Abraxas's page

Abraxas wrote:

Would someone official please state outright whether or not the Hide in Plain Sight supernatural ability is thwarted by darkvision.

Seriously, please - it's a yes or no question and would help me out immensely.

Thanx

Two links for you to take a look at:

THE FIRST ONE is a detailed post I wrote of how and why HiPS trumps DV.

THE SECOND ONE is a thread that has several other Stealth threads linked to it. Worth looking through if you have questions regarding Stealth.

Thanks for the links - I agree with you on how HiPS interacts with darkvision. I was in a discussion about this over at ENWorld - and it's been incredibly frustrating. The two I've been going back and forth about it with have now got to the point where they say it's the observer's ability to perceive shadows that allows the ability to work or not. So for a number of cases they say it doesn't even work vs creatures with low light vision.

You should take a look just for fun.

It's very recent, and it's debating the exact topic as you're asking for.

Interesting, Thanx, that thread didn't even show up in the top 10 or so results when I searched the site on this topic.

Why wouldn't you have just flagged for FAQ in the shadowdancer thread?

Didn't know there was a shadowdancer thread. When i try to search these boards it takes forever and honestly, I am not a fan of the layout. Sorry to ruffle any feathers.

Or are you talking about the other HiPS threads that are 1 or 2 years old?

Hide in Plain Sight (Su) as opposed to Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)?

Where is the supernatural ability listed?

It's one of the shadowdancer prestige class abilites

Would someone official please state outright whether or not the Hide in Plain Sight supernatural ability is thwarted by darkvision.

Seriously, please - it's a yes or no question and would help me out immensely.

Thanx

Well THAT'S fascinating! I just read the beta version. They use the wording "any time the target rolls a d20", but mentions later that "once it's used, it's gone."

Now, I KNOW that the beta version isn't exactly canon. However, it does seem to shed light on Paizo's internal logic. In other words, "any time" actually means "next time". It's badly worded, to be sure, but the intent seems to be clear.

Part of the reason for my question is that the cleric in my campaign has it and it gets used a lot. In one round it's been used by one character for multiple skill checks (Knowledge check, Acrobatics Check), multiple saving throws (vs a spell and a disease) and on an Attack + a Cleave Attack + an AoO. So for my 3rd level party I've already seen it used by 1 character on 7 rolls in one round. This will only increase as the character's BAB goes up and he gets multiple attacks or when used on the 2 weapon wielding ranger/rogue who tumbles around the battlefield.

I agree, it does seem a little strong. However, you ARE giving up your standard action. You're sacrificing any attacks you might have made to make sure that somebody else's attacks (and/or abilities) have a better chance of hitting. It has a nice side effect of giving it's bonus to saving throws as well. All in all, it's powerful, but I don't think it's unbalancingly so. Especially with a times per day limit. (unlike Sorcerer times per days limits for abilities that mostly suck, but that's another topic).

Is there any information on why it was changed from the Beta version?

Well, given that the wording is "any time" and not "the next time" I would have to think it's all such rolls made before the Cleric's next turn.

Doesn't that seem a little strong?

The Luck domain power "Bit of Luck" says the following; "For the next round, any time the target rolls a d20, he may roll twice and take the more favorable result."

Does the benefit of the power apply to a single roll or all rolls made in the round?

You are really looking at semantics at this point. Referring the the 5' coridor. The melee combatant lines go 'through a wall' to the exact same extent that the ranged combatant go 'through a border.' Assuming that border is of course part of a wall.

I am certain the rules are interpreted by WotC to follow the diagrams as given in the link I posted above. And based on the diagram given in the Pathfinder core rulebook, and the fact that they copied this section of text directly from the srd I am confident nothing has changed.

I'm certain that WoTC dropped the diagram to get rid of confusion and dropped the text about drawing lines along a wall to get rid of the situation of shooting around corners without penalty.

I agree that it is semantics, but the continuing use of the term border is a poor choice at best.

What about if A charges B.

WWWWWW
OOOOAB
WWWWWW

If A charges B, does B have cover? Again lines from A's corners to B's corner must run parrallel to the walls.

I have to admit I think its pretty silly for two people facing each other with no objects inbetween them to be dealing with cover because they are standing next to a wall.

A & B wouldn't have cover vs melee attacks from each other. And yes, I actually agree its silly that they would have cover vs ranged attacks. However, I find it just as silly (perhaps even more so)that in the following case

OOW
OAWWW
OOBOO
WWWWW

A could make ranged attacks, with out penalty and without risk of an AoO, while B could not make a melee attack without penalty.

I think the distinktion between square and border is to cover all situations imaginable. Like having cover from an obstacle occupying a square but not actually reaching its square borders or thin walls that do not fill a square.

Then why not just have the text for determining cover say "If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or object that blocks line of effect or provides cover" They could also just have includeed the rest of the text that was originally part of the rules for determining cover.

My preference would be to drop drawing lines the from a corner (or corners) of your square and instead draw lines from the center of your square, for both melee and ranged attacks.

I guess I just don't see the contradiction. The text they removed was just to remove confusion, it doesn't change anything.

Running along a wall does not bock line of effect. An archer can shoot down a straight 5' coridor without the target at the end of the coridor getting cover. Despite the fact that the lines drawn to determine if that is cover run parrallel to a wall.

