Lets say you have a character with darkvision fighting against enemies in the dark without the ability to see him. Would he be considered invisible and able to apply the appropriate modifiers.
Condition: Invisible
"Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance)."
If so would it also apply to someone who could see through fog fighting someone who couldn't in a fog cloud effect?
Thanks for your input.
No. They follow these rules for fighting in the dark, which is different than Darkness as that is a spell that changes the level of light based on the starting light.
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.
Thanks for the reply Komoda,
I would imagine if the character with darkvision fighting in darkness against enemies without darkvision drank an invisibility potion then technically he would qualify for the invisibility +2 to attack bonus, but in actuality that wouldn't change or make a difference to what the enemy could see since he was already blind.
Might this condition only apply to the darkness blinded character-
"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."
-and the attacker with darkvision being technically 'visually undetectable" able to use the benefit of the to hit bonus that goes with the invisible condition?
Okay, thanks Kazejin
Now for an archer who can see through fog and is in fog shooting arrows at an enemy out of the range of the fog but unable to see into it, does the archer get the bonus as if he were invisible being that he is 'visually undetectable'?
Kazejin is correct. I have read that they don't stack somewhere, but it does not appear to be under the combat modifiers section of the CRB. It might have been in the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
I'm not sure if that's applicable in this case. Targets not in fog being fired at by an unseen archer with the ability to see through fog firing from within the fog, are considered blind?
Would it be more appropriate to simply consider the archer invisible?
Seems like a six or half-dozen kind of question. They can't see you, you get a bonus to attack, or they get a penalty to ac, and they lose their dex ac bonuses.
Say for your darkness one, they are blind, and you aren't. It isn't really a matter of them not seeing you, they can't see anything. For the fog, you are invisible. They can see fine, just not you.
Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
*innocently* So, RAW, I can get that additional +2 to hit for becoming invisible when the enemy can't see me in the first place, due to not being able to see in darkness?
Invisible AND in total darkness... SCORE!! xD
Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
I'm not sure if that's applicable in this case. Targets not in fog being fired at by an unseen archer with the ability to see through fog firing from within the fog, are considered blind?
Would it be more appropriate to simply consider the archer invisible?
It doesn't really matter what is more appropriate. The rule is that they function as blind--you only count as invisible when you are invisible.
Ah, but they're more guidelines than actual rules.
Ah, but they're more guidelines than actual rules.
No, they're actual rules.
I'm not saying you can't change the rules--that's up to each group and GM, and it's perfectly fine to play that way.
However, this is the Rules Question forum, so the answers should be by the rules, not "by whatever you want to make up."
I use a lot of houserules. I suggest a lot of them, too. That does not make them good answers for a Rules Question forum.
It doesn't really matter what is more appropriate. The rule is that they function as blind--you only count as invisible when you are invisible.Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
I'm not sure if that's applicable in this case. Targets not in fog being fired at by an unseen archer with the ability to see through fog firing from within the fog, are considered blind?
Would it be more appropriate to simply consider the archer invisible?
Sorry, I think perhaps I have failed to share my thoughts clearly. I understand that there is no double dipping or stacking of effects for the Invisible and Blind conditions (IE +2 to hit and -2 to AC).
This part I don't think applies to the scenario I'm dealing with.
"Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible."
A lot of effects come with being blind
"Blinded
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone."
With darkness out of the equation (call it a sunny day even), I can't see giving the blinded condition to targets that can see normally, standing just outside of a fog cloud effect just because they can't see the enemy inside the fog (enemy has total concealment). I wouldn't think they would be effected by any conditions. Now if the enemy inside the fog (who can see through fog without issue) fires an arrow at those people not in the fog, should the attack be treated as if from an invisible source.
"Invisible
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability."
Since the archer in the fog is 'visually undetectable', is that the correct way to handle it?
Is saying 'Invisible creatures are visually undetectable' the same as saying 'visually undetectable creatures are invisible'?
If not then the logic breaks down for me when the archer in the fog drinks an invisibility potion. In that case he's absolutely invisible and would gain the benefit of the condition, but the targets outside the fog wouldn't know the difference because they couldn't see him in the first place. So to them he's been invisible the whole time.
I apologize now for over explaining : )
Sorry, I think perhaps I have failed to share my thoughts clearly.
Ok, let me explain further:
I am not suggesting the rules necessarily make sense or that they are the best way to handle the situation. They are simply the rules.
It also doesn't really matter because either way, your attacks are 2 points easier to hit with and they don't get Dex to AC against you. They have to pinpoint your location to attack and get a 50% miss chance either way.
Can I ask why it matters which condition applies?
Sorry, I think perhaps I have failed to share my thoughts clearly.Ok, let me explain further:
I am not suggesting the rules necessarily make sense or that they are the best way to handle the situation. They are simply the rules.
It also doesn't really matter because either way, your attacks are 2 points easier to hit with and they don't get Dex to AC against you. They have to pinpoint your location to attack and get a 50% miss chance either way.
Can I ask why it matters which condition applies?
Thanks everyone for the input. I have a better grasp of uses of both the blinded and invisible conditions.
As for why it matters, well the end result is the same but I wanted to see if the invisible condition was exclusive to something as specific as the spell or if it would apply to other circumstances that sneak attack using characters might arrange.
Is saying 'Invisible creatures are visually undetectable' the same as saying 'visually undetectable creatures are invisible'
No, these are not the same. All As are letters, not all letters are As.
You are only invisible if something specifically states that you are. While you may not be visible in the fog from one direction, you may be visible from another.
Komoda,
I understand that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, but when you say
"While you may not be visible in the fog from one direction, you may be visible from another. "
that sounds to me a lot like
When you are invisible, you are visually undetectable to some but not to others with 'see invisibility'.
seems like the same thing
I think I may have a point that will help you see the difference:
Think of it this way, you can use negative sight to know where someone who is not invisible is not.
For instance, if an invisible person is in square A, then the viewer would have no idea their target was there. But they would also be tricked into thinking they are not there, making them dismiss any threat from that square.
If a viewer cannot see square A, then they would also have no idea that their target is there. BUT they would not automatically dismiss the threat from that square because they know that danger COULD be there.
Just because they don't have line of sight, it doesn't make the target invisible, even if they can't be seen.
Hope this helps.
Fair enough, it's a pretty technical thing.
Thanks for the help
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree Komoda:
Two situations:
1) you are 20feet away in fog (or darkness) and the person you are shooting at cannot see where you are. You shoot at him. The GM states he notes the general direction the arrows came from. That is a vector, not a square. For all intents and purposes you are unseen and location unknown.
2) you have greater invisibility cast upon you and the person you are shooting at cannot see where you are. You shoot at him. The GM states he notes the general direction the arrows came from (since they are visible once they are released). Again, it is a vector and not a square. For all intents and purposes you are unseen and location unknown.
Note: in #2 a perception check could actually help the target pin down your location whereas there is no hope in the case of #1.
In any case, the rules on stealth and visibility are extremely vague. That is why the Stealth Playtest occurred. While it is not yet part of the rules if we take a look at it for a second we see that what this amounts to is the 'Hidden' condition with the extra rider that you have total concealment due to environmental conditions.
How does that compare to Invisibility? The effects are virtually identical.
Summary: While the current stealth and visibility rules are vague the second Stealth Playtest fixes many of the problems and works the way some people have been suggesting it should work (ie: invisibility or close to it).
- Gauss
Thanks Gauss,
I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of those playtest results.
Player1:
Unfortunately, nothing will become of them in the current generation of the rules because the Devs have stated that they are too much of a change. However, they did invite people to use the rules in their own games. I use the second playtest because they just make more sense than the current stealth rules.
- Gauss
Gauss, I disagree with your disagree. ;)
My examples were solely based on a reasoning for the rules, not an actual rule themselves.
Your examples are a different situation than mine because the viewer cannot see the square in one of your examples. As such there is no reason for you to dismiss the square as a threat. That is the key to my argument about the difference between not seeing someone and them being invisible.
There also is no reason that I can see as to why you could not use perception checks to try and pinpoint the square for the target in your first example. In fact that would be the only way that you could hope to target them.
Happy Gaming.
|
I think it comes down to a difference between not being able to see a single enemy (enemy is invisible) and not being able to see anything at all (you are blind). Also the fact that being blind makes whether or not your enemy is invisible irrelevant (represented by the fact any modifiers gained from being invisible only apply vs sighted targets).
Ok, let me just stop this list of "what ifs" right now. The only way you get the bonus to hit for being invisible is, (Surprise!) if you are invisible. If you are not invisible, you do not get it. That simple.
Under conditions in which the enemy can't see you, but you are not invisible, they are considered Blind, rather than you being considered invisible.
No, that's not right. If the enemy can't see you, but you are not using an invisibility power, they are not considered blind unless they cannot see anything at all. There are too many other issues from being blind (penalties to Strength and Dex skills, penalty to perception, acrobatics check to move over half speed) for that condition to apply to an enemy if the PC happens to be visibly undetectable at the time.
In a situation in which the enemy can see normally but cannot see you... you really are invisible under the current definition of the conditions. If the descriptive clause for achieving the invisible condition - being visually undetectable - has been met. The condition applies. The problem is, since the name of the condition is the same as an actual power, too many people assume the two must mean the same thing and that's not true. The revised stealth rules playtest acknowledges that and tries to clarify the situation by conferring the bonuses from the original invisibility condition onto a new condition called hidden and then reformulating the invisible condition to indicate it incorporates the benefits of being hidden. No matter how you slice it, the intent of attacking from an unseen position was made crystal clear - you should gain the benefits of the current invisible condition (+2 to hit and ignore Dex bonus vs sighted opponents).
The reason the invisible condition does not apply in the OP's case is because 1) the blind condition already applies to the targeted enemy and 2) the benefits for having the invisible condition apply against sighted enemies.
Komoda:
What I disagree with you on is when a creature is invisible, but you know it is there (you have pinpointed it). It still gains a +2 bonus to attack and negates your dexterity. By your logic, you KNOW the creature is there (or COULD be there).
This is not a situation of 'I did not know there was an invisible creature here'.
It is a situation of 'I know there is an invisible creature I cannot see and he is standing in front of me'.
In the case of the target that can see you but you cannot see it the effects should be the same. You may know the enemy is in square X but you cannot see the enemy. Effectively, the enemy is hidden (or invisible) relative to you.
Do the rules cover this? Nope. Then again, the rules for stealth and visibility do not cover many things.
- Gauss