Apparently, a druid's wolf can't see in the dark.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Phb pg. 54.

Wolves only get scent, the errata only covered snakes and sharks.

So DMs remember, when a PC uses a wolf as an animal companion, it's weak vs darkness.

:)


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
InsaneFox wrote:

Phb pg. 54.

Wolves only get scent, the errata only covered snakes and sharks.

So DMs remember, when a PC uses a wolf as an animal companion, it's weak vs darkness.

:)

That's true unless the creature is within 5 ft of the Wolf then hes fine

P. 443 of the core book under darkness

A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints
unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.


The wolf is still an animal, and thus has low light vision unless specifically called out otherwise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The wolf is still an animal, and thus has low light vision unless specifically called out otherwise.

Low-light yes, darkvision, no.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All those poor wolves who live in the deep caves and never get to see the light of day. . .oh wait, ya, there aren't any.

Low light vision is exactly what an animal should have. (If even that, really.)


ShadowcatX wrote:

All those poor wolves who live in the deep caves and never get to see the light of day. . .oh wait, ya, there aren't any.

Low light vision is exactly what an animal should have. (If even that, really.)

I had the pleasure of working with a wolf pack briefly, and they never seemed to have a problem getting around in the dark.

Their low light vision probably isn't as good as cats, but making a system complicated enough to handle different levels of low light vision would probably be more trouble than its worth. They also have more rods and fewer cones (types of cells in the eye) than we do, meaning they're not as good at seeing color but have good low light vision and ability to spot movement.

Wolves also have a reflective layer in the eye called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum] Tapetum lucidum

that lets them reflect light back through the retina.

So low light vision yes, darkvision .. hell no. Snakes (vipers) can "see" heat, that's darkvision in this system, and I'd imagine they're using the sharks ability to sense electricity as a form of vision?

Contributor

It's been noted for errata in the next printing of the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The wolf is still an animal, and thus has low light vision unless specifically called out otherwise.

Wolves have it in the bestiary, it was a tongue and cheek way of pointing out errata.

Thank sean. On the same subject of errata... Phb pg 266, the detect chaos/evil/ect chart shows an aligned creature of 5 HD as having both a faint aura and no aura at all.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I had the pleasure of working with a wolf pack briefly, and they never seemed to have a problem getting around in the dark.

Their low light vision probably isn't as good as cats, but making a system complicated enough to handle different levels of low light vision would probably be more trouble than its worth. They also have more rods and fewer cones (types of cells in the eye) than we do, meaning they're not as good at seeing color but have good low light vision and ability to spot movement.

I wasn't arguing that wolves shouldn't get low light vision, but there are plenty of animals that shouldn't.

Contributor

InsaneFox wrote:
Thank sean. On the same subject of errata... Phb pg 266, the detect chaos/evil/ect chart shows an aligned creature of 5 HD as having both a faint aura and no aura at all.

Actually, that was fixed in the 4th printing of the Core Rulebook.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I had the pleasure of working with a wolf pack briefly, and they never seemed to have a problem getting around in the dark.

Their low light vision probably isn't as good as cats, but making a system complicated enough to handle different levels of low light vision would probably be more trouble than its worth. They also have more rods and fewer cones (types of cells in the eye) than we do, meaning they're not as good at seeing color but have good low light vision and ability to spot movement.

Wolves also have a reflective layer in the eye called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum] Tapetum lucidum that lets them reflect light back through the retina.

So low light vision yes, darkvision .. hell no. Snakes (vipers) can "see" heat, that's darkvision in this system, and I'd imagine they're using the sharks ability to sense electricity as a form of vision?

Not to nit pick, but most vipers don't have heat sensing ability, only pit vipers do. The western world has pit vipers (rattlesnakes, cotton mouths, and copper heads). Old world vipers lack the "pits" that sense heat. Also, some of the large constricters have a more primitive heat sensing nerve system along the edge of their mouths.

I used to work with pit vipers (and other snakes) and their ability to strike at heat sources with pin point accuracy is amazing. Take a balloon that's been blown up for a little while, then blow up another one and extend both towards a rattlesnake on a stick and the snake will strike only the one with warm air in it. In absolute darkness a pit viper can strike with something like 95% accuracy.

We used to try to educate people on the dangers of messing with rattlesnakes with a garden hoe, stick, or something similar. They step up to poke the snake with the stick and are surprised when it instead strikes their foot or hand.

An odd bit of trivia but it wasn't even discovered that pit vipers had this ability until we had invented heat seeking missiles ourselves. Then someone said, "I wonder if that's why rattlesnakes are so accurate?"


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snakes (vipers) can "see" heat, that's darkvision in this system

No, that's infravision, which is the AD&D version of darkvision. Darkvision hasn't worked that way for more than a decade.


