|
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.
+2 Mighty Cleaving Broadsword
The simple mistake here is they are trying to misinterpret the condition of while observed as meaning that the shadow gives them ability. What is allowing you to use your stealth while being observed is the concealment the shadow gives, not your magic ability. Your ability only gives you the opportunity to roll if you have the condition of "Concealed"
+2 Mighty Cleaving Broadsword
The simple mistake here is they are trying to misinterpret the condition of while observed as meaning that the shadow gives them ability. What is allowing you to use your stealth while being observed is the concealment the shadow gives, not your magic ability. Your ability only gives you the opportunity to roll if you have the condition of "Concealed"
Not exactly. Technically, you can hide with cover or whatnot to get hidden.
All HiPS does is allow you to make a check while being observed. For Shadowdancers and Assassins, they use a supernatural ability (so not useable in antimagic, etc) to make shadows "do something" that let's them move to hide without needing further distraction (the 10' near dim light thing).
For a high level Ranger, he only needs to be in his favored terrain.
HiPS gives the chance at the roll. The stealth check itself still requires moving into cover or concealment (there's nothing in the HiPS description that alleviates this aspect of the stealth check).
So, what would the Ring of X-Ray Vision do against HiPS? :p
And, of course, what many others have said already ( to be all summarily ignored by RD ): The Shadowdancer will do sub-par damage anyway, so who cares?
Personally, I am much more upset with the fact that there are armor enchantments which give a Rogue +15 to Stealth, while the best Perception enhancer gives only a +5.
Do you really still need cover or concealment to use HiPS? I thought the whole point of HiPS was to basically nullify the need for such things.
Ah yes... the 10' near dim light has the text: "without anything to actually hide behind".
I was wondering why it seemed like we had been playing it wrong for years, ha! I was thankfully wrong in that regard.
.
Alright, so the Hide in Plain Sight ability has two parts:
1. The ability to make a stealth check while observed without needing a distraction.
2. The ability to hide in the open as long as you meet a condition (10' near dim light, or hiding in your favored terrain: Camouflage).
Really, from the reading of the rule, you wouldn't need dim light 10' nearby to make a stealth check while observed. You do need some kind of cover or concealment, or move towards some (causing a -10 penalty to your check, with a possible additional -5 if you are moving more than half speed and don't have the fast stealth talent).
In a hypothetical example, a Shadowdancer who is 30' away from dim light can make a stealth check to move 20' towards that dim light and hide in that spot (10' away from the shadowy area). This would incur a -15 penalty to his stealth check for moving.
If he started off 10' away from the shadows, he'd just make his check normally.
So a spring attacking shadowdancer would be jumping in and out of shadows, making his sneak attack damage on a single attack per round.
If people are further than 15' from shadowy area, he would have to move into his "safe zone" and incur some larger penalties to his check.
A valid and intuitive tactic for victims being attacked by someone in the shadows is to get into the light. Penalties to the Stealth check should make opposed checks from lower Perception scores for unoptimized NPCs more equalized.
.
The only thing that still gets me is that the "hiding" detailed for the Shadowdancer and Assassin Hide in Plain Sight is rather undefined in how you come by it.
Obviously, the intention is to allow making checks to hide while still in normal light, as long as you are near dim light.
However, what if the shadow dancer is just walking up normally in dim light... does the dwarf with darkvision see him? Or is the ability working, because "in" shadows is technically 10' or closer to shadows, and thus he's getting this "untyped" stealth?
Or is it that it's just granting concealment from 10' from dim light, and so unless you also have cover, someone who can see in dim light normally can see them.
Rangers clearly do not require cover or concealment (it specifically says so), but has the caveat that it only applies to his favored terrains. Which means it only works in up to a maximum of 1/3rd the possible locations he could find himself in. That's at max level too, he only has 2 terrains at the time he gets Camouflage.
.
In the end though, an area of dim light is fairly clearly defined in the game. And while it can be a 5' square, it has a clearly defined way of appearing.
A kite or marble is simply not going to suffice in broad daylight.
Darkvision doesn't nullify HiPS, because it's not called "Hide in Some Shadows and Darkness," it's "Hide in Plain Sight."
You have darkvision, that's awesome. You're looking at the rogue. Damn, he's in plain sight! Wait, he hid?! He must have some kinda ability that lets him do it...in plain sight!
So what happens if he didn't roll the check while being observed, and is simply walking through shadows? Is he then observable by darkvision?
Is the only time he's not detectable by darkvision in that 10' buffer between hiding with concealment from dim light, and broad daylight?
If that's the case, it's breaking verisimilitude for me, and feels too gamist to me. In other words, it feels like a video game, where your "detectability" changes while walking from dim light, to that 10' buffer, to beyond, with no real explanation as to why it's somehow harder to see you when you have less concealment, or rather why having more concealment seems to reduce your ability to hide.
So what happens if he didn't roll the check while being observed, and is simply walking through shadows? Is he then observable by darkvision?
Is the only time he's not detectable by darkvision in that 10' buffer between hiding with concealment from dim light, and broad daylight?
If that's the case, it's breaking verisimilitude for me, and feels too gamist to me. In other words, it feels like a video game, where your "detectability" changes while walking from dim light, to that 10' buffer, to beyond, with no real explanation as to why it's somehow harder to see you when you have less concealment, or rather why having more concealment seems to reduce your ability to hide.
The kicker is that he only gets these advantages in dim light, not total darkness. At least RAW (please prove me wrong) so it's already a nerfed ability.
As to your question, if the SD didn't say he was hiding...he doesn't get to roll. RAW he would just say "I'm hiding" and once someone has a chance to see him the DM says "ok you need to roll your hide now". This is not how it is played in my experience.
It's a weird ability, and I'm not surprised there are vehement debaters on both sides of the issue, because perception/stealth is sort of the d20 systems biggest bugaboo.
Yeah. Honestly, I wasn't really saying it worked one way or another (with respect to whether it works for darkvision or not).
I'm just trying to show how it's not properly defined in the ability, and unless there's a FAQ or errata somewhere on this (or one is created by the designers), it's going to be open to interpretation and conflict between different people's expectations will come up.
Assassins don't need dim light, just shadows...
...why is it that assassins are better at hiding than shadowdancers?
Unlike dim lighting, you can find shadows EVERYWHERE.
Assassins don't need dim light, just shadows...
...why is it that assassins are better at hiding than shadowdancers?
Unlike dim lighting, you can find shadows EVERYWHERE.
James Jacobs commented that dim light=shadow.
So assasin and shadow dancer hips works exactly the same.
RAW both darkvision and true seeing negate hips.
you can't stealth useing dim light as a cover within 60 feet of a darkvision char. hips does not change that, all hips does is extend the cover of the darkness and thus allowing you to stealth while being observed. darkvision negates any kind of stealth relying on darkness or dim light while being observed.
So i think you could still stealth again a darkvision char if he werent looking in your direction.
James Jacobs commented that dim light=shadow.
So assasin and shadow dancer hips works exactly the same.
That comment led me to believe that both classes could use dim light or shadows.
RAW both darkvision and true seeing negate hips.
you can't stealth useing dim light as a cover within 60 feet of a darkvision char. hips does not change that, all hips does is extend the cover of the darkness and thus allowing you to stealth while being observed. darkvision negates any kind of stealth relying on darkness or dim light while being observed.
I'll not believe your statement until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bolded sentence is true. And you can't as it's not stated ANYWHERE in the rules.
Assassins don't need dim light, just shadows...
...why is it that assassins are better at hiding than shadowdancers?
Unlike dim lighting, you can find shadows EVERYWHERE.
James Jacobs commented that dim light=shadow.
So assasin and shadow dancer hips works exactly the same.
RAW both darkvision and true seeing negate hips.
you can't stealth useing dim light as a cover within 60 feet of a darkvision char. hips does not change that, all hips does is extend the cover of the darkness and thus allowing you to stealth while being observed. darkvision negates any kind of stealth relying on darkness or dim light while being observed.
So i think you could still stealth again a darkvision char if he werent looking in your direction.
True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.
Actually HIPS works against True Seeing
true seeing sees through darkness, it is right there in the spell description. all hips does is use dark as cover. true seeing would not see through ranger hips of course.
all hips does is use dark as cover.
Not only have you not proven this, this is the exact opposite of what HiPS does! The very fact that you can use the ability in broad daylight NEXT to a dark place shows that you are not using the dark as cover.
all hips does is use dark as cover. true seeing would not see through ranger hips of course.Umm no.
First 'dark' is never cover it could be concealment which would depend on the visual abilities of the observers.
Second Hide in Plain Sight does not give you concealment in bright areas, rather it allows you to make stealth checks under different criteria than normal.
Normally you need to satisfy two things in order to make Stealth checks against an observer:
1. Be currently unobserved relative to the observer.
2. Either have cover relative to the observer or have concealment relative to the observer.For Hide in plain sight you need to satisfy the following one thing in order to make Stealth checks against an observer:
1. Be within 10' of dim light.You will notice that it is a condition that is NOT relative to an observer. Dim light is a lighting condition that is absolute. Some creatures can see there normally, others suffer concealment, etc. But that doesn't make it a different lighting condition. A creature with Darkvision doesn't have an area of darkness that is increased one level go from 'normal light' to 'bright light', rather a creature with Darkvision can see normally in an area of darkness up to a given distance.
I hope this clears up your confusion,
James
you are making the error most strict contructionist do. you are reading one line without taking into context the whole. The Rules state you cannot use dim light to make stealth against a darkvision char within 60 feet, because they are not affected by dim cover because the greater includes the lesser. If you can see in complete darkness you can also see in dim light.
all shadow dancer hips does is extend the cover of dim light 10 feet, that is all. unless it creates magical darkness, it does not over rule not being able to stealth against a person within darkvision who is observing you using dim light as cover.
I cannot believe people are claiming that a supernatural ability that allows to you hide in plain sight - something that's thematic as hell - is too "gamist" and is breaking their verisimilitude.
Once again. Guys? Rogues are having nice things. Stop it!
...all shadow dancer hips does is extend the cover of dim light 10 feet, that is all.
If that was the case, why not simply say that?
"Provided he is within 10 feet of a shadow or dim light, a shadowdancer can supernaturally extend the nearby shadows and dim light an additional 10 feet to his square in order to allow Stealth checks even while observed."
That wouldn't of been hard for the game designers to put in plain English. However, since that isn't what the game designers meant, that is not what they said.
As such, I am pretty certain your interpretation is incorrect via both RAW and RAI.
I cannot believe people are claiming that a supernatural ability that allows to you hide in plain sight - something that's thematic as hell - is too "gamist" and is breaking their verisimilitude.
Once again. Guys? Rogues are having nice things. Stop it!
This statement is inane and argumentative, and it contributes nothing to the discussion.
Nobody wants to take anything away from rogues. Roges don't even have HiPS. Nobody wants to take anything away from the classes/PrCs that actually have HiPS either. And accusing people of "Waaah! They're taking away my candy!" without offering any solutions is awfully petty and obtrusive to meaningful debate.
Obviously, there are two sides to this debate:
1. Excepting the Ranger, HiPS is a Supernatural ability. It cannot be used in antimagic zones. This means it works with rules beyond ordinary laws of physics, either magical or certainly bordering on magic. Thus, it can possibly do anything we want. Therefore, we can say that merely being in presence of shadow/dim light within 10' gives us the magical/supernatural ability to vanish, to literally Hide in Plain Sight. Why? It's magic - that's all we need to know. Furthermore, people with Darkvision like dwarves still can't see us because we didn't hide in the shadow (ordinary people hide in shadows, but we used magic).
2. Supernatural or not, we're still using a mundane skill (Stealth) and following the Stealth rules. HiPS gives us more latitude on when and where we can do this (within 10' of dim light/shadow instead of having to be in it), but we still need the cover or concealment provided by the dim light/shadow in order to hide. Because this is a mundane skill using ordinary dim light/shadow (albeit in a supernatural way), we are still merely using Stealth in poor light, so anyone who can ignore poor light, such as those with Darkvision or other supernatural/magical means of sight (e.g. True Sight) can easily see our mundane attempt to hide.