In your world people are going to get cover nearly 100% of the time. Two people standing in an open field are going to have melee cover from each other. Because the line from the bottom corner of the cube of person A, to the bottom corner of the cube of person B runs along the floor otherwise known as an object that blocks line of effect.

How would the presence of the omitted text cause confusion?

Cover for melee attacks is determined differently "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall)." Borders are omitted.

Here's a link you might find interesting. This is Guy Fullerton's page on cover for melee reach. He was in charge of rules for D&D miniatures until the 4e conversion (he might still be, but I have stoped following D&D minis some years back).

http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DDM/CoverVsMeleeReach.html

It covers pretty much every reasonable example. As melee reach using the same rules and ranged attacks they just would need to represent longer reaches. It has lots of nice pictures too boot.

The DDM rules are different. They had an additional line of text that is as follows "The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."

This makes the shooting down the edge of a wall case perfectly clear - in DDM.

In both 3.5E and Pathfinder this text is not present. In 3.5E they also removed the particular diagram illustrating a large creature determining cover for its reach attacks - so there is no confusion or contradiction.

In the PFRPG Core Book the diagram is present. The absence of the text quoted above makes the diagram contradict the text that is written.

Does Pathfinder have the guideline that when text and tables/diagrams differ, text trumps tables/diagrams?

When in doubt, you could always give the target partial cover (+2 AC) instead of normal cover. This could represent the possible difficulty of firing from around the corner while still benefiting from its cover. I found it rather nice that Pathfinder has an explicit rule for the partial cover, this would be a great place to use it.

On the note of the "border" text, they may be meaning that since the line drawn from corner to corner coincides with the border of the wall, it would provide cover. They could also be referring to possible lines of effect that don't occur in a square (like a wall of force which only has a "border").

I like the Partial Cover idea.

2)It creates a strange case where an opponent in an adjacent diagonal square can shoot at you around the corner with no penalty and with no risk of an AoO, but you can't make a melee attack back at them without the penalty.

No cover for T from A But cover for A from T.

I interpret the go through as to intersect. In this case the lines are parallel.

Otherwise you could never fire from cover.

If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.

"The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."

Which makes me believe that "through a border" didn't mean intersect.

In 3.5E they dropped this line and also did not have the contradicting diagram.

I'm hoping one of the Pathfinder devs comes in and can tell me which way they meant it to be.

And why could you never fire from cover?

This should be a simple question - but we've had a new discussion about it at our game last night.

The text for determining cover for ranged attacks says "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)."

Assuming the following situation, where the Xs are the walls, Os are open spaces, A is an archer, and the T is his target

XXXXX
OOOOX
OAOOX
XXOOX
XXTOX

Would the target have cover vs A's ranged attack?
The only two corners A can choose to draw lines from would be the upper or lower right. (well you could choose the upper and lower left, but then the target has total cover). Lines from both the upper and lower right corners go through the border of the wall to the upper & lower left corners of the target. A wall is something that blocks line of effect or provide cover.

Or does "through a border" mean something that I'm missing?

The reason my group is having this discussion is due to the diagram used for determining cover with large creatures. The descriptive text of that diagram states "The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." However, if you draw lines from corners of the ogres squares they go through a border of the wall and a wall normally blocks line of effect or provides cover. This appears to contradict the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks.

Thanks everyone, and thanks to Crimson Jester for the maps.

Is Alhaster actually shown on any Greyhawk map?
If not where is it supposed to be?

Thanks

You're probably referring to the defenders of daybreak storyline by piratecat?

Quote:

Yep - This bit from the "Defenders of Daybreak - The Early Years" thread sounded interesting. I'm thinking of using it for a new Eberron campaign I'll be starting soon.

oldmanfish wrote:

if so issue 34 had Euphoria Horrors

by Alan Grimes (Can you find a little boy's missing friend? The description he gives you is very strange. An AD&D Forgotten Realms adventure for character levels 1–2.) which sounds like the "drake" adventure. And issue 28 had Night of Fear by Mark Lucas (Most country inns are noted for their charm, peacefulness, and security. But not this one. A D&D adventure for character level 1.) which looks like the doppleganger storyline.
Ought to give you a rough timeline of when the correct adventure was printed....

The tomb it may concern sounds pretty accurate to the description given in the storyline.

Not sure if the other two will work - but I have used the Elzid tower adventure that is also mentioned in the DoDtEY thread numerous times before and will probably use it again - my players hate quasits because of that adventure.

Thanks Folks

In issue #22 there is an adventure called "Tomb it May Concern". It is a solo adventure for a single paladin character who has received a head trauma and as a result has amnesia. The paladin finds himself in a dungeon called The Winter Glade and must not only rediscover that he is a paladin but determine that he came to the glade to slay an undead wizard who muffed an attempt to become a lich (instead became a juju zombie). I don't recall anything about the icicle thing, but that is the only adventure I can remember that takes place at a location called Winter's Glade.

Thanks - I'll check out Issue 22 tonight

Wondering if someone around here can help.
I am looking for a specific adventure that may be called "The Winter's Glade". The main villain is a wizard type who can only be killed by stabbing him with an icicle. Does this ring any bells with anyone? I was told it is a Dungeon mag adventure, but I can't find it. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.