Dark Alleys Are Still Safe?
- Thread starter pawsplay
- Start date
hey guys !
i think you're reading it wrong. I don't want to check just now, but my understanding, after reading the book, was that sneak attack is only negated when you reach ... 50 % MISS CHANCE.
i don't remember which paragraph made me jump to that, but I'll houserule it that way in my games anyways.
Kudos if everyone can find the text, but I have to sleep now.
Later
i think you're reading it wrong. I don't want to check just now, but my understanding, after reading the book, was that sneak attack is only negated when you reach ... 50 % MISS CHANCE.
i don't remember which paragraph made me jump to that, but I'll houserule it that way in my games anyways.
Kudos if everyone can find the text, but I have to sleep now.
Later
You're right! Nor does it have rules for the acceleration due to gravity, the nutritional value of bread or the alcohol content of wine. However, I guess we would all assume that those things all work as in our common observed experience? Are you doubting the existence of shadows (a common relative lighting experience) in PF?
pawsplay
Hero
You're right! Nor does it have rules for the acceleration due to gravity, the nutritional value of bread or the alcohol content of wine. However, I guess we would all assume that those things all work as in our common observed experience? Are you doubting the existence of shadows (a common relative lighting experience) in PF?
Are you prepared to rule how everything about everything works? How much bearing do these things have at the level of resolution we are looking at? How do they interact with other parts of the rules?
Naturally, I am familiar with shadows, a phenomen that produces relatively dim light. Does everything in a shadow benefit from concealment?
My point is, "This basically makes sense to me," is a fine standpoint to make many rulings, but "This is the rule, which comfortably interacts with the rest of the system" is another important design consideration. For instance, suppose you decided it was realistic for a coup de gras to reliably kill any human being. Ok, what about doing it under fire from arrows? What about an ogre? ... a giant? Is a Huge Titan subject to being automatically killed? So if you are having a problem with characters surviving deadly attacks while helpless, it is useful to devise a general mechanic, as the d20 rules and PF have done, that quantifies what is supposed to happen.
Since a rule already addresses concealment and sneak attack, I would like to find some way to work within that system. Hand-waving is okay, but in this situation not ideal, from my standpoint.
Looking out of my window now - I can see a person sitting on a bench in sunlight and a person near them in the shade. It appears that shadows do not always provide concealment. I imagine you could perform this empirical test as a thought experiment using your knowledge of the world and arrive at the same conclusion.
Is it your wish to construct rules that defy normal experience - and then use the rule because it's the rule? I don't understand that desire. As science is yet to model every aspect of the real world, I find it an unreasonable expectation to require a game (even at 576 pages!) to model every aspect of many shared worlds.
I fully agree that in this case the rules have to construct a consensual game experience aligned with expectations of fantasy tropes. Moreover, the best way to test a rule is to push it to its limits and test at those limits - as you would with a mathematical model in science. I fully agree that the sensible limits here are to start with the mundane case of the human and then push to the huge titan. However, is the answer what is "supposed" to happen or a best guess of what you would "imagine" would happen. Again, my supposition is that your "supposed" is driven by an urge to have to apply the RAW.
I think you need to reasd the Getting Started section again:
Emphasis in quotation mine.
I think that your defintion of hand-waving is my understading of GM common sense. It will all come down to play styles and preferences in the end I suppose.
Is this a game system you will religiously use within which you see if you can do some fantasy rolplaying. Or do you want to do some fantasy ropleplaying adjudicated with these game rules. I tend to the second and I think that's the spirit of " The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore".
Last edited:
Starbuck_II
Explorer
That won't work unless your the DM: you can't force the DM to change the ruleds to let your sneak attack if he thinks shadows provide concealment.
That rule isn't helpful unless you DM the game.
That rule isn't helpful unless you DM the game.
So, you want rules you can force the DM to follow whatever he thinks about alleys and shadows? Is that the paradigm?
Note: I should explain that I haven't played D&D since /2e (having started with D&Din 1978) and I'm returning because my old group are going to get together and play PFRPG. I'm really trying to understand the gaming culture that /3e has generated - as it's the context for "getting" PF.
Starbuck_II
Explorer
No, but having rules that you can point to as the actual rules does give more willingness to a DM to use.
Same reason Dms areweary of homebrewed class because they aren't of the rules.
The DM isn't sure if it will mess with balance.
Same as anyone: why should he change the rules if he thinks the rules help keep balance.
If concealment stops sneak atack: he will be weary to change it for fear of powering up the rogue too much.
Remember I said if the DM forces you to follow: a player can't force only show how the rules are made and hope he at least considers the danger of the houserule (60% of houserules are not well thought out).
Same reason Dms areweary of homebrewed class because they aren't of the rules.
The DM isn't sure if it will mess with balance.
Same as anyone: why should he change the rules if he thinks the rules help keep balance.
If concealment stops sneak atack: he will be weary to change it for fear of powering up the rogue too much.
Remember I said if the DM forces you to follow: a player can't force only show how the rules are made and hope he at least considers the danger of the houserule (60% of houserules are not well thought out).
Liquidsabre
Explorer
Hate to nitpick here but sunlight would be "Bright Light" while shade beneath a tree would be "Normal Light" conditions per the rules. Normal light (your "shade" on a bright sunny day) does not provide concealment.
That is a very good point. We should always start with an asumption that the official rules have been sensibly constructed with careful consideration by designers and from use in playtest/play.
Last edited:
