|
This has been covered in so many threads. Really, the core of it comes down to whether you believe you are denied your dex against things you can't see or not.
Some stuff in the book supports this. Blindsense mentions that "A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see." Of course we know how Invisibility also works. The question is, why are these two like this?
Well, it just makes sense.
Ask yourself this: What's the difference between these two (in ravingdork's example, we'll assume the sky is very dark due to cloud cover or what have you):
A. An archer 100+ feet in the air that made his Stealth check and you couldn't see anyways. It's pitch black, he's way the heck up, you have no idea where he is.
B. That same archer but with Invisibility cast on him.
From what I understand, some of you are saying that enemies fighting B would be denied their Dex bonus to AC, but not enemies fighting A.
Why? What's the difference? In neither case can they see the opponent, it just so happens that B has Invisibility cast (which doesn't matter, since they couldn't see him even if he was without said spell).
It's a GM call in the end. Personally, from all the discussion I've heard, I make the call that if you succeed on your Stealth check, then you can treat opponents as if they were denied their Dex bonus.
If you can't be seen, then for all game mechanics, you may as well be Invisible.
RD you were NOT invisible.
Not. Period.
You were in concealment as clearly stated in RAW.
I have already posted, in full, the RAW entry that covers what you were doing.
You were not in 'total darkness', and there's no way you were unless you were striking on a thickly cloud covered moonless night, which there's very little chance of happening.
THIS is what you were:
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
This means that you were simply able to obtain 20% cover. NOTHING MORE.
It is also likely that the targets may well have been ALSO granted 20% cover UNLESS they were all within TWENTY FEET of a torch. Which means a couple would have been fair targets, but most would have cover too.
So not only would they have had full dex, and not be flatfooted and able to respond, they'd have been firing back in cover.
YOU WERE NOT:
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.
There would be a 3% chance of a moonless night, and for it to be clouded over too? maybe a ONE PERCENT chance? at best?
Invisibile you were not, you weren't even stealthed.
If you can't be seen, then for all game mechanics, you may as well be Invisible.
And in the 3% chance of meteorological conditions giving him the circumstances to do it, he would be FINE. Until arrow shot 1, where he breaks his stealth.
Wow, those are some dumb soldiers/bandits. Nope, should not have been flatfooted after the surprise round,
They were never flat footed after the first round. I misspoke. They did, however lose their Dex modifier since they could not find me on account of my total concealment.
and they most assuredly were NOT blind.
I never said they were blind.
You had concealment (perhaps full, most likely partial) that is all.
That's right.
They are still quite capable of dodging.
They were. I missed about half my attacks (maybe a little more).
Why your GM didn't have them take cover, extinguish some or all lights, reveal you with a bullseye lantern or other means, and finally, fall back to the bosses is beyond me.
Didn't read much of the thread did you? They DID go to cover, they couldn't extinguish all the light quickly AND fend off my allies, they had torches rather than lanterns (as far as I know), and they couldn't fall back to their boss because their boss was ordering them to go out and fight (he likely would have killed them had they tried to hide behind him).
Sounds like you have one unimaginative DM if he let your strategy last for more than 6 rounds.
If they can't find me than they can't find me (and, in fact, they did once or twice, thereby forcing me to move further out of range).
By RAW, he would have had partial concealment, and ironically, so would they.
They were standing in bright light, so no concealment for them. You yourself, "ironically," showed that I could have had total concealment.
You were in concealment as clearly stated in RAW.
I have already posted, in full, the RAW entry that covers what you were doing.You were not in 'total darkness', and there's no way you were unless you were striking on a thickly cloud covered moonless night, which there's very little chance of happening.
THIS is what you were:
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
This means that you were simply able to obtain 20% cover. NOTHING MORE.
It is also likely that the targets may well have been ALSO granted 20% cover UNLESS they were all within TWENTY FEET of a torch. Which means a couple would have been fair targets, but most would have cover too.
So not only would they have had full dex, and not be flatfooted and able to respond, they'd have been firing back in cover.
YOU WERE NOT:
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.There would be a 3% chance of a moonless night, and for it to be clouded over too? maybe a ONE PERCENT chance? at best?
Invisibile you were not, you weren't even stealthed.
*sighs*
The state of the environment is wholly up to our GM, not you. We made it very clear to our GM that we wanted to wait for a perfect night to attack, one in which we would use cover of darkness. All you've shown is that it IS possible to get total concealment in the right conditions.
And in the 3% chance of meteorological conditions giving him the circumstances to do it, he would be FINE. Until arrow shot 1, where he breaks his stealth.
If you can't be seen, then for all game mechanics, you may as well be Invisible.
I was never stealthed, merely had total concealment. I even called out to my comrades once or twice (which gave away my position and forced me to quickly move to a new location).
*sighs*The state of the environment is wholly up to our GM, not you.
Umm don't you mean it's not up to 'you'?
That the GM managed to give you the 1 in 100 chance freebie that it happened to be a cloudy no moon light, and that you were thus granted full immunity to reprisal from an apparently incompetent enemy that similarly had THEIR concelament handwaved is just too incredible to believe.
