lots of accurate RAW
thanks again, I agree with much of what you said here.
Despite situational modifiers, however, the point is that the stealth bonus of said sniper in the open is not affected by their skill ranks, dex, gear, etc. which require cover or concealment, unless they have HiPS. HiPS, through some unspecified magical effect, makes these bonuses apply when they shouldn't. Special senses certainly prevent (visually based) cover or concealment from working, and although they don't "normally" need to make checks, their description allows that there may be circumstances in which perception checks need to be made. So it isn't absurd to require checks for unfavorable conditions (like loud ambient noise, strong smells, etc.) in the same way that one might make distracted players make perception checks against the distant sniper in plain sight against the sun.So, if special senses aren't completely infallible, and are subject to at least some of the same limitations of normal senses, how can HiPS overcome the requirement for cover/concealment for normal senses but not special senses, unless it is visually based?
Darkvision may also apply.
No, it doesn't. That is normal sight. You are hiding in plain sight. If Darkvision overcame ShadowDancer or Assassin HiPS, ANYTHING would overcome Ranger HiPS.
|
Here's what the 3.5 FAQ says about this whole scenario... Until we get a Pathfinder FAQ (which is coming soon from what I've heard) this is as close as we get.
Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after
attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her
(even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The
sniping option (on page 76 in the PH) allows a character to
make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged
attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply
to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the
character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide
check while she is being observed.
As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s
approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that
is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a
Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still
when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might
begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the
undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding
place within the plants, having never left the area of
concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she
made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide
check.
The third part of your question changes the situation
entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight
class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re
incredibly effective.
A character with the hide in plain sight class feature
(described on page 48 in the PH) can make a Hide check even
if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to
accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could
attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or
concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as
part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to
pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move
(potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not
necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of
hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for
her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she
delivers the attack.
The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the PH)
allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural
terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This
means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a
target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being
considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty
on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and
moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to
hide after the attack.
Put all three of these elements together—such as in the
hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get:
1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in
natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment).
2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an
attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be
considered hiding when he attacks).
3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide
check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or
concealment while in natural terrain).
4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”
But serisouly the Stealth Skill's Action is "Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action."
As this is a game of Actions how else would you roll Stealth checks in a combat round? How many Stealth checks do I get in a Move/Standard Action round, a Full Round Action?
--Beating a Vrocking Horse to death
<bookmarked, to have a chuckle at later>
Edit.
+1. I too will chuckle at some of the stuff later.But there are some stuff that needs to be addressed by a FAQ, a pathfinder FAQ. Or at least so it seems.
Dim light is from the point of view of the OPPONENT not from the shadow dancer
No, Dim light = shadow dancer need a shadow to hide in. If opponetns can see in the dark or in shadows is beside the point. (This is not like Riddick fighting in the dark, it's more like Jack of shadows.) So "dim light" is an objective term.
Read all posts by King of VrockIt doesn't matter if your enemy has darkvision, only if there is Dim Light w/in 10 feet of you. It's not dependant on the observer. This is well established from 3.5.
"Darkvision may also apply."
No, see above."True sight does not eliminate hiding, although it *may* eliminate the condition allowing hiding."
No, see above.
One could say that shadows/dim light is the shadow dancer's natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment to hide. That is, he can hide "even if he lacks concealment"/"even if the opponenet has darkvision/true seeeing)".
"Finally, I'd also like to chime in and say I really don't consider this ability abusive."
Agree.
Do you need it to be spelled out in neon 10 foot high letters? You can infer it from how other skills are used. Short of a designer coming in and holding our hands we as GM's gotta make some decisions.
--Solid as a Vrock
Other skills like climb and swim specifically say you have to make the check each move action. To my knowledge stealth does not. Did I miss it somehow?
If it isn't written out clearly than it isn't RAW, only and inference, only an interpretation. Sure we could "make a decision" to make a broken ability work, but that doesn't change the fact that the ability is broken to begin with and that, yes, we DO need a game designer to come and "hold our hands" and show us how it was supposed to work.
I am referring to HiPS of course.
So how would you like Stealth to work? Make one skill check, say, in the morning, and then use that one check all day?
