I think people who are stretching HIPS for the Shadowdancer are just wanting there characters to be more powerful.
Yes, all those rogue munchkins.
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.
No, it doesn't get concealment. HiPS has nothing to do with concealment. Why do people keep bringing on concealment? The ability sure as hell doesn't mention it. HiPS doesn't give concealment, it just lets you...jesus, just read the name of the ability.
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.
This doesn't in any way involve rangers. At all. At. All. At all.
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.
Yes, all those overpowered PrCs that don't advance the rogue's primary offensive ability. If you're going into a PrC, you're supposed to get something for it. The rogue met the requirements and went into the PrC, and loses his class abilities for it. Guess what? The ranger could do the exact same damn thing if he wanted. It's not overpowered in the slightest
This fits rather nicely into "Rogues cannot have nice things."
To answer Blake's question, yes. Yes, the shadowdancer would be able to - ready for this? - hide in plain sight.
It's a supernatural ability.
Is it a non-magical ability? No, it's supernatural.
Perhaps the shadowdancer has no magic power at all. Hold up, this power is supernatural.
This entire thread is insane.
And stop bragging about the RAW not backing it up. Let's read the Rules As Written right now:
"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."
What can the shadowdancer do? She can hide as long as she is within 10 feet of dim light, regardless of people watching her and regardless of concealment and regardless of things to hide behind.
It says so right bloody there.
|
I think people who are stretching HIPS for the Shadowdancer are just wanting there characters to be more powerful
At the risk of responding to what has already been responded-to, this post was nothing but inflammatory pseudo-trolling. I don't currently and never will run a Shadowdancer character, by the way. This has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting a certain class to be more powerful. I could care less about how powerful it is, I want it to be adjudicated properly. Anyway, analysis:
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.
Even the people who are suggesting that Darkvision should trump the Shadowdancer's HiPS ability are not suggesting that there are "clear" RAW guidelines to support that interpretation. DM_Blake (a reasonable fellow) has said as much several times. The most widely held belief in this thread (held by pretty much everyone except for yourself and Cirno, I think) is that the RAW don't explicitly support the arguements of either camp.
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.
For the record, I don't agree with Cirno that the discussion of Shadowdancer HiPS has nothing at all to do with Ranger HiPS. I think a comparative analysis of the two abilities yeilds a lot of good points which are useful and very germane to this discussion. And, I explained this exact point two posts above yours.
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.
Two posts above. That's not far to look. If you have counter-arguments you wanted to make, or rebuttals to put forth, great. But just to say "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", is completely ignoring the explanation that was just put forth for this very thing. Bad form, sir.
I'm still hoping to hear well-thought-out responses about the Darkvision/Capstone DR question.
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.
Hide in Plain Sight does NOT grant concealment, much less allow characters and creatures with darkvision to penetrate it. Do you really believe they get a miss chance? If not, please use different terminology to avoid confusion.
|
Yup, it basically seems to be two schools of thought.
One school believes that the shadow dancers ability is powered by dim light, and use the fluff text to intuit that the ability is a function of dim light and can thus be defeated by darkvision.
The other school believes that the shadow dancers ability merely requires proximity and does not further interact with the dim light. Thus dark vision doesn't matter.
I think mechanically, the second interpretation is closer to the raw since it doesn't extrapolate additional effects beyond the entry. However, whether or not the raw is rai, that's not nearly so clear :P
This is one of those rare cases where the text is so ambigious that both positions are supportable. The fact is stealth/preception/lighting conditions sections of the book are not well though out,they openly contradict each other, are not internally coherent or logically consistant and if RAW as create absurd sitiutions like not being able to sneak up behind someone in daylight, even if that person is blind,and deaf, becuase you can't stealth in broad daylihhy. Second there is the fact that the stealth rules assume you know when you are being observed which makes no sense. instead of saying you can't stealth when being observed, it should have been the viewer automatically sees you if you attempt to stealth in full view of them, when they are not distracted. No one will ever be able to give a satifictory answer to these stealth questions until the rules are competely re-written.
It's not ambiguous.
The ability. States. What it does.
Are you near ten feet of the light?
You're hiding.
That's it.
It's only "ambiguous" because detractors keep bringing up concealement and rangers and all these other things that have nothing to do with the ability.
Dim light, ten feet? Hide.
Not difficult.
It's not ambiguous.
The ability. States. What it does.
Are you near ten feet of the light?
You're hiding.
That's it.
It's only "ambiguous" because detractors keep bringing up concealement and rangers and all these other things that have nothing to do with the ability.
Dim light, ten feet? Hide.
Not difficult.
Quoted for truth.
It's not ambiguous.
The ability. States. What it does.
Are you near ten feet of the light?
You're hiding.
That's it.
It's only "ambiguous" because detractors keep bringing up concealement and rangers and all these other things that have nothing to do with the ability.
Dim light, ten feet? Hide.
Not difficult.
