|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Fog cloud and it's descendent spells say they obscure vision:
A bank of fog billows out from the point you designate. The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
In the additional rules section, poor visibility is listed as a movement impediment
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html
As costing double movement.
So does someone in a fog cloud, who can only see five feet ahead of them, have to move at half speed because of visibility?
And does this mean that characters in a solid fog spell move at 1/4 speed, due to reduced visibility and the solid fog impeding movement?
Interesting. I'd never noticed that before.
It's very vague, so it's hard to say. I wish they had actually defined "poor visibility."
The text on the Blind Fight feat indicates that poor visibility is separate from both darkness and blindness, so, yes, I would say that it's quite likely that fog spells that limit your ability to see also limit your movement.
As for Solid Fog, it does say, "Solid fog, and effects that work like solid fog, do not stack with each other in terms of slowed movement and attack penalties." One could argue that its halving does not stack with itself, and I would have to say that's logical. After all, movement penalties due to blindness or obscured visibility result from a lack of sure-footedness. If you're moving so slowly you're literally in a bank of molasses clouds, I'm not sure you'd logically have to worry about moving so quickly you might run into something you couldn't see.
That's really not a RAW interpretation, though, heh. Sorry I can't be any more proper than that.
Ahh, scratch that! It IS defined!
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
Sadly, that doesn't answer your question about Solid Fog. Good luck on finding a RAW ruling on that one, heh.
The only restrictions that I know of due to impaired vision are from being blinded. Since you can see five feet ahead of you in a fog, I don't believe a movement penalty applies.
Though, I don't think it'd be completely uncalled for to require an acrobatics check for characters that attempt to run or charge through a fog.
You'll want to reread the relevant sections.
Table: Hampered Movement Condition Additional Movement Cost
Difficult terrain ×2
Obstacle* ×2
Poor visibility ×2
Impassable —
RAW probably has no answer for solid fog, but I think it's 1/2 movment.
In fog it reduced because you need time to see where you move, solid fog should have the same sight impairment.
Also solid fog makes you feel as if walking trough water (I think).
So if you're walking slower, but think and see at the same speed, you have the time to see where you are walking.
If you truly want to bend the rules around this, you might end up with 1/3 movement, as multiplication works this way if PF.
|
|
I think multiplication for movement gives examples . So hampered movement over difficult terrain is x4 instead of just x2. One of the few places the multiplication doesn't go from x2 to x3, likely because they want an even progression from 1:1 square in normal movement, 2:1 in hampered and 4:1 in really hampered? Idk. It's in the same movement section of the additional rules.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wow, if the slow movement for poor visibility DOES apply (and it looks like it does per RAW), then fog effects just got alot stronger. i had never played like this (or seen it played like this), and i was about to answer 'no' on the basis that normal fog lets you see the adjacent square just fine, so each adjacent square you are moving into doesn't itself invoke any 'poor vision' (even though there is a 20% miss chance). but if we go by RAW and say that ALL movement within the fog is at 1/2 move speed, then that means you can no longer take 5' steps... again, a signifigant power-up for fog effects.
re: whether or not solid fog's 1/2 movement stacks with this, i would say it does: moving slowly from poor visibility (essentially a willing reactoin, albeit 'you have to' per RAW) is not a 'similar effect' to having a semi-solid substance impede your motion. ...Similar to if you are sickened and have a halved movement speed, it isn't a 'similar effect' to solid fog. I guess you could say solid obstacles ARE a similar effect to solid fog though.
Is there any way per RAW for normal characters to avoid the poor visibility movement penalty?
I can't find it, but it seems bizarre for there not to be some way, such as an Acrobatics check...
I am FAQing this subject, because there really isn't anything in the rules AFAIK that is directly speaking to this... Only that 'Poor visibility' MAY BE a 'rules term', but I'm not 100% certain that the RAI is for the same definition of Poor Visibility is meant to apply to the Hampered Movement section... If it were, why isn't the Hampered Movement penalty MENTIONED under the Poor Visibility definition as one of it's effects? Otherwise, the effects of Poor Visibility focus on 'getting lost', which doesn't have much relevance to whether or not you can move at full speed or not. On the other hand, if THAT definition of Poor Visibility ISN'T intended re: Hampered Movement, what WOULD they be talking about? Beyond 20% concealment would be Full Concealment, i.e. Darkness/Blindness, which are Conditions they could just specify directly if that's what they meant.
Geez.
|
|
I can see the solid fog not stacking with its descendent spells in terms of slowed movement, but the spell itself ignores the fog like reduction for poor visibility ( which can be negated by certain spells? Or senses I guess? ).
So two solid fogs in overlapping areas would still be just half speed. But half speed bc of hampered terrain, in an area of poor visibility ?
|
|
i had never played like this (or seen it played like this),
Edit: I CAN see the additional rules section on poor visibility doubling costs for overland movement, and leaving tactical movement questions ambiguous.
But is total darkness any worse than only being able to see 5ft in front of you at a time? Wouldn't you need to go slower in both cases (hence half speed) so you don't trip or fall off an unexpected ledge? Yeah tactically you could advance 5ft at a time and check where you're going, but in a six second round, doing that advance and perceive effectively becomes moving forward at half speed. ( then again I'm trying to apply my logic to PDFs rules, to justify how I think they work. Moo)I'd always played in groups that treated fog as hampering before, throwing up obscuring mist to slow persuers, or a fog cloud to hamper foes, not just for concealment but for movement. It just came up tonight with a new group I played with at a convention. I tried going back over the rules at the table after the game and saw that fog is a pretty grey area ...
yeah, there's several ways around the slow movement with poor visibility, blindfight lets you move normally for one. i already thought blindfight is an important feat for melee-types, so i guess it's just even more so 'now'.
EDIT: Aha! That's it... This line from Blinded should probably apply to Poor Vision as well:
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone.
But of course, it doesn't per RAW (unless your PC closes their eyes...)
I'd always played in groups that treated fog as hampering before
But is total darkness any worse than only being able to see 5ft in front of you at a time?
I'm always amazed when people can have such different playing experiences... Your explanation seems like a pretty good one though. Like I said, I've NEVER seen it played this way, although Fog WAS still useful, just because if you can't see adjacent squares you will likely be forced to move around move 'sweeping' for adjacent targets, that sort of thing. It's definitely stronger by this interpretation, although I think that's a good thing over-all, especially for the 'lesser' fogs without other strong effects. The no 5' step thing is really going to be the biggest change in game-play.
Solid fog reduces speed by 1/2 so 30 to 15 feet, all fog spel give the poor visability so all squares cost x2 meaning that a single move gets you 7 1/2 feet of distance rounded down to 5 feet. A double move gets 15 feet or 3 squares. You can not 5 foot step in fog as all squares cost 10 feet.
This poor visibility stacks with being blind so you need an acro check to move more then 1 square if you have 30 speed.
-Flash
...I REALLY don't think Poor Visibility stacks with .Blind, since being Blind would automatically invoke Poor Visibility just for not being able to see beyond 60'.
As Moonscar/Flash alluded to, Poor Visibility is worded as 'doubling movement cost' vs. Blind/Solid Fog's 'halving movement speed' which means they REALLY aren't at all the same thing mechanically, per RAW (which creates more of a leap to allowing the Acro check for Poor Visibility).
I guess with Seraphim's explanation of 'you really do end up slower if you have to constantly re-check your surroundings every 5 feet', I'm still OK with everybody (who doesn't have Blind-Fight, Blind Sense, etc) being forced to half speed and no 5' steps without any option to avoid that.
Edit: I CAN see the additional rules section on poor visibility doubling costs for overland movement, and leaving tactical movement questions ambiguous.
Hmm... Unfortunately (for my previous reading :-) ), the Hampered Movement section/table are placed squarely in the 'Tactical Movement' section, and are explicitly referencing entering SQUARES, so that's a pretty clear sign they ARE applying to Tactical Movement. Doubling cost to enter a square, etc, doesn't really apply to other time-scales of movement.
Get Blind-Fight, everybody :-) (GMs included)
yup, although since a blind character can make an Acrobatics check to move at full speed, it makes sense anybody can do so to remove the Poor Vision part of the equation (without needing to metagame and close their eyes). if you fail the check you are prone of course.
|
|
I might require a survival or perception check, to see if your character gets turned around in fog or blindness, if they're not following a wall or something. If terrain matters ( like on a roof or near a pit or ledge ) its hard not to meta game movement in a straight line when you the player can clearly see where you want your character to move. Is there any mechanic for that while blind ?
Lol or I can treat characters like grenades and roll 1d8 to see where they wander, >:}
...I REALLY don't think Poor Visibility stacks with .Blind, since being Blind would automatically invoke Poor Visibility just for not being able to see beyond 60'.
As Moonscar/Flash alluded to, Poor Visibility is worded as 'doubling movement cost' vs. Blind/Solid Fog's 'halving movement speed' which means they REALLY aren't at all the same thing mechanically, per RAW (which creates more of a leap to allowing the Acro check for Poor Visibility).
Blinded: 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.
-----
Side note: This includes Acrobatics checks.Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.
Stack was a poor choice in wording on my part, since being blind does not slow your movement on its own. It only requires a acro check to move more than 1/2 speed, while Poor Visability makes all squars cost double. Two different things that can apply at the same time.
Why the Blindness spell is so awesome:
Blinded Creature:
Speed 30 = 15ft traveled.(Poor Visability) and to move more than 7 1/2 traveled, you need an acro check(Blind). You can only move 5ft a round w/o an acro check, though each square costs 10ft of movement so no 5ft step. This also does not count as difficult terrain so Nimble Moves/ Acro Steps won't help here.
...If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
This means that if you try to move at more than half-speed and you take damage such as from an AoO you need another Acro check.
One of my DM's sometimes allows an acro check to move normally in a fog, but I'm against it.
-Flash
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is poor visibility defined as anytime you can't see more than 60 ft ahead of you clearly?
If so then most movement indoors in dungeons where the party isn't using multiple daylight spells as light sources would be considered poor visibility, since a torch or light spell only goes about 20 ft. For bright light, and mother 20 of dim light... Giving a huge advantage to anyone with darkvision, since they can use full movement, anyone else, even elves with torches would only be able to go half speed in dungeons
(not something I've ever thought of before this. And pretty sure no one plays with that interpretation )
It makes sense though. In large, open areas, with only torchlight for vision, a GM could make checks to see if a party veers off from their original trajectory without realizing it (i.e. they want to head straight across the massive cavern, but while dodging terrain obstacles, stalagmites, and such, they veer off course and end up at an encounter site they would have bypassed otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Stack was a poor choice in wording on my part, since being blind does not slow your movement on its own. It only requires a acro check to move more than 1/2 speed, while Poor Visability makes all squars cost double. Two different things that can apply at the same time.
I still don't really see them applying at the same time by RAI. Again, by definition you can't see past 60' when you are blind (can't see period), Blinded would AUTOMATICALLY invoke Poor Vision, yet it nowhere mentioned either those penalties themselves or it's 'stacking' relationship with Poor Vision... Which would be very poor design if true. So I err on the side that it is merely very poor EDITING and the RAI is that they are intended to be mutually exclusive.
When Blind you don't have 'Poor' Visibility, you have NO Visibility, no visibility can't be good or poor.Likewise why being Dazzled and Blind at the same time don't make sense.
Sure, the RAW doesn't per se associate these Conditions, but they really should be IMHO. FAQ-eth?
Since 'closing your eyes' (to become Blinded, which logicallly shouldn't 'stack'/simultaneously apply along with Poor Vision) would change the mechanic used to enforce 1/2 movement speed, while allowing an Acrobatics check to bypass that, I really don't see a problem with allowing Acrobatics to bypass the (slightly different mechanic of 1/2 move speed) for Poor Visibility itself. As mentioned, there are serious repurcussions for failing that check (and checks provoked by taking damage, etc), so it is hardly unbalanced IMHO.
So is poor visibility defined as anytime you can't see more than 60 ft ahead of you clearly?
anyone else, even elves with torches would only be able to go half speed in dungeons
and remember, there's no facing, so if you can't see 60' BEHIND YOU clearly, poor vision (and movement impediments) should be invoked.
It makes sense though. In large, open areas, with only torchlight for vision, a GM could make checks to see if a party veers off from their original trajectory without realizing it (i.e. they want to head straight across the massive cavern, but while dodging terrain obstacles, stalagmites, and such, they veer off course and end up at an encounter site they would have bypassed otherwise.
when there are no visual landmarks that the PCs can see that can orient them correctly (i.e. a straight line of rocks, albeit they wouldn't KNOW if the line is straight or not), something like this makes alot of sense... I would use something like a modified version of the splash weapon 'richochet' rules, repeated multiple times to see how much the PCs randomly 'wander' off the 'straight path' (perhaps Surivival checks avoid wandering off the desired straight line path?). A tactic to avoid this would be stringing themselves out, possibly each PC holding a pole-arm or something, so that the party as a whole will tend to move in a straight line more... basically, making their own straight-line visual landmarks. Of course, that tactic sounds like it be convenient for many malevolent foes to attack...
and remember, there's no facing, so if you can't see 60' BEHIND YOU clearly, poor vision (and movement impediments) should be invoked.
... umm... no. Poor Visability states at least 60ft not 60ft in all directions.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
So if I am in a house that has wall's 50ft or less apart I suffer from the x2 movment?
When I can't see 60ft throgh the ground?
Or if I'm using a cone shaped light source?
I don't think so.
I have to agree with the Captain, there. There seems to be no reason to take a movement penalty because you can't see where you're going when where you're going is fine and the only part that hard to see is where you've been. Not sure that makes sense, and it's not really rule-supported, either, heh.
|
I believe that terrain would affect movement which is under Gm-s occupation really. My guess is that most Gm-s take it under normal that everyone can make normal moves in fog unless they say otherwise.
If you do add some strict rules, creatures have poor visibility and need to hear other creature where he is.
A small acrobatics DC of 5 should cover the need to move at full speed. If the fog effect is cast on the asfalted road , the DC would be 0.
Acrobatics Modifiers:
Move at full speed on narrow or uneven surfaces +5
A perception check DC of 10 + 1/10ft. should give creature idea where other creature is. Most likely roll d8 to determine random square?
Perception Modifiers:
Hear the sound of a creature walking +10
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Shameless Plug: This has been asked before: Movement Penalties: Solid Fog & Poor Visibility
Just Sayin'
I'd advocate for the stacking, and it is supported by RAW, but it all depends on how detail oriented your GM wants to be. You can go into great detail on Perception Modifiers/Acrobatics modifiers if you wish, but in my experience as a player, some GMs do not..
EDITED portion: I'd be all for an "In the Dark of Night Rules FAQ"... oh SKR where have you gone?
From the other thread:
the rules for hampered movement say: "If more than one hampering condition applies, multiply all additional costs that apply. This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling."
PS - <3 Quandary
and remember, there's no facing, so if you can't see 60' BEHIND YOU clearly, poor vision (and movement impediments) should be invoked.... umm... no. Poor Visability states at least 60ft not 60ft in all directions.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditionsSo if I am in a house that has wall's 50ft or less apart I suffer from the x2 movment?
When I can't see 60ft throgh the ground?
Or if I'm using a cone shaped light source?
Sure, I agree those are 'crazy' applications of that rule...
But strictly reading the RAW, it DOESN'T say "60' in the direction you are moving" or in 'any one direction', so the 'extreme' reading doesn't seem that far-out. Certainly, I don't see the logic in saying Poor Visibility DOESN'T apply because you can see 200' behind you, even though the path 'forward'/ of your movement is completely Concealed... yet since the rule doesn't distinguish between facing or anything, that seems 100% legit to me (per RAW).Imagine you are in a 60' diameter circle, surrounded by an infinite bank of fog (or solid wall). That fulfills the requirement that you can't see beyond 60', so you are now dropped down to 1/2 move speed even if you are running back and forth WITHIN the clear/well-lit circle.
I am OK with a certain amount of 'strong' penalties here, albeit I would allow the same Acrobatics check that Blinded allows to move at full speed, but there really needs to be more specific limits on when you actually need to apply it... For one, 60' is way too far a distance, 20' seems much more reasonable. The paradigm that while moving thru a cavern that you can't see very far ahead, is a situation where you can't actually move at full speed because you can't see what's ahead of your path is reasonable... but what happens when you're just in the same room for an extended period of time, everything is within view (just less than 60' because the walls are closer than that)???
I could see something that said if an area was seen by you in the previous round, it is no longer subject to Poor Visibility (unless it itself is Concealed), since you've had time to see the terrain (unlike moving thru a long tunnel where you can't see far ahead). Although that doesn't do anything about the 60' diameter circle surrounded by fog/walls (on the 1st round when you are teleported there, for instance).
the rules for hampered movement say: "If more than one hampering condition applies, multiply all additional costs that apply. This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling."
