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?
Help is still a question here? This is nothing but continuing yet another multi-page flame war over something stupid and irrelevant to the original post. Somewhere around page 2 or 3 it stopped being "How do I deal with this problem" to some retarded rules question that would more than likely be dealt with elsewhere.
For heaven's sake, who really cares how you define a shadow?
The initial question, as far as I can read, was for tactical advice against a particular strategy being used by one of his players. From what I read, the answer was, more or less, give the baddies magic weapons to tear his shadow a new one, and ready actions vs. his spring attack.
Why is this at 300+ comments?
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)
again you are wrong. James Jacobs "dim light=a shadow".
If you have darkvision there are no shadows. if you have normal or low light vision there are shadows, by definition, that is a subject condition.
you attempting to apply rules of our world with the pathfinder world. in our world darkvision does not exist, you cannot make shadows disappear in the real world, so in the real world, a shadow would be an objective condition. However in pathfinder a shadow or dim light cannot be an objective condition because darkvision and for that matter true seeing over write it.
Again within the context of rules of pathinder, the stealth rules make no logical sense, and in general are arbitary and capricious, such that they cannpt be applied in a consistant manner.
Again ranger hips has nothing to do with lighting but terrain, the ranger disappears into his surroundings, much in my view like a marine scout sniper as long as the ranger is in his terrain, it fine. itis the only part of the stealth rules that is consitant and logical within the context of the pathfinder rules.
again you are wrong. James Jacobs "dim light=a shadow".
If you have darkvision there are no shadows. if you have normal or low light vision there are shadows, by definition, that is a subject condition.
"Dim light" = a specifically defined type of light in the rules. Having darkvision does NOT remove dim light. Dim light ALWAYS exists in given conditions regardless of relative abilities that lets a character see in dim light.
you attempting to apply rules of our world with the pathfinder world.
No, I'm applying Pathfinder rules to Pathfinder.
Here you go: the rules
|
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.
Point taken, and it's a valid one.
The Stealth rules in general are just such a shame. I think if JJ and/or JB had any idea about the level of disagreement and unpleasantness that arises at otherwise jovial and friendly gaming tables surrounding Stealth, they'd want to do their best to clarify the situation. After all, people build their characters around these concepts, and invest a lot of time and thought into making certain things work. When their DM disagrees with their interpretation of the RAW, they get really butthurt (which is understandable, given the circumstances). People can say "Rule 0" until they're dead in the face, but it's really indefensible that there's been no word from Paizo on these many issues. I realize that they can't tackle everything, but this is really hurting people's enjoyment of their product, and it could be fairly easily solved by a Stealth FAQ.
They produced such a great book otherwise, that to allow this aspect of it to run completely unchecked is just - I don't know, it's disappointing. People say "The problem has existed since 3.0", but my reply to them is: Paizo pretty much fixed 3.5. There are VERY few problems. I BELIEVE in these folks. I have every faith that they could solve the problems surrounding Stealth if they wanted to. I just wish I knew why they don't want to. These threads get no response, time after time. James came into one thread that I know of regarding Stealth, and didn't spend long there at all. I could be wrong about the total - I'm sure it's been more than one thread - but the point is, what needs to be done isn't getting done, and I have no idea why.
|
I'm sorry if my posts were perceived with malice, but I'm weary of this debate and probably should not have posted. I can see those in the other camp are also weary and getting frustrated, hence some of the harsh posts.
This topic is wholly relevant to the campaign in playing in. I have a sneaky, shadow dancer type character who had HIPS in 3.X. He used the HIPS ability once before we upgraded to Pathfinder and had a really hard look at the rules and how we would use them.
In this campaign we are fighting Shadovar, who are much tougher in dim light than normal light, therefore use darknesss type magic to change the lighting conditions. Competing magical light/darkness conditions, negating vs dispelling combined with ambient natural light took a bit of wading through. Add to this that darkvision can now see into an area effected by a darkness spell, and that deeper darkness steps the lighting conditions now by 2 steps (a concept not existing before) AND there is now a concept of supernatural darkness that darkvision cannot see into! We have looked as this long and hard.
My problem, as described very well by others, with the Shadowdancer's HIPS is that the description is inadequate and unsatisfying for what DM_Blake terms the Simulationist. There are adequate in game explanations of other facets of the game around the HIPS concept including invisibility (illusion), inter-dimensional linear plane travel and inter-planar travel, evocation and conjuration of shadow-stuff to create illusions, evocation of light and darkness etc etc.
I have a very hard time swallowing that the Shadowdancer does not use the dim light in some way to hide. Particularly when the rule says you can't hide IN your own shadow - the inference being you are somehow using the nearby shadow to hide IN.
The Rangers HIPS ability is all certainly uses the surroundings the Ranger is in - hence the need to be within a favoured terrain.
If you are happy to accept that this ability doesn't use the shadow to aid stealth and therefore darkvision doesn't help, then how do you deal with others extra sensory perception such as blind sense, blindsight and tremor sense? Poorly and with no consistency is the answer. True Seeing is another can of worms.
The only way to have some internal consistency is that the Shadowdancers HIPS ability allow them to supernaturally hide using shadow whilst in plain view. A cool ability, but not all powerful.