I don't know what you want us to say other than:
Congratulations on getting the GM to agree to such ridiculous rulings completely contra to RAW and using the most contrived meteorological conditions that could have been possible - in fact the GM may as well have rolled up a Character too and participated in the cull!
1 in 100
1 in 100
1 in 100
How many MONTHS did you wait?
*sighs*The state of the environment is wholly up to our GM, not you.
Umm don't you mean it's not up to 'you'?
That the GM managed to give you the 1 in 100 chance freebie that it happened to be a cloudy no moon light, and that you were thus granted full immunity to reprisal from an apparently incompetent enemy that similarly had THEIR concelament handwaved is just too incredible to believe.
I don't know what you want us to say other than:
Congratulations on getting the GM to agree to such ridiculous rulings completely contra to RAW and using the most contrived meteorological conditions that could have been possible - in fact the GM may as well have rolled up a Character too and participated in the cull!
1 in 100
1 in 100
1 in 100How many MONTHS did you wait?
Repeating something does not make your point any stronger.
We waited 7 days, though we could have waited for any amount of time needed (assuming the fort defenders didn't come upon us at some point--which would have been an ideal situation for us as they would no longer have the advantage of their fort).
It has all been covered.
It's not that it isn't dark and cloudy, its simply that its not 'dark, cloudy, moon and star free'. Maybe if you had all the time in the world to wait for this extremely rare event then sure, but otherwise, it is a typical night under typical conditions and you would have been, as per RAW, in DIM LIGHT.
You would have been granted the cover as such (20%).
The battlemap would have been NEATLY drawn with the light sources indicated, and unless you were hitting a phone box, there would have been a fair number you simply wouldn't have had such clear shots at. As per RAW they too would be in dim lighting - if it were a fort, and not a house.
They would not have been flat footed, nor would you be entitled to attacks as an invisible foe - because you weren't invisible. Hard to see sure, but not invisible. You can claim you were in a REALLY dark patch, but I could simply point out that the arrows have to travel through a lit area, and become visible as they fly into the lit conditions. You are firing arrows, not bullets.
However that would be a moot Meta-gamey point, as yuo would have only been in dim light/partial cover, not 'pitch blackness' which is what you would have required to stay unseen.
Similarly, their defenses would have been a fair bit smarter.
To qualify for 100% complete darkness you require not only the absence of the moon, but the stars as well - something even you claim you weren't particularly specifying you were looking for.
So no, I wouldn't have handed you a free ride.
|
It has all been covered.
It's not that it isn't dark and cloudy, its simply that its not 'dark, cloudy, moon and star free'. Maybe if you had all the time in the world to wait for this extremely rare event then sure, but otherwise, it is a typical night under typical conditions and you would have been, as per RAW, in DIM LIGHT.
You would have been granted the cover as such (20%).
The battlemap would have been NEATLY drawn with the light sources indicated, and unless you were hitting a phone box, there would have been a fair number you simply wouldn't have had such clear shots at. As per RAW they too would be in dim lighting - if it were a fort, and not a house.
They would not have been flat footed, nor would you be entitled to attacks as an invisible foe - because you weren't invisible. Hard to see sure, but not invisible. You can claim you were in a REALLY dark patch, but I could simply point out that the arrows have to travel through a lit area, and become visible as they fly into the lit conditions. You are firing arrows, not bullets.
However that would be a moot Meta-gamey point, as yuo would have only been in dim light/partial cover, not 'pitch blackness' which is what you would have required to stay unseen.
Similarly, their defenses would have been a fair bit smarter.
To qualify for 100% complete darkness you require not only the absence of the moon, but the stars as well - something even you claim you weren't particularly specifying you were looking for.
So no, I wouldn't have handed you a free ride.
+1. Covered most the key points I was going to make.
Ravingdork -
It's a Stealth/invisibility rules query: you're right, the rules are messy, and there are certainly multiple interpretations possible.
I think your GM handled it fine. He ruled that you got total concealment light conditions - I've seen nights like that (not in the big city, admittedly: out in the hills, sure).
If you had total concealment, you were not visible. If you were not visible, you were invisible.
What the game really needs for this: an entry for Mundane Invisibility in the Invisibility (Special Abilities) section, and that concept as a consistent usage elsewhere (eg in Stealth and Perception). Not so hard. For example:
"Mundane invisibility only exists for a perceptor so long as a presence has total cover or concealment relative to it. Should a perceptor reduce the relative mundane cover or concealment to less than total (by opening a door, for example, or lighting a torch), mundane invisibility is immediately negated, though a creature might still be capable of using Stealth if partial cover or concealment remains. Creatures and objects in complete darkness, for example, gain mundane invisibility to those lacking Darkvision, but only so long as the darkness is complete. Mundane invisibility is not affected by magical countermeasures (such as See Invisibility or Dispel Magic), unless such measures reduce or remove the total cover or concealment that prevent visible perception in the first place."
(this is from a workthrough of the Stealth/Invisibility rules I'm tinkering with).
Anyway, sounds fun. Nice one :)
Thanks Porpentine.
I don't mind others disagreeing with me, or even thinking I'm wrong, but when they lose all sense of civility and become hostile for no apparent reason, it just really pushes my buttons.
Thank you for your civility.
