Page 301, darkness, lit areas, and darkvision

[Colette Brunel]

Page 301 states:

Quote:

If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed

The RAW here is funky. First of all, apparently, if a creature, any creature, anywhere, can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed.

But let us treat this generously and pretend it simply means "if a creature in darkness can see into a lit area." How does this interact with darkvision? If a creature in darkness with darkvision can see into a lit area, does it have to target creatures in that lit area with concealment?

[Cantriped]

The RAW is not as funky as you mispresent it. "A creature" in this context refers to "A creature or object within darkness". See the actual rules quoted below.

Quote:

DARKNESS

A creature or object within darkness is considered unseen (see page 303) to those without blindsense, blindsight, or darkvision (see Special Senses below). A creature without these senses is blinded (see page 320) while in darkness, though it might be able to see lit areas beyond the darkness. If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302).

As for how it interacts with Darkvision and Low-Light Vision that is fairly simple:

Quote:

Darkvision

A creature with darkvision can see perfectly well in areas of darkness and dim light, though such vision is in black and white only. Some forms of magical darkness, such as a 4th-level darkness spell, block darkvision. However, a creature with greater darkvision can see through even these forms of magical darkness.

Low-Light Vision
A creature with low-light vision does not treat creatures or objects within dim light as concealed.

Neither ability says anything about not treating creatures within Bright Light as concealed if you're within Darkness. So per RAW a goblin in darkness treats a human holding a torch as concealed. However, if a creature within darkness possesses Low-Light or Darkvision, per those abilities they do not treat targets in Dim Light as concealed (such as one holding a candle, or in the secondary radius of the torch once that issue is fixed).

[Traiel]

This is weird to me.. why in the world is a creature concealed just because the creature viewing it is in darkness? If i am out of the range of a fire, i can very clearly make out the people at a fire.

If i'm peeping from the darkness by myself into the next door neighbours' (uncurtained) dining room while they are eating at night, then i can certainly see and crave and wish for their smiles and happiness and joy.

[Cantriped]

Traiel wrote:

This is weird to me.. why in the world is a creature concealed just because the creature viewing it is in darkness? If i am out of the range of a fire, i can very clearly make out the people at a fire.

Stand in total darkness for half an hour, have a friend wave their phone in torch-mode in your eyes, and then try to accurately hit them with with waded paper balls while they try to dodge you. Sure you know where they are, but it would be hurting your eyes to stare into the light,

Besides being realistic, the balance reasons are obvious. The OP was complaining in another thread that his intrepretation of the rules resulted in near TPKs amongst his test group (since his goblins could snipe from the shadows with impunity, and the non-goblin/dwarven heroes could do little about it. Without a rule like this; carrying a light-source is often a liability, and creatures with Darkvision become far more effective than is reasonable.

[Colette Brunel]

Cantriped wrote:

The RAW is not as funky as you mispresent it. "A creature" in this context refers to "A creature or object within darkness". See the actual rules quoted below.

That is not how RAW works. "AW" here means "as written," and the way it is currently written is, "If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed."

[Cantriped]

Colette Brunel wrote:

That is not how RAW works. "AW" here means "as written," and the way it is currently written is, "If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed."

It is exactly how it works, except the rule you keep excerpting out of context appears under the rules title "Darkness". It is a set of rules for when one or more creatures or objects are within darkness. The rule obviously isn't relevent for a battle on a brightly lit plain.

[Byron Zibeck]

Cantriped wrote:

Stand in total darkness for half an hour, have a friend wave their phone in torch-mode in your eyes, and then try to accurately hit them with with waded paper balls while they try to dodge you. Sure you know where they are, but it would be hurting your eyes to stare into the light,

If therenwas a sudden burst of light shown directly in tou eyes, yes, but thats not a fair representation. The PC are shoving the torch right in the goblins eyes. This would have to apply to all times someone in darkness looked into the light, not just in the firsr round or so while your eyes adjust. If I stood outside the radius of a fire for 30 min lookimng at it, I would have no more difficulty seeing the people in range than if I were within the light radius.

[Traiel]

Cantriped wrote:

Traiel wrote:

This is weird to me.. why in the world is a creature concealed just because the creature viewing it is in darkness? If i am out of the range of a fire, i can very clearly make out the people at a fire.

Stand in total darkness for half an hour, have a friend wave their phone in torch-mode in your eyes, and then try to accurately hit them with with waded paper balls while they try to dodge you. Sure you know where they are, but it would be hurting your eyes to stare into the light,

Besides being realistic, the balance reasons are obvious. The OP was complaining in another thread that his intrepretation of the rules resulted in near TPKs amongst his test group (since his goblins could snipe from the shadows with impunity, and the non-goblin/dwarven heroes could do little about it. Without a rule like this; carrying a light-source is often a liability, and creatures with Darkvision become far more effective than is reasonable.

Yes, sure, but that is a deliberate thing to 'shine the light directly in someone's direction' - in which case you wouldn't be in darkness.

Their example is a fire, so your example clearly doesn't really add to this conversation, and is countered by my silly examples in my OP

[Nagrshban]

Cantriped wrote:

The RAW is not as funky as you mispresent it. "A creature" in this context refers to "A creature or object within darkness". See the actual rules quoted below.

Quote:

DARKNESS

A creature or object within darkness is considered unseen (see page 303) to those without blindsense, blindsight, or darkvision (see Special Senses below). A creature without these senses is blinded (see page 320) while in darkness, though it might be able to see lit areas beyond the darkness. If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302).

I'm sorry, but this interpretation is ignoring half of the context. "A creature" is not referring to "a creature in darkness," it is referring to "A creature without these senses." You can't just skip over a sentence when trying to determine context, especially when the sentence you skip leads directly into the one you are trying to interpret. Had the final sentence been in a separate paragraph or contained a clarifying clause such as "regardless of senses" your reading might be better supported. As it stands, however, the assumption that the final sentence of that paragraph is unrelated to the sentence directly preceding it is just that, an assumption.

[Traiel]

Nagrshban wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Stuff.

Quote:

DARKNESS

Stuff

I'm sorry, but this interpretation is ignoring half of the context. "A creature" is not referring to "a creature in darkness," it is referring to "A creature without these senses." You can't just skip over a sentence when trying to determine context, especially when the sentence you skip leads directly into the one you are trying to interpret. Had the final sentence been in a separate paragraph or contained a clarifying clause such as "regardless of senses" your reading might be better supported. As it stands, however, the assumption that the final sentence of that paragraph is unrelated to the sentence directly preceding it is just that, an assumption.

I agree, it is an assumption to read it either way, it is not clear which way from the paragraph itself, as both interpretations are fair.

That sentence just reads 'a creature' without any qualifiers.... so while yes it is in the same paragraph, the sentence does not necessarily join with the previous one as all creatures (with some form of sight) can potentially see into a lit area, and the context of the paragraph is about darkness and light in general and therefore it could be read:

if 'any' creature can see from darkness into light... as well as

if 'these' creatures can see from darkness into light.

'a creature' with no qualifiers reads more like 'any'

[Nagrshban]

@Traiel
The biggest problem is how the second-to-last sentence ends explaining that creatures that are blinded by being in darkness can still see into lit squares, and the next sentence begins referring to this same concept. Sure, the two sentences could be totally unrelated, but the proximity, formatting, and similar wording between the two sentences imply a connection. If the rules in the darkness section are meant to be read as discrete items in a list with no connection between each other, then they should be formatted as such.

[Mats Öhrman]

Nagrshban wrote:

@Traiel

The biggest problem is how the second-to-last sentence ends explaining that creatures that are blinded by being in darkness can still see into lit squares, and the next sentence begins referring to this same concept. Sure, the two sentences could be totally unrelated, but the proximity, formatting, and similar wording between the two sentences imply a connection. If the rules in the darkness section are meant to be read as discrete items in a list with no connection between each other, then they should be formatted as such.

Compare with Bright Light a bit above. The two sentences there are not separated by any formatting, but the creatures in the second sentence there are clearly not constrained to be a subset of the creatures in the first sentence, so I don’t think you can infer any connection from the lack of a paragraph break.

(And realistically, I think creatures using Darkvision would be *more* prone to being hampeted by sudden bright light then those that don’t.)

[Traiel]

lol the next 2 posts.. 1 says.. it does imply a connection; next poster... it doesn't imply a connection :P that was sorta the point of my post haha

I personally come down on the side of Mats... i don't think there is a connection.. i think 'a creature' means any creature, as the sentence is talking about a separate issue.

[Cantriped]

Welp, regardless of who is right (since we are all sure that we are); these rules obviously need some clarification. Playing by them 'incorrectly' significantly changes the potential outcome of scenarios.

As evidenced by the OPs experiences running multiple groups through The Lost Star under the 'incorrect' rule (so-called only because that is my personal opinion). His parties nearly wiped on every goblin-related encounter thanks to the enemy being able to abuse the GMs intrepretation of Darkness.

[Byron Zibeck]

Well let's agree to disagree for now. Hopefully Paizo will clear up the issue.

Who knows, maybe it will even be addressed in the errata they are releasing today.

[Cantriped]

Byron Zibeck wrote:

Well let's agree to disagree for now. Hopefully Paizo will clear up the issue.

This I can do.

[DM Livgin]

Concealed? Does this allow the rogue to sneak while carrying a torch?

I assume the concealed only applies when targeted with an attack.

[Cantriped]

DM Livgin wrote:

Concealed? Does this allow the rogue to sneak while carrying a torch?

Per RAW, I believe a "torchbearer" can Sneak in their own Torch-Light so long as they retain their concealment the entire time. In other words so long as the creatures you are sneaking/hiding from remain in darkness, and you in bright light.

However they can still percieve the moving light-source (and thus target your square) even if you yourself are technically "unseen" by them.

