Dealing with Hide in Plain Sight


Advice

351 to 400 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

For Ravingdork (and others with players using Hide in Plain Sight + Spring Attack):

3.5e had the following rule in the Hide skill:

"It’s practically impossible (–20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging."

For whatever reason, Paizo didn't carry over the words "-20 penalty" when they carried over that line.

I would consider that a copy/paste error. Otherwise, why even have that line if it has no game mechanic context.
If it's "practically impossible" to hide while running, does that mean it *is* impossible, or that there's no penalty? Because moving full speed has a penalty of -5, and running is typically 4x your speed.

Until there's official errata on the stealth skill rules, I'd institute the "copy/paste" rule and enforce a -20 penalty for attempting to make a melee attack while hidden.

So in the original example (of +0 to +5 Perceptoin vs the Stealth of +13), it'd actually be far more in favour of the defender. Even +0 vs -7 means he'll have a decent chance at finding the guy after being attacked.

Perhaps this missing rule is why it was never such a big issue in 3.5e. A -20 to Stealth check would really curb this tactic.


Kaisoku wrote:


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

*face palm* *face palm* *face palm* *ad infinitum*


Cartigan wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:


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
*face palm* *face palm* *face palm* *ad infinitum*

Nice.

Did you even read the FAQ I quoted?

Don't bother telling me how it's invalid since it's 3.5e. /sigh


Kaisoku wrote:

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.

Being able to hide while observed trumps(is better than) not needing cover or concealment. Just because you don't need cover and concealment that does not mean you can hide while being observed. Another point is that while both abilities have the exact same name they dont work the exact same way so each class has its own wording for it.

This, which is in both versions, is the main point of the ability---->can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.<----It is what makes the ability what it is. Camouflage becomes obsolete at this point.


porpentine wrote:
james maissen wrote:

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).

It is cool. It is just hard to tell "tone of voice" here.


Kaisoku wrote:
stuff about 3.5 FAQ

So you are saying it allows you to hide in the open, but you can't stay in the open?


wraithstrike wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
stuff about 3.5 FAQ
So you are saying it allows you to hide in the open, but you can't stay in the open?

Obviously. Soon as you hide, you are no longer not hiding and therefore your ability to hide while being observed becomes null and you automatically unhide!


I'm saying you can't hide in the open. Why even bother writing text about being 10' near dim light if you could just hide out anywhere with that one sentence.

I'm saying you can move to a spot that provides conditions that allow Stealth, and rolled a stealth check to hide.
Normally this isn't possible.

To elaborate.
Normally you can't move to cover or concealment and hide, because you are being observed. You can move to cover or concealment, that isn't being restricted (the movement isn't restricted). It's the making the hide check once you are there that is restricted.
Making a diversion or having the Hide in Plain Sight ability allows you to move to cover or concealment and then also hide.

That's what the Stealth skill rules are saying, reinforced by the FAQ.

People can still observe you in dim lighting; you are not automatically hidden. If you move to cover while being observed, they know where you are, because they watched you move there and position yourself.
That's what it means by "you can't make a stealth check while being observed."

Creating a diversion lets you get to a spot with concealment or cover, and make your stealth check, despite people looking at you, because for a moment they took their eyes off you and you can take advantage of that (at a -10 penalty for moving fast), and hide.

Hide in Plain Sight allows you to have this diversion effect automatically. People eyes just can't focus on you, or you can make strange "shadowy" movements that distract them, allowing you the moment you need to move to that cover or concealment and hide yourself from their view.

Why else would the FAQ say that you still need to move to cover or concealment?

.

Please keep in mind that I'm speaking only of the first sentence of the HiPS ability. Shadowdancers have an additional effect on their Hide in Plain Sight that lets them either a)hide without cover or concealment when near shadows (but not in them or in/near darkness), or b)only need to be near dim light to take advantage of it (the point of contention).

But the first sentence of Hide in Plain Sight lets them move to cover/concealment (anywhere, in broad daylight no less) and make a Stealth check to hide regardless if they are being watched at the time. Because normally that wouldn't be possible.

Or do you let your normal Rogues just saunter up to dim light and roll stealth checks while people are watching them?

Liberty's Edge

Kaisoku wrote:

I'm saying you can move to a spot that provides conditions that allow Stealth, and rolled (sic) a stealth check to hide.

Normally this isn't possible.