Let me give an example of play - Shadowdancer is ambushed in an area that contains dim light. Shadowdancer moves within 10' of dim light, cracks out HIPS and affectedly hides. A foe then let's loose with a daylight spell removing all dim light and the Shadowdancer is now visible to all. What the hell happened if the Shadowdancer was not concealed by shadow?
|
|
Help is still a question here? This is nothing but continuing yet another multi-page flame war over something stupid and irrelevant to the original post. Somewhere around page 2 or 3 it stopped being "How do I deal with this problem" to some retarded rules question that would more than likely be dealt with elsewhere.
For heaven's sake, who really cares how you define a shadow?
The initial question, as far as I can read, was for tactical advice against a particular strategy being used by one of his players. From what I read, the answer was, more or less, give the baddies magic weapons to tear his shadow a new one, and ready actions vs. his spring attack.
Why is this at 300+ comments?
Sorry for thinking we could discuss something, oh heretofore unrecognized arbitor of the Internet. Paizo should really give you moderator powers so you can put all of us little people in line.
Let me summarize how the thread evolved: On top of the things you mentioned, someone also suggested throwing bad guys with darkvision against the offending munchkin. A difference of opinion developed about whether or not this was an effective tactic based on RAW. Discussion ensued.
Ta-Daaaaa! Reading: not that tough. But if you don't want to read a thread, you don't have to, right? Isn't the internet great?
|
|
Let me give an example of play - Shadowdancer is ambushed in an area that contains dim light. Shadowdancer moves within 10' of dim light, cracks out HIPS and affectedly hides. A foe then let's loose with a daylight spell removing all dim light and the Shadowdancer is now visible to all. What the hell happened if the Shadowdancer was not concealed by shadow?
The condition that enables the Shadowdancer to use HiPS (dim light located within 10') no longer exists. Therefore, his ability to use HiPS no longer exists. This is not problematic, or am I missing something?
|
|
The condition that enables the Shadowdancer to use HiPS (dim light located within 10') no longer exists. Therefore, his ability to use HiPS no longer exists. This is not problematic, or am I missing something?
That's a fine rules explanation but a completely unsatisfactory in game explanation. A satisfactory in game explanation is required, that's why the rules exist.
I'm not familiar with shadovar.. do they gain bonuses to hit/hps or something when in 'dim light'?
Again I'll ask you.. do you think that shadowdancers get concealment from dim light that they are not in? Would you then give a human who spots a shadowdancer away from dim light a miss chance based on the dim light that the shadowdancer is NOT in?
Likewise would you not allow a shadowdancer to shadow jump when there is a dwarf within 60' of them?
-James
Yes, the Shadovar in 'darker surroundings than a brightly lit room' gain additional hit points, +4 AC, +2 attack and damage, the ability to control light, fast healing, invisbility, darkvision, shadow image, spell resistance and other abilities depending on level. You want to light these guys up!
Your question on miss chance is a good one, whilst the question on shadow jump is spurious.
The question of whether the 'normal seeing' opponent has a miss chance on hitting a shadowdancer they have spotted really highlights why the current ability description is inadequate.
I would go with the successful spot check by a 'normal seeing' opponent was not fooled by the shadowdancer's supernatural use of shadow. There are not in dim light. Open season.
Do I like this? Not really. I'd prefer a better description of the ability to clear up what forms of perception can be deceived and what happens if the hide check fails.
Shadow Jump is dimension door using shadow. It has nothing to do with perception.
However, there is a deeper question on the Shadow Jump ability. We know that conjuration (teleportation) spells transport people or objects instantaneously through the Astral Plane. If access to the Astral is blocked, the spell fails. Similarly the spell is useless if you are on the Astral Plane when casting. Now, does Shadow Jump or the Shadovar's Shadow Stride ability still access the Astral Plane, or is it analogous to Shadow Walk where the Plane of Shadow is used? You can see where this leads. Certainly from a flavour perspective, it would make sense that it was the Plane of Shadow, but this is limiting to the Shadovar when you encounter them on their home turf. Troublesome.
again you are wrong. James Jacobs "dim light=a shadow".
If you have darkvision there are no shadows. if you have normal or low light vision there are shadows, by definition, that is a subject condition.
"Dim light" = a specifically defined type of light in the rules. Having darkvision does NOT remove dim light. Dim light ALWAYS exists in given conditions regardless of relative abilities that lets a character see in dim light.
you attempting to apply rules of our world with the pathfinder world.No, I'm applying Pathfinder rules to Pathfinder.
Here you go: the rules
Again you are inventing new rules. James Jacobs creative dirtecor stated clearly that dim light=shadows, that is how it is meant to work. So If i have to chose between your interpratation and one of the developers, I'm going with the devloper. and by the developers words, dim light is a shadow which does not exist for darkvision characters.
So. You. Just. Stop. :)
So...you agree with me? I win!
My point was that for a normal rogue it isn't the presence of darkness that allows him to hide, it's the concealment. Against someone with darkvision he has no concealment and cannot hide. Unlike lighting level, concealment IS subjective, like cover. If you're behind a fog cloud you can hide from someone on the other side of the fog because you have concealment from them, but not someone adjacent where no line drawn goes through a square that provides concealment.However, since specific overrides general, the HiPS ability of a shadowdancer ONLY requires that you are within 10' of shadows (dim light) NOT that you be concealed by them. Do you even get my argument? You guys are thinking that 1)normal hiding requires concealment (or cover) 2)dim light provides concealment (unless you have lowlight or darkvision) and 3)shadowdancer requires dim light (shadows) THEREFORE a shadowdancer requires concealment from dim light to "vanish" or HIPS. This is a fundamentally wrong, though understandable, conclusion. If your conclusion were true, then being 10' from the dim light would not provide concealment so why could they hide?
Let me posit a situation that will surely only muddle the discussion more. A ranger uses hide in plain sight in his favored terrain. He is in a forest (his favored terrain) which his companion wizard has placed a "hallucinatory terrain" or some other illusion on and made it look like a desert (not his favored terrain). The ranger makes his save, and sees the forest as it is. His opponent does not. Does his opponent automatically see him, since in the desert he doesn't have concealment or cover (or camouflage) in an open desert? Ignore any rules arguments about the use of the spell, assume a spell works as described. If he interacts with the desert and then later makes his save against the illusion, does the ranger poof away?
Why can't you think of "10' from dim light" as his favored terrain? No matter what someone else sees, that interplay of light and shadow is a tenuous connection to the plane of shadow and a shadowdancer can "vanish" before your eyes there, like a ranger using camouflage in his favored terrain.
If you have darkvision there is no such thing as dim light.
Except, you know, for that patch of dim lighting 65 feet away from you...
You continue to be illogical. Why?
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?
Mostly the former...mostly.
Much of the advice was (and is) appreciated. Things like preparing actions for when he comes out to attack, and using various creatures that can defeat stealth, was a big help.
Ok So a dwarf shadowdancer goes to hide in plain sight, can he detect where 10' away from dim light is?
Yes. Just because he can see through it, doesn't mean he doesn't see it.
Again you are inventing new rules. James Jacobs creative dirtecor stated clearly that dim light=shadows, that is how it is meant to work. So If i have to chose between your interpratation and one of the developers, I'm going with the devloper. and by the developers words, dim light is a shadow which does not exist for darkvision characters.
It looks to me like you are putting words into the developer's mouth.
He never once said that shadows/dim-light don't exist for characters with darkvision. You just made that up insofar as I can tell.
dim light is a shadow which does not exist for darkvision characters.
Sure it does.
You can just see through it.
I'm near sighted. When I take my glasses off, the world beyond my vision doesn't suddenly become blurry. It's merely my perception.
If it's dark out and I squint and begin to see better in the dark, the darkness isn't magically gone, I can just see through it.
To put it another way, you're suggesting that an army of elves could erradicate all the darkness in the world. Look, they have darkvision, so clearly the darkness doesn't exist!
the question on shadow jump is spurious...Shadow Jump is dimension door using shadow. It has nothing to do with perception.
Rizzo, you seem like a sensible guy with a keen interest, so I'm not sure why you're not getting this. Maybe have another solid read of the Shadowdancer class.
Lighting conditions are absolutes. Cover/concealment are subjective. If you feel you want to be simulationist, this is the way to go, and it's the way the rules go.
Not only is it not confusing, not only is it RAW, but without this basis, the Shadowdancer doesn't work. The requirement for 'dim light' runs through the whole class. If you say that dim lighting is in the eye of the beholder - that elves and dwarves can banish darkness - then it's not just Hide in Plain Sight you're nerfing. HiPS, Shadow Jump and the capstone ability, Shadow Master, all specifically require dim light, and so cease to work in the presence of anything with low-light or darkvision. Dogs, cats, rats, and most other animals, for example.
I hope you don't mind if I give a comical example of how bad this is.
Max, a maxed-out Shadowdancer (15th level rogue 5 dancer 10) is asked to knock off Dorf, an uppity 5th level dwarven barbarian.
Oh come on, Max says. This fellow is hardly worth my time. For I am MAX, marster of darkness. Get some minor stooge.
Please? the asker says. And because she's a friend, and kind of hot, Max says alright.
Max finds Dorf's pad - a second floor tavern suite (Dorf's been doing well for himself) and sends his pet shadow up to scout. Shadow comes back: the dwarf is writing uppity political tracts (this is the modern game, right? Barbarians aren't illiterate) by candlelight in a 40' room. Plenty of dim light. You are good to go, O Marster of Shadows, the shadow says.
Max finds some dusky high ground from whence he can see through Dorf's window. He draws his twin scimitars (of course he has twin scimitars) and Shadow Jumps into the suite's dim light.
Except he can't. "The limitation is that the magical transport must begin and end in an area with at least some dim light," Shadow Jump says. But Dorf is in the 40' room. The presence of one uppity underpowered Dwarf means there is no dim light to jump into.
Oh purleese, Max mutters. Still, even if 10 levels of Dancer don't help, he's still a 5th level rogue. He shimmies up a drainpipe, unlocks the window, and tumbles into the room, quickdrawing his twin scimitars, and Hiding in Plain Sight, using the dim light beyond the candle as a focus to power the ability.
Except he can't. Dorf sees him, grunts, puts down his quill, and reaches for his waraxe.
