lights out wouldnt really impair half elves, elves, dwarves, or half-orcs, (or gnomes i guess but they start out impaired).
so turning out the lights would just make it easier for pcs (the most racially diverse combat group in the game) to tear you up.
if it were a camp or orcs, ogres or goblins, they probably wouldnt have that much light to begin with
lights out wouldnt really impair half elves, elves, dwarves, or half-orcs, (or gnomes i guess but they start out impaired).
so turning out the lights would just make it easier for pcs (the most racially diverse combat group in the game) to tear you up.
if it were a camp or orcs, ogres or goblins, they probably wouldnt have that much light to begin with
Depends on if you know the invaders are half elves, elves, dwarves, and half orcs. If not, think of the situation. You're in a lit area with arrows flying in from the darkness. Dousing the lights has a very good chance of equalizing the situation. Darkvision is significantly distance limited. More than 60 feet out and the half orc and dwarf is just as blind as the human.
Depends on if you know the invaders are half elves, elves, dwarves, and half orcs. If not, think of the situation. You're in a lit area with arrows flying in from the darkness. Dousing the lights has a very good chance of equalizing the situation. Darkvision is significantly distance limited. More than 60 feet out and the half orc and dwarf is just as blind as the human.lights out wouldnt really impair half elves, elves, dwarves, or half-orcs, (or gnomes i guess but they start out impaired).
so turning out the lights would just make it easier for pcs (the most racially diverse combat group in the game) to tear you up.
if it were a camp or orcs, ogres or goblins, they probably wouldnt have that much light to begin with
in reality this does not happen often in adventuring. (the distance thing)
but elves really have an advantage here , especially with some new apg feats
|
lights out wouldnt really impair half elves, elves, dwarves, or half-orcs, (or gnomes i guess but they start out impaired).
so turning out the lights would just make it easier for pcs (the most racially diverse combat group in the game) to tear you up.
if it were a camp or orcs, ogres or goblins, they probably wouldnt have that much light to begin with
Not quite. RD is assuming that the night is dark enough that there is NO visability at all...total darkness. Low light vision helps not one wit in such a situation. As for darkvision...well that has a range limit and if dousing the light makes the thing you can't see from far away killing you come closer so you have a better chance to kill it, then yeah that is a good option.
how often is there a night with NO illumination? thats quite rare.
|
how often is there a night with NO illumination? thats quite rare.
Pendagast, this isn't directed at you, you're merely the latest to say something in this vein. :D
I'm finding it somewhat ironic to hear about people talking about the odds or rarity of particular atmospheric conditions, given the recent conditions involving a lunar eclipse here in the real world.
We had a total lunar eclipse on the winter solstice. This is an event that hasn't happened in over 350 years.
Here in California, it coincided with the worst storm in 10 years.
Locally, we had total cloud cover.
**************************************
The rarity or of a given event is a statement about future probabilities or possibilities. They mean nothing when the event actually happens. At that point, the event is taking place.
Low light vision turns night into day in the presence of moonlight or BRIGHT starlight. If the moon/moons/whatever, it requires BRIGHT starlight. If a given world has stars, they may or may not be bright. If they are bright in clear conditions, they may or may not be bright due to moisture in the air, whether haze, light clouds, or dense socked in clouds.
RD has described the the environmental conditions for the combat he is talking about to be dark. However unlikely, those were the conditions for this combat.
****************************************
Edit: Oh, by the way, despite total cloud cover, I went outside during the peak of the eclipse and the clouds had a red glow.
RD has described the the environmental conditions for the combat he is talking about to be dark. However unlikely, those were the conditions for this combat.
The problem we have is that without even specifying they were particularly waiting for the ideal conditions, other than sitting around for a few days, they were remarkably lucky to find that they were so blessed.
What later became apparent was that they weren't in fact waiting for these remarkable conditions, as BD seemed to be under the impression that just the fact that it was night was enough.
So they just managed to fluke these extremely uncommon conditions without even being aware thats what had happend.
I've seen a few eclipses too, we all know they are happening, but it was just pretty darn AMAZING to have the perfect conditions just when you wanted to raid a fort full of helpless defenders.
Next time the party should hope for a well timed earthquake or flood!
Edit: Oh, by the way, despite total cloud cover, I went outside during the peak of the eclipse and the clouds had a red glow.
So only 20% cover for you, even WITH no moon and clouds and an eclipse in a duststorm :p
|
RD has described the the environmental conditions for the combat he is talking about to be dark. However unlikely, those were the conditions for this combat.The problem we have is that without even specifying they were particularly waiting for the ideal conditions, other than sitting around for a few days, they were remarkably lucky to find that they were so blessed.
What later became apparent was that they weren't in fact waiting for these remarkable conditions, as BD seemed to be under the impression that just the fact that it was night was enough.