They may well 'stack' per RAW (they are different types of modifications - one halving YOUR speed, the other doubling cost to enter a square) but I object to actually doing so (RAI/how you really play) on the same basis that Dazzled penalties shouldn't stack with Blinded... Not being able to see PERIOD is a condition that should supersede any effects of not being able to see WELL. Again, nothing in RAW to support that though.
No. Impaired visibility for the purposes of getting lost is not imparied for the purposes of slowing down. Why on earth would a gnome in armor need to be able to see 60 feet to move at top speed?
No. Impaired visibility for the purposes of getting lost is not imparied for the purposes of slowing down. Why on earth would a gnome in armor need to be able to see 60 feet to move at top speed?
I agree with you, but what is impaired visibility for the purposes of slowing down?
|
and remember, there's no facing, so if you can't see 60' BEHIND YOU clearly, poor vision (and movement impediments) should be invoked.... umm... no. Poor Visability states at least 60ft not 60ft in all directions.
** spoiler omitted **
So if I am in a house that has wall's 50ft or less apart I suffer from the x2 movment?
When I can't see 60ft throgh the ground?
Or if I'm using a cone shaped light source?I don't think so.
Count yourself lucky - in 1st Edition, you'd be at one-third movement indoors.
I agree that the definition of poor visibility for the purpose of wilderness navigation as less than 60 feet of vision is inappropriate for combat movement. I thought earlier that 20% concealment (dim light or fog) would be a suitable condition to apply double movement cost for poor visibility, though the rules don't support it as far as I know.
|
|
A small simple offtopic question , does Faerie Fire work on subjects in fog? Would it remove their concealment? From Faerie Fire: " Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. "
|
|
A small simple offtopic question , does Faerie Fire work on subjects in fog? Would it remove their concealment? From Faerie Fire: " Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. "
Found an answer.
|
|
A small simple offtopic question , does Faerie Fire work on subjects in fog?
Of course - but you probably meant "does it do any good?" edit: It's a burst, so if you pick the right origin point, you can get creatures beyond where you can see them.
Would it remove their concealment? From Faerie Fire: " Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. "
No, the creature is not blurred or displaced. The fog in between partly blocks the viewer's vision and rapidly diffuses light into a generalised glow, so it's not a similar effect or one that a light on the subject logically would defeat. You might be able to identify the creature's square at 10 or 15 feet.
|
|
A small simple offtopic question , does Faerie Fire work on subjects in fog?Of course - but you probably meant "does it do any good?" edit: It's a burst, so if you pick the right origin point, you can get creatures beyond where you can see them.
Would it remove their concealment? From Faerie Fire: " Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. "No, the creature is not blurred or displaced. The fog in between partly blocks the viewer's vision and rapidly diffuses light into a generalised glow, so it's not a similar effect or one that a light on the subject logically would defeat. You might be able to identify the creature's square at 10 or 15 feet.
Yeah thanks. Short answer to be said, it would be useful vs opponents who move (-20 on Stealth) and it would probably cancel concealment in melee range. Good enough for me, since others might hate me if I drop mist.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Poor Visability states at least 60ft not 60ft in all directions.
To follow up on this, EITHER of these readings are just majorly problematic (if you care about in-game coherency, at least).
If you only need to see 'at least 60 feet' (in some direction), then somebody walking across a field covered with 5' of fog merely needs to be taller than the fog: they can then see millions of miles to the stars, the nearest mountain etc... and thus don't suffer from penalties for Poor Visibility since they can see at least 60' (including in the direction of their travel, if one adds that stipulation). If we're going to have penalties for Poor Visibility, it seems stupid for them NOT to apply in such a situation, where they can't see the ground ahead of them.
...That leads to another point, what is the rationale for Poor Visibility? That something bad could happen to you if you didn't slow down... Presumably getting Tripped or something. (For this purpose, we can ignore that Poor Vision "IMPOSES" this cautious attitude on you, while Blinded gives you a choice to makes a Skill Check with consequences for failure.) If the rationale includes avoiding dangers BEYOND just Tripping, it seems strange that your speed isn't slowed down when walking across an open field with Good Visibility, but that is filled with Invisible Magical Traps that trigger Disentigration upon contact - in that case you don't have clear sight to THE ACTUAL DANGERS, and can stumble into them as easily as somebody could stumble while walking thru no-visibility Fog, yet because you have clear visibility to the NON DANGEROUS part of the terrain, you can move at full speed.