I still beleive that your DM played it easier than it was meant to be.
Which is his right if he wants to do it that way. The most important thing for a game is that it is fun for all involved.
I just have the most fun when my characters are up against the ropes and everything is semi realistic.
I guess I can't understand how you moved to a position of being able to shoot foes behind cover when the levitate spell reads as follows.
You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).
Total concealment, not total cover. RD's archer was levitating up into it, not behind it.
I've been thinking about this a bit, though (because of the Stealth/Invisibility workthrough), and I will say this: if you allow the concept of mundane invisibility into the game clearly, it does make darkness a potent tactical and strategic tool. Sim-wise, the retort to that is; darkness should be powerful! An archer shoots at you out of the deep darkness, what are you gonna do? A grue's trying to eat you and you've got no torches, hard luck man.
Point is, if you want mundane invisibility, it affects Stealth, the whole shebang. If mundane invisibility is clearly set out, these things happen:
(1) You're using the sense/pinpoint rules to locate presences in darkness, behind walls etc. That's how invisibility works, and it's a lot tougher than a straight opposed Perception-Stealth check.
(2) Darkness and total cover rock.
(3) Darkvision goes up in value. Low-light a bit.
(4) And in houserule terms...you have to sort out some old junk to fit the general logic. The invisibility sense/pinpoint modifiers need adjusting, Stealth and Perception need to be rewritten, Hide in Plain Sight needs to be dealt with (and generally lowered in power or split, since it logically confers mundane invisibility, which is much harder to pierce than straight Stealth). Bluff, Ventriloquism, Camouflage, tower shields, arrow slits, See Invisibility, True Seeing - those all need looking at and tinkering with to fit the general concept.
I think it's worth it, because I think mundane invisibility makes sense. But it feeds straight into the whole Stealth debate, and the whole thing really needs fixing if you're going to apply mundane invsibility consistently.
I still beleive that your DM played it easier than it was meant to be.
Are you familiar with the encounter in question?
I just have the most fun when my characters are up against the ropes and everything is semi realistic.
We were up against the ropes. And it was fun! :)
I guess I can't understand how you moved to a position of being able to shoot foes behind cover when the levitate spell reads as follows.
You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).
If you levitate high enough, vertical walls don't really provide much, if any, cover. A roof on the other hand...those were annoying! The fort had both. The walls initially did stop my attack. Then I got high enough that I could simply shoot over them at an angle (going from total cover to normal cover). Several enemies disappeared wholly indoors. I never got to shoot any of them unless they came out again (only one was dumb enough to do so if I recall correctly).
I never did move laterally, for no lack of trying. I actually tied a rope to an arrow and shot it inside the fort (25 to hit) in the hopes it would anchor well enough for me to pull myself along laterally. Unfortunately, the GM ruled that the arrow hit a solid wall and shattered, despite my high attack roll. I pulled on the rope anyways hopping it would snag on something, like a narrow gap in the logs making up the palisade's walls, but nothing worked.
I only ever moved up and down the entire fight. It's how one of the exterior scouts found me and shot me twice (and nearly killed my horse).
In hindsight, I should have tied myself to my horse and had him move me laterally, like a balloon (we've actually done this in previous encounters).
|
|
....replied to my post...
Based on how this thread progressed, I will be responding indirectly in the thread on invisibility and total concealment rather than here. Edit: the thread is here.
Given you were 65ft away, let's say that had a 20ft wall (small fort). You would have to be 280 feetup, 70ft out.... making you 315ft away from your target to begin to remove full cover.
So, 315ft with a longbow is a -6 to your roll for distance penalties.
Targets behind cover also have concealment, so 20% miss chance.
Targets behind cover get +4 to their AC.
So lets say that they had medium armor on, estimating their AC at 15 with a shield, but no dex bonus (flat footed). Now they have an AC of 19, with a 20% miss chance and a -6 to your rolls. You're attack bonus at level 4 is probably 4+5+1+1 = +10ish if you are a fighting class.
So, you are at +4 vs a 19 AC with a 20% miss chance. I might rule them prone vs your attacks since you are attacking directly above them, adding -4 to your rolls to hit them again. Moving any further down grants them total cover.
Not to mention, dousing the lights would be the first thing they did against you, putting you on even ground with them... except you said two of them had darkvision, so advantage = them. So to even target the right squares you have to make a spot check in darkness, while they are hiding, at a +31 to the DC (+1 per 10 feet).
This is why people are wondering how this tactic was sound...
Given you were 65ft away, let's say that had a 20ft wall (small fort). You would have to be 280 feetup, 70ft out.... making you 315ft away from your target to begin to remove full cover.
So, 315ft with a longbow is a -6 to your roll for distance penalties.
Targets behind cover also have concealment, so 20% miss chance.
Targets behind cover get +4 to their AC.So lets say that they had medium armor on, estimating their AC at 15 with a shield, but no dex bonus (flat footed). Now they have an AC of 19, with a 20% miss chance and a -6 to your rolls. You're attack bonus at level 4 is probably 4+5+1+1 = +10ish if you are a fighting class.
So, you are at +4 vs a 19 AC with a 20% miss chance. I might rule them prone vs your attacks since you are attacking directly above them, adding -4 to your rolls to hit them again. Moving any further down grants them total cover.
