"As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer..."
As far as I can tell, it means that the shadow or area of dim light (or dimmer than that, such as dark or obscured) has to be within 10 feet of the dancer.
It does not read to me that the shadow has to be 10 feet deep, or else it would read, "As long as she is within an area of dim light as least 10 feet in depth or breadth, a shadowdancer..."
I'm not an official rules lawyer at all, but I just can't understand what the difficulty is people seem to have with this ability. Maybe I'm just too dense.
Pathfinder has very clear rules about light sources: they give off normal light to x distance, then increased light that much again further out. Normally, if you have no obstruction to use as cover, you can only use stealth in dim light or less. The Hide in Plain Sight ability simply means that you can use stealth without cover in bright light, so long as there is a square of dim light no more than 10 feet away.
Completely dark and empty cavern. I light a torch. Bright light 20 feet away, dim light another twenty feet away. Normal people can't use stealth within 20 feet of the torch. Shadowdancers can't use stealth within 10 feet of torch, but are able to use it between 10 and 20 feet away.
Honestly, what is the issue here?
If it helps you, here is the language from the 3.5 class description. That the meaning is consistent across the games seems to support your opinion.
"As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."
I need to know what interpretation is correct and the only way the GM will be satisfied with any interpretation is if it comes from an official source.
Have you tried the "My interpretation is you're a jerk" and walking "official response"?
Don't take shadowdancer with this GM if you intend to play under this DM. Clearly he doesn't like the class.
Especially if he's making an argument based on being an English major. Hell, if anyone made that kind of argument to me as a DM I would stand up, pack up my stuff, and leave the game. Sometimes DMs need to be reminded that the players can always stop playing.
Also, you might consider responding with "That word, I don't think it means what you think it means...."
I am the rules lawyer, and Pathfinder uses terms in a way not commonly used in everyday language. It does not take an English Major to notice that.<--Not being snarky, just point out a fact
Also: If I am within 10 feet of another person does that mean I am inside of them? <--You should really ask him that. The word "car" can be traded for the word "person" if needed.
edit: I am not an official Paizo employee. I realized that may have been a real question.
It's pretty clear. If a shadow is with in 10 feet of her then it works. If she must be inside of a shadow it would have said "While inside a shadow"
The GM just clearly does not want this ability used.
So, sitting next to my wife on the couch means I'm inside her. Awesome.
That is awesome. you might want to discourage other folks from sitting next to her however.
I think your DM might want to crack open his dictionary, English major or not (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/within):
with·in (w-n, wth-)
adv.
1. In or into the inner part; inside.
2. Inside the mind, heart, or soul; inwardly.
prep.
1. In the inner part or parts of; inside: resentment seething within him.
2.
a. Inside the limits or extent of in time or distance: arrived within two days; stayed within earshot; within ten miles of home.
b. Inside the fixed limits of; not beyond: lived within her income.
c. In the scope or sphere of: acted within the law; within the medical profession.
d. Inside a specified amount or degree: The team had pulled to within five points of winning.
n.
An inner position, place, or area: treachery from within.
Taking the ability description in context should be easy at this point. If he still has a problem, he should check out definition 2a or 2d as both are the most appropriate in this case.
That is awesome. you might want to discourage other folks from sitting next to her however.Egads, my wife is a whore!
Wait.
I'M A WHORE TOO! D8
No,no. Your not being paid so that makes you a slut.
Yes, yes you are
That is awesome. you might want to discourage other folks from sitting next to her however.Egads, my wife is a whore!
Wait.
I'M A WHORE TOO! D8
i spit out my iced tea at this exchange from you two.
well played TOZ and seeker.
|
Please deliver this message to your DM for me.
"Get a new major. With your obviously lacking skill-set in relation to the English language, I can see only failure on your current path."
Feel free to liberally sprinkle with expletives, as, believe you me, I would.
/rant
now I shall go bang my head against a wall to make the hurting stop.
Graywulfe
P.S. Find better people to game with
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all... please avoid being jerks. I know this is the internet, but I like to think that THIS corner of the internet, Paizo.com, has friendly folks and not mean people.
Second of all: In order to use hide in plain sight, the shadow dancer need only be within 10 feet of dim light. The shadows do not have to be 10 feet deep.
And this is hardly overbalanced. A character has to be relatively high level to get this ability, whereas a 3rd level wizard can cast invisibility and effectively AUTOMATICALLY hide in plain sight. The shadow dancer has to rely on the result of her skill check. In a lot of ways, hide in plain sight is not nearly as potent a power as a 2nd level spell. Being able to use it all the time is the whole point of the class.
|
|
I suppose I was a jerk in my previous post. There are indeed nicer ways to point out that the DM was grossly misinterpreting the rule and in no way could I see his interpretation being supported by the English language.