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?
it does not state wethter the supernatural aspect of the power is being powered by magical darkness or does merely extend the "mundane" cover of dim light by 10 feet.
second it is ambigious because the writers can't decide whether stealthing is an objective or subjective condition.
dark vision not seeing through shadowdancer hips makes should make no sense because STEALTH must be subjective condition in a rational universe, but the rules are clearly ambigious on this matter, and the fact that you could make the argument that hips/stealth is actually an objective condition is an indication of how bjork these rules are.
One would have an easier time tryin to interpret 18 usc 1346, which is pratically written in concrete compared to the stealth rules.
|
It's not ambiguous.
The ability. States. What it does.
Are you near ten feet of the light?
You're hiding.
That's it.
It's only "ambiguous" because detractors keep bringing up concealement and rangers and all these other things that have nothing to do with the ability.
Dim light, ten feet? Hide.
Not difficult.
OK. Can you give me an in game description of what is happening?
What, in this supernatural ability, is allowing the stealth check? If it's not concealment, is it cover or distraction? Is it not the presence of shadow? How is the shadow being used?
I can see how others are sticking to their interpretation of the rules. I was in that camp. But, come on, be reasonable.
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?
You aren't hiding in dim light. You're hiding, and the requirement for your hiding is that there's dim light nearby. That's it.
it does not state wethter the supernatural aspect of the power is being powered by magical darkness or does merely extend the "mundane" cover of dim light by 10 feet.
It doesn't matter. Are you ten feet of dim light? You're hiding.
second it is ambigious because the writers can't decide whether stealthing is an objective or subjective condition.
What does this even mean, and how is it relevant. Answer the second question first
dark vision not seeing through shadowdancer hips makes should make no sense because STEALTH must be subjective condition in a rational universe, but the rules are clearly ambigious on this matter, and the fact that you could make the argument that hips/stealth is actually an objective condition is an indication of how bjork these rules are.
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about right after you hit "subjective condition"
But I'll tell you one thing.
If you're within ten feet of dim light and you're a shadowdancer, you can hide.
OK. Can you give me an in game description of what is happening?
No, because it does not matter.
Maybe the shadows shift off the ground and cover you briefly, and wherever they touch, you vanish. Maybe you just blink out of existance. Maybe you make the dim light play a loud clown honk, and everyone turns away in horror at the thought of nearby clowns, allowing you to hide.
It doesn't matter. What matters is, if you're within ten feet of dim light, you can hide.
What, in this supernatural ability, is allowing the stealth check? If it's not concealment, is it cover or distraction? Is it not the presence of shadow? How is the shadow being used?
However the player using it describes it, so long as it's done awesomely.
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?You aren't hiding in dim light. You're hiding, and the requirement for your hiding is that there's dim light nearby. That's it.
it does not state wethter the supernatural aspect of the power is being powered by magical darkness or does merely extend the "mundane" cover of dim light by 10 feet.It doesn't matter. Are you ten feet of dim light? You're hiding.
second it is ambigious because the writers can't decide whether stealthing is an objective or subjective condition.What does this even mean, and how is it relevant. Answer the second question first
dark vision not seeing through shadowdancer hips makes should make no sense because STEALTH must be subjective condition in a rational universe, but the rules are clearly ambigious on this matter, and the fact that you could make the argument that hips/stealth is actually an objective condition is an indication of how bjork these rules are.Again, I have no idea what you're talking about right after you hit "subjective condition"
But I'll tell you one thing.
If you're within ten feet of dim light and you're a shadowdancer, you can hide.
OK. Can you give me an in game description of what is happening?No, because it does not matter.
Maybe the shadows shift off the ground and cover you briefly, and wherever they touch, you vanish. Maybe you just blink out of existance. Maybe you make the dim light play a loud clown honk, and everyone turns away in horror at the thought of nearby clowns, allowing you to hide.
It doesn't matter. What matters is, if you're within ten feet of dim light, you can hide.
What, in this supernatural ability, is allowing the stealth check? If it's not concealment, is it cover or distraction? Is it not the presence of shadow? How is the shadow being used?However the player using it...
so why dont you get a plus +20 for the roll, becuase you are making it work like invisiblity. if it's not invisibilty then it doesn't work on darkvision.
Again the rule is ambigous, and internally inconsistant. it does not fully support either interpretation, nor does it reject either interpretation.
The difference between an objective and subjective condition is simple.
A body in motion is an objective condition. It being in motion is not dependent on any preception of the object. on the other hand a "fast" moving object is a subjective condition. because if the viewer is travelling much faster than the objective then the objective cannot be described as "fast" moving, however it can be described as moving, because moving is an objective criterion.
Stealth by logical neccassity should be a subjective condition. You being stealthy is purely dependant upon the viewer. so any single instance of stealth depends upon the viewer. so any instance of stealth might simultanouly stealthy against a blind and deaf man, but not stealthy againt the keen sighted and hearing person.
Pathfinder muddles the water by giving requirements for stealth such as cover and concealment, futher it states that it can't be done in bright light, and thus describes stealth as an Objective condition, conditions that exists seperate and apart from the perceiving party.
it is utterly incoherent and cannot be reconciled. it is obvious to me whomever wrote the preception and stealth chapter, did not write the lighting chapter, because both sections create a tension that cannot be reconciled by appeal to the text in it's entirtety.
in other words, stealth as currently concieved is utterly broken, except in the most narrow of situtations.
