I believe that the backlighting issue, while very real, is just outside the scope of playability in a tabletop game. It would be impossible to accurately identify the exact source and direction of the light to apply it to the exact location of the viewer with or without something in between.
As far as playability goes, it is equally easy to say that you can see trough the darkness but not into it as it is to say you cannot see through it or into it. So as far as that goes, I don't think either choice adds a layer of complication, it just changes the effects.
I am fully in the "see through" court.
As to the dragon example, I fully support it as flavor text to set the mood. As we all know, flavor text does not have to set the mechanic.
As to the usefulness of casting it without seeing into it, that is always situational. Put it over a pit to cover your escape and it is very useful. Use it with tremmorsense and you are basically a god. If you can't see and you just need a few rounds to hide, heal and buff, it can be useful then as well.
|
I'd be very curious to see developer input on this question. I can *sort of* see the argument that it doesn't block line of sight, but not really (perhaps there's a ball of darkness in my view?)
I can't get past the backlighting of obstructions within the darkness (and no - "it makes them invisible" is entirely outside the effects of the spell). Imagine a 200' room, normal lighting, white walls, and deeper darkness in the middle. Then a Great Wyrm Red Dragon appears in the center of the room. You can't see *that*? You can't get an outline of huge wings, craning neck?
It would be immensely cinematic if you could. But on the other side, two PC's halfway around the sphere of darkness could pinpoint any creature inside just by pointing where they see its shadow. Has heavy implications for how blind a creature would be inside darkness as well.
Bravo to those arguing for this, for providing very clear examples. I'd never even considered that full or supernatural darkness could be "see-through".
I still don't see your point. As I said before, even if there were creatures inside a patch of nonmagical darkness in between two light sources, they wouldn't be revealed from backlighting. It's simply out of scope of the system.
I'd be very curious to see developer input on this question. I can *sort of* see the argument that it doesn't block line of sight, but not really (perhaps there's a ball of darkness in my view?)
I can't get past the backlighting of obstructions within the darkness (and no - "it makes them invisible" is entirely outside the effects of the spell). Imagine a 200' room, normal lighting, white walls, and deeper darkness in the middle. Then a Great Wyrm Red Dragon appears in the center of the room. You can't see *that*? You can't get an outline of huge wings, craning neck?
It would be immensely cinematic if you could. But on the other side, two PC's halfway around the sphere of darkness could pinpoint any creature inside just by pointing where they see its shadow. Has heavy implications for how blind a creature would be inside darkness as well.
Bravo to those arguing for this, for providing very clear examples. I'd never even considered that full or supernatural darkness could be "see-through".
That's why I always describe it at the table as "The Great Wyrm appears to fade into the shadows." In practice, this is hardly ever a problem since deeper darkness tends not to be cast inside of IKEA kitchens and the silhouette of the monster would be seen along with the silhouette of the foliage it's hiding in or stone pillars or broken walls or its own treasure hoard.
In a home game, if the players took the time to arrange themselves into a tactical formation to better pinpoint the monster, I *might* be convinced to give some sort of situational bonus to either the concealment miss chance roll or to the attack roll but that's house-rule territory. They'd be better off using glitterdust or something to that effect, though.
The rules state you target creatures, not a general direction. You cannot target creatures in squares that grant concealment without there being some sort of miss chance.
|
|
If they have darkvision and you don't, it puts you on the same footing.
You can use it as concealment to buy time. Drop it on ranged attackers while you close on them and/or hit them with AoEs. Can't be targeted while you're buffing.
Of course, if you do have darkvision, it's far more useful. Deeper Darkness, cast in normal light, gets you regular darkness.
Dropping darkness onto ranged characters is pretty pointless unless you're inside the radius. They can still see you, even if they can't see themselves.
If they have darkvision and you don't, it puts you on the same footing.
That would be deeper darkness.
Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a few scenarios.
Darkvision, available to tons of characters and classes, allows you to see through the normal level of darkness.
Creatures with see in darkness, such as most devils and many tieflings, can see through even magical levels of darkness.
Creatures with Blind-Fight are less inhibited by darkness than creatures that aren't, even if both of them otherwise have normal vision.