[Semanticman]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Page 301 states:

Quote:

If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed

The RAW here is funky. First of all, apparently, if a creature, any creature, anywhere, can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed.

But let us treat this generously and pretend it simply means "if a creature in darkness can see into a lit area." How does this interact with darkvision? If a creature in darkness with darkvision can see into a lit area, does it have to target creatures in that lit area with concealment?

The RAW are, strictly speaking, ambiguous, and require clarification. I have every confidence that Paizo will take care of it. Meanwhile, there’s literally no right answer, only your take on it.

But we can do some forensics. Let’s start with the troublesome sentence:

Quote:

If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed.

If it refers to “any creature”, then it directly contradicts the immediately preceding rule about Bright Light:

Quote:

In bright light, creatures and objects can be seen clearly by anyone with normal vision or better.

A creature seeing into a lit area cannot both: 1) treat those targets as concealed (darkness rule), and 2) see them clearly because they are in bright light (bright light rule).

Because of this obvious contradiction, we should absolutely assume it was intended that the phrase “a creature” take its context from the surrounding paragraph. The problem arises because that context itself is ambiguous. Does it mean “any creature in darkness,” referring to the context created by the first sentence in the paragraph, or “any creature in darkness without senses that mitigate darkness,” as per the second sentence in the paragraph?

Based on the rules for Darkvision, which state that it lets creatures see perfectly well in darkness, it would be weird if they treated creatures in lit areas as concealed, so “any creature in darkness”, which would include those with Darkvision, seems unlikely. It’s also more likely that any given sentence be referring to the one that immediately precedes it, rather than one further back in the paragraph.

So here’s how I’d re-write these rules, while we await clarification. Italics are my additions; no deletions are required:

Quote:

A creature or object within darkness is considered unseen (see page 303) to those without blindsense, blindsight, or darkvision (see Special Senses below). A creature within darkness without these senses is blinded (see page 320) with respect to everything within darkness, though it might be able to see lit areas beyond the darkness. If such a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302).

Separately, can I say, Colette, you are a true play testing hero. Your meticulous write-ups (I ready your DD session recaps) have to be a serious boon to Paizo.

[Cantriped]

I really don't understand how it is so confusing, but on the other hand I wasn't taught basic sentence and paragraph structure until High-School, so maybe some never learned it at all. Yay U.S. Public Schools!

The whole section for Light is a set of descriptions for various lighting conditions, and what happens to a character that is subjected to the described Light Conditions. Ergo everything under the header "Darkness" is a rule that applies to creatures within darkness. Regardless, the correct reading of the contested sentence is as follows: "If a creature [within darkness] can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed (see page 302)."

Darkvision and Low-Light Vision make an exception to this general clause, allowing such creatured to ignore said concealment in dim-light. No such mechanic exempts any creature standing within darkness from treating creatures standing in Bright Light from being treated as Concealed.
Edit: Except when using a precise sense other than Sight (like Echolocation).

[Loreguard]

I would disagree, the rule for seeing from darkness into lit regions does not give an exemption for low-light vision, looking into lightly lit areas. Anyone who can't see in darkness, looking through an area of darkness (that they can't see anything/details about) considers anything in that lit area to have the benefit of concealment. The reasons range from potentially being distant/blurry/hard to focus, to the potential for something being in the way between the individual and the target, that they can't see, since it is in darkness.

It doesn't describe within bright light, or within dim light, it just says within a lit area (meaning bright or dim light). Someone with low light vision is still blinded by full darkness and can't see the shrouded space between them and their target, so consider the target concealed. That means an aspect of uncertainty of where they are or how to get at them, not the inability to see them (that would be invisible).

I suppose that the wording might be able to be interpreted that the creature with darkvision might consider things that are in dim or bright light concealed, when they themselves are in darkness. It wasn't my first interpretation, but it could be read that way, and might be what I'd be inclined to say is RAW, and am not sure about RAI.

[Igor Horvat]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Page 301 states:

Quote:

If a creature can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed

The RAW here is funky. First of all, apparently, if a creature, any creature, anywhere, can see into a lit area, it can target creatures within that lit area, but it treats such targets as concealed.

But let us treat this generously and pretend it simply means "if a creature in darkness can see into a lit area." How does this interact with darkvision? If a creature in darkness with darkvision can see into a lit area, does it have to target creatures in that lit area with concealment?

Haha!

This has to be one of the dumbest rules I have read in any RPG.

If anything, you see those targets better because you don't have anything distracting you in your vicinity.

Didn't these people ever walked at night and saw something under a lightpost?

[Cantriped]

Loreguard wrote:

I would disagree, the rule for seeing from darkness into lit regions does not give an exemption for low-light vision, looking into lightly lit areas.

They don't need to. The rules for Low-Light and Darkvision both explicitly state, without conditionals, that you (a creature with such a sense) don't treat targets in Low-Light as Concealed.

This is more specific than either of the more generally applicable rules regarding Light: The first being that creatures in Dim Light have concealment, and the second being that creatures within Darkness treat creatures within a lit area as concealed.