|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 7:35AM
#51
|
|
|
The corner wouldn't grant concealment persay, but if the corner is opaque, it blocks line of sight, which has the side-effect of granting total concealment (effectively speaking).
It doesn't "grant concealment" like a terrain feature that grants concealment does.
But it DOES block LoS, and blocked LoS ALSO causes concealment.
It doesn't matter if you can't see me because I'm invisible, you're blind, there's a solid wall in the way, or there's a Stinking Cloud that blocks LoS but not LoE in the way.
What matters is that if you can't see me, I have Total Concealment from you. If it's a solid wall, I ALSO have "No Line Of Effect", which is like Superior Cover but better.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 7:43AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
The corner wouldn't grant concealment persay, but if the corner is opaque, it blocks line of sight, which has the side-effect of granting total concealment (effectively speaking).
For future reference, "per se" is the term you are looking for. It's Latin for "by itself." You've use it correctly, but spelled it worng. Just an FYI.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 7:56AM
#53
|
|
|
Then just assume I'm coining a phrase. Like Vorpal.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:14AM
#54
|
|
|
So should one remove the figuring from the board or not ? How to do it right could be to assign the Map's axis some letter A-B-C etc...and numbers 1-2-3 etc.... Hidden PC's players select a a square they occupy when moving while Hidden into a square and write it away. When the enemy attack the Hidden PC, the DM select a square and see if it matches.
This depends on the people at your table. If the players can't trust the DM and the DM can't trust the players, then bring out the Battleship™ rules, otherwise just note where the guy was last percieved to be.
"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:21AM
#55
|
|
|
By RAW, there is nothing that says that a creature of whom you have no method of detecting is automatically hidden from you. So, if an enemy is 10000 feet away but it doesn't make a hide check (because it's stunned) technically it's not hidden from you. So there's a bit of gameplay/story segregation going on here.
I would probably argue that RAI somewhere in there is that, if you can't detect a creature by any means, it is automatically hidden. However, even a natural sense of kinesis lets player characters able to detect the presence of silent invisible enemies-they can feel it in the air (they're just that badass). Likewise, a solid wall may block some sound, but not all of it. It's ultimately a judgment call on the part of the DM when there's no longer any means of detection.
But yes, by RAW, near as I can tell, there is no way for a creature to be hidden-and thus its position unknown-without a hide check.
Edit: It occurs to me that the 10,000 feet away issue is something of an EPR paradox. The only thing that can be communicated is "what square is this guy standing in." Which can be used to transmit data faster than the speed of light!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:24AM
#56
|
|
|
By RAW, there is nothing that says that a creature of whom you have no method of detecting is automatically hidden from you. So, if an enemy is 10000 feet away but it doesn't make a hide check (because it's stunned) technically it's not hidden from you. So there's a bit of gameplay/story segregation going on here.
An enemy that is 2,000 squares away is most likely not in the current Encounter, and thus does not *need* to be Hidden for you to not know where it is.
I would probably argue that RAI somewhere in there is that, if you can't detect a creature by any means, it is automatically hidden. However, even a natural sense of kinesis lets player characters able to detect the presence of silent invisible enemies-they can feel it in the air (they're just that badass). Likewise, a solid wall may block some sound, but not all of it. It's ultimately a judgment call on the part of the DM when there's no longer any means of detection.
Generally, "when the monster is no longer in the Encounter" is good enough.
But yes, by RAW, near as I can tell, there is no way for a creature to be hidden-and thus its position unknown-without a hide check.
That is correct. It is absolutely impossible to *not* know where a non-Hidden monster is, if the monster is in the Encounter in the first place.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:27AM
#57
|
|
|
What about the OTHER perception rules? I would argue that, if a creature is not making a stealth check, you still have to make perception checks (or have a high enough passive perception) to be able to detect a human sized object in a given field of concealment!
In which case the penalties to perception would actually apply.
Not "in the current encounter" is a Gameplay and Story Segregation issue, BTW.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:28AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2004
|
So should one remove the figuring from the board or not ? How to do it right could be to assign the Map's axis some letter A-B-C etc...and numbers 1-2-3 etc.... Hidden PC's players select a a square they occupy when moving while Hidden into a square and write it away. When the enemy attack the Hidden PC, the DM select a square and see if it matches.
This depends on the people at your table. If the players can't trust the DM and the DM can't trust the players, then bring out the Battleship™ rules, otherwise just note where the guy was last percieved to be.
For me, it depends on the enemy attacking the hidden PC. If the enemy is dumb as a brick (ie, low INT), I just assume it misses or concentrates on someone visible. If the enemy has a high INT, and feels that attacking the hidden PC isn't a waste of time, then it will either attack the last place it saw the PC disappear or a random square around that area. Assign each square around the area a number on a die or something.
PCs moving around without the DM knowing where exactly they are moving seems like a bad idea to me. What if there are traps in the area? Difficult terrain the PC wants to jump? "Why are you rolling an Athletics check?" And probably a bunch of other things that don't come immediately to mind. Proper movement monitored by the DM seems important to me (especially with newer players).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:33AM
#59
|
|
|
Hi, Sorry about the delay, I didn't see this question until I came back today. Does Blind / Deaf (-10 to Perception checks) apply to passives?
If they do the case falls to the waterfall scenario... Make your check, they have a -20 to their passive perception!
Yes, a "penalty to perception checks" also applies to passive perception checks.
I was saying "-30" in the original because "a very long distance away" could easily give a -10 situational check.
Also, I followed the link to your house rules, and you've got a couple of things in there that seem very odd (at least one of which is relevant to this thread!)
First: You've got a house rule restricting the number of Immediates someone can take in response to a single event as "one interrupt and one reaction, no more" to stop people from taking all kinds of Interrupts or Reactions - did you know that you can only take on Immediate Action PER FULL ROUND?
Second: You've got a "house rule" that Stealth works vs Passive Perception, no rolls required - that's how it *already* works, and the Minor Action roll to penetrate stealth is an option in case the guy rolling Stealth beat your Passive.
All the other rules there appear to be valid House Rule changes - but those two jumped out at me as requiring a fundamental misunderstanding of the RAW. And, hey, the second one is Relevant To THis Thread's Interests.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 8:35AM
#60
|
|
|
It's possible that all four PCs decide to spend an immediate reaction for the same event.
|
|
|
