden from the stealth playtest, so I'll probably work that in.
But overall, my group is having a lot more fun with this. I don't have to worry about level 5 characters with Stealth +40 walking through the middle of well-lit ballrooms like they're invisible (one popular way I see stealth run). Nor do they lose stealth the very moment they move out of shadows or attempt to attack an enemy (another way I see stealth run).
There are some small hitches, but we're working through them as we go and clarifying the house-rules.
The only 'drawback' is that for the sake of my players' fun, I need to make sure that battlegrounds have potential hiding spots. But it seems the APs are very good about having walls, corners, barrels and tables around for this kind of thing; and even when I make my own map, it's easy to add room dressings or spots of undergrowth.
You know, Wraithstrike and I disagree on what the RAW for stealth sez. But he is well versed on what has been said about it.
The devs have said they are aware of the problem, but that it would take a redesign to incorporate the changes. Now personally, I don’t want Pathfinder 2nd Ed just for this rather minor issue, since they have published a fix and suggested you use it.
So since Wraithstrike by post #5 already informed one and all that the PF staff are well aware of this and it CAN NOT be fixed by a FAQ, why on earth have a dozen of you hit “FAQ”? It can’t be FAQed. You don’t have to take my word for it, or even James Jacobs word for it. Just read the Stealth Blog and the many, many responses and you will see the HUGE can of worms it opened.
Geez.
The usual. And make it a double.
To protect the world from devastation!
I don't care about "what has to be changed", i.e. opinion of how it SHOULD work,
I just want clarity on how the RAW actually works, and want FAQ/Errata to make that clear and consistent.
I can diverge from RAW as much as I want in home games, as I do so for Spring Attack/Vital Strike, granting Heighten Spell for free to Casters, etc.
But knowing exactly how RAW/RAI is meant to function is needed to establish the baseline, as well as for PFS.
So, anybody else with specific questions about RAW/RAI, please no opinions on game design? ;-)
Why do people assume that not having facing rules means that everyone has eyes in a ring around their head?
Because the rules say so, and so have the devs.
All it takes to be able to see someone is line of sight.
In game terms: If I can draw a line from any corner of my square to the corner of the square the "hiding" character is in then I can see him.
You know, Wraithstrike and I disagree on what the RAW for stealth sez. But he is well versed on what has been said about it.
The devs have said they are aware of the problem, but that it would take a redesign to incorporate the changes. Now personally, I don’t want Pathfinder 2nd Ed just for this rather minor issue, since they have published a fix and suggested you use it.
So since Wraithstrike by post #5 already informed one and all that the PF staff are well aware of this and it CAN NOT be fixed by a FAQ, why on earth have a dozen of you hit “FAQ”? It can’t be FAQed. You don’t have to take my word for it, or even James Jacobs word for it. Just read the Stealth Blog and the many, many responses and you will see the HUGE can of worms it opened.
Geez.
I think they want an FAQ so they can tell us how it does work. If it worked like I intend to run it we would not need a blog, only an FAQ.
When I said it can't be fixed I was saying it can't be made to not suck like it does now without causing problems elsewhere in the game. Giving RAI should be doable though.
PS: I think many of us will just ignore how it actually works unless we are in PFS, but it is still nice to know.
I don't care about "what has to be changed", i.e. opinion of how it SHOULD work,
I just want clarity on how the RAW actually works, and want FAQ/Errata to make that clear and consistent.
I can diverge from RAW as much as I want in home games, as I do so for Spring Attack/Vital Strike, granting Heighten Spell for free to Casters, etc.
But knowing exactly how RAW/RAI is meant to function is needed to establish the baseline, as well as for PFS.So, anybody else with specific questions about RAW/RAI, please no opinions on game design? ;-)
I am sure the devs know about the recent stealth threads by now. I just hope they give us some clarification. :)
You know, Wraithstrike and I disagree on what the RAW for stealth sez. But he is well versed on what has been said about it.
The devs have said they are aware of the problem, but that it would take a redesign to incorporate the changes. Now personally, I don’t want Pathfinder 2nd Ed just for this rather minor issue, since they have published a fix and suggested you use it.