So they just managed to fluke these extremely uncommon conditions without even being aware thats what had happend.
I've seen a few eclipses too, we all know they are happening, but it was just pretty darn AMAZING to have the perfect conditions just when you wanted to raid a fort full of helpless defenders.
Next time the party should hope for a well timed earthquake or flood!
So only 20% cover for you, even WITH no moon and clouds and an eclipse in a duststorm :p
Edit: Oh, by the way, despite total cloud cover, I went outside during the peak of the eclipse and the clouds had a red glow.
I guess the question is... why care so much? The guy said there was total darkness out, and asked if his group played properly with those conditions. Instead of questioning the likelihood of those conditions so much, how about you just accept that the GM had them happen, and answer the question RD asked?
Not that it's needed NOW, RD seems to have gotten plenty of answers. It just seems like his question was "Given A, is B possible" and all you can seem to do is shout "The likelihood of A is extremely rare!" instead of answer the original question. :)
Not that it's needed NOW, RD seems to have gotten plenty of answers. It just seems like his question was "Given A, is B possible" and all you can seem to do is shout "The likelihood of A is extremely rare!" instead of answer the original question. :)
Hey had he said 'in conditions of total darkness yada yada then sure, but what he asked was 'was the stealth archery scenario handled correctly', which, except in extreme circumstances the OP even accepts he didn't actually wait for, then no it isn't.
Even after it was pointed out to him that in less than ideal situations, he was not eligible to benefit from total concealment on any given random day (except in very specific circumstances) then he chose to argue the toss about his average night being covered, when by RAW it clearly wasn't.
So he posed a question, he got an answer he didn't like, then argued that RAW was flexible etc.
What I (and a few others) also found vexing was not only the 're-interpretation' one way in his favour, but that the enemy were not afforded similar interpretation, in fact they were additionally penalised outside RAW.
All of this is very different from your Given A, is B possible scenario... so different in fact they started a whole new thread on it.
A few things:
1. RD's DM said the night was dark enough for total concealment. You may disagree with that call, but it was the DM's to make. Given that call, the encounter seems to have been run appropriately.
2. The "blind" issue. From the Core Rules, p.442 "For purposes of the following points, a blinded creature is one who simply can’t see through the surrounding darkness." So, yeah, given #1, they were effectively blind. There are even fairly detailed rules about how to handle both melee and ranged attacks in the situation described. Again, you might not like them, but they are there, and seem to have been followed.
Low light vision turns night into day in the presence of moonlight or BRIGHT starlight.
3. Finally, I think this has been changed. I noticed that the latest download of the Bestiary had changed Low-Light vision to just the "doubling of light radius." I say changed, because I'm pretty sure it use to include "see as well at night as in the day," or something similar. Since I happen to hate this change, if anyone has contradictory information, I'd appreciate it being pointed out.
They were remarkably lucky to find that they were so blessed.
Isn't this often the case with player character HEROES in a FANTASY SETTING? How many times do fantasy heroes end up beating such crazy odds like "being the first chosen ones in ten thousand years." Getting the ideal weather conditions for a battle once in a long while should be a trifle compared to something like that! Why are you so disturbed about this being a distinct possibility (even a rare one)?
Hey had he said 'in conditions of total darkness yada yada then sure, but what he asked was 'was the stealth archery scenario handled correctly', which, except in extreme circumstances the OP even accepts he didn't actually wait for, then no it isn't.
Wait, so you are changing the events of the scenario set forth, and then telling me I did it wrong? How is that even logical?
Even after it was pointed out to him that in less than ideal situations, he was not eligible to benefit from total concealment on any given random day (except in very specific circumstances) then he chose to argue the toss about his average night being covered, when by RAW it clearly wasn't.
There isn't a whole lot of RAW governing such specific weather patterns as moonless nights. I'm sure you can quote me SOME rules on the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that many groups, including ours, simply ask the GM what the conditions of the world are for expediency's sake. There's nothing wrong with that. Feel free to point out it's not RAW, but please try to be a less antagonistic when you do.
So he posed a question, he got an answer he didn't like, then argued that RAW was flexible etc.
Not quite. I argued that there were many different interpretations of RAW. That doesn't necessarily make it flexible as most interpretations are set from group to group and may actually be quite rigid within a given group. Despite what people say on these boards, our group follows the rules quite closely AS WE INTERPRET THEM.
What I (and a few others) also found vexing was not only the 're-interpretation' one way in his favour, but that the enemy were not afforded similar interpretation, in fact they were additionally penalised outside RAW.
If you are referring to my ranger having had total concealment, but the enemies not gaining said concealment as well, this is one of the few points where I think you are truly mistaken in your reading of the rules. They are in light, I am in complete darkness. Determining the results of that should be simple. If you are instead arguing that I should have the blind condition, seeing as I am in complete darkness without darkvision, than how can I see the defenders in the distance? The very definition of "blind" is that you can't see anything, at all, ever. There is a nig difference between looking through darkness at something in a lit area, and being blind.