DM: Make a stealth roll.
Player: No need, I still have that one I rolled right after breakfast.
DM: That was hours ago!
Player: Well, yeah, but the rules don't spell it out that I have to make one each time I try to sneak.
I don't think that would work very well.
I believe it's not spelled out because it is implicit in the entire concept of gaming. All games. In Monopoly, when it's your turn, you roll the dice; you can't use a previous roll. In Pathfinder, when you swing your sword, you roll the d20. When you climb, you roll the d20. When you sneak, you roll the d20.
If that's not enough, then try this:
When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.
If that's not enough, then try this:
When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.
Doesn't the stealth skill say that you don't make a check until it is opposed by perception and vice versa...or something like that?
That would make me think that a check isn't required until a given situation changes or a new potential witness comes onto the scene.
Do you need it to be spelled out in neon 10 foot high letters? You can infer it from how other skills are used. Short of a designer coming in and holding our hands we as GM's gotta make some decisions.
--Solid as a Vrock
Other skills like climb and swim specifically say you have to make the check each move action. To my knowledge stealth does not. Did I miss it somehow?
If it isn't written out clearly than it isn't RAW, only and inference, only an interpretation. Sure we could "make a decision" to make a broken ability work, but that doesn't change the fact that the ability is broken to begin with and that, yes, we DO need a game designer to come and "hold our hands" and show us how it was supposed to work.
I am referring to HiPS of course.
So how would you like Stealth to work? Make one skill check, say, in the morning, and then use that one check all day?
DM: Make a stealth roll.
Player: No need, I still have that one I rolled right after breakfast.
DM: That was hours ago!
Player: Well, yeah, but the rules don't spell it out that I have to make one each time I try to sneak.
I don't think that would work very well.
I believe it's not spelled out because it is implicit in the entire concept of gaming. All games. In Monopoly, when it's your turn, you roll the dice; you can't use a previous roll. In Pathfinder, when you swing your sword, you roll the d20. When you climb, you roll the d20. When you sneak, you roll the d20.
If that's not enough, then try this:
When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.
|
All the other nonsense about rolling marbles and flying kites is just silly - the Shadowdancer needs an area of dim light (shadow). An "area" in our game terminology is a 5' square where this lighting condition is prevalent. Not the shadow of a little kite, or the shadow of a marble, or even a shadow of a person.
Do you have a page reference for that?
I agree with you, it ought to be worded such that the dark area has to be large enough to fit the character using HiPS, stretching their limbs out (so a 10' cube, for Large shadow creatures). The fact the wording is imprecise is a big part of the misunderstanding.
(Apologies if this was answered already).
|
|
No true seeing merely lets the viewer see through mundane and magical darkness to 120 ft. normally. True seeing does not actually make the dim light condition disappear. to anyone els but the true seer the dim light's still there. That's why it is not dependant on the observer, it's the actual conditions that allow the Shadowdancer to activate HiPS.
A creature with true seeing is really no different than a creature with darkvision or a devil with their see in darkness (Su) ability in relation to the Shadowdancer. The True Seer, Darvision user, and Devil all ignore the darkness, but it is still dark and thus the Shadowdancer is still potent.
That makes less than zero sense.
"Oh, no! A creature that can see through magical and mundane darkness!"
"Better wrap some darkness around myself, so he can't see me!"
This is the equivalent of rubbing yourself all over with powdered uranium, to defeat a Geiger counter.
All the other nonsense about rolling marbles and flying kites is just silly - the Shadowdancer needs an area of dim light (shadow). An "area" in our game terminology is a 5' square where this lighting condition is prevalent. Not the shadow of a little kite, or the shadow of a marble, or even a shadow of a person.Do you have a page reference for that?
I agree with you, it ought to be worded such that the dark area has to be large enough to fit the character using HiPS, stretching their limbs out (so a 10' cube, for Large shadow creatures). The fact the wording is imprecise is a big part of the misunderstanding.
(Apologies if this was answered already).
Page reference?
No, not for this one.
I'm just using common sense, and looking at the general use of the word "area" throughout the book.
Fireball explodes in an area. So do other "area" spells (obviously) but not one of those spells has an "area" the size of a shadow cast by a little itty bitty marble, or even of a kite.
