Okugi's page

Alright so where in the world are you guys finding all of these romantically-inclined lady gamers? All the female gamers I know are still college-aged which really doesn't do me a lot of good (35 here). Did I simply miss the boat or something? I'd just about kill to have a GF/wife who enjoyed Pathfinder. :-\

All the female gamers you know are college co-eds... I fail to see the downside to this.

I'd dated my wife on and off for several years before I discovered that she also played DnD. In my group, about half the players are women, usually 'cause they're married to the other half of my group though.

Note, each of the three passages you copied are in the singular, not plural, form. So you have one of three possible forms, you have a single base form, etc. If it were to say that your eidolon has three base forms, then sure you could swap them all you want. It's like evolution points, once you pick them, you're stuck with them, for better or worse, until you level up again, when you can basically rebuild your entire pet again. Hope something in there helps.

I just played a great encounter from Curse of The Crimson Throne.

** spoiler omitted **

That was a great fight.

About 15 years ago we were being run through a 2nd edition dungeon crawl through the underdark. My DM at the time was always laying traps, ambushes, etc for us, so we were justifiably paranoid. We came across an underground lake, and spent the next three hours attempting to "neutralize" whatever possible menace could be hidden by this lake. We started off with using 10-foot poles as probes, when that didn't turn anything up I had the bright idea to start dropping lightning bolts into the lake. The theory being that since its a lake, the electricity would spread out and get whatever was in it. 4 bolts later and nothing. So we decided to try to evaporate it. Fireballs and Flamestrikes ensued. Still nothing. So then we tried stone shape to create tunnels under the lake to drain it. In preperation we set up walls of fire/stone around the lake to corral whatever beast is in it to a kill zone. Nothing. We finally end up with a crater where the lake used to be and not a damned thing else. Our DM is laughing his butt off since it was nothing but a lake. We climb the far side, walk through the tunnel there and right into a hive of Illithids. Turns out that since they float, they didnt need a way to cross the lake, and we just wasted about 80% of our resources on their front lawn.

*higher damage die

Not true for simple weapons.

*higher crit range

No two handed simple weapons have a higher crit range. There are 21 one handed martial weapons, 5 have a higher crit range, that's 24%. There are 11 two handed martial weapons, 3 have a higher crit range, that's 28%. Not much difference there.

*higher crit damage multiplier

Simple weapons-yes. They need it! Martial weapons- Only 6, at 29%. There are 7 two handed weps, at 64%. Yeah, they have a higher crit. But then again, when getting hit with a greatsword, you have the chance of getting cut in half. With a longsword... not so much.

*special maneuver benefits (disarms, bracing, etc)

There are more two handed weapons with this, but there are also one handeds that do the same thing. If that's what you want, then it's easy to get.

*reach

Ok, yes. Bigger weapons have more reach.

How are you playing your evil PC's? Are they being smart, or just standing there trading blows with the front liners while the archers/mages/back liners light them up? Just your standard 4 person party: Cleric, Fighter, Mage, Rogue, can wreck havoc if played intelligently.

Let us help you, tell us what your players are playing, and we can help you come up with a team, and tactics, that will give them a challenge.

AvalonXQ wrote:

Shield Bonus
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.

I'm a little confused on whether they stack...

The part you bolded is talking about a magic shield, i.e. a shield with enhancements, not the shield spell itself. The sentence before that specifically states that shield bonuses do not stack. Shield spell grants a shield bonus. Shields grant a shield bonus. Two Weapon Defense grants a shield bonus.

Under perception, it lists when you can take a perception check:

Most perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stumulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

I propose that one check to see if someone is distracted is to see if they can do the second half of that.

This mainly applies to when a stealthed person ends his turn not under concealment or cover, when trying to determine if he is under observation. Can the observer make a move action to see him? If so, then you are now in an observable place, kiss stealth good bye. If the observer cannot take a move action to see you, for whatever reason, then the rules of distraction apply.

