I think most of the issues come into play when the approach tends to be far from mechanics and more closer to the roleplay ones.If you remove the "roleplay" approach, you remove a big part of the game. For example, the action described earlier, where a character grabs a Medusa and then closes his eyes using his sense of touch to locate it, is something I want to live/allow as a GM. This is a really heroic action for me, the perfect example of the infinite freedom of roleplaying games.To me it's exactly the opposite "when it comes to a combat encounter".
This 2e is imo a nice try ( it's still incomplete though ) to offer a dynamic and varied combat system, and it's either about tactics, forecasts and anticipations.
I think there's no room for roleplay interpretations when it comes to some sort of boardgame ( because the approach sees rules and mechanics ).
I obviously can't say you're wrong as it's what you like.
I prefer to give more freedom to my players. Honestly, actions that are outside defined rules are extremely rare, I mostly allow these actions when they fit the situation extremely well. And in that case, it's really funny. But it's not very frequent.
Yesterday, I allowed my Swashbuckler to go behind a ghost despite the fact that he failed his attempt at Tumbling Through. I didn't give him Panache, though. But I haven't seen how to justify an Incorporeal creature blocking someone's path.
And that's all well and good. I'm not saying that you Don't have the right to allow your players to do whatever you like in your game. Buuuut my response was to the following quote specifically:
This is not that true. It's an interpretation of the rules, but not the only one.
The question is how you define touch. Touch can be defined as a Precise Sense with a range of touch. And if you define it like that, then you no more have a flat check when casting a spell on a Grappled enemy. And I think it's a very sensible way of applying RAW.
In this quote you make the argument that a character can, by default, choose to ignore Mirror Image by using a sense of Touch. This is incorrect. Blave was 100% correct where the rules are concerned.
If instead you had said that you would allow a character to to what you describe in your game, that'd be one thing. But instead you insinuated that your home rule was just as valid an "interpretation" of the rules as Blave's. No, they are not. The rules are very black and white in this case. There is no need for adjudication.
Mirror Image is an effect with the Visual trait. Your character has eyes so they are subject to it. Grapple makes no provision for altering the detection state of, or the ability for you to target your grappled foe beyond making them flat footed.
Anything else is GM fiat responding to a specific situation, grappling the target in this case. But there is no specific need for GM adjudication in this case. The rules work as is, just not the way you like.
And you are free to change the rules on the fly at your table. I do so when it suits me just as much as the next guy. But I won't go onto the Rules Forum and specifically advocate that my particular home ruling is RAW, or even a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But instead you insinuated that your home rule was just as valid an "interpretation" of the rules as Blave's. No, they are not.
And I stick to it: Yes, they are.
Mirror Image is an effect with the Visual trait. Your character has eyes so they are subject to it.
Wrong. Only if I see it which means that I need eyes and to look at it.
Grapple makes no provision for altering the detection state of, or the ability for you to target your grappled foe beyond making them flat footed.
Wrong. If I touch an Unnoticed creature, it becomes Hidden, so touch alters the detection state of a creature. Grapple means that I'm touching a creature. As such Grapples alters the detection state of a creature.
You choose some rules to apply and ignore the special circumstances that can invalidate the rules you use. Using a rule from the book doesn't mean that it's RAW if the rule you use doesn't apply properly to the situation.
This specific case is not fully covered by the rules. At some point, you need GM fiat. Your ruling is not more RAW than mine, you just choose another way of handling the problem.
So you are saying that you can attempt to Grapple an unnoticed creature then? A Hidden one, sure. But unnoticed? Something you don't even know is there? Hilarious.
The game rules make no provision for determining when your character happens to be looking or not. Tracking whether or not your character's eyes are open is too granular for how the game presents information. So the default assumption is that your character is operating with their senses functioning unless some other factor is in play. Point me to the section of rules that dictate when your character has their eyes open. I'll wait.
If you are going to make your players track eye openness, then what about facing? PF2 doesn't have facing rules, so you can see 360 degrees at all times. Isn't that weird? Maybe instead we should invent rules about facing and how that effects combat. But of course your eyes are on your head, and that swivels so you can't just see straight ahead. Oh, and there's peripheral vision to account for too, so maybe things between 90 and 110 or so degrees parallel are obscured.
