If a blind master fencer (example) is wearing Tremor Boots with a radius of, say, 20 feet - how many of his penalties for his Condition: Blinded would then be removed would you say?
As far as I can tell, he would not suffer the miss chance to striking other creatures in melee but which/how many of the other penalties would still be in effect?
Tremor sense grants specific abilities, it does not remove specific penalties. So, you would apply all of the penalties of blinded, and then remove the ones removed by the boots. Even if you can detect a creature, it's still not the normal way you operate, and you are still disadvantaged without your visual faculties.
You need blindsight to totally overcome blindness.
Tremorsense or Blindsense just let you pinpoint locations, they dont remove any of the penalties for being blind, including but not limited to the 50% penalty.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tremorsense can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water.
This lets you make an attack vs something without seeing it. You can target a creature's square without needing to roll a perception check. You still suffer any miss change from concealment or any other penalties from being blinded.
You would need blindsight to ignore the penalties being blinded. The Blindfight feats would reduce those penalties.
Ah, I see, thanks.
So tremorsense is more useful in the sense of e.g a monster being able to sense someone sneaking up on it from behind - but it would still need to turn its head to strike the person - otherwise it would simply attack the relevant hex (e.g. with a tail slap) and receive all the normal penalties and miss chances in doing so?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no facing in Pathfinder. A creature can take a religious vow to face north at all times without affecting its combat abilities.
There is no facing in Pathfinder. A creature can take a religious vow to face north at all times without affecting its combat abilities.
If there was truly no facing in pathfinder, then there is no sneak attacking rogues, no flanking, and no perception(spot) checks to notice someone behind you since without facing it means someone has omni eyes. That breaks the system. Sorry, but there is facing.
He meant in combat, in the sense that a dragon can slap his tail against someone right "in front of him".
|
If there was truly no facing in pathfinder, then there is no sneak attacking rogues, no flanking, and no perception(spot) checks to notice someone behind you since without facing it means someone has omni eyes. That breaks the system. Sorry, but there is facing.There is no facing in Pathfinder. A creature can take a religious vow to face north at all times without affecting its combat abilities.
Sneak attacking has nothing to do with facing which way your opponent is facing, its about going first in combat or being stealthy and hiding before the attack.
Flanking has nothing to do with facing, it is about a creature being harried from both sides allowing it's attackers an advantage against it.Perception checks don't have rule about not being able to be made behind someone. You can make perception checks behind you.
There is no facing and pretending that there are rules to make it so doesn't make it so.
If there was truly no facing in pathfinder, then there is no sneak attacking rogues, no flanking, and no perception(spot) checks to notice someone behind you since without facing it means someone has omni eyes. That breaks the system. Sorry, but there is facing.
A character is assumed to be turning to face in the most useful direction all the time. If flanked, then you can't face both ways at once and attackers can get bonuses by taking the opportunity to attack in the brief moment when your back is turned. But by RAW there are no perception checks required to notice someone 'behind you' because you are assumed to be checking behind you all the time anyway.
|
If there was truly no facing in pathfinder, then there is no sneak attacking rogues, no flanking, and no perception(spot) checks to notice someone behind you since without facing it means someone has omni eyes. That breaks the system. Sorry, but there is facing.There is no facing in Pathfinder. A creature can take a religious vow to face north at all times without affecting its combat abilities.
Actually, it's exactly as difficult to sneak up behind someone as it is to sneak up in front of them. It almost automatically fails either way if you don't have cover or concealment. While you can certainly houserule it, there is no perception penalty or stealth bonus for sneaking up behind someone.
EDIT: T-T-T-TRIPLE NINJA'D!
That's why I said omni eyes. It truly is game breaking to say one can see in all directions at once. It's simple physics, and you know the biological condition of humanoid bodies. A person who is not aware of your presence, is not looking at you, i.e. looking in another direction. That's facing. It may not be specifically called out in RAW, but real world physics/biology comes into play when it isn't stated. I myself would always house rule it that way for it makes logical sense. The writers were a bit shortsighted in that regard with facing. The only things I know of with omni senses are oozes, tremorsense, and blind sense. I'm sure there might be others that I'm missing, but a pc shouldn't have omni eyes. (unless he's a fly?) Incidentally, there is a negative for trying to sneak attack someone that is looking at you.