Not to mention, dousing the lights would be the first thing they did against you, putting you on even ground with them... except you said two of them had darkvision, so advantage = them. So to even target the right squares you have to make a spot check in darkness, while they are hiding, at a +31 to the DC (+1 per 10 feet).
This is why people are wondering how this tactic was sound...
What kind of cove do you think they would have had if the wall they were hiding behind was only ~8 feet? Most of them hid behind the internal structures of the fort, rather than hugging against the fort wall itself (which would have been more ideal, but gave them no real means of defending the fort from the intruders on the ground).
We have never used any kind of a "vertical prone" house rule in our games.
Two of the defenders did indeed have darkvision (we think from magic items), but only one was in the fort. The other was outside trying to shoot me. The exterior spotter did find me quickly enough (in no small part due to my horse). However it was a simple matter of me levitating high enough as to be out of his darkvision range. Bastard still got a lucky shot with his bow though.
The rest of the fort defenders were humans with no ability to see in the dark. Turning out the lights wouldn't have helped them at all. When your fighting force consists of ~18 men who are night blind and 2 men who aren't, it would be foolish to cut out the lights while being attacked me thinks. (Which is why we planned the attack the way they did.)
If it was just me, it would be a fine tactic to hunker down in the darkness, but not so here since they were being actively flanked and attacked (3 on the ground on one side of the fort and me up in the air on the other side of the fort).
My favored enemy bonuses and archery feats went a long ways towards making hitting the enemy possible. Most of the time, I was fighting against a -3 to -6 penalty. If I didn't roll a 15+, I usually didn't hit.
Also, where are you getting the 20% miss chance from? Most of the time they were in the light. Are you assuming the enemy turned the lights out in your example then?
EDIT: Ah, you said its from the cover. Unless it is total cover granting total concealment, since when does cover grant concealment?
I removed a couple posts. That kind of posturing is unnecessary.
Moonless nights account for 3% of nights, 13 a year to be exact.
Of that, you would GENEROUSLY assume 50/50 chance of FULL (not partial mind you, but FULL) cloud cover - equalling on BEST odds 1.5% - so maybe SIX times a year.Exactly as rare as I make out.
Unless, of course, you wait for the moon to set before you set out on your mission (or act before the moon rises) in which case "moonless" nights are a lot more common.
You're trying too hard to pelt RD with stuff that's really a minor issue at best. Being far enough out from the target and the radius of the light and you're pretty much in total darkness (especially if your target's night vision is compromised by being within the dim light radius), certainly total enough to qualify as better than dim light.
Look, first of all, pathfinder rules for stealth are stupid.
We ran into the same thing with a 13th level rogue in the second darkness campaign, she was basically, constantly "invisible".
it was really kinda of annoying.
she was 12th level rogue 1st level shadow dancer. she could his in plain sight and had 13 ranks in stealth a high dex and stealth as a skill focus. she had a cloak of elven kind too.
her results for stealth were often high 30s
none had a perception to match that, so it was almost invisible at will.
frustrating.
of course it is a 13th lev character.
anyway...
invisibility is useful for "up in your face".... ie, bilbo baggins.
stealth for someone far enough away to get range penalties from a long bow?
you can hear SCA bows from hundreds of feet away?? REALLY...i have never seen an sca bow even be able to shoot hat far.
so no... you can hear bows from hundred of feet away.
Plenty of documented historical cases from those who have been fired upon by non modern bows. what they do hear is the incomming arrow as it approaches (described as a whistle or a whine depending on who's version you are reading)
now... if you were silent/still in the forest could you maybe hear the first bow string? yea maybe, I dont know.
but certainly not after the shouting and the moving and other sounds of battle.
and certainly not with other PC's calling out spells etc.
I think what Dork describes is perfectly fine, those people in the fort would have been focused on the barbarian with the battle axe in their face, so in that case the 'sniper' would never have had a chance to be searched for or given much thought to being countered against.
Classic infiltration tactics used as long ago as rogers rangers in 1775.
"snipers" were musketmen so good they could hit a small bird (apparently pigeon sized) at range. Yep snipes are extinct, not a fictional bird, just really yummy. so there arent anymore (just incase people didnt know the origin of the word 'sniper;)
so these 'snipers' from rogers rangers, would (wait for it) climb into trees, with the second man who would pass him muskets and reload old ones, whilst the remainder of the rangers would crawl up close to the walls of the fort.
Snipers opened fire, killing guys on walls. Commander would get ticked and order a phalanx of soldiers to go out and clear the snipers out (thinking there was only a handful of them) open the main gate at which time the rangers would pop a volley from their own muskets at in your face point blank range and rush the open gate to engage with dirk and hatchet (melee combat).
Meanwhile snipers would continue to fire from the trees, basically unabated because now the enemy had troops in their face. Simpers would continue to fire on targets of opportunity, mainly officers trying to organize a defense and give orders.
This text book assault on a fixed position, developed by rogers rangers, over a hundred years ago, and still used in modern warfare by current army rangers and snipers , wasnt ACTUALLY developed BY roger and his rangers, who had adopted american indian fighting techniques, and apparently this same technique was used by the native tribes (wait for it) with bows and arrows from long distance. in exactly the same manner.
by the way, Ive spent a decade in the army airborne, so i know these things not only from study unit history, but from experiencing them myself.
