Started this in another thread as an aside, but does obscuring mist or blindness for that matter increase movement cost by 2? This is whats suggesting so to me. Thoughts?
|
The core rulebook has specific rules under the "Darkness" section:
For purposes of the following points, a blinded creature is one who simply can’t see through the surrounding darkness .. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Blinded creatures can’t run or charge.
Obscuring mist doesn't make you blind, as you can see 5 feet around you with concealment, which doesn't seem to create a movement penalty. You might not be able to run, depending on the interpretation of "if you can't see where you're going" (p. 188). You can't charge an opponent unless you have line of sight to it.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
But is obscuring mist poor visibilty? (x2 movement cost..no acrobatics check)
|
|
But is obscuring mist poor visibilty? (x2 movement cost..no acrobatics check)
Wow, this could be harsh ..
From the Blind-Fight feat, it appears that a blinded character normally suffers the penalties for both blindness and poor visibility (an Acrobatics check to move more than half speed and double movement cost) and I see no indication that Blind-Fight removes the latter.
From tracking modifiers and the "Wilderness" section, it appears that fog, precipitation or any other effect that prevents characters seeing at least 60 feet may count as poor visibility - but perhaps that's only for the purpose of the Survival skill, not for movement.
Actually, if you have access to it, maybe look at the treatment in
I'd like to add a question to this:
Sleet storm, the spell, makes the ground icy and requires an acrobatics check to move at half speed. But it also blocks all sight. Would this make an additional acrobatics check for poor vision / blindess? And would that poor visibility hampering movement get added on, thus each square taking 2 squares of movement and only being able to move half? I guess that basically what I'm trying to ask is: Is the rules text of sleet storm trying to state the penalties (acro to move / move at half) for poor visibility, or is it in addition to the standard set of rules?
|
|
I'd like to add a question to this:
Sleet storm, the spell, makes the ground icy and requires an acrobatics check to move at half speed. But it also blocks all sight. Would this make an additional acrobatics check for poor vision / blindess? And would that poor visibility hampering movement get added on, thus each square taking 2 squares of movement and only being able to move half? I guess that basically what I'm trying to ask is: Is the rules text of sleet storm trying to state the penalties (acro to move / move at half) for poor visibility, or is it in addition to the standard set of rules?
Blocks all sight = blind, but some creatures might be able to see through a sleet storm. I think the Acrobatics check, which is worse than the one for blindness, is for the icy ground and driving sleet, but if a creature could negate those effects it would still suffer the penalties for blindness and poor visibility.
Blocks all sight = blind, but some creatures might be able to see through a sleet storm. I think the Acrobatics check, which is worse than the one for blindness, is for the icy ground and driving sleet, but if a creature could negate those effects it would still suffer the penalties for blindness and poor visibility.I'd like to add a question to this:
Sleet storm, the spell, makes the ground icy and requires an acrobatics check to move at half speed. But it also blocks all sight. Would this make an additional acrobatics check for poor vision / blindess? And would that poor visibility hampering movement get added on, thus each square taking 2 squares of movement and only being able to move half? I guess that basically what I'm trying to ask is: Is the rules text of sleet storm trying to state the penalties (acro to move / move at half) for poor visibility, or is it in addition to the standard set of rules?
So just to be clear:
They would need two acrobatics checks, one for the spell and one for blindess. If they succeed on the the one vs. the icy terrian they then can move up to half movement. But being blind each square counts as two. So essentially one quarter movement?|
|
Blocks all sight = blind, but some creatures might be able to see through a sleet storm. I think the Acrobatics check, which is worse than the one for blindness, is for the icy ground and driving sleet, but if a creature could negate those effects it would still suffer the penalties for blindness and poor visibility.I'd like to add a question to this:
Sleet storm, the spell, makes the ground icy and requires an acrobatics check to move at half speed. But it also blocks all sight. Would this make an additional acrobatics check for poor vision / blindess? And would that poor visibility hampering movement get added on, thus each square taking 2 squares of movement and only being able to move half? I guess that basically what I'm trying to ask is: Is the rules text of sleet storm trying to state the penalties (acro to move / move at half) for poor visibility, or is it in addition to the standard set of rules?
So just to be clear:
They would need two acrobatics checks, one for the spell and one for blindess. If they succeed on the the one vs. the icy terrian they then can move up to half movement. But being blind each square counts as two. So essentially one quarter movement?