I don't think either side has provided any RAW to support their viewpoint, nor have I found any official word, which means, we are still simply faced with two opposing viewpoints, either of which is probably just as valid as the other.
So nobody is likely to settle anything here. Instead, it's just going to spiral out of control, into argumentative nonsense posts like the one I quoted here.
Maybe it's just time to agree to disagree and everyone play it the way they want, at least until Paizo speaks up officially on the subject.
How about, instead of magically pulling shadows, you become difficult to focus on, so much so that, unless the perception roll is successful, they simply can't focus on you enough to know you're there. I mean, they might "know you're there" but they won't necessarily know you're there.
Oh, kind of like creating a SEP field?
(Somebody Else's Problem)
An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and hide it....... The "Somebody Else's Problem field" is much simpler, more effective, and "can be run for over a hundred years on a 9Volt battery."
This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.
You know what beats hide in plain sight? Good old spot.
Of course, I mean perception.
Give certain enemies items that greatly increase perception and make those items take up slots normally used for big 6 items. It means the PC's will be less likely to use those items themselves and you have opponents that can target the shadowdancer.
Greater Invisibility is in the game around the same levels as a Shadowdancer using Hide in Plain Sight.
Granted, it's not as "all day" as feats and class abilities, but it lasts long enough for most combats, meaning "as long as you need it in most cases".
If the bad guys have to deal with Greater Invisibility, then they already have the tools to deal with Stealth tactics (glitterdust is a fairly low level spell, etc).
The self limiting to a single attack per round, the option for ready actions, the simple tactic of "staying away from shadows", forcing at least an additional -10 to the Stealth check... I think this ability can be accomodated fine.
The only thing you really need to put your foot down on (I'm talking to RavingDork or any DM adjudicating this), is to declare how you are handling the shadows ability.
Does it use concealment (and thus is defeated by certain concealment defeating powers)? Are you allowing ANY shadow, so rolling a marble down a hallway is to be valid?
These are things that the DM will need to make a call on. I suggest making the call towards sanity and disallowing the pure cheese.
Whether it beats True Seeing or Darkvision isn't that bad, so if you like a certain feel for your Hide in Plain Sight, go to town.
That marble crap is purely asinine and I'd suggest to stamp that out.
true seeing sees through darkness, it is right there in the spell description. all hips does is use dark as cover. true seeing would not see through ranger hips of course.
*face palm*
So I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. A Shadowdancer's hide in plain sight does change the requirements for using stealth, as I mentioned in my prior post from the standard 2 to a single 1 which merely relies on presence.
The nature of this debate isn't whether or not HiPS changes the requirements at least a little, it's how it changes the requirements. I don't think it changes them much. It changes them by not requiring the shadowdancer or assassin to be in the dim light but enables them to use the dim light that's a distance away to supernaturally hide in. And if someone could still see the character in the dim light, then they'd still see them hiding in plain sight.
2. Supernatural or not, we're still using a mundane skill (Stealth) and following the Stealth rules. HiPS gives us more latitude on when and where we can do this (within 10' of dim light/shadow instead of having to be in it), but we still need the cover or concealment provided by the dim light/shadow in order to hide.So you are purporting that in this case a shadowdancer outside of dim light and cover, but within 10' of dim light could NOT use stealth due to lack of cover/concealment?
Does this have any support from RAW? Because I fail to see it.
Did you notice that I was listing both sides of this debate without taking either side?
I don't feel it's my obligation to cite RAW when I'm merely restating what others have said. In fact, in the same post that you partially quoted, I pointed out that both sides are lacking any RAW evidence to back their claims, which clearly states that I don't have RAW to support the restated position, so I am not sure why you're asking me for RAW.
|
all hips does is use dark as [concealment].
Not only have you not proven this, this is the exact opposite of what HiPS does! The very fact that you can use the ability in broad daylight NEXT to a dark place shows that you are not using the dark as [concealment].
The fact that you NEED to be so near an area of darkness would seem to imply that said darkness is an essential material component, wouldn't you say?
A material component that you 'somehow' bring with you, no?
'How' you bring it with you is open to interpretation; this is fine, because the classes have to be flexible enough to allow different players to recreate whatever mythic source they are inspired by.
Maybe it 'sticks' to you, maybe you 'weave' it into a semisolid webbing, maybe you 'inhale' it, or 'absorb' it, and it seeps from your pores.
But it only lasts for a short distance from the source, before wearing off, leaking back to its point of origin, and leaving you visible.
How do YOU describe it?
|
A human holding a torch is standing next to his dwarf buddy. Mr. Dark (a shadowdancer or assassin) is standing 15 feet away in the Normal light area of the torch. He's 10 feet away from the Dim area. Standing completely still with no cover whatsoever Mr. Dark can make a Stealth check using HiPS. This check is opposed by both the human and the dwarf. If Mr. Dark's Stealth check is successful he is hidden from BOTH while standing in the Normal lit area.
Mr. Dark is using a quasi-magic Supernatural ability. He breaks the normal rules for Stealth in that he can hide while observed AND hide outside of an area of cover or concealment. He only needs to be near the Dimly lit area.
Neither human using true seeing, a dwarf with darkvision, nor a Devil with the See in Darkness ability would spot Mr. Dark unless their Perception check beat his Stealth score.
Now that being said I still believe that you make one stealth check per move action when your Stealth check can be opposed by a Perception check. Spring attacking only allows a single move action.
Mr. Dark was hidden in round one vs the Human and dwarf. He chooses to spring attack the dwarf. He makes a Stealth check to move with any applicable penalties or bonuses. Once Mr. Dark attacks however he is no longer hidden as the rules state it is impossible to hide while attacking, running, or charging. He finishes his movement up to his speed and is done for the round barring any free or swift actions he has left. Mr. Dark is visible.
Now I understand the cinematic pull of being able to step out of thin air to attack and then vanish back into hiding. I think this could be done with HiPS, but it'd need to be clarified or at least be a special use of Stealth for those with HiPS. A penalty similar to the Sniping mechanic would be appropriate.
So Greater Invis > HiPS Spring Attack > Invisibility > Stealth (in most cases).
--Vrock the House.
How do YOU describe it?It's the shadowdancer's tie to the plane of shadow that lets him disappear out of everyone's sight, not his ability to derive concealment from 10' away from a specific source of concealment.
But that's now how the RAW describes it either. You're putting your own impressions on it and how it works without any real indication from the rules, certainly not in the case with assassins who have no apparent connection with the plane of shadow.
Personally, I take my clue from the caveat that the HiPS character can't hide in their own shadow as an implication that the character is, in effect, hiding in the required shadow/dim light within 10 feet. And since concealment based on dim light/darkness is foiled by darkvision, HiPS within darvision's range is no help.
|
|
Personally, I take my clue from the caveat that the HiPS character can't hide in their own shadow as an implication that the character is, in effect, hiding in the required shadow/dim light within 10 feet. And since concealment based on dim light/darkness is foiled by darkvision, HiPS within darvision's range is no help.
+1
The only thing in any RAW that supports an actual argument refers to how darkvision defeats concealment by shadows and dim light.
The RAW of HiPS refers to the use of these exact shadows as a requirement to hide.
HiPS does NOT remove the need for concealment or shadows to hide, in fact is explicitly says that it DOES require them. Yes it says you must be within 10 feet of it, but this to me implies that you must move INTO the shadows to get the concealment to get the opportunity to stealth.
To darkvision creatures, there ARE no shadows. You can make whatever checks you want, but without concealment you cannot hide.
|
|
Sorry Metric to Darkvision users there are shadows, otherwise they'd be seeing in Color not black and white. Just because a creature has true seeing, darkvision, or even a Devil's See in Darkness ability does not change the ambient lighting conditions of an area. Those abilities merely alter how an observer perceives them.
A HiPS user doesn't have to move towards that area either. As in my above example Mr. Dark can sit still in an area of Normal light and Stealth all day long as long as he's within 10 feet of Dim light.
--Vrock the Vote
|
|
Blake, you don't think that the RAW support James's last statement, there, about one condition and it being met? I mean:
A: HiPS has one condition to it's being used. It's clear.
B: Nowhere in Darkvision's section does it state that Darkvision negates the use of HiPS specifically.
I always thought that d20 in general was an excepption-based system, i.e., something that can be done can always be done, unless there is a specific exception called out somewhere that prevents it. Since there's no reference to the magical/Racial Ability "Darkvision" superceding the Supernatural Class Feature "Hide in Plain Sight", I personally think this one is obvious. You don't think so?
I'm honestly curious to know your opinion, because I so frequently side with you on Stealth issues, and because in this case, I think there IS a RAW case for one camp, but not the other.
I always thought that d20 in general was an excepption-based system, i.e., something that can be done can always be done, unless there is a specific exception called out somewhere that prevents it. Since there's no reference to the magical/Racial Ability "Darkvision" superceding the Supernatural Class Feature "Hide in Plain Sight", I personally think this one is obvious. You don't think so?
I'm honestly curious to know your opinion, because I so frequently side with you on Stealth issues, and because in this case, I think there IS a RAW case for one camp, but not the other.
Sorry then, as much as I appreciate usually having you in my Stealth corner, we may have to disagree on this one.
We all know the maxim that "a specific rule trumps the general rule".
You see it as the "specific rule" that HiPS allows hiding in/near shadows (dim light) while being observed trumps the "general rule" that Darkvision negates shadows (dim light). But I think that is looking at it wrong.
I see it as the "general rule" is that using Stealth usually requires cover or concealment. One "specific rule" is that HiPS allows hiding in/near shadows (dim light) while being observed and another "specific rule" is that Darkvision negates shadows (dim light). Both of these specific rules trump the general rule, but the two specific rules are clearly in conflict.
Furthermore, there is no RAW that supports either specific rule being more valid than the other, despite your assertion:
B: Nowhere in Darkvision's section does it state that Darkvision negates the use of HiPS specifically.
Quite true. But it is also true that nowhere in the HiPS section does it state that HiPS negates the use of Darkvision specifically.
To me, since both "specific rules" have equal merit, and neither one has any mention of negating the other, they both must apply. But they both cannot apply since they are in conflict. Which means it's DM Judgment Call time, and the RAW offers nothing to help. Or maybe it does; see below.
You also state this:
A: HiPS has one condition to it's being used. It's clear.
And Darkvision can see 60' (usually) through darkness, including shadow and dim light. If HiPS has only one condition to its being used, then go ahead, use it (granted the presence of shadows/dim light within 10'), but don't be surprised if the dwarf can see you plain as black-and-white day. There is nothing in the RAW that says he can't.
See the conundrum? Both sides are right. Both sides are reading their favorite rule and saying "Aha! My rule wins because the other rule doesn't say I lose!" while completely ignoring the fact that their rule doesn't say they win.
It's also worth noting that there is no hierarchy that says "supernatural abilities" trump "extroardinary abilities" or the other way around, so we cannot resolve it that way either - there is no winning this by saying "HiPS is supernatural so it's way more powerful than a puny racial ability" because the RAW does not grant either category of ability (extraordinary vs. supernatural) any power over the other.
So I cannot cite a source in the RAW that says either side wins.
I will say this:
1. Darkvision is very clearly defined. Aside from this rule conflict, I don't think anyone has any doubts about what can or cannot be accomplished with Darkvision.
2. Stealth is not clearly defined. It's full of murky loopholes and awkward rules and exceptions galore, and nobody on these forums can even see eye to eye about how Stealth works.
3. HiPS is an extension on the unclear Stealth rules, making what was unclear become even more extremely murky and unclear. This thread is evidence of that.
4. When in doubt, I often resolve rules conflicts in favor of "clarity trumps murky".
5. All other things aside, there is one bit of very definite "specific rule" in the section on Darkvision that would probably settle for me which side I would rule on in my own game:
Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
HiPS does not turn the user invisible, nor does it grant him cover, therefore it doesn't supercede the Darkvision rule. It is my contention that, had the authors really wanted HiPS to be a magical "vanish into thin air, becoming literally invisible to all observers, simply because there was a shadow over there in the corner, 10' away" then they would have said so explicitly - which they did not.
So, if we want to go back to basics, using the maxim that "a specific rule trumps the general rule", try this:
General rule: A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.
Specific rule: HiPS doesn't give us an explicit specific rule to trump that general rule, and if it was the intention of the authors to make it so, then the onus fell upon them to explicitly provide the specific rule that would allow it to do so.
Ergo, my DM Judgment Call is that HiPS does not work against observers with Darkvision, though as I stated plentifully, there is no RAW that explicitly says this.
Just ready Light targeting his weapon, (I'm surprised no one mentioned this earlier) then he chooses between HiPS and a weapon. Faerie Fire, Glitterdust, Blindsense, or lighting him on fire would also do the trick.
EDIT: or target his shirt with light
|
|
See, that's why I enjoy constructive discussion!
Man, this is a heck of a conundrum.
I was firmly in the corner of "HiPS should let a guy disappear even if the observer has Darkvision." Now, after hearing Blake's reasoning, I'm coming around to the other way of thinking.
"A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover" is a fairly clear statement. James is absolutely right, though, that this statement doesn't take in to consideration concealment granted by non-lighting-based effects, such as fog - but that's an obvious oversight, and I'm not so sure now that the same can reasonably be said about whether or not Stealth via HiPS is a similar oversight.
In short, I think I've changed my mind.
For the Shadowdancer. Sort Of.
Because HiPS for the Ranger clearly depends on terrain, not shadow. The implication (and it's just an implication) is that the ranger uses his knowledge of and familiarity with a certain type of terrian to blend in and make himself impossible to see. Seems to me that this shouldn't be made impossible by an observer having darkvision.
But, wait. How can I apply a rule unevenly if I have a Shadowdancer and a Ranger in my party? What justification can I possibly give?
I'm not being sarcastic, here, I'm actually curious to hear people's opinions. It doesn't seem fair, on it's face, that a Ranger can use HiPS against a Dwarf, but a Shadowdancer cannot.
OK, let's try this another way then.
Forget HiPS for a moment. Imagine just an ordinary rogue standing near a torch in an otherwise shadowy dungeon. This rogue wants to hide from his enemies. To do this, he needs cover or concealment. So, he steps into some area of dim light. Now, according to RAW, the mere fact that he is in the dim light allows him to roll his Stealth check.
Now there is a human and a dwarf trying to see him. They each get to roll Perception checks. For the human, the DC is whatever the Rogue's Stealth roll was, maybe modified for other conditions like distance, etc. But for the dwarf, assuming that rogue is within 60', he can see right through those shadows and the rogue is effectively in plain sight, so the DC to see him is 0 (the rogue's Stealth does not apply), adjusted for conditional modifiers.
Now, replace that rogue with a shadowdancer in the same scenario. The shadowdaner wants to hide from his enemies. To do this, he only needs to be within 10' of dim lighting. That gives him an advantage over the rogue. Now, according to RAW, the mere fact that he is within 10' of the dim light allows him to roll his Stealth check
The human observer still needs to oppose that Stealth roll with his Perception check. But for the dwarf nothing has changed. There is a shadowdancer in plain sight, and the dwarf still only needs a DC 0 to perceive him.
This is because the two hiders (rogue and shadowdancer) are doing the exact same thing. They are using shadows to allow them to make a Stealth check. Neither one of them is going invisible. Neither one of them is magically vanishing from sight, or stepping out of this plane, or doing any other magical thing. They are just hiding. And they are using dim light to grant sufficient concealment to allow them to hide. Sure, the rogue had to actually get into the dim light to try to hide, while the shadowdancer used his supernatural power to hide while remaining near the torch in an area of normal light.
Otherwise, they are doing the exact same thing, and the two observers are doing the exact same thing too.
There is nothing in the RAW that says they are not doing the exact same thing, no matter how hard we wish there were. There is nothing in the RAW that says that using HiPS to hide near dim lighting means the dwarf with Darkvision has to suddenly lose the benefits of having Darkvision.
Since the Stealth is granted from the same source (dim light), and since it is still the exact same Stealth mechanic, there is no reason to infer from this that Darkvision suddenly begins to behave differently with regard to dim light.
As I've said, this is all DM Judgment Call. Anyone who thinks HiPS grants a mystical/magical/supernatural power to become invisible rather than to merely make a normal Stealth roll is entitled to that interpretation, and the RAW doesn't offer anything to gainsay such an interpretation, so go right ahead - the RAW won't stop you.
I just believe there is more RAW justification to NOT impart magical powers to HiPS than there is to do so.
But, wait. How can I apply a rule unevenly if I have a Shadowdancer and a Ranger in my party? What justification can I possibly give?
I'm not being sarcastic, here, I'm actually curious to hear people's opinions. It doesn't seem fair, on it's face, that a Ranger can use HiPS against a Dwarf, but a Shadowdancer cannot.
Well, I would simply tell my two players that it's a matter of choosing your concealment. Both the shadowdancer and the ranger can choose to step into shadows and make a Stealth check, and if they do, they won't foll any dwarves. Either of them.
Both of them can duck behind a tree or a bush to gain concealment to make a Stealth check. If they do, both of them will fool a dwarf.
Each of them has a special HiPS power that lets them do somehing the other one can't. The shadowdancer can hide near shadows to attempt a Steatlh check in plain sight. The ranger can hide near a tree or bush to attempt a Stealth check in plain sight. Mechanically it's the same.
The only difference is that some observers, like dwarves, have their own special power thta happens to counter the use of dim light for hiding, in plain sight or otherwise, but doesn't counter hiding behind trees and bushes, in plain sight or otherwise.
It's not a failing of the shadowdancer, but rather a benefit of being a dwarf.
That shadowdancer can always duck behind a tree...
I just believe there is more RAW justification to NOT impart magical powers to HiPS than there is to do so.
HiPS is a supernatural ability. It will not function inside an antimagic field, and thus by definition it is magical.
That is more than enough justification by the RAW to "impart magic powers to HiPS"
I'm not being sarcastic, here, I'm actually curious to hear people's opinions. It doesn't seem fair, on it's face, that a Ranger can use HiPS against a Dwarf, but a Shadowdancer cannot.
It's fair because HiPS for a shadowdancer behaves differently from HiPS for a ranger. For clarity's sake, they probably shouldn't have been named the exact same thing because they really aren't the exact same thing. One requires a dim light, the other requires favored terrain.
Actually, the ranger's HiPS only gives the ability to hide while being watched. In this sense, it works exactly like the others.
What should really have been done is the Shadowdancer/Assassin HiPS should have divided their "hide 10' away from dim light" thing into a separate ability, like the ranger does with Camouflage.
Remember, hiding while being watched doesn't require being within 10' of dim light (it's placed before the text mentioning it, and nothing ties it to the original line about hiding while being watched).
The 10' thing is an extra benefit over and above hiding while people are watching.
The Ranger's Camouflage ability literally says you hide without cover or concealment. To me, that means you are "hiding" by looking like your surroundings, not by being hard to see or by hiding behind something.
Currently, the only things that would foil the Ranger's camouflage would be things that don't rely on sight.
I just believe there is more RAW justification to NOT impart magical powers to HiPS than there is to do so.HiPS is a supernatural ability. It will not function inside an antimagic field, and thus by definition it is magical.
That is more than enough justification by the RAW to "impart magic powers to HiPS"
It magically allows the user to behave as if he is in dim light when he isn't.
It doesn't magically make him invisible, ethereal, or smaller than a subatomic particle, or any other magical effect to hide him.
So yeah, supernatural ability to behave as if there there are shadows where there are atually no shadows, but no magical vanishing act. Ergo, once we've used HiPS to determine that we can in fact attempt a Stealth roll here in normal lighting in plain sight of enemies, then the supernatural hocus pocus stuff ends and now normal Stealth rules apply.