If none of these are not your meaning, than I apologize for my misunderstanding.
All of this is very different from your Given A, is B possible scenario... so different in fact they started a whole new thread on it.
I started a whole new thread on it because this one was spiraling out of control. Luckily, it seems it has gotten somewhat back on track.
People have accused me of doing this many times before, which is one of the truer accusations floating around about me, but I've only ever done so because highly vocal minorities basically ran me out of my own thread each time.
|
|
3. Finally, I think this has been changed. I noticed that the latest download of the Bestiary had changed Low-Light vision to just the "doubling of light radius." I say changed, because I'm pretty sure it use to include "see as well at night as in the day," or something similar. Since I happen to hate this change, if anyone has contradictory information, I'd appreciate it being pointed out.
Jake, you'll find the moonlight/bright starlight bit on p.564 of the Core Rulebook.
Edit: IIRC, the situation is the same as in 3.5. Low-Light extends the range of light sources, and the appendix entry also provides the moonlight/starlight bit. In 3.5, the appendix entry is in the back of the DMG.
Jake, you'll find the moonlight/bright starlight bit on p.564 of the Core Rulebook.
Edit: IIRC, the situation is the same as in 3.5. Low-Light extends the range of light sources, and the appendix entry also provides the moonlight/starlight bit. In 3.5, the appendix entry is in the back of the DMG.
Thanks, Howie.
Here's the quote, if anyone else is interested:
"Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a
moonlit night as well as they can during the day."
I made you a really long post, but the paizo forums eated it.
Suffice to say, having total concealment is not the same as hiding. They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn. You could roughly cancel out the sniping penalty of -20 due to specifics on the perception skill. This involves firing one arrow a round. They could technically be considered blinded against you, but it only provides a -4 penalty on trying to hear where someone is.
Every time you fire from hiding you make an opposed stealth check against everyone who can observe the new stimulus you create by shooting at someone. Even if they do see you they have a 50% miss chance and likely a range penalty.
I tend to run stealth a bit differently in my group, so things would have been different if I was running things. How often did they make checks to see you? You mentioned being seen, what happened then?
They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.
I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.
I disagree somewhat.
Of course you do.
But then, according to your own logic, you would be wrong, as RAW can be interpreted so many ways and we are all free to make up our own version.
I disagree somewhat.Of course you do.
But then, according to your own logic, you would be wrong, as RAW can be interpreted so many ways and we are all free to make up our own version.
I'm aloud to disagree. No need to get snarky over it.
Edit: IIRC, the situation is the same as in 3.5. Low-Light extends the range of light sources, and the appendix entry also provides the moonlight/starlight bit. In 3.5, the appendix entry is in the back of the DMG.A small quibble, but one that has confused others in the past:
Low-light does not extend light. Rather it extends the effects for those that have the quality. Lighting levels are not subjective.
To whit- a PC is standing within a square that is dimly lit. This is absolute and not dependent upon the observer.
A given NPC observer with normal vision might have trouble seeing the PC (if they were hiding) or attacking them once seen (concealment).
Another given NPC observer with low-light vision might have no trouble seeing the PC or attacking them, but the PC is still in an area that's dimly lit.
As I said, a minor quibble, but I've observed that the distinction has confused people in the past.
-James
Yep. I agree totally. It always bothered me when people said that shadows didn't exist for people like dwarves. Um, yeah, they do.
how often is there a night with NO illumination? thats quite rare.Pendagast, this isn't directed at you, you're merely the latest to say something in this vein. :D
I'm finding it somewhat ironic to hear about people talking about the odds or rarity of particular atmospheric conditions, given the recent conditions involving a lunar eclipse here in the real world.
We had a total lunar eclipse on the winter solstice. This is an event that hasn't happened in over 350 years.
Here in California, it coincided with the worst storm in 10 years.
Locally, we had total cloud cover.
**************************************
The rarity or of a given event is a statement about future probabilities or possibilities. They mean nothing when the event actually happens. At that point, the event is taking place.
Low light vision turns night into day in the presence of moonlight or BRIGHT starlight. If the moon/moons/whatever, it requires BRIGHT starlight. If a given world has stars, they may or may not be bright. If they are bright in clear conditions, they may or may not be bright due to moisture in the air, whether haze, light clouds, or dense socked in clouds.
RD has described the the environmental conditions for the combat he is talking about to be dark. However unlikely, those were the conditions for this combat.
