Seen pg 302: "In most circumstances, you can see creatures without difficulty and target them normally, but various situations might make targeting more difficult."
So you can see and target them normally (as a normal thing sees things) but some situations make it targeting more difficult (cover and screening)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it.Well, I suppose you are avoiding Pathfinder 1e, then: "On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can’t move through a blocking obstacle."
Well, that's embarrassing... I have never noticed that :)
But what actually defines "most circumstances"? What are the rules for determining whether or not you can see a creature?
Maybe there's a curtain you can move through but not see through. Maybe there's fog, or it's dark.
You can't define every possible situation.Conversely, if the rule did avoid saying "in most circumstances", you would probably be here arguing that the rule makes no sense because it means that you can see through a curtain, through fog, through darkness, and if you are blind too.
You can't define every possible situation, and you can't make a foolproof game, expecially when people will actively try to find absurd holes in the rules.
Luckily, in my tables we have a GM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there's a curtain you can move through but not see through. Maybe there's fog, or it's dark.
You can't define every possible situation.
No, they can't. But with half-a-dozen developers they could've at least covered the three most common situations.
1: A Barrier you can neither percieve or attack/travel through (such as a stone wall)2: A Barrier you can percieve through, but not attack/travel through (such as glass wall)
3 A Barrier you can attack/travel through, but not percieve through (such as a paper wall or Silent Image)
Note: "percieve" in these cases being "to see". Which is the default sense the playtest assumes characters are using. But if they provided a default I could more easily apply common sense. For example, a glass wall might block a Keen-Eared Elf's hearing-based perception, but not a paper wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there's a curtain you can move through but not see through. Maybe there's fog, or it's dark.
You can't define every possible situation.No, they can't. But with half-a-dozen developers they could've at least covered the three most common situations.
1: A Barrier you can neither percieve or attack/travel through (such as a stone wall)
2: A Barrier you can percieve through, but not attack/travel through (such as glass wall)
3 A Barrier you can attack/travel through, but not percieve through (such as a paper wall or Silent Image)
Note: "percieve" in these cases being "to see". Which is the default sense the playtest assumes characters are using. But if they provided a default I could more easily apply common sense. For example, a glass wall might block a Keen-Eared Elf's hearing-based perception, but not a paper wall.
You are perfectly right in this regard.
But such rules won't save you from people creating specific situations where they don't work well, just to say that the rules are silly.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But such rules won't save you from people creating specific situations where they don't work well, just to say that the rules are silly.That's kind of what a playtest *is*. Feedback that "The rules are unclear / don't work in situations like X" isn't some disloyal attack on Paizo, it is literally what a playtest is for.
Indeed, and the rules on Line of Sight in the playtest are unclear. This isn't trying to be difficult, Line of Sight is not properly defined anywhere in the playtest, at all, and it's important to define it. Particularly when the game relies on a grid as much this one.
Is it center of one square to center of the other, like Line of Effect (which is properly defined)? Is it corner to center? Is it corner to corner?
This affects how the game plays in several ways. Given the only example we have in the playtest rulebook only works as described if it's corner to corner, I've been playing it that way. But that doesn't mean the devs shouldnt define it in the actual document.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then pick one and go with it, at least 3rd Ed/PF1, SWSE, 4th Ed, and 5th Ed are all consistent and clear, in this regard.Crikey, just do it how you always have, 3rd/PF1 (and SWSE, etc, etc), 4th and 5th Ed, all give very easy and clear rulings on this.But often different ones.
This is not the point.
The OP has pointed out the THESE rules are lacking a necessary bit of information. Probably just an oversight on the developers part.
Sure, at my table this weekend I'll make rulings consistent with other similar games in order to keep the game flowing.
But, at the same time, the developers need to be told that they missed this. They need to add this rule. It is not good enough for the final product to say or imply or expect that we should just make up these rules based on our experiences with other game systems.
I think it's fair that Paizo assumes that the players of the game have at least a basic understanding of how seeing things and opaque objects work and therefore don't need to write it down in their book. Now if it worked differently than how it works on Earth they should have to write that down.
Unless its specifically spelled out in the rules use common sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair that Paizo assumes that the players of the game have at least a basic understanding of how seeing things and opaque objects work and therefore don't need to write it down in their book. Now if it worked differently than how it works on Earth they should have to write that down.
