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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Machus" data-source="post: 4380752" data-attributes="member: 72271">Why is the distinction important?  Nowhere does the FAQ exclude already existing rules for stealth, perception, cover, and concealmentI think the targeting what you can't see rules are by in large not necessary, stealth already is defined by those rules. If you cant' see a target, they have total concealment at that time, and give a ranged/melee attack a -5 penalty.  That's listed in a few places.  Locating someone with perception is already under perception.  Using area attacks/close attacks are already covered under cover/concealment rules. Really I see no value in suggesting that players use the targeting what you can't see rules, they are just a reiteration of the already existing rules, but with a special advantage to those who are invisible.  That is, for an opponent that the normal ways of defeating hidden status, is not usable on.   Players still have access to the normal and more efficient ways to defeat stealth: 1. You may already be able to deduce their location from where you saw them "vanish" (i.e. no roll needed).2. An opposed perception roll vs. their last stealth success3. Moving to where they no longer have cover or concealment from you.4. Removing or destroying their cover/concealment (lighting a torch in dim light, burning foliage via a fire spell, etc.)5. Using an area/close attack When woud you not be doing one of these?  If you missed your standard action, targeting what you can't see let's you still use a minor action to get a general idea.  That's about the only new information it gives.</blockquote>

Verification