Or instead of dealing with perception issues that are outside of the bounds of the rules, we can just use the rules as they are: Your character sees around them, and by default, are subject to Visual effects unless some other effect comes into play.
Feel free to alter that state in your game, but that is the default assumption.
if you cannot see a Visual effect you aren't affected by it.
i think that's pretty raw.
what differs is what happens when you try to use a sense that's not codified by the rules, like touch.
Personally:
I think the intent of the rules saying that the only senses characters have are precise vision and impresice hearing is that other senses (touch, smell, taste, etc) are so imprecise that you can't reliably use them to identify positioning and other such things unless something changes that (like supertaster detecting poison, or getting imprecise scent and etc)
so in that case (imo), you can indeed close your eyes and try to hit with a Touch effect, but you are effectively blinded. Because you are grabbing the target you know what square it is, but since you have absolutely no visual imput of how he moves and dodges, you still apply the full 50% miss chance as per normal Blinded.
at lest that's how i would rule it.
To boil down my argument to the barest bits: Yes, if you can't see a Visual effect, you aren't effected by it.
Quote me a rule that allows a character to voluntarily forego one of their senses. The closest thing we have is Avert Gaze, which doesn't confer immunity.
So if there is no provision for "closing your eyes" in the rules, allowing a character to do so is a GM house rule, not an interpretation of the rules. And that's fine. Just don't dress it up like it's a valid RaW interpretation.
If my allies close their eyes to avoid the Medusa's gaze, I do not expect the GM to allow them the benefits of my Cavalier's Banner feat, since it is Visual.
What am I missing here?
That there is no "close your eyes" action in the CRB or any associated material that I am aware of. If you have vision, and nothing is impeding your vision, like Darkness, Blindness, etc... then you are subject to Visual effects.
Again, if you want to invent such an action, feel free. But it is very clearly not something you can just do based solely on the rules presented in the game system.
So you are saying that you can attempt to Grapple an unnoticed creature then? A Hidden one, sure. But unnoticed? Something you don't even know is there? Hilarious.
Please, this is a strawman. I'd prefer to avoid going into such kind of arguments.
he game rules make no provision for determining when your character happens to be looking or not. Tracking whether or not your character's eyes are open is too granular for how the game presents information. So the default assumption is that your character is operating with their senses functioning unless some other factor is in play. Point me to the section of rules that dictate when your character has their eyes open. I'll wait.
If you are going to make your players track eye openness, then what about facing? PF2 doesn't have facing rules, so you can see 360 degrees at all times. Isn't that weird? Maybe instead we should invent rules about facing and how that effects combat. But of course your eyes are on your head, and that swivels so you can't just see straight ahead. Oh, and there's peripheral vision to account for too, so maybe things between 90 and 110 or so degrees parallel are obscured.
This argument is only there to convince you. I don't need a rule about "eye openness" to allow a character to close his eyes. This is basic human ability, and I won't forbid it to my players because I don't find a rule for it. The rules can't cover all cases, that would ask for a million-page book. So there are tons of cases where you have to apply GM's choice. You think you don't do it, but you do it 99% of the time as a GM.
Your character sees around them, and by default, are subject to Visual effects unless some other effect comes into play.
You're right. The thing is: There's an effect coming into play.
The creature is Grappled. Blave spoke about this case because there's an obvious effect coming into play. You consider that the effect doesn't affect the application of the rules, fine. But it's GM fiat. I consider the effect affects the application of the rules, it's also GM fiat and it's also fine.Do you allow to Steal Incorporeal creatures?
Do you allow to attack through an arrow slit with a Rapier? A Maul?
You are always taking special circumstances into consideration. Applying RAW is GM fiat if there are special circumstances that you prefer to ignore.
This argument is only there to convince you. I don't need a rule about "eye openness" to allow a character to close his eyes. This is basic human ability, and I won't forbid it to my players because I don't find a rule for it. The rules can't cover all cases, that would ask for a million-page book. So there are tons of cases where you have to apply GM's choice. You think you don't do it, but you do it 99% of the time as a GM.he game rules make no provision for determining when your character happens to be looking or not. Tracking whether or not your character's eyes are open is too granular for how the game presents information. So the default assumption is that your character is operating with their senses functioning unless some other factor is in play. Point me to the section of rules that dictate when your character has their eyes open. I'll wait.
