|
I recently GMed an adventure where players where fighting in the dark. I know that in darkness you're flat-footed and take an additional -2 to AC. I know that opponents have total concealment, and thus 50% miss-chance verses your attacks. Where I was a little unclear and just winged it was allowing PCs to make Perception checks to listen for opponents and identify a square to attack. I just made it a flat DC 15 Perception check. I'd like to know what the DC should really be.
Looking through the rules, here's what I found so far:
• Perception skill says - "Hear the sound of a creature walking = DC 10." This seems like the baseline DC.
• Under Vision and Light it says creatures w/o darkvision are effectively blinded and the Blindness condition says what I already knew about being flat-footed, additional -2 to AC and 50% miss-chance.
• Under Vision and Light it also says "-4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight," whereas Blindness says "-4 on opposed Perception checks," and "all checks that rely on vision automatically fail." Blindness seems a bit drastic for what I'm looking for, so maybe this is a difference between being "effectively blinded" and actually being blind. I don't think the -4 would apply since PCs are listening.
• It would be an opposed check vs. opponent's Stealth. But, under Stealth it says you can't use Stealth while attacking. I'd probably ignore that because PCs are effectively blinded. Still, -5 to Stealth if your moving faster than 1/2 speed but less than full speed. -10 if you are moving at full speed?
• Stealth says - "If you are invisible and immobile, +40 bonus, and +20 if you are moving." But that wouldn't apply, right? The quasi-blinded condition already takes into account the fact that you can't see them, right?
So it seems like I'd probably do DC 10 plus opponents' Stealth modifier minus 5 or 10 if they're moving 3/4 to full speed. But that's just a guess. Please, how would other GMs handle this. Thanks.
refer to the invisibility condition page 563 of the core rulebook for total darkness. Since this deals specifically with invisibility don't take the -4 penalty on perception into account.
- If attacked they generally know the location of the foe, until it moves,
unless it is a reach attack, which only gives the general location.
- So basically an opponent within 5 feet that hasnt attacked since it moved would be :
DC 20 base for being invisible, +20 for pinpointing, -20 for being in combat = DC 20. Apply armor check penalties or encumbrance to this and add +1 DC per 10 foot distance.
Everything you're looking for can be found on page 563, in the "Special Abilities" section under "Invibility".
Total concealment rules are the same no matter what causes them. You can get total concealment from being invisible or from being in total darkness. The rules to apply once total concealment has been established are the same.
So, since they combatants cannot see each other, the DC to pinpoint their location is DC 20 if the guy you're listening for is "active" but not using Stealth, or the DC is his Stealth roll +20 if he is using Stealth.
If an unseen attacker strikes an enemy, that enemy knows where the attack came from and can automatically pinpoint his attacker.
There are also rules for "groping" around to find an unseen foe.
Once pinpointed, you can attack into that square with the usual 50% miss rules.
|
|
The difference I see between darkness and invisibility is that you can still hear in the darkness. You can hear when someone is invisible too, but by the spell description, they're not attacking while invisible, so they're being somewhat quiet. But someone attacking in the dark isn't necessarily being quiet, so I figured it wouldn't be as hard to find them as if they were invisible. Thus the DC 10 for person walking.
But I'll go read the stuff on invisibility and pinpointing. Thanks for the direction.
|
|
Okay, so I read the stuff on invisibility on p563. Good stuff and pretty clear. My only question is where do you both get the connection between being in darkness and opponents being invisible? I mean, I see the logical similarity, but rules-wise, I don't see anything that says 'treat opponents in the dark as invisible.' The most I see is that when you are in the dark, you are effectively blind. But Blind has its own set of rules which are less severe than those associated with invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so I read the stuff on invisibility on p563. Good stuff and pretty clear. My only question is where do you both get the connection between being in darkness and opponents being invisible? I mean, I see the logical similarity, but rules-wise, I don't see anything that says 'treat opponents in the dark as invisible.' The most I see is that when you are in the dark, you are effectively blind. But Blind has its own set of rules which are less severe than those associated with invisibility.
Both invisibility and darkness grant total concealment. While they are not the same thing mechanically, they have the same effect: the people trying to hit you cannot see you.
So, since invisiblity has very thorough rules for attacking someone you can't see, and darkness does not, I simply choose to use the rules that are in the book rather than make up a totally new set of rules. Especially since, mechanically speaking, both invisibility and darkness are just two different ways to achieve the exact same thing: total concealment in combat.