My DM seems to think that Darkvision negates the ability for a Shadowdancer to use Hide in Plain Sight because in stealth you are required to either have cover or concealment. He is consistent on the fact that one or the other are required to use stealth unless SPECIFICALLY stated otherwise, in which case it doesn't for shadowdancers. It instead says you do not need cover, can hide while being observed, yet he still insists I need concealment from darkvision.
My DM is incredibly thick. I have used quotes and the like straight form the book yet this is what I still get back from him:
"Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
Here is what you are talking about. Note that it still says even while being observed….as long as you are within 10 feet area of dim light (ie shadows, darkness, CONCEALMENT). The next part is very important. There is a subtle distinction that you are missing. “Hide behind” means to use cover to hide. It says right in the Stealth skill that you can use cover or concealment. This is just saying that the Shadowdancer needs only a bit of shadow to CONCEAL themselves.
Copied and pasted from Pathfinder Core Rulebook Stealth skill:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Above is the reference to concealment and the Stealth skill.
Copied and pasted from Pathfinder Core Rulebook page 197
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn’t always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn’t provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.
This means that you must always have either concealment or cover to use Stealth. If you are using shadows and/or darkness as concealment then it is not effective against opponents with Darkvision.
If you don’t use either of these then it’s not stealth, it’s invisibility."
Now, are there any suggestions as to what I can do in order to get this guy to come back to reality? I'd really like to not have to leave my group because of him and this ordeal.
You could try a box of cookies. Or $20.
You could try a box of cookies. Or $20.
I was thinking the box of cookies, but he isn't a very nice guy so I still dont think bribery will work. He's one of them booty holes
"As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow."
Dim light exists, independent of observers. A Shadowdancer can hide from view in the open without anything to hide behind if they are within an area of dim light.
There are literally only two things to be concerned with:
1) Is there an area of dim light?
2) Is the Shadowdancer within 10' of it?
If you answered yes to both, you can hide, period (unless you have a condition that prevents it, like, say, being glitterdusted.
I have stressed all of the above yet he still sits on the fact I need either cover or concealment to use stealth and refuses to accept "can use stealth even while being observed"
It's an interesting question. If there's no one to observe it doesn't matter if there's dim light or not. There's no one to hide from. So the dim light must be from someone's point of view.
So, is the 'dim light' from the point of view of the shadow dancer or from the person they're hiding from?
If I can play devils advocate for a moment, I can see you GM's point. If there are no shadows (from the point of view of the one who being hidden from) then how can the shadow dancer hide?
I'd FAQ this if it were on the 'Rules Questions' thread.
It's an interesting question. If there's no one to observe it doesn't matter if there's dim light or not. There's no one to hide from. So the dim light must be from someone's point of view.
So, is the 'dim light' from the point of view of the shadow dancer or from the person they're hiding from?
No, dim light exists independent of witnesses.
"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."
Outside at night is dim light even in places utterly devoid of observers.
Anyway, using his own arguments:
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth."
By these statements, having cover or concealment makes you unobserved. Therefore, having neither cover nor concealment makes you observed.
"A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed."
Since the state of being observed requires that you have neither concealment nor cover, the shadowdancer can ignore both requirements.
Win.
Oh, and I'm curious, how does your GM think Hellcat Stealth works? "You may make Stealth checks in normal or bright light even when observed, but at a -10 penalty."
I just messaged him again saying I can hide even while being observed
"That's not what it says. It says you must be within 10ft of a shadow. In the Stealth skill, you can do the same thing with a bluff check and a -10 penalty on your stealth check. Hide in Plain sight merely allows you to do it without penalty. What you want is invisibility. Did you look at the Urban Ranger like I told you to?"
First of all, point out that it is specifically a Supernatural ability. Then, look up the reference text for the spell Deeper darkness and show it too him. The link u want to point out is the part that says dark vision won't work in supernatural darkness. This is the key part of your argument. Afterwards describe the Shadowdancer ability as your character taking the darkness from anywhere within ten feet to wrap himself in a shroud of supernatural darkness which then blends into the shadows, thereby granting you 'concealment' if you will and allowing you to stealth.
Let me know if this interpretation helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, dim light exists independent of witnesses.
"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."
Outside at night is dim light even in places utterly devoid of observers.
It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.
If you don't mind an extra feat tax, just pick up
Hellcat Stealth
end of story, you can hide even if your enemies have true seeing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.No, dim light exists independent of witnesses.
"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."
Outside at night is dim light even in places utterly devoid of observers.
Yes it is. Darkvision lets you see in the dark. It doesn't make the dark into light.
Honestly from my experience with people like this you mostly have two choices.
1. Accept his stupid ruling.
2. Leave the campaign.
It sucks, but it doesn't sound like this guy is going to just up and realize he's being stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.
If you have a flashlight, you're right, it stops being dim light, because a flashlight is a light source, which changes ambient light levels. It would be the same, however, if the flashlight were just hanging from the ceiling and nobody was around.
You having darkvision, on the other hand, would not make any difference at all. It would still be dim light, it just wouldn't affect you at all. Light levels are not relative, they are absolute.
Trying to change his mind is one thing, but bear in mind that GM's final decision overrules the rulebook in all cases, even when it doesn't make sense ;)
I'd, frankly, request to drop levels in shadowdancer at this point, based on his ruling; unless he told you how it works from the get-go, he needs to show some fair-play behavior.
Additionally, ask him his interpretation of the Sorcerer Shadow Bloodline (Shadowwell) specifically. If he drops a bogus ruling on that, I'd consider dropping his game altogether, as his understanding of the system is in question at this point.
If his interpretation is reasonable, consider getting eldritch heritage and improved eldritch heritage to get the ability to bypass his horrible interpretation of hide in plain sight (I partially blame Paizo for their lack of consistency with multiple versions of the same damn ability and often copy/pasted sections of texts).
I don't think calling him thick or stupid or whatnot, even in a forum is very productive or necessary, regardless of whether he reads it or not. The issue is, I believe, that he doesn't like or doesn't understand the rules related to stealth and the abilities in question and doesn't know how to handle or express them very well.
It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.If you have a flashlight, you're right, it stops being dim light, because a flashlight is a light source, which changes ambient light levels. It would be the same, however, if the flashlight were just hanging from the ceiling and nobody was around.
You having darkvision, on the other hand, would not make any difference at all. It would still be dim light, it just wouldn't affect you at all. Light levels are not relative, they are absolute.
I would argue that light levels are relative. From the point of view of an adversary with darkvision, are shadows even relevant?
An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.
Light levels are absolute; whether you are impeded by the light level is relative (Low Light Vision, Darkvision, etc.).
People keep saying that. Prove it.
Not to me, I've lost interest with the question so I won't be re-visiting this thread, prove it to the OP's GM.
Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that dark areas within range are no longer dark if you have darkvision.
Darkvision allows you to see in darkness, as long as the darkness is within range (typically 60 feet). If you were able to get within 60 feet of darkness, you could see there just fine, but only in black and white. Of course, since any areas of darkness within 60 feet are no longer dark when you're within 60 feet of them, you can see them just fine, in color, because darkvision's actual text no longer applies.
So, apparently, darkvision is an ability that has a bunch of text that means nothing because the ability causes the conditions in the text to never come up.
That's rather absurd, isn't it?
Clearly, dark areas must remain dark, even with darkvision. Just because you can perceive them better than someone without darkvision does not change the light level in those areas.
EDIT:
Let's take it a step further. The Shadowdancer's ability requires him to be within 10 feet of shadow, right? What happens if he has darkvision? No area within 60 feet of him can possibly be shadow, because his darkvision makes it not dark. Therefore, a Shadowdancer with darkvision can never use this ability because he cannot be any closer than 60 feet away from shadow.
Contributor
|
I think the issue here is one of perspective.
SotD and the OP's GM think that the ability is dependent on the viewer's perception of shadows. Under that viewpoint, their argument is perfectly valid, because, to a character with darkvision, there is no shadow.
The problem with that argument is that the ability is dependent on the presence of shadows, not on one's perception of them. Shadowdancers have a connection to the Plane of Shadow. For them, shadows are physical manifestations of darkness, not just the absence of light. A shadowdancer's interaction with shadows is supernatural and therefore not subject to the same limitations that might be imposed on an exceptional ability or the mundane use of the Stealth skill.
If the GM wants to compare this ability to invisibility, then so be it. It's a spell that a 6th level Wizard can use (without scrolls or potions) at least 4 times per day. The difference is that when a shadowdancer attacks from the shadows, he's either going to lose concealment because he has to move up to an attacker, which means he gets no sneak attack bonus. Or he risks losing it by making a snipe attack. It will cost him a move action to make a Stealth check to regain his concealment.
Invisibility on the other hand allows for sneak attack. Even assuming the PC has levels in rogue, he's not always going to be able to get his sneak attack damage with hide in plain sight, either because he has to leave his shadowed area and risk detection or because his victim is also in shadows and has concealment against the PC (the Shadow Strike feat notwithstanding).
I guess for me it boils down to a sense that the GM is seeing game imbalance where there isn't any. It's an ability that has some utility, but isn't overpowered. Once an enemy knows they're up against a shadowdancer, they'll work to make sure their headquarters are brightly lit and have spells like light and daylight on hand to mitigate the risk their shadowy enemy poses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If trying to make the argument, I would focus on the "within 10 feet of dim light" phrase.
Dim light or darker allows concealment. If you can be 10 feet away from dim light, it means you can be 10 feet away from a concealed area and still get it. He may still get really technical about where you can activate the ability, but it basically shows how it is implicit that you do not actually need to be covered/concealed to use HIPS.
That said, given your GM refuses to give a fair reading of the phrase "in plain sight," and given you consider him a "booty hole," then I would strongly consider an alternative solution of finding a better GM, or GMing a game yourself.
Usually GMs who are afraid of HIPS are misunderstanding Stealth rules in general and afraid it is too powerful, and then look for excuses to ban it. It really isn't very powerful. It's most powerful for a sniper (since it is easier for them to return to stealth after sniping) but that still requires a number of other circumstances and a slow rate of fire to work. It basically helps make you be a more effective scout. If that bothers him so much, then he's too much of a control freak over the circumstances in his own game, and needs to get the hell over it if he wants to ever be actually a good GM.
I would argue that light levels are relative. From the point of view of an adversary with darkvision, are shadows even relevant?
An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision.
Oh, thanks for quoting the exact line that proves me correct.
"An area of dim lighting" must exist for concealment granted from it not to work against opponents with darkvision, yes? Darkvision prevents the concealment from dim lightning, but it doesn't stop the dim lighting.
I have to agree, though, at this point, I'd either switch characters or quit his game, depending on how much he annoyed me in person when I asked to switch because of his houserule.
To those claiming that Hide in Plain Sight doesn't work against creatures with darkvision because the area of shadow is not an area of shadow to creatures with darkvision:
Does this mean that, say, a tiefling wizard that invested in getting See in Darkness will never be able to use Shadow Step because no darkness affects him at all, and thus not even a Deeper Darkness spell will be enough to create a prerequisite for Shadow Step to work?
Can a blind sorcerer cast Shadow Step anywhere and show up anywhere because to her, everywhere is an area of darkness?
It is a basic problem of the game. The observer effect only apples with solid presence. Pluto is unchanged by scientists observing it. It did not get smaller when we stopped calling it a planet. If this guy wants to ruin Hide in plain sight, he needs only to fill the room with magical darkness. No shadow.
Another good example, Earth, water, air, and fire. These are the four European elements. There are 5 oriental elements. They are still out there even if your beliefs keep you from going there.
It is a basic problem of the game. The observer effect only apples with solid presence. Pluto is unchanged by scientists observing it. It did not get smaller when we stopped calling it a planet. If this guy wants to ruin Hide in plain sight, he needs only to fill the room with magical darkness. No shadow.
Another good example, Earth, water, air, and fire. These are the four European elements. There are 5 oriental elements. They are still out there even if your beliefs keep you from going there.
You could always use the eight Chinese bagua (cloud, earth, mountain, fire, air, water, marsh, storm) which covers all of the above (wood is part of marsh and metal is part of mountain).
Perhaps it's just a matter of simply finding the right perspective. ;)
Trying to change his mind is one thing, but bear in mind that GM's final decision overrules the rulebook in all cases, even when it doesn't make sense ;)
Only if you accept it.
For the record, I never said I was in favor of darkvision breaking shadowdancers. Right from the beginning I said I was playing devils advocate.
What I wanted to see were some cognisant arguments that may sway the original posters GM. People saying "Your GM is a jerk" over and over seems unlikely to change his ruling. There have been several good logical arguments made, hopefully good enough to change his mind.
To my mind someone with darkvision can still see the shadows or areas of darkness. They're just not dark enough provide cover or concealment. If it were otherwise it would make it very difficult to do things like hide in the shadows.
UPDATE:
I've tried everything I can. This is the e-mail I just got to him after trying to clarify that darkvision sees into shadows but Hide in Plain Sight plainly states you can hide while being observed. I honestly sent him 19 full-length emails about every point he made and DESTROYED his points yet he chose to ignore them, as if they were HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT. This is the last email he has just sent to me:
"Hide in Plain Sight is basically an improvement to normal stealth. Nowhere does it say that you do not need cover or concealment to hide. In the case of Rangers, they still need cover. In the case of Shadowdancers, they still need a specific kind of concealment; shadows. The ability is an improvement in that you can hide while being observed without a bluff check, and without a -10 to the roll. (refer to the original stealth skill ad nauseum). You still must make a stealth check because the ability says "you can use stealth to..."