If you are going to make your players track eye openness, then what about facing? PF2 doesn't have facing rules, so you can see 360 degrees at all times. Isn't that weird? Maybe instead we should invent rules about facing and how that effects combat. But of course your eyes are on your head, and that swivels so you can't just see straight ahead. Oh, and there's peripheral vision to account for too, so maybe things between 90 and 110 or so degrees parallel are obscured.
Oh, but you do need a rule about eye openness apparently, because you are inventing one. And you are correct, the rules cover what they do, and balance themselves based on what they cover. Altering those rules should be done carefully to avoid a situation where you allow a player, or creature, to have an unfair advantage. I'd say at will free immunity to anything with the Visual trait would qualify.
Your character sees around them, and by default, are subject to Visual effects unless some other effect comes into play.You're right. The thing is: There's an effect coming into play.
The creature is Grappled. Blave spoke about this case because there's an obvious effect coming into play. You consider that the effect doesn't affect the application...
Grappled makes mention of altering anything about targeting. You still use your eyes to target a creature grabbed or restrained by you.
And here, if you don't think that a character would need to close their eyes because they are making physical contact with someone, why does that suddenly mean they aren't currently effected by Mirror Image?
Are you immune to an Sonic Auditory Effect because you use your eyesight to target a foe? No? Then why would you be immune to a visual effect because you use your sense of Touch to target a foe?
Oh, but you do need a rule about eye openness apparently
I don't.
because you are inventing one.
The fact that you need a rule doesn't mean that I need a rule. I allow characters to sit, laugh and kiss despite the lack of rules about these cases.
I'd say at will free immunity to anything with the Visual trait would qualify.
Grappling a Wizard with Mirror Image is far from an "at will free immunity", it's a one-action check with MAP that is affected by Visual trait until you succeed. I'm not even sure it's better than just striking the Wizard stupidly.
Grappled makes mention of altering anything about targeting.
And Disable Device doesn't make mention of needing to touch the device. So you can Disable at range?
Not everything can be covered by the book.I'll repeat my questions (you answered while I edited):
Do you allow to Steal Incorporeal creatures?
Do you allow to attack through an arrow slit with a Rapier? A Maul?
You are always taking special circumstances into consideration. Applying RAW is GM fiat if there are special circumstances that you prefer to ignore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my allies close their eyes to avoid the Medusa's gaze, I do not expect the GM to allow them the benefits of my Cavalier's Banner feat, since it is Visual.
What am I missing here?
That there is no "close your eyes" action in the CRB or any associated material that I am aware of. If you have vision, and nothing is impeding your vision, like Darkness, Blindness, etc... then you are subject to Visual effects.
Again, if you want to invent such an action, feel free. But it is very clearly not something you can just do based solely on the rules presented in the game system.
For the record, I disagree with both you and HumbleGamer here.
The rules cannot describe every situation. And I feel the RAW description of Visual clearly applies when a PC closes their eyes.
Obviously, you feel differently and interpret the rules differently. But I do not feel your interpretation is any closer to the RAW of what happens when someone closes their eyes since the RAW do not cover this.
As I said, GM's choice. Which is actually a very important part of PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Avert gaze action has the advantage of allowing the PC to still benefit from Visual buffs, while getting a bonus to saves vs Visual abilities.
Closing your eyes would make you Blinded (you can't see) and thus immune to Visual effects, both adverse and beneficial.
The Avert gaze action has the advantage of allowing the PC to still benefit from Visual buffs, while getting a bonus to saves vs Visual abilities.
Closing your eyes would make you Blinded (you can't see) and thus immune to Visual effects, both adverse and beneficial.
Cool. Just go quote me the page on "close your eyes" and I'll take a look at the action.
Oh, that doesn't exist? Odd that. Well, I guess then you could say that by RAW, you can't do so without the GM allowing you to do so, and adjudicating how that works.
I'll refer you to the guidelines on how that should generally work.
Adjudicating the Rules
Special Circumstances
If allowing a character to benefit from Immunity to Visual effects, while suffering none of the penalties that come with Blindness sounds reasonable to you, then have at it. It certainly does not sound reasonable to me.
|
|
The Avert gaze action has the advantage of allowing the PC to still benefit from Visual buffs, while getting a bonus to saves vs Visual abilities.