Screw this for a game of tin soldiers, Max thinks. I'm a 15th level Marster of Shadows. With the capstone Shadow Master power, I have no need to creep up on some little uppity Dwarf. I shall coax him into this dim light and Shadow Mastery will have him!
But it won't. Shadow Master says, "Whenever a Shadow Dancer is in an area of dim light" she gains bonusses, and 'Whenever she successfully scores a critical hit against a foe who is in an area of dim light" she gains more bonusses.
Against a low-level dwarf, the 15th level master of shadows has no capstone ability, no shadow transport, and no magical hiding in plain sight.
Now, does that not sound rather silly to you?
Lighting conditions are absolute. Concealment is subjective. The shadowdancer needs no concealment for any of these abilities. All he needs is dim light. Moreover, in the case of HiPS, he doesn't even need to be in the dim light. And the phrasing is much the same for all three abilities. If one fails, all fail.
Think of it as a spell component, to use Blake's phrase. Perhaps better, think of it as a spell focus. Dim light is the dancer's mistletoe, his symbol. It powers his abilities. How it does so is up to you, but there is nothing in the rules that suggests it is used in a mundane fashion. Quite the opposite.
This is a class that draws real creatures (Shadow Conjuration) and real ice and fire (Shadow Evocation) out of 'Raw shadow'. That is the flavour of the class in Pathfinder. Address that to HiPS.
And keep in mind that if dim light is in the eye of the beholder, Max loses not one, but three of his best abilities. He's got a long fight ahead of him, with his paltry +10 base attack, and shabby 3d6 sneak. Pity he's not a 15th level rogue...
Again you are inventing new rules. James Jacobs creative dirtecor stated clearly that dim light=shadows,
Yes, because shadows are NOT defined and have NEVER BEEN defined. That was the point of the change to Shadowdancer. That does not conversely mean that dim light is not defined. Dim light is a specific type of light. If you are going to pretend you know what the rules are, I suggest you read them from WHEN I POSTED A LINK TO THEM EARLIER.
|
|
To James Maissen & Porpentine,
I'm not arguing that darkvision changes the lighting conditions. The lighting conditions are absolute. I agree that the mere presence of dim light allows the Shadow Dancer to attempt to hide in plain sight. The ability allows for the possibility of opposed skill roles where it normally isn't possible. I'm arguing that where/how the Shadow Dancer ends up hiding is the important missing piece of the description of the ability, and the type of perception the Shadow Dancer is trying to beat with Stealth is of key importance.
You'll notice that the Shadovar from Forgotten Realms 3.X have the spell like ability of invisibility when in the presence of darkness. A much neater solution IMHO.
Why can't you think of "10' from dim light" as his favored terrain? No matter what someone else sees, that interplay of light and shadow is a tenuous connection to the plane of shadow and a shadowdancer can "vanish" before your eyes there, like a ranger using camouflage in his favored terrain.
That's not a bad premise but raises other questions. Can a Shadow Dancer HIPS on the Plane of Shadows? Can a Shadow Dancer that's dimensionally anchored HIPS? Again, troublesome without a fuller description of the HIPS ability.
Because a Ranger's ability is based on camouflage their HIPS ability is much neater. There is no mention of lighting conditions, shadow or even magic. It's a mundane stealth check in extraordinary circumstances.
This has been a major point of contention since D&D 3.0 and Pathfinder should take the opportunity to address it. I'll take the umpires decision!
Can a Shadow Dancer HIPS on the Plane of Shadows?
Is there dim light there?
Can a Shadow Dancer that's dimensionally anchored HIPS?
*face palm*
Because a Ranger's ability is based on camouflage their HIPS ability is much neater.
It's exactly the same. EXACTLY. THE. SAME.
The only difference is a Ranger can Hide in Plain Sight in an anti-magic field.
Not only is it not confusing, not only is it RAW, but without this basis, the Shadowdancer doesn't work. The requirement for 'dim light' runs through the whole class. If you say that dim lighting is in the eye of the beholder - that elves and dwarves can banish darkness - then it's not just Hide in Plain Sight you're nerfing. HiPS, Shadow Jump and the capstone ability, Shadow Master, all specifically require dim light, and so cease to work in the presence of anything with low-light or darkvision. Dogs, cats, rats, and most other animals, for example.
I hope you don't mind if I give a comical example of how bad this is.
Max, a maxed-out Shadowdancer (15th level rogue 5 dancer 10) is asked to knock off Dorf, an uppity 5th level dwarven barbarian.
Oh come on, Max says. This fellow is hardly worth my time. For I am MAX, marster of darkness. Get some minor stooge.
Please? the asker says. And because she's a friend, and kind of hot, Max says alright.
Max finds Dorf's pad - a second floor tavern suite (Dorf's been doing well for himself) and sends his pet shadow up to scout. Shadow comes back: the dwarf is writing uppity political tracts (this is the modern game, right? Barbarians aren't illiterate) by candlelight in a 40' room. Plenty of dim light. You are good to go, O Marster of Shadows, the shadow says.
Max finds some dusky high ground from whence he can see through Dorf's window. He draws his twin scimitars (of course he has twin scimitars) and Shadow Jumps into the suite's dim light.
