|
Before I discuss this with my GM, I am asking if anyone is familiar with something I may be over looking. My understanding is that a PC or NPC will not block line of sight or line of effect. For example, people can shoot through cover. Even if you count a body as a solid barrier, later in the rules, it mentions that an opening 1 square foot is enough to target through a wall. Are we suppose to abstract that the body takes up the entire 5’ square? I understand that sometimes, abstracting to 5’ cubes helps but when I can target through a window, I should be able to target between someone’s legs or to the side of their shoulder.
My GM keeps telling me I cannot see everyone on the field who I try to target. I could accept that if there was a mob of people, I might not be able to always target a specific person within that mob. That many people might prevent me from keeping the person in sight. What I believe is a problem is how he sometimes tells me I cannot see someone because there are only 2 or 3 people between them and myself, spread out over at least 15 feet, sometimes more space.
Thank you all for any feedback.
Creatures generally do not block line of sight or line of effect, but they can provide cover if they are directly in the way.
No, a person is not 125 cubic feet of meat.
These are the penalties your GM should be enforcing.
1) If the person you are targeting is engaged in melee with an ally, any ranged attack rolls (including ranged touch attacks from spells) take a -4 unless you have the precise shot feat.
2) If there is a creature directly between you and the creature you are targeting, they get cover on the attack (raising their AC).
It can be harder to target people, but creature's do not block line of sight or line of effect. Unless you're squeezing through a tunnel or something like that.
My GM keeps telling me
That there is The One Rule you're stuck with.
That said: you have Line of Sight as soon as you can see even a sliver of the target. Line of Effect's a bit more tricky though. You cannot "shoot through cover" with a spell (unless the spell creates an indiscriminate projectile of course). And whether or not you can spot the intended target is irrelevant too, you just need to be able to draw an unblocked line.I'm not aware of any specific rules, but I could see a situation where you cannot pinpoint a person in among a group of people milling about. Even when you might have LoS and LoE. But that would be a GM's interpretation.
|
|
To my GM's credit, he has on several ocations listened to discussions on disagreements on the rules and learned from them. So he is open to debate and being convinced to change how he runs the game.
The flavor text and name does include an Energy Missle(actually a psionic power from both 3.5 and PF 3rd party publishing Dreamscared Press) shooting out, but again, it is flavor text. There is no attack roll, only a saving throw by the target.
To my GM's credit, he has on several ocations listened to discussions on disagreements on the rules and learned from them. So he is open to debate and being convinced to change how he runs the game.
Excellent. I have some feedback then.
The rules are clear how this work. As mentioned above, cover applies, and that's it. It doesn't matter if there is one creature in the way or a dozen creatures, the penalty is the same. That's how the rules work.
That said, most (good) DMs are trained to look at situations and judge them based on realism. "What would the NPC do after the player's actions?" is the starting question for each instance of the "DM simulation loop". Everything boils down to "what is the universe's response to the player's choices?" We're always thinking in a simulation. And in our heads, we imagine a crowd and recognize that a dozen creatures in the way would totally block line of sight. We know it's true, so there's an urge to run the rules that way.
Only problem is... that's not what the rules say. The game rules are simplified to not drag things into micro-accounting. Having a huge table or formula for stuff like this isn't worth it. So the rules were written to abstract things down to "cover" and "no cover".
A word of advice. As a player, I love a DM who grasps reality, as long as it doesn't go against the rules. An example is a circumstance where a couple of us players used a large stone table to squish a swarm of beetles. Martial area-effect damage. The DM allowed this. I think that was the right choice because the rules are silent on what happens if you use a wide, flat, heavy object on a swarm. If a similar tactic was used against us, again, I'd support it as it's improvising a sensible rule where none exists.
But when the rules do exist and the DM goes off the reservation, I find it very unsettling. (House-rules aside.) It's very immersion-breaking because I think I have this mental idea of how the game-world works, and I know what my characters can do and how, and then suddenly... "no, that doesn't work because... reasons." Even if the reasons are good, the fact that they're against the rules is jarring to me*. What else that I think I can do is going to turn out impossible?
So my advice to a DM is to be very, very sparing with overriding written rules.
*Note: I have zero problem with monsters that "break the rules", because unique and unexpected monster abilities are interesting. The first time you encounter regeneration, it's mind-blowing. The first time you encounter a hydra, it's amazing. The first time you get swallowed hole, it's fan-freaking-tastic. The first time you get told "you can't do non-lethal with a longspear because it makes no sense", it's... well... wait, but... the book says... oh, it doesn't matter what the book says... okay, I guess... my character will just... um... pass on this round because I have no clue what else I might try that may or may not work, kind of randomly. << True story about a DM I deeply respect, but never forget the way this ruling felt at the time.