|
the border has no width.it didn't pass through. there is no line drawn that Passes thru, it only runs along... as you said.
it didn't pass throughThose aren't mutually exclusive. If I have a log I can put a drill through it to form a T or i can put a drill through it to make a pipe.
And thats where you've stepped out of raw. Does a border have width is not something thats covered.
Also note the way you're reading it, there's no penalty for fighting around a corner or through a doorway because the corner of your space always hits the other persons squares without "passing through" :unless they're big, oddly enough making them HARDER to hit.
|
If I'm walking around in the room right next to you, invisible, I have a +20 to my Stealth.
If I'm walking around behind a wall, completely out of site, I have a +30 to my Stealth (+10 for the wall, and +20 for the fact you cant see me).
If I'm walking around completely visibly, right next to you, but you are blind. I get a +20 to my Stealth.
Being Invisible and Behind a wall would only give me a +30 (+20 for you not being able to see me, and +10 for the wall).
The fact that you can't see me, gives me the condition of invisibility, and thus the +20.
The +10 for a wall is because you can't hear me as well through a wall.
It is possible that a perception check, at a wall, would only be a +10 on the DC, because you are specifically using a "hearing" perception check. As such, the information you get will only be based on what's audible. But that's if the creatures on the other side of the wall are specifically making noise and not trying to be Stealthy at all.
If I can "see" any part of your square, from any part of my square, then the wall would not impart the +20 to Stealth for you not being able to see me.
|
Although improved cover gives you a +10 to your stealth check and being behind a wall with total cover gives the perception DC a +10.
I don't think Improved Cover and Total Cover stack. An enemy with Improved Cover can still be targeted, while an enemy with Total Cover cannot. The example for Improved is an arrow slit, which is not the same as being behind a solid wall.
|
|
I suspect invisibility is a special case because you think you're supposed to see someone if they're there.
If Bob and Bill are standing next to one another, and Bob is invisible, and there's no lights on, is Bill easier to perceive?
I didn't say the rules made sense. However, the +20 to Stealth that the Invisibility condition provides is so drastic, I don't feel comfortable applying it to anything that does not explicitly grant it.
But part of my epiphany when I burnt out on organized play after Fantasy Flight Games discontinued support for Living Dragonstar at Origins 2004 and then discontinued their Dragonstar line at Gen Con 2004, was that as a GM, I deserved to have fun as well. And there are certain play styles (or character builds) that are not fun for me as a GM, no matter how much fun the player(s) seem to be having.
You know, I met a PFS GM once who said he wasn't really happy with games unless he got a TPK (he wasn't often happy). He said he could settle for a couple deaths per scenario, but he really wanted that TPK. Now, if I'm supposed to nerf my characters to make you happy, shouldn't I nerf them even further to let Mr. "kill em all" get his TPK? Why should I give your desires any higher priority than his?
To give my bias, when I started gaming, back when gold was xp, the idea was to survive dungeons any way you could and escape with the gold. If you could avoid, negotiate or outthink encounters, it was good. In fact, if you could manage to work your way through a dungeon without a single roll, it was considered incredible. But evidently, if by dint of inspired role-playing, carefull examination, deduction, and fiendish inventiveness, we managed to escape the dungeon without making a single roll, the response should be "No, you don't get any XP, you weren't CHALLENGED!"
A couple decades later I was in a 3.0 dungeon where there was a lethal trap that consisted of a section of ceiling repeatedly smashing down on the floor. I returned to an earlier room where there was a nest of rust monsters, and using a dagger lured him into the trap. The springs rusted, the plate came crashing down, and the GM shrugged and said " Congratulations, you broke it." No rolls, 100% chance of success. Which is evidently badwrongfun, because I guess I was supposed to fiddle with Disable Device, and get my chance to get squished. I've also recently seen a trap set off using Mage Hand-evidently that shouldn't earn experience either, since that had no chance of failure and didn't expend any resources.
The bottom line for me is that it is not my job in Pathfinder games to have my character get hurt or killed so the GMs can get their jollies. My job is to build my character and play in a manner that maximizes my chances of winning the scenario, while still following the rules. For your part, it's the job of the GM to kill or defeat the party to the best of their ability, also while following the rules. Make no mistake- when playing PFS, you are my opponent. PFS is not a cooperative narrative building exercise- it is a tactical warfare simulation disguised as an rpg. So I expect the GM to do his best to win, just as I do my best to win.
Of course I think part of the problem is that PFS puts way too much emphasis on a "follow the dotted line" approach to scenarios. It's no wonder GMs get shirty about high skill levels if the expectation is that players should obediently trot from one encounter to the next.