So since Wraithstrike by post #5 already informed one and all that the PF staff are well aware of this and it CAN NOT be fixed by a FAQ, why on earth have a dozen of you hit “FAQ”? It can’t be FAQed. You don’t have to take my word for it, or even James Jacobs word for it. Just read the Stealth Blog and the many, many responses and you will see the HUGE can of worms it opened.
Geez.
I think they want an FAQ so they can tell us how it does work. If it worked like I intend to run it we would not need a blog, only an FAQ.
When I said it can't be fixed I was saying it can't be made to not suck like it does now without causing problems elsewhere in the game. Giving RAI should be doable though.
Geez, No, Wraithstrike. Read the blog and the many, many comments which showed conclusively that their “fix’ opened too many cans of worms. This can NOT be fixed by a FAQ. It sounds simple but the rules lawyers stuck and it wasn’t.
The devs wrote the Blog, it remains as optional & suggested rules. That and JJ posts make the RAI very clear. The RAW can NOT be fixed by a FAQ. Think it can/ Write one. Submit it. but before you do, read all the blogs and all the posts. Cover every single question and exception, pls.
You don't really need to cover everything for a simple FAQ the same way you need to for a re-design/re-write. A FAQ is supposed to clarify intent, not to satisfy every possible rules-loophole that may arise.
The FAQ could, say, answer the question "does a rogue get to add sneak attack if they use the sniping rules to attack?" with a simple "yes" or "no". That would make the intent clear.
They wouldn't need to also address the issue of "stealth, then move across a fully-lit open room with a full-wall-mirror on the opposing side, then attack" :)
You know, Wraithstrike and I disagree on what the RAW for stealth sez. But he is well versed on what has been said about it.
The devs have said they are aware of the problem, but that it would take a redesign to incorporate the changes. Now personally, I don’t want Pathfinder 2nd Ed just for this rather minor issue, since they have published a fix and suggested you use it.
So since Wraithstrike by post #5 already informed one and all that the PF staff are well aware of this and it CAN NOT be fixed by a FAQ, why on earth have a dozen of you hit “FAQ”? It can’t be FAQed. You don’t have to take my word for it, or even James Jacobs word for it. Just read the Stealth Blog and the many, many responses and you will see the HUGE can of worms it opened.
Geez.
I think they want an FAQ so they can tell us how it does work. If it worked like I intend to run it we would not need a blog, only an FAQ.
When I said it can't be fixed I was saying it can't be made to not suck like it does now without causing problems elsewhere in the game. Giving RAI should be doable though.
Geez, No, Wraithstrike. Read the blog and the many, many comments which showed conclusively that their “fix’ opened too many cans of worms. This can NOT be fixed by a FAQ. It sounds simple but the rules lawyers stuck and it wasn’t.
The devs wrote the Blog, it remains as optional & suggested rules. That and JJ posts make the RAI very clear. The RAW can NOT be fixed by a FAQ. Think it can/ Write one. Submit it. but before you do, read all the blogs and all the posts. Cover every single question and exception, pls.
Once again we are using different versions of the word fix. I am not saying they can make stealth work well by an FAQ. That is not even what FAQ's are for. I am saying they can provide RAI on how they intend for it to work.
As an example saying you can attack while hidden(not the blog term, but the dictionary term) will be a step towards a fix.
Clarifying that you can't hide without a distraction in wide open area no matter when you roll your stealth check would be another clarification of intent.
Why do people assume that not having facing rules means that everyone has eyes in a ring around their head?Because the rules say so, and so have the devs.
All it takes to be able to see someone is line of sight.
In game terms: If I can draw a line from any corner of my square to the corner of the square the "hiding" character is in then I can see him.
Where are these things said in the rules?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect, that's not what I understand "no facing" to mean, Thomas.
As I understand it, "no facing" means that the rules never take into account which way a character (particularly a character in combat) is facing. For example, a rogue can't walk up to someone, "get him to look 'round", and perform a sneak attack. If your paladin engages a guard in conversation, it doesn't matter whether my sorcerer is "behind him" or "behind the paladin" in terms of being seen.