AvalonXQ wrote:

No. You've mis-read the rule. The starting location for the Bluff check is not a stealth-viable one.

When the bluff check is made successfully, you are now in a stealth-viable location. See "Creating a Diversion to Hide"

So a person who is in plain sight, being actively observed, can make a bluff check, and if successful can initiate a stealth check, but a person that is already hidden, has no one actively observing him, cannot make a stealth check to remain hidden while in plain sight?

I'm at a football game, have seats right behind my teams end zone. The ball is on our 24 yard line, the other team has possession. I have my two year old with me, who is insistant on being a two year old... running around, picking up random things off the ground and sticking them in her mouth, etc. Would you consider me being distracted from paying attention to the game, or am I able to pay full attention and notice the offensive line just gained another lineman from the sidelines, no calls, no nothing, he just decided to step over the line and join in.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.

Nor will we. We are, however, able to sharpen our explanation and understanding of the Stealth rules on the whetstone that is Cartigan.

I hope you wrapped that first. Don't know where this whetstone has been.

Glad I didn't waste my time reading those hundred posts. I see we are have progressed no further than before.

Wait, progress? What is this 'progress' that you speak of?

Okugi wrote:

According to perception, you can take a perception check in response to a stimulus at any time, or take a move action to actively locate something. In the rogues case, he's engaged in melee, to take a move action to locate someone, while in combat, would give his opponent an AoO, due to the rogue focusing his attention on something other then combat.

Maybe, maybe not as it doesn't say. But an AoO doesn't prevent something from being able to be done regardless.

Which is why I would give the rogue a choice, take the AoO or take the -5 distraction penalty. If he takes the AoO, hell, he could take a 5 foot step, remove himself from the combat/distraction and the stupid bugbear would have been auto spotted.

Mechanically nothing. That's why there's an argument. Some of us think that the mechanics should overrule the real world argument. I'm on the other side of that argument, as are a number of folks that I game with.

/d

Which is why I bring it up. I agree with your position, but we're not going to get anywhere that way. So I'm trying to look at it from the other side, see what the mechanics are, if there's something RAW in there to support us. That's what Cartigan is looking for from us, not just logic.

Okugi wrote:

In this case, I do believe that the rogue in combat can be considered to be distracted because he no longer knows where the bugbear is. He lost track of him, and can not take the required move action to locate him, as per the rules. If you can not devote your attention to an action, then you are therefore distracted. That one's pretty cut and dry.

That's an interesting position. Why can't he take the move action? Can you not take move actions toward that particular purpose while in combat? Did he use a full-round action? Is he limited to a single action and decided to do something else?

According to perception, you can take a perception check in response to a stimulus at any time, or take a move action to actively locate something. In the rogues case, he's engaged in melee, to take a move action to locate someone, while in combat, would give his opponent an AoO, due to the rogue focusing his attention on something other then combat. It was due to this that I would rule the rogue having distraction when it comes to making a perception to spot the bugbear when he left the concealment of the grass.

This thread makes me proud to be alive in these times. The fact that we are STILL arguing about this just made my morning. On another note, really Avalon, resorting to speller nazi? Come on, we were all being pretty civil here, let's get back to it and stop the bashing.

In this case, I do believe that the rogue in combat can be considered to be distracted because he no longer knows where the bugbear is. He lost track of him, and can not take the required move action to locate him, as per the rules. If you can not devote your attention to an action, then you are therefore distracted. That one's pretty cut and dry. I do agree with Cartigan that not nearly enough sneak/perception checks were taken. The rolls the OP gave were enough to get the bugbear to where the horses were, but still in the grass; he needed at least three more to finish the actions that were described.

It comes down to distraction. What is it? Some maintain that combat is a distraction, but why? Let's narrow this down. What is it about combat, mechanically, that prevents the rogue from being able to automatically spot someone 70+ feet away.

Bah, ninja'd by caineach.