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?You aren't hiding in dim light. You're hiding, and the requirement for your hiding is that there's dim light nearby. That's it.
it does not state wethter the supernatural aspect of the power is being powered by magical darkness or does merely extend the "mundane" cover of dim light by 10 feet.It doesn't matter. Are you ten feet of dim light? You're hiding.
second it is ambigious because the writers can't decide whether stealthing is an objective or subjective condition.What does this even mean, and how is it relevant. Answer the second question first
dark vision not seeing through shadowdancer hips makes should make no sense because STEALTH must be subjective condition in a rational universe, but the rules are clearly ambigious on this matter, and the fact that you could make the argument that hips/stealth is actually an objective condition is an indication of how bjork these rules are.Again, I have no idea what you're talking about right after you hit "subjective condition"
But I'll tell you one thing.
If you're within ten feet of dim light and you're a shadowdancer, you can hide.
OK. Can you give me an in game description of what is happening?No, because it does not matter.
Maybe the shadows shift off the ground and cover you briefly, and wherever they touch, you vanish. Maybe you just blink out of existance. Maybe you make the dim light play a loud clown honk, and everyone turns away in horror at the thought of nearby clowns, allowing you to hide.
It doesn't matter. What matters is, if you're within ten feet of dim light, you can hide.
What, in this supernatural ability, is allowing the stealth check? If it's not concealment, is it cover or distraction? Is it not the presence of shadow? How is the shadow being used?However the player using it...
This is an intellectualy dishonest answer, becuase unlike a fireball, how hips works does matter. hips is considered a special kind of stealth. there are speacial rules for stealths, one of which says that when "darkness" is used as the cover for the stealth roll, it cannot be used against a darkvision character.
If hips is working by simply saying you get the benetifs of dim light without be in dim light then it logically does not work on the darkvision character, because nothing has change mechanically. All you have said is that you can take advantage of dim light by being near it as opposed to be in it, which would not defeat darkvsion or true seeing.
if on the other hand you are using the dark to create a sort of invisibility then that is an enterily different mechanism that would aborgate the rule about darkvision.
|
|
An important distinction is that the lighting levels in pathfinder are NOT subjective. They are absolute. The same square is not dim light for one character and bright light for another character. It is just dim light. Darkvision modifies how another character sees through different lighting without affecting that lighting at all.
The HIPS ability functions on the absolute lighting level of the area, without regard to the abilities of others. Why do I say this? Because the entry at no point mentions that its affected by other elements than the lighting condition of dim, and the characters proximity to that lighting condition.
Deciding that darkvision has any effect whatsoever on the shadow dancers supernatural ability to hide near dim light is just making a decision that the ability is or should be affected by more factors than those listed.
Like saying that a paladin's smite should additionally only work against those people that his church has specifically branded as evil. It's not alluded to the rules in the section, but you can try to extrapolate it out.
Basically, it's just a way of saying "This ability is too powerful in my opinion, so I'm going to add additional limiting factors that are beyond the purview of the ability entry."
Unfortunately, with the stealth rules, the details are strewn all around the place so it's easy to get in the mindset that the abilities aren't absolute in of themselves but must also be modified based on other rules that aren't directly related to the ability.
A character who can hide in plain sight any time they're within 20 ft of dim lighting has one specialized ability. They can hide from visual and audible perception rolls even if someone is looking at them, as long as its their turn. They can then attack from stealth, benefiting from sa damage on the first hit *if they have it*, move, and hide again. Or they can try to escape.
They can be defeated by a well placed light spell, or a few light spells. They can be ready actioned against *which anyone at all can do*. They have no defense against other senses such as tremorsense, or lifesense, ect.
Even the arguably next best ability of the shadow is potentially more unbalanced. Strength damage. Incorporeal. Provides flanking for the shadow dancer. Quite a few mobs won't even be able to touch it.
Regardless of the intent of the rules, I just don't see HIPS being overpowering even with the more powerful interpretation.
Allow me to once again cut down all discourse.
Are you ten feet of dim light?
You can hide.
Until you dispute that, there is no purpose to this debate.
Stop bringing up invisibility which has nothing to do with this.
Darkvision has nothing to do with this.
Ten feet of dim light?
Hide.
And stop talking about concealment, or "cover", from the dim light. The ability does not mention it.
|
|
So, you are hiding 'nowhere in particular'. The fact that you have to have shadow near you is inconsequential. Rubbish. Or, if you are right, what a poorly realised ability.
It doesn't matter? No course it matters. At least, it matters to anybody that wants some sort of immersion in their role playing.
I've commented about HIPS on these forums in the past and I agree that the only way there will be any agreement on this is if the rule is officially clarified. It's also my feeling that any official ruling will need a fair bit a elaboration.
It's pointless arguing any further.
I'm reading this thread from the beggining and i decided to post now.I dont understand why are you so confused...
RAW for HIPS : "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 means he can hide without the need for cover or consealment. 10 feet of dim light is absulute. Inside 10 feet he can hide. Simple
Now the part that i think confuses the other side.A Shadowdancer in 10 feet of dim light has concealment from no-dark and low light vision oppoents and no concealment from foes who do. But his ability to Hide In Plain Sight works as long as he is within 10 feet of dim light.
So an example:Level 5 rogue/10 shadowdancer with a total 26 stealth skill within 10 feet of dim light.His opponents are a duergar level 15 fighter with 18 perception, a human 14 level fighter with 17 perception, a human 15 level monk with 24 perception and a dwarf 16 level ranger with 22 perception
Shadowdancer rolls for stealth and he gets a 14 on the d20 and his Stealth check is 40. His oppoents roll for perception and they get respectively 12 (total 30), 16(total 33), 17(total 41) and 20 (total 42)
So the shadowdancer is hidden from the duergar fighter and the human fighter. He is not hidden from monk and dwarf because both of them won his stealth check.However if the monk try to hit the shadowdancer he has 20% miss chance due to consealment. But if the ranger try to hit the shadowdancer he does it without any miss chance because of his darkvision ability that negates concealment due to low light.
/sigh
And it goes on for another 25+ posts... what are people still talking about.
.
Seriously. Proving one interpretation wrong does not automatically make your own interpretation right. There isn't a correlation there.
Both sides can have evidence proven against them, that is why I said it's not something that can be determined by RAW alone, and a DM must make a judgment call.
Yes, there are holes when saying the Shadowdancer uses the dim light for concealment: it mentions nothing about miss chance, nor does it actually say that he uses it.
However, the other interpretation is equally faulty: the rule never states that you no longer need cover or concealment (unlike the ranger ability), and using this interpretation the person can get darkvision foiling stealth when he's NOT in dim light, but when he is in a more advantageous position to hiding (IN dim light or other concealment that darkvision foils), he loses this ability?
Neither interpretation is fully accepted by the rules, because *gasp* the rules are incomplete! Yes, that is a possibility here you know... these aren't words of a divine source, they were written by the hand of man, and might not be perfect.
Now, if they had written: "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 any cover or concealment."
Then I'd be all over that. I'd be right there with you, saying "no to darkvision or any other vision! It's like camouflage".
The words "without anything to actually hide behind" simply sounds like not needing cover at best (but even then, why not just say "cover" or "cover and concealment"?)
But they didn't. Either it was a mistake, or it was intentional.
In either case, they really still need to determine what happens when you are actually IN the dim light (say the person holding the torch takes a few steps away, can the dwarf now see him because he's fully in the dim light? this is just weird and metagaming the system).
With those questions answered, we can have a definite answer on this thing that has been a point of contention since 3e rules.
Allow me to once again cut down all discourse.
Are you ten feet of dim light?
You can hide.
Until you dispute that, there is no purpose to this debate.
Stop bringing up invisibility which has nothing to do with this.
Darkvision has nothing to do with this.
Ten feet of dim light?
Hide.
How does low-light vision affect this ability in areas where there are multiple lighting conditions? Normal light would be double radius.
Let's take a scenario where you use a torch. You have normal light out to 20'. The Shadowdancer is in dim light at 25' and can HiPS. If an elf were looking at the HiPS user, he is currently in normal light. Is the Shadowdancer hidden from humans and visible to elves, gnomes and horses?
@Aunasiel
There are two camps.
One that says it works like how you describe.
The other says it works like the Ranger's Camouflage.
So no, by their definition, the elf wouldn't be able to see him because the Shadowdancer is not using the concealment of dim light, they just need it to activate the ability.
You aren't going to convince anyone in this thread either way. Either you feel the words "hide without anything to hide behind" is enough to make a solid ruling on the stealth rules, or you feel it isn't.
That's the crux of this argument.
Ranger's ability says the same thing (only for fav.terrain) with different words just like assassin's HIPS which say "as long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow" while shadowdancer's ability states "as long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light" but Dim Light=Some Sort of Shadow as Jame Jacobs said
The fact that no one from Paizo has chimed in on this just annoys me. With all of the money that we invest in this game, is it unreasonable for ambiguous rules to get clarified? Paizo really needs an "Ask the team thread" where questions can get answered/clarified. I know they are in the business to make money through product and have their resources aimed in that direction, I even want them to, so they keep putting out stuff I can use, but ignoring a frustrated player base is bad customer service. Would really be too much to ask that one person on their staff get assigned to answering questions for an hour a day or so?
Or perhaps the question has been answered to their satisfaction, and they don't want to get drawn into an argument over pointless semantics.
The question has been answered, but there is a group here who refuses to accept the answer....
The fact that no one from Paizo has chimed in on this just annoys me. With all of the money that we invest in this game, is it unreasonable for ambiguous rules to get clarified? Paizo really needs an "Ask the team thread" where questions can get answered/clarified. I know they are in the business to make money through product and have their resources aimed in that direction, I even want them to, so they keep putting out stuff I can use, but ignoring a frustrated player base is bad customer service. Would really be too much to ask that one person on their staff get assigned to answering questions for an hour a day or so?
I love the Paizo guys. They actually work to fix problems. They may not be in here with an official answer, but I am willing to bet that there will be one.
@Aunasiel
There are two camps.