That's not to say that everybody is always observing everything around them, it's to say that there is no favored direction for Perception.
In the real world, a person can walk up and surprise another person in bright light. If we wanted to simulate this, we'd probably use Stealth versus Perception, with the Perceptive person, out of combat and not on watch, "taking 0".
Fighting for your life in dicey situations, you are probably scanning the environs all the time, trying to detect threats while there's still time to do something about them. It's probably much harder to sneak up on someone in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are these things said in the rules?Why do people assume that not having facing rules means that everyone has eyes in a ring around their head?Because the rules say so, and so have the devs.
All it takes to be able to see someone is line of sight.
In game terms: If I can draw a line from any corner of my square to the corner of the square the "hiding" character is in then I can see him.
I had this conversation with 3.5 loyalist. I will cite the rules for now. Later if I can find the link I will give you the link also.
Before I go searching these rules are in the combat chapter.
I will assume you already know that cover partially blocks line of affect, and total cover blocks line of sight and line of affect.
Here is how cover is determined. If you don't have cover then line of sigh
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Note that cover does not block line of sight, only line of affect so he can still be seen.
In short cover deals with line of affect.
Concealment deals with line of sight.
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.
There you go. If you want to not be seen the you have to block line of sight by having concealment of you can use cover. The book does not say you only have line of sight in one direction, and the game has no facing rules. You are looking in all directions at once.
So in order for you to say you can hide out in the open you need a rule that says you can do so. Stealth has no language saying it bypasses the rule in the combat chapter.
It does say you can use stealth while moving, and part of your movement is out in that open area where you no longer have cover or concealment. At that point you no longer qualify for stealth.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you cant get behind them you must either be to the front or to the side. I.e. not in a blind spot. If you're not in their blindspot no matter what position you are relative to them then they have to be facing all directions at once. Otherwise there would be an area where you could not be seen.
I figure out if a character is in the blindspot by Perception checks.
|
|
Try this:
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html
Most unfortunately, the title and discussion are a TOTAL SPOILER but I can't find it any other way.
It's a case of not perceived in the plainest plain sight.
"When you're up to your tail in alligators, it's hard to remember..."
In combat, you are concentrating on avoiding being killed and killing your target. Other creatures can be easily overlooked - even a gorilla in plain sight.
I had a personal experience with a pet tiger.
It was at a Maryland renfest decades ago some people had brought a young pet tiger in a stout chain and were allowing people to pet it. It was a very laid back happy tiger. It was near closing at sunset in a light wood of young trees with grass less than knee high. They were preparing to leave and took the tiger out to take a dump. He was about 30-40 ft away in plain sight and I was looking right at him side on when he froze still and disappeared right in front of my eyes.
"Eyes!!
"What?!"
"There's a tiger right there!!!
"There's no tiger - just your imagination"
"NO!! TIGER!! THERE!!
"There's no tiger!"
Then he moved.
"Oh that tiger."
I will NEVER trust my eyes/visual processing system again!!
And I'm sure evolution allowed him to do it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're trying to say that the direction a person is facing is determined by a diceroll.
No, because I said nothing about facing. The blindspot is constantly shifting positions. If you're on the same side of a person your target is fighting, obviously their attention was on that person and they did not catch you in their peripheral.
Combat is abstract for a reason. Find the level of abstraction you can deal with and roll with it.
|
|
No, I'm saying I abstract it via Perception rolls, since those are the only place in the rules that actually determine if a creature is observed or not.
I suppose I am explaining it poorly. I'm not determining facing, I am determining if creatures are observed.
Any place you are not looking is your blindspot. Since you are constantly looking around, your blindspot is constantly moving. So I roll opposed checks to see if the stealthing character moves when the perceiver isn't looking that way.
I f&!*ing love Tenchu.
Just had to get that out of my system.
Me too!
Brothers, I had no idea.
Sometimes when dming I use tenchu quotes, ("you need to try harder, you need to focus!") and no one ever gets it.
Flanking comes from attacking the rear left or rear right of a target or unit. The left flank, the right flank. If there is no facing, no front or back, there should be no flanking.
