Tarantula wrote: Tremor sense and blind sense do not give line of sight. If he was invisible, they would also not be able to charge, because they cannot see him. They know he is in that space, but no line of sight is present. They are not precise senses, they let you pinpoint the square, that's it. So an Earth Elemental that is fighting with another Earth Elemental on their home Plane of Earth (probably due to a territory dispute - you know those elementals...), will never be capable of charging his foe while earthgliding? That doesn't seem right.
Tarantula wrote: Lances are reach weapons, so they would be 10' away when attacking in the mist, which would still allow him total concealment. Mist grants 20% concealment within 5', and 50% 10'+. Ah! You are quite correct on that point. I forgot that in this scenario it was established that they had lances. I thereby remove Blindsense from my list.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: No charge!
YOur death is free
Though you still mist your opportunity to save.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Oddman80 wrote: Tarantula wrote: Tremor sense and blind sense do not give line of sight. If he was invisible, they would also not be able to charge, because they cannot see him. They know he is in that space, but no line of sight is present. They are not precise senses, they let you pinpoint the square, that's it. So an Earth Elemental that is fighting with another Earth Elemental on their home Plane of Earth (probably due to a territory dispute - you know those elementals...), will never be capable of charging his foe while earthgliding? That doesn't seem right. Yes. Tremor sense gives you the square, but not LOS. You can't charge things you don't have LOS to.
The same thing would happen if you had blindsense, and wanted to charge an invisible creature. You know the square, but you do not have LOS to the creature, so you can't charge it per the charge rules.
House rule? I'd probably let you try to charge and apply the 50% concealment, but RAW is no charge.
CBDunkerson wrote: Note that being unable to see where you are going counts as hampered movement and thus halves your speed and prevents running or taking a 5' step.
Thus, I'd say it is difficult to charge an enemy in fog even if you DID have line of sight at the start of your turn.
Indeed, I don't see any reason that it would be easier to charge a square you can't currently see if you last saw it at the start of your turn vs earlier the same round.
Forgot this...
Hampered Movement also prevents charging.
Quote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge
Poor visibility also prevents charging since it applies a movement penalty, unless the charging creature can see through.
Yorien wrote: Poor visibility also prevents charging since it applies a movement penalty, unless the charging creature can see through. Fog doesn't restrict movement normally as you can see 5' around you.
andreww wrote: Fog doesn't restrict movement normally as you can see 5' around you. Not particularly helpful if you are 6' tall and thus can't see the root you are about to trip over.
Yorien wrote: Poor visibility also prevents charging since it applies a movement penalty, unless the charging creature can see through. Poor visibility does not reduce movement. Whether you can see 100 feet, 30 feet, or 5 feet, unless it says it reduces your movement it does not. A solid fog would prevent charging for the reasons you mention, both because you can't see your target from further than 5 feet away and because it slows your movement. An oracle with the blind curse (Clouded Vision; cannot see beyond 30 feet) is not slowed down in any way any more than a person with 10 foot vision would be.
CBDunkserson wrote: Not particularly helpful if you are 6' tall and thus can't see the root you are about to trip over. The grid system is laid out for 2D purposes, as has been mentioned many times and 3D movement and interaction does not always translate directly. The 5-foot vision radius is intended to mean that you can see that many squares worth away from you (in a combat scenario, which is what is being discussed here, since otherwise you wouldn't be charging someone.) It does not matter whether you are 4 feet tall, 6 feet tall, or 8 feet tall or even if you are a Large-size tall creature. If you move adjacent to a target you are able to see them (in obscuring mist) though they still have concealment and a 20% miss chance.
You are welcome to rule otherwise in your game and there might be situations or specific encounters that could use that mechanic. You can certainly allow characters to sneak past a Titan on guard duty by saying he can't see below his knees, but that is not a combat situation. In combat, just like the facing rule now, where you don't have a 'front or back', you have to understand that is how the system works. A Large or bigger long creature, like a dragon isn't limited to attacking creatures at it's 'front' nor do attackers in combat get bonuses as though being unseen when striking it from one side or the other. Again, out-of-combat, you could have players trying to slip past unseen, but this is not that discussion.
Pizza Lord wrote: Poor visibility does not reduce movement. Whether you can see 100 feet, 30 feet, or 5 feet, unless it says it reduces your movement it does not. A solid fog would prevent charging for the reasons you mention, both because you can't see your target from further than 5 feet away and because it slows your movement. An oracle with the blind curse (Clouded Vision; cannot see beyond 30 feet) is not slowed down in any way any more than a person with 10 foot vision would be. Poor visibility has associated a x2 movement penalty, multiplicative (instead of aditive) with other movement conditions.
Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement (see Table: Hampered Movement for details). When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
Hampered movement applies to tactical combat (and, in fact, since penalties are multiplicative, you may be unable move 5ft because of massive penalties). There's a specific rule that allows you to take a 5ft movement as full-round action in those conditions. Since you cannot see more than 5ft away while in Obscuring Mist, movement is effectively hampered because of poor visibility inside it. Charge requires clear path and no movement penalties to be performed.
Yorien wrote: Poor visibility has associated a x2 movement penalty, multiplicative (instead of aditive) with other movement conditions. That's so excessive as to be unplayable. My latest game went long enough due to obscuring mist concealment penalties, let alone having everyone moving at half speed on top of that.
Yorien wrote: Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision. This quote you have quoted is specifically from the Getting Lost section. It applies to traveling without being able to see landmarks, such as mountains, hills, tries, etc. It specifically calls out an instance of getting lost and does not apply to hampered movement. Similarly, I can't take the Special Size modifier text from the Intimidate skill and apply it to the Special Size modifier for CMB checks. It's not the same thing as it pertains to the situation.
Here is a similar thread:
Poor Visibility and Blindness...
Quote: Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement (see Table: Hampered Movement for details). When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move. This quote, unlike the one above, does actually say Poor Visibility and does refer to hampered terrain. However, it makes no indication of what Poor Visibility refers to. It gives no definitiion of what constitutes Poor Visbility pertaining to Tactical Movement.
Let's look at this from a gameplay standpoint, if we were to take the two disparate sections and try to apply the Poor Visibility from the Getting Lost rules for Survival to this, we would have to extrapolate that all Clouded Vision Oracles up to 5th-level move at half speed all the time. We would have solid fog causes one-quarter movement instead of one-half movement (because of visibility and difficult terrain.) We would have to assume anyone using a candle, torch, or light spell moves at half speed. Then, we'd have to decide if dim light constitutes 'Poor Visibility' for tactical purposes (it is concealment, 20% miss chance like within 5 feet in fog) then anyone using a lantern is still moving at half speed.
If all this were the case, that adventurers with light spells, torches, lanterns, etc... and oracles were intended to move at half speed it would have been mentioned somewhere. Fog spells would mention that they cause half speed movement, solid fog would have some mention that it isn't half speed it's quarter speed. Without these, I just don't see the paper trail or any indication that let's us conclude that obscuring mist causes more penalties than what it says that it does.
The Poor Visibility table is a good indicator that someone may have planned to expand on it, but we also don't know if they just cut-and-pasted everything from a previous edition (incredibly likely) and didn't clean up or double-check their work when they made changes. For example, the Blind condition does not say you move at half speed (unlike 3.5), it just requires a pathetically easy Balance check if you do move faster than half speed your speed. (Though in truth, I do consider that to be poor visibility, so Blinded applying movement penalties I have no problem with and that might be implied elsewhere.) That seems to indicate to me another case of just cut-and-paste shenanigans and poor editing. Obviously they can just come out and tell us or likely just say that they just copied it over like that without considering the other changes they made.
Pizza Lord wrote: Let's look at this from a gameplay standpoint, if we were to take the two disparate sections and try to apply the Poor Visibility from the Getting Lost rules for Survival to this, we would have to extrapolate that all Clouded Vision Oracles up to 5th-level move at half speed all the time. We would have solid fog causes one-quarter movement instead of one-half movement... The meaning of 'poor visibility' seems fairly straightforward... and does not lead to what you say.
Clouded Vision Oracles can see 30 feet or more. Not a problem.
The Solid Fog spell physically prevents you from moving at more than half speed. Poor visibility requires you to make an acrobatics check to move at greater than half speed... which you cannot do in Solid Fog. So, no acrobatics check required and no reason whatsoever for 'one quarter speed'.
Having to make acrobatics checks to avoid falling down when you can't see where you are going is neither some far-fetched interpretation of the rules nor remotely unrealistic. I'd suggest trying it some time, but I don't want anyone falling and breaking their neck because they thought night jogging through the woods was a good idea.
Claxon wrote: Tarantula wrote: You could have them move into the mist, and attack the square they last saw the PC in. It just wouldn't be a charge action. You could even describe it similarly, but mechanically, it would be a move & attack, not a charge. That probably wont do for the GM since the cavaliers are probably build as charging killing machines (as most cavaliers are). The player casting Obscuring Mist had a bright idea and is technically correct. The cavaliers should not be able to charge which would severely reduce their damage if they're built for lance charges.
