|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
LLV confuses me, the PRD says this for Low Light Vision (LLV), then it says this. The first link also says "Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.", then the other link says "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."
So from that I think it means that dim-light is effectively normal light for LLV characters, so they would not suffer the 20% miss chance due to concealment (while in dim light). Thoughts anyone?
What's wrong with "it does what it says it does"? Seems to me like we have general rules for low-light vision, plus a special exception that you can see just fine in moonlight. Is there something suggesting that the rules mean something other than that?
So how well can they see on a bright starlit night? Do they have a 20% miss chance? Can Steath be used against them?
They can see twice as far as normal, but I don't think there's any limitation on how far normal vision can see in dim light, as long as the whole area is dimly lit.
I would say they'd treat "bright starlight" or any non-radius type of dim light as normal light, the same way they treat moonlight, but the RAW only makes an exception for moonlight.
So here is My question to all of this..
If you have Dark Vision do you still suffer miss Chance in Dim light? Is that like a blind spot for Normal vision and Dark Vision?
Reecy wrote: So here is My question to all of this..
If you have Dark Vision do you still suffer miss Chance in Dim light? Is that like a blind spot for Normal vision and Dark Vision?
Ah, an easy question. We like those.
Quote: 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.
That doesn't make sense, is the moonlight some special case or something? I just figured they used that as an example of dim light that they could see in. Why would that be any different than say bright starlight? I searched the boards prior to posting this and there are A LOT of posts that ask the same question with no definitive ruling. Grrr, can't believe this hasn't been FAQ'd. Hmmmm, I think moonlight is called out because it's all encompassing, unlike a torch which has a set radius.
Felix Gaunt wrote: That doesn't make sense, is the moonlight some special case or something? It is a special case. It's a case of a big illuminator that's outdoors that shines over a very wide area... (horizon to horizon)
So if you don't have other issues, like forest canopy or fog, you're golden.
Moonlight is a low light illumination of the area.
Yes its basically a HUGE torch.
Felix Gaunt wrote: That doesn't make sense, is the moonlight some special case or something? I just figured they used that as an example of dim light that they could see in. Why would that be any different than say bright starlight? I searched the boards prior to posting this and there are A LOT of posts that ask the same question with no definitive ruling. Grrr, can't believe this hasn't been FAQ'd. Hmmmm, I think moonlight is called out because it's all encompassing, unlike a torch which has a set radius. I think that's the distinction they were trying to make too. OTOH, they call out "bright starlight" as an example of dim light, but don't make it clear that low-light vision lets you see as in normal light.
I'm about 95% sure that the intent is for ambient dim light to be treated as normal light. Light radiating from close sources has its radius extended.
OTOH, you could make the case that moonlight is brighter than starlight, even though they both fall into dim, so it's treated differently.
LazarX wrote: Felix Gaunt wrote: That doesn't make sense, is the moonlight some special case or something? It is a special case. It's a case of a big illuminator that's outdoors that shines over a very wide area... (horizon to horizon)
So if you don't have other issues, like forest canopy or fog, you're golden. Much like bright starlight, which doesn't get a special exemption written in.
The question is, is moonlight an exception or is that how you treat all (effectively) non-point sources of light? Those without a radius to double.
I also think that their intention was to make all ambient light (dim) be effectively normal light for LLV characters, but as was said why can't they just say that? We all know how ambiguous some of the stuff in Pathfinder is, this just being one of them. With regards to non-point sources of light, wouldn't bright starlight = moonlight? Bleh, I'll keep looking and see what people think. For now I'll just have to stick with the literal RAW since I mostly play PFS.
Felix Gaunt wrote: I also think that their intention was to make all ambient light (dim) be effectively normal light for LLV characters, but as was said why can't they just say that? We all know how ambiguous some of the stuff in Pathfinder is, this just being one of them. With regards to non-point sources of light, wouldn't bright starlight = moonlight? Bleh, I'll keep looking and see what people think. For now I'll just have to stick with the literal RAW since I mostly play PFS. Because they had no good rules definition of ambient light. There wasn't a term for it until a FAQ entry and it wasn't clearly defined until recently.
Even for PFS, I think the rules are ambiguous enough that as you're a GM it would be fine to allow any ambient dim light to be treated as normal, not just moonlight. As a player, you'll have to accept whichever approach your GM takes.
Dim light counts as normal light for characters with low-light vision.