Unless its specifically spelled out in the rules use common sense.
Reasonable rulings are easy to make here, yep. 98% of the time that's sufficient and common sense gives a clear-cut result.
But when the fate of the world depends on 'okay, one corner of my space sees one corner of his space. Is that enough line of sight to cast Maze on him? He's small, does that affect it?', it's nice for the rules to tell you.
If the reasonable rules have worked 98% of the time why do they suddenly not work when the date of the world matters? If you would have not been able to see this small creature normally, why would the ruling change when he starts to hit the big red button?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because 98% of times aren't edge cases like only one corner seeing one corner. They're being completely obscured, or not obscured at all, or able to see all of a gargantuan creature except some 5x5 spot near his foot where a crate is. Those are easy to rule. Or the game continues relatively the same either way ('Can I cast Fear on this goblin? I kinda have vision round the corner' 'Er... tough one, maybe-' 'Nevermind, I'll use it on the other goblin, not quite as good but I can clearly see him' 'Cool. He failed and is Feared. Bob, your turn.) It's only the combination of difficult to rule edge case and high consequences of the ruling that really require an unambiguous answer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair that Paizo assumes that the players of the game have at least a basic understanding of how seeing things and opaque objects work and therefore don't need to write it down in their book. Now if it worked differently than how it works on Earth they should have to write that down.
Unless its specifically spelled out in the rules use common sense.
I have to medium creatures, each on one side of a corner (Spy vs Spy style). Please tell me with the available rules text if they have Line of Sight to each other or not. I know they have no Line of Effect, but other than that....
And thats just one of the many situations I can cook up where Common Sense and actual rules might differ.
And besides, Paizo had no problem defining these concepts for PF 1, so I see absolutely no reason for them not to define them here.
Are they aware of the other at this corner?
Are either of them using the take cover action or attempting to hide using the cover?
Are they just standing there?
Assuming they aren't trying to hide or take cover they can see each other with little issue.
If they know the other is there and are both taking cover they can attempt to strike each other but the first to act loses their cover unless they take the action again.
Basically as long as they are aware of the other prior to this position they can see the other.
Should 1 attempt to hide the other can seek and try to beat the stealth to spot the other without moving from their spot.
Now if both are stealthing up to the corner and use it to hide they wouldn't be aware of the other until 1 of them attempted to seek around the corner. Assuming they don't move they have to best the DC of the other or they don't see them pressed to the wall and the DM would need to check the seekers stealth vs the hiders perception to see if the hiders notices the seeker attempting to seek.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair that Paizo assumes that the players of the game have at least a basic understanding of how seeing things and opaque objects work and therefore don't need to write it down in their book. Now if it worked differently than how it works on Earth they should have to write that down.
Unless its specifically spelled out in the rules use common sense.
Common sense tells me that if I get hit by a strong man wielding an axe, I will die.
I suppose Paizo didn't need to create rules for things like HP, damage, dying, etc.? I should have just used my own basic understanding of how axes and bodies work and therefore they didn't need to write it down in their book?
Game mechanics are tools we can use to make sure all the things in the rulebook work well with all the other things.
Peering around a corner may give me just enough of a glimpse to know that my target is wearing a red cloak. But does it give me enough visibility to target a Magic Missile spell (which, by the way, is very hard for me to extrapolate from my own real Earth experience), or to shoot my target with a crossbow?
We have rules for Magic Missiles and rules for crossbows, but those rules don't work well mechanically with common sense about peering around a corner.
It would be nice to also have rules about peering around corners so that all the rules work well together.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless its specifically spelled out in the rules use common sense.
On a side note, this "common sense" argument gets trotted out way too often.
Why are we here arguing about rules on a game forum if we can just go play the game with common sense alone?
For that matter, why do we Paizo money for a game if we could just rely on common sense?
Why don't we just sit down with our friends, grab a few dice and a pencil, and tell stories about orcs and wizards and dragons and let our common sense guide our story telling?
We don't need game rules at all. All we need is common sense.
Except...
We don't all have the SAME common sense, ironically, despite the inherent expectation that "common" means it's common to all (or hopefully at least most) of us.
Game systems give us a framework of rules that support our story telling, providing all the players and GMs with a central set of guidelines for how things work in their imaginary world, a common frame of reference if you will.
For me, that's a good thing. That's why I buy a game system.