One that says it works like how you describe.
The other says it works like the Ranger's Camouflage.
So no, by their definition, the elf wouldn't be able to see him because the Shadowdancer is not using the concealment of dim light, they just need it to activate the ability.
You aren't going to convince anyone in this thread either way. Either you feel the words "hide without anything to hide behind" is enough to make a solid ruling on the stealth rules, or you feel it isn't.
That's the crux of this argument.
It's only interesting because he isn't in dim light to an elf. So does that mean that an elf Shadowdancer couldn't use the ability in the previous scenario because it is still normal light to him 25' from the torch? This is weird.
I love their product and have enjoyed the interviews I have listened to with them, but a regularly monitored ask the team thread would please me far more then getting a product to market a month sooner. they sometimes have come through with some answers which is good, but I am talking about an official venue to post questions with an expected time frame for response, not relying on the good nature of the people working there to come through on random posts eventually when they get to it.
Or perhaps the question has been answered to their satisfaction, and they don't want to get drawn into an argument over pointless semantics.
The question has been answered, but there is a group here who refuses to accept the answer....
This made me actually laugh out loud.
This has been in debate since 3e first gave us the abilities as written. This isn't a new thing for Pathfinder, and it's not just "a group of pathfinder posters" having trouble with this.
.
I feel the delay in answer is more likely an internal debate for the design staff (if they are even aware of this thread at all). Making an errata or word change means you need to make a decision and decide how it works and rewrite the rules to fit it.
Likely, they are deciding on how they want to rule this for Pathfinder, and then go from there. Leaving it as it was since 3.Xe means people can continue to rule it how they interpreted it in those days.
Making a change to the wording means some people (at least) will need to change how they've been playing it.
Playing it safe, as it were.
Or perhaps the question has been answered to their satisfaction, and they don't want to get drawn into an argument over pointless semantics.
The question has been answered, but there is a group here who refuses to accept the answer....
This made me actually laugh out loud.
This has been in debate since 3e first gave us the abilities as written. This isn't a new thing for Pathfinder, and it's not just "a group of pathfinder posters" having trouble with this.
.
I feel the delay in answer is more likely an internal debate for the design staff (if they are even aware of this thread at all). Making an errata or word change means you need to make a decision and decide how it works and rewrite the rules to fit it.
Likely, they are deciding on how they want to rule this for Pathfinder, and then go from there. Leaving it as it was since 3.Xe means people can continue to rule it how they interpreted it in those days.
Making a change to the wording means some people (at least) will need to change how they've been playing it.Playing it safe, as it were.
Or it could be that they have no desire to wade into an argument where both sides have made it clear that no matter what the official ruling is, they are going to keep doing it the right(IE their) way.
They is little to be gained, and a lot to lose by jumping into threads like this one.
|
|
You aren't going to convince anyone in this thread either way.
Personally, this thread has swayed my opinion three seperate times. I feel like there are half decent arguments being presented on both sides, but at this point I am completely convinced of the superiority of the "Darkvision doesn't affect Dancer HiPS" argument. The fact that there are other abilities granted by the presence/proximity of dim light, and that there's no conceivable way that Darkvision could negate the shadowdancer's accessibility to these abilities - that's the thing that finally convinced me.
With regards to this debate, there are two fundamental kinds of roleplayer here.
1. Simulationist. These guys need to make sense out of every rule. They want their RPG to simulate the real world. If something works in the real world, it had better damn well work in their RPG. Even the fantasy stuff like fireballs and dragons have explanations, histories, backstories, that tie it all together into a logical framework that fits together like a well-made and logically valid puzzle. These guys dislike any rule that is illogical and when they find such a rule, they aggressively seek to bend it, twist, it, rewrite it, or disregard it.
2. Gamist. These guys don't care if a rule makes sense. If it's cool, they like it. If it's fun, they like it. If it moves the game along, they like it. There is no need at all to ask how it works. They just shrug such questions off as "hey, it's magic!" and move on. They're playing a game rather than a real-world simulation, and they can't be bothered with trying to impose things like logic, physics, or rationality on their game. There is no need for such things.
(those descriptions are meant to be generic with no bias toward either side)
These two kinds of gamers never see eye to eye. And that's the main dividing line in this thread.
The simulationists say "hey, this ability uses Stealth, so the Stealth rules must apply, so let's solve the logical puzzle to fit these rules into the whole dim-light thing to create a cohesive, logical, fully-explained character ability."
The gamists say "Wow, this cool class can vanish from sight right there in the open. That's cool. Who cares how it works, let's play!"
Neither side is right or wrong in their viewpoints.
From a pure RAW standpoint, the simulationists will lose, must lose, because the RAW is convoluted and self-contradicting. It's playable as RAW, but it makes no sense. The simulationists are tying to resolve a paradox that cannot be resolved without modifying some of the RAW. So that is their argument: the RAW cannot be right because it cannot be logically resolved.
Which of course means nothing to the gamists. The RAW is playable, the ability is fun, so there in no need to overthink it. Just play!
And that is never an answer the siumulationists are happy with.