Quote:
No, that's infravision, which is the AD&D version of darkvision. Darkvision hasn't worked that way for more than a decade.

Yes, that is infravision but yes that is darkvision by the systems rules. It really doesn't matter HOW it works it just matters that it DOES work.


No, actually, infravision is not darkvision in the system's rules. Darkvision has nothing to do with heat; it's simply colorless vision that works even in the absence of light. That's probably why Pathfinder's vipers don't have darkvision. Nor do sharks, for that matter.


Fozbek wrote:
No, actually, infravision is not darkvision in the system's rules. Darkvision has nothing to do with heat; it's simply colorless vision that works even in the absence of light. That's probably why Pathfinder's vipers don't have darkvision. Nor do sharks, for that matter.

What is the errata giving them?

And why are you getting so worked up over this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are you assuming that I'm getting worked up?

I'm just pointing out that you are entirely incorrect about infravision being darkvision. That isn't true, and hasn't been for quite some time. Infravision has different effects than those given by darkvision (for example, it's generally useless against constructs and undead, as they don't tend to have a different temperature than their surroundings unless they're flaming skeletons or ice golems or whatever; heat vision can't be used to read any text, including scrolls, because the ink doesn't have a different temperature from the page it's on; etc).

Sharks' electrical sensitivity is why they have blindsense. Which isn't darkvision.

Dark Archive

This reminds me of something I brought up a while back: bats. They have blindsense. Not blindsight, blindsense. They have to make acrobatics checks if they move faster than 50% speed in darkness. Frickin' bats. They are worse at operating in the dark than a goblin. Never mind that echolocation is specifically called out in the description of blindsight as an example...

The developers kindly explained that this was to avoid abuse from low-level druids wildshaping into bats and negating invisibility. One of those cases where a balance decision caused something totally nonsensical. I suggested, if that really was a big concern, at least give them darkvision, maybe with a caveat that it was rendered inoperable in the area of magical silence. Or just give them the bloody blindsight and let druids have a nice way of dealing with invisible creatures; I somehow doubt it would be gamebreaking.

Anyhow, just pointing it out as a funny little "Hey, look at that" since it seemed to fit the theme of the thread. Happy Gaming!


AsmodeusUltima wrote:


The developers kindly explained that this was to avoid abuse from low-level druids wildshaping into bats and negating invisibility. One of those cases where a balance decision caused something totally nonsensical. I suggested, if that really was a big concern, at least give them darkvision, maybe with a caveat that it was rendered inoperable in the area of magical silence. Or just give them the bloody blindsight and let druids have a nice way of dealing with invisible creatures; I somehow doubt it would be gamebreaking.

But you don't get blindsight as a druid wildshaping!

It functions as Beast Shape(x) which never gives blindsight, you only get the listed senses and or abilities in the spell description (if the creature has them) regardless of what the creature has.

Or am I reading it wrong?

Contributor

I believe the concern was that druids would have bat *companions* which could effectively ignore invisibility.

Liberty's Edge

The wildshape changes are imo the only huge awful design choice from 3.5 to PF. The old rules weren't great but the new ones aren't better :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
The wildshape changes are imo the only huge awful design choice from 3.5 to PF. The old rules weren't great but the new ones aren't better :(

Whats wrong with them? The druid no longer roflcopters the fighter at fighting and grappling, and you can apply changes to your character sheet based on the spell rather than having to have a completely separate character sheet for EVERY form you could turn into. My shape changing wizard needed to have a three ring binder.

Liberty's Edge

The abilities don't come early enough and some cool abilities will get left out just because they aren't on the list.

The first beast form is a waste, you don't even get pounce or trip.

I would've preferred the ability to transform into an animal of CR = to your level. You use the animal's physical stat scores and gain its abilities. Part of the problem was before that turning into a Polar Bear or whatever gave +16 to your regular strength score, not the special abilities of the animals.


Coridan wrote:

The abilities don't come early enough and some cool abilities will get left out just because they aren't on the list.

The first beast form is a waste, you don't even get pounce or trip.

If the druid has pounce at 4th they'll be doing more damage than the fighter. If they get trip they'll be a better trip monkey than the fighter (without having to be smarter than their animal companion)

Quote:
I would've preferred the ability to transform into an animal of CR = to your level.

Which would mean any animal they made they'd have to stop and think "do we want to give druids of X level this ability"

Quote:

You use the animal's physical stat scores and gain its abilities. Part of the problem was before that turning into a Polar Bear or whatever gave +16 to your regular strength score, not the special abilities of the animals.

The problem was that the animals scores REPLACED yours. they didn't provide the bonus. The druid could pump his mental stats, drop his strength and dex into the toilet and be fine because they shape-shifted to a form with a 30 strength.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Apparently, a druid's wolf can't see in the dark. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion