We got in a fight in a recent setting where the party had Darkness up and Darkvision to see through it. Unlike some previous fights, this one largely stayed at range with our opponents understandably unwilling to charge into the dark to try to find us. The GM had trouble how to tell if they could figure out even roughly where we were. And I haven't been able to find anything clear on it either.
50% miss chance for concealment is easy, once you can target a given square, but what's the perception check to pick the square? Is it the same as Invisibility, (whatever that actually comes out to be)? Can you just not do it unless they're right next to you?
Am I missing some clear rule?
I think finding your opponents when you can't see them for any reason: Darkness you can see through, Blinded, Fog, Invisibility, etc, is generally the same. If you have no other special abilities, you make a Perception Check with a -20 opposed to their Stealth Check, or if they are making no effort to be sneaky, just a 20. Once you have picked the square, they still enjoy total Concealment, and you have no Dex Mod to your AC. The Perception Skill lists the DC of noticing a visible creature as 0, and if the creature is Invisible, add +20 to the DC.
There are lots of ways to get a special ability to find creatures you can't see. A combination of Scent and Blindfighting is a favorite of mine. Scent gives you Tracking. Scent lets you find any opponent within 30' as a move Action, and if you are within 5', you automatically know which square. The Scent ability come with almost any Animal that a Druid might Wildshape into, and it appears as a level 2 on lots of Spell Lists, including Alter Self: Bugbears have Scent. You can also get it as an Alternate Racial Trait or as a Racial Feat for a few Races. Half Orc comes to mind.
Hmmm, maybe. Though Blinded only gives a -4 on Perception checks. Except for things that rely on vision, which automatically fail.
Invisibility gives a -20 modifier for in combat or speaking. Can you target a speaking creature with a DC of 0? Or just the range penalty if you're trying to attack from range?
Of course, we're now entering the usual "How the hell does invisibility really work?" debate.
Invisibility, darkness, fog and blindness all work the same in this exact situation. An invisible foe is not somehow less visible than a foe you're trying to detect while blinded.
Fighting in the dark with people who can see in the dark while you can't is a sucker's game at best. Change the status quo or die. Or get crazy lucky.
Quixote wrote: Invisibility, darkness, fog and blindness all work the same in this exact situation. An invisible foe is not somehow less visible than a foe you're trying to detect while blinded.
Fighting in the dark with people who can see in the dark while you can't is a sucker's game at best. Change the status quo or die. Or get crazy lucky.
You would think it would work the same, but it would be nice if there was actually some indication in the rules that it did. Or that blinded didn't appear to function completely differently (-4 perception penalty?)
And in this case, we were the ones using darkness, so no need for us to come up with ways around it.
Frankly, by these suggested rules, it's not that bad. DC 20 Perception checks aren't hard for most of us - and it should be much less if they're fighting. The miss chance sucks, but it's not nearly as bad as not being able to find where the enemies are.
The -4 penalty for blindness is for non-visual checks only. Being blinded is worse than being unable to see one specific object or person.
Blinded:
"The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength– and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone."
Invisibile:
"Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)."
Invisibility:
"If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
Total Concealment:
"If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
Stealth:
"You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
So, if you're surrounded in darkness, you're blind, everyone's invisible and has total concealment.
If your foes are in darkness but you are not, they're invisible and have total concealment, but you're not blind.
You can't use Stealth and attack, so the Perception DC to pinpoint a creature is a flat 20 in such a round.
And my point was that it was a bad deal for your opponents; a smart foe knows when you've got them beat and will retreat if they can.
Okay, let me lay out a scenario and see if I've got it right.
There's an enemy in darkness 40' from me, shooting at me out of the darkness. Obviously, they're not using stealth since they're attacking. I don't believe that counts as stationary either. So, to target their square, I need a Perception check: Base DC 0, +20 for invisible, +4 for distance. If I locate them, I can target their square with an area spell or I can close and attack. Trivial Acrobatics check to move full speed once in the dark. (Arguably, if they're considered "in combat" or speaking, there's a -20 penalty, so it's only a DC 4 Perception)
Once I'm there though, I've got a 50% miss chance. Do the -2 AC for being blind and the opponent's +2 to hit for being invisible both apply?
If I start in the Darkness, does the -4 for Blindness apply to the Perception check to locate?
I don't see a -20 penalty. They have a +20 for being invisible and cannot actively use the skill, so 0+20. Attacking and all that is why they're at 0 initially; it doesn't penalize them twice.
According to the RAW, a creature that is actually invisible attacking a creature that is actually blind gets a +2 to hit a -2 AC. But since, by RAW, no one is blind or invisible, we can skip over that.
And yes, I'd say being effectively blind in the darkness would levy a -4 to that DC20 perception check.
Quixote wrote: I don't see a -20 penalty. They have a +20 for being invisible and cannot actively use the skill, so 0+20. Attacking and all that is why they're at 0 initially; it doesn't penalize them twice.
According to the RAW, a creature that is actually invisible attacking a creature that is actually blind gets a +2 to hit a -2 AC. But since, by RAW, no one is blind or invisible, we can skip over that.
And yes, I'd say being effectively blind in the darkness would levy a -4 to that DC20 perception check.
Cannot actively use what skill? Stealth?
Under the Invisibility condition, the table of Perception DC modifiers includes "In combat or speaking -20".
Of course, that may offset the fact that it's normally a 20DC to notice there's an invisible creature about and a +20 to pinpoint them, which is what we're trying to do. Which would put us back to a 20 to pinpoint the one attacking from darkness.
Part of the whole "How does invisibility really work" question, I guess.
Still, I've got a lot of trouble accepting any of this as RAW. No one is actually invisible or blind. Those are specific rules conditions. There's no rule I'm aware of equating total concealment to invisibility - other than invisibility being one thing granting concealment.
It's not an unreasonable approach, I'm just kind of surprised there isn't something explicit about it.
thejeff wrote: Cannot actively use what skill