Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tilla the Hun (work)" data-source="post: 1403994" data-attributes="member: 14214">So the whole problem of the RotG change revolves around a) the use of the term 'see' and b) that term used in indicating that 'unseen' opponents cannot flank...Personally, I think it's just a semantic arguement at heart - Skip unwittingly used the term 'see' as an offhand thought without further clarification.Want to completely cancel flanking per RotG?&nbsp; Cast darkness or greater darkness as a human, and suddenly you can't be flanked - you can't see the enemy...&nbsp; But now I'm discussing the issue that I realize I fully comprehend now.I comprehend the problem and the various stances, and realize that I rather completely disagree with the cavalier use of the term 'see'.&nbsp; I recognize the thought and spirit, but gamers are born-lawyers and will read a line 1000 times to see if they can perceive a loop-hole.&nbsp; Using off-hand terms (such as 'see') leads directly into these predicaments.What I'm sure he meant was 'be aware of' or 'be knowingly threatened by', i.e. you have to know something is threatening you from that square.&nbsp; It makes much more sense that way.Oh, and also note that by the RotG, if you have Imp/Greater Invis - you can't actually flank - the target a) can't see you and b) doesn't know which square you're in.&nbsp; Let alone the whole host of new combat options such a use of 'see' allows (some of which have been mentioned).&nbsp; Heh - it certainly makes a blind fighter/barb quite viable though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tilla the Hun (work), post: 1403994, member: 14214"] So the whole problem of the RotG change revolves around a) the use of the term 'see' and b) that term used in indicating that 'unseen' opponents cannot flank... Personally, I think it's just a semantic arguement at heart - Skip unwittingly used the term 'see' as an offhand thought without further clarification. Want to completely cancel flanking per RotG? Cast darkness or greater darkness as a human, and suddenly you can't be flanked - you can't see the enemy... But now I'm discussing the issue that I realize I fully comprehend now. I comprehend the problem and the various stances, and realize that I rather completely disagree with the cavalier use of the term 'see'. I recognize the thought and spirit, but gamers are born-lawyers and will read a line 1000 times to see if they can perceive a loop-hole. Using off-hand terms (such as 'see') leads directly into these predicaments. What I'm sure he meant was 'be aware of' or 'be knowingly threatened by', i.e. you have to know something is threatening you from that square. It makes much more sense that way. Oh, and also note that by the RotG, if you have Imp/Greater Invis - you can't actually flank - the target a) can't see you and b) doesn't know which square you're in. Let alone the whole host of new combat options such a use of 'see' allows (some of which have been mentioned). Heh - it certainly makes a blind fighter/barb quite viable though. [/QUOTE]

Verification