Also, if it is insanely difficult to pick out the sound of a single rifle at long distance during a fight, how the heck could you hear a bow at long distance during a fight?
one final point, if all the people who were being hit by bow fire ran inside so they wouldnt get hit by bows anymore. what would they do NOW?
Now that's what called a seige.
How much food/water do they have in the building they ran into?
what keeps the bowman from using fire arrows now on things like tents.
etc etc.
Mexican stand off.
Bowman still has the advantage, especially if there are more than one person proficient in longbow in the party, they can take turns, making that standoff last longer than the people hiding int he buildings can last (chances are the water and the food int he fort isnt co located in whatever building they dove into at the time)
|
|
Geebus people, I mean no offense, but really, why so much hate? The guy asked for rules clarifications on how he handled levitate + shooting out of darkness. Not for criticism on how his GM handled the defense of the fort.
Not replying to anyone in particular, it just seems there is a lot of "well the rules go like this and this but omg your GM went way too easy and he should have done this and this and that and this".
The rules are flimsy with darkness and such. I'm, personally, of the mind that if you A. make your Stealth check or B. are in Total Concealment, then you are, for all purposes, Invisible. As ravingdork pointed out, it's part of how Invisibility is defined. If you can't see someone, you can't see someone.
His situation was, likely, just fine in RAW. If his GM ruled that the sky was dark enough to provide Total Concealment, then that's how it was. And really, 1-3% chance? Look, maybe that's how it actually is in the real world, but how am I to know that? You know what I, as a GM, look at when running these games?
I look at my calendar for Golarion. It has a bunch of nifty moon symbols. Pretty much at four points during the month there will be one Full Moon, one New Moon, and two Half Moons.
If the characters are within a day or so of the New Moon, I'll rule there's little to no moon in the sky. Certainly not enough to provide dim light everywhere.
Then I check the weather. There's a few different generators for it. I use one that provides decent approximations for what's going on in the type of region that ravingdork was in. In Winter (when this is likely to be going on) cloud cover is not too uncommon.
In any event, the final point is: It's up to the GM. I would think that *most* GMs are going to handle it like me. We check to see if the day is near a new moon, check for weather, and move on.
Sorry for the rant, it just always bugs me to see someone ask a simple question and get a lot of criticism on things they did not ask.
...especially if your target's night vision is compromised by being within the dim light radius...
To my knowledge darkvision is not compromised by low-light conditions at all.
The rest of the fort defenders were humans with no ability to see in the dark. Turning out the lights wouldn't have helped them at all. When your fighting force consists of ~18 men who are night blind and 2 men who aren't, it would be foolish to cut out the lights while being attacked me thinks. (Which is why we planned the attack the way they did.)
If it stops the attacks?? Why wouldn't it be better to have lights outside of the fort and be inside a dark fort? It puts you at MORE of an advantage than your enemy... and saves your life lol.
EDIT: Ah, you said its from the cover. Unless it is total cover granting total concealment, since when does cover grant concealment?
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
Do any of the edges of his square grant concealment? I think a 20ft wall conceals a creature. How about all of the pitch black dark squares that provide concealment between you and them...
Now... make a perception check at -31 due to distance alone to spot your next target hiding in the fort lol.
Remember also, that all of the calculations from before don't begin to describe if they go under an overhanging portion of the fort.... or if they HIDE... or going to a part of the fort you cannot possibly see, because you can only move up and down.
...especially if your target's night vision is compromised by being within the dim light radius...To my knowledge darkvision is not compromised by low-light conditions at all.
old rules (1st ed, 2ed) with infravision, infravision was ruined by light source.
there are no darkvision rules about light sources now (but there should be)
low lite vision works like the opposite of a darkness spell (makes low lit e conditions shift up, thus providing better visibility to the possessor of the low lite vision)darkvision? eh i dont like it much.
I do ruin it with light/heat sources as DM and i say you cant read with it.
but heck thats just me
Geebus people, I mean no offense, but really, why so much hate? The guy asked for rules clarifications on how he handled levitate + shooting out of darkness. Not for criticism on how his GM handled the defense of the fort.
Not replying to anyone in particular, it just seems there is a lot of "well the rules go like this and this but omg your GM went way too easy and he should have done this and this and that and this".
I've been targeted a number of times as of late for reasons I cannot readily explain. As best I can tell, a handful of people on these boards are convinced that I am a "bad guy" for some strange reason and, as such, view whatever I say in the worst possible light.
This is AT LEAST the second time I've been accused of asking a question solely because I didn't like a ruling at my gaming able (which is patently untrue, if it were, I would have made it known).
I've NEVER seen ANYONE else on these boards be accused of such a thing. Never.
|
|
The rest of the fort defenders were humans with no ability to see in the dark. Turning out the lights wouldn't have helped them at all. When your fighting force consists of ~18 men who are night blind and 2 men who aren't, it would be foolish to cut out the lights while being attacked me thinks. (Which is why we planned the attack the way they did.)If it stops the attacks?? Why wouldn't it be better to have lights outside of the fort and be inside a dark fort? It puts you at MORE of an advantage than your enemy... and saves your life lol.