Only one Acrobatics check is needed per round to move across uneven ground (from the skill description), so I'd say only the worst such restriction applies, but it seems to be RAW from the Blind-Fight feat that each square counts double due to poor visibility.
Cute. And I thought it was a great spell when I wasn't taking into account the blind penalty to movement. Thanks. My artic druid who can see through snow and sleet will love you.
It seems odd that the rules force you to move slower just because of poor visibility but it looks like that's the rule. I can see the point of the acrobatics check if you were in unfamiliar territory but I can walk normal speed from one end of my house to the other with no lights on at night and not trip over anything.
Penalties for difficult terrain are obvious but movement penalties for poor visibility just seems strange. It's like saying you can't go out for a jog because it's foggy/raining.
Only one Acrobatics check is needed per round to move across uneven ground (from the skill description), so I'd say only the worst such restriction applies, but it seems to be RAW from the Blind-Fight feat that each square counts double due to poor visibility.
Making a movement action is one action, taking a double move is two separate actions. As acrobatics is part of an action you should be making two rolls (unless you were charging or running if you somehow could in the situation).
As for the hampered movement and difficult terrain rules, they have specific wording saying what stacks (and that it is an exception to the rule where doubling means doubling, not just another factor IE x2 twice turns into x4, not x3) and what doesn't (overlaps).
It seems odd that the rules force you to move slower just because of poor visibility but it looks like that's the rule. I can see the point of the acrobatics check if you were in unfamiliar territory but I can walk normal speed from one end of my house to the other with no lights on at night and not trip over anything.
Penalties for difficult terrain are obvious but movement penalties for poor visibility just seems strange. It's like saying you can't go out for a jog because it's foggy/raining.
The only reason you can do that is because you arefamiliar with the area, if it were some dark and not paved area your foot could catch on something or you miss a step on a tiny dip and you end up sprawled on the ground by walking your normal clip. Heck even in an area people are familiar with they still manage to trip up at times and that is with no pressure on them.
The game rules are forcing you to take a cautious stance when moving in conditions like this. It seems the assumption is your character doesn't want to jog head on into a tree and is taking the time to look around and moving slower to make sure that doesn't happen. If penalties for visibility seem strange, find some way to significantly blur your vision and walk around for a 24 hours, it might put some of it into perspective.
The only reason you can do that is because you arefamiliar with the area, if it were some dark and not paved area your foot could catch on something or you miss a step on a tiny dip and you end up sprawled on the ground by walking your normal clip. Heck even in an area people are familiar with they still manage to trip up at times and that is with no pressure on them.The game rules are forcing you to take a cautious stance when moving in conditions like this. It seems the assumption is your character doesn't want to jog head on into a tree and is taking the time to look around and moving slower to make sure that doesn't happen. If penalties for visibility seem strange, find some way to significantly blur your vision and walk around for a 24 hours, it might put some of it into perspective.
Gee thanks, I never thought of that. I've gone out running on a foggy day without worrying about stumbling over anything that might be in the way.
My opinion is that having the rules FORCE you to move slower in a reduced visibility area is a little weird. A person can run through the fog/darkness all they want if they want to suffer the consequences of doing so. Yes, I said my opinion and how dare I do that in the rules forum. I've already agreed that the rules are the way they are, I'm just offering my opinion on them now. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
Gee thanks, I never thought of that. I've gone out running on a foggy day without worrying about stumbling over anything that might be in the way.My opinion is that having the rules FORCE you to move slower in a reduced visibility area is a little weird. A person can run through the fog/darkness all they want if they want to suffer the consequences of doing so. Yes, I said my opinion and how dare I do that in the rules forum. I've already agreed that the rules are the way they are, I'm just offering my opinion on them now. I humbly beg your forgiveness.
The rules force PC's to do things in ways that aren't always "of choice," are you going to complain every time it happens? Given the rule set we're playing, there are somethings that don't "make sense" all the time but actually don't impact the game play significantly. You can either go with it and enjoy the game for what it is, or get hung up on it I guess. I'd rather enjoy the game.
The person with blind fight can just shut their eyes.
A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).
A moderate wind (11+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell's area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.
This spell does not function underwater.
I don't see anything with this spell slowing your movement. You can still see 5 feet in front of you.
The rules force PC's to do things in ways that aren't always "of choice," are you going to complain every time it happens? Given the rule set we're playing, there are somethings that don't "make sense" all the time but actually don't impact the game play significantly. You can either go with it and enjoy the game for what it is, or get hung up on it I guess. I'd rather enjoy the game.
