Let me start by saying I 100% understand the explanation of how precise and imprecise senses work.
My question (which comes after listening to an episode of Roll for Combat podcast during their The Fall of Plaguestone actual play) has to do with the bloodlash bushes and their imprecise tremorsense.
I understand tremorsense can be imprecise. The GM in the podcast does some designing for Paizo, and so talks to the designers on the reg. And he was remarking to them that the fight vs the bushes in that adventure was particularly brutal. And he was told by the employees, "That's because they have imprecise tremorsense, and are supposed to miss 50% of the time."
What I don't get is this: Unless I'm told somewhere otherwise, I always assume a creature has normal senses. So, if a creature has tremorsense, I would assume that is in addition to normal vision. Unless it's stated that the creature is otherwise blind.
So, I would never have assumed that the bushes had a 50% miss chance. Just like a spider... it has tremorsense connected to its web, but it can still see normally.
Any thoughts on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, given that it's a bush with no eyes and that it's a module that was being written while rules were still being finalized, I figure there's a nonzero chance that it was just an error and the statblock should say "no sight".
I can go with that.
And, on the same train of thought, that fight is brutal. So adding in a 50% miss chance takes it down a notch.
Of course, when I ran it, I had a druid in the party who refused to fight the plants, and she just left the grove. So that was their healer, as well as their caster who would have spells that would help against plants.
haha.
Ah, when I played it, it almost went really well. Alchemist and rogue/alchemist topped the initiative, immediately set the plants on fire and were like "Cool, everyone run and let 'em burn."
...then the fighter and barbarian ran forward for some reason.
|
Most, if not all plant creatures have some form of sight. Even Assassin Vines have low-light vision, and they're just supposed to be some vines.
If the designers really wanted to make sure they only had an imprecise sense they need to specify that it doesn't have vision.
In the Senses section of the rules, it even says that it's assumed creatures have vision as their precise sense, so making the call that it doesn't when it says nowhere in the stat-block is strange.
Another reason it needs to be specified if the creature can't see is for visual effects. If it's not mentioned that they don't have vision, visual effects would still affect them, meaning illusions, patterns and the like are fair game.
Most, if not all plant creatures have some form of sight. Even Assassin Vines have low-light vision, and they're just supposed to be some vines.
If the designers really wanted to make sure they only had an imprecise sense they need to specify that it doesn't have vision.
In the Senses section of the rules, it even says that it's assumed creatures have vision as their precise sense, so making the call that it doesn't when it says nowhere in the stat-block is strange.
Another reason it needs to be specified if the creature can't see is for visual effects. If it's not mentioned that they don't have vision, visual effects would still affect them, meaning illusions, patterns and the like are fair game.
Totally agree. I assume creatures have sight unless it says they don't. I think it might be like Hammerjack said. Where it was the first adventure put out for the rules, and they might have goofed by not saying it in the stat block.
The only reason I even knew about it (here we are more than a year later) was the guy on Roll for Combat said the Paizo people said that to him about it was supposed to be 50/50. Otherwise I'd have never had this topic come up.
|
Here is the problem:
Bestiary 1: 3 entries with no vision (all oozes) - 100% of these have another precise sense
Bestiary 2: 9 entries with no vision (6 of them oozes) - 100% of these have another precise sense
Plants:
Bestiary 1: 11 plants
3 with dark vision
6 with low light vision
2 with only an entry tremorsense (imprecise)
If they are meant to have no normal vision, then this should be spelled out. Especially as it would make these monsters the only one I'm aware of in the bestiary without a precise sense.
I would assume that the production process might drop the no vision in some cases (crawling hand - you are on my list here) - but something as important as that needs spelling out - otherwise I assume every single monster has at least one precise sense.
Edit:
Bestiary 2 - plants
17 entries
9 low light vision
5 dark vision
2 no entry (but other precise sense)
1 only entry is imprecise tremor sense
Several have >1 precise sense.
No one is disagreeing that the lack of a precise sense needs to be spelled out in the stat block.
That's why I figure that if having no precise sense was the intent (and I want to emphasize IF), as was apparently indicated in the conversation that the Roll For Combat host had, then the way the creature was written was an error.