****************************************
Edit: Oh, by the way, despite total cloud cover, I went outside during the peak of the eclipse and the clouds had a red glow.
i missed soemthing, it said that dork was 'assuming' it was totally dark with no moonlight, taking that condition into consideration,,, did the DM describe the night that way? or did Dork assume it into his calculations? if so i missed where the DM stated the night was that way.
i missed soemthing, it said that dork was 'assuming' it was totally dark with no moonlight, taking that condition into consideration,,, did the DM describe the night that way? or did Dork assume it into his calculations? if so i missed where the DM stated the night was that way.
The GM knew that I was benefiting from total concealment due to the darkness of the night. He was also keenly aware that we were waiting for optimal conditions before making our attack.
While I'm crossing T's and dot-ing I's, you were taking the penalties for firing a bow while levitating, right?
-James
Yeah I took that into account. Out of the ~30 attack rolls I made that encounter, I think I might have messed up the numbers on 2 or 3 attacks early on while I was getting used to it though.
I spent a full round stabilizing myself when the penalty got to around -4 to -6 (-2 for range and as high as -4 for being off balance).
i missed soemthing, it said that dork was 'assuming' it was totally dark with no moonlight, taking that condition into consideration,,, did the DM describe the night that way? or did Dork assume it into his calculations? if so i missed where the DM stated the night was that way.The GM knew that I was benefiting from total concealment due to the darkness of the night. He was also keenly aware that we were waiting for optimal conditions before making our attack.
While I'm crossing T's and dot-ing I's, you were taking the penalties for firing a bow while levitating, right?
-James
Yeah I took that into account. Out of the ~30 attack rolls I made that encounter, I think I might have messed up the numbers on 2 or 3 attacks early on while I was getting used to it though.
I spent a full round stabilizing myself when the penalty got to around -4 to -6 (-2 for range and as high as -4 for being off balance).
curious, why would you be off balance while levitating? is there something in the spell that says that? why would it no be like standing on magically elevated solid ground?
its not a spell we really use often... so i havent read it much
i missed soemthing, it said that dork was 'assuming' it was totally dark with no moonlight, taking that condition into consideration,,, did the DM describe the night that way? or did Dork assume it into his calculations? if so i missed where the DM stated the night was that way.The GM knew that I was benefiting from total concealment due to the darkness of the night. He was also keenly aware that we were waiting for optimal conditions before making our attack.
While I'm crossing T's and dot-ing I's, you were taking the penalties for firing a bow while levitating, right?
-James
Yeah I took that into account. Out of the ~30 attack rolls I made that encounter, I think I might have messed up the numbers on 2 or 3 attacks early on while I was getting used to it though.
I spent a full round stabilizing myself when the penalty got to around -4 to -6 (-2 for range and as high as -4 for being off balance).
curious, why would you be off balance while levitating? is there something in the spell that says that? why would it no be like standing on magically elevated solid ground?
its not a spell we really use often... so i havent read it much
|
|
They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.
Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.
Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.
The other extreme is to have enemies always know where everyone is at despite not being able to see them at all. That...just doesn't make any sense to me. Hearing might get you an approximate location, certainly a direction, but not an exact 5 foot square.
It's also a really contrived situation in which PCs have a ZERO chance to be able to retaliate in a dungeon. That would have less to do with the rules, and far more to do with a bad GM.
|
|
Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.The other extreme is to have enemies always know where everyone is at despite not being able to see them at all. That...just doesn't make any sense to me. Hearing might get you an approximate location, certainly a direction, but not an exact 5 foot square.
It's also a really contrived situation in which PCs have a ZERO chance to be able to retaliate in a dungeon. That would have less to do with the rules, and far more to do with a bad GM.
No it has EVERYTHING with the rules...because with your ruling, the drow will pelt your group while in the dark with no attempts at stealth and by your ruling being applied EQUALLY, your party would have no way to retaliate. You wanna attack and still be unknown where you are...well that is what stealth is for. Otherwise, if you attack, people know your square. This is something else you seem to not understand...the rules are applied EQUALLY. YOU do not get to attack unseen from the dark with impunity without stealthing but somehow when the bad guys do it, you need a way to spot them?!? I think not.
Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.
sorry never been in a dungeon where the orcs with nightvision were several hundred feet away with bows, and we couldnt advance on them, or leave?
what module is that?
Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.
sorry never been in a dungeon where the orcs with nightvision were several hundred feet away with bows, and we couldnt advance on them, or leave?
what module is that?