That's why I said omni eyes. It truly is game breaking to say one can see in all directions at once. It's simple physics, and you know the biological condition of humanoid bodies. A person who is not aware of your presence, is not looking at you, i.e. looking in another direction. That's facing. It may not be specifically called out in RAW, but real world physics/biology comes into play when it isn't stated. I myself would always house rule it that way for it makes logical sense. The writers were a bit shortsighted in that regard with facing. The only things I know of with omni senses are oozes, tremorsense, and blind sense. I'm sure there might be others that I'm missing, but a pc shouldn't have omni eyes. (unless he's a fly?) Incidentally, there is a negative for trying to sneak attack someone that is looking at you.
What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
And the existence of flanking doesn't necessitate that there is facing. It's not entirely unrelated in that the concepts underlying the two are similar and tend to overlap. But there's no facing.
What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first. I saw another thread on this topic, and I second it. Humans are not beholders, or as I said, oozes.
When it comes to facing in general, while it is true that in combat, one is constantly on the lookout for attackers as per the rules. But here is why it is nonsense. Your character is not doing that at all times. If your pc was walking through town walking around in attack position looking all around constantly, the guards will poke you on the shoulder "sir, are you ok?" If you respond you're waiting for an attack, he'll likely respond that your safe in this place and ask why you're so paranoid. If you refuse to go into unguarded position, they might think you're insane, and lock you up "for your own good."
Logic dictates you use real world physics when the game doesn't go into enough detail, and indeed the rules say as such.
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first. ...
Or you are flanking with an ally or you draw a concealed weapon or your target is denied his DEX bonus or or or..
Facing is not relevant in PF. There are alot of conditions, abilities or actions that allow sneaking while looking directly into the eyes of your target.In following part of your post you are talking a surprise round. When you walk through the city, someone stops you and attacks you then it is a surprise situation. If you are surprised (or you roll a low initiative) you are flatfooted and your enemy can sneak you directly smiling in your face. The following rounds he need a friend, a feint or other things that allow sneaking. Facing is not relevant in PF.
By the rules you are effectively facing in all directions. In the game monster get an ability that actually allows it.
Per the rules if you can a line from your square to another character with an obstruction then you can see them. There is no behind or in front.
edit: for clarification and I am simplifying it, but that is how it works, and that is the intended rules.
Meiliken, by the rules of the game you are wrong. Flat-out.
If you wish to house rule that's fine, but don't suggest that your statements are factual to how the game rules are set and intended to work. There is no facing. And we do not use real world physics or logic, attempting to do so breaks the game terribly. Especially when "MAGIC" is the counterpoint and pervassive through the entire setting.
Just because you can't accept it, doesn't mean you're correct.
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first.What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
I'm afraid that's not true.
Consider the following:
O O O
O X O
O O O
A human, surrounded on all sides by eight goblin rogues or something.
All of the goblins are flanking, and all of them have the ability to sneak attack.
Now, if a friendly wizard cast a sleep spell and knocked out all but the northern, southeastern, and western goblin, none would be flanking, despite the fact that any single direction the human was facing would effectively put at least one goblin out of his line of vision.
The reason is simple : there is no facing in Pathfinder. There's also a very good reason for that: the combat system is an abstraction, a combat round is a long time, and you can move your head. Just as there's a lot of Flynning in a typical round where you roll only once for an effective blow, there's also a lot of jockeying for position where the human would be turning around to face any of several goblins for just long enough to block a single blow.
This is abstracted into the flanking rules, which do not hinge on facing (which changes from moment to moment) but on positioning, which is much slower to change and is appropriately represented by move actions during the round.
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first.What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
I'm afraid that's not true.
Consider the following:
O O O
O X O
O O OA human, surrounded on all sides by eight goblin rogues or something.
All of the goblins are flanking, and all of them have the ability to sneak attack.
Plus, you can get a sneak attack on someone who is looking at you if the target hasn't acted yet in combat.