AvalonXQ wrote:

Here are the points which I believe are disputed and which cause the different interpretations.

1) The Sneaker is 'unobserved' until a Perceiver observes it.
2) If the Sneaker ends its turn in plain sight (meaning no cover or concealment) and does not have Camouflage, an undistracted Perceiver automatically observes the Sneaker. If the Perceiver is distracted or the Sneaker has Camouflage, Perception vs. Stealth to observe the Sneaker.
3) Creatures in combat are distracted.
4) Once a creature is observed in plain sight, it cannot Steath until it finds cover or concealment (unless it has Hide in Plain Sight).
If we accept #1-#4, the bugbear scenario works, and it doesn't imply the bugbear has either Ranger ability. I believe this is more-or-less Caineach's position.
Scenario B: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is not in combat. Rogue observes bugbear without opposed check, unless bugbear has Camouflage. If rogue observes bugbear, bugbear cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.
Scenario C: Bugbear Stealths out of bushes and ends its turn in plain sight. Rogue is in combat. Rogue succeeds opposed check and is now observing bugbear. Even though rogue remains distracted, bugbear is observed and cannot Stealth until he moves back into the grass, unless bugbear has Hide in Plain Sight.

You pretty much summed up my argument right there.

+1

Okugi wrote:

Indeed. So I ask this, what is an unobserved place? If being 70 feet away from the nearest PC's, who are distracted, and already failed their perception checks to notice you when you left concealment, is not unobserved, then what is?

Concealment or applicable cover.

So in your games, how does anything sneak up on anything else? Or is that solely the province if high level rangers?

Okugi wrote:

Quote:

Is the assassin hiding in the rafters suddenly no longer hidden because you now have line of sight to him?

If you flick on the overhead lights and the room lights up like a bloody Christmas tree, no, no he isn't.

Quote:

Is the rogue standing in the shadows of an alley suddenly visible?

If you have Darkvision. See, that's what happens when you be facetious. You get facetious answers.

Touche.

Okugi wrote:

The bugbear is starting out in concealment, is already using stealth. He steps out of concealment, but it does not say that you lose stealth if you lose concealment, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Indeed. So I ask this, what is an unobserved place? If being 70 feet away from the nearest PC's, who are distracted, and already failed their perception checks to notice you when you left concealment, is not unobserved, then what is? Is the assassin hiding in the rafters suddenly no longer hidden because you now have line of sight to him? Is the Drow ambush party no longer hidden against the walls and ceiling of the cavern because you walk in? Is the rogue standing in the shadows of an alley suddenly visible? If that's the case, why have a stealth and perception skill in the first place?

FYI, the definition of observed: To see, watch, perceive, or notice; to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something.

The Oxford dictionary is a d20 ref doc now?

Yes, yes it is.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bliff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.

So, let's break this down line by line, shall we?

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

Does not apply, the bugbear was not being observed by anyone at the time.

Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.

The bugbear is starting out in concealment, is already using stealth. He steps out of concealment, but it does not say that you lose stealth if you lose concealment, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bliff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind.

Here's something. The possible observers of the bugbear are currently distracted, and not by the bugbear, so they are maintaining their distraction. This isn't a quick action type of distraction, the observers are being distracted for their entire turn. The bugbear can attempt to use stealth the entire time the observers are distracted. The bluff skill is just an example, not the singular event that this rule applies to. The bugbear's observers are already not paying attention to it, therefore he is already in an unobserved place. How more unobserved can you get then being in a place where no one is looking?

FYI, the definition of observed: To see, watch, perceive, or notice; to regard with attention, esp. so as to see or learn something.

And you said I didn't read the rules? Try quoting them in context next time instead of just picking the one sentence that you feel suits you best.

To clarify, what I'm getting from you Cartigan is that your interpretation of the rules says that without HiPS, there is no way a person can be stealthed without concealment or cover.

What I'm getting from others is that their interpretation says that without concealment or cover, as long as you are not being observed you can be stealthed.

Okugi wrote:

Core Book, Page 102, Perception Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Rustling grass is observable stimulus.

Yes, rustling grass is an observable stimulus, which is why the DM could rule the rogue could make a perception check, with modifiers for being distracted.

Quote:

The road is 30 feet across, so moving at half speed with his move action he reaches the animals. [...] The bugbear makes a stealth check

By hiding in a pocket dimension he carries with him to hide when he had neither cover nor concealment.

Show us all where in the rules it says that moving out of concealment automatically negates maintaining stealth. If that was the case, rogues would never be able to get a sneak attack on anyone because they could never sneak up on anyone. The key part here is maintaining stealth. Once the bugbear stepped out of the grass, everyone makes a perception. If they fail, then he is still stealthed, they do not notice him, he carries on.

Quote:

everyone else gets a free perception check to see if they notice him when he left concealment, with a -7 modifier for distance.

-10, at least.

Let's see, -1 per 10 feet for distance. the OP said the combat was divided into three 70 foot long segments, the horses are in the middle of the middle one, and everyone else was in one of the other two. So, 35 feet to the next combat segment, without further clarification I was putting the combatants at the middle of their segments, so another 35 feet makes it a distance of 70 feet. The PC's have a -7 to their perception due to distance. How about the bugbear, let's see what mods he has to his stealth. There's very few cut and dry mods to stealth, so we'll give him a -10 to his check, for trying to be stealthy while not under concealment and not being observed. So a net total of -3 to the bugbears stealth, the PC's roll as normal.

Quote:

Once again, everyone receives a free perception at -7 to notice him, the bugbear makes a stealth check at a -2 due to what we’ll call unfavorable conditions, (him carrying a goblin)

And another -10, at least.

He has gained an unconscious goblin, adding 2 to his penalty. So using the same numbers as above, the net total is now up to -5 to the bugbears stealth.

In the midst of this, one bugbear disappeared into the grass, and I removed the token from the board.

No rolls needed to get to the grass, just a move action. As his standard action he makes a stealth check to hide. Everyone involved should be able to make a perception check to see if they noticed the bugbear. The rogue being distracted or not has no bearing on this, the bugbear is not in combat and now has concealment. Bugbear Stealth: 13, Rogue Perception: 3. Bugbear is now hidden.

Without replacing it, I decided he would sneak back in the tall grass on the side of the path, cross the path while passing by the party's horses.

Going off the description of the battle, it’s at least 70 feet from one of the combat segments to where the horses are. Being stealthed, the bugbear is moving at half-speed, so 4 rounds of movement. At this point the bugbear is moving away from the rogue, through tall grass, maintaining concealment. Make 4 stealth vs. perception, at a -5 due to distraction. Why distraction you ask? The rogue is engaged in melee combat, therefore if he wishes to locate a hidden person/object/whatever he must split his attention between his opponent and whatever other task he is trying to accomplish. In this case, the bugbear is no longer observable, since he is hidden in the tall grass and the rogue failed to perceive it. Therefore, he must make a move action to attempt to locate the bugbear again, which provokes an AoO since he is dedicating his attention away from the fight. Or he makes a passive perception check to see if he happens to notice the moving of the grass or the sound of the bugbear, at -5 since he has chosen instead to remain focused on the task at hand, combat.

Core Book, Page 102, Perception Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

I ruled the bugbear was able to sneak through the middle, cut the prized goblin off the horse, and flee across the path into the tall grass on the other side. (All told, he crossed six squares of "open" terrain.) I didn't move any tokens on the map; waiting until the characters would notice before informing the players via the map.

Bugbear is currently in stealth mode, leaves the concealment of grass, making himself observable again. The bugbear however is still hidden at this point, since he is not under observation until he is spotted. The road is 30 feet across, so moving at half speed with his move action he reaches the animals. As a standard action he can use Handle Animal to keep the horses/dogs from betraying his location. He is non-threatening to start out, so the horses are neutral, the dogs have been trained not to bark or react to his presence, and they are not animal companions, so the ranger has no link to them. The bugbear makes a stealth check, everyone else gets a free perception check to see if they notice him when he left concealment, with a -7 modifier for distance. Not sure about distraction at this point, seeing as it is now into the 6th round of combat. Next round, as a standard action he removes the goblin, then as a move action crosses the remaining 15 feet to reach concealment again. Once again, everyone receives a free perception at -7 to notice him, the bugbear makes a stealth check at a -2 due to what we’ll call unfavorable conditions, (him carrying a goblin). After this the bugbear is now back in concealment, carrying a goblin. Proceed as before, stealth vs. perception, except now the bugbear has a -2 to his check.

You'll notice that, unlike the old prestige class, these abilties do not require the permanent sacrifice of spell slots. This was deliberate. I always hated that, especially since the Heirophant got similar abilities at no cost.

Just to clarify this, the Heirophant got a huge penalty to it's abilities, it gained no spellcasting levels, archmage still progressed spellcaster levels.

Wait till the party is around say 15, and has a good idea of how they're really going to turn out. Then design 2-3 critters that reflect their strengths and weaknesses. Of course, there's always the WTF BBEG's... my personal favorite was creating a level 18 Kobold necromancer, with his two CR 16 Vampire buddies. Not the most bad-ass BBEG in the world, but the look on the players faces when they realized that a KOBOLD was behind everything was priceless.

This seems more like a case of the GM railroading your party to death then anything else. You're in a party where everyone is a half-fiend or a half-dragon except you, and he tosses in a CR 11 Gold Dragon... I'd walk away from a party like that personally. Sure, they have stats out the wazoo, but no abilities to back it up yet.

So it's a deserted farm, which tells me there's no one to contest it... squatter rights apply? Just move in and it's yours.

Look up the feat Energy Substitution from the Complete Arcane. I'm going off memory here, but from what I remember it lets you change the energy type of a spell to another type of your choosing, with no change in spell level. I think it's for a specific energy, so you could make it a class feature, given every 2 levels or so, and each time you get it you can pick a new energy type.

My only thought on this is about the movement. As a small character, with medium or greater encumbrance, he'll have a movement of 15 feet. Looking at the party makeup, the barbarian should have a movement of 40, the druid starts at 30, then he wildshapes, the rest of the party should be at 30 feet. So, fight breaks out, front liners rush up to engage, two round later, the cleric arrives to heal/buff etc (which are touch spells). If it was me, I'd make him use a cane to walk with, give him some boots of Springing and Striding and turn him into a Gummi Bear...

I had a DM who was very trap happy. We were crawling through a dungeon and came across a large underground lake. Two hours and 3/4 of our resources gone, (including the lake from several lightning bolts, fireballs, etc), we decide there is no trap. Crossing the lake bed and climbing to the other side we enter the passage on the other side, which it turns out led to a small illithid encampment. Hilarity ensued.

The prohibition on armor only applies to physical armor, not bonuses granted through magic. As such, yes, you can have all of your armor bonus be natural armor, and have effects such as mage armor and shield to further increase your eidolons AC. Just have to keep in mind that bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. The PRPG book has a better and more detailed description on what armor types are stackable.

The armor column is an additional armor bonus granted in addition to any other source of armor. The bonus granted from increasing in size and the bonus granted from the improved natural armor feat all stack together, being that they are enhancements which state they increase the bonus.

To answer the third part, yes. By stating the number is modified by the base form and evolutions, you do indeed increase that columns number by the base amount, plus any amount of improved natural armor evolutions you've taken.

It looks like you read it as also capping the AC of the eidolon. It doesn't do that, nor does it read anywhere that it does so. As such, the column is simply the starting point when determining the AC of an eidolon. Just like the armor for a normal PC. Your eidolon still gets dex bonus, spell bonuses, etc.