...Anyhow, Although getting Tripped is something rather exclusive to the 'walking' mode of movement, the Poor Visibility rule has no such limitation, it applies to ALL movement modes:
Flying, you are immune to Trip period. You could imagine Poor Visibility leading you to Fly at full speed either into an object, or only seeing it at the last minute: forcing a hard turn to avoidcrashing. But both of those are already covered by specific Fly checks. Why impose a half speed limitation? (which would stack with half speed when flying upward!?!?) Of course, Flying at full speed while Blind is A-OK even if your Acrobatics sucks, because the penalty for failure is getting Tripped, which you are immune to while Flying.
Swimming isn't actually immune to Trip per RAW, AFAIK, although it probably should be. Besides that issue, Swimming has less vulnerabilities than Flying, there aren't any Skill checks for running in to objects or making sharp turns.
Climbing is vaguely plausible to apply the half speed... although when Climbing flush against a wall, your sight of hand holds 10-20' away isn't at all similar to a person walking who can see the ground ahead of them.. SO having Poor Visibility could be RELATIVELY less of a penalty for Climbing. Mostly a wash though.
Finally, we have Burrowing. By default, Burrowers are going to be Blind, which automatically means they can't see 60' away, so does that mean creatures with Burrow Speed X are actually only able to move at Burrow Speed X/2 (unless they gain Crystal Sight, etc)? Even if Blind is Errata'd to supersede Poor Visibility penalties, does that mean that creatures with Burrow Speed X are actually only meant to move at Speed X/2 unless they pass an Acrobatics Check (or fall Prone while Burrowing?) Burrow could go along with Swim actually, as a scenario where you shouldn't be able to be Tripped.
...Anyhow, regardless of all these specifics, I just come back to the conclusion that the RAW in this area is just whacked, and nobody can actually use the actual RAW.
|
|
No. Impaired visibility for the purposes of getting lost is not imparied for the purposes of slowing down. Why on earth would a gnome in armor need to be able to see 60 feet to move at top speed?
its listed under Movement, Position, and Distance on pg. 192 "hampered movement: difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement." in the combat section. not just in Movement on pg. 170 , right before the overland movement section.
Its understandable that you'd have to go at half speed through a dim area or an area of fog.
"tactical movement is used for combat. characters generally don't walk during combat, for obvious reasons - they hustle or run instead. A character who moves his speed and takes some action is hustling for about half the round and doing something else the other half."
I do with the rules explicitly stated that the rules for blindness ( i.e. making an acrobatics check to move at full speed instead of half ), also apply through areas of poor visibility. though the overlap between blindness and poor visibility seems pretty obvious...
Though its easier to imagine using an acrobatics check to move across a cluttered room, than it is to use the same skill to get across a cluttered room or uneven ground in the dark / in fog. the first case, you've got plenty to flip over/hurdle or otherwise hustle even faster across than normal. the second case its just harder to see, handholds might not be where you expect, the ground might not be where you expect, causing you to stumble. which in game terms isn't necessarily always going prone, but it could slow you down enough to say... half your movement.
|
|
for flying in the dark...
yeah raw you're not trippable so you can avoid the acrobatics check to move more than half speed. but i think a similar fly check to avoid some subdual damage from bumping into a wall might be appropriate?
wizard: i'm in the dark, but i'm going to full speed fly down the hallway.
gm: you're in the dark, your character doesn't know how long the hallway is.
wizard: sure i do, its 6 squares, 30 ft. i've got enough to make it to the end and bank left or right.
gm: roll a fly check.
wizard: 13
gm: you smack into the wall, since you sped down the hall blindly for 30 ft. you'll take 2d6 damage + 1d6 subdual. now give me a dc 25 fly check for a collision in midair or you'll fall down prone to the ground.
at least thats how i can imagine it playing out...
since its hard to roleplay veering off in a tactical combat scenario, reduced speed seems like an okay penalty. as long as we all agree to suspend our disbelief. At least until someone comes out with "confusion in darkness" rules.