|
I don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to convey, so I'll drop it.
Perhaps not. I really have no idea what you're trying to do.
It seems like you're actively trying to imply that I shouldn't dare to post a thread like this or try and get responses...but that's very possibly just the internet making communication unclear and tone impossible to convey, and I'm perfectly willing to believe your intent is something else...I just can't tell what for the life of me.
|
You state your position as right and then note that 'some disagree' without stating their position, just one of their arguments against yours...and this in a thread with about equal numbers debating both sides. That's one of the most biased summaries I've ever seen in my life.
Please, enlighten me (with links, preferably), what was my position again?
Because, going through the entire thread, I can't find anywhere where I've posted what side I was on.
|
|
Please, enlighten me (with links, preferably), what was my position again?
Because, going through the entire thread, I can't find anywhere where I've posted what side I was on.
You're quite right, you haven't. My apologies. And I sincerely mean this, I hate misrepresenting people.
Allow me to restate my comment:
You state one position as right and then note that 'some disagree' without stating their position, just one of their arguments against the first...and this in a thread with about equal numbers debating both sides. That's one of the most biased summaries I've ever seen in my life.
There. Now, perhaps you'll understand why I made the unfortunate assumption in question regarding your position...
|
|
I think we can probably both agree that "TL;DR" summaries are not as preferable as reading the entire thread.
Inevitably, something will get left out.
But I had to state one of the two arguments first, and show the most common dissenting opinion against it. If I had done it backwards, then someone else would take issue with how I presented it. I figured starting out with an explanation of the feat as point one was sufficient to set up the argument, and then moved on to explaining those in dissent.
There are over a hundred posts in this thread, and not all of them have been point 1 vs point 2, but for a quick summary that's the shortest synopsis one can give.
|
|
Eh...maybe I overreacted. No scratch that, I overreacted. Sorry.
But...there not being a 'Normal' line in the Shadow Strike feat is not in any way the basis of my argument. It's a footnote at best. I mean, yeah, a line like that would give a definitive answer one way or the other...but there not being one isn't why I think Precise strike works on concealed targets. That has much more to do with the wording on basically everything featuring precision damage except Shadow Strike.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
5-6% of players on a regular, possibly per session, basis. That's...quite a lot of people, there.
Let us assume your number is correct. Factor in the equation of how many groups are confused by this. Because I know people playing Swashbuckler who are not having this debate.
So you need to 1) be effected by the ability and 2) have an issue getting your group to come to a conclusion.
I don't think there are that many groups having trouble coming to a conclusion.
|
|
5-6% of players on a regular, possibly per session, basis. That's...quite a lot of people, there.Let us assume your number is correct. Factor in the equation of how many groups are confused by this. Because I know people playing Swashbuckler who are not having this debate.
The number's going to jump precipitously when the ACG actually comes out, bear in mind.
So you need to 1) be effected by the ability and 2) have an issue getting your group to come to a conclusion.
Except those numbers will be split down the middle. And a fair number will be PFS games...and thus players will never know which version they're dealing with from game to game, which has to suck.
And besides, if Swashbuckler really isn't effected by concealment, all those people who play in games where a GM says they do are getting a bit screwed. And if it works the other way, well, they're likely to get screwed at some point in the future when the errata does come out (this one seems inevitable...though it might take a while, depending).
I don't think there are that many groups having trouble coming to a conclusion.
Well, there's all of PFS, for a start. Plus a large number of individual groups, I suspect.
|
|
So...this thread got linked over here (Thanks Kudaku! And go magnuskn for keeping up the good fight...so to speak). Hopefully that'll get a response at some point. More people going there and commenting on this might not be a good idea, though...hard to tell.
Please feel free to keep FAQing here, though.
Nope. And as others have noted...it might be a while.
Agree. I Think they wait at least until the ACG is out.
BTW, I have hit the FAQ although I have my own opinion on the subject.
|
Seeing as Mark Seifter has been on the case for his "FAQ Fridays", it seems appropriate to bring this back to the top for more discussion and FAQ hits.
Plus, this question just keeps coming up anyways, so we may as well add to a discussion that's already got some meat to it.
Official Rules Response
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
Oh, there's a clever preview. :-)
Unchained rogue's SA? Wow...well there goes the need for Shadow Strike feat...unless you're a ninja.
It's still useful for investigators too.
Oh, there's a clever preview. :-)Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
I'm hopeful the Unchained rogue brings some unique flavor to the table. That it isn't a new version of a slayer/glass canon--but makes use of stealth, sniping, and so on.