OK, I'm done. This has degenerated into madness.

Scarab Sages

james maissen wrote:
Many others have been doing otherwise, claiming that Darkvision 'removes' dim light and other such nonsense!
Snorter wrote:
The only people claiming that, have been on your side, in their strawman arguments.
james maissen wrote:

Go back in this very thread Snorter. In fact, perhaps read one of your OWN posts!

Perhaps this means that you're on OUR side?

Get real.

There's a world of difference between saying that the dim light is ignored by one viewer, or does not exist for them, and you claiming we said it removes the condition for everyone in the world, ever.


Snorter wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Many others have been doing otherwise, claiming that Darkvision 'removes' dim light and other such nonsense!
Snorter wrote:
The only people claiming that, have been on your side, in their strawman arguments.
james maissen wrote:

Go back in this very thread Snorter. In fact, perhaps read one of your OWN posts!

Perhaps this means that you're on OUR side?

Get real.

There's a world of difference between saying that the dim light is ignored by one viewer, or does not exist for them, and you claiming we said it removes the condition for everyone in the world, ever.

And we never claimed that. We claimed that lighting condition is objective not subjective, which is true. A dwarf can see through the darkness, it doesn't mean the darkness isn't there for him. Worlds of difference. But man I'm sick of repeating this.


Snorter wrote:


There's a world of difference between saying that the dim light is ignored by one viewer, or does not exist for them, and you claiming we said it removes the condition for everyone in the world, ever.

Those statements are exactly the same thing in effect. If global definitions for dim light and darkness don't exist for one person, then they cease to exist at all. Nevermind that your argument causes the second level of Shadowdancer to invalidate the first *insert massively rolling eyes here*


Quite frankly the 3.5 FAQ wasn't even applicable to 3.5. It often had bizarro rules that made no sense, and consistently contradicted itself.

That you're turning to it says worlds about the "legitimacy" of your argument.

Scarab Sages

Snorter wrote:
There's a world of difference between saying that the dim light is ignored by one viewer, or does not exist for them, and you claiming we said it removes the condition for everyone in the world, ever.
Cartigan wrote:
Those statements are exactly the same thing in effect. If global definitions for dim light and darkness don't exist for one person, then they cease to exist at all. Nevermind that your argument causes the second level of Shadowdancer to invalidate the first *insert massively rolling eyes here*

So, you walk out of the house at midnight, wearing night-vision goggles; that causes the sun to come up? Over the whole world, simultaneously?

Is that what you truly believe?


Kaisoku wrote:


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.

And you are claiming that the RANGER 'Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)' is the same as the SHADOWDANCER 'Hide in Plain Sight (Su)'?

The ranger ability is coupled with the other ranger ability both found on (in the 3.5 PhB) page 48, neither of which is the Shadowdancer ability.

So not only are you in the wrong edition of the game, but you are making mistakes IN THAT EDITION.

As to your conclusions, I mostly agree with them. Mind you I find 'without anything to hide behind' as sufficient, as certainly the ability is not granting concealment of dim light when the shadowdancer is only nearby the dim light.

So perhaps the wording could have been more 'I don't want it to be this way when I read it'-proof, but otherwise I don't find it egregiously bad.

-James


Snorter wrote:


Get real.

There's a world of difference between saying that the dim light is ignored by one viewer, or does not exist for them, and you claiming we said it removes the condition for everyone in the world, ever.

Umm it's NOT A CONDITION on PEOPLE.

Rather it's ENVIRONMENTAL.

That's the point 'our' side has been making. Meanwhile 'your' side HAS been claiming that the 'condition' goes away.

You made a claim that 'our' side has been putting up strawmen with this.. but I went and easily found half a dozen quotes in this very thread of your side confusing what dim light means... whether it's on purpose or being dim yourselves I'm not sure.

-James


Snorter wrote:


So, you walk out of the house at midnight, wearing night-vision goggles; that causes the sun to come up? Over the whole world, simultaneously?

Is that what you truly believe?

I'm not the one making the statement that "some one can see in the dark, therefore there is no dark around them."

Perhaps you would care to explain how the Shadowdancer's second level ability doesn't invalidate its first level ability.


The Ni To Ichi Way of strategy is recorded in this the Book of the Void.
What is called the spirit of the void is where there is nothing. It is not included in man's knowledge. Of course the void is nothingness. By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void.

People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment.