Except he can't. "The limitation is that the magical transport must begin and end in an area with at least some dim light," Shadow Jump says. But Dorf is in the 40' room. The presence of one uppity underpowered Dwarf means there is no dim light to jump into.
Oh purleese, Max mutters. Still, even if 10 levels of Dancer don't help, he's still a 5th level rogue. He shimmies up a drainpipe, unlocks the window, and tumbles into the room, quickdrawing his twin scimitars, and Hiding in Plain Sight, using the dim light beyond the candle as a focus to power the ability.
Except he can't. Dorf sees him, grunts, puts down his quill, and reaches for his waraxe.
Screw this for a game of tin soldiers, Max thinks. I'm a 15th level Marster of Shadows. With the capstone Shadow Master power, I have no need to creep up on some little uppity Dwarf. I shall coax him into this dim light and Shadow Mastery will have him!
But it won't. Shadow Master says, "Whenever a Shadow Dancer is in an area of dim light" she gains bonusses, and 'Whenever she successfully scores a critical hit against a foe who is in an area of dim light" she gains more bonusses.
Against a low-level dwarf, the 15th level master of shadows has no capstone ability, no shadow transport, and no magical hiding in plain sight.
Now, does that not sound rather silly to you?
Many people would also have us believe that people with darkvision could never become effective shadowdancers since concealment/shadows don't exist for people with darkvision. So if Max were a dwarf shadowdancer in his own right, he would be almost worse than useless.
It also amazes me that people continue to believe such things when even HUMAN shadowdancers would become instantly crippled the moment they took their 2nd-level of the prestige class, which *GASP* grants darkvision!
I have shared this thread with a number of my offline friends and every last one of them has simply scoffed and, in some form or another, have said "they are being deliberately obtuse because they WANT the shadowdancer to be weak and worthless."
Haha, and that means blind people can't be Shadowdancers - everything is complete darkness to them. There is no dim light.
Haha, and that means blind people can't be Shadowdancers - everything is complete darkness to them. There is no dim light.
Nearly word for word one of my offline friends said much the same.
Haha, and that means blind people can't be Shadowdancers - everything is complete darkness to them. There is no dim light.Nearly word for word one of my offline friends said much the same.
I would be supremely disappointed if that was actually the intent of Paizo, as well.
I never thought darkvision meant dark areas dont exist. I am sure they know where it is dark at. They just have an ability that allows them to not be affected by it as far as vision is concerned.
I never thought darkvision meant dark areas dont exist. I am sure they know where it is dark at. They just have an ability that allows them to not be affected by it as far as vision is concerned.
How fortunate for Max, then, that he is not Hiding in Shadows, but in Plain Sight.
Hide in Plain Sight is not Hide in Shadows.
If that if your interpretation, then it is just that - free interpretation. Those who say the dancer hides in plain sight are not making any such leap. They are taking the rules as written exactly as they are written.
The rules don't say that the dancer hides in shadows. They don't say that the dancer gains concealment from the nearby dim light (nor does he). They only say that the dim light must be nearby. If it is, the dancer supernaturally attempts to vanish.
I don't think this is a gamist vs simulationist issue, incidentally. We're all playing Pathfinder here; if we were seriously gamist, we'd be playing...something else.
In simulationist terms, it's important to recognise that dim light is an absolute: multiple dancer powers cease to work if that isn't the case. Beyond that, there are the rules as written - which allow the dancer to try and hide in plain sight, utilising but not within dim light - and the Pathfinder class flavour. This retains elements of the 3.5 Shadowdancer trickster, but expands on it with potent, spellcaster-type abilities which draw on 'Raw shadow' to create creatures and damaging effects.
Given those three things - absolute light, rules as written, and supernatural class flavour - I think the functionality and flavour of the dancer's HiPS is pretty clear, isn't it?
|
|
Can a Shadow Dancer HIPS on the Plane of Shadows?Is there dim light there?
Can a Shadow Dancer that's dimensionally anchored HIPS?*face palm*
Because a Ranger's ability is based on camouflage their HIPS ability is much neater.It's exactly the same. EXACTLY. THE. SAME.
The only difference is a Ranger can Hide in Plain Sight in an anti-magic field.
You are being disingenuous. You have just ignored the flavour opponent you added previously.
So, let me pin down you all conquering Shadowdancing HIPS evangelists.
A Shadowdancer with no magic items uses HIPS.
You are sure that a darkvision opponent can't see them.
If they fail their hide check, do they have concealment?
Can an opponent with True Seeing see them?
Can a detect magic spell detect them?
Can an area dispel reveal them?
Can an opponent with blindsense sense them?
Can an opponent with blindsight 'see' them?
Can an opponent with tremorsense sense them? This has been raise but I noticed that one posted said yes but they still had concealment. Interesting.
So, let me pin down you all conquering Shadowdancing HIPS evangelists.
Heh. I've never played a Shadowdancer, by the way, and doubt I ever will. No heartfelt evangelising here.
Your questions seem a bit of a rattle-bag, but I didn't mention, in reply to your earlier post, that I think the dancer's HiPS *could* be better worded. I just don't think it's too poorly worded to run with. I do agree with you there, though. Anyway:
A Shadowdancer with no magic items uses HIPS.