EDIT: Ah, you said its from the cover. Unless it is total cover granting total concealment, since when does cover grant concealment?
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
Do any of the edges of his square grant concealment? I think a 20ft wall conceals a creature. How about all of the pitch black dark squares that provide concealment between you and them...
Now... make a perception check at -31 due to distance alone to spot your next target hiding in the fort lol.
Remember also, that all of the calculations from before don't begin to describe if they go under an overhanging portion of the fort.... or if they HIDE... or going to a part of the fort you cannot possibly see, because you can only move up and down.
I think you misunderstand Concealment. Yes, by a dictionary definition, a wall will conceal someone. In Pathfinder, a wall provides Cover. Low lighting conditions provide Concealment. A person standing in front of another person provides Soft Cover. Fighting an invisible opponent is fighting against Concealment.
For the most part, if you're being protected by a wall, a person, or something else that is 'blocking' line of sight to you, that's Cover. If you are hard to see due to the lighting conditions, a spell, etc., then that's Concealment.
In almost every instance of Cover you can say that the Cover is 'concealing' the person. That doesn't make it Concealment in Pathfinder rules though.
In your quote, the text is more referring to if you are attacking someone on the other side of a Fog. Fog provides concealment. Innately, empty space does not provide concealment. Being *within* a dark empty space does.
So firing an arrow through an empty space, even if it is night out, would suffer no Concealment miss chance so long as your target was in the light.
...especially if your target's night vision is compromised by being within the dim light radius...To my knowledge darkvision is not compromised by low-light conditions at all.
We're not even talking about darkvision. Have a person stand where light illuminates an area and his night vision isn't as good as someone standing out away from the light source. It's not a question of RAW, it's a question of what's reasonably close to total darkness from the standpoint of a DM refereeing a game so that it works with appropriate verisimilitude.
Well, I guess when I imagined men propping themselves against a wall... I didn't imagine them trying to remain hidden from invisible foes right next to a light source.
Ok, so they make a stealth check..... roll a 10 (avg) and they have a +0 modifier.
So now they have Total concealment +50% unless you spot them with a Perception DC 49 (giving the men -2 for unfavorable position). I was granting partial concealment because of shadowy illumination and being mostly behind a wall.
I mean, people in WWII didn't even want to smoke on the front lines.... but these guys want to carry torches everywhere?
This fort does NOTHING for them lol. It's the opposite of what a fort is supposed to do. They would be more protected in the middle of a field laying on their backs.
Either I'm supposed to believe the above statement... or... as you asked... the encounter wasn't properly played.
My opinion differs from yours... which is what you asked in the opening of your thread. :-) I have no ill feelings towards you at all.
|
|
Well, I guess when I imagined men propping themselves against a wall... I didn't imagine them trying to remain hidden from invisible foes right next to a light source.
Ok, so they make a stealth check..... roll a 10 (avg) and they have a +0 modifier.
So now they have Total concealment +50% unless you spot them with a Perception DC 49 (giving the men -2 for unfavorable position). I was granting partial concealment because of shadowy illumination and being mostly behind a wall.
I mean, people in WWII didn't even want to smoke on the front lines.... but these guys want to carry torches everywhere?
This fort does NOTHING for them lol. It's the opposite of what a fort is supposed to do. They would be more protected in the middle of a field laying on their backs.
Either I'm supposed to believe the above statement... or... as you asked... the encounter wasn't properly played.
My opinion differs from yours... which is what you asked in the opening of your thread. :-) I have no ill feelings towards you at all.
This I actually do agree with a bit. If the guys had been able to get to Cover (difficult considering the archer was firing from above, but possible due to roofs) then they could have attempted a Stealth check. The DC wouldn't have been nearly so high as you suggest though, ravingdork said (I believe) that he stayed within his range increment, so was around 100 feet above them. That'd only be a -10 to his Perception check. The DC on Stealth doesn't change because of distance, the penalty applies to Perception.
If the guards rolled well, and got a 20 after all modifiers, then yes, it'd be hard to see them (Ravingdork would essentially need to get a 30 Perception). If the bandits took a shot though, then their stealth would be at a -20 and probably much easier to see. Ravingdork, on the other hand, being in the dark way above them, doesn't need to worry so much about stealth.
As for torches... of course they have torches throughout the fort. They can't see otherwise. Trying to walk around on battlements in the dark would do more harm then good. Yes, the fort does little to protect them in this case. I don't think they really *expected* to be attacked by someone floating 100 feet above their heads.
After reading the entire post, especially from the various wingnuts, I conclude the scenario was handled correctly and your team did a great job as did your DM.
To the guys who think a single concealed archer should cause an entire fort's worth of soldiers to douse all the lights, abandon their posts and go hide under their beds while the invaders on foot batter down the gates unhindered I say to you "you have no idea what you are talking about!!"
Why is it the most ignorant speak with the loudest voices?
My favorite was the guy who assumes the lunar schedule and weather patterns in Gollarion are identical to that of Arizona or where ever this guy lives.
As for torches... of course they have torches throughout the fort. They can't see otherwise. Trying to walk around on battlements in the dark would do more harm then good. Yes, the fort does little to protect them in this case. I don't think they really *expected* to be attacked by someone floating 100 feet above their heads.
That's all hunky dory for a starting condition. The question I have about the fight is "did they react appropriately to the situation?" For my money, the DM may have played them a bit too much like fish in a barrel. But it's also possible that the DM was unable to figure out a better way for the men under fire to react.
That's one of the limitations of playing in RPGs. Not everybody plays the character's they're playing very well within the terms of that character's mindset. Oh, sure, there are plenty of DMs who may be able to use the rules reasonably well to ensure a challenging fight, but is that lone animal with the grab power really going to stay put to kill a PC if the others are kind of pounding on it if the DM is truly thinking like that animal? Probably not. Creatures like that don't survive by taking out a PC and dying, they survive by running so they can hunt another day. These men in the fort may have been acting like fish in a barrel because that's the best the DM could do. In which case, I hope that DM never comes under fire from a levitating archer out in the dark... he'd be screwed.
As for torches... of course they have torches throughout the fort. They can't see otherwise. Trying to walk around on battlements in the dark would do more harm then good. Yes, the fort does little to protect them in this case. I don't think they really *expected* to be attacked by someone floating 100 feet above their heads.That's all hunky dory for a starting condition. The question I have about the fight is "did they react appropriately to the situation?" For my money, the DM may have played them a bit too much like fish in a barrel. But it's also possible that the DM was unable to figure out a better way for the men under fire to react.
That's one of the limitations of playing in RPGs. Not everybody plays the character's they're playing very well within the terms of that character's mindset. Oh, sure, there are plenty of DMs who may be able to use the rules reasonably well to ensure a challenging fight, but is that lone animal with the grab power really going to stay put to kill a PC if the others are kind of pounding on it if the DM is truly thinking like that animal? Probably not. Creatures like that don't survive by taking out a PC and dying, they survive by running so they can hunt another day. These men in the fort may have been acting like fish in a barrel because that's the best the DM could do. In which case, I hope that DM never comes under fire from a levitating archer out in the dark... he'd be screwed.
If you were the GM, how would you have handled the NPC's reactions to a hard-to-find archer floating 100 feet over their heads and 65 feet out from their walls? What would you have them do once they realized that invisible infiltrators had already scaled their walls on the opposite side of the fort and were now charging their backs?
Well... an army or battallion of warriors with bows on the ground would attempts to shoot arrows in an arch, roughly coming down at a similar angle to your shots.
So my rounds would go like this.
Round 1: Bill got shot with an arrow, take cover... they're out there! Bad guys take all out defensive maneuvers or take cover.
Round 2: Cover's not working.... damned, they are somwhere above us... get to the high wall (or inside or places prepared against arrow bombardment). You men douse those lights. Other men get behind tower shields. Those with Darkvision begin scanning area.
Round 3: HIDE! Hold actions until first foe arrives visible.... attacks from range have ceased... first good guy to pop out head gets lit up. Maybe someone gets idea of lighting arrows, shooting from arrow slits into air to find targets. Perhaps the best thing for targets outside to do is throw sunrods into the midst of enemies found outside on the ground....
|
|
Dousing the lights is the worse thing you can do. If the conditions are such that it's totally dark for the guy in the air, then that means those guards wouldn't be able to see at ALL without their lights.
"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night."
It doesn't help their miss chance any, they take a further penalty on Perception, etc. There's also another line that indicates you can only move half your speed each turn if you can't see, but I couldn't find it on a quick search, I just recall reading it before.
So dousing the lights, in this scenario, is pointless. There's no guarantee the guy above you doesn't have some special way to see you in darkness either, and it hampers the guards a lot more. Plus, as ravingdork indicated, they already had other guys attacking them from behind, and they'd probably want light to see them.
I mean, people in WWII didn't even want to smoke on the front lines.... but these guys want to carry torches everywhere?This fort does NOTHING for them lol. It's the opposite of what a fort is supposed to do. They would be more protected in the middle of a field laying on their backs.
Either I'm supposed to believe the above statement... or... as you asked... the encounter wasn't properly played.
WW2 snipers were deadly accurate at distances just under a mile in no wind conditions (with a 30-06 or 8mm mauser)
the cherry on a cigarette can be seen at that distance and used as a "guestimation target" to offset your sight on your weapon.
Chances are if u get close to that cherry, you are going to hit the guy in the head, or... shoot right over his hand (depending on where the cigarette is)
the trick was (is) to not shoot at the mile distance (even tho you can notice the cherry) but to sneak in, close enough to watch the person use the cigarette, and then once it raises, shoot and you will get a deadly shot.
a torch does not have that kid of proximity and may not even be hand held.
we are also talking about a world where magic exists and nightvision (low lite or dark vision) isnt very uncommon.
so in that world, keeping the torches from burning doesnt allow for any extra night concealment as the archers or critters trying to get you could be elves, half elves or other night vision having critters.
the purpose to a fort is to keep people out.
if one uses levitation to give them a trajectory where the wall is no longer interfering with line of sight to the targets, then no..the fort no longer serves much purpose.
then again forts where repeatedly breached in the history of warfare.
the maginot line was a fort/wall that was thought to be an impreginable bastion to keep all invaders out of france... it was rendered useless against the german lightening war.... mostly becuase of stuka dive bombers...eseentially a ranger with boots of levitation would be the same as stukas in this case.