In the Way of strategy, also, those who study as warriors think that whatever they cannot understand in their craft is the void. This is not the true void.

To attain the Way of strategy as a warrior you must study fully other martial arts and not deviate even a little from the Way of the warrior. With your spirit settled, accumulate practice day by day, and hour by hour. Polish the twofold spirit heart and mind, and sharpen the twofold gaze perception and sight. When your spirit is not in the least clouded, when the clouds of bewilderment clear away, there is the true void.

Until you realise the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order. However, if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.

Then you will come to think of things in a wide sense and, taking the void as the Way, you will see the Way as void.

In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existance, principle has existance, the Way has existance, spirit is nothingness.

Twelfth day of the fifth month, second year of Shoho (1645)
Teruro Magonojo
SHINMEN MUSASHI

Scarab Sages

Cartigan wrote:
Perhaps you would care to explain how the Shadowdancer's second level ability doesn't invalidate its first level ability.

When did I say it did?


james maissen wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:


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.

And you are claiming that the RANGER 'Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)' is the same as the SHADOWDANCER 'Hide in Plain Sight (Su)'?

The ranger ability is coupled with the other ranger ability both found on (in the 3.5 PhB) page 48, neither of which is the Shadowdancer ability.

So not only are you in the wrong edition of the game, but you are making mistakes IN THAT EDITION.

As to your conclusions, I mostly agree with them. Mind you I find 'without anything to hide behind' as sufficient, as certainly the ability is not granting concealment of dim light when the shadowdancer is only nearby the dim light.

So perhaps the wording could have been more 'I don't want it to be this way when I read it'-proof, but otherwise I don't find it egregiously bad.

-James

That's because we were talking about the Ranger Hide in Plain Sight about 20 or so posts ago.

I'm not saying it's the exact same thing, I even go on in my posts about how the Shadowdancer ability is different.

However, the wording of the first sentence is exactly the same, and I was trying to address the issue people were having with that first sentence.

.

I'm not sure why you feel I'm making mistakes in any edition. Can you point out what mistakes they are?

The FAQ is fairly clear as to how the rules are being interpreted.

If you want to say that the official FAQ isn't an official interpretation, then I really don't know if we can ever be eye to eye on this subject.

.

Personally, I don't allow my players to use Stealth in cover or concealment while being observed. At least, not automatically.


Snorter wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Perhaps you would care to explain how the Shadowdancer's second level ability doesn't invalidate its first level ability.
When did I say it did?

Right about here:

Snorter wrote:

Perhaps you missed the 'darkvision' part of the example.

For that creature, there is no dim light condition, anywhere within the range of his darkvision.
Therefore, attempting to use HiPS, by claiming the proximity of dim light; dim light which does not exist, to all intents and purposes, as far as that viewer is concerned, is going to automatically fail.


Kaisoku wrote:


Personally, I don't allow my players to use Stealth in cover or concealment while being observed. At least, not automatically.

Of course not. I know DM_Blake feels differently, but I certainly do not.

That said, the ranger hide in plain sight is different than the shadowdancer one. I thought that you were trying to draw the wrong things from the 3.5 FAQ to apply to the shadowdancer ability.

The FAQ derives from answering specific questions and they should not be taken out of context, or delved for nuance.

-James

The Exchange

porpentine wrote:
james maissen wrote:

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).

It is interesting.

I haven't seen anyone rush to defend the "supernatural mundane" hiding position now that James has stated that supernatural abilities don't show up via detect magic. I think that this is wise as those that stated this position were building a rod for their back. If this type of hiding was indeed mundane once activated, then you should be able to describe what is happening without the use of the words "magic"or "supernatural" and then without falling into the trap of calling on key words like camouflage or concealment - something to avoid as the ability doesn't mention this.

And that is the crux of the problem - how to describe in game what is going on? As soon as you do, all sorts of problems are thrown up. This is why my group went down the path of ruling that darkvision sees through this hiding. You can imagine what is happening when a Ranger uses their HIPS. Without manipulating the shadow to hide, you can't really here.

One point worth mentioning that we are D&D vets from 1st ED on. We grew up with "Hide in Shadows" as a thief skill - something you couldn't do unless you were a thief! I guess we see this as an extension of this that allows it to happen in plain sight (the last part being the supernatural component).

I can see why others would strongly disagree, and would happily play by the darkvision trumping rules if everyone else at the table agreed. Let's face it - its only a game.