It is a big concern. Making note of this ruling, though.
|
|
Oh, there's a clever preview. :-)Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.I'm hopeful the Unchained rogue brings some unique flavor to the table. That it isn't a new version of a slayer/glass canon--but makes use of stealth, sniping, and so on.
It is a big concern. Making note of this ruling, though.
I'm just hoping that they give the rogue proficiency in the ballista.
The target of such an attack is not concealed from the attacker. So dark alley sneak attacks are quite safe.
Incorrect. Dim light grants 20% concealment, which foils sneak attack unless the attacker has darkvision. Paradoxically most rogues are less of a threat if you fight them in a dark alleyway rather than in a brightly lit park.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're free to play your own game any way you want. That said, spreading misinformation is a bad thing - especially on the board that's concerned with trying to apply the rules correctly. Barring darkvision or the Shadow Strike feat, a rogue will not be able to use sneak attack in a dark alleyway, which was the example used.
Finally, you should really consider editing away the final sentence of that post before one of the moderators read it. In my experience any sentence that starts with "you people" is usually a sentence better left unsaid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
What most people consider "dark alleyways" are generally just shadowy places, where normal humans can operate, not spaces filled with Darkness effects. There is a distinction.
Dim light isn't a pitch black room or a deeper darkness effect.
Dim light is at night with a moon in a sky. See here
Most people can see well enough in bright moonlight to shank someone in the kidneys. Not rogues apparently.
When I (as many would I imagine) see "dark alley", I think of alleys at night that are not lit by street light. You would be able to see well enough in there (even just from the diffuse reflecion of light from the street) but it would qualify as dim lighting. Thus rogues cannot sneak attack in what most people think of as a dark alley.
Can I suggest not being so [EXPLETIVE] pedantic with the terms people use?
The inability to read correctly and then reply on a high horse based in that misread is characteristic of certain posters. Sometimes is better to just let it be.
Now, the FAQ hurt swashbucklers hard, and if it not were from the dex to damage feat they would be very useless in a "dark alley" situation.
This is the rules forum. Isn't being pedantic with defined game terms the whole point?
If the term under discussion was a game term I would agree.
It isn't. The issue at hand, although referencing the rules, is not in and of itself a rules issue.
Besides, the pedantry isn't the real sticking point. The complete misrepresentation of the position of others followed by a holier-than-thou attitude is.
|
...
What most people consider "dark alleyways" are generally just shadowy places, where normal humans can operate, not spaces filled with Darkness effects. There is a distinction.Dim light isn't a pitch black room or a deeper darkness effect.
Dim light is at night with a moon in a sky. See here
Most people can see well enough in bright moonlight to shank someone in the kidneys. Not rogues apparently.
Here is the thing, Rogues need to be able to see their target extremely well to be to first find that exact weak spot they are aiming for and then to be able to land a blow. It makes perfect sense that if you don't have a good view, you just can't land a well placed surgical blow. Lucky hits, (crits) are still possible.
And it's not like setting up an ambush, (hiding in a dark alley), getting surprise, and also being aware and able to set up for a combat has no mechanical advantages, even without sneak attack.
And even simple Low-Light Vision is enough for them to be able to see just fine in a Dimly lit "dark alleyway".
Low-Light Vision
Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.
As long as there is any light source, (that is to say it's anywhere between Bright Light and Dim Light conditions, characters with Low-Light Vision and Darkvision can both see as if in Normal Light conditions, at least.
That's everyone except Haflings and Humans in the CRB.
...
What most people consider "dark alleyways" are generally just shadowy places, where normal humans can operate, not spaces filled with Darkness effects. There is a distinction.Dim light isn't a pitch black room or a deeper darkness effect.
Dim light is at night with a moon in a sky. See here
Most people can see well enough in bright moonlight to shank someone in the kidneys. Not rogues apparently.
Here is the thing, Rogues need to be able to see their target extremely well to be to first find that exact weak spot they are aiming for and then to be able to land a blow. It makes perfect sense that if you don't have a good view, you just can't land a well placed surgical blow. Lucky hits, (crits) are still possible.
And it's not like setting up an ambush, (hiding in a dark alley), getting surprise, and also being aware and able to set up for a combat has no mechanical advantages, even without sneak attack.
And even simple Low-Light Vision is enough for them to be able to see just fine in a Dimly lit "dark alleyway".
Low-Light Vision
Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to him as a source of light.
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.As long as there is any light source, (that is to say it's anywhere between Bright Light and Dim Light conditions, characters with Low-Light Vision and Darkvision can both see as if in Normal Light conditions, at least.
That's everyone except Haflings and Humans in the CRB.
That's...wierd. The actual rules on lighting contradict the description of low light vision. The lighting rules explicitly explain how low-light vision is handled mechanically, and they say nothing about dim light EVER being treated as normal light for the purposes of concealment. The Universal Monster Rules agree with the lighting rules.
Anyway, this is kind of mute, because the complaint is that the concealment from dim lighting screws over the stereotypical twf rogue massively on anything vaguely CR appropriate, when the standard tropes would suggest that the rogue should find darkness to be a huge boon. Using a non-human race doesn't really fix this issue - all rogues need night vision to shank someone in the kidneys at night now...yay? And yes, low light vision is night vision. Owls can see very well in the dark but only have low-light vision by Pathfinder rules.
EDIT: The concealment rules don't mention it either, despite explaining how low-light vision ignores some concealment
That is interesting... So basically moonlit nights do not qualify as dim light for low-light vision? If low-light vision is intended always to treat dim light as normal light there's a lot of text in the lighting rules that make no sense.
Low-light vision has the basic rules in the "lighting" section, and it says they see as well in moon-light as they do in the day, but it does not specifically mention concealment. I guess an FAQ is needed.
Low-light vision has the basic rules in the "lighting" section, and it says they see as well in moon-light as they do in the day, but it does not specifically mention concealment. I guess an FAQ is needed.
Just to be clear, does your CRB say that low-light vision can see in moonlight in the lighting section? My CRB notes the moonlight text in the blurb on Low-light vision under Special Abilities, but it does not say anything like that in chapter 7 under Vision and Light.
I'm asking because I had a theory that the Lowlight text under Special Abilities was copy/pasted from the 3.5 player's book, which had similar text regarding moonlight for low-light vision but didn't define Shadowy Illumination. I don't have my 3.5 PHB on hand though, so I can't compare at the moment.
Edit: I think that's where the problem was created. The Core Rulebook added more lighting stages (from bright light/shadowy illumination/darkness to bright light/light/dim light/darkness/supernatural darkness) and defined them, describing Dim Light as "moonlit or starlit night". Then they essentially copy/pasted the Lowlight special ability text from 3.5, which noted that lowlight vision treats moonlight as bright light.
I don't even own a CRB. I just use the PRD, which is the most updated rules version, but the PRD agrees with your book. The "lighting" section does not mention low-light possibly ignoring concealment. It only says you can see twice as far as in lower light conditions than other creatures.
I think the intent is to ignore concealment(20%) if it is due to low light conditions, but I think it should be specifically stated.
Just to be clear, does your CRB say that low-light vision can see in moonlight in the lighting section? My CRB notes the moonlight text in the blurb on Low-light vision under Special Abilities, but it does not say anything like that in chapter 7 under Vision and Light.
I checked my CRB pdf (5th printing)
Vision and Light - p172 to p173Ignoring concealment - p197
The problematic moonlight blurb - p564
All the same as the d20pfsrd text.
I also have to laugh at the fact that literally a few hours after a long overdue FAQ we want another one on a tangentially related topic in the same thread.
I don't even own a CRB. I just use the PRD, which is the most updated rules version, but the PRD agrees with your book. The "lighting" section does not mention low-light possibly ignoring concealment. It only says you can see twice as far as in lower light conditions than other creatures.
I think the intent is to ignore concealment(20%) if it is due to low light conditions, but I think it should be specifically stated.
Do you mean that low-light vision ignores concealment in all dim light, or that low-light vision ignores concealment when the dim light is specifically moonlight?
If it's the former I disagree, if it's the latter I think you're right but I'm not sure if it's an intended effect or they just forgot to clean up the language when they borrowed it from 3.5.
I also have to laugh at the fact that literally a few hours after a long overdue FAQ we want another one on a tangentially related topic in the same thread.
I believe the light/darkness FAQ is in the top 3 most frequently asked questions at the moment, but it's taking a little while since it'll most likely need a more comprehensive reply than most yes/no FAQs.
Do you mean that low-light vision ignores concealment in all dim light, or that low-light vision ignores concealment when the dim light is specifically moonlight?
If it's the former I disagree, if it's the latter I think you're right but I'm not sure if it's an intended effect or they just forgot to clean up the language when they borrowed it from 3.5.
Low-light. It would make no sense to only be moonlight. That was just put in the book to give the reader context. :)
The low-light vision issue is simple.
If a torch casts normal light out to 20 feet, it also casts dim light (with concealment) from 20 feet to 40 feet.
Low-light vision just doubles the effective light ranges. In torchlight someone will low-light vision would see normally out to 40 feet and then from 40 to 80 feet in dim light.