Interesting. If there is no facing, then why are there monster abilities that grant creatures the ability to have 360 degrees of spherical sight?
All-Around Vision (Ex) The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.
Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.
Letting PCs see what's going on at every which way at any time during the round means the PCs either have this ability, or they're metagaming. And I'm sure not every PC you're playing with wears Arachnid Goggles...
|
|
Facing is abstracted by flanking. The only thing All-Around Vision does is that it make you immune to flanking.
Pathfinder is not a simulationist game. With peripheral vision and an half second turn of you head in response to the sound of something moving behind you can let you know something is there. Being able to react enough to fully defend against that threat is restricted by having something equally threatening on you opposite side, not being able to give either your full attention.
If you want to track facing second to second that is the realm of either house rules or another game with more realistic combat like GURPS.
Interesting. If there is no facing, then why are there monster abilities that grant creatures the ability to have 360 degrees of spherical sight?
Letting PCs see what's going on at every which way at any time during the round means the PCs either have this ability, or they're metagaming. And I'm sure not every PC you're playing with wears Arachnid Goggles...All-Around Vision (Ex) The creature sees in all directions at once. It cannot be flanked.
Format: all-around vision; Location: Defensive Abilities.
The purpose of that ability is that it cannot be flanked.
There is no facing, but there is a head-nod to the concept in that you can be flanked by having enemies on opposing sides of you.
That there is no flanking doesn't mean that the game doesn't recognize that it's difficult to fight combatants who are all around you. The standard state of things though is that your head is "on a swivel" where ever you are. So, effectively you're looking in all directions.
That being said, it's difficult to do that effectively when you have two attackers standing on opposite sides of you. Hence, flanking. All-Around vision means they don't have to worry about that drawback because it's not distracting if you don't have to whip your head back and forth to keep track of attackers on either side of you.
I'm finding this amusing that everyone is ignoring that I agreed that the pathfinder system doesn't use facing. I'm not arguing that, so hashing on that is a bit irrelevant. I've stated it is broken. Certain monsters have all around senses, fact. Humans do not, fact. This is why the designers failed. They didn't put in specifics on this since some monsters have specifically "all around senses", but there is no facing, which in turn makes "all around senses" pointless for said monsters. I think it's similar in flavor that I think it's broken that you can't hide in shadows against someone with darkvision/low light vision. I myself have never played in a game where facing wasn't used, or even negating hiding with darkvision/low light vision. If you can explain away those errors in the system, please do, because I think the designers failed. Incidentally, the only time I use house rules are when it either makes sense logically, or the system fails.
It kinda sounds like some agree with facing, some don't. I guess everyone has their preference.
Certain monsters have all around senses, fact. Humans do not, fact. This is why the designers failed. They didn't put in specifics on this since some monsters have specifically "all around senses", but there is no facing, which in turn makes "all around senses" pointless for said monsters.
It does not.
"All-around vision" means that you can't be flanked; in the situation I described above, the human -- now a monster with all-around vision -- would not be flanked by any of the goblin rogues, and hence they couldn't use sneak attack.
That's a significant difference. In addition, there's the other tactical advantages such as the to-hit bonus, et cetera.
Basically, the flanking mechanism captures the abstract difficulty of fighting two creatures on opposite sides of you, and thus being forced to attend to one at a time. If there's no such difficulty, there's no flanking.
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first. I saw another thread on this topic, and I second it. Humans are not beholders, or as I said, oozes.What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
As has been noted by others, you are incorrect. It's "sneak attack" not "back stab".
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.
You're striking vital targets on the body, not necessarily striking someone who is unaware of you ("unable to defend himself effectively" does not mean "unaware of the attack"). There are vital targets of the body accessible from the front. Ergo, you can sneak attack from the front.
Logic dictates you use real world physics when the game doesn't go into enough detail, and indeed the rules say as such.
Logic dictates that when you are playing a game based upon a system of rules and those rules comprehensively cover a particular situation, you ought to follow those rules even if doing so might disagree with real world physics.
You can't sneak attack someone that is looking at you. If you want to do that, you have to use the feint action(bluff) first. I saw another thread on this topic, and I second it. Humans are not beholders, or as I said, oozes.What negatives exist for sneak attacking someone who is looking at you that aren't also present for someone who is looking away from you?