So lets be clear on where this thread is leading.

A Shadowdancers HIPS is amazingly powerful. It cannot be countered with anything other than:

A very good perception check

Bright light

Darkness (for opponents with Darkvision)

The last is counter intuitive but must logically follow.

We can't really describe what is happening, other than to say the presence of shadow allows the Shadowdancer the ability to 'vanish' in front of your eyes. 'Vanishing' is a concept not described in any other magical effect. All other types of 'vanishing' are described in game as illusion or extra dimensional planar movement through conjuration or transmutation.

Blindsight and Blindsense can detect a Shadowdancers HIPS even though -

Opponents of creatures with blindsense still have total concealment (key word) and there is no concealment with a HIPSing Shadowdancer.

Blindsight only makes invisibility and concealment irrelevant (no mention of supernatural hiding).

Are we still feeling comfortable?

By deductive reasoning, being that the spell description doesn't mention supernatural hiding, True Seeing doesn't reveal a Shadowdancer using HIPS. Think on this for a moment. A 5/6/7 level spell that cost 250gp to cast and sees through all other forms of vision obscuring magic fails here. Are we cool with this? Seems so.

Also, by deductive reason, being that the spell description only talks about spells and magic items, supernatural magical effects don't have a magical aura that can be picked up by Detect Magic.

This probably needs a thread discussion on it's own, but I quickly outline some implications and maybe we can start one if necessary.

On the face of it, this makes good sense. A Wild Shaping Druid shouldn't detect as magic. If they did, would it be only when they are shaping? They still have the SU ability! Messy. Best of that they don't give off an aura.

If we look at a Clerics domain abilities, some of these are Supernatural. Does this mean that a Dancing Weapon, Chaos Blade, Destructive Aura, Scythe of Evil, Divine Presence, Holy Lance etc etc also don't give off a magic aura? Similarly, does this mean an arcane archers enchanced arrows also don't give off a magic aura? Does a Arcane Sorcerer's bonded object detect as magic? I'm not sure that this is what was intended.


RizzotheRat wrote:
True Seeing doesn't reveal a Shadowdancer using HIPS. Think on this for a moment. A 5/6/7 level spell that cost 250gp to cast the reveals all other forms of vision obscuring magic fails here. Are we cool with this? Seems so.

Obscuring Mist defeats True Seeing and it's a first level spell. A smoke stick defeats true seeing and it's not even a spell.

True seeing does A LOT of things, but it does not do and should not do EVERYTHING. It expressly doesn't reveal people using stealth to hide, nor does it (as another example) see through the disguise skill.

Hide in Plain sight IS a big ability. It should be able to do big things.

Mind you there are lots of ways to find someone that is using this big ability. If we go way back to the OP you'll see he was over-reacting here and I think many tend to do so. My initial comment to the OP.. was 'so what?' cause in combat most shadowdancers are LESS effective than pure rogue counterparts.

-James

The Exchange

james maissen wrote:


Obscuring Mist defeats True Seeing and it's a first level spell. A smoke stick defeats true seeing and it's not even a spell.

True seeing does A LOT of things, but it does not do and should not do EVERYTHING. It expressly doesn't reveal people using stealth to hide, nor does it (as another example) see through the disguise skill.

-James

Yeah, the spell description explicitly states those. I should have said, all types of obscuring magic other than conjuration (creation) of mundane things that can be used for concealment or cover other than darkness.

Wow, you really have to watch every sentence on these rules boards.


Oh god, wizards can't just cast an easy spell that they're all going to know to completely irradicate the class features of an entire type of character.

Heaven g&@@+#n forbid :|


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Oh god, wizards can't just cast an easy spell that they're all going to know to completely irradicate the class features of an entire type of character.

Heaven g%+#**n forbid :|

Rogues are NOT allowed to have nice things. They're proficient with the sap, why is that not enough for you? The SAP!


RizzotheRat wrote:
By deductive reasoning, being that the spell description doesn't mention supernatural hiding, True Seeing doesn't reveal a Shadowdancer using HIPS. Think on this for a moment. A 5/6/7 level spell that cost 250gp to cast and sees through all other forms of vision obscuring magic fails here. Are we cool with this? Seems so.

Because there is no "supernatural hiding" there is "normal hiding" being allowed by a supernatural ability. True Seeing can't see people just hiding. Try investing in Beast Shape 3 instead.