Now all you need is an eidolon with pounce and a cavalier in the party for some charging fun...

Since a few have commented on Eidelon vs. a Druids Animal Companion I thought I'd throw my 2c in. I went through and did a level by level comparison of a quadroped Eidelon, minus any evolutions, against a big cat Animal Companion, taking into account the level 7 adjustment. To make a long story short, without any evolutions, an Eidelon is nearly identical in stats and combat ability as the equivalent Animal Companion. Take it as you will, just wanted to throw it out there.

In response to Razz, they currently have a Spell Like Ability that does just that, lets them use Summon Monster 1-9, then gate, multiple times a day. Don't have the PDF right here so I can't do a direct quote of the ability.

So my spell book has more hit points then my level 1 Wizard did... Awesome!

In 3.5 there were spells that did have multiple sub-schools, but not sure about pathfinder, haven't gone through the spell section. In particular, in the PHBII, page 95 it starts the magic chapter talking about dual school spells. As for healing, I've never seen a rule saying mages can't heal, but always treated it more as a balance thing. Just imagine how the game would play if mages could throw around fire balls, polymorph things, make the world implode, then toss a Mass Heal on their buddies...

With our latest campaign, we tried con score as starting HP, and it did wonders for low level survivability. We've always before done roll the dice, if you get less then half, bump it up to half.

To give everyone a reference, as per the PRPG book, page 264, the description of the Darkvision spell:

"The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total
darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like
normal sight."

Page 250, description of Blindness/Deafness:

"You call upon the powers of unlife to render the subject blinded or
deafened, as you choose."

Page 562, description of the Darkvision ability:

"Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no
light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature.
Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be
discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything
that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are
still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they
seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to
gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not
spoil darkvision."

Page 565, description of the Blind status:

"The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty
to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and
takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based
skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All
checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading
and Perception checks based on sight) automatically
fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment
(50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind
creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to
move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check
fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time
grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

Of note, Darkvision is 1 hour/level, while Blindness/Deafness is permanent.

Just to make sure I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that it might be possible for two spellcasting classes, using the same type of magic (arcane or divine), and having the same casting stat, to stack their caster levels to determine effects/eligibility? For example, a Paladin 8/Ranger 8 could stack their caster levels to be a CL 8? Forgive me if I got that CL wrong, don't have the PRPG book in front of me and am going off memory of how their CL was determined.

*Looks around* Well folks, looks like our work here is finished. Congrats on another job well done.

In the example of the bard/evoker, i would also rule that they do not stack. Caster levels in general don't ever stack unless specifically stated in the class, such as certain PrC's. In the case of a 1 Bard/10 Evoker/4 Archmage, I would allow the PC to have a CL of 14, since archmage continues the effective caster level progression.

One thing I would like to know, how was I being uncivil?

Yes, you are correct, for those races that do not have darkvision, they are treated as being blind while in darkness, I never stated otherwise. That is not the same as being magically blinded though, which is what we were discussing. You are treating the blind spell as if it is merely making it dark, which it does not do. The blind spell negates all ability to be able to see, whether it's regular, low-light or darkvision. The darkvision spell does not grant one the ability to see if they cannot see, it grants one the ability to use their existing vision in total, non-magical, darkness for 60 feet. There are abilities that do grant one the ability to see even if blinded, and they explicitly state as such. See the descriptions for blind-sense, blind-sight and tremor-sense.

I'm confused, you state that dwarves and half-orcs darkvision does not negate blindness, but at the same time you are arguing that darkvision negates blindness. Which is it?

You want blind sense. It allows one to 'see' even if blinded. Darkvision is still a vision type, requiring you to be able to see. The spell description even states 'the ability to see'. Blind does not mean that it is mearly dark, it temporarily or permanently removes the ability to use your eyes for vision. For more information on dark vision, check the PF book to see if it has mechanics specific about it, I would look but being at work i don't have access to it.