But when there is a gap in that system, in that framework, I'd like the creators of the game system to fix the gap. If possible, I'd like it fixed before I buy it.
That's why I'm here. To help fix gaps. The OP here pointed out a significant gap. I, for one, would prefer the developers fix it so I don't have to rely on my "common sense" and further hope it's the same as all the other players' "common sense" at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Youre right. Game systems do give us a framework. They don't give us the blueprints of the atoms in the universe. You are asking the devs to tell you that your character can breathe, that they need to eat food to survive, that blood pumps through their system, or that sometimes you have to poop.
Or you could apply common sense to those things so they can instead spend time and energy writing grand adventures and characters so you can spend evenings rolling dice and having fun.
Oh and since common sense fails you. Fire is hot and water is wet.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are they aware of the other at this corner?
Are either of them using the take cover action or attempting to hide using the cover?
Are they just standing there?Assuming they aren't trying to hide or take cover they can see each other with little issue.
If they know the other is there and are both taking cover they can attempt to strike each other but the first to act loses their cover unless they take the action again.
Basically as long as they are aware of the other prior to this position they can see the other.
Should 1 attempt to hide the other can seek and try to beat the stealth to spot the other without moving from their spot.
Now if both are stealthing up to the corner and use it to hide they wouldn't be aware of the other until 1 of them attempted to seek around the corner. Assuming they don't move they have to best the DC of the other or they don't see them pressed to the wall and the DM would need to check the seekers stealth vs the hiders perception to see if the hiders notices the seeker attempting to seek.
I asked for rules. How do I determine Line of Sight on the grid? What's the origin point? What's the end point? What blocks it? What doesn't? A lot of spells require the target to be in Line of Sight, so really, this shouldn't be something left to "Common Sense".
Not to mention they couldn't attempt Stealth checks if both are at the corner, since while they're in cover, they aren't concealed. Or maybe they are. But we don't know, because we don't have clear Line of Sight rules.
Your common sense completely breaks down when you consider Line of Effect rules too. You've just claimed they can attack each other just fine (which RAW, they can, because RAW is a mess). But...they can't cast spells, because the Line of Effect is blocked.
Why? Why can I bring my arm out to whack the guy but I can't throw a spell at him. I have 5 foot of reach. Common Sense says I should be able to, for example, extend my arm with a wand of scorching ray or whatever around the corner and just use that. But I can't.
Now grab my previous example, but move one of the guys 5 feet back, still next to the wall.
Center to Center LoS= A Can't see B; B Can't see A
Corner to Center LoS= A Can see B; B can't see A
Corner to Corner LoS= A and B can See each other.
Hence why defining Line of Sight is important (beyond the fact that, since it's Line of Sight, we'd need Origin/End to actually, y'know, make a line). If you're just doing theater of the mind, fine, the GM will adjudicate as needed, but if you're using a grid, you kinda need to define the thing for stuff to actually work.
And I will reiterate, for the second (or is it third) time: Paizo defined Line of Effect, Line of Sight, what blocks it, what doesn't and a whole host of other things in PF1. It's not much to ask for them to actually do it in the playtest for PF2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Youre right. Game systems do give us a framework. They don't give us the blueprints of the atoms in the universe.
Hyperbole much?
I'm not looking for unnecessary granularity at an atomic level.
But knowing by RAW whether I can target a spell would be nice.
You are asking the devs to tell you that your character can breathe, that they need to eat food to survive, that blood pumps through their system, or that sometimes you have to poop.
Nope, nope, nope and nope. I didn't ask for any of that, nor will I.
There are rules for breathing and suffocating so I won't ask for those, there are rules for acquiring food so I'll assume I need to eat it, there are bleeding rules and an existing framework for bleeding to death, and that last one is just odious.
Also, this whole argument is too trite and overused.
Or you could apply common sense to those things so they can instead spend time and energy writing grand adventures and characters so you can spend evenings rolling dice and having fun.
I do that anyway. I do have fun and sometimes that includes rolling dice. Thanks for the suggestion.
But sometimes the fun is delayed by looking in the books for rules that are hard to find, only to eventually discover the rule isn't in there at all.
I'd rather have USEFUL rules, like rules for targeting and LoE, in the book and easy to find.
Oh and since common sense fails you. Fire is hot and water is wet.