You are sure that a darkvision opponent can't see them.
If they fail their hide check, do they have concealment?
No, not unless they're incidentally in dim light (and that would provide no concealment against a Darkvisioner). HiPS doesn't provide concealment as writ, and would say it did, if it did. That's a big mark against HiPS=HiS arguments.
Can an opponent with True Seeing see them?
Nope. True Seeing "In no ways helps...spot creatures who are simply hiding."
It sees through darkness, but the dancer isn't hiding in darkness.
Can a detect magic spell detect them?
Good question. I think so, given time. A Supernatural effect is "Magical but not spell-like." Given three rounds, you could presumably pinpoint the dancer's current location...by which time, of course, he's quite likely moved on.
Note also, since this affects two questions below also: if the dancer is stationary, and you *do* pinpoint him, but can't visually see him, he gains total concealment against you. This has nothing to do with dim light. It is a function of not being visible.
Can an area dispel reveal them?
No. "A Supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled."
Can an opponent with blindsense sense them?
They can sense them, but they can't see them. Consequently, the dancer can be pinpointed (and quite efficiently this time) but remains imperceptible visually. That equals total concealment for the dancer. Nothing to do with dim light, all to do with not being seen.
Can an opponent with blindsight 'see' them?
You betcha. Blindsight trumps HiPS.
Can an opponent with tremorsense sense them? This has been raise but I noticed that one posted said yes but they still had concealment. Interesting.
They can sense him - if the target is grounded - but can't see him. Consequently, the dancer can be pinpointed (moderately efficiently this time) but remains imperceptible visually. That equals total concealment for the dancer. Nothing to do with dim light, all to do with not being seen.
Hope that helps. Best,
The Porp.
A Shadowdancer with no magic items uses HIPS.You are sure that a darkvision opponent can't see them.
If they fail their perception check.
What part of "in Plain Sight" is so god awfully difficult to understand?If they fail their hide check, do they have concealment?
No, why the devil would they?
Can an opponent with True Seeing see them?
No, they are HIDING.
Can a detect magic spell detect them?
No, they are HIDING.
Can an area dispel reveal them?
No, they are HIDING.
Can an opponent with blindsense sense them?
Can an opponent with blindsight 'see' them?
Can an opponent with tremorsense sense them?
Those are all different, independent discussions.
A Shadowdancer can hide IN PLAIN SIGHT but those abilities say you automatically make your perception check to find some one hiding.
What part of "in Plain Sight" is so god awfully difficult to understand?
It's the "igh" part that always gets me.....:)
I never thought darkvision meant dark areas dont exist. I am sure they know where it is dark at. They just have an ability that allows them to not be affected by it as far as vision is concerned.How fortunate for Max, then, that he is not Hiding in Shadows, but in Plain Sight.
Hide in Plain Sight is not Hide in Shadows.
If that if your interpretation, then it is just that - free interpretation. Those who say the dancer hides in plain sight are not making any such leap. They are taking the rules as written exactly as they are written.
The rules don't say that the dancer hides in shadows. They don't say that the dancer gains concealment from the nearby dim light (nor does he). They only say that the dim light must be nearby. If it is, the dancer supernaturally attempts to vanish.
I don't think this is a gamist vs simulationist issue, incidentally. We're all playing Pathfinder here; if we were seriously gamist, we'd be playing...something else.
In simulationist terms, it's important to recognise that dim light is an absolute: multiple dancer powers cease to work if that isn't the case. Beyond that, there are the rules as written - which allow the dancer to try and hide in plain sight, utilising but not within dim light - and the Pathfinder class flavour. This retains elements of the 3.5 Shadowdancer trickster, but expands on it with potent, spellcaster-type abilities which draw on 'Raw shadow' to create creatures and damaging effects.
Given those three things - absolute light, rules as written, and supernatural class flavour - I think the functionality and flavour of the dancer's HiPS is pretty clear, isn't it?
1. I was only saying those with darkvision still see shadows, nothing more ,nothing less because I saw an argument saying those with darkvision could not use HiPS*. I was not making a comment on HiPS meaning they actually hid in shadows. I had not made up my mind at the time of the post about that.
*I did not know if that was serious or just hyperbole.
2. It does seem the ability ignores darkvision since it states you get to hide in plain sight.
3. On another note you need to calm down.
I'm arguing that where/how the Shadow Dancer ends up hiding is the important missing piece of the description of the ability, and the type of perception the Shadow Dancer is trying to beat with Stealth is of key importance.
He is hiding in plain sight which is out in the open. Normally the rules dont allow for such things, but that is what the special ability is for. He could be in the middle of the room but as long as is close to a shadow/dimly lit area he gets to hide. As to how the ability works, that is just fluff so you may have to decide how for yourself
|
|
That's a fine rules explanation but a completely unsatisfactory in game explanation. A satisfactory in game explanation is required, that's why the rules exist.
No, a satisfactory in-game explanation is required by you, which is a big difference from one being actually required. Nevertheless...
A Shadowdancer with no magic items uses HIPS.
You are sure that a darkvision opponent can't see them.
If they fail their hide check, do they have concealment?