Closing your eyes would make you Blinded (you can't see) and thus immune to Visual effects, both adverse and beneficial.
Cool. Just go quote me the page on "close your eyes" and I'll take a look at the action.
Oh, that doesn't exist? Odd that. Well, I guess then you could say that by RAW, you can't do so without the GM allowing you to do so, and adjudicating how that works.
I'll refer you to the guidelines on how that should generally work.
Adjudicating the Rules
Special CircumstancesIf allowing a character to benefit from Immunity to Visual effects, while suffering none of the penalties that come with Blindness sounds reasonable to you, then have at it. It certainly does not sound reasonable to me.
I never said anything about suffering none of the penalties of Blinded. They go together with the advantages.
I see closing your eyes as making yourself Blinded voluntarily and temporarily.How would you adjudicate a character putting a blindfold on their eyes?
I never said anything about suffering none of the penalties of Blinded. They go together with the advantages.
I see closing your eyes as making yourself Blinded voluntarily and temporarily.How would you adjudicate a character putting a blindfold on their eyes?
Sure, you may never have said so. But my initial response was to SuperBidi who advocated that using your sense of "touch" while grappling an opponent should let you ignore Mirror Image. There was no mention of an Action requirement, meaning sorry Avert Gaze nobody needs you anymore, and there was no mention of taking any penalty for using a non-precise sense, since to SuperBidi, Touch is precise. I don't agree with this from a GM fiat level, and definitely do not agree that the rules indicate that this is even a remote possibility.
For a blindfold, yeah. I'd say it makes you blind. But if you wanted to do so mid combat, you'd have to spend all the required actions to draw the blindfold, then spend at least an interact action to tie it around your eyes.
But that is apples to oranges when compared to assuming a character can just close their eyes as it pleases them to avoid visual effects.
Again, only a fool closes their eyes in combat.
And Disable Device doesn't make mention of needing to touch the device. So you can Disable at range?
Not everything can be covered by the book.
I'll repeat my questions (you answered while I edited):
Do you allow to Steal Incorporeal creatures?
Do you allow to attack through an arrow slit with a Rapier? A Maul?
You are always taking special circumstances into consideration. Applying RAW is GM fiat if there are special circumstances that you prefer to ignore.
My bad, I never saw said questions. I'll go ahead and answer them.
1. Would I allow a character to steal from an Incorporeal creature? Depends. Do they have Ghost Touch or a similar effect on an item, likely a gauntlet, that gives them the manual dexterity required to pull that off? If no, then no since an incorporeal creature or object has no physical form and can't otherwise be interacted with.
2. Do I allow characters to attack through arrow slits or similarly narrow areas with large or small weapons? Depends on the circumstances. Did they prepare to do so? Are they adjacent to the Arrow Slit? Generally no though, since making such an attack under such circumstances without preparation would be very difficult.
Both of these examples are carefully orchestrated to back up your argument, as Ghost Touch does not specifically say that you can use non-attack manipulate actions with it, meaning the GM has to step in and decide. Arrow Slits are generally used for ranged combat, and usually aren't located in an area where an opponent can easily stand on the other side. But if you happened across an arrow slit close to ground level with an opponent on the other side, it's not impossible to do so, it would just require preparation to do properly.
I'm still waiting for you to quote any rule that backs up allowing a character to use touch as a precise sense, and thus ignore Mirror Image.
Using a sense that is not defined in the rules to bypass a spell is nothing like either of those situations. It has no basis in the rules, and allowing it is more of an exploit than a neat flavorful roleplay moment. And it opens the door to allowing your players de facto immunity to any further Visual effects. Sorry Medusa, Vampires or any other creature with a Visual effect, the party can just close their eyes to ignore your schtick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to say that there is merit to both sides, and while beowulf99's interpretation is the RAW, it's also a bit "incomplete," as again, touch should be a sense, but there isn't any rules for it, which is where SuperBidi's interpretation comes into play somewhat.