No it has EVERYTHING with the rules...because with your ruling, the drow will pelt your group while in the dark with no attempts at stealth and by your ruling being applied EQUALLY, your party would have no way to retaliate. You wanna attack and still be unknown where you are...well that is what stealth is for. Otherwise, if you attack, people know your square. This is something else you seem to not understand...the rules are applied EQUALLY. YOU do not get to attack unseen from the dark with impunity without stealthing but somehow when the bad guys do it, you need a way to spot them?!? I think not.Umm unless your trying to be stealthy...umm no, they KNOW which square your in. Be it the sound of the twang of your bow, clanking of gear on you...whatever. You know the square. Otherwise any adventure in a dungeon in which every single member of the party doesn't have darkvison is gonna be a TPK as the denizens of said dungeon kill you with impunity while you have ZERO chance to retaliate.They would know where you were standing due to hearing (somehow) unless you sniped every turn.I disagree somewhat. It would be more accurate to say they COULD know where you were by relying on non-visual senses. When someone has total concealment, I don't believe finding their exact location is guaranteed by any means, even when they are shooting arrows and not actively using the stealth skill.The other extreme is to have enemies always know where everyone is at despite not being able to see them at all. That...just doesn't make any sense to me. Hearing might get you an approximate location, certainly a direction, but not an exact 5 foot square.
It's also a really contrived situation in which PCs have a ZERO chance to be able to retaliate in a dungeon. That would have less to do with the rules, and far more to do with a bad GM.
you are not taking into account the situation, there is no rules for "they know what square you are in"
a decent perception check might give you,"that arrow came from the left"a better roll might give you "judging from the arrow trajectory he must be above you"
but barring doing that instead of dealing with the cleric swinging a mace in your face, there is no way to figure out where the sniper is in the middle of melee, you instead busy yourself with the closest threat.
stop with this silly twang thing everyone keeps talking about.
no way you are going to hear twang from as far away as he says he was (hundreds of feet). especially while engaged in combat.
simply NOT looking for a lone archer with the other party members beating your face in.
No it has EVERYTHING with the rules...because with your ruling, the drow will pelt your group while in the dark with no attempts at stealth and by your ruling being applied EQUALLY, your party would have no way to retaliate. You wanna attack and still be unknown where you are...well that is what stealth is for. Otherwise, if you attack, people know your square. This is something else you seem to not understand...the rules are applied EQUALLY. YOU do not get to attack unseen from the dark with impunity without stealthing but somehow when the bad guys do it, you need a way to spot them?!? I think not.
Geeze dude, calm down. Step away from the keyboard, take a breather, and then respond to my rebuttal. There is no need to yell.
To rebut:
No way to respond? How about shining some light on the situation with any number of spells or mundane sources? That's what I meant when I said it was "contrived." It is highly unlikely that PCs will go underground to fight drow without light sources (and likely redundant light sources at that). To assume that adventurers are THAT STUPID and that such a situation might actually happen, is inherently flawed on its own.
Also, what am I not doing equally exactly? I've never applied the rules to different groups unequally. I never once even implied that someone attacking from total concealment could not be found, only that they could not be found by VISUAL MEANS. The PCs facing drow are more than welcome to make Perception (aural) checks against the drow if they don't (for some strange reason) have light sources.
|
|
Pen...you assuming that you know which way to go...according to RD, your blind so you know a quadrant. When they are pelting you from 100s of feet away, thats a lot of area you can advance wrong on. And you seem to agree with him...because of "realism". I said it many times already but I will say it again, screw realism. D&D is not realistic...at all. What you need is game balance...and being able to use darkness to attack with impunity is unbalancing as there are no countermeasures. The other I attack with impunity method is invis and stealth...both have lots of countermeasures.
RD...umm yeah once again, how is having a light source gonna help you again? The light source is the problem. Drow can see you from line of sight when you have a light source...you can see then to whatever you range of light is...in most cases your looking at 60-120 feet range.
|
|
you are not taking into account the situation, there is no rules for "they know what square you are in"
a decent perception check might give you,"that arrow came from the left"
a better roll might give you "judging from the arrow trajectory he must be above you"
but barring doing that instead of dealing with the cleric swinging a mace in your face, there is no way to figure out where the sniper is in the middle of melee,
This is false. There are rules for pinpointing the location of a target via perception. It is a +20 on the Perception DC. You can find the rule on p.563.
..you instead busy yourself with the closest threat.
Characters do what characters want to do. A character might chose to attack w/standard action, and then use move action to attempt a perception check to locate the archer. This isn't ignoring the threat right in front of him and is a reasonable use of his actions in many circumstances.
stop with this silly twang thing everyone keeps talking about.
no way you are going to hear twang from as far away as he says he was (hundreds of feet). especially while engaged in combat.
The Perception DC to hear the creak of a drawn bow is DC25, per the core rules (see Perception skill). A GM might well rule that the twang on release is less than that. Some of the combat may have been at long ranges, others were within 100' from what I've understood. Distance adds to the DC at +1/10'. Distraction in combat is reasonable and is another +5. If GM applies a +20 modifier for invisibility to hear something, this might add in.
While all of this can result in numbers that may be out of the reach of NPCs at the level of this particular combat, the game allows for exceptional things to be done.
Pen...you assuming that you know which way to go...according to RD, your blind so you know a quadrant. When they are pelting you from 100s of feet away, thats a lot of area you can advance wrong on. And you seem to agree with him...because of "realism". I said it many times already but I will say it again, screw realism. D&D is not realistic...at all. What you need is game balance...and being able to use darkness to attack with impunity is unbalancing as there are no countermeasures. The other I attack with impunity method is invis and stealth...both have lots of countermeasures.
That's simply a difference in play style. It is neither right nor wrong, nor worth arguing over.
RD...umm yeah once again, how is having a light source gonna help you again? The light source is the problem. Drow can see you from line of sight when you have a light source...you can see then to whatever you range of light is...in most cases your looking at 60-120 feet range.
Good point.
Drow are tough opponents. PCs should have to get creative in a situation like the one you describe. I see nothing wrong with that. Right off the top of my head I thought of a counter: The spellcaster casts light on some ammo and someone else fires it towards the general direction of the attack. Blammo, you've revealed the attackers for the time being. The drow are hardly using a perfect/unbalanced/broken tactic, even under my interpretation of the rules.
Also, I imagine places in the underdark where people can actually make use of their full 120 ft. darkvision tactically (like you describe) are few and far between. Dungeons are not typically known for their wide open spaces.
|
|
Pen...you assuming that you know which way to go...according to RD, your blind so you know a quadrant. When they are pelting you from 100s of feet away, thats a lot of area you can advance wrong on. And you seem to agree with him...because of "realism". I said it many times already but I will say it again, screw realism. D&D is not realistic...at all. What you need is game balance...and being able to use darkness to attack with impunity is unbalancing as there are no countermeasures. The other I attack with impunity method is invis and stealth...both have lots of countermeasures.That's simply a difference in play style. It is neither right nor wrong, nor worth arguing over.
RD...umm yeah once again, how is having a light source gonna help you again? The light source is the problem. Drow can see you from line of sight when you have a light source...you can see then to whatever you range of light is...in most cases your looking at 60-120 feet range.Good point.
Drow are tough opponents. PCs should have to get creative in a situation like the one you describe. I see nothing wrong with that. Right off the top of my head I thought of a counter: The spellcaster casts light on some ammo and someone else fires it towards the general direction of the attack. Blammo, you've revealed the attackers for the time being. The drow are hardly using a perfect/unbalanced/broken tactic, even under my interpretation of the rules.
Also, I imagine places in the underdark where people can actually make use of their full 120 ft. darkvision tactically (like you describe) are few and far between. Dungeons are not typically known for their wide open spaces.
Umm not sure if you have read much of the books based on the underdark...but there are quite a few large open spaces. It is true that most AP dungeons have small areas however...but that is more about battle mat space and ease of drawing the rooms out then what actual underground environment is like. Go to some of the natural caves around you...there are tons of large areas.
You do bring up another point tho...the bandits just needed to launch a flaming projectile your way to make it so you no longer had total darkness. It has been brought up already as the stupidity of the bandits but I suppose it's worth mentioning again. A small flaming light source is brighter then just stars after all...and just stars is enough for it to be no longer total darkness.
|
|
You do bring up another point tho...the bandits just needed to launch a flaming projectile your way to make it so you no longer had total darkness. It has been brought up already as the stupidity of the bandits but I suppose it's worth mentioning again. A small flaming light source is brighter then just stars after all...and just stars is enough for it to be no longer total darkness.
It takes BRIGHT starlight to provide dim lighting, not JUST stars.
A candle provides 5' of dim light. A flaming projectile sounds to me like more than a candle and less than a torch. 10' dim light seems about right to me if going this way rather than a light spell.
Umm not sure if you have read much of the books based on the underdark...but there are quite a few large open spaces. It is true that most AP dungeons have small areas however...but that is more about battle mat space and ease of drawing the rooms out then what actual underground environment is like. Go to some of the natural caves around you...there are tons of large areas.
I own all the underdark books. :P
I'm sure it varies from game to game, but its been my experience that wide open spaces like you describe only comes up like, one out of ten subterranean encounters.
You do bring up another point tho...the bandits just needed to launch a flaming projectile your way to make it so you no longer had total darkness. It has been brought up already as the stupidity of the bandits but I suppose it's worth mentioning again. A small flaming light source is brighter then just stars after all...and just stars is enough for it to be no longer total darkness.
Yeah, this was mentioned at the beginning of the thread, and I agree, it would have been a wonderful tactic on there part. I was even expecting it.
However, they never did, I guess because they were so preoccupied with trying to kill my friends.
you are not taking into account the situation, there is no rules for "they know what square you are in"
a decent perception check might give you,"that arrow came from the left"
a better roll might give you "judging from the arrow trajectory he must be above you"
but barring doing that instead of dealing with the cleric swinging a mace in your face, there is no way to figure out where the sniper is in the middle of melee,This is false. There are rules for pinpointing the location of a target via perception. It is a +20 on the Perception DC. You can find the rule on p.563.
..you instead busy yourself with the closest threat.Characters do what characters want to do. A character might chose to attack w/standard action, and then use move action to attempt a perception check to locate the archer. This isn't ignoring the threat right in front of him and is a reasonable use of his actions in many circumstances.
stop with this silly twang thing everyoe keeps talking about.
no way you are going to hear twang from as far away as he says he was (hundreds of feet). especially while engaged in combat.
The Perception DC to hear the creak of a drawn bow is DC25, per the core rules (see Perception skill). A GM might well rule that the twang on release is less than that. Some of the combat may have been at long ranges, others were within 100' from what I've understood. Distance adds to the DC at +1/10'. Distraction in combat is reasonable and is another +5. If GM applies a +20 modifier for invisibility to hear something, this might add in.
While all of this can result in numbers that may be out of the reach of NPCs at the level of this particular combat, the game allows for exceptional things to be done.
** spoiler omitted **...
OP (dork) said he had to take into consideration the range penalties for his bow.
SO the bow is NOT in close range. IF there is a range penalty for shooting the dang there there is definately (AT LEAST) equal range penalty for hearing.Forget the creak of drawing it, thats just too far, twang has to be louder.
So assuming 25 DC for creak, ummm 15 to for twang? (sound reasonable)
now we have to add in combat background noise, being distracted (obviously listening about unabated for the noise isnt an option here)
and any random penalties from round to round , depending on when they were trying to listen (for example if no one cast a spell that round, it would be easier to hear vs. someone calling out a spell.
so we can easily get back up to 25 (and possibly harder)
does that sound reasonable? that its about as hard to hear a bow twang at long distance in the middle of combat as it is to hear a bow creak at short distance if nothing else is going on (bow creaking isnt that loud after all)
now we are talking about a level 4 party, so their adversaries arent going to be Mr. Elf from greyhawk, at best they would have a +4 on average to perception, and if it takes 25?...well maybe you could rule they would 'crit' a perception roll, and then what....they would know what square he was in, on a 20? and they would have to give up a move action, or not take a full attack, in order to look around to find the archer?
No, either way you look at it, realism, or game mechanics, it isnt going to happen.
Let's say PC's were in the bad guys position. give up my full attack, or a move action to see if i can roll a 20 to find the archer.
LEt's say they find him? THEN what? what are they going to do?? rush him? hes 60 feet in the air.
return fire? eh i suppose? they WOULD get some of their AC back against the bow shots, but only the guys that managed to see him (if any) a single guy seeing him doesnt mean everyone can now.
so essentially , it's a waste of time to argue the game mechanics at this range.
If this were a higher level party, or they were fighting something like a dragon on his minions, or assault the keep of the elf from greyhawk... then this scenario would have worked out quite different.
But as it were they were fighting a band of human brigands ill equipped and poorly trained to deal with the situation.
this is exactly how this type of situation would go in the real world.
thats why snipers are so successful, and they are always trained to get high ground if/when possible..
shooting a rifle from a tree would be a little impracticable, and thus wouldnt happen.
but i suppose if one can make a tree stand for hunting deer, then it could be done, given enough prep time for an assault.
Using boots of levitation is just a field expedient tree stand.
so while exceptional things CAN be done, they are most often accomplished BY the PCs (or perhaps their major nemesis or some other major baddy), not by common brigands.
so this goes back to my original point, there is no way you are going to hear a twang from his bow that far away under these circumstances.
I dont think to say there is a DC33 chance you can hear it, when the best you can get is a 24...thats the same as no.
You do bring up another point tho...the bandits just needed to launch a flaming projectile your way to make it so you no longer had total darkness. It has been brought up already as the stupidity of the bandits but I suppose it's worth mentioning again. A small flaming light source is brighter then just stars after all...and just stars is enough for it to be no longer total darkness.
It takes BRIGHT starlight to provide dim lighting, not JUST stars.
A candle provides 5' of dim light. A flaming projectile sounds to me like more than a candle and less than a torch. 10' dim light seems about right to me if going this way rather than a light spell.
hold on now, i can see just fine most nights (usually better than the dang nightvision goggles we are issued)
IF there is no moon..its usually because there is cloud cover, then its just plain DARK.
if the moon is in a bad phase of light... then yeah i guess this is how/when/why night vision goggles work (as oppose to 'human nightvision' which is just rods/cones)
i have never experienced a time when the night vision goggles did NOT work at night....as the pretty much work the same way, for example elven night vision does....which is to amplify existing light.
DnD low lite vision is NOT human night vision...its extra-perceptionary and in fact will work on any night (just like the goggles)
so saying it takes "bright" starlight for it to work isnt fair to say.
It takes BRIGHT starlight to provide dim lighting, not JUST stars.
Yet it takes the absence of the moon, and all the stars, with cloud cover to qualify as darkness.
If you dont qualify for darkness, then it's dim light.
|
|
It takes BRIGHT starlight to provide dim lighting, not JUST stars.
Yet it takes the absence of the moon, and all the stars, with cloud cover to qualify as darkness.
If you dont qualify for darkness, then it's dim light.
I've already provided my citation regarding bright light and low light vision. (p.564).
Please provide your citation regarding the breakpoint between darkness and dim light.
Please provide your citation regarding the breakpoint between darkness and dim light.
for the third or fourth time in this thread (albeit some lost to Mod thread poilicing)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light
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.
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.
Lets look at that:
Outside on a cloudy, moonless night
So not moonless, normal stars about = darkness
Cloudy AND moonless.
You are looking for the stars (bright or otherwise) to be presently obscured by cloudcover in order to qualify. No clouds = not darkness.
The thing you'd also note is that out in the countryside, away from our 21st Century cities, there aren't too many 'dim starry nights, or even average starry nights - stars are pretty much stars. There isn't usually a cosmic dimmer switch, except alternate ambient light sources (like standing in an areas of bright light, lessening their intensity from your perspective) or obfuscation from clouds.
So he would only have qualified for 'dim light' based on his own description of the scenario. Incidentally, a lot of his targets would have been in dim light too.
Just a quick reminder that according to Pathfinder rules, the brightness of the stars is irrelevant. Only the presence/absence of the moon matters:
"Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a
moonlit night as well as they can during the day."
Thanks, again, Howie, for pointing that out.
The thing you'd also note is that out in the countryside, away from our 21st Century cities, there aren't too many 'dim starry nights, or even average starry nights - stars are pretty much stars. There isn't usually a cosmic dimmer switch, except alternate ambient light sources (like standing in an areas of bright light, lessening their intensity from your perspective) or obfuscation from clouds.
So he would only have qualified for 'dim light' based on his own description of the scenario. Incidentally, a lot of his targets would have been in dim light too.
I agree that the stars' levels of brightness don't really change all that much (it's our perception of them that changes).
Still not sure how there'd be many areas of dim light in the fort if they had torches all over the place. One every 30 or 40 feet or so isn't hard to manage and will make the fort fairly well lit.
|
|
Please provide your citation regarding the breakpoint between darkness and dim light.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light
I'm aware of those reference points. They say "moonless and cloudy" is dark. They say "moonlight or bright starlight is dim." This also leaves a gap that is up to GM decision.
Starlight that isn't bright is in that gap.
You are making one edge of the grey zone a hard line. I have been guilty of unintentionally making it at the other end.
Ultimately, if dealing with the gap, it's up to the GM.
Honestly, I too was very surprised they didn't return fire with flaming arrows in an attempt to locate me. It would have been a simple matter for one guy to shoot a flaming arrow with several others using prepared actions to turn me into a pincushion.
This is what I would have done. Didn't think of flaming arrows, but chucking one of the torches in the direction of the arrows combined with a few readied actions would have worked as well. Probably better since a torch is better illumination than an arrow.
Decent tactics, anyway.
|
|
Please provide your citation regarding the breakpoint between darkness and dim light.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/vision-and-light
I'm aware of those reference points. They say "moonless and cloudy" is dark. They say "moonlight or bright starlight is dim." This also leaves a gap that is up to GM decision.
Starlight that isn't bright is in that gap.
You are making one edge of the grey zone a hard line. I have been guilty of unintentionally making it at the other end.
Ultimately, if dealing with the gap, it's up to the GM.
Except of course there is starlight...period. No such thing as bright or dim starlight...unless your world has a cosmic dimmer switch. Think of the bright as a discriptive and not so much a condition. The ONLY thing that causes total darkness outdoors according to RAW is the absence of the moon AND cloud cover. If you do not have both, you do not have total darkness.
Except of course there is starlight...period. No such thing as bright or dim starlight...unless your world has a cosmic dimmer switch. Think of the bright as a discriptive and not so much a condition. The ONLY thing that causes total darkness outdoors according to RAW is the absence of the moon AND cloud cover. If you do not have both, you do not have total darkness.
Thanks CN, at least one person gets it that starlight is basically a CONSTANT.
Except of course there is starlight...period. No such thing as bright or dim starlight...unless your world has a cosmic dimmer switch. Think of the bright as a discriptive and not so much a condition. The ONLY thing that causes total darkness outdoors according to RAW is the absence of the moon AND cloud cover. If you do not have both, you do not have total darkness.Thanks CN, at least one person gets it that starlight is basically a CONSTANT.
Hey! I'm a person too!
.
.
.
;P