To me the DM was being a jerk and calling on his, incomplete, education as justification. At least I presume that his education is not yet complete as most people, in my experience, who have received a degree would state that "I have a Bachelors in English," not that "I am an English major." Either way calling on that authority is rude and condescending in my opinion and being incorrect when calling on it just makes one look like a buffoon. One need not have a Bachelors in English to interpret that sentence.
As to my statement, "Find better people to game with" Yeah that was rude and uncalled for, for two reasons. Number one, the rest of the players did not deserve that snipe in any way and had done nothing that I am aware of to warrant a blast like that. Of course when I wrote it I was only meaning the DM but I phrased it poorly. Secondly, The DM is not necessarily a bad DM or a bad person, , but rather has simply made a poor decision and engaged in jerk-like behavior in defense of that decision. However the point I was intending to send was that in a similar situation all things being equal, upon hearing my DM condescend to me with a justification based on his major, I would have gathered my materials and left. Only returning upon recieving, both for myself and the rest of the group, a proper appology from the DM for being a jerk.
Lastly, I lost my temper I generally do not post truly mean posts like that. People who do that kind of stuff really piss me off, but usually I just rant at my screen. It felt good to type what I was thinking for a change and I still feel relief for having said what I did. Lots of people are far harsher when it comes to their posts belittling people for differences of opinion, when the person they are belittling did not even engage in rude behavior first.
Final Caveat, I am not an English Major, nor do I have a degree of any kind in English.
|
|
Good on ya, James, I opened this thread and couldn't belive the responses this cat received. I'm known to be a smart-alek on occasion, but c'mon, guys...
So, an alternate way (not that I'm saying it's a better way) of phrasing this aspect of this ability would be to say:
"In order to use this ability a Shadowdancer need only to be standing in a square situated no more than 10 feet away from a square categorized as having dim lighting."
Would that be correct?
I am looking for an official interpretation of the Hide in Plain Sight rule.
A player in my group has made a Shadowdancer and our GM is interpreting the Hide is Plain Sight (Su) ability as having to be ten feet inside a shadow.
All the players believe the interpretation is that the character must be at a minimum of ten feet from a shadow in order to use this ability.
The GM refuses to budge from his interpretation of the ability as "I am an English major and as such the most qualified to interpret this ability".
Either BA in English are REALLY easy to get or your GM is being an asshat,
I've always wondered about that question myself.
Personally, I've always interpreted it as "no more than 10 feet from the nearest shadow/dim light" (depending on the game version), but I've always seen the other interpretation when I've read it too.
I've always wondered about that question myself.
Personally, I've always interpreted it as "no more than 10 feet from the nearest shadow/dim light" (depending on the game version), but I've always seen the other interpretation when I've read it too.
Don't talk about "nearest shadow", though, because that's when people start suggesting the foolishness of walking around an open field with a kite to make a shadow to hide in, or tossing a rock and torch into a dungeon room to make a shadow to hide in. The ability depends on squares with dim lightning, not three-inch shadows.
I don't think your DM is doing it to be a jerk, I just think he wants to feel like his degree is worth something, HIYOOOOOOOOOOO!
|
|
Either BA in English are REALLY easy to get or your GM is being an asshat,I am looking for an official interpretation of the Hide in Plain Sight rule.
A player in my group has made a Shadowdancer and our GM is interpreting the Hide is Plain Sight (Su) ability as having to be ten feet inside a shadow.
All the players believe the interpretation is that the character must be at a minimum of ten feet from a shadow in order to use this ability.
The GM refuses to budge from his interpretation of the ability as "I am an English major and as such the most qualified to interpret this ability".
I know which reason I'm gravitating towards...
|
By RAW, you need to be within 10 feet of dim light...not a shadow. Using your own shadow was a left over from cut and paste of the old ability, which used shadows, not dim light. The issue with using shadows was determining which way shadows would fall based on lighting conditions, which made the DM job hell and the end result was just a bunch of handwaving. So if you just ignore the whole shadow buisness and just use within 10 feet of dim light, the DM doesn't have to pull out specialized geometry tools to figure out where you can hide in plain sight and you all can just get on with your game.
I need to know what interpretation is correct and the only way the GM will be satisfied with any interpretation is if it comes from an official source.
The GM is the only official source while the game is running. If your group doesn't have that bond of trust between GM and player that everyone will have fun around the table, then you have a problem you need to talk about.
I need to know what interpretation is correct and the only way the GM will be satisfied with any interpretation is if it comes from an official source.The GM is the only official source while the game is running. If your group doesn't have that bond of trust between GM and player that everyone will have fun around the table, then you have a problem you need to talk about.
Well, he got his official source from Jacobs. And as for the the GM being the only official source...well, that seems kind of draconian. Rules are there for a reason. I agree that house rules supersede RAW. But one may question a GM decision outside of the game. And I am pretty sure this forum is outside of thier game.