The Exchange

Cartigan wrote:
Because there is no "supernatural hiding" there is "normal hiding" being allowed by a supernatural ability. True Seeing can't see people just hiding. Try investing in Beast Shape 3 instead.

See the first part of my post.


RizzotheRat wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Because there is no "supernatural hiding" there is "normal hiding" being allowed by a supernatural ability. True Seeing can't see people just hiding. Try investing in Beast Shape 3 instead.
See the first part of my post.

The part where you said this "This is why my group went down the path of ruling that darkvision sees through this hiding." Which is inherently wrong and fairly dickish. "lol, I can see in the dark, therefore you can't hide even though the ability says you don't have to be in the dark to hide!" Darkvision is NOT some sort of special vision relative to invisible or effectively invisible creatures. Darkvision can NOT see through hiding inherently and it cannot see invisible people. You need blindsense, blindsight, or tremorsense.

The Exchange

Cartigan wrote:
RizzotheRat wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Because there is no "supernatural hiding" there is "normal hiding" being allowed by a supernatural ability. True Seeing can't see people just hiding. Try investing in Beast Shape 3 instead.
See the first part of my post.
The part where you said this "This is why my group went down the path of ruling that darkvision sees through this hiding." Which is inherently wrong and fairly dickish. "lol, I can see in the dark, therefore you can't hide even though the ability says you don't have to be in the dark to hide!" Darkvision is NOT some sort of special vision relative to invisible or effectively invisible creatures. Darkvision can NOT see through hiding inherently and it cannot see invisible people. You need blindsense, blindsight, or tremorsense.

No, let's not be 'dickish' here. Address the point. The part where I said:

Rizzotherat wrote:
If this type of hiding was indeed mundane once activated, then you should be able to describe what is happening without the use of the words "magic"or "supernatural" and then without falling into the trap of calling on key words like camouflage or concealment

Simply saying they are mundanely invisible doesn't expound.

But, to address your point - the way we play, roleplaying is shared story telling. The rules are their to help adjudicate outcomes and help describe what is going on. So, when the description of the Shadowdancer prestige class evocatively states 'they weave together the shadows to become half-seen artists of deception' and then you read the HIPS ability those that play with some immersion try to picture whats happening. This had lead us rightly or wrongly down that path.

Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to come up with a description that will fit the RAW and not raise questions about darkvision or planar connection. It's proving difficult as the ability is a fairly loose fit into the rules structure as is.

BTW stating they the hiding is mundane once supernaturally activated is certainly not RAW but an interpretation of.

Bringing invisibility into this is spurious. We have all agreed this is not anything to do with it. As for 'effectively invisible'...that's a new one.

Really, I've given a honest attempt here to flesh out an shared understanding. If you are going to cherry pick points and deliberating misconstrue there isn't much purpose continuing.


RizzotheRat wrote:


Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to come up with a description that will fit the RAW and not raise questions about darkvision or planar connection. It's proving difficult as the ability is a fairly loose fit into the rules structure as is.

How do you handle the shadow evocation and conjuration spells?

I doubt that darkvision foils them, and I don't believe that they are foiled by dimensional locks or being on outer planes.

Hope this helps you guys,

James


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
What is called the spirit of the void is where there is nothing. It is not included in man's knowledge. Of course the void is nothingness. By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist. That is the void.

"Form is emptiness; emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form." Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra

Scarab Sages

You want flavor? Lets see if we can add some tasty bacon.

The Shadow Dancer is a creature of shadows, of darkness, of the night. The very first level of shadow dancer is symbolic, as the shadow dancer learns how to use the darkness within herself to sympathetically resonate near dim light, and thus darkness everywhere. This resonance allows the shadow dancer to hide, though there be no darkness around him. He hides in the darkness that pervades every living creature. People who fail their perception checks fail to see him because they fail to see themselves.

As the shadow dancer progresses in skill and understanding, she learns to see herself, and this gives her insight into the darkness. About 30 feet worth :p

The shadow dancer learns how to pull forth the darkness within herself and mix it with the light to create illusions. She also learns how to pull forth darkness from the shadow plane, which manifests itself as a shadow creature.

So on and so forth :D


RizzotheRat wrote:


No, let's not be 'dickish' here. Address the point. The part where I said:

Rizzotherat wrote:
If this type of hiding was indeed mundane once activated, then you should be able to describe what is happening without the use of the words "magic"or "supernatural" and then without falling into the trap of calling on key words like camouflage or concealment

"I hide in plain sight."

