clearstream
(He, Him)
Felt this would be helpful to post separately. Notice the enemy states implied by hiding: aware and alert.
You can be alert without being aware, but if you are aware you are alert. Alertness cannot typically be lost once acquired within an encounter. Awareness can typically be lost and reacquired within an encounter.
Using awareness and alertness as tools, we get
A. Not alert to your presence: they have no reason to suspect you are there so they cannot hunt for you or target you.
B. Alert to your presence: they know you might be nearby so they can hunt for you.
C. Aware of your direction and rough distance, or have received that information from an ally with a free action: they know where to move to better hunt you and can pick squares to attack in the hope they contain you.
D. Aware of your exact square: they spotted you and can target you if they have LOE.
E. Know your exact square, or have received that information from an ally with a free action, or pick your exact square by chance, but they still can't see you: they can target you if they have LOE, but at -5 (-7 in cover).
Notice that here we've ruled that knowledge of exact square can be passed on with a free action, but that a successful Perception check cannot be. Except for the manner in which it can be lost, hiding = invisible. This avoids E. splitting into two cases with identical consequences on players. It loses little and helps play to allow free actions to share direction and rough distance and exact square.
Notice C. What I hope to do is find a way to resolve 'pick a square' into a simple mechanical step.
Finally notice hunt. I introduce this as jargon to deal with active Perception checks against hidden or invisible foes, differentiating from those used to search for traps and secret things.
-vk
You can be alert without being aware, but if you are aware you are alert. Alertness cannot typically be lost once acquired within an encounter. Awareness can typically be lost and reacquired within an encounter.
Using awareness and alertness as tools, we get
A. Not alert to your presence: they have no reason to suspect you are there so they cannot hunt for you or target you.
B. Alert to your presence: they know you might be nearby so they can hunt for you.
C. Aware of your direction and rough distance, or have received that information from an ally with a free action: they know where to move to better hunt you and can pick squares to attack in the hope they contain you.
D. Aware of your exact square: they spotted you and can target you if they have LOE.
E. Know your exact square, or have received that information from an ally with a free action, or pick your exact square by chance, but they still can't see you: they can target you if they have LOE, but at -5 (-7 in cover).
Notice that here we've ruled that knowledge of exact square can be passed on with a free action, but that a successful Perception check cannot be. Except for the manner in which it can be lost, hiding = invisible. This avoids E. splitting into two cases with identical consequences on players. It loses little and helps play to allow free actions to share direction and rough distance and exact square.
Notice C. What I hope to do is find a way to resolve 'pick a square' into a simple mechanical step.
Finally notice hunt. I introduce this as jargon to deal with active Perception checks against hidden or invisible foes, differentiating from those used to search for traps and secret things.
-vk
Last edited:
