Crimeo wrote: Quote: Incorrect, the rules are written with some assumptions Please direct me to where I can find mention of the list of assumptions underlying how magic works. If that doesn't exist anywhere, then yes that IS adding new rules to the game.
And I can't just use "real world physics" or "common sense" or anything like that either either because there is no such thing for magic due to magic not being real.
Either it's written down, or you just completely made it up based on zero out-of-game examples of something that doesn't exist at all out of game to have built up any common sense about. You mean like stating glitterdust makes light despite being completely functional as I and others have explained? While not making up things to somehow explain how I want them to work?
I'm seriously going to have to look into that filter for the forums...
"I can make things up and say it works that way, you need proof to refute anything I say!"
Quote: Numerous things can appear to sparkle yet have nothing but ambient light to thank for the appearance. Yes of course this is possible normally. But if that were true, then those things wouldn't sparkle when it's just normally dark out. And that would violate the text of glitterdust, which says they DO sparkle, and mentions nothing about ambient light being needed for this, mentions nothing about "normal circumstances" (much less what that might mean), etc.
Even by your own rules of "normal circumstances" are you implying nighttime is "abnormal?" Last I checked, nighttime is 50% of the time... yet your explanation would have glitterdust not working any time there is not ambient light...
So that doesn't even follow your OWN rules of "must work in normal conditions", on top of that not actually being a thing in magic in pathfinder to begin with...
Quote: "I can make things up and say it works that way, you need proof to refute anything I say!" No you don't have to refute anything about my explanation, because I openly admit it's just a plausible explanation, not written explicitly. You would need to provide ANY other explanation though that makes any sense as to how the spell sparkles at all times by default, if not producing its own light.
Including in a dark corner of a house's basement on a moonless night, since glitterdust makes no such exceptions for situations like that. Despite them being pretty normal...
They are sparkling in the darkness, all you need is darkvision to see the wavelengths that are glittering.
_Ozy_ wrote: They are sparkling in the darkness, all you need is darkvision to see the wavelengths that are glittering. This is a lot better, and may work. But where is that light coming from? The usual explanation for darkvision is that the darkvision creature's eyes send out the light to begin with, since your darkvision radius is limited on a circle centered on you, this seems by far the most obvious mechanism. (Note that darkvision is not a magical effect, and should thus unlike magic be explainable by some plausible physics).
If so, then if nobody with darkvision happens to be around (which is also still a perfectly "normal" situation since like 80% of Golarion is humans), then the dust is NOT actually sparkling, so RAW has still been violated. Or did you mean something else by this?
How do you know if it isn't sparkling if nobody is around? It's sparkling in the IR wavelength which everything above absolute zero emits.
There, pedantry satisfied.
Seriously, what is your goal? Just about every thread you join you try to find the most pedantic way to interpret the rules, and constantly try to apply 'real world' physics which not only misses the entire point of the game, but would quickly turn it into an atrocious, unfun mess.
If you don't want to play Pathfinder the way it is written, why do you even bother spending so much time talking about it?
Quote: It's sparkling in the IR wavelength which everything above absolute zero emits. This would violate the text of darkvision:
"Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all" which at best means no light other than your vision, and possibly means no light whatsoever. Either way, certainly ambient IR doesn't work.
and
"It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise" If it were IR, then I could see that a wall was very warm instead of cold, which is not a detail I would normally be able to see without darkvision, so that would also violate RAW.
Quote: Seriously, what is your goal? Just about every thread you join you try to find the most pedantic way to interpret the rules, and constantly try to apply 'real world' physics which not only misses the entire point of the game, but would quickly turn it into an atrocious, unfun mess. ...says the guy who just said that darkvision is based on ambient blackbody IR radiation? Are you for real? I mean it's not that I find that to be an outrageous theory to propose, but it IS outrageous to propose it and then in the very next breath ridicule somebody for 'applying real world physics' too aggressively?
Especially since that's not even what I'm doing in this thread, I'm actually arguing the opposite: magic has no real world physics to invoke, so you simply do what magical rules say, period. Note that I'm not the one who brought up darkvision, you guys did. I'm saying it just sparkles, the end, for everyone.
Quote: If you don't want to play Pathfinder the way it is written I DO want to generally play pathfinder the way it's written. That's why I'm advocating following exactly what is written, which is that glitterdusted objects make visible outlines, etc. Without any further qualification or disclaimer in the spell itself.
None of the following things are written: "visible... but only if you have darkvision", "visible unless it happens to be a Tuesday, a female pig is nearby, or there's no moon", "visible if it's convenient to the GM", "visible in whatever you deem 'normal circumstances' to be.", or "visible if there doesn't happen to be another spell that you intuitively feel should suppress it even if it doesn't say that it does."
It frankly baffles me how you can actively be brainstorming and searching for unwritten text to add into the game to meet a preconceived assumption about how a spell works, while simultaneously accusing somebody arguing for strict interpretation of trying to play outside what is written.
Dude, no where did I say darkvision was based on IR.
Go ahead and read my post again since you misread it the first time.
I merely posted the bit about IR to satisfy your demand that glitterdust sparkle in the absence of visible light.
It sparkles in the IR, done. Nothing to do with darkvision. Nothing to do with normal vision. It's just there solely to satisfy your weird demand that Glitterdust always sparkles no matter what.
I assumed you meant darkvision was IR because that would have been the only way that could have attempted to explain both sparkling and "visible outlines"
In this case, no that still doesn't work, because if you're not talking about darkvision, then your current explanation is fine for sparkling, I guess, but does not allow for a "visible outline"
Quote: ...your weird demand [that the written text be satisfied]... Quote: ...If you don't want to play Pathfinder the way it is written, why do you even bother... Also these pretty dramatically conflict with one another. Which is it? Is it "weird" to advocate for following what's written? Or is it so centrally obvious to do so that you shouldn't even bother playing if you don't?
Crimeo wrote: I assumed you meant darkvision was IR because that would have been the only way that could have attempted to explain both sparkling and "visible outlines"
In this case, no that still doesn't work, because if you're not talking about darkvision, then your current explanation is fine for sparkling, I guess, but does not allow for a "visible outline"
Not sure what you mean, it's visible for anyone who can see it. In normal light that means people with normal vision. In darkness, that means people with darkvision.
Or are you asserting that someone who closes their eyes can still 'see' the visible outline?
Quote: Not sure what you mean, it's visible for anyone who can see it. The word would have literally no meaning if that's how it worked. Every object in the universe, even in a world with magical invisibility, "is visible for anyone who can see it."
When something says X is visible, it means people CAN see it, not just "they could see it, if they could see it" lol?
Quote:
vis·i·ble
ˈvizəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be seen.
Quote: Or are you asserting that someone who closes their eyes can still 'see' the visible outline? There aren't really rules one way or the other for closed eyes as far as I know. If you were blind, though, then there are rules for that: "The creature cannot see."
In which case you have two conflicting rules without either being clearly more specific, in which case you must go by GM fiat and rule whichever way you feel is more reasonable.
So, even blind people, or people who close their eyes can see someone coated in glitterdust.
Got it.
*rolleyes*
See edit above. I would not actually say they can. I would say one is undefined entirely (you're making up the ability to close your eyes in the first place and thus also would of course have to make up other rules to go with it), and the other is gridlocked thus open to GM fiat.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Not sure what you mean, it's visible for anyone who can see it. The word would have literally no meaning if that's how it worked. Every object in the universe, even in a world with magical invisibility, "is visible for anyone who can see it."
When something says X is visible, it means people CAN see it, not just "they could see it, if they could see it" lol?
Quote:
vis·i·ble
ˈvizəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be seen.
And actually that's the whole point of the spell. Because normally someone who is invisible CAN'T be seen by those people. Cover them with glitterdust, and then they can.
Note the word 'can', that doesn't mean that they always will see them, they still need to be able to actually see, either with darkvision or a light source.
5 minutes ago, your position was:
Quote: If you don't want to play Pathfinder the way it is written, why do you even bother spending so much time talking about it? Now it's "How can you play Pathfinder as written omg that's so pedantic"?
Okay...
To be clear, I personally do not actually play it exactly as written at all. I have tons of house rules. However, I prefer to know WHEN and if something is actually a house rule, so that I can make it clear to my players when something is, and there is no chance for confusion. And if that is not the purpose of the rules forum, then what is? What makes it any different then than the advice forum?
In any case, the Glitterdust spell doesn't have the [Light] descriptor or explicitly state it counts as a light source. Sure, it says it sparkles, but using a word like that makes it barely (if at all) above pure flavor text. Without rules verbiage to go along with it, there's no way it interacts with or counteracts magical (or even normal!) darkness.
Darkness wrote: Darkness...but characters with normal or low-light vision can be rendered completely blind by putting out the lights.
...
In many cases, some characters or monsters might be able to see while others are blinded.
...
All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature
stealth wrote: Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. To clarify:
Glitterdust does exactly what it says, no more, no less. This is a fundamental rule of spells, I hope we can all agree on. It removes concealment due to invisibility and grants a -40 penalty to stealth. That is ALL it does. Glitterdust absolutely does not affect any of the concealment granted by darkness or dim light. And you can glitter like a disco ball on the 4th of July and an effectively blind person still will not see it.
In areas of dim light the -40 penalty to stealth is relevant - you can upgrade the partial concealment to effectively total. In darkness it isn't relevant. Whether you succeed at the stealth check or not you still have total concealment.
It is a little hard to argue with rules that clear. Any additions or interpretations beyond that are house rules.
When someone is seriously arguing that the rules aren't clear whether a blind person can see glitterdust, I think that pretty much tells you what you need to know.
_Ozy_ wrote: So, even blind people, or people who close their eyes can see someone coated in glitterdust.
Got it.
*rolleyes*
Only if they are invisible.
The GM can rule in favor of the outline being visible by "card rules", they can rule that magical darkness blocks vision like some sort of brick wall unless you have darkvision, or they can just turn both spells into a fireball because you cannot deal with them. It's a GM call.
Don't ruin the game by arguing about it all the rest of the game session.
Did you read what you quoted.
He's seriously arguing that a BLIND person can see someone coated in glitterdust. BLIND
Nobody in the thread has claimed that. You ASKED if it was my position, to which I answered no...
You did not answer no:
Quote: In which case you have two conflicting rules without either being clearly more specific, in which case you must go by GM fiat and rule whichever way you feel is more reasonable. is not 'no'.
It's not established in the book. I.e. it is not RAW. I.e. "NO," the book does not tell you that a blind person can see someone coated in glitterdust.
Crimeo wrote: It's not established in the book. I.e. it is not RAW. I.e. "NO," the book does not tell you that a blind person can see someone coated in glitterdust. I didn't say that's what the book said, I said that's what YOU said. The fact that you seem to think it's up to the GM whether a blind person can see glitterdust means that it isn't 'no'. You are allowing for the possibility that a blind person can see glitterdust, i.e. nonsense.
Anything the book doesn't clearly allow is a "no" by default, due to pathfinder being a permissive rules system.
If a situation requires that issue to be addressed anyway and adjudicated, though to move on with the game, then for practical purposes, GM fiat must fill in. This happens all the time. It's the answer to like 50% of all the threads on this forum that the rules often don't cover situations and GMs have to just decide something. And yes, that "allows for" weird GMs to decide weird things, so what? Don't play at a table with a weird GM who routinely decides weird things if you don't want.
Crimeo wrote: Anything the book doesn't clearly allow is a "no" by default, due to pathfinder being a permissive rules system.
If a situation requires that issue to be addressed anyway and adjudicated, though to move on with the game, then for practical purposes, GM fiat must fill in. This happens all the time. It's the answer to like 50% of all the threads on this forum that the rules often don't cover situations and GMs have to just decide something. And yes, that "allows for" weird GMs to decide weird things, so what? Don't play at a table with a weird GM who routinely decides weird things if you don't want.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you claim it's not defined by the book either way, then yes and no are equally valid. One is not 'weirder' than the other.
On the other hand, if you allow common sense to inform the rules, along with common definitions for words, then clearly a blind person can't see glitterdust.
99% of the words in the rulesbooks are not defined anywhere other than the English language dictionary. The 1% that ARE defined in Pathfinder are also defined using the English language dictionary.
To arbitrarily ignore what the word 'blind' means when it comes to being able to see visible objects is not RAW in any manner shape or form.
I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to convince someone that a blind person can't see.
*shakes head*
Though, I guess it does have a large dose of irony.
Quote: If you claim it's not defined by the book either way, then yes and no are equally valid. One is not 'weirder' than the other. Obviously a blind person being able to see things is weird, so yes, one would be weirder than the other.
That is not the same thing as "both are equally compatible with the written rules as one another."
Quote: I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to convince someone that a blind person can't see. I would definitely rule that a blind person cannot see glitterdust, regardless of what the book says or not, because I think that makes the most sense and is most immersive for my players. That doesn't make it RAW, though. Things being good ideas to rule =/= necessarily things being RAW to rule.
Quote: Obviously a blind person being able to see things is weird, so yes, one would be weirder than the other. In a game where magic exists and we can't use our own physical reality to inform how things work? Absolutely not, both are equally valid. Heck we don't 'know' that eyes even work the same in Pathfinder because nowhere are retinas 'defined' in RAW, or optic nerves, or eyelids. That is, unless you are allowed to use common dictionary/encyclopedic definitions.
However, according to you nothing is RAW because you can't use a dictionary to define what things mean, therefore no words actually mean anything in Pathfinder.
On the other hand if you allow dictionaries and encyclopedias to help define RAW, then by RAW, a blind person can't see. That's 100% RAW. This is what I mean about having your cake.
But all that is apparently moot, because you would rule that a blind person can't see glitterdust, and by RAW, someone in darkness is blind:
Quote: In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. So there's your answer. No, glitterdust doesn't work in the dark.
Quote: On the other hand if you allow dictionaries and encyclopedias to help define RAW, then by RAW, a blind person can't see. That's 100% RAW. Agreed fully. "Blindness" was never the issue. Everybody agrees what that means.
"Visible" was. You seem to want to define visible as "anyone who can see it can see it" which is silly, because that's a tautology, it is true of literally every single possible object and concept in the universe, and thus saying it would convey zero useful information about the world.
"X is visible" is however an informative phrase if it means instead "At least somebody can actually see it right now." So if the only bystander happens to be a blind person, then this creates a contradiction. And GMs have to rule by fiat on contradictions since the rules don't clearly stake out one answer.
Personally, I think the obvious intuitive thing to fiat rule is that we should retain the blindness rule (since we do have real world physics and experience with that and because it's the more well defined term and more stable reference point), and ditch the visibile contradiction. I.e. "No actually, I'm ruling that the blindness still holds, and that the glitterdust text is wrong in this case and the glitterdusted object is still in fact not visible"
If you feel differently, then okay. Up to you.
Quote: "X is visible" is however an informative phrase if it means instead "At least somebody can actually see it right now." This makes absolutely no sense. Someone isn't invisible just because nobody is around to see them.
Visible in pathfinder means 'able to be seen', not 'is currently being observed', nor 'able to be seen under any circumstances'.
If someone is 'visible' in Pathfinder, that means they can be seen by anyone if there is adequate light (the observers aren't effectively blind) or if someone has darkvision. That's all the information it conveys.
It doesn't mean that blind people can see them, nor someone 1000 miles away, nor someone without a light source. It doesn't override the vision rules in Pathfinder. There is no 'contradiction' that needs resolution.
Quote: This makes absolutely no sense. Someone isn't invisible just because nobody is around to see them. Not "invisible" necessarily. that's a loaded and confusing term that does not always just mean the opposite of visible (sometimes it means just not visible like viruses or very occasionally darkness, but sometimes it means metaphorical like the free market's hand, often it means transparent in particular, etc.). Simply "not visible" is a clearer and more accurate term in this instance.
Quote: If someone is 'visible' in Pathfinder, that means they can be seen by anyone if there is adequate light (the observers aren't effectively blind) or if someone has darkvision. That's all the information it conveys. Where are you getting this from? Is this defined in the book this way?Because that's very specific and not what it means in normal English, especially with the inclusion of specific D&D terms...
Something in pitch darkness would normally not be called visible in typical real life circumstances.
Edit: the word you seem to be describing is "opaque", which is not the same thing.
Crimeo wrote:
Quote: If someone is 'visible' in Pathfinder, that means they can be seen by anyone if there is adequate light (the observers aren't effectively blind) or if someone has darkvision. That's all the information it conveys. Where are you getting this from?
Once again I draw your attention to this.
specifically:
Quote: 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. If you are standing in darkness, you are not invisible, the observer is blinded. That is how the rules are written. There is no tautology or ambiguity. You remain at all times visible.
visible really does just mean 'capable of being seen' in pathfinder.
Quote: If you are standing in darkness, you are not invisible, the observer is blinded. You're not invisible, no. You're also not visible if nobody can see you. Again, they're not exact opposites. People most often mean "invisible" to be "transparent" rather than "not visible"
Being in darkness doesn't make you transparent, but it might make you not able to be seen by anyone, and thus not visible.
...anyone IN THAT MOMENT, specifically. It cannot mean "anybody who hypothetically could with the exact right perceptual qualities if they had been there" because if so, again, that would be true of everybody and would convey no meaning.
For example, what you refer to as "invisible" (not "transparent" but instead "not capable of being seen") can be seen be people with true seeing, see invisibility, or various other things. So by your logic, invisible people are visible, eh?
In fact, any creature with any listed condition in the book as far as I know of COULD be seen by something, so EVERYTHING would be "visible" by that logic, again, conveying no meaning.
Invisible by virtue of magic. It can be because of a spell or a spell like ability. A Chameleon is not Pathfinder invisible. A Pixie is.
Only things that are Pathfinder invisible are outlined by the glitterdust spell.
Everything is covered by the glitterdust, and creatures take -40 to their stealth, invisible or not.
I says the outline on invisible things is visible. The glitter all over everything is only visible if you could normally see it.
The GM can just tell their players that they are dropping the magical outline cause they cannot handle that level of fantasy.
Removed a post. Please be civil, thank you.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