As a GM, if faced with the situation of blindness versus Mirror Images, I would definitely allow a player to close their eyes and avoid visual penalties entirely. However, this avoids visual bonuses as well. That one precise sense you had? Is now gone. The Bard dancing in the background? You don't see it, so no bonuses if they Inspire Courage. If you want to determine where anyone or anything is with hearing or touch, without any prior knowledge of whereabouts, Seek Actions galore. You might have an enemy grabbed, but you have no visual on them, meaning you could be swinging at pure air because you incorrectly anticipated their movements based on the limited amount of touch you have applied to them. And also to be clear, this would be done as a free action at the start of their turn.
So yes, I think both sides have fair points, but it's more like adjudicating what happens or what is possible when a player is affected by a critical failure to the Blindness spell.
I would like to say that there is merit to both sides, and while beowulf99's interpretation is the RAW, it's also a bit "incomplete," as again, touch should be a sense, but there isn't any rules for it, which is where SuperBidi's interpretation comes into play somewhat.
As a GM, if faced with the situation of blindness versus Mirror Images, I would definitely allow a player to close their eyes and avoid visual penalties entirely. However, this avoids visual bonuses as well. That one precise sense you had? Is now gone. The Bard dancing in the background? You don't see it, so no bonuses if they Inspire Courage. If you want to determine where anyone or anything is with hearing or touch, without any prior knowledge of whereabouts, Seek Actions galore. You might have an enemy grabbed, but you have no visual on them, meaning you could be swinging at pure air because you incorrectly anticipated their movements based on the limited amount of touch you have applied to them. And also to be clear, this would be done as a free action at the start of their turn.
So yes, I think both sides have fair points, but it's more like adjudicating what happens or what is possible when a player is affected by a critical failure to the Blindness spell.
Fair dues, that is definitely your right as a GM.
I wouldn't let a player elect to gain any kind of serious advantage like this without some mitigating factors personally. For one, I'd say that voluntarily taking blindness to gain de facto immunity to Visual effects should at the least be on par with Avert Gaze action wise, so 1 action on their turn, ending at the start of their next turn. For two, I wouldn't allow a player to voluntarily gain a second Precise sense, since those are powerful abilities.
Touch if being used as a sense should be at best imprecise if not vague. The CRB sort of lumps anything that isn't hearing and sight into Vague senses, though it doesn't mention touch specifically.
A character also has many vague senses—ones that can
alert you that something is there but aren’t useful for
zeroing in on it to determine exactly what it is. The
most useful of these for a typical character is the sense
of smell. At best, a vague sense can be used to detect the
presence of an unnoticed creature, making it undetected.
Even then, the vague sense isn’t sufficient to make the
creature hidden or observed.
When one creature might detect another, the GM
almost always uses the most precise sense available.
Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has
vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only
imprecise sense. Some characters and creatures, however,
have precise or imprecise senses that don’t match this
assumption. For instance, a character with poor vision
might treat that sense as imprecise, an animal with the
scent ability can use its sense of smell as an imprecise
sense, and a creature with echolocation or a similar
ability can use hearing as a precise sense. Such senses are
often given special names and appear as “echolocation
(precise),” “scent (imprecise) 30 feet,” or the like.
So really, the "RAW" answer to what sort of sense Touch would qualify as is vague, unless there is some reason that your sense of touch is somehow enhanced.
I for one see no reason to allow for voluntary blindness (closing your eyes).
Yeah, I've also done somethign similar Darksol, where a player can choose to close their eyes and give themselves the blind condition. However, I make it a choice per round, you can open or close your eyes once during the round and that affects the entire round. I recognize opening and closing your eyes can happen much faster, but the counter arguments is that you don't know where what you're trying to avoid looking at is at. And so if you do it more frequently you gain/loose nothing.
|
|
I would make it cost an action for the closing you eyes with the rationale that you take a long good look at your surroundings before going in blinded. Then it lasts as long as you keep your eyes closed (no need for further action). I might make it cost an action to get your bearings back when you open your eyes again. And any kind of blindfighting ability would negate that last action cost.
And as long as your eyes are closed you are blinded with all the benefits and disadvantages that go with the condition.
And if you are grappling someone, as long as they have the Grabbed condition, I would rule that you can target them without further penalties.
Reminds me of the Detect Hand spell of yore : "Your hand is at the end of your arm, unless you used the Detach Hand spell beforehand".
