Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keith" data-source="post: 1393997" data-attributes="member: 10752">To me, the character could have known and/or guessed that: 1) the opponent might be ethereal and 2) might still be out there somewhere.  I think the LAST thing the character would reasonably guess is that the opponent stops moving, even for a split second, after creating mist to cover their escape/retreat/whatever.It is the player who can think “IF he goes ethereal, I think he will be in the same spot because he likely can’t have continued moving after casting”.  I still think this does create a meta-gaming element to the situation.  Not a bad one, but it is there. I don’t think  “My character shoots at the last spot where he saw a moving opponent” is a very credible way around it.  Why does the character think the opponent stopped instead of continuing to move after they lost sight of them?I guess it could depend on how much you want the way characters behave to reflect knowledge about casting and movement.  If the goal, as someone who disagreed with me pointed out above, is to use the system to make the game run smoothly, I have my doubts about characters targeting out-of-sight individuals who they should probably think are moving by applying knowledge of how initiative works in the game.I’m not sure I’m being very clear.  What I mean is: in-game, a person is moving and you lose sight of them, and try to target them.  Wouldn’t you pick anywhere BUT where you saw them before losing sight of them, on the assumption that they were moving?  Why would you think they stopped, paused, or failed to continue moving?  In this case, the opponent was in the same place.  But I think only guessing that they have cast a spell results in the character suspecting that.  Is that in-game knowledge?  I’m not sure.Cheers</blockquote>

Verification