So, until the RAW is fixed to make logical sense, the simulationists will point at it and grumble about how it doesn't make sense. The gamists will shake their heads and wonder why these simulationists are such annoying stodgy jerks. The will laugh and jeer and repeat the RAW over and over and over until they're blue in their virtual face.
And the debate will rage on, neither side understanding the viewpoint of the other side, and neither side really caring to.
It's not ambiguous.
The ability. States. What it does.
Are you near ten feet of the light?
You're hiding.
That's it.
It's only "ambiguous" because detractors keep bringing up concealement and rangers and all these other things that have nothing to do with the ability.
Dim light, ten feet? Hide.
Not difficult.
While you were a little over-aggressive in your post, I can't help but agree with you and I certainly laughed out loud at the "Hide.In.Plain.Sight" bit.
I think its more that the shadowdancer is wrapping shadowstuff around itself to hide, something akin to the capstone power for the class.
also, +1 for the supernatural bit. It is a power, not an natural ability.
An important distinction is that the lighting levels in pathfinder are NOT subjective. They are absolute. The same square is not dim light for one character and bright light for another character. It is just dim light. Darkvision modifies how another character sees through different lighting without affecting that lighting at all.
The HIPS ability functions on the absolute lighting level of the area, without regard to the abilities of others. Why do I say this? Because the entry at no point mentions that its affected by other elements than the lighting condition of dim, and the characters proximity to that lighting condition.
Deciding that darkvision has any effect whatsoever on the shadow dancers supernatural ability to hide near dim light is just making a decision that the ability is or should be affected by more factors than those listed.
Like saying that a paladin's smite should additionally only work against those people that his church has specifically branded as evil. It's not alluded to the rules in the section, but you can try to extrapolate it out.
Basically, it's just a way of saying "This ability is too powerful in my opinion, so I'm going to add additional limiting factors that are beyond the purview of the ability entry."
Unfortunately, with the stealth rules, the details are strewn all around the place so it's easy to get in the mindset that the abilities aren't absolute in of themselves but must also be modified based on other rules that aren't directly related to the ability.
A character who can hide in plain sight any time they're within 20 ft of dim lighting has one specialized ability. They can hide from visual and audible perception rolls even if someone is looking at them, as long as its their turn. They can then attack from stealth, benefiting from sa damage on the first hit *if they have it*, move, and hide again. Or they can try to escape.
They can be defeated by a well placed light spell, or a few light spells. They can be ready actioned against *which anyone at all...
you are right and wrong. while absolute lighting levels is an objective thing, one's perception in those are said conditions are not. So i can stealth in the dark against human but not a half orc, because the preception inside the area is subjective. So again nothing in the Shadow Dancer description says that it's power negates the fact that stealthing in dim light against a person with darkvision does not work.
Again the problem is the rules alternate giving objective and subjective rules and limitations for stealth instead of being consistant with a single position throughout.
Again the rule is written badly. saying you cannot stealth because of certain conditions is an objective criteria, which is why the rules breaks down. What should be written is that the preciever is given bonuses to precieve in certain given enviromental conditions.
The question is ulitmately unanwerable because the rules are unworkable. So I concur that each position has equal evidence for it and against it, which i personally think is unacceptable in a product you pay money for. I personally dont care which way the offically decide to go, buta ruling does need to made either way.
you are right and wrong. while absolute lighting levels is an objective thing, one's perception in those are said conditions are not. So i can stealth in the dark against human but not a half orc, because the preception inside the area is subjective. So again nothing in the Shadow Dancer description says that it's power negates the fact that stealthing in dim light against a person with darkvision does not work.
Here's your problem, and we've pointed this out about a thousand times and you REFUSE to even aknowledge it. A normal rogue/person CANNOT hide just because he's in darkness. He needs concealment, and concealment is NOT provided if someone can see through the shadows he thinks are concealing him. Got it? CONCEALMENT.
Now. HiPS DOES NOT REQUIRE CONCEALMENT. If it did then you would be right, and it would be foiled by every tom dick and harry with more than standard crap human vision. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE CONCEALMENT. For the final time. It says nothing about concealment, you are reading that into the ability since it needs to be near dim light BUT the dim light is required to fuel the ability and his tie to the shadow plane.
As has been asked, would his other abilities that require him to be in dim light (such as dimension door) be negated JUST because an elf is looking in his general direction? No. The language is identical. When within 10' of dim light he can hide. Period. Nothing about concealment, he requires no cover, he can do it while being observed. It's freaking supernatural, magical if you will. It doesn't have to play by the rules.
Just. Stop.
|
I am running the Fellnight Queen module and one of the players is playing a 5th-level rogue/2nd-level shadowdancer.
He is dominating EVERYTHING thanks to his Hide in Plain Sight ability, high Stealth check modifier, and ability to Spring Attack.
He has since made a habit of springing in from hiding, attacking with sneak attack, springing out and making a hide check. Even when he takes the -5 penalty for moving over half his speed (which is 40 ft. by the way) enemies still can't find him! Shadows and concealment are always EVERYWHERE (look around and count the number of shadows within 10 feet of you, they are next to impossible to get away from).