As has been noted by others, you are incorrect. It's "sneak attack" not "back stab".
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.
You're striking vital targets on the body, not necessarily striking someone who is unaware of you ("unable to defend himself effectively" does not mean "unaware of the attack"). There are vital targets of the body accessible from the front. Ergo, you can sneak attack from the front.
Logic dictates you use real world physics when the game doesn't go into enough detail, and indeed the rules say as such.Logic dictates that when you are playing a game based upon a system of rules and those rules comprehensively cover a particular situation, you ought to follow those rules even if doing so might disagree with real world physics.
Thanks, that actually makes a little more sense. I have to admit, I started playing since 2nd ed, and always attributed SA with back stabbing. It does kinda curtail the rogue a bit which is a needed thing. Any insights into the quandary of darkvision/low light vision negating hiding in shadows?
I'm finding this amusing that everyone is ignoring that I agreed that the pathfinder system doesn't use facing. I'm not arguing that, so hashing on that is a bit irrelevant. I've stated it is broken. Certain monsters have all around senses, fact. Humans do not, fact. This is why the designers failed. They didn't put in specifics on this since some monsters have specifically "all around senses", but there is no facing, which in turn makes "all around senses" pointless for said monsters. I think it's similar in flavor that I think it's broken that you can't hide in shadows against someone with darkvision/low light vision. I myself have never played in a game where facing wasn't used, or even negating hiding with darkvision/low light vision. If you can explain away those errors in the system, please do, because I think the designers failed. Incidentally, the only time I use house rules are when it either makes sense logically, or the system fails.
It kinda sounds like some agree with facing, some don't. I guess everyone has their preference.
There is no "hide in shadows" in PF, that's also a 2nd Edition thing (that's also when I started playing, which is why I picked up on the reference). Being in an area of dim lighting allows you to make a stealth check because your position is concealed and obscured, even if only partially.
What allows you to make your stealth check is your positioning within an area which provides poor illumination. However, and this is key, if your opponent has darkvision that you are standing in poor lighting is irrelevant. They can see in the dark, so why should it matter that you're standing in the dark? Why can't you hide in shadows against someone with darkvision? Because to a person with darkvision there are no shadows.
EDIT: For tone. Came off much snarkier than I intended.
Any insights into the quandary of darkvision/low light vision negating hiding in shadows?
"Hiding in shadows" is another 2nd ed term that carries potentially confusing baggage.
You need cover or concealment to make a Stealth check (PF term); poor lighting can provide concealment but only against creatures that have difficulty seeing in poor lighting.
There is no "hide in shadows" in PF, that's also a 2nd Edition thing (that's also when I started playing, which is why I picked up on the reference). Being in an area of dim lighting allows you to make a stealth check because your position is concealed and obscured, even if only partially.
What allows you to make your stealth check is your positioning within an area which provides poor illumination. However, and this is key, if your opponent has darkvision that you are standing in poor lighting is irrelevant. They can see in the dark, so why should it matter that you're standing in the dark? Why can't you hide in shadows against someone with darkvision? Because to a person with darkvision there are no shadows.
EDIT: For tone. Came off much snarkier than I intended.
Aye, darkvision negating shadows and such, and since most things have darkvision, the rogue is further curb stomped. At least until HiPS ;)
|
|
Aye, darkvision negating shadows and such, and since most things have darkvision, the rogue is further curb stomped. At least until HiPS ;)There is no "hide in shadows" in PF, that's also a 2nd Edition thing (that's also when I started playing, which is why I picked up on the reference). Being in an area of dim lighting allows you to make a stealth check because your position is concealed and obscured, even if only partially.
What allows you to make your stealth check is your positioning within an area which provides poor illumination. However, and this is key, if your opponent has darkvision that you are standing in poor lighting is irrelevant. They can see in the dark, so why should it matter that you're standing in the dark? Why can't you hide in shadows against someone with darkvision? Because to a person with darkvision there are no shadows.
EDIT: For tone. Came off much snarkier than I intended.
Too bad Hide in Plain Sight only works in one terrain type.