As a GM and player, the best way to handle this is for the GM to say "Okay, I know obscuring mist would normally block the charge but, for thematic reason I don't want that to happen. How would have liked to have spent your turn instead since I am changing the rules, and it would invalidate your action."
Because the honest truth is, if you don't throw the player a bone here and do insist on the changed rules you are basically just setting it up to kill the player. And being a good GM doesn't mean killing the PCs, it means challenging them and having a fun story. It's not a GM vs PC game. All good points, but even ruling that the Cavaliers are still allowed to attempt the Charge, only now they suffer a 50% Miss Chance or a 20% Miss Chance and have to use their Swords instead of the Lances which would have done Double Damage doesn't exactly negate the clever tactic of casting Obscuring Mist. I'm not certain that the GM is being overly cruel in this situation. If a PFSGM continued his Charge attack against me in this situation, I don't think I'd cry foul.
Tarantula wrote: charge requires you to have LOS to the target. If the square is in mist, you don't have LOS to it. Interesting. Are you sure, though? I mean, I'm a Cavalier, and I ask, "Captain, where am I supposed to Charge?" and he answers, "You see where that big cloud that came up out of nowhere is? That's where we're going to go, GO! GO! GO!"
That's really more of a verisimilitude argument than a rules-based argument.
But, are you saying that if my Alchemist is trying to find someone hiding in smoke or fog or something, and I start lobbing Bombs into squares, I have a Miss Chance for the square? It seems I should be able to pick an arbitrary spot on the map and be able to ravage it with fire like normal, whether or not I can see anything within the square.
That's what napalm is used for. Even when the ground is completely obscured by trees, the pilots still hit the ground and ravaged the area. That's what depth charges did, too. You might not have any idea where the submarine was, but you could pick the spot where you wanted the depth charge to explode and hope for the best.
Can you cite a rule that says when you target an area--not an individual within an area--you still suffer a Miss Chance? I've done some looking and not yet found it.
Meanwhile, the description of Obscuring Mist doesn't actually say it conceals the square itself, but rather the creatures within.
Obsuring Mist wrote: A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment As for Perception Checks vs. the PCs Stealth+20,
Tarantula wrote: Just because you know what square to go to doesn't mean you have LOS. Still cannot charge. Total concealment by definition removes line of sight. Even if you are right, even if I can't see the person on such an awesome Perception Roll. A successful roll will certainly let me see the square.
Pizza Lord wrote:
...
This quote, unlike the one above, does actually say Poor Visibility and does refer to hampered terrain. However, it makes no indication of what Poor Visibility refers to. It gives no definitiion of what constitutes Poor Visbility pertaining to Tactical Movement.
...
Well, whether Poor Visibility from Getting Lost affects or no Poor visibility from tactical combat, it's the only official "poor visibility" statement found, but even if 60ft (not exactly much) are not enough to apply for tactical combat, I'd totally say that the "I cant's see sh!t more that 5ft away, and even have issues while trying to find nearer things" statement while inside of an obscuring mist (things at 5ft or less still have partial concealment), totally fits "Poor Visibility" for tactical combat.
I agree, but it's not an actual rule, just GM interpretation.
Quote: If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent. Technically, you can't charge a square, as its not an opponent. I would allow it though.
Alchemist can target a square INTERSECTION with AC 5, as can all splash weapons. If you miss, you have the missed direction roll.
The mist obscures all sight.
Quote: The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. It specifically grants concealment to creatures within the square, I would still rule as a GM you don't have LOS to the square. In the fog, I would apply 50% miss chance for the intersection too, but that is not RAW.
Quote: Even if you are right, even if I can't see the person on such an awesome Perception Roll. A successful roll will certainly let me see the square. The square isn't hiding. You could roll a 10000000000 result on perception, and you still cannot see through the fog.
so, RAW, no you can't charge me because you can't see me.
no you can't charge my square, which isn't an actual thing to begin with.
but per DM decision, you can throw those rules out and do it anyways.
Danzibe1989 wrote: but per DM decision, you can throw those rules out and do it anyways. Usually called Rule 0.
Removed a series of posts best handled in an Advice thread or offline discussion. I'm also going to go ahead and lock this as the OP seems to have gotten plenty of information to go off of, and the root of this seems to be related to a specific gaming group.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