No. As has been stated before, Concealment does not enter in to this equation, other than the fact that the SD doesn't need it to HiPS.
Can an opponent with True Seeing see them?
No. HiPS allows the SD to make a Stealth check. True Seeing does not beat Stealth checks, whether they are enabled by Supernatural abilities or just by hiding behind a box.
Can a detect magic spell detect them?
I'm going to deviate from Porpentine here and say that I don't believe so, because again, although the ability that allows them to make the Stealth check in Plain Sight is Supernatural, once they have made their Stealth roll (if it is unbeaten by an opposed Perception roll), they simply gain the benefits of Stealth, which is a mundane skill.
Can an area dispel reveal them?
Again no, for the same reasons stated above.
Can an opponent with blindsense sense them?
Now we're getting into ways that opponents can actually thwart Stealth, which is certainly a step in the right direction. With Blindsense, "...the creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment." Nobody needs me to interpret any of that for them, it's fairly straightforward.
Can an opponent with blindsight 'see' them?
With Blindsight, "...the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability." Again, speaks for itself.
Can an opponent with tremorsense sense them? This has been raise but I noticed that one posted said yes but they still had concealment. Interesting.
"A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text."
No concealment. Anybody who said concealment was wrong, I'm not sure who you're talking about or where.
|
|
I'm with posters who say it can't be dispelled. That's consistent with Supernatural Abilities.
Detect Magic is interesting. If you say it can be detected, what School is it?
If it can't be detected, and you are now hiding mundanely...where and with what?
I can hear the answer: You are mundanely hiding in plain sight using a supernatural ability..no wait! Circular argument.
Because a Ranger's ability is based on camouflage their HIPS ability is much neater.It's exactly the same. EXACTLY. THE. SAME.
The only difference is a Ranger can Hide in Plain Sight in an anti-magic field.
The Ranger's ability (Camouflage) states game terms (it ignores cover and concealment), while the Shadowdancer ability only states "hide without anything to hide behind".
For a point of reference, the Ranger ability was created later in the game (3.5e revision), while the Shadowdancer's ability has been largely unchanged since it's creation back in the original 3e days.
I feel that the Shadowdancer ability was written at a time when either the author didn't fully understand the rules for Stealth (and thus didn't use proper game terms to make his point), or the Stealth rules were still in process of being hammered out and thus the proper game terms were not wholly in place at the time of writing.
It's about time this ability gets written more clearly.
I'm with posters who say it can't be dispelled. That's consistent with Supernatural Abilities.
Detect Magic is interesting. If you say it can be detected, what School is it?
If it can't be detected, and you are now hiding mundanely...where and with what?
I can hear the answer: You are mundanely hiding in plain sight using a supernatural ability..no wait! Circular argument.
The aura would be up to the DM. I would say illusion since it makes it seem like he is not there.
PS: I am not saying it is actually an illusion but that is the closest fit, IMHO. Detect magic should be "detect spells" since they dont tell you how to deal with supernatural things, but that is another debate for another day.
The Ranger's ability (Camouflage) states game terms (it ignores cover and concealment), while the Shadowdancer ability only states "hide without anything to hide behind".
Good thing I was referring to the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability and not his Camouflage ability.
Detect Magic is interesting. If you say it can be detected, what School is it?
Supernatural abilities don't show up via detect magic. They don't have auras only spells (and thus spell-like abilities) and magic items have auras.
-James
I stand corrected.
PRD:You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
Supernatural abilities don't have auras. Now I want to use one as an NPC.
Good thing I was referring to the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability and not his Camouflage ability.
The Ranger's ability (Camouflage) states game terms (it ignores cover and concealment), while the Shadowdancer ability only states "hide without anything to hide behind".
So it's the ranger's HiPS ability that is allowing hiding without cover or concealment, the ability that does not mention this whatsoever, and the Camouflage ability has nothing to do with it?
I was under the understanding that the Ranger HiPS only grants the ability to roll a Stealth check while being observed, no longer needing the Bluff skill/diversion trick to do this.
Does the Bluff skill with diversion preclude the need for cover or concealment? No... so why does HiPS ignore cover and concealment automatically, without the need of an ability like Camouflage or the 10' close to dim light thing?
Good thing I was referring to the Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability and not his Camouflage ability.
The Ranger's ability (Camouflage) states game terms (it ignores cover and concealment), while the Shadowdancer ability only states "hide without anything to hide behind".So it's the ranger's HiPS ability that is allowing hiding without cover or concealment, the ability that does not mention this whatsoever, and the Camouflage ability has nothing to do with it?
I was under the understanding that the Ranger HiPS only grants the ability to roll a Stealth check while being observed, no longer needing the Bluff skill/diversion trick to do this.
Does the Bluff skill with diversion preclude the need for cover or concealment? No... so why does HiPS ignore cover and concealment automatically, without the need of an ability like Camouflage or the 10' close to dim light thing?
HiPS(ranger version) is basically an upgraded camouflage. Camoflague does not allow you to hide while being observed. If you can hide while being observed that eliminates the need for cover since the only point of cover or concealment is to have something to hide behind.
I understood the "cannot hide while being observed" rule as being part of the Stealth skill rule:
"If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind."
