This came up at a PFS table I was GMing several weeks back. According to the PRD (and my sixth printing corebook):
"Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."
(emphasis mine)
Surely this should read line of effect, rather than line of sight? Otherwise this implies that shooting a target in darkness or concealment isn't possible.
Obviously in a home game, I just rule this as line of effect and move on, but it would be nice to have the wording changed for PFS purposes.
|
This came up at a PFS table I was GMing several weeks back. According to the PRD (and my sixth printing corebook):
"Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."(emphasis mine)
Surely this should read line of effect, rather than line of sight? Otherwise this implies that shooting a target in darkness or concealment isn't possible.
Obviously in a home game, I just rule this as line of effect and move on, but it would be nice to have the wording changed for PFS purposes.
There is some logic here. I don't know if it is the intended logic and how well it work in game.
If we are shooting at someone invisible or in complete darkness we shoot at the square. If the target is invisible it work perfectly, but how can we go around shooting a square in complete darkness if we can't even see the square?"I shoot at square X that is 3 squares away and 2 on the left" ....
That is a metagaming construct, one that we usually use because we see on the gaming grid where the enemies are.
On the other hand if we remove that construct we need a alternate mechanic to try what is done in reality, attacking a area in the hope of getting a lucky hit.
If I hear the noise of people moving toward me in a 5' corridor I can fire my bow toward the noise and have a decent chance of hitting someone (or the walls/ceiling/floor if I aim badly), so we need some mechanic to do that.
I think that aiming at a square, even if we don't see it, work reasonably well. I don't see an alternate mechanic that is both simple and work reasonably well.
Not a rules lawyer, typically, so this is a serious question, because I don't know the rules for invisibility.
Is a creature that is invisible also "out of sight" by RAW definition? (I don't know, and can't look it up where I am.) If you can make a melee attack against an invisible creature in the square next to you, how is that technically allowed by rule? (I know, concealment check; but how do you swing at something that's not in line of sight? Same thing should apply both ways with regard to a target in an invisible square (that can be seen).
With regard to total concealment, sort of the same thing. Just because you're in a square that offers total concealment does not necessarily mean you are totally concealed (at least I don't think it does; that becomes part of the question). Normally to be concealed you have to make an opposed stealth check (versus perceiver's rolled perception).
To hit a invisible creature or one with total concealment you attack the square, not the creature.
Right. Meaning the square is the target. And if the square is in the middle of a cloud, you can't see it, therefore according to RAW, you can't target it, no?
Again, I understand how it works. I would simply like it if the rules were clear.
|
To hit a invisible creature or one with total concealment you attack the square, not the creature.
Not correct as stated. Per the PRD:
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.
You pick the square you think the creature is in, and you resolve the attack against the creature normally (if it's there). If it's not in that square, you automatically miss.
Back to the OP - I think Diego has it correct in the second post above.
Back in 2009, there was a 100+ post thread on "line-of-sight". The following reply by Sean Reynolds may satisfy the OP (I'm cutting out some stuff - so look it up yourself if you want the full text):
Tom Baumbach wrote: If this is true, you can't make ranged attacks while blinded or against invisible creatures, even if you have somehow pinpointed their location. True? (If so, that's a new one on me.)
Zurai wrote: Technically speaking, the rules for ranged attacks in the Core Rulebook state that you can make a ranged attack to any creature you have line of sight to. So, by RAW, Tom's right.
Sean replied:
(1) That sentence should read "line of effect" to be perfectly accurate.
(2) The rules also say on page 197 that you can still attack a target if you have line of effect but not line of sight (well, technically you're attacking the square, but it amounts to the same thing).
Not a rules lawyer, typically, so this is a serious question, because I don't know the rules for invisibility.
Is a creature that is invisible also "out of sight" by RAW definition? (I don't know, and can't look it up where I am.) If you can make a melee attack against an invisible creature in the square next to you, how is that technically allowed by rule? (I know, concealment check; but how do you swing at something that's not in line of sight? Same thing should apply both ways with regard to a target in an invisible square (that can be seen).
With regard to total concealment, sort of the same thing. Just because you're in a square that offers total concealment does not necessarily mean you are totally concealed (at least I don't think it does; that becomes part of the question). Normally to be concealed you have to make an opposed stealth check (versus perceiver's rolled perception).
I don't agree with this. If you are in a pitch-black room (absolutely dark) you automatically have total concealment. The same goes for other situations where the lightlevel=dark/supernatural darkness.
If your enemy suspects your true position he may then (and only then) try to pinpoint your exact position/square with a Perception check vs your Stealth. And concealment may grant you a bonus on your Stealth roll (haven't checked).