That being said, I have gotten up from table and walked out of game with what I thought were crazy rules. Didnt argue.. just politely excused myself. Oh, and I agree with most posters, if your DM maintains his odd interpretation of the rule, DO NOT PLAY this class.
wasgreg
|
|
Not to be critical of the Paizo forum support but... Everyone's favourite English-Major DM read this thread, flew in to an unstoppable DM rage and vindictively killed my character! See what your forum-hate hath wrought?! The blood of the innocent PC is on your hands! For-shame!
1. Why hasn't your group revoked his DMing privileges?
2. If you are seriously blaming us for his actions, I feel sorry for you.
3. If he wants to check back in, I have a message for him.
Grow the hell up. Using your game to 'punish' your friends for things other people said about you is immature and an abuse of the trust they placed in you. Put yourself on the other side of the screen and answer yourself honestly 'would I put up with this?'
Don't talk about "nearest shadow", though, because that's when people start suggesting the foolishness of walking around an open field with a kite to make a shadow to hide in, or tossing a rock and torch into a dungeon room to make a shadow to hide in. The ability depends on squares with dim lightning, not three-inch shadows.I've always wondered about that question myself.
Personally, I've always interpreted it as "no more than 10 feet from the nearest shadow/dim light" (depending on the game version), but I've always seen the other interpretation when I've read it too.
I did specifically state "(depending on the game version)" as 3.5e said "nearest shadow" and PRPG says "area of dim light" so I was speaking generally about the wording of both versions.
Even when it did say "nearest shadow" in the 3.5e rules I always interpreted that to mean "nearest shadow of sufficient volume to offer coverage if you were crouching in it."
This is not the place to argue about the "nearest shadow" though as those are deprecated rules and PRPG uses Dim Light instead.
The Dim Light wording does make it hard to attack anyone with a torch or any kind of light source though, whereas before the rules allowed a character to hide in the shadow of the person who was being attacked because they expressly stated that you could not hide in your own shadow but didn't say anything about hiding in the shadows of allies or enemies. Now you can't really close to melee range on anyone with a light source.
I believe the appropriet response is: LOL!
I second this. LOL!
Thanx!
Hawk
|
|
2. If you are seriously blaming us for his actions, I feel sorry for you.TOZ, he was pulling a "you" (i.e. being kinda silly), then he was going on to say he is going to further antagonize the English major by making another character that uses hide in plain sight.
:)
Point 1 still stands. If I were at the table, I'd say 'I'm leaving, anyone that wants to play with a reasonable DM, grab your dice and follow me.'
I had to make Point 2 on the off chance he was being serious. I have no idea what a 'Dark Assassin' is. :P
And seriously, point 3 is 'his DM is a dick'.
(Former) Druid from Polish-Jack's group here.
Not to be critical of the Paizo forum support but... Everyone's favourite English-Major DM read this thread, flew in to an unstoppable DM rage and vindictively killed my character! See what your forum-hate hath wrought?! The blood of the innocent PC is on your hands! For-shame!
I'm thinkin' of rollin' Shadow Assassin next.
I'd let this DM know in no uncertain terms that he is no longer going to DM. If he gets vindictive as a player, then he can find another game. This is unacceptable behavior from an adult. If he wants to act like a child, then maybe he needs a time out.
|
|
The GM refuses to budge from his interpretation of the ability as "I am an English major and as such the most qualified to interpret this ability".
I call folks like him an 'Over Educated Douche Bag'. I find that many of them rely on their reputations as an intelligent person and count on no one challenging ridiculous statements like the above. Unfortunately, he's running the game and regardless of interpretation, his decision stands. Find a new GM, let him interpret that. ;)
You can find a wide selection of posts on this subject, I won't even begin to re-hash the rule.
hahHHAHAHAHAHAhahhah
Well it seems to me that being an English major sucks so frickin bad that interpreting D&D is ALL_HE_HAS.
Hey.. wait: I'm an English major... (this now takes on some humiliation... it was with honors, ok?)
The GM refuses to budge from his interpretation of the ability as "I am an English major and as such the most qualified to interpret this ability".
"within ten feet of"
"at least ten feet within"
Let me see if my 5 yr old knows the difference....
Well this guy is obviously an english major since he can't do math.
Within 10 feet of a shadow is not the same as being in 10 feet of shadow.
Heck even a philosophy major could have explained that.
A poly sci major would have recongized the majority opinion here and accepted defeat (or changed position with his constituents).
Heck even a philosophy major could have explained that.
... or the janitor.
... or the janitor.
Heck even a philosophy major could have explained that.
Aren't they the same person?
Just one of life's big mysteries to discuss during your next work day!