Creatures with Scent, such as plenty of half-orcs, barbarians and druids, can automatically pinpoint the square of an adjacent creature. They can also tell the general direction of enemies with a move action.
Creatures with Tremorsense, such as deaf oracles or elementals, can pinpoint enemies touching the ground.
Creatures with Blindsense, such as clouded vision oracles or dragons, can automatically pinpoint enemies they have line of effect to.
Creatures with Blindsight, such as clouded vision oracles and many plants and oozes, can see creatures in darkness just as well as if they were sighted.
When a creature capitalizes on precision damage, such as Sneak Attack, or the Duelist's Precise Strike, then it may be worth it to cast darkness even if you have normal vision. Precision damage cannot be used against creatures with Concealment, so while a fighter with 50% miss chance is certainly hindered, he isn't as hindered as much as a rogue with 50% miss chance and no ability to use sneak attack.
When a creature capitalizes on attacks of opportunity, such as Reach weapon users, Combat Patrol users, or ranged attackers with Snap Shot, then it may be worth it to cast darkness even if you have normal vision. Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from opponents they have Concealment against.
Conversely -- perhaps a much rarer case -- suppose that you have a character who is mostly useless in a battle, and you think the best way you could contribute would be to use a combat maneuver, but you aren't trained in combat maneuvers. When you aren't trained in combat maneuvers, you provoke an attack of opportunity from your target, and any resultant damage will penalize your combat maneuver check. In such a case, it may be worth it to cast darkness for the same reason stated in the above paragraph. Even a lowly first-level wizard who is untrained in combat maneuvers and almost completely out of spells can really help out in a fight if he can gain Concealment against an enemy, cast True Strike and then perform a disarm.
Edit: I accidentally a paragraph.
This has been one of the more interesting discussions in my opinion, mostly concerning darkness and back lighting (whether mundane or magical).
Out of curiosity has anyone ever played that out in game (lets say non-magical darkness for arguement's sake)
"A figure steps in front a distant bright light, although completely cloaked in darkness you can clearly see the outline of his towering figure."
Or something. I FAQed the question, I suggest the same to anyone else.
Out of curiosity has anyone ever played that out in game (lets say non-magical darkness for arguement's sake)
"A figure steps in front a distant bright light, although completely cloaked in darkness you can clearly see the outline of his towering figure."
I LOVE arguments for argument's sake. Challenge accepted.
How does an archer judge the difference between a perfectly visible silhouette of height 5' at distance 20' versus one that's of height 25' at distance 100'?
:D
Just how towering is that "towering figure?"
Dot for total confusion.
Retracing some previous elements in the thread I know, but I think it would be worth considering the difference between a character stood in magical darkness and being backlit by a light source on the other side versus an invisible creature stood in the same location.
The light source is not blocked by the magical darkness - I think that was the consensus of opinion - but cannot illuminate anything in the darkness. However, the person stood in the darkness does block the light source so is silhouetted and gains concealment. However the invisible person does not block the light source and remains invisible.
Out of curiosity has anyone ever played that out in game (lets say non-magical darkness for arguement's sake)
"A figure steps in front a distant bright light, although completely cloaked in darkness you can clearly see the outline of his towering figure."
I LOVE arguments for argument's sake. Challenge accepted.
How does an archer judge the difference between a perfectly visible silhouette of height 5' at distance 20' versus one that's of height 25' at distance 100'?
:D
Just how towering is that "towering figure?"
That's actually quite easy. At first glance the tangent of the angle of a 5 foot tall creature 20 feet away is the same as 25 foot tall creature 100 feet away. But that is only true if viewed from ground level. Assuming the observer's eyes are at a height of 5 feet looking from head to toe would require the observer to move their eyes down 14 degrees to see the whole of the first person. To see the second character they would have to look up 11 degrees (to see something 20 feet taller a 100 feet away) and then move their eyes down a total of 14 degrees to end up looking 3 degrees downwards. So although the angle of eye movement is the same in both instances the start and end angles are different as the observer has their own height as a frame of reference to judge distance.
Whoa whoa... Slow down there Stephen Hawking.
|
concealment? (link is to an image of a person in a dark area silhouetted from a horizon behind)
For some reason, I thought that magical darkness was more effective then that?
concealment? (link is to an image of a person in a dark area silhouetted from a horizon behind)
For some reason, I thought that magical darkness was more effective then that?