Fair dues, that is definitely your right as a GM.
This is what I'm not agreeing with. Your ruling is nowhere superior or objective. Your ruling is as subjective as ours, you use RAW as we do. There is no houserule here, this is a pure question of rule application.
You use what I'd call a metarule (a rule about rule application) that I would define as "In a non-nominal situation, remove or forbid the less defined elements until you end up in a nominal situation."
The situation is: "A character wants to strike a wizard with mirror image that he is touching." This is a non-nominal situation, so you remove the touching as it's the less defined element and because there's no definition of the interaction between touch and Mirror Image. It becomes "A character wants to strike a wizard with mirror image." It's a nominal situation and you apply RAW.
In the same situation, I use analogy. "A character wants to strike a wizard with mirror image that he is touching." Because touch is obviously a sense and that there are rules about senses, by analogy I use the rules about senses to handle the situation. As touch allows you to pinpoint someone I choose to consider it as at least an Imprecise Sense. I'm also following RAW.
As the situation is not nominal, it is necessarily a GM call, you can't say "per RAW" as RAW doesn't cover the situation entirely. But I feel you lost sight of your processes of thoughts when it comes to choosing what rule to apply and how, the consequence being that you feel you are objective in your ruling. And that's what makes you state that we are "houseruling" when none of us is. We are just debating about GMing styles, not about RAW.
It's the same about closing one's eyes. It's a non-nominal situation so your process of thought is to eliminate/forbid it/reduce it to a nominal situation. I will rule on the spot that the character is Blinded because it's basically what closing one's eyes does.
Both of us are applying strict RAW in that case. We are just not applying the same rules because we have a different reading of the situation.
As a side note, in third edition you were able to entirely bypass Mirror Image if you were touching the Wizard. So we can clearly see that the interaction between touch and Mirror Image is one that needs a specific ruling, a GM call as it's undefined in the PF2 rules.
But if this would be your DM call, you'll have to deal with it.
Obviously. When making a GM call, you have to be sure you are not imbalancing everything.
As a side note, I've never seen a character using Grapple outside of roleplay situations, which make me think that Grapple is far from overpowered.Not saying that the current rule set is perfectly balanced around the combat in terms of actions, but to deliberately modify it to exploit some spells in favor of roleplay ( which means reducing the already existing balance, and avert gaze explicitly shows how you player are supposed to deal with those effects) is clearly not good when it comes to combat.
We will both agree that it's an opinion. A very good one, as disregarding balance when making your calls will lead to a reduction of everyone's pleasure. It's also important to consider that you can make a GM call with balance in mind. Actually, you can make a GM call to balance things when a rule is abused by some players.
Because let's be honest, if a character is allowed to close it's eyes, then intelligent enemies might do the same towards anything ( and unless they are lvl -1 they have experienced for sure combat against adventurers or other enemies).
I disagree with that. As a GM, you control the monsters, so nothing forces you to use them in a certain way. It really depends on the ambiance of your game. In PFS, I'll play the enemies as quite dumb as I want the game to be light-hearted. In my Abomination Vaults campaign, I use these kind of tactics against my players, even attacking downed characters sometimes. Because I want my players to feel the difficulty.
Unless you want to carry around your players on a journey ( making enemies dumb, attack random targets, not using cleave or aoe attacks to also hit downed players, etc... ), the enemies will fight the best they can to survive, as would the players.
Yes, unless I want to carry around my players.
In PFS, I mostly carry my players around, in AV I play the enemies as they should.In my opinion, you have a strongly defined prefered playstyle: High tactical level, high difficulty, hardcore when it comes to the combat simulation. Clearly, loosely-defined rules and balance issues completely messes up with your pleasure. So I understand why you prefer when everyone avoids situations that are not properly defined in the book and if it happens you'd prefer the GM to discourage the behavior than to encourage it.
Personally, I'm more of a Chaotic Good GM. I have hard time being mean (I try to move toward Chaotic Neutral, but it's hard). I can live with loosely-defined rules even if I prefer a strong baseline of rules I can adapt to the situations, and will tend to encourage creative solutions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the same situation, I use analogy. "A character wants to strike a wizard with mirror image that he is touching." Because touch is obviously a sense and that there are rules about senses, by analogy I use the rules about senses to handle the situation. As touch allows you to pinpoint someone I choose to consider it as at least an Imprecise Sense. I'm also following RAW.