Even the concealment rules have this: "An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision." Now, obviously, if a dwarf were trying to hide in the "area" of shadow cast by a marble the size of his toe, you wouldn't need darkvision to see him. Clearly, this use of "area" assumes the dim lighting is big enough to contain the guy trying to hide in it. Though, I suppose you could say that the rule really only applies to gnats hiting in the shadows of marbles if you want to.
All throughout the rulebook, wherever "area" is used, it's not used for miniscule incidentals.
However, your point is valid. Nowhere in the book does it specificall state that "area" means something big, or even means a 5' square on a battlegrid. So, if you're OK with a character using Hide in Plain Sight because a pebble on the ground, smaller than the character's little toe, is casting a really tiny shadow, then go for it. The RAW won't stop you.
Easiest method to deal with it - if hes only doing one attack in a round and he doesnt kill the significant bad guy?, then tap a Potion Of Blur or use a spell of the same name. That meagre 20% miss chance robs the Shadowdancer blind. Or better yet, if you have Darkvision it negates any and all shadows you see (they simply do not exist to your vision), you see things as if in perfect illumination - in that instance the Shadowdancer will need to use cover (which they wouldnt otherwise have to do, but its the only way around hiding versus a Darkvision using foe).
You cant logically hide behind the shadow of a kite or marble, unless it was of a decent size, its common sense after all that you need a shadow of at least decent size to use the ability in (such as a shadow thats at least one size category smaller than yourself at the very most but even then thats stretching it).
I allow characters with HiPS to use any decent size shadow for this purpose, but if they tried to use it with rolling a marble down a well lit corridor or by flying a kite overhead?, i'd let him think it was working (after all a Rogue doesnt automatically KNOW when hes been spotted, he still thinks hes hidden even with a bad Stealth roll, the character isnt aware of 'how well' theyre hidden by the RAW, theyre dependant entirely on the observer (hence why a poorly hidden character can still surprise and sneak attack a character who botched a perception test)) and then when he thinks hes hidden I'd have an Ogre or some other large monster rip his arms out of his sockets and beat him to death with them (or some other grisly fate).
|
I do not agree that 2 stealth checks would have to be made in the character's turn. The character is hidden at the start of his turn, meaning the bad guy is not aware of him and therefore loses his Dex bonus against him. Yes, when he moves in to attack he loses his hidden status, but the bad guy does not get his dex bonus back in the middle of the character's turn. I think of it like flat footed. If you don't know something is there, you can not defend against it until your turn, even if you see it just before if cuts your spine out. After the attack, the character moves back , making his stealth check to hide again. There are many ways to give this type of character problems, and I do not think it is as effective as getting a flank and full attacking with sneaks, but it is a great tactic for the self-perservationist character.
Mate, how about uncanny dodge? It's valid to remember that shadowdancer levels do not stack with rogue levels to counter this.
I was gonna propose to use total darkness and creatures that can see in said darkness. When there is total darkness no shadows are cast, so he would be unable to use HiPS, but there is the dim light thingy, and it screws that idea over.
P.S. I got tired of reading and posted anyway, so, there may be things you considered and I did not, sorry about that. :)
|
Incorrect. The shadows still exist and allow the shadowdancer to use his supernatural ability. Think of their proximity as a material component for it.It's not that he's hiding in the shadowy illumination, but his ties to shadowstuff give him great powers when he is near them.
-James
I am sorry, I could care less about his magical superpowers, the ability does nothing to actually give him active concealment in any way, he must still seek it out and use it.
This coupled with the fact that low-light and darkvision defeats concealment from shadows.
Of course he can use something like cover or another player as a tool with which to facilitate the stealth check, but standing in a shadow to try to hide from a creature that can see in shadows would not help you.
Yes, it says you can HIP as long as you are within range of dim lighting for purposes of having concealment, yes you can roll a stealth check, but for the creature with low-light or darkvision, you have no concealment therefore the stealth check didn't happen.
The check to see if you have concealment does not lie with the PC, but with all other entities viewing the player. Their senses define the concealment, not the shadow or your positioning.
Maybe an illustration will help you understand better. STORYTIME!
Say you had 2 creatures, yourself and a shadow.