The site doesn't allow hotlinking. Fixed link.
Magical darkness is quite effective. It can grant 20% or 50% miss chance to creatures within its area of effect. That's not nothing.
|
|
I run it like how Serum describes it: Darkness only has an effect within it's area. You can see through it fine, you just can't see things in it. It's how the spell is worded and it's simply easier to handle that way, as well.Bolded my addition. You can see things that are outside of the darkness even when you are in it. You cannot see things that are within the darkness, even when you are outside it.
Except if the darkness was in the core of a sphere and I could see the other sides of the sphere through the darknes any object inside the darkness sphere would be visible against the background as a darkened shape itself.
concealment? (link is to an image of a person in a dark area silhouetted from a horizon behind)
For some reason, I thought that magical darkness was more effective then that?
The site doesn't allow hotlinking. Fixed link.
Magical darkness is quite effective. It can grant 20% or 50% miss chance to creatures within its area of effect. That's not nothing.
So in the case of the spere situation it would seem to act like an area of effect displacement spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still very intrigued by this, but for any thinking this is resolved, and the answer is "Yes", please note that the rules are darkness heavily indicate that it can blind you.
PRD on Darkness
Darkvision allows many characters and monsters to see perfectly well without any light at all, but characters with normal or low-light vision can be rendered completely blind by putting out the lights. Torches or lanterns can be blown out by sudden gusts of subterranean wind, magical light sources can be dispelled or countered, or magical traps might create fields of impenetrable darkness.
In many cases, some characters or monsters might be able to see while others are blinded. For purposes of the following points, a blinded creature is one who simply can't see through the surrounding darkness.
Creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra damage due to precision (for example, via sneak attack or a duelist's precise strike ability).
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Blinded creatures can't run or charge.
All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction.
A blinded creature loses its Dexterity modifier to AC (if positive) and takes a –2 penalty to AC.
A blinded creature takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, including any with an armor check penalty. A creature blinded by darkness automatically fails any skill check relying on vision.
Creatures blinded by darkness cannot use gaze attacks and are immune to gaze attacks.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
A blinded creature can grope about to find unseen creatures. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action. If an unseen target is in the designated square, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has pinpointed the unseen creature's current location. If the unseen creature moves, its location is once again unknown.
If a blinded creature is struck by an unseen foe, the blinded character pinpoints the location of the creature that struck him (until the unseen creature moves, of course). The only exception is if the unseen creature has a reach greater than 5 feet (in which case the blinded character knows the location of the unseen opponent, but has not pinpointed him) or uses a ranged attack (in which case the blinded character knows the general direction of the foe, but not his location).
A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.
In response to some of the above; yes, I consider magical darkness different than normal darkness as far as being see-through; no, I don't consider back-lighting to be "beyond the scope of the system"; and FYI glitterdust is useless in full darkness.
For kicks, here's some of the language on Darkness through the years:
"1st edition PHB"
"2nd edition PHB"
"3.0 edition PHB"
"3.5 edition PHB"
"PF Core Rulebook"
Have a look at the earlier editions and I think you'll see where I'm coming from. (It's as if I was backlit...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"PF Core Rulebook"
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty.
Thanks for the research Majuba, in previous editions, particularly 1e and 2e darkness may have been more barrier-like as there was no darkvision but infravision instead. However the bit I've emphasised in bold from the core rulebook states that darkvision can see into magical darkness. To my mind this specific change from previous editions reinforces the idea that a creature without darkvision can see through but not into a darkness covered area; but if the light the other side is blocked by something within the darkness then it will create a silhouette.
|
|
Thanks for the research Majuba, in previous editions, particularly 1e and 2e darkness may have been more barrier-like as there was no darkvision but infravision instead. However the bit I've emphasised in bold from the core rulebook states that darkvision can see into magical darkness. To my mind this specific change from previous editions reinforces the idea that a creature without darkvision can see through but not into a darkness covered area; but if the light the other side is blocked by something within the darkness then it will create a silhouette."PF Core Rulebook"
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty.