I am aware the rules view flanking a bit differently to this, lines through and what not, but if you run it so that facing matters, flanking is really easy to grasp and pull off (as is stealth). If someone is attacked from both sides, they may choose their front, but they always have flanks and a rear square, which can be exploited. It is how we have done it for years.
If you use miniatures, the flanks of a piece are really clear. What direction is the model not facing?
I am aware the rules view flanking a bit differently to this...
Let me know when I should jump in with how D6 or Gurps runs things...
well, lets put it this way. You just openly admitted you can't get around behind someone because there is no favored direction.
If you cant get behind them you must either be to the front or to the side. I.e. not in a blind spot. If you're not in their blindspot no matter what position you are relative to them then they have to be facing all directions at once. Otherwise there would be an area where you could not be seen.
This is obviously not the case in pathfinder. Basically, why can't you get behind them? Because they're always facing you. If they're always facing you regardless of your position then they are basically schrodingers cat. They're basically assumed to be facing all directions and not facing them at any given point in time because you can't identify what direction they would be facing.
You are trying to use real life logic. I am just telling you what the book says, and what the devs have said. If I can draw a line from me to you without any obstructions then you are in my line of sight. Point blank period. That is the rule.
No, I'm saying I abstract it via Perception rolls, since those are the only place in the rules that actually determine if a creature is observed or not.
I suppose I am explaining it poorly. I'm not determining facing, I am determining if creatures are observed.
Any place you are not looking is your blindspot. Since you are constantly looking around, your blindspot is constantly moving. So I roll opposed checks to see if the stealthing character moves when the perceiver isn't looking that way.
I think you're explaining it fine - I just think the two of you are explaining different things (or trying to make the rules address different questions).
Here is SKR critiquing an item in the superstar competition.
*unorthodox "use your damage as your CMB check" mechanic
*rays using splash mechanics are also strange (especially as part of a teleport)
*40 ft. radius is a HUGE circle of flame, bigger than most dungeon rooms
*has an italicized descriptive intro, which no magic item in the Core Rulebook does
*"Behind" doesn't exist in a game without facing.
*overall, cool idea, presentation and rules-fu is lacking
There you go. The game has no facing.
Unless they are momentarily distracted, like looking to another side.
In game terms: If I can draw a line from any corner of my square to the corner of the square the "hiding" character is in then I can see him.
Sigh...Yes, and that is accounted for in the rules, but unless a distraction is in play the character can't hide, and even with distraction in play he still has to end his movement behind cover or concealment.
Where are these things said in the rules?Why do people assume that not having facing rules means that everyone has eyes in a ring around their head?Because the rules say so, and so have the devs.
All it takes to be able to see someone is line of sight.
In game terms: If I can draw a line from any corner of my square to the corner of the square the "hiding" character is in then I can see him.
I had this conversation with 3.5 loyalist. I will cite the rules for now. Later if I can find the link I will give you the link also.
Before I go searching these rules are in the combat chapter.
I will assume you already know that cover partially blocks line of affect, and total cover blocks line of sight and line of affect.
Here is how cover is determined. If you don't have cover then line of sigh
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
Note that cover does not block line of sight, only line of affect so he can still be seen.
In short cover deals with line of affect.
Concealment deals with line of sight.
...
Total Concealment: If you have
A phrase like Line of sight makes sense in the real world, but in the real world something that you are not looking at is not in your line of sight regardless of cover or concealment, so you wouldn't have line of sight to someone who was 10 feet behind you.
The issue is the apparent constant 360 vision that I see little actual support for in the rules.
The issue is the apparent constant 360 vision that I see little actual support for in the rules.
It's a constant, 360 degree field of potential vision. It's not that you can see everything all around you it's that you might see something happening around you, irrespective of its position.
A phrase like Line of sight makes sense in the real world, but in the real world something that you are not looking at is not in your line of sight regardless of cover or concealment, so you wouldn't have line of sight to someone who was 10 feet behind you.
The issue is the apparent constant 360 vision that I see little actual support for in the rules.
In a game where you never face one direction because you effectively have 360 vision you don't have a behind.