Actually I do enjoy the game, quite a bit too. I didn't realize voicing my opinion of the oddity of a rule = complaining. You think that having fog forcibly slow your movement doesn't impact game play? To each their own I guess.
I don't see anything with this spell slowing your movement. You can still see 5 feet in front of you.
The fact that poor visibility reduces movement speed is in the additional rules section under tactical movement. The table shows that movement is doubled in areas of poor visibility.
The fact that poor visibility reduces movement speed is in the additional rules section under tactical movement. The table shows that movement is doubled in areas of poor visibility.
AT the same to though, it really doesn't quantify what "reduced visibility" is either... Is it dim lighting? Concealment due to fog? How about rain?
It pretty much leaves it in the DM's hands to adjudicate.
The fact that poor visibility reduces movement speed is in the additional rules section under tactical movement. The table shows that movement is doubled in areas of poor visibility.AT the same to though, it really doesn't quantify what "reduced visibility" is either... Is it dim lighting? Concealment due to fog? How about rain?
It pretty much leaves it in the DM's hands to adjudicate.
Poor Visibility: Anytime characters cannot see at least 60 feet due to reduced visibility conditions, they might become lost. Characters traveling through fog, snow, or a downpour might easily lose the ability to see any landmarks not in their immediate vicinity. Similarly, characters traveling at night might be at risk, too, depending on the quality of their light sources, the amount of moonlight, and whether they have darkvision or low-light vision.
That about sums up all the rules have to say about it.
That about sums up all the rules have to say about it.
Thats fine, but the idea that obscured vision and darkness stack is absurd, especially for someone with blindfight. Its the same penalty trying to stack with itself from essentially the same source, and thats the only time penalties don't stack.
I don't see anything with this spell slowing your movement. You can still see 5 feet in front of you.
The fact that poor visibility reduces movement speed is in the additional rules section under tactical movement. The table shows that movement is doubled in areas of poor visibility.
The thick vapors of obscuring mist make it possible to miss someone standing five feet away: That sounds like pretty poor visibility. It seems reasonable that most people trying to find their way through the mists would need to slow down.
Despite this, sometimes the rules don't model the way the players or GM feel things "should be". A player might feel that his particularly observant or agile character should have a chance to get through faster. A challenging Perception ("I noticed the area's layout before the spell hit.") or Acrobatics check ("I rush through, relying on my superior balance and agility to tumble over obstacles that might trip me up.") each seem a reasonable way to model that challenge. If both the GM and players agree that's appropriate, then go for it!
|
|
I don't see anything with this spell slowing your movement. You can still see 5 feet in front of you.The fact that poor visibility reduces movement speed is in the additional rules section under tactical movement. The table shows that movement is doubled in areas of poor visibility.The thick vapors of obscuring mist make it possible to miss someone standing five feet away: That sounds like pretty poor visibility. It seems reasonable that most people trying to find their way through the mists would need to slow down.
So would you rule that visual conditions in a square that provide concealment (generally dim light, for creatures without darkvision, and fog as dense as an obscuring mist) should count as poor visibility for that square? That seems like a fair interpretation to me. I only hesitate to offer it on the Rules forum because the description of concealment definitely doesn't include this as written.
Thats fine, but the idea that obscured vision and darkness stack is absurd, especially for someone with blindfight. Its the same penalty trying to stack with itself from essentially the same source, and thats the only time penalties don't stack.
I would counter-argue that blind-fight relies on non-visual cues, like hearing an opponent breathing, the clank of their armor as they move, or the sudden exhalation of breath just as they're about to attack. Given that the log concealed by the darkness does none of those things, I don't see why blind-fight would allow you to avoid tripping over it if you fail your acrobatics check.
Blind-fight is specifically for fighting. It's not "navigate blindly". For that, you want blindsense or blindsight.
Mind you, I agree with you that obscured vision and darkness shouldn't stack -- you should simply take the worst modifier.
Blind-fight is specifically for fighting. It's not "navigate blindly". For that, you want blindsense or blindsight.
Blind-Fight (Combat)
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Its dual use technology.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.Right. If you are blinded and you make an Acrobatics check, you can move your full speed. Blind-Fight lets you succeed automatically on this Acrobatics check.
*looks sheepish* Well, I feel silly now. I definitely shouldn't try to state rules while away from rulebooks. *grin*