You are being observed by both. You have HIP.
Creature one is a Human. Shadows count as concealment against him.
Creature two is a dwarf. Shadows do NOT count as concealment against him.
You can make a HIP stealth check and attempt to use the shadow of a pillar as your concealment.
The human loses track of you if you defeat his perception.
The dwarf laughs because he just watched you walk over to the pillar and hug up against it, clear as day. You did not get concealment, you are unable to hide. Period
Darkvision defeats HIP for non supernatural shadows that defeat darkvison such as Deeper Darkness.
Trying to read this as different is nothing but an attempt to misread and skew the rules for powergaming and munchkin purposes. Period.
I am sorry, I could care less about his magical superpowers, the ability does nothing to actually give him active concealment in any way, he must still seek it out and use it.
This coupled with the fact that low-light and darkvision defeats concealment from shadows.
Of course he can use something like cover or another player as a tool with which to facilitate the stealth check, but standing in a shadow to try to hide from a creature that can see in shadows would not help you.
Perhaps you missed the "in Plain Sight" part of the ability.
|
|
Perhaps you missed the 'darkvision' part of the example.
For that creature, there is no dim light condition, anywhere within the range of his darkvision.
Therefore, attempting to use HiPS, by claiming the proximity of dim light; dim light which does not exist, to all intents and purposes, as far as that viewer is concerned, is going to automatically fail.
You may be able to HiPS, at the very edge of that viewer's darkvision range, if you declare you are drawing on the dark area outside of his darkvision range.
That, of course, requires you to be aware of the viewer, and his angle of vision, in order to pick a more distant shadow, or else make a lucky or educated guess.
And if there were more than one viewer with darkvision, each within darkvision range, each viewing from opposite sides; picking a shadow further from Viewer 1 means picking a shadow closer to Viewer 2, which would cause Viewer 2 to have an unobstructed view.
|
|
A given observer might be able to see clearly in the dim light, but they are *not* removing the dim light.. its still there.
The presence of dim light is what matters here, not the observer's ability or inability to see clearly in it.
-James
And for your next trick, you will drown a fish.
And after that, burn an efreet.
Of course the viewer's abilities to ignore darkness cancel the Shadowdancer's ability to draw on that darkness.
Just as a fish' gills cancel the rules for drowning when immersed in water.
Just as the efreet's fire immunity trumps the line in the Fireball spell, that states 'You deal 1d6 fire damage per caster level...'.
The rules are written to describe how they would affect the baseline creature, a human Commoner 1 with 10/11 in every stat.
Every way in which the target differs from that baseline, alters the possible range of effects.
You can't just sit there, jabbing one page, and wailing "It says he can do this!", like a broken record.
Guess what? The text for the Sleep spell says it affects creatures of up to 4 HD. It only specifically calls out exceptions for constructs and undead. Guess what happens when you cast it on an elf?
Of course the viewer's abilities to ignore darkness cancel the Shadowdancer's ability to draw on that darkness.
No where does it even say that a shadowdancer draws on the darkness.
Perhaps you missed the 'darkvision' part of the example.
For that creature, there is no dim light condition, anywhere within the range of his darkvision.
Not true.
The dim light condition is there and does not depend upon the observer to remain there.
How each observer can see through the dim light does depend upon their visual abilities, but that's not the issue here.
The dim light IS there. That's where you are getting confused.
The conditions 'bright light', 'normal light', 'dim light' and 'darkness' are NOT dependent upon the observer. Read the entries. The visual properties of the observer do not remove these conditions, rather they mitigate the effects of those conditions.
Had Hide in Plain Sight read 'A Shadowdancer within 10' of concealment can make a Stealth check' rather than 'dim light' or 'shadow' you would have an argument. It doesn't and thus neither do you.
-James
+1
|
|
Of course the viewer's abilities to ignore darkness cancel the Shadowdancer's ability to draw on that darkness.No where does it even say that a shadowdancer draws on the darkness.
No; of course it doesn't.
How silly of me to assume that the Shadowdancer uses the shadows to power the ability.
I should be slapped on the wrist.
What does he use?
The power of love?
The power of mime?
The power of attorney?
A given observer might be able to see clearly in the dim light, but they are *not* removing the dim light.. its still there.
