In the GlassCannon PF2 podcast, when Fareez the Rogue was stabbing at the Lesser Shadow but no one else could perceive it...couldn't the others just strike at the 5-foot square which the rogue was obviously attacking? Wouldn't it be a "blind strike" (total concealment, with a 50% chance of missing)? Still better than standing around.
I wonder if the rule for striking a totally concealed opponent's square is the same in PF2. Or if JB and the GC crew just overlooked it.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pathfinder Way wrote: In the GlassCannon PF2 podcast, when Fareez the Rogue was stabbing at the Lesser Shadow but no one else could perceive it...couldn't the others just strike at the 5-foot square which the rogue was obviously attacking? Wouldn't it be a "blind strike" (total concealment, with a 50% chance of missing)? Still better than standing around.
I wonder if the rule for striking a totally concealed opponent's square is the same in PF2. Or if JB and the GC crew just overlooked it.
I'm pretty sure the shadow was moving around, and you have to know where the shadow is to strike it. At least at first, the rest of the time, they may have just overlooked it. I haven't listened to it for a while though, so I may remember wrong.
(Also, in a podcast, it's better to do nothing and skip your turn than to stop the flow of the game to think up what you can do, even more so when you don't know most of the rules, like in their situation.)
I think one of the players tried something like that at one point, but had already used up all his Actions.
Elfteiroh wrote: I'm pretty sure the shadow was moving around, and you have to know where the shadow is to strike it. No, I'm only talking about the moment in the middle of the fight when the Shadow withdrew to hide in the wall, but Fareez could perceive it, and was attacking it. Obviously the other characters could see which 5' square Fareez was attacking.
Quote: (Also, in a podcast, it's better to do nothing and skip your turn than to stop the flow of the game to think up what you can do, even more so when you don't know most of the rules, like in their situation.) I'm not saying it's a mortal sin that they didn't try to strike at the square, and instead took repeated tries to Perceive it instead. I enjoyed the podcast...good fun. I'm just saying it must've been overlooked at the table. And as a listener, I found this momentarily frustrating. And so I wonder what the PF2 rules are on this. I've heard there's an overhaul of the vision/darkness/blindness rules.
So you made a post to call out other players for missing something during a game? Classy.
No, he's wondering if a rule changed...
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pathfinder Way wrote: Elfteiroh wrote: I'm pretty sure the shadow was moving around, and you have to know where the shadow is to strike it. No, I'm only talking about the moment in the middle of the fight when the Shadow withdrew to hide in the wall, but Fareez could perceive it, and was attacking it. Obviously the other characters could see which 5' square Fareez was attacking.
Quote: (Also, in a podcast, it's better to do nothing and skip your turn than to stop the flow of the game to think up what you can do, even more so when you don't know most of the rules, like in their situation.) I'm not saying it's a mortal sin that they didn't try to strike at the square, and instead took repeated tries to Perceive it instead. I enjoyed the podcast...good fun. I'm just saying it must've been overlooked at the table. And as a listener, I found this momentarily frustrating. And so I wonder what the PF2 rules are on this. I've heard there's an overhaul of the vision/darkness/blindness rules. Yeah, I get you on that. Well, that may be, that may be not. There was some other mistakes in that podcast (like the mass healing/turning), so we can use it for the general feeling, but specifics may be wrong/changing, so yeah.
If you REALLY need to "Seek" before attacking an hidden/invisible foe, that's one thing that could really change with the playtest if it ends up being too bothersome.
Elfteiroh wrote: Yeah, I get you on that. Well, that may be, that may be not. There was some other mistakes in that podcast (like the mass healing/turning), so we can use it for the general feeling, but specifics may be wrong/changing, so yeah.
If you REALLY need to "Seek" before attacking an hidden/invisible foe, that's one thing that could really change with the playtest if it ends up being too bothersome.
Yeah, that's what I was concerned about. It was probably just an oversight. Surely in PF2 people can still wave their sword blindly in some square. haha. I'll have to wait n' see.
Evilgm wrote: So you made a post to call out other players for missing something during a game? Classy. Nah, calling out the DM who designed the game. Cuz, IIRC the players implied they wanted to blind attack, but the DM didn't really follow through. Still, PF2 looks to be quite a gem - nice work JB!
The podcast was hilarious. The players really concocted some funny characterizations. I listened to all four episodes. First TRPG podcast I've ever listened to.
Classy.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion
|
