TRPG General Chat

6:04 PM

@Rubiksmoose ugh.... lemme see if I can dig one up.

rpg.stackexchange.com/posts/149328/revisions

And I recall a string of comments on a different answer by the same user, but can't find them... the comment thread must have been deleted. The only thing that stood out in my mind was something along the lines of "This makes me want to delete my account"

NautArch

@GcL which led to the meta discussion on subjective answer support

after the brief chat room discussion

GcL

I like this example. Someone was frustrated and they were engaged in chat. That had a nice ending.

Way better than someone was frustrated and closed the browser tab.

Or someone was frustrated and went an a downvoting spree to vent/retaliate

NautArch

@GcL Yeah, I also felt that this was an issue that progressed well.

GcL

It did start with user was frustrated.

NautArch

@GcL I'm not sure there's a way to avoid that

GcL

6:16 PM

I disagree about that.

NautArch

If someone is certain that they're doing something the right way about a sensitive subject and someone else suggests they aren't, frustration is likely to ensue.

Emrys Ternal

Hello. Are there any D&D 3.5e, PF, or 5e experts in here?

Sir Cinnamon

I rarely like to use the word expert about myself... but I'd say I know 5e alright

As do many others here, probably to a greater degree than myself

william porter

PF here

Emrys Ternal

I have a general question on whether there's explicit rules precedent, for any of those editions, for how to handle the mixing of player knowledge vs character knowledge. Specifically, as to when the player can see their figurine and the enemy's figurine on the battle map, but line-of-sight is broken between them (such as by a wall of gloom effect), is the player allowed to have their character make decisions based on the unavoidable knowledge of where the enemy is on the battle map?

For example, firing a ranged weapon into that square.

william porter

6:23 PM

I mean

I wouldn't have a figurine there

Sir Cinnamon

@williamporter well think one player knows and one doesnt type situation

william porter

Fair enough

Emrys Ternal

Exactly

william porter

I'd let them make a perception roll to see if they can tell where the enemy is

If so they can shoot, but have a 50% miss chance

Sir Cinnamon

I think the 5e precedent is that it's frowned upon, and should be disallowed at DM discretion but no I don't think there are any specific "This counts as metagaming" lines

Emrys Ternal

6:24 PM

Is there explicit rules precedent though?

william porter

due to total concealment

For PF yes

Sir Cinnamon

This may be relevant though rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129388/…

Someone_Evil

At least for 5e, a creature being out of LOS doesn't mean the character doesn't know where it is. Creatures still make noise and if they are fighting, running, etc. even more so. See also invisibility not making you autohidden.

william porter

Similarly, for pathfinder the player should get a perception check to see if they know where the enemy is

Emrys Ternal

And if the figure being attacked has made no noise?

william porter

6:30 PM

Are they ethereal?

GcL

@EmrysTernal They have to be actively hiding.

NautArch

@EmrysTernal I'm not sure about precedent, but it's about metagaming, table rules, and DM fiat.

Emrys Ternal

No, but there are more situations than being ethereal where a creature could have not made significant noise and still have line of sight be broken.

NautArch

If there is no way the character would know the enemy is there, the DM can do a few things. Ask how their character knows. If it's reasonable, give it to them. If it's questionnable, but possible, let them roll something for it. If there is no good reason and you're confident i that, then just tell the player that they can't shoot there.

william porter

They'll still make noise from their breathing, etc

Unless they're actively making stealth checks, you should use the base perception rules.

If their stealthing, it's an opposed roll.

NautArch

6:33 PM

@williamporter @EmrysTernal rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/97210/…

william porter

5E, irrelevant, I'm discussing PF

NautArch

@EmrysTernal which game are you actually playing?

Emrys Ternal

@william Not necessarily. If it's a magical trap that itself is stationary but has a physical presence (such as an orb on a pillar casting a spell that does not require line-of-effect), it would reasonably make no noise.

william porter

Traps and creatures are 2 different ball games

NautArch

@williamporter sorry! Emrys was asking cross-edition.

william porter

6:35 PM

Traps have a predetermined perception check to notice them, which is what should be used. Creatures do not, though there are rules for noticing them

Emrys Ternal

If line of sight is broken though, what perception check?

william porter

Scent, sounds, sense of heat, etc

Someone_Evil

@EmrysTernal Same check, using a different sense (hearing, smell?, etc.)

Emrys Ternal

For context, I'm addressing this from a 3.5e perspective.

Someone_Evil

Then take my comments with a pinch of salt as they are from a 5e perspective

Emrys Ternal

6:37 PM

but I want to know if there's explicit precedent when there's no way for the character know the enemy is there aside from metagaming.

Including no senses like hearing, smell, heat-sense, etc

but the player can clearly see the figure or source on the battle map

william porter

So the creature is ethereal? Otherwise those apply.

Someone_Evil

@EmrysTernal If you don't want them to metagame, either agree with them not to metagame or don't give them the information at all

3

goodguy5

It took me two hours to go to the dr's office and back that's 10 minutes away.

NautArch

@Someone_Evil Goldstar on that one. I've often had DMs remove minis from the board that we don't know the location of.

william porter

Creatures breathe, hearts pump, slightly shift positions.
If your going to say their holding perfectly still, they better have and be using the Freeze Monster Ability, which would be a stealth check.

NautArch

6:40 PM

The temptation to metagame is strong.

Sir Cinnamon

In terms of 5e, the explicit rule precedent is Rule 0: What the DM says goes. If they are doing something that is impossible for their character to do it is your responsibility to just say no

Emrys Ternal

Alright

Sir Cinnamon

if the perception check would require a 50 to succeed (they are behind a flaming castle wall, 60 feet away) then you say "you dont know where they are, you cant aim at them"

Emrys Ternal

Different question, for 3.5e specifically: Does the "darkness" spell brighten a completely sealed naturally-dark room to the level of "concealment"?

goodguy5

"Your appointment is at 1 o clock; you should show up a few minutes early to fill out paperwork"

Well, they didn't tell me that the office has lunch from 12-1 and that no one would even talk to me before 1.

Then I did all the things and they called me in at like 1:20 and took my vitals.

Then I had to wait for the doctor. Why even have 1:00 appointments?!

</rant>

Sir Cinnamon

6:42 PM

thats interesting - my experience with doctors has been they rarely eat a lunch and typically sneak a couple bites between each appt

Transcript for