This sums up the reason why I disagree with your assertion that your interpretation is a reasonable example of the baseline assumption of the game.
You see a very corner case situation that the rules deal with adequately, no ambiguous rules or awkward rules interactions, and instead of simply keeping the game moving using the rules as they are, you take time to adjudicate a situation that simply doesn't need adjudication.
Nothing about Grappling indicates that it alters your ability to perceive your target.
Nothing about Mirror Image indicates that touching a target interacts with the effectiveness of the spell.
The situation is already clear.
I will also point out that ruling touch as an imprecise sense rather than vague is suspect, since the CRB only calls out Hearing as a "standard" imprecise sense, while going on to state that a character, "...also has many vague senses—ones that can
alert you that something is there but aren’t useful for
zeroing in on it to determine exactly what it is," which tells me that any other non-sight or hearing based sense would fall into this category. So smell, taste and touch in other words.
Again, I am certainly not saying that you don't have the right to make that call on the fly. But I take issue with you declaring that yours is somehow both a GM adjudication as well as a valid interpretation of the rules as written that belongs in the Rules Discussion forum. There are no rules that indicate that this situation needs adjudication. The rules governing what happens are already clear, they just don't follow your preferred outcome.
It could be a neat roleplay moment. But it also introduces an entire element to combat that I just don't think needs to be a thing, or is healthy for the game for reasons I've already outlined.
There are no rules that indicate that this situation needs adjudication.
Because all situations need adjudication. Even if most of the time you can apply a rule very easily, it doesn't mean that you haven't made a GM call.
This situation has been brought by Blave, not me. And from everyone's post you can see that many feels it needs a special adjudication. The fact that you think it doesn't is your GM call. Then, you apply RAW based on your call (as it doesn't need a special adjudication you ignore the specificity of this situation).
Personally, I see a cornercase that the rules don't handle at all and as such I have to make a GM call. This is the base of our disagreement and that leads to different uses of RAW.
I will also point out that ruling touch as an imprecise sense rather than vague is suspect
If touch is an Imprecise Sense, it means that you can't cast Magic Weapon on the weapon you hold if the light is off. Do you rule it that way? I'm pretty sure you don't. Which is the proof that, at some point, you also deal with the gaps in the rules by making GM calls. And what you're doing is not a houserule, it's dealing with the fact that the rules can't cover all the cases and as such you have to make a specific call every now and then.
Nothing in the rules state that you have to enforce a rule when the situation is not a proper fit for the rule.
I will also point out that ruling touch as an imprecise sense rather than vague is suspectIf touch is an Imprecise Sense, it means that you can't cast Magic Weapon on the weapon you hold if the light is off. Do you rule it that way? I'm pretty sure you don't. Which is the proof that, at some point, you also deal with the gaps in the rules by making GM calls. And what you're doing is not a houserule, it's dealing with the fact that the rules can't cover all the cases and as such you have to make a specific call every now and then.
Nothing in the rules state that you have to enforce a rule when the situation is not a proper fit for the rule.
Touch being vague has no bearing on whether you know you are gripping your weapon or not. Detection rules are only relevant to detecting other creatures. I believe you think that "Vague" sense means that you get next to no information from it. All Vague means in this context is that you don't get much spatial and specific information from that sense. You know that you are holding something, and can likely deduce that it's your weapon, since you were already holding your weapon. But reach out and touch something warm and leathery with what feels like fur that you were not aware was there before. Is it a bear? A dog? Is it moving? How big is it? Touch doesn't give you as much data as sight or hearing.
And I never said I don't house rule things. I do often. I am stating that your call on using touch to bypass Mirror Image is Definitely a house rule, and thus unfit for the Rules Forum, where someone may wander in wondering how the rules specifically deal with that situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I never said I don't house rule things. I am stating that your call on using touch to bypass Mirror Image is Definitely a house rule, and thus unfit for the Rules Forum, where someone may wander in wondering how the rules specifically deal with that situation.
Great, because you are the bearer of the One True Rule.
Well, it seems we reached a point in the conversation where it's not useful to continue it.