I have made my ruling and by continuing to argue this case, you are violating the rules set forth just a few weeks ago that YOU and everyone else agreed to. I have given you more than fair opportunity to state your case. My decision is now final. Please accept this.
PS: Saying something is "absolute b%&#%&~~" is inflammatory and unnecessary. It serves no purpose in persuasion and only irritates the person at whom it is directed. I appreciate the strong belief that you have in your position, but you made your case and lost. Accept it and move on. It happens sometimes."
If trying to make the argument, I would focus on the "within 10 feet of dim light" phrase.
Dim light or darker allows concealment. If you can be 10 feet away from dim light, it means you can be 10 feet away from a concealed area and still get it. He may still get really technical about where you can activate the ability, but it basically shows how it is implicit that you do not actually need to be covered/concealed to use HIPS.
That said, given your GM refuses to give a fair reading of the phrase "in plain sight," and given you consider him a "booty hole," then I would strongly consider an alternative solution of finding a better GM, or GMing a game yourself.
Usually GMs who are afraid of HIPS are misunderstanding Stealth rules in general and afraid it is too powerful, and then look for excuses to ban it. It really isn't very powerful. It's most powerful for a sniper (since it is easier for them to return to stealth after sniping) but that still requires a number of other circumstances and a slow rate of fire to work. It basically helps make you be a more effective scout. If that bothers him so much, then he's too much of a control freak over the circumstances in his own game, and needs to get the hell over it if he wants to ever be actually a good GM.
This. All of this. (PS I am a halfling sniper rogue and only deal 3d6 damage at lvl 7. The fighter/barb in the party annihilates things whereas I just take the last hit off each kill somehow >:D
I would riot. Somebody throw a chair.
No, actually I would just run my own game. That is really silly.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2j6vu?Pathfinder-Companion-Cheliax#35
AHA FOUND IT. Okay, so heres where Jacobs states flat out that hide in plain sight trumps need for concealment or cover. Which means you can totally hide right in front of a dude with darkvision since his darkvision would normally cancel out you being in darkness but since you don't need concealment anyways...I'm still digging for the rest but I'll see what I can do.
And heres the rest! Where he explicitly states Darkvision/Low light vision don't do anything to stop a Shadowdancer from hiding.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=583?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#29107
EDIT: And just in case he thinks its only relative to the see'er.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=583?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#29116
I tried just about everything listed here on this thread yet none of it would work..... the only thing I haven't tried are cookies because I have now bowed out of the game since he made his "final decision as DM" and I sent him a link to Jacob James answering the question about low-light-vision and darkvision after bowing out to everyone through email. I would have stayed, played a spellcaster that specialized in improve invis with a familiar that has darkvision, but I don't want to waste my time on the DM anymore. He's honestly always grumpy and it "annoys" him as he says that I always come to Pathfinder on Sundays with a smile because I'm happy. Real swell guy he is.. lol
Ty again all :)
I'm sorry to hear that your GM was so stuck up that you had to leave the group, even with the forums arguing your case. On the flip side, congratulations on leaving that thick and stubborn GM! He honestly doesn't sound like someone worth playing with. Good luck finding someone better :)
Yeah it sucks. Is there a way I can suggest the language for ALL Hide in Plain Sights to be even more clear? There are some DMs out there who think all it does it prevent you from having to make a bluff check before stealth check and that you still need either cover or concealment to use stealth with Hide in Plain Sight.
Yeah, there are plenty of ways to make the language more clear and explicit. The wording is definitely an obstacle to interpreting it and has been for several years. Looking at it now:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. (emphasis mine)
That bit about not being able to hide in her own shadow implies that the shadowdancer is hiding in a shadow, just that the supernatural ability means that shadow can be some distance away (and not be the shadow she throws herself). That offers the implication that any vision that penetrates that shadow sees the shadowdancer.
A ridiculously easy solution is to reword that last sentence and include the specific caveat about foiling better vision. Like so:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light (including shadows but excluding her own shadow), a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. This allows a shadowdancer to use dim light to hide even from characters with dark- and low-light vision.
The sad thing about this (and several other rule controversies in PF) is that these controversies existed back in 3e as well and were discussed frequently on at least a couple of message boards - yet no clarification made it into PF. Maybe the Paizo designers weren't aware of those discussions, that's entirely believable, but I had really hoped PF would be a stronger cleanup of the 3e rules than it was.
Resort to bribery, or as some cultures call it, paying tribute. I agree with you, in any case.