It looks like they've changed it so creatures with darkvision can use it to gain a tactical advantage where as in earlier editions everyone ended up blind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another use for racial darkvision. Me likey! Will point this out to my PC group.
|
My trouble with this is backlighting.
If there is a sphere of darkness between two lit rooms, and you rule that the darkness is transparent (you can see things on the other side), then I actually can logically outline the creatures inside the darkness effect.
The reasoning is this: I cannot see the creatures inside the darkness, sure. If I look down at them from the ceiling, all I'll see is the textureless and colorless black of the creatures, the floor, and the rest of the room's contents, all indistinguishable from each other.
However, if I look from a lit room across the darkness effect and toward the other lit room, we have a nice backlight. Now, I still can't see the creatures -- they're still dark and colorless -- they ARE standing directly between me and, say, a well-lit white wall. Essentially, by prowling around a darkness spell and looking to see where creatures interrupt my view of another lit area, I can start crudely picking out where creatures are and targeting attacks.
In case that's unclear, let's go back to the football field example. Suppose there are big lights lighting either side of a football field, but they've left a completely dark area in the middle.
A person sitting in the benches at the side can clearly see football players clustered around each goalpost. If a player walks into the middle of the field, they completely disappear into the darkness.
However, suppose you're one of the players at a goalpost, and a player from the other side walks into the middle of the field. You'd lose all ability to distinguish his jersey, its colors, his fine dimensions -- but he's still obstruct your view if you walked across your end of the field. You could totally target a crossbow in his direction if you had one.
And maybe that's okay with some people. I don't like it. I like more of a solid~, cloying darkness
Differently from invisibility darkness don't give the people in it a +20 to stealth, it simply allow them to use stealth and to be unseen (but not invisible).
You can get to notice their presence with a unmodified perception vs stealth check and you "only" add +20 when trying to pinpoint their position, while if they were invisible your check would be perception vs stealth+20 and if you were trying to pinpoint their location perception vs stealth +40.So your scenario seem to depict exactly how the spell work
|
|
For those talking about how seeing through the darkness is possible without also seeing those inside, I explained this a while ago — I suppose you missed my explanation.
one one could justifiably argue that magical darkness makes things inside invisible, or that magical darkness actually absorbs light waves so that nothing can get past (like a fog). One would allow vision past the magical darkness, the other wouldn't.It's a pretty simple principle: magical darkness makes things invisible, which makes sense since there's a magical source that could give such an effect. Essentially it's like a really weak invisibility sphere that only works in pure darkness.
As you can see in my post above, invisibility has vastly different modifiers.
doing it the way you suggest would generate mroe problems.
My trouble with this is backlighting.
If there is a sphere of darkness between two lit rooms, and you rule that the darkness is transparent (you can see things on the other side), then I actually can logically outline the creatures inside the darkness effect.
Bonus (Circumstance)
A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand.
Above are the only game rules you will find for backlighting making it easier to locate someone when they cast darkness while silhouetted against a clear, brightly lit background. Or are silhouetted against a clear, brightly lit background while in any other type of darkness. GM assigns a circumstance bonus or penalty as appropriate, as according to his judgment about how the backlighting conditions affect the task at hand.
Other than that, the backlighting debate is irrelevant as, unlike darkness, there are no specific rules covering that.
(Thankfully. Pathfinder does not need a bunch of specific spelled out rules for the interaction when darkness is backlit in between two well lit rooms)
I'm still very intrigued by this, but for any thinking this is resolved, and the answer is "Yes"...
And for any thinking that the answer is "No," a reminder that for all the subtle rules analysis here, the biggest strike against opaque darkness is that there is nothing whatsoever in the text of the darkness spell indicating that it is opaque.
The "Yes" answer continues to require reading things in the spell that are not actually there in the words of the spell, as nearly as I can tell. Nobody has come up with any text actually stating that darkness possesses different opacity than any other type of darkness.
SO SAY WE ALL
I have the feeling that this is the first of several darkness related FAQs.
seebs, if you can see through an area of magical darkness using one ability (such as See in Darkness) but not using normal vision then yes, you know it is there.
Similarly, for a regular hemisphere of darkness (not magical darkness) darkvision would be able to see through it and notice that it is there.
Summary: Your other vision abiliies do not turn off when using Darkvision or See in Darkness.
- Gauss