They can hide in the corner of your eye for all I bloody care.

Quote:
Simply saying they are mundanely invisible doesn't expound.

Because they are hiding, not invisible.

Quote:
Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to come up with a description that will fit the RAW and not raise questions about darkvision or planar connection.

At NO point should Darkvision EVER come up REGARDLESS because Darkvision only lets you see in the dark. That is the only differentiation between Darkvision and normal sight. It conveys no other special abilities - like "auto-perceive" which Blindsense, Blindsight, and Tremorsense do.

Quote:
As for 'effectively invisible'...that's a new one.

If you can't see some one in D&D, they are effectively invisible to you. They are not actually invisible; notice the "effectively" qualifier.


Magicdealer wrote:


As the shadow dancer progresses in skill and understanding, she learns to see herself, and this gives her insight into the darkness. About 30 feet worth :p

Lol! +4

Scarab Sages

RizzotheRat wrote:
If this type of hiding was indeed mundane once activated, then you should be able to describe what is happening without the use of the words "magic"or "supernatural" and then without falling into the trap of calling on key words like camouflage or concealment.
Cartigan wrote:

"I hide in plain sight."

They can hide in the corner of your eye for all I bloody care.

Seriously?

Is that the best you can do?

That's the most evocative description you can come up with, for this oh-so-thematic ability?
This is how you weave worlds of wonder, for your appreciative audience?

Scarab Sages

Magicdealer wrote:

You want flavor? Lets see if we can add some tasty bacon.

The Shadow Dancer is a creature of shadows, of darkness, of the night. The very first level of shadow dancer is symbolic, as the shadow dancer learns how to use the darkness within herself to sympathetically resonate near dim light, and thus darkness everywhere. This resonance allows the shadow dancer to hide, though there be no darkness around him. He hides in the darkness that pervades every living creature. People who fail their perception checks fail to see him because they fail to see themselves.

Now, that's more like it.

We may be onto something here.
This is what the simulationist crowd is talking about.

Descriptive text for abilities is important.
How you describe events matters.


Well the thing is that the description of the ability can vary from campaign to campaign as it is not actually set so far as I can tell. The mechanics on the other hand are.


My shadowdancer uses hide in plain sight by making the dim light 10 feet away make a honking clown noise, causing all enemies in battle to look away in embaressment, giving him the chance to hide.

Guess what?

This is just as valid as any other example on how it works.

Fluff is 100% subjective.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

My shadowdancer uses hide in plain sight by making the dim light 10 feet away make a honking clown noise, causing all enemies in battle to look away in embaressment, giving him the chance to hide.

Guess what?

This is just as valid as any other example on how it works.

Fluff is 100% subjective.

BUT THERE IS NO FACING IN PATHFINDER! HOW CAN THEY LOOK AWAY!?!?!?!?!?

/end hysterical rant

Feel better now?

Oh how i do love me a fluff based flame war. I propose we rename this thread "When fluff and RAW collide"


I'm currently playing a Goblin Rogue (with a few multiclassed abilities) at 9th level with like a g+!!!@ a +37 or something to stealth. (Racial bonus, small size bonus, +10 ring, really high dex, class skill, ect)

I've got a level dip in Shadow Dancer (because it fit's my character) so I've got hide in plain sight via that. My GM has since ruled that I have to be in an area that counts as dim light or darker (so the Paladin's shadow doesn't count).

As a GM I'd say do the following:
-Enemies with scent. O man... 50% miss chance...
-Glitterdust. Enough said.
-Deal with him on his own turf. Last night I had a Rogue go stealth on me and I shat a brick.
-Assign penalties for actions (talking, attacking, ect) if he is breaking the game with it. (Though a +17 isn't game breaking generally)
-Bump the NPCs perception if you feel like he's being a jerk. You ARE the GM :D

Remember, he is a rogue and he IS specializing in something like stealth. As a GM I'd encourage him to play with that bit. Give him challenges that have a stealth option or enemies that have very high perception. I know you are running a module but it might be more fun to tweek it a bit of you are comfortable doing it.

If you change anything- explain to your player before it happens. Let him know what changes are coming a session or two ahead of time. My rule of thumb is also- if I am gonna change something that would invalidate feat/ability score/class level choices that a player made due to mechanics I let them change them to (within reason).