A torch has a radius of 20 ft. normal light and 40 feet dim light. So for characters with LLV, that's a radius of 40 feet normal light.
Then there is another radius from 40 feet to 80 feet, which is dark for normal vision and dim for LLV.
Does that help?
That's what I think as well and how I'll run it should I GM, would prefer some sort of clarification from the powers-that-be though. :-/ Thanks!
Yora wrote: Dim light counts as normal light for characters with low-light vision.
A torch has a radius of 20 ft. normal light and 40 feet dim light. So for characters with LLV, that's a radius of 40 feet normal light.
Then there is another radius from 40 feet to 80 feet, which is dark for normal vision and dim for LLV.
Does that help?
Do you have a specific rules quote for "Dim light counts as normal light for characters with low-light vision"?
The rules text I know of talks about "twice as far", which works nicely with the radius of torches, but doesn't really mean anything with larger areas of dim light.
It's something that follows from applying the rules that are given:
"Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters."
And for all light sources, at least in the CRB, the radius of increased light is always double the radius of the normal light. So when an elf treats the radius of normal light emanated by a torch as twice as big as normal, that happens to match exactly with the normal radius of dim light by that torch.
And I don't think that's coincidence. I can't think of any light source where the situation would not be identical.
What's that got to do with what thejeff asked?
Bright starlight, which provides dim light according to the vision and light rules. No radius is given or makes sense.
There is an exception for moonlight, which provides dim light that characters with low light vision treat as normal, but the rules don't explicitly make the same exception for starlight or other possible sources of dim light without a given radius.
All of the point sources (torches and the like) produce an area of normal light, then dim light around that. That area of normal light is doubled, but for ambient dim light, there is no normal light to double.
Mind you, I think you're right about the intent. I just would like to have an explicit reference to back my position up with.
The sun throws bright or normal light onto the moon, then the moon reflects dim light to the planet's surface. That's how I justify that a normal creature sees dimly on a moon-lit night, and a creature with low-light vision sees as if it were normally illuminated -- because the radii of illumination for celestial bodies are being effectively doubled.
It's the most mechanically consistent way I've found to run illumination, and I can even concoct a handy in-game reason for it. Much better than the sophistry I've seen that elves can see 80 feet normally when holding a torch.
Felix Gaunt wrote: That doesn't make sense, is the moonlight some special case or something? I just figured they used that as an example of dim light that they could see in. Why would that be any different than say bright starlight? I searched the boards prior to posting this and there are A LOT of posts that ask the same question with no definitive ruling. Grrr, can't believe this hasn't been FAQ'd. Hmmmm, I think moonlight is called out because it's all encompassing, unlike a torch which has a set radius. The way I see it is this: low light vision basically doubles the range increments of a light source, right? So in areas around a torch that would be dim (20-40 feet away) would be bright for such a creature, and it would be dim further out than that.
Let's focus on the dim area that was made bright for this. Now, as a light source (let's not get too technical on reflection of sunlight here), the moon works fairly similarly as the sun, since it spreads its light across the landscape, and you can't really do the "twice as far" thing. If moonlight is as bright as the dim area of a torch, then it would be just as good as day light for a creature with lowlight vision.This is because that dim area is just as good as daylight (bright light) for this creature.
Or you could just read that as fluff text. But it was written in a fairly rule heavy section, so who knows? You could easily take it at face value.
So is it worth getting LLV if you already have Darkvision? Not seeing a big benefit, although I guess if you have it you'd see as follows:
Light Spell (w/o LLV or Darkvision):
0-20: Normal Light
21-40: Dim Light
41+: Can't see jack
Light Spell (w/ LLV):
0-40: Normal Light
41-80: Dim Light
81+: Can't see jack
So in this instance you can see 20 feet further than someone with Darkvision, although you'd still have the 20% miss chance
Light (w/ LLV & Darkvision):
0-40: Normal Light
41-60: Normal Light
61-80: Dim Light
81+: Can't see jack
Light Spell (w/ LLV & Keen Senses):
0-80: Normal Light
81-160: Dim Light
161+: Can't see jack
I'm not sure how you're going about getting Low-Light Vision. It would be better, if possible, to get the 120' version of Darkvision, which I think most of the Darkvision granting things give you if you've already got Darkvision.
Still, it's pretty marginal. Might be worth it if you're an archer and you find that particular range coming up a lot.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