The presence of dim light is what matters here, not the observer's ability or inability to see clearly in it.
-James
And for your next trick, you will drown a fish.
And after that, burn an efreet.
Of course the viewer's abilities to ignore darkness cancel the Shadowdancer's ability to draw on that darkness.
Just as a fish' gills cancel the rules for drowning when immersed in water.
Just as the efreet's fire immunity trumps the line in the Fireball spell, that states 'You deal 1d6 fire damage per caster level...'.
The rules are written to describe how they would affect the baseline creature, a human Commoner 1 with 10/11 in every stat.
Every way in which the target differs from that baseline, alters the possible range of effects.You can't just sit there, jabbing one page, and wailing "It says he can do this!", like a broken record.
Guess what? The text for the Sleep spell says it affects creatures of up to 4 HD. It only specifically calls out exceptions for constructs and undead. Guess what happens when you cast it on an elf?
You're being purposely obtuse now. No, darkvision doesn't make it NOT DARK it means that the observer can see through the darkness. It is still there.
Consider this. Imagine you work for a construction company and your boss says when it is dark out, you get paid double. So you work nights, scraping together extra money. Your boss comes around the work sight with a pair of nightvision goggles and yells "suckers!". No, it is still dark out, he can just see in the darkness.
The whole POINT of Hide In Plain Sight for the shadowdancer is being able to make a hide check despite being observed, as long as they are within 10 feet of shadowy illumination. The illumination level as far as game terms go is objective. It is bright light, normal light, dim light, or darkness (unless I'm leaving something out). If you can see in darkness (i.e. darkvision) that's great, but it doesn't change the lighting condition, you just have a special ability to see DESPITE the lack of light. The HiPS ability doees not speak to this, only as long as he is within 10 feet of shadows he can hide.
Guys my rogue is having nice things
And let me tell you
I've never been angrier.
|
|
Just as a fish' gills cancel the rules for drowning when immersed in water.
Just as the efreet's fire immunity trumps the line in the Fireball spell, that states 'You deal 1d6 fire damage per caster level...'.
I'm afraid I don't get the fish example at all.
As for the second example; if there is a commoner standing next to the efreet, the commoner will be killed by the same fireball. The fireball doesn't stop dealing damage just because an efreet is in the AoE. The efreet ignores the damage. So, actually this is a good example, except that it proves the point that the other camp is trying to make. An observer's vulnerability/susceptibility to a set of conditions is in no way relevant to whether or not such conditions do, in fact, exist. If you think really hard about it, I'm sure you'll agree that this is a fact, whether in the real world or the game world. Since the HIPS ability depends on the existance of the condition (dim light within 10'), if the condition exists, it works. Per the rules, not per the people on this forum or even the people in this thread. Per the rules.
The rules are written to describe how they would affect the baseline creature, a human Commoner 1 with 10/11 in every stat.
Every way in which the target differs from that baseline, alters the possible range of effects.
Where is this outlined in the Rules?
You can't just sit there, jabbing one page, and wailing "It says he can do this!", like a broken record.
Actually, that's exactly what folks can and are doing, because that one page is located in the Rulebook. I'm not sure what else you'd have us do. We're citing Rules. Maybe the rules are right, and maybe they're wrong, maybe they're what Paizo intended and maybe they're not; either way, until amended, they're still the rules.
Guess what?
Chicken butt?
The text for the Sleep spell says it affects creatures of up to 4 HD. It only specifically calls out exceptions for constructs and undead. Guess what happens when you cast it on an elf?
Well, the spell certainly doesn't fizzle, which is what you seem to be implying. The fabric of Spacetime isn't ripped and altered to prevent the wizard from ever having cast the spell. Surely, the elf doesn't fall asleep, but if he's a 1HD elf and there are three 1HD humans standing next to him, those three humans very well may fall asleep. The spell was still cast.
Guys my rogue is having nice things
And let me tell you
I've never been angrier.
For the record, I don't think this is a problem at all. The OP came at us saying "this is a problem: solve it" and when we do he screams "STOP HELPING". The damage he is doing is suboptimal to put it nicely, but if the OP wants to put a stop to it we're trying to outline ways to do so.
|
|
Guys my rogue is having nice things
And let me tell you
I've never been angrier.
Just so you don't think I'm in the camp of 'non-spellcasters can't have nice things', I actually think regular, non-magical Sneak (usable by everybody) should be applicable when moving from cover to cover, and when emerging from cover to perform Sneak Attack (one of the other threads going on right now).
Regular Sneaking has been nerfed to uselessness, then when people ask 'What about the many real-life examples of people being able to hop from one hiding place to another, and sneak up to an enemy in daylight?' they over-react by creating an ability that swings to the opposite extreme.
Fix regular non-magical Sneak, so it does what it's supposed to, then we won't need this awful, badly-thought, badly-worded, mystical mumbo-jumbo ability, which creates more problems than it solves.
Awful, badly-thought, badly-worded, mystical mumbo-jumbo ability, which creates more problems than it solves.
Translation: Nobody but casters are allowed to have fantastic abilities.
|
|
So the efreet cancels out the fireball and stops it from exploding in a 20' radius?
Do fire sources near an efreet no longer exist for casting pyrotechnics? After all the efreet is immune to fire! Lol!
Sorry, be as obtuse as you want but you are better served reading the rules as they are written and not as how you would like them to be.
Hide in Plain Sight does work and railing to say that it doesn't isn't doing you any good; it's only letting people mock you.
-James
Point out where I said the ability was dispelled/counterspelled/suppressed.
Point out where I said the ability couldn't be used.You can use the ability till the cows come home.
Go ahead; weave the strands of the shadow-stuff around yourself. Knit yourself a bobble-hat with them while you're at it.
I said the ability wouldn't work, on targets with darkvision.
Other targets in the area, without darkvision, will be affected.
The Shadowdancer uses the ability.
Some targets are affected (the ones for whom darkness is a liability).
Some targets are not affected (the ones for whom darkness is a non-issue).
Just as a fireball goes off in a crowded room, affecting those who are vulnerable to fire, but not affecting those who are immune to fire.
I have read the rules, as they are written, and they clearly show that creatures with darkvision are unhindered by darkness, up to a certain range.
The fact that those rules are in a different section from the text on HiPS, does not alter one bit the fact that they are applicable to the situation.
Explain to me; would you allow someone to drown a fish, by dropping it in water?
There is no mention of water-breathing creatures in the text on drowning.
The ability of fish to breathe water is in another section.
Explain to me: would you force an elf PC to be affected by a Sleep spell?
There is no mention of elven immunities in the spell description.
The elven immunity to magical sleep is in another section.
According to your principles, espoused so far in this thread, re HiPS, only the text in one section is allowed to apply.
You have to let your group drown fish, and you have to tell your elf PCs that their elven immunity to magical sleep is worthless.
OR;
You have to admit that sometimes the rules are scattered, and rules elements from different locations often have to be considered in relation to each other.
|
|
Awful, badly-thought, badly-worded, mystical mumbo-jumbo ability, which creates more problems than it solves.
Translation: Nobody but casters are allowed to have fantastic abilities.
Nice attempt at baiting me, but no cigar.
Read again what I wrote.
Regular Sneaking has been nerfed to uselessness, then when people ask 'What about the many real-life examples of people being able to hop from one hiding place to another, and sneak up to an enemy in daylight?' they over-react by creating an ability that swings to the opposite extreme.
Fix regular non-magical Sneak, so it does what it's supposed to, then we won't need this awful, badly-thought, badly-worded, mystical mumbo-jumbo ability, which creates more problems than it solves.
If you saw any of my posts in the Alpha and Beta playtests, you'd find we aren't so far apart. I was pushing for the gap between casters and non-casters to be narrowed, if not closed entirely, while anticipating that may not happen due to the weight of 30 years baggage and expectations.
I don't have a problem with the concept of a shadow-powered rogue, or of him having supernatural abilities to thicken the shadows around him, to hop to the shadow plane, to dimension door.
I read Zelazny's 'Jack of Shadows' as a kid, I've even got a copy of the song, by Hawkwind. I have no objection to the concept. At all.
I have an objection to muddy, unclear rules, where exceptions and clarifications are scattered all over the place.
See the 3.5 Fog Cloud/Solid Fog/Acid Fog debacle; each successive spell referring to the one before, requiring the caster to flick back and forth with his thumbs wedged as bookmarks. Until we said to hell with it, and wrote it out longhand.
And that's a mild example, since at least it told you that there was another place to read. Other rules don't warn you that there are exceptions, clarifications, modifications, and you only come across them by happenstance.
The fact that there have been many, many threads on this subject proves the rules could be written more clearly, and the intent of the rule is not easy to prove.
Let's rewrite it, in a form that is clear and not open to abuse, such as the 'rolling a marble down the hallway' example, which is currently legal by RAW, but which I do not believe was ever RAI.
Translation: Nobody but casters are allowed to have fantastic abilities.
Yeah, because HiPS for Shadowdancers and Assassins can be foiled by darkvision = only casters can have fantastic abilities. Make whatever hyperbolic arguments you want, we'll be content to ignore them for the value they have.
I'm confused as to what people are arguing.
If a Shadowdancer tries to use dim light to hide, HIPs or not, the dwarf will still see him.
The human standing next to the dwarf won't.
It's not that the dwarf observing the shadowdancer suddenly causes the shadowdancer's abilities to fail. It's that the dwarf has an ability that allows him to see in the dark, so he gets to see people trying to hide in the dark.
The shadowdancer would still be hiding, the dwarf simply doesn't need to make a check to see him. Darkvision affects only the dwarf, not the shadowdancer.
The human would still need to roll a check to see the shadowdancer.
Or do people not run darkvision this way? Can a rogue use dim light to sneak up on a Dwarf normally? I've always played darkvision to being more powerful than that...
.
Or am I confused as to what people are arguing about... because this conversation seems to have taken a really weird turn.
I'm confused as to what people are arguing.
If a Shadowdancer tries to use dim light to hide, HIPs or not, the dwarf will still see him.
The human standing next to the dwarf won't.It's not that the dwarf observing the shadowdancer suddenly causes the shadowdancer's abilities to fail. It's that the dwarf has an ability that allows him to see in the dark, so he gets to see people trying to hide in the dark.
The shadowdancer would still be hiding, the dwarf simply doesn't need to make a check to see him. Darkvision affects only the dwarf, not the shadowdancer.
The human would still need to roll a check to see the shadowdancer.Or do people not run darkvision this way? Can a rogue use dim light to sneak up on a Dwarf normally? I've always played darkvision to being more powerful than that...
.
Or am I confused as to what people are arguing about... because this conversation seems to have taken a really weird turn.
So what you're saying is that HiPS ONLY works against humans. Which makes it utterly F*+&ING worthless. GG.
No, I'm saying is that hiding when all you have is concealment from dim light, then it'll have to be outside of darkvision range.
HIPs works for what it's supposed to: allow you to roll a stealth check while being observed.
If you use that to try and hide in an ineffective way against a target, then that's your problem.
.
To put it another way.. if you used HIPs near dim light to use cover to hide from someone with darkvision, it would work fine.
Does that make more sense?
Basically... shadowdancer's HIPs uses shadows to "trick you" into glancing away enough for him to hide. Like a free distraction.
Rangers can do it in any situation, they don't need shadows. Coupled with Camouflage they can "trick" you into looking elsewhere, and hide without cover or concealment and foil anyone.
It's why Rangers are even more awesome at it (but only get it at the higher levels).
No, I'm saying is that hiding when all you have is concealment from dim light, then it'll have to be outside of darkvision range.
HIPs works for what it's supposed to: allow you to roll a stealth check while being observed.
If you use that to try and hide in an ineffective way against a target, then that's your problem.
.
To put it another way.. if you used HIPs near dim light to use cover to hide from someone with darkvision, it would work fine.
Does that make more sense?
Basically... shadowdancer's HIPs uses shadows to "trick you" into glancing away enough for him to hide. Like a free distraction.
Rangers can do it in any situation, they don't need shadows. Coupled with Camouflage they can "trick" you into looking elsewhere, and hide without cover or concealment and foil anyone.
It's why Rangers are even more awesome at it (but only get it at the higher levels).
If you are hiding from someone who has darkvision and you have to use cover...then HiPS has netted you NOTHING. You are saying that HiPS is completely worthless against anyone who has more than human sight.
No one tricks you into looking anywhere, you are reading flavor into an ability, and then ajudicating rules based on your imagined flavor. HiPS does none of the things you attribute to it. And if it does not allow one to hide in plain sight, then it is false advertising.
Here you said something sane though: HIPs works for what it's supposed to: allow you to roll a stealth check while being observed.
Meaning if that dwarf is observing me, as long as I am in the shadows, I GET TO ROLL STEALTH AGAINST hiS PERCEPTION. HiPS therefore is not foiled by darkvision, or low light vision. It's still foiled by a daylight spell so don't worry, the rogue still doesn't REALLY have anything nice.
As I stated over in this thread,
Hide in Plain Sight is a powerful ability, but you should be able to determine the general area the shadowdancer is hiding in (unless he has a much higher movement speed than normal) well enough to drop a glitterdust within 10 ft. At that point, the -40 penalty on Stealth checks pretty much makes hiding impossible.
Basically, the players have a hammer (Hide in Plain Sight with Spring Attack) and they're looking at every encounter as a nail. However, even something as simple as a having one or more companions nearby (possibly a pet with Improved Grab or a someone with Improved Trip) can foil the Spring Attack (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, pg. 134): "You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack." (emphasis mine) The character still provokes AoOs for movement from everyone else. It's pretty hard to hide when you're in the middle of a grapple or have just been knocked prone within reach of someone.
Here you said something sane though: HIPs works for what it's supposed to: allow you to roll a stealth check while being observed.
Meaning if that dwarf is observing me, as long as I am in the shadows, I GET TO ROLL STEALTH AGAINST hiS PERCEPTION. HiPS therefore is not foiled by darkvision, or low light vision. It's still foiled by a daylight spell so don't worry, the rogue still doesn't REALLY have anything nice.
Perhaps I'm walking into a conversation where you are already quite heated, so I'll ignore the vitriol and try and respond to your actual points.
.
We are agreed that HiPS gives the chance to make a stealth check while being observed.
The problem though, is how far you are taking this to mean.
In the Stealth rules:
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 Bluff 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.
Normally, you'd have to use Bluff to create a diversion to hide while people are looking at you.
HiPS allows you to make a stealth check "even while being observed." Exactly like a distraction. Only it doesn't take an action like Bluff does.
Using stealth though, still requires cover or concealment. HiPS only allows making a check while being observed without needing a distraction from another source, you just need to meet the requirements of HiPS (10' near dim light, or in your favored terrain, etc).
If you don't move though, you don' have cover or concealment. Usually dim light is enough (concealment), so the shadowdancer can move towards that dim light and hide.
HiPS doesn't remove the requirement of cover or concealment to hide.
HiPS just allows you to make a stealth check to hide in cover or concealment while being observed. In the case of shadowdancers and assassins, they need to be within 10' to supernaturally cause people to not see where they go when they move to cover or concealment.
If the shadowdancer moves into dim light for concealment, then someone who can see in dim light without concealment (such as with darkvision), then it's not going to work.
If the shadowdancer moves behind cover, then it works, unless the person has some way to seeing past that cover (blindsense maybe? or x-ray vision...).
HiPS isn't being "foiled" or "made useless" by anything here. What's being foiled is the methods of Stealth.
To flip this around:
Would you allow a person to use Bluff to make a distraction, move into concealment (dim light) and roll a Stealth check... and allow the dwarf with darkvision to see him automatically?
To me, this is exactly the same situation, except that HiPS allows making that stealth check without needing a distraction from something like Bluff.
As far as I can tell, for the OP situation, it would technically be possible to do all that he's doing if he has "dim light" to do it near.
However, he still needs to move to cover or concealment to properly stealth again, and he still takes a -10 penalty to do it (as per the stealth skill rules).
And a -5 for moving more than half his movement.
So a total -15 penalty to his check.
And the targets know he's here, and can't be that far (somewhere within a few meters at least, and in cover or concealment, so you know where to look).
Though not all targets will be that smart.. I wouldn't play an orc warrior to know what's going on, for example.
.
And NO hiding in a freaking marble's shadow. You still need concealment for crying out loud.. that's just ridiculous.