How hot is fire? How much damage does it do if I touch it, or am engulfed in it? How fast can it burn down a building or burn a witch or kill a dragon?
How wet is water? Wet enough to drown in it? What are the drowning rules? If I have enough wet water, can I swim in it? Is water still wet when it's solid ice? If it's not wet enough to swim in, e.g. solid ice, can I walk on it?
Some of these rules exist so I guess even the developers don't think we are supposed to rely on common sense.
So can we please stop using this trite argument? It's a silly straw man that is flawed logically and irrelevant to creating a game system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you could improvise an answer, and yes you could houserule it into a solution, but saying that means there isn't a problem is the Oberoni fallacy.
Very nice. I rather like fallacies (learning about them and refuting them, not so much using them) but I'd never heard of this one. Pretty obscure, probably won't be found in many college lectures on logical fallacies, but should be pretty useful around here.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we just agree that line of sight is incompletely defined and not waste time continuing with this?
Yes, it says you need line of sight and line of effect. Yes, it defines line of effect. No, it does not define line of sight.
Therefore, that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
(I think my personal definition is corner to center, by the by.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought Line of Sight was SUPER easy... does the GM say you can see the Creature or it sees you?
The GM picks up the rulebook and starts searching through it, looking for the definition of Line of Sight. Is it corner-to-corner, or middle-to-middle? Failing to find it, he stops to do a search on the internet. Meanwhile, the players sit around, increasingly bored...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought Line of Sight was SUPER easy... does the GM say you can see the Creature or it sees you?
Lump me in with everyone rallying AGAINST reprinting the Dictionary in the back of the CRB to satisfy rules lawyers.
But how does the GM know if you have LOS?
Does he just make it up? What if next week you're in a similar situation, move your mini and try to take a shot but the GM says you don't have LOS, just because he makes it up differently on that day?
What about if you play Saturday with one GM and Sunday with another GM and they make it up differently?
If making it up is the best way to create a rulebook, then why don't we just make up our class abilities, or why doesn't the GM just make up the abilities of the monsters or the damage of our spells, or, well, everything really? Why even have rulebooks if the best solution is to make stuff up?
Even if making up the rules is the best answer, what if some GMs would prefer to have at least a reasonable bit of guidance so that when they make it up, they can at least be consistent with other rules in the game?
Or, the Devs could just put in a paragraph about how LOS and LOE work and then every GM will STILL be able to make it up if they don't want to look up or memorize the rule, but for the GMs who like consistency, simplicity, and the assurance that their ruling is fair and balanced, we'll have the guidance and framework we like.
|
But how does the GM know if you have LOS?I always thought Line of Sight was SUPER easy... does the GM say you can see the Creature or it sees you?
Lump me in with everyone rallying AGAINST reprinting the Dictionary in the back of the CRB to satisfy rules lawyers.
He... knows it because he SAYS it, the GM sets the stage, and if someone isn't able enough to improvise a simple question like "can I see the enemy" without needing to reference a chart, a visual diagram, 2 sections in the index explaining what "line-of-sight" means, then I'm afraid I must say maybe they aren't well suited towards actually running a game. Improv skills and decision making are at the core of what it takes to run a game.
What does it mean when a character is Disarmed? The item is dropped to the "ground" in their space, does that mean flying enemies cannot be Disarmed because there IS no ground in their space!?
How is Rule 0 that hard to grasp?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He... knows it because he SAYS it, the GM sets the stage, and if someone isn't able enough to improvise a simple question like "can I see the enemy" without needing to reference a chart, a visual diagram, 2 sections in the index explaining what "line-of-sight" means, then I'm afraid I must say maybe they aren't well suited towards actually running a game. Improv skills and decision making are at the core of what it takes to run a game.
Where do you draw the line in that slippery slope?
Should the GM use his improv skills to tell you whether your sword hits the monster? The GM could just improvise an answer when you ask if your attack hits. That way we can discard two whole chapters of the book and probably slim the equipment chapter all the way down to a list of prices.
Should the GM use his improv skills to tell you whether you win the fight? The GM could just improvise an entire encounter, giving you an action-by-action account of exactly how the fight goes like a movie director describing a combat scene to his actors and stuntmen on the first day of rehearsal. That way we can discard even more of the rulebook.