The other route is this:
If it is making the game-play experience not fun, talk with your player about possibly not doing that. Explain to him that he is making the game "not fun" (either for you or others). If he agrees to not do that- it might even be in the cards to reward him in game. (A cool RP thing, a special piece of equipment that offers a new venue for him, ect)

The third option is this:
Give him something that invalidates his stealth tactics but gives him a new (more alluring) way to play. (A glitterdusted item that gives him a bonus to sneak attack damage for example.)


Snorter wrote:
RizzotheRat wrote:
If this type of hiding was indeed mundane once activated, then you should be able to describe what is happening without the use of the words "magic"or "supernatural" and then without falling into the trap of calling on key words like camouflage or concealment.
Cartigan wrote:

"I hide in plain sight."

They can hide in the corner of your eye for all I bloody care.

Seriously?

Is that the best you can do?

That's the most evocative description you can come up with, for this oh-so-thematic ability?
This is how you weave worlds of wonder, for your appreciative audience?

Pardon me for caring more about not being gimped/gimping players than being your personal wordsmith.


To quote my boss, "Did anyone win yet?"


Yknaps the Lesserprechaun wrote:
To quote my boss, "Did anyone win yet?"

I won!


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I imagine HiPS to be like the shadowdancer portrayed in this video.

Going by this flavor-interpretation, those with darkvision wouldn't be able to see the shadowdancer because he looks just like one of the more mundane shadows (only he happens to be creeping 10 feet closer to you).


Ravingdork wrote:

I imagine HiPS to be like the shadowdancer portrayed in this video.

Going by this flavor-interpretation, those with darkvision wouldn't be able to see the shadowdancer because he looks just like one of the more mundane shadows (only he happens to be creeping 10 feet closer to you).

Actually, if that's your view, then I'm not sure how you would reconcile a dwarf looking at him and saying "Hey, that shadowdancer looks just like mundane shadows, I think, but I have never seen mundane shadows because I CANNOT see mundane shadows, so what I really see is a bozo in a black jumpsuit creeping 10 feet closer to me than that well-lit and clarly visible space behind him. I wonder if he is stupid enough to think he is hiding right there in this perfectly visible empy room?"


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I imagine HiPS to be like the shadowdancer portrayed in this video.

Going by this flavor-interpretation, those with darkvision wouldn't be able to see the shadowdancer because he looks just like one of the more mundane shadows (only he happens to be creeping 10 feet closer to you).

Actually, if that's your view, then I'm not sure how you would reconcile a dwarf looking at him and saying "Hey, that shadowdancer looks just like mundane shadows, I think, but I have never seen mundane shadows because I CANNOT see mundane shadows, so what I really see is a bozo in a black jumpsuit creeping 10 feet closer to me than that well-lit and clarly visible space behind him. I wonder if he is stupid enough to think he is hiding right there in this perfectly visible empy room?"

Do you really believe that a dwarf, or any other creature with darkvision, is wholly incapable of seeing shadows?

If so, I am curious to know how you came by that conclusion.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot to say so earlier, but Benge (the aforementioned shadowdancer) appears about 2 minutes into the video.


Actually DM_Blake... if the ability is supposed to be a camouflage ability similar to the Ranger's, then he's changing himself to look like shadow.

Thus, he's camouflaging and hiding against a backdrop of dim light, not using concealment or cover.

If the dwarf can't see shadows (dim light) within his 60' range, then he won't see the shadowdancer, because he looks exactly like shadow. Think of it like an illusion (glamer). He's not covering himself with shadow, he's changing what he looks like to be shadow.

As an aside: I'm thinking the Dwarf can see shadows, he is just not affected by the concealment of them. I'm thinking of it as his normal vision superimposed over his darkvision, seeing both at the same time. When the lights go out, only the darkvision is showing, but if there was some light, and shadows, he can understand that they are there, just that anything concealed by the darkness shows up in his black and white darkvision.

.

Anyways..

For the record, I've always understood that others were thinking of shadow hiding similar to what ravingdork posted there. I'd just like to see it more clearly defined than the old 3.0e wording we have (it was only updated to say Stealth instead of Hide, and dim light.. although even the Assassin didn't get that dim light update).

I'd be fine with shadow "camo" too, I'm just voicing my concern of having clearer rules updated for this decade.

351 to 400 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Dealing with Hide in Plain Sight All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.