I'm beginning to think that this ability is broken. The module and bestiary stat blocks simply don't assume they will be opposed by Stealth masters (they have a +0 to +5 Perception modifier VS his +13).
Nothing in the module is ever going to find this guy while he continues to pick them apart.
How do I challenge such a character? Am I overestimating/misreading HiPS in some way?
Sorry, you are letting your rogue player get away with murder. (Literally)
After reading through the hundred or so interesting comments, my position has not changed...not one bit. Here are my thoughts:
-=-=-
Presupposition 1: Stealth has, and will likely always be, in the eye of the beholder. You aren't hiding from yourself, and blind people aren't better at hiding just because they can't see well.
PS1--you hide from your opponents; you don't hide.
Presupposition 2: If you read the rules for perception carefully, you learn a great deal more about stealth than from the stealth rules themselves. It goes in to detail about observing people and how difficult it is (normally impossible) to hide when someone is watching you. You can also observe people with senses other than sight, so if someone is making a lot of noise, you can continue listening to them and they cannot hide while being observed.
PS2--A person doesn't "stealth." They attempt to use Stealth. Anyone can attempt to hide in dim light against most creatures.
Presupposition 3: Shadowdancers can attempt to hide while being observed as long as they are within 10' of an area of dim light. Note that the wording is very specific, and although one could point out the difference in the Assassin (Asn) write-up, we are a) talking specifically about Shadowdancers (SD), and b) the first printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook had an error that showed there was at least one copy-paste (copypasta) error between Asn and SD. If one version was clarified, it is reasonable that the Shadowdancer one is more accurate, as the original had the word Assassin in the SD's description, not the other way around. Even if you do not believe this, the SD description is very specific, mentioning dim light (harkening back to illumination rules). There is no reason to believe that the tiny shadow caused by a blade of grass is what the SD pulls from in normal daylight. No GM would be expected to have to deal with that level of minutiae and lighting is rarely mentioned in published modules. The simpler explanation is overwhelmingly more plausible.
PS3: Shadowdancers have a magic ability to "pull" from dim light 10' away. Other than the statement that they can do this while being observed, there is no reason to believe it is more powerful or complicated than this.
Thus, if one assumes that the world's ability to perceive is based upon the observer (which I believe 99% will agree with), and that illumination rules define when one can stealth and what the penalties are to perceive someone (probably 90% on this one), then it is not a stretch to reason that Shadowdancers merely get to break only one normal rule (hide while observed) as long as they can use their magic power to pull from the area of dim illumination.
Does this mean that they can't use this versus an elf with low-light vision if the SD is being observed?
Of course the Shadowdancer can, but if the area he pulled from (the dim illumination) is considered normal light to the elf, then the elf does not need to make a perception check and automatically sees the SD if he was already observing him. The shadowdancer uses his magic, and the elf shrugs his shoulders because the SD is still under observation in normal light, TO HIM.
What you say? It sthpathifically says...
If you believe that the area of dim light is in the eyes of the stealther, and that the power works, you are using faulty logic of Affirming the Consequent. Here are some examples:
Every rogue I have seen is tricky, so all tricky people are rogues.
[i] My human shadowdancer is blind, thus he can stealth anywhere because it is dark to him.
Many of the examples I have seen are convoluted and difficult to believe. Having an observer with Super-Ultra-Vision would certainly not cause the SD's magic to fail, just fail to hide against that observer. Likewise, if the SD is an elf, he does not have to run further away from the torch just to use his magic ability to attempt to stealth.
Thus, the implied game effect of Hide in Plain Sight is simply thus:
"Hide in Plain Sight (Su): The Shadowdancer can hide while being observed if he is within 10' of an area of dim illumination. This ability, in effect, pulls the dim illumination 10' closer to him allowing the use of a stealth check against most creatures."
I think it's 'clear' that some people just want the ability to be weaker than what it really is. Whether it's that they're misreading the rules or rewriting them I don't know.
Which is hilarious because the ability is already weaker than it is, by RAW. A Shadowdancer can Hide in Plain Sight in the middle of a bright, sunny day if there is an area of dim light 10' behind her. A Shadowdancer cannot Hide in Plain Sight in the middle of an unlighted cave (because darkness is explicitly different from dim light).
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?
There are two reasons that statement is stupid.
1) The ability is HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT. PLAIN. SIGHT.
2) Darkvision or low-light vision do not alter the global mechanics of light and visibility.
if it's not invisibilty then it doesn't work on darkvision.
In your opinion, does any vision at all negate a Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight?
So again nothing in the Shadow Dancer description says that it's power negates the fact that stealthing in dim light against a person with darkvision does not work.
Other than that being explicitly what it does say, no, I guess not.
Here's your problem, and we've pointed this out about a thousand times and you REFUSE to even aknowledge it. A normal rogue/person CANNOT hide just because he's in darkness. He needs concealment, and concealment is NOT provided if someone can see through the shadows he thinks are concealing him. Got it? CONCEALMENT.Actually, he can.