For that matter, the GM can just sit in a dark room and describe the entire adventure out loud, right from the moment the level 1 characters meet in the Adjective Noun tavern to the final climactic encounter with the ultimate end-boss of the campaign. He doesn't need books, modules, adventure paths, dice, pencils, or even players.
That's more or less what JRR Tolkein did with Lord of the Rings, though he wrote it all down and created some fun books out of it. That's more or less what GRR Martin did with Game of Thrones and what JK Rowling did with Harry Potter, etc. It works.
But those authors were writing books.
We're playing a game.
We are spending money on a game system that has a rulebook and will no doubt have multiple rulebooks.
It would be nice if the rulebooks we purchase actually have rules in them, otherwise we should just all stay home and write novels.
TL;dr: it's a fallacious argument to say it's OK for game developers to omit rules because we can all just Rule-O the omission. That's not how games work; it's how fiction writers work. We're here to play a game and to buy a game. Games have rules. Please stop arguing that game developers should stop writing rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, pretty much ignore the whole "draw a line between edge of a tile and the center of tile and make sure it doesn't cross..." stuff because we play mind's eye and there's LOS if I say it is, and it's not if I say it isn't. Which is how we play pretty much every RPG, from Call of Cthulhu to Lasers & Feelings. I've much prefer for devs to spend more time catering to elements of the ruleset we do RAW than the ones that I toss aside.
|
|
While I agree on the principal that the various Game Terms need to be better spelled out and organized, I REALLY don't want to see the Index bloat to twice its size in order to codify and define every little thing.
The whole edge of square, center of square rules for this IMO are pointlessly excessive as is and could easily be replaced by 1-2 paragraphs and using reference to the same image they use to showcase Reach and Flanking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Choose any of the four corners of your space, choose any of the four corners of your target's space, and trace a straight line between them. If you can trace at least one straight line this way that does not directly cross into any terrain that could reasonably block vision, then you have line of sight against the target."
Not a bad definition of LOS (though somebody might quibble with the word "reasonably"), but LOE might need a slightly different one:
Starting with Colette's definition above for LOS:
Choose the attacker's most favorable corner. Draw straight lines to all four corners of the target square:
If no line is blocked, you have LOS and LOE.
If 1 line is blocked, you have LOS and LOE but target gets cover.
If 2 lines are blocked, you have LOS and LOE but target gets superior cover.
If 4 lines are blocked, you have LOS but do not have LOE.
If all 4 lines are blocked, you do not have LOS or LOE.
Note: I already do this as a houserule and have since 3.0. It's close but not exact to the published rules in those systems. No, I don't draw 4 lines. I just imagine them, maybe with help of a ruler, but mostly I just say "It looks like this corner and that corner are blocked by the wall over here but you can see the other two, so you can see the target but he gets superior cover." Takes no time and everybody at the table gets it right away. No problem.
"Choose any of the four corners of your space, choose any of the four corners of your target's space, and trace a straight line between them. If you can trace at least one straight line this way that does not directly cross into any terrain that could reasonably block vision, then you have line of sight against the target."
I do not see why it would break the page count to include these two sentences. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Honestly you could just copy paste PF1s wording (well, not exactly, since in PF1 LOS=LOE except it also gets blocked by stuff that provides concealment).
Or, you COULD literally copy paste PF1s wording, and say LoS is like LoE (which PF2 defines) but it gets blocked by concealment. It's different from PF1, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
We just need something.
|
|
I, for one, pretty much ignore the whole "draw a line between edge of a tile and the center of tile and make sure it doesn't cross..." stuff because we play mind's eye and there's LOS if I say it is, and it's not if I say it isn't. Which is how we play pretty much every RPG, from Call of Cthulhu to Lasers & Feelings. I've much prefer for devs to spend more time catering to elements of the ruleset we do RAW than the ones that I toss aside.So, you play all RPGs, TotM style, all the time?
Verily, we do.
|
|
I whip up the grid for more complex fights and climatic BBEG encounters where things go down to questions like "am I 20 feet away so I can lob a bomb?" or "just how many people are flanking Rasputin right now?" but for the bog standard 4 PCs vs. hydra fights I just eyeball stuff like flanking.
That said, I have at least 2 players across my groups who love the grid because they welcome visual aids in making sure they know what the situation is like. And I also have 2 players who roll eyes every time the grid comes out because "we're not playing a board game!". So you gotta walk the fine line.
