Saeviomagy said:
As opposed to the sage, who occasionally just makes stuff up.
The last I checked the PHB had the name Skip Williams right there in its credits. It seems to me he's in a good position to explain to us what was intended.
You know - I think that sticking to the rules is probably the superior option when we're discussing a common rules system.
So which rules do we stick to? The PHB, or the article on WotC's site called "The Rules of the Game" by WotC's appointed rules guru? They are both official WotC rules, and are contradictory. I prefer to go with the version that makes sense to me, you prefer to go with the version that makes sense to you. Its all good.
Wow. Surprise surprise. Pulling out the munchkinism brand already. I think that's almost becoming an indirect form of Godwin's law around here.
Anyone who thinks they can close their eyes and gain a benefit against flanking foes deserves the title munchkin in my book. Feel free to disagree of course, since munchkin is such a subjective term.
There are rules to playing the game. Those rules define what is and what isn't a good tactic. If turning your back on people becomes a good tactic, then I think there's a problem with the rules. If a sage advice MAKES it a good tactic, then that sage advice has some problems.
Perhaps Skip knows that intelligent people can play the game without abusing loopholes. Every role-playing game out there (at least all the ones I've ever heard about) has loopholes which can make nonsensical situations advantageous to a character illing to throw logic out the window in favor of rules-mongering. And in all those games, D&D included, its the GM's responsibility to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. Its impossible for any RPG to have enough rules to cover a multitude of situations that will arise without having loopholes creep in.
You can stick to your rules and your blind barbarians if you want to, but I prefer to play a game where things have at elast a smattering of realistic consequences for inane actions.
The DC for hearing an enemy is unchanged by invisibility. Pinpointing his square is liable to be a dc 15 listen check.
Are you honestly telling me that characters that can make a dc 15 listen check are rare?
[/quote]
Nope, characters that can make a dc 15 listen check (even barbarians) are probably pretty common. But your guesstimate of the DC is far from accurate, unless of course you set the base DC for hearing someone fighting beside you at -10 (the same as hearing an entire battle).
The base DC is probably 0 (5 lower than an armored character walking slowly). The character doing the listening is distracted (we're in a fight, right?). The effective DC is thus 5. Pin pointing requires a 25. I personally would apply at least a +2-+4 penalty to the DC, because the character is surrounded by other sounds of battle (including his own).
So yeah, I do think that low to medium characters capable of making the DC are rare. At higher levels the check becomes possible, but your average barbarian isn't going to be making the check until around 10th-12th level. And then he'll only be making it half the time.
).