Hide in Plain Sight seems to mean that you can get to a unobserved place and make your stealth check without needing to use Bluff as a diversion (and thus waste a standard action, and potentially fail as someone might pass their sense motive check).
Effectively, hiding despite being observed.
At least, that's how I understand it. I'm taking that whole paragraph together, not just the first/second sentence of that paragraph as it applies to Hide in Plain Sight.
Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight are two distinctly different abilities, in wording and game terms.
Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight has that second line attached that is similar to the Camouflage ability.
Now, if the Shadowdancer is simply camouflaging himself as shadow, so being 10' near shadow lets him defeat vision based perception checks... cool!
Then it should say that it doesn't need cover or concealment like the Ranger Camouflage ability.
.
Perhaps now my train of logic appears more apparent? You can say that I'm still wrong, but I'm not coming about my conclusion for no reason.
Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight has that second line attached that is similar to the Camouflage ability.
Now, if the Shadowdancer is simply camouflaging himself as shadow, so being 10' near shadow lets him defeat vision based perception checks... cool!
Then it should say that it doesn't need cover or concealment like the Ranger Camouflage ability.
I understand where you're coming from, and from that here is my train of thought. It says you don't need anything to hid behind, which obviates the need for cover, because that's all cover is in this scenario. The concealment thing, well he OBVIOUSLY does not get concealment from the shadows if he is in bright light 10' away from said shadows. In my mind that's enough to obviate both erstwhile requirements, on top of being able to hide without providing distraction.
The problem is, as you've pointed out, all HIPS are not equal. They are not all written exactly the same. If the shadow ability was called something like "Vanish Into Shadows" people would stop drawing comparisons to unrelated class abilities.
Yeah, an ability called "shadow form" or "draw shadows" or something to that effect, and a more detailed explanation of what you are doing 10' away from shadows instead of this open ended "here's the game results", it would have been a lot easier to swallow.
Supernatural abilities don't show up via detect magic. They don't have auras only spells (and thus spell-like abilities) and magic items have auras.
-James
Interesting. Thanks.
Still, Rizzo, your answers are pretty clean, wouldn't you say? They all make sense. No fundamental problems with Supernatural-plain-sight HiPS apparent there, are there?
(ps. Wraithstrike: I try to always write phlegmatically at worst and with good humour as a norm. Apologies if the mood didn't translate).
I'm going to quote some stuff from the 3.5e FAQ. I know this isn't canon in Pathfinder, but the ability hasn't changed since 3.5e, so really, you'll be splitting hairs here if you want to disallow this as a clarification of the rule.
.
First of all, the FAQ has this line:
"Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight
class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re
incredibly effective."
This means they are two separate abilities that can be used together. Not one ability being an "upgraded" version of the other.
Then, the FAQ has this to say about Hide in Plain Sight:
"A character with the hide in plain sight class feature
(described on page 48 in the PH) can make a Hide check even
if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to
accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could
attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or
concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as
part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to
pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move
(potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not
necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of
hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for
her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she
delivers the attack."
So the FAQ in 3.5e at least states that you need cover or concealment even with using Hide in Plain Sight. All the ability is granting you is the ability to make that stealth check while starting off being looked at, since normally that either can't be done, or needs a diversion first (Bluff check).
Then, the FAQ says this about Camouflage:
"The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the PH)
allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural
terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This
means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a
target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being
considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty
on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and
moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to
hide after the attack."
Fairly standard, and I'm sure we all agree on this ability.
However, it then combines it all:
"Put all three of these elements together—such as in the
hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get:
1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in
natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment).
2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an
attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be
considered hiding when he attacks).
3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide
check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or
concealment while in natural terrain).
4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”"
So it requires all three elements, camouflage to stay hidden without need of cover or concealment, the penalty for moving of -20 (in 3.5e you had a -20 penalty to Hide when attacking/running/charging), and hide in plain sight to have the chance to redo your hide check after you attacked and are being observed.
I'm sorry ProfCirno, but just having the line "hide while being observed" is apparently insufficient to obviate the need of cover or concealment. Hence the Camouflage ability, and the expanded dim light rules for Shadowdancers.
.
Speaking of which... Let's go over the real point of contention. The Shadowdancer's ability is different from the Ranger one. It shares the same first line as the Ranger ability:
"can use the Stealth skill even while being observed."
This means, for that part of the ability, it works the same: you can make a stealth check as part of movement as long as you can get to cover or concealment.
Now the Ranger already had the Camouflage ability that deals with cover and concealment. However the Shadowdancer has the line after:
"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."
This should be the only line of text in contention, with at least two interpretations. Either it means you have shadow camouflage, and if you have a backdrop of shadow you can hide without cover or concealment... or it means you can make the Stealth check as long as you are within 10' of dim light.
The problems:
If it's the first one, then it should say "without cover or concealment", but doesn't. It should work the exact same way when you are within dim light, or even darkness, since you are still "camouflaged" the same with the same backdrop to hide against.
If it's the second one, then you should get concealment when within 10' of dim light.
[ooc]Rewording it like this: "As long as she is within 10 feet of dim light, she can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind, as if the dim light had provided concealment."
.
Does this make any sense at all to anyone?