I removed a couple posts. That kind of posturing is unnecessary.
I removed a couple more I didn't get the first time. "You're wrong!/No, You're wrong!" is just not an effective form of argument, and only serves to get people upset.
Well... an army or battallion of warriors with bows on the ground would attempts to shoot arrows in an arch, roughly coming down at a similar angle to your shots.
So my rounds would go like this.
Round 1: Bill got shot with an arrow, take cover... they're out there! Bad guys take all out defensive maneuvers or take cover.
Round 2: Cover's not working.... damned, they are somwhere above us... get to the high wall (or inside or places prepared against arrow bombardment). You men douse those lights. Other men get behind tower shields. Those with Darkvision begin scanning area.
Round 3: HIDE! Hold actions until first foe arrives visible.... attacks from range have ceased... first good guy to pop out head gets lit up. Maybe someone gets idea of lighting arrows, shooting from arrow slits into air to find targets. Perhaps the best thing for targets outside to do is throw sunrods into the midst of enemies found outside on the ground....
matthias , whiles that makes sense , if dork is playing the scenario i assume he is.... then the camp leader is drunk and asleep in his bed, and the second in command hates the other officers, and wants nothing more than to see them all die, and betray them, it even states he lolly gags around to put on his armor and make sure its all nice a buckled up etc before he wanders out to see what going.
one of the other officers is an incompetent idiot with something like a 4 intelligence (im not looking at it right now) so that leaves the last officer to give any direction, to a mob of bandits that mostly (secretly) dont respect him.
This scenario is written as a pile of rabble brigands, ripe to be taken out by a band of well organized adventurers.
IF this was a competent band of well organized and disciplined brigands, everyone who went through it would have been TPKd.
as it was there were several parties i have read about having been tpkd, by this band.
they are powerful and tough, but they are certainly not, well trained, prepared, or even cooperative with eachother, nevermind expecting ANY kind of attack.
Sorry for the rant, it just always bugs me to see someone ask a simple question and get a lot of criticism on things they did not ask.
Well the criticism starts when people ask 'was this run the right way', get an answer they don't like (even when provided with clear entries of RAW) then assert that the dissenter is wrong, then go on to explain how there's no 'right way to play', and act affronted that the dissenters see a lot of holes in how the matter was handled.
IF there was no concern in the OP's mind that it was handled correctly, then why the thread? If there's no right way then it stands to reason it doesn't matter.
IF you want to ask a question, and get an answer you dont like (even if it is supported by RAW) then why argue the toss and insist you are clearly right?
There have been enough people challenge this scenario to raise real issues about its handling, and the interpretation of the rules, to leave little doubt that the matter was not handled appropriately.
matthias , whiles that makes sense , if dork is playing the scenario i assume he is.... then the camp leader is drunk and asleep in his bed, and the second in command hates the other officers, and wants nothing more than to see them all die, and betray them, it even states he lolly gags around to put on his armor and make sure its all nice a buckled up etc before he wanders out to see what going.
one of the other officers is an incompetent idiot with something like a 4 intelligence (im not looking at it right now) so that leaves the last officer to give any direction, to a mob of bandits that mostly (secretly) dont respect him.
This scenario is written as a pile of rabble brigands, ripe to be taken out by a band of well organized adventurers.
IF this was a competent band of well organized and disciplined brigands, everyone who went through it would have been TPKd.
as it was there were several parties i have read about having been tpkd, by this band.
they are powerful and tough, but they are certainly not, well trained,...
I don't know anything about that. What I DO know is that our original band of adventurers came upon the fort, found the enemy largely in a drunken stupor, and we all died anyways (in part due to crits, lots of sneak attack, and through an embarrassing lack of teamwork between PCs).
Our second time around, with new PCs, the fort defenders we faced were much more alert, much more prepared (they had the gear of our old characters), and far deadlier (they were wary of the tactics our last group used). Fortunately for us, we had learned from our mistakes and our teamwork was much, much more fine tuned.
Dousing the lights and hiding is absolutely the best thing to do in this scenario.
Not only does it grant you 50% miss chance, the attackers have to locate your square with perception checks before they can effectively attack. In otherwords, you can wait for them to make the mistake, make a sound, turn on a light. etc.
Dousing the lights and hiding is absolutely the best thing to do in this scenario.
Not only does it grant you 50% miss chance, the attackers have to locate your square with perception checks before they can effectively attack. In otherwords, you can wait for them to make the mistake, make a sound, turn on a light. etc.
I can just picture the fort defenders doing a kind of silly dance routine as one prepares to activate the light once he hears a noise. All but one other defender ready actions to attack the source of the noise while the remaining defender prepares to turn out the light after everyone attacks.
This forces the PCs to either fight blind, get around the darkness somehow, or ready actions of their own.
Other than being far more complex, the end result would not be too far different from both parties in the conflict simply exchanging blows in the light.