If a human and a dwarf are watching him, the character simply steps into the shadows. Those shadows give him concealment. Got it? CONCEALMENT. So he rolls a Stealth check. The human can still see him if he can win an opposed Perception check. The dwarf can still see him but only needs a DC 0 Perception check. The fact that "someone can see through the shadows" does not mean everyone sees through them. It only takes one observer to be foiled by those shadows.
You're probably right if the ONLY observer has Darkvision, in which case those shadows don't give the character concealment. But you should have specified that.
So. You. Just. Stop. :)
it is amibigous, because you can't in hide dim light from someone with darkvision?There are two reasons that statement is stupid.
1) The ability is HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT. PLAIN. SIGHT.
2) Darkvision or low-light vision do not alter the global mechanics of light and visibility.if it's not invisibilty then it doesn't work on darkvision.In your opinion, does any vision at all negate a Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight?
So again nothing in the Shadow Dancer description says that it's power negates the fact that stealthing in dim light against a person with darkvision does not work.Other than that being explicitly what it does say, no, I guess not.
again read the rule book. Ranger hips is based upon terrian not lighting.
Again stealh is based upon Subjective lighting. It says clearly in the rule book you cannot stealth using darkness as concealment against a Creatue with darkvision within 60ft. Because there is no conver to be gained. If you have darkvision there is no such thing as dim light.
Again you fail to comprehend, the book does not state how dim light works for the shadow dancer.
and because the book has a section clearly stating that dim light has a mechanism for stealth does not work against darkvision, it is not clear.
furthermore that hips would work against humans but not half orcs, it would still be hide in plain sight, because you can hips against some races but not others.
Again the rule is not clear.
again read the rule book. Ranger hips is based upon terrian not lighting.
Read the rule book, the Ranger can hide in the middle of an open area in broad daylight. Anything with eyes automatically defeats it if Darkvision defeats the Shadowdancer and Assassin's HiPS.
Again stealh is based upon Subjective lighting.
Good thing they included the "can use the Stealth skill even while being observed" detail so that we know the ability bypasses subjective lighting.
If you have darkvision there is no such thing as dim light.
Bzzzt, wrong. You are failing to differentiate between absolute lighting conditions and subjective lighting conditions. Subjectively, an Elf can see for 40' away from a torch. Absolutely, dim light starts 20' away from a torch.
Again you fail to comprehend, the book does not state how dim light works for the shadow dancer.
The "can use the Stealth skill even while being observed" combined with "within 10 feet of an area of dim light" seems fairly obviously defined to me.
Why attack the ability when it has already been nerfed by Paizo when they tried to define it more explicitly? You want to see a HiPS Shadowdancer with Darkvision? Destroy all light in the area without magical darkness. A Shadowdancer can't HiPS in areas of total darkness if there is no dim light within 10' (Good job guys, might want to errata that)
|
|
Well, Cartigan, to be fair, that's a very, very literal reading of the RAW...
I would certainly allow a SD to HiPS in a completely dark room, since darkness is further down the negative lighting scale than dim light. Darkness is essentially (though not defined in the RAW as) a quality that dim light takes on when there is no source of normal light or bright light within a given range.
Besides, the only opponents that the SD would even be in plain sight to would be those with Darkvision, and for the reasons outlined in the thread above, I just don't read the RAW as permitting Darkvision or low-light vision to negate the SD's ability to HiPS under any circumstances.
Such a ruling on my part would be a houserule, per RAW. But even as one who would fall into Blake's definition of a "gamist", I think it's the only ruling I could make.
A Rogue/Shadowdancer using spring attack?
Seriously - he can't be doing significant damage...when he hits at all. He's got a BAB of 4 at 7th level and can only make standard attacks. Most melee based Rogues of his level are attacking in flank with 4d6 sneak attack multiple times/round. They should be doing over double the damage he does on an average round.
When they get to level 9 and are attacking 4 times per round with 5d6 sneak attack, and he's still attacking once...then he's really going to suck and blow.
Defensively decent - until he comes into contact with Blindsight/Blindsense/Tremorsense/Area of Effect - which shouldn't be that rare after all. However, offensively - it's got to be so bad that this character can't be doing significant damage against anything.
Is the rest of the party not engaging? If they are, concentrate attacks on them. Spellcasters first of course - this Rogue isn't doing anything to protect them after all.
If he's entering combat by himself - he's dead the first time he's surprised by blindsight. Until then, have the opponent move out of his range - forcing him to use his movements to move closer. Use Area of Effect spells or splash alchemical items.
A spellcaster may ready a glitterdust or Faerie Fire for him as well. That will cook his goose.
Hide in plain sight is certainly better than invisibility, but really it SHOULD be. Invisibility can be learned by any 3rd level wizard, 4th level sorcerer, or certain Clerics. Hide in Plain Sight is far more difficult to achieve. That said, HiPS has restrictions that invisibility does not.
A greater invisibility rogue can at least full attack!
Ravingdork, is there a reason you ignored this post? And all the others like it? It seems to address your issue nicely. Are you asking for help, or making a complaint?
Well, Cartigan, to be fair, that's a very, very literal reading of the RAW...
Of course it is, which was my point. Paizo tried to be smart and define "shadow" as "area of dim light" and in so doing forgot that "darkness" and "dim light" are two distinct types of lighting.