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.
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed"
THIS IS THE FIRST LINE OF THE ABILITY.
MY GOD.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement. One side thinks that the line about being able to stealth within 10 feet of shadows only augments ones normal ability to hide within shadows because they grant concealment. The other side believes that requirement replaces or subsumes the requirement for concealment; that you no longer need concealment when you are within 10 feet of shadows.
I tend to fall into the latter camp, as otherwise it is an utterly worthless ability, defeated by 5 of the base races automatically.
I think this is the crux of the disagreement. One side thinks that the line about being able to stealth within 10 feet of shadows only augments ones normal ability to hide within shadows because they grant concealment. The other side believes that requirement replaces or subsumes the requirement for concealment; that you no longer need concealment when you are within 10 feet of shadows.
I tend to fall into the latter camp, as otherwise it is an utterly worthless ability, defeated by 5 of the base races automatically.
Wel, seeing as how the ability flat out states "YOu don't need to hide behind something"
Um.
I mean, the people arguing about this...have...have they read the ability?
It's pretty dang blunt about "You can hide in plain sight. Like without hiding behind something. I mean, it's called Hide in Plain Sight. That's what it lets you do."
I tend to fall into the latter camp, as otherwise it is an utterly worthless ability, defeated by 5 of the base races automatically.
For the latter camp, the ability isn't defeated automatically as long as the dim light in question serves as dim light for the observer. For characters with low light vision, it's a bit farther out than what a human considers dim light. For a character with darkvision, it has to be out of their darkvision range. It pushes out the places HiPS can be effective against those observers. In those areas, it's just as effective against anybody without low light or darkvision.
For the latter camp, the ability isn't defeated automatically as long as the dim light in question serves as dim light for the observer. For characters with low light vision, it's a bit farther out than what a human considers dim light. For a character with darkvision, it has to be out of their darkvision range. It pushes out the places HiPS can be effective against those observers. In those areas, it's just as effective against anybody without low light or darkvision.
I tend to fall into the latter camp, as otherwise it is an utterly worthless ability, defeated by 5 of the base races automatically.
No because there are lighting levels. Dim light is a lighting level, and has nothing to do with the observer. It's like saying there's no air in the room because we're all holding our breath. Someone has an ability to SEE in dim light, that doesn't make it less than dim light.
No because there are lighting levels. Dim light is a lighting level, and has nothing to do with the observer. It's like saying there's no air in the room because we're all holding our breath. Someone has an ability to SEE in dim light, that doesn't make it less than dim light.
That is where I believe you are wrong. From chapter 7, page 173:
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and
half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given
radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal
light, and dim light for such characters.
There's the lighting level, true. But when there are areas of bright or normal light, the low-light vision character treats them as being twice the radius. For a torch in the dark, there's a 20 foot radius of normal light, 40 foot of dim light, the rest darkness. For a low-light vision character, there's a 40 foot radius of normal light, 80 foot of dim light, the rest in darkness. So, yes, the lighting level is affected by the observer.
No because there are lighting levels. Dim light is a lighting level, and has nothing to do with the observer. It's like saying there's no air in the room because we're all holding our breath. Someone has an ability to SEE in dim light, that doesn't make it less than dim light.That is where I believe you are wrong. From chapter 7, page 173:
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and
half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given
radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal
light, and dim light for such characters.There's the lighting level, true. But when there are areas of bright or normal light, the low-light vision character treats them as being twice the radius. For a torch in the dark, there's a 20 foot radius of normal light, 40 foot of dim light, the rest darkness. For a low-light vision character, there's a 40 foot radius of normal light, 80 foot of dim light, the rest in darkness. So, yes, the lighting level is affected by the observer.
Incorrect. Read your quote again. They SEE twice as far in that lighting level, it does not change the lighting level for them or for anyone. If it said "for these characters treat the lighting level as one lighter" then you'd have me, but it does not.
Incorrect. Read your quote again. They SEE twice as far in that lighting level, it does not change the lighting level for them or for anyone. If it said "for these characters treat the lighting level as one lighter" then you'd have me, but it does not.
You are not reading the last sentence that I quoted.
This is your opinion and is not what the ability says.
It magically allows the user to behave as if he is in dim light when he isn't.
What does it say?
It says the shadowdancer can hide herself from view, while being observed, in the open, without anything to hide behind, as long as she's within 10' of an area of dim light. It says HiPS is a supernatural ability. Supernatural abilities are magical, or at least so close to being magical that they follow pretty much every rule in the RAW that governs magic.
So what did I say that was wrong?
Unless of course you object to my use of "he" when the ability uses "she"?
Also in your other post:
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.
This is incorrect and perhaps you're posting too quickly, but you know the stealth rules better than this. Its statements like this that lead to stealth being confusing for people, could you please fix it?
-James
Again, I don't see anything wrong with this. Unless maybe you're objecting to my not throwing in special cases like diversions. Maybe I should have said "usually" needs cover or concealment.
Other than that, our ordinary rogue does, in fact, need to step into that dim light, giving him Concealment, which grants the ability to make a Stealth check.
So what part of this is wrong?
Why don't you fix it for me to show me where I've screwed it up?
|
Currently, the only things that would foil the Ranger's camouflage would be things that don't rely on sight.
Right, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, Camouflage indicates:
"A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment."
Now, what does that mean? OK, I have this ability, and I'm in my favored terrain, which is, let's say, desert. Pretty barren, right? It's the middle of the day, and nobody's around. I can make a Stealth check and attempt to hide and wait until someone comes along, and then mug them. Awesome.
Now, I'm older and more experienced, and I also have Ranger HiPS. Same desert, same cloudless day at Noon. There's a dwarf staring right at me. I can attempt to hide. HiPS lets me use Stealth while being observed, and Camo lets me use Stealth even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment. Nothing at all saying that lighting plays any role in this. The roles for when normal Stealth checks can be made do not apply here (? Agreed? Specific overrules general...), because I'm already doing two things I can't do under normal stealth rules, 1) Hiding while being observed, and 2) Hiding without cover or concealment. So obviously, this is not a scenario where the dwarf has a DC 0 check to see me. The RAW are allowing me to use Stealth, therefore it is incumbent upon the dwarf to oppose my Stealth with his perception.
So, if we're bringing all this into play, either 1) Rangers have "Ownage in Plain Sight" (OiPS) whereas Shadowdancers have "Fail in Plain Sight vs. Anyone with Low-light Vision" (FiPSvAwLlV), or 2) we might possibly be overestimating the impact that low-light vision has on Shadowdancer HiPS. At least it seems that way to me.
It's pretty dang blunt about "You can hide in plain sight. Like without hiding behind something. I mean, it's called Hide in Plain Sight. That's what it lets you do."
Explain the Ranger ability then:
"Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed."Doesn't have anything written after that.
You know why? Because earlier, he has Camouflage:
"Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment."
So Camouflage gives the ability to hide without cover or concealment, and Hide in Plain Sight allows him to make a stealth check while being observed without needing a distraction first.
.
The Shadowdancer/Assassin Hide in Plain Sight says:
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed." Full Stop.
So he can make a Stealth check while being observed without needing a distraction. This is even better than the Ranger ability because he doesn't need to be in a specific terrain.
"As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. "
So he can make stealth checks as long as he's 10' near dim light. This would be instead of needing to be in the dim light, which is the normal case.
This is the only line of text in contention: whether or not he still gets this Stealth from concealment, or from some untyped bonus.
The RAW isn't clear "enough". It certainly implies concealment (between comparing the normal rule for stealth to this rule for stealth, and because it's tied to dim light in activation).
However, some people feel it's better to assume that it's more powerful than that, granting a 6th level character a more powerful version of this ability.
.
Lastly, to ProfessorCirno.
You realize that "Hide in Plain Sight", the entire sentence, is a saying right? It's been said for a heckuva long time now (there's a tv series about witness protection called In Plain Sight, and there was a movie in 1980s called the titular name).
It's not being used to give game definition to the way the ability works. It's a general name for what it does: allows hiding while someone is looking at you.
How that's supposed to definitively mean that it somehow foils darkvision or trueseeing's ability to see through normal methods of hiding, I have no idea.
It can still work as "hiding in plain sight" even if darkvision defeats hiding through concealment. No where does it say you can't use cover, or simply move out of darkvision range.
To make a similar comparison:
An Illusionist Specialist has a Blinding Ray ability. It says it blinds the target. Some creatures are not affected by blinding attacks (perhaps they have no eyes, or don't use their eyes to see).
Your statement is the equivalent to saying "But the ability's name is Blinding Ray, and it's a spell-like ability, so it's magic and should make it so that creature is unable to use his senses that locate me."
HiPS lets me use Stealth while being observed, and Camo lets me use Stealth even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.
Correct so far. You are attributing what the Ranger gets based on the ability in question.
As per your own words, HiPS doesn't let you use stealth without cover or concealment, Camouflage does.
Nothing at all saying that lighting plays any role in this. The roles for when normal Stealth checks can be made do not apply here (? Agreed? Specific overrules general...), because I'm already doing two things I can't do under normal stealth rules, 1) Hiding while being observed, and 2) Hiding without cover or concealment. So obviously, this is not a scenario where the dwarf has a DC 0 check to see me. The RAW are allowing me to use Stealth, therefore it is incumbent upon the dwarf to oppose my Stealth with his perception.
Yes! That's exactly it!
Well... and the added bit where it only applies in the 2 terrains he's chosen (eventually 4). There's about 11 different terrains by the way, so over a gaming career, he'll be able to use it only about 50% of the time (we can ignore water terrain as it's usually rare).
So, if we're bringing all this into play, either 1) Rangers have "Ownage in Plain Sight" (OiPS) whereas Shadowdancers have "Fail in Plain Sight vs. Anyone with Low-light Vision" (FiPSvAwLlV), or 2) we might possibly be overestimating the impact that low-light vision has on Shadowdancer HiPS. At least it seems that way to me.
So you are comparing two class abilities that can only be combined by 17th level at the earliest... to something obtainable by 6th level?
Yeah.. I think there's reason to consider the Ranger's ability higher in power, and keep 6th level Shadowdancers in a lower power bracket compared to 17th level Rangers.
I mean, Shadowdancers only need dim light, which can be found in any terrain, and can even be created with magic (which they themselves eventually get later).
Also note: Shadowdancers don't get an ability like Camouflage that specifically says it doesn't need cover or concealment in a certain situation.
And this is the key thing. Hide in Plain Sight doesn't say that it no longer needs cover or concealment to hide, it simply says that it only needs to be 10' near dim light to make a stealth check.
If you are comparing this to the Ranger ability, why would they spell it out so clearly for the Ranger in a separate ability and not spell it out so clearly for the Shadowdancer, if they meant for the shadowdancer to ignore cover and concealment requirements.
In other words: Why does the Ranger ability have it spelled out saying "does not need cover or concealment", but the second half of the HiPS entry for Shadowdancers not have this bit. Clearly it was felt necessary to be that clear for the Ranger.
If anything, this sets a precedent.
:|
"As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind"
Camouflage has nothing to do with this conversation. Camouflage and HiPS have nothing to do with each other. Rangers can use camouflage at level 12, and then upgrade it to HiPS at level 17. The two are in no way related. Camouflage lets you stealth in your favoured terrain without hiding behind a brick wall. HiPS lets you do it even when people are staring right at you.
Jesus.
"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"
That's the section on Stealth. You can't hide if you're in plain sight! You're being observed! You need cover!
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed"
Now you can hide in plain sight!
This is not rocket surgery.
:|
"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"
That's the section on Stealth. You can't hide if you're in plain sight! You're being observed! You need cover!
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed"
Now you can hide in plain sight!
This is not rocket surgery.
And back to one of the early points in this thread: what if you're being observed by Darkvision? Are there or are there not the shadows/dim light that you need to hide?
You can't just come in and toss around agry emoticons and blasphemies and restate the part of the argument that everyone knows while assuming everyone else on the thread is an idjit. I'm pretty sure we all read the part of the rule you quoted and we all agree with what you said. But you skipped the part that you need an area of dim light nearby, or the discussion on whether or not Darkvision grants the observer the ability to automatically see you while you use those shadows to hide in plain sight.
Was that deliberate on your part? Does your evident irritability extend only to the simplest, and least debated, part of the discussion? Is that because you have no answer for the more complex parts of this thread?
And back to one of the early points in this thread: what if you're being observed by Darkvision? Are there or are there not the shadows/dim light that you need to hide?
Who gives a damn if you're being observed by Darkvision. The shadows are still there. They don't just vanish because someone with darkvision is nearby. You can't have one person with darkvision just magically remove all darkness in the world.
Step one: Are you within ten feet of dim light?
Step two: If so, you're hiding!
Darkvision at no time comes into play here. It doesn't matter what the dwarf thinks is dim light or no light or dark light or bright light. Dim light is a universal constant reliant on the state of illumination in the area, much like John Cusack. It's not a philosophical debate.
You can't just come in and toss around agry emoticons and blasphemies and restate the part of the argument that everyone knows while assuming everyone else on the thread is an idjit. I'm pretty sure we all read the part of the rule you quoted and we all agree with what you said. But you skipped the part that you need an area of dim light nearby, or the discussion on whether or not Darkvision grants the observer the ability to automatically see you while you use those shadows to hide in plain sight.
Sure I can! Hell, I just did! That pretty much proves I can!
[quote[Was that deliberate on your part? Does your evident irritability extend only to the simplest, and least debated, part of the discussion? Is that because you have no answer for the more complex parts of this thread?
It's because there is no complex part of this discussion other then what others have vomited out needlessly.
Do you match the parameters of the ability, ie ten feet, dim light? If so, you're hiding. Awesome, congrats. THREADS OVER GUYS, I SOLVED IT!
Just think this way. HiPS doesn't say you need CONCEALMENT from the shadows, just that they are there. If the dwarf has darkvision it doesn't matter because the the Shadowdancer doesn't need concealment or cover to hide there JUST has to be shadows. Lighting condition is objective, it's either one thing or another, and has nothing to do with who percieves it.
You are not reading the last sentence that I quoted.
Incorrect. Read your quote again. They SEE twice as far in that lighting level, it does not change the lighting level for them or for anyone. If it said "for these characters treat the lighting level as one lighter" then you'd have me, but it does not.
I read it just fine, you are interpreting it to mean something it does not. Effective does not mean "for everyone in the whole world this is the way it is now, deal with it". Shadowdancer's ability does not say "if you are near shadows, and those shadows have to be everyone, if a dwarf so much as opens his eyes in the same postal code as you, you poof!". Like I said upthread, lighting conditions are objective, not subjective. Your ability to see in less than optimal lighting conditions is really cool and all, but it is seeing IN darkness, obviously darkness is still there capisce?
|
Lighting conditions have nothing to do with any people present.
They are what they are.
Special abilities such as darkvision don't affect the presence of shadows at all. If they did affect the ability of a shadowdancer to hide in plain sight, then there's a big problem.
Since the shadow dancer gets darkvision, she would never be able to get close enough to a shadow to hide. Her vision that negates shadows would make that impossible.
Hide in plain sight overwrites the normal stealth rules in the following ways:
Ability to use the stealth skill even while being observed.
Within 10 ft of dim light, shadowdancer can hide from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind.
A creature with darkvision who is watching her doesn't negate her stealth roll. She gets to make it while being observed.
Within 10 ft of an area of dim light, a shadow dancer doesn't need anything to hide behind. No concealment or cover.
:/
I read it just fine, you are interpreting it to mean something it does not. Effective does not mean "for everyone in the whole world this is the way it is now, deal with it". Shadowdancer's ability does not say "if you are near shadows, and those shadows have to be everyone, if a dwarf so much as opens his eyes in the same postal code as you, you poof!". Like I said upthread, lighting conditions are objective, not subjective. Your ability to see in less than optimal lighting conditions is really cool and all, but it is seeing IN darkness, obviously darkness is still there capisce?You are not reading the last sentence that I quoted.
Incorrect. Read your quote again. They SEE twice as far in that lighting level, it does not change the lighting level for them or for anyone. If it said "for these characters treat the lighting level as one lighter" then you'd have me, but it does not.
I'm not saying at all that the lighting conditions change for everybody, though I would say that they are definitely subjective. What I'm saying is, if you are in the second camp, the one that believes the shadowdancer is supernaturally hiding IN the remote dim light and that can be foiled by better vision negating the concealment of the dim light, then low-light vision changes the distance at which the dim light begins for the low-light vision characters. Attempts to hide in dim light that the low-light vision character can't perceive fail.
Let's look at it from the shadowdancer's point of view in a torchlit area. For a human shadowdancer, he sees dim light between 20 and 40 feet from the torch and can try to use that for his HiPS. But the elven shadowdancer isn't even going to notice that there's dim light until the 40-80 foot range. His vision simply isn't going to notice it. The lighting level is subjective.
Ultimately, the difference isn't all that huge in your basic torchlit room. Dim light starts at 20 feet for normal vision, the shadowdancer's HiPS can be effective at 10 feet from a human holding the torch. Dim light starts at 40 feet for low light vision, the shadowdancer's HiPS can be effective at 30 feet from an elf holding the torch. Darkvision extends to 60 feet, the shadowdancer's HiPS can be effective at 50 feet from the dwarf holding the torch.
For a human shadowdancer, he sees dim light between 20 and 40 feet from the torch and can try to use that for his HiPS. But the elven shadowdancer isn't even going to notice that there's dim light until the 40-80 foot range. His vision simply isn't going to notice it.
This is something I disagree with. Low-light vision should be a benefit, not a hindrance. I believe that the elf can still see the 20 and 40 foot area just as a human can, but then can ALSO see a 40 and 80 foot area that the human can't.
Lighting conditions are independent of the viewer. The above Elven shadowdancer would be able to hid in any area near dim illumination that the human shadowdancer can.
Note that the Shadowdancer gets Darkvision! Ha!
No, I'm not saying that dim lighting is subjective to the person using his class ability. What I'm saying is that dim lighting (or concealment using dim lighting) is subjective to the enemies trying to view him.
The shadowdancer isn't being prevented from hiding in those shadows. It's just that the people with darkvision and low-light vision can still see him unless he moved further away or found cover instead. He never lost the ability to hide while being observed, which is powerful in itself.
.
Here's how I'm seeing this:
Say you have a Rogue.
He wants to hide while people are looking at him, so he spends a standard action to Bluff and make a diversion. Let's assume he's successful.
He then uses his move action to spend movement going into an area with concealment (dim light), and rolls a Stealth check to hide there.
The Human watching this happen is all like "Whoa, wha? He was doing something that way, and now he's gone!".
The elf and dwarf turn to him and say, "He just went over there man. Pff... humans and their inferior eyes."
The Halfling "Heh, yeah.. yeah, human eyes. I see him too. *squint*".
Now that Rogue gets another level, and he's aching for a rematch, so he picked up Shadowdancer.
Now, people are looking at him again, and he wants to hide.
So he uses his HiPS ability to automatically succeed at hiding while being observed, and doesn't even have to move into the dim light, just stands there 10' away from it making his Stealth check.
The Human and Halfling are both like "Whoa... he did it again, and faster this time!"
The Rogue-turned-Shadowdancer, now has a standard action to still use.. possibly as a Sneak Attack ranged attack against someone who can't see him (like that dumb human... stupid human eyes).
FREEZE
Now, here's where the two sides of this debate differ. The DM will have to adjudicate how the Elf and Dwarf react:
1. The DM can say "Hmm.. the ability just says "allows a stealth check", and the ability is called Hide in "Plain Sight", so I'm going to say that the Elf and Dwarf are all like "WHOA! He's gone!".
- or -
2. The DM can think "Hey, the ability says nothing about removing the need for cover or concealment when hiding, like the ranger's ability specifically says, and he *is* using dim light to get this stealth check. So I'm going to say that the Elf and Dwarf are all like "No way dude, he's still right there.".
.
DM Blake and myself (and possibly others) are simply saying that this is what a DM will have to decide.
I'm getting the feeling that DM Blake and myself are leaning towards #2, while there are others here leaning towards #1.
There really isn't any specific rule in place to use perfectly adjudicate the situation.
#2 uses other rules to create a precedent, while #1 uses the fluff and desire to make it more powerful.
I can easily see a DM wanting to use ruling #2 butting heads with a player wanting to use #1 to empower their character.
Honestly, it would be great if there could be an errata or official FAQ or something that could clear this up.
It would as be nice to not have to refer to the 3e rules for creating a diversion, since that was not carried over into Pathfinder for some reason (although the Stealth skill specifically mentions it, the Bluff skill is completely lacking the entry).
Why don't you fix it for me to show me where I've screwed it up?
The rogue is also seen by human, although the human would suffer concealment against the rogue. Is it obvious why?
Merely stepping into an area that grants him concealment does not grant him the ability to make a stealth check.
First of all 'make a stealth check' doesn't make much sense and imho is confusing language that would do better to be reworded.
Secondly stepping into an area of dim light may or may not give concealment as that depends upon whomever is going to oppose the stealth check (hence the misleading wording comment).
Quite incorrect.
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
In my example, the rogue steps into an area of concealment. This grants him the ability to use Stealth (i.e. make a Stealth check). It's printed there in black and white.
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness.
Note that this doesn't say "may or may not have concealment". Since the human does not have Darkvision, the rogue in the dim light has concealment against him. There is no "may or may not" about it.
So he has concealment, and he gets to make a Stealth check. Nothing "misleading" about that comment at all.
You say "the rogue is also seen by the human" but at this point, the only way that is true is resolving the rogue's Stalth check vs. the human's opposed Perception check. The rogue is only "seen by the human" if the human's Perception check beats the rogue's Stealth check.
It's not a question of trying to eek more out of an ability, rather it's just trying to get the ability to work as written.
Did you miss this bit here where I said: "There really isn't any specific rule in place to use perfectly adjudicate the situation."
The rule as written doesn't specifically say how this ability works.
So you either have to make a judgment call based on how other rules work, or based on how much power you want this ability to have.
The #2 you quoted is as much a rules call on the DM's part as the #1 I wrote.
This is what I (and I think DM Blake) have been saying all along. There is no defined rule here. You will need to make a DM call until an errata or official FAQ is made on this.
Pretty much everything I've written about how this rule or that rule works, has been to give examples of why I feel it's better to adjudicate it the way I'm proposing. It is by no means a hard, fast written in stone rule.
It's not a question of trying to eek more out of an ability, rather it's just trying to get the ability to work as written.Did you miss this bit here where I said: "There really isn't any specific rule in place to use perfectly adjudicate the situation."
The rule as written doesn't specifically say how this ability works.
So you either have to make a judgment call based on how other rules work, or based on how much power you want this ability to have.
The #2 you quoted is as much a rules call on the DM's part as the #1 I wrote.
This is what I (and I think DM Blake) have been saying all along. There is no defined rule here. You will need to make a DM call until an errata or official FAQ is made on this.
Errata? LOL, surely you jest.
Paizo needs to put out a whole Companion book on how to use Stealth and all the related stuff (like HiPS, invisibility, sniping, sneak attacking, etc.).
This stuff needs more than an errata. I'm not even sure whether a 40-page book on the subject might, maybe, be enough space, if they keep the artwork to a minimum. We're talking word-count here, there's no room for pretty pictures!
Paizo needs to put out a whole Companion book on how to use Stealth and all the related stuff (like HiPS, invisibility, sniping, sneak attacking, etc.).
Hey, come to think of it, I really like this idea.
I volunteer to write it (and for those of you who don't like my compilation of the Stealth rules, I also freely submit it Jason and crew for their official revisions, of course).
My sweat to create the document, their editorial to fix whatever they don't agree with, and we're golden. Hook me up, boss! Tell me the word count and I'll get right (write) on it...
The rogue does need cover or concealment to use stealth it's true, but the rogue ALSO needs to be UNOBSERVED.
Unless he uses Bluff to make a diversion. Which remains undefined in Pathfinder rules, but was a standard action in the 3.5e SRD.
A simple Rogue lvl 1 can roll Bluff to make a diversion, and then move to cover or concealment to allow him a Stealth check to hide. All while starting off being observed.
So he has concealment, and he gets to make a Stealth check. Nothing "misleading" about that comment at all.
Just wrong.
Let's look at the stealth skill.
Let's start with the line before the one you quoted:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
The human observed the rogue, so the rogue can't use stealth to hide from the human.
The rogue does need cover or concealment to use stealth it's true, but the rogue ALSO needs to be UNOBSERVED.
-James
See, I read that same line too, but I read them both together.
If you are being observed, you cannot use Stealth, but if you get to cover or concealment, you can.
See? One big happy sentence. I simplified and paraphrased it for clarity, but the complete version would really be this:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth, but against most creatures if you find cover or concealment you can.
I don't see why you feel the need to assume that one sentence holds power over the other one. They are both in print, so they both need to be applied to the situation - you can't just take one of them and run it up the flagpole, point at it and say "See! You can't! You can't! You can't!"
So back to my example, the rogue near the torch is being observed by a human and a dwarf so he can't use Stealth. He moves a short way to get into an area of dim light, so now, against one of those creatures (the human), he can use Stealth. Against the other, the dwarf with Darkvision, he cannot.
Plain and simple, and it doesn't require either the rogue, the human, the dwarf, the DM, player, or anyone reading this post, to tout the existence of one sentence while ignoring the existence of another sentnce in the same paragraph of the Stealth rules. This simple understanding of Stealth actually considers all the stealth rules, taken together as a complete set of rules, rather than just sticking to our favorite bits of the rules.
Again I'll say: if the shadow dancer is hiding via the concealment provided by 'dim light' then he/she has that concealment. But he doesn't get this concealment, and ergo he's not hiding via that concealment.
Exactly. People still think the shadowdancer is using this dim light as concealment WHICH HE IS NOT! If he was then darkvision would foil it, so would low light. But he isn't there for concealment and doesn't gain concealment. Nowhere does it say he does. He just has to be 10' from dim light and poof he can hide there SUPERNATURALLY how about that? :P
Exactly. People still think the shadowdancer is using this dim light as concealment WHICH HE IS NOT! If he was then darkvision would foil it, so would low light. But he isn't there for concealment and doesn't gain concealment. Nowhere does it say he does. He just has to be 10' from dim light and poof he can hide there SUPERNATURALLY how about that? :P
That's the crux of the whole debate. You say he isn't hiding in the shadows, but some of us think he is. Just recapping your position isn't going to solve the dispute between camps.
I say, if he isn't using the dim light for concealment, then why the caveat that the shadowdancer can't hide in his own shadow? That's what implies he DOES use the dim light for concealment.
Exactly. People still think the shadowdancer is using this dim light as concealment WHICH HE IS NOT! If he was then darkvision would foil it, so would low light. But he isn't there for concealment and doesn't gain concealment. Nowhere does it say he does. He just has to be 10' from dim light and poof he can hide there SUPERNATURALLY how about that? :PThat's the crux of the whole debate. You say he isn't hiding in the shadows, but some of us think he is. Just recapping your position isn't going to solve the dispute between camps.
I say, if he isn't using the dim light for concealment, then why the caveat that the shadowdancer can't hide in his own shadow? That's what implies he DOES use the dim light for concealment.
As does the fact that the shadowdancer actually needs the presence of dim light nearby to use the aibility, so it must be something. It's hard to think of it as a mere spell component (if you have bat guano, you can make a fireball, if you have dim light, you can disappear). Somehow, the presence of dim light is required to use the ability, so why are so many people disregarding the dim light in the use of the ability?
If the dim light impacts the initiation of the ability but not the use of the ability, why didn't they just say "If a shadowdancer is within 10' of dim light, she can turn invisible" instead of creating all this awkwardness?
Exactly. People still think the shadowdancer is using this dim light as concealment WHICH HE IS NOT! If he was then darkvision would foil it, so would low light. But he isn't there for concealment and doesn't gain concealment. Nowhere does it say he does. He just has to be 10' from dim light and poof he can hide there SUPERNATURALLY how about that? :PThat's the crux of the whole debate. You say he isn't hiding in the shadows, but some of us think he is. Just recapping your position isn't going to solve the dispute between camps.
I say, if he isn't using the dim light for concealment, then why the caveat that the shadowdancer can't hide in his own shadow? That's what implies he DOES use the dim light for concealment.
As does the fact that the shadowdancer actually needs the presence of dim light nearby to use the aibility, so it must be something. It's hard to think of it as a mere spell component (if you have bat guano, you can make a fireball, if you have dim light, you can disappear). Somehow, the presence of dim light is required to use the ability, so why are so many people disregarding the dim light in the use of the ability?
If the dim light impacts the initiation of the ability but not the use of the ability, why didn't they just say "If a shadowdancer is within 10' of dim light, she can turn invisible" instead of creating all this awkwardness?
Don't be obtuse. Stealth isn't invisibility. Read the PrC. He has a supernatural connection to the plane of shadow and shadows in general. It's friggin supernatural!
At this point the argument is just one side saying "non casters cant have nice things, therefore I will interpret this ability in the most conservative sense" whereas other people are saying "whoa that dude just melded into the shadows in front of our eyes! cooool!"
Nothing will be accomplished, no one will see the others side, but we can all agree the perception rules are BORKED beyond comprehension yeah? I would really like to hear an official word on this one.
At this point the argument is just one side saying "non casters cant have nice things, therefore I will interpret this ability in the most conservative sense" whereas other people are saying "whoa that dude just melded into the shadows in front of our eyes! cooool!"
Oh, stop channelling Prof Cirno and his obnoxious posts. Nobody is saying anything like that at all.
And you know (I hope) that stealth is a different mechanic from invisibility. True seeing will defeat invisibility, as will see invisibility. Stealth requires an opposed roll, but is not defeated by either true seeing or see invisibility.
So it would change the ability. Up there with other rewordings...
-James
Yes, I do know there is a difference, and I wasn't trying to say that the current ability does or should work like invisibility - just asking why the devs didn't go that route, since so many people on this thread seem to think that this is some kind of Stealth-based "invisibility" power.
So let me ask, to gain clarity on this:
Imagin a shadowdancer sitting on a sunny street at high noon. A whole crowd of people is watching her so she can't hide. She just sits there. The sun begins sinking toward the west, and there is a building to her west that begins casting a shadow. At first, it's too far away, but as the sun sets lower and lower, that shadow creeps across the street. She sits there doing nothing until the shadow gets to be 10' away from her. The whole crowd is still watching her.
Now the shadowdancer has an area of dim lighting 10' away.
Can the she just disappear? Without standing, without moving, without even blinking, can she just make her Stealth roll and vanish into thin air, still sitting in the same spot?
If you say she can do this, then you're imparting a magical "vanish into thin air" component to this ability. No, it's not mechanically the same as invisibility, but to the people on the street it will look the same as invisibility (certainly to the ones who fail their Perception checks). One second she's there, the next second she's not there. To a common man, that is magical invisibiility, even if the game mechanics disagree.
If you say she cannot do this, then you're espousing the idea that this is just a Stealth roll, a skill, the ability to hide - not vanish. As such, we would assume that she needs to do something to hide. Somehow, she needs to actively use her Stealth skill, or use her HiPS, in a way that meets all the other rules regarding Stealth.
I think we all agree on what allows the shadowdancer to initiate this activity (dim light within 10'). What we're disagreeing on is how it works.
Me, I say that the only thing supernatural about the power is that she can use shadows/dim lighting that she is not even in. This allows her to use Stealth while being observed, without actually having cover or concealment, as long as she's within 10' of dim light. Nobody else can do that. But otherwise, this is a Stealth check that follows all the other rules about Stealth checks. So she moves with that shadow, blends with it, seems to vanish into that shadow even though she doesn't have to get any closer than 10'. But she still needs to move to make this happen, to give the appearance that she's using the shadow to hide.
I don't believe she can just sit there and, to the common observer, turn invisible right before his eyes. Because I believe as I do, that those shadows play a bigger part in her ability to hide than simply being a spell component to activate the HiPS power, then I also believe that Darkvision gives those observers who have it the ability to still observe the shadowdancer.
If you believe otherwise, then more power to you. Neither of us has any RAW to support either of these beliefs, so we're just arguing shadowdancer ideology at this point - clearly an exercise in futility.
I disagree. I think it is fairly well defined.
This is what I (and I think DM Blake) have been saying all along. There is no defined rule here. You will need to make a DM call until an errata or official FAQ is made on this.
/sigh
Then you aren't even agreeing to disagree.
Fine.
I think I'm done with this conversation, since nothing new has been stated.
I've acknowledged both positions, and am giving reasons why mine might be a good interpretation.
You aren't even acknowledging my position.
Have fun arguing.
elegant stuff
You see, Blake, to me this High Noon scenario you give is a pretty swish description of what a Shadowdancer can attempt.
A few points and questions, if I may.
Point 1: The Shadowdancer uses 'Raw shadow' to power several of his supernatural and spell-like abilities. This is used twice in the description of the class, once for the 4th level Shadow Call, and again for the 7th level Shadow Power - effectively Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation.
(Rhetorical) Question 1: Would you not say that this 'Raw shadow' sounds a wee bit spell component-like? Granted this is flavour text in crunch blocks, but stilll: you seem to rather look down on your use of the spell component terminology above, but it seems to me to be apposite to the Shadowdancer's overall use of planar Shadow. It is a component to him, exactly. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. No?
Point 2: The Shadowdancer has several Sp and Su abilities which require Dim Light. These include his capstone ability, Shadow Master: "Whenever a Shadow Dancer is in an area of dim light, she gains DR10/- and a +2 bonus on saving throws. In addition, whenever she successfully scores a critical hit against an opponent who is in an area of dim light, that foe is blinded for 1d6 rounds."
Question 2: If the Shadowdancer's Su abilities are foiled by foes with Darkvision/Lowlight vision - if Shadow is subjective, not objective - how do you rule this capstone ability? Does a dwarven attacker ignore the DR10/- when striking a Shadowdancer in the shadows? And, does a Shadowdancer have no chance of blinding the dwarf who strays into dim light?
Point 3: Throughout the Pathfinder Shadowdancer class description (but not the 3.5 version - see below), fluff and borderline crunch suggest a supernatural/spell-like connection to Shadow. Not subjective, if-it-falls-in-woods-it's not-there shadow, but 'Raw shadow', which the dancer can fashion into semi-real creatures and death-dealing shadowy ice or fire.
Question 3: If you agree with this general but crunch-related flavour, what makes the iconic ability of the class an exception to the general? If, as you say, there is no RAW evidence on either side, what in the flavour leads you to believe that Shadowdancer Hide in Plain Sight *isn't* a Supernatural ability which draws on Raw Shadow as a raw component once it is within reach, flavourwise?
Point 4: the Pathfinder Shadowdancer Hide in Plain Sight text:
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."
This text states that the dancer can hide in the open. It states that the dancer can hide while being observed. It also states that she can hide without anything to hide behind.
Question 4: Your High Noon scenario has a Shadowdancer drawing on Raw Shadow (as it were) to hide in the open, while being observed, without anything to hide behind. By the wording of the crunch, this works fine, doesn't it?
A final point:
In 3.5, the Shadowdancer was much more of a trickster class. There were no references in the 3.5 dancer to 'Raw shadow.' There was no ability to fashion raw shadow-stuff into creatures or shadow-fireballs. The 3.5 Shadowdancer was all about illusion, slipperiness, uncanny dodging and evasion.
The Pathfinder Shadowdancer has a much stronger, physical connection to 'Raw shadow.' He can pull shadow into monsters and fireballs like so much magic taffy. That's all new, and it's a fairly big change.
While much of the class description has changed, however, the text for Hide in Plain Sight has been reproduced almost verbatim. There are only two, specific edition changes: 'Hide' changes to 'Stealth'; 'Shadow' changes to 'Dim light.'
In other words, the PF description of the dancer's HiPS is laggy. The feel of the class has moved on. It's not just a shadow-trickster anymore: it is, as many are pointing out, a class that can wield Shadow, spellcaster fashion.
It's unfortunate that the dancer HiPS shadow is unclear to some, but the class has moved in a direction that suggests its HiPS should work as most here are suggesting: an ability to hide out in the open, in plain view, with shadows within 10' used as (to use your excellent wording, Blake) a component.
*
(ps: it has never been entirely clear which shadow the last sentence of HiPS refers to ["You cannot, however, hide in your own shadow."]. The dancer has two, after all, at least from 3rd level. The undead companion shadow never merits a capital (it's a shadow, not a Shadow) and the HiPS text might quite legitimately and reasonably refer to either or to both. The intent there is a separate issue, however.)
|
|
The most compelling argument to date against the Darkvision viewpoint
I refer to point/question 2. The temptation here will be to disregard this capstone ability as unrelated to the topic at hand, but it is related. It calls for the presence of dim light to function, exactly the way the Shadowdancer HiPS ability does. The same question regarding Darkvision is applicable, except this time, taken outside of the framework of the "mystery inside an enigma inside a mystery" Stealth rules, the answer becomes obvious (imo). Surely we can't allow our Dwarven friend to disregard the Dancer's capstone DR merely because he sees better in the dim light than our Human friend does. Right? That would be nonsensical, both from the perspective of relative effectiveness of capstone abilities system-wide as well as from a literal, non-constructionist reading of the RAW.
Surely Darkvision cannot allow someone to bypass DR. Such a thing would be unprecedented.
Applied to Dancer HiPS, the same logic applies. The presence of the dim light is fueling the Dancer's ability to HiPS, the same way that the presence of the words "Favored Terrain: Urban" on the Ranger's character sheet allows the Ranger to use Stealth at high noon in the city square while everyone's got their eyes locked on her.
Really quickly speaking to whoever it was that questioned my earlier comparison between Ranger HiPS and Dancer HiPS due to the relative level at which the abilities are acquired: That's a cop-out, sorry. The Ranger gets the ability at 17th (or whatever) level because they're a Ranger. They have an animal companion, they have full BaB, they cast spells, they're almost a skill monkey - in short, they have lots of things that they do well other than Stealth. That's why their HiPS is a late arrival in their progression, not because it's somehow beefier than Dancer HiPS. A Dancer is all about Stealth. Hell, it's almost universally agreed that they're so focused on Stealth/hiding that it acts to the detriment of the PrC as a whole!! It's like, pretty much their whole gig. So sure, the Ranger gets HiPS at later levels than the Dancer.
They also get an animal companion four levels later than the Druid, but it's weaker, not stronger. Now that might be an inappropriate analogy, but it's worth observing, anyway.
What is the real issue? You have a character that is too effective. Talk to your player and see if the two of you can find some common ground where you are both happy. You could nerf him which will likely just tick him off and then he may just find something else just as disrupting.
He likely thinks he is being quite clever, but will he be as proud if he looses a GM to burnout? It is in his best interest to work with you.
He thinks its as broken as I do. Fortunately, he (in regards to HiPS) is rather understanding and is basically waiting for me to find out how it is supposed to work/make up my mind on how I think it should be run.
We think it should be powerful. We don't think it should beat out great invisibility (or even normal invisibility).
I think my problems with HiPS, specifically (rather than what the player is doing) are as follows:
1) Stealth is clear in when you lose it. You either lose cover/concealment, choose to be seen (such as making an attack), or someone beats your Stealth check with their Perception check. HiPS, however, is not so clear about how long and under what circumstances you can maintain your stealth. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will give you away while using HiPS is either doing it deliberately (such as making an attack), or having someone beat your Stealth check (unlikely if you know what you're doing).
2) It seems to be better than invisibility and great invisibility in FAR too many ways.
3) The ability is not clear in how it is activated. Using stealth is usually part of movement (since you have to move to cover or concealment), but is technically a non-action. HiPS does not require you to move to cover or concealment, so it basically doesn't require an action. He simply becomes invisible on the spot with a full round of actions left to him. Because of that, it is possible via the RAW to simply re-hide the moment you are spotted (luckily, my players haven't thought that one up yet). Unless the spotter will always...
Well, The shadowdancer prestige class is supposed to be the ultimate stealth class, so I think thematically it makes sense that its effective. Better then Greater Invisibility is highly debatable.
Shadowdancers are the penultimate sneak and strike characters. My fiance regularly plays barbarians into shadowdancer with great effect, and several others have stated that the best answer is to hold an action to strike them.
Being able to stealth immediately doesn't necessarily negate any situational modifiers that the target would get to help subsequent perception checks.
Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander, right? Hit them with a shadow dancer or two. If you're concerned about a big boss fight or something throw in a rival shadow dancer... kind of a threat specifically for the shadow dancer to deal with.
|
I think people who are stretching HIPS for the Shadowdancer are just wanting there characters to be more powerful.
It's clear (and least to some) that the ability uses shadow in some way to grant concealment. If a creatures senses penetrate that concealment, the perception check is not opposed to the stealth check. The concealment is dim light in this case, darkvision penetrates that.
In the case of a Rangers HIPS, it is also clear (again to some) that it is an extension of camouflage - hence the favoured terrain. The Ranger is so proficient in camouflage they are able to disappear into their surroundings right before your eyes.
To the point of game balance, SD HIPS is available at a much lower level than the Rangers HIPS. Having it work against Darkvision (or any other enhanced senses) seems over powering to me. The other point for the Rangers HIPS is that it only works in their favoured terrain. Given you only have 3 by level 17, and 4 the level after, this is pretty limiting.
So, in terms of senses we have:
Normal (SD HIPS, Ranger HIPS OK)
Low Light (SD HIPS, Ranger HIPS OK)
Darkvision (Ranger HIPS OK)
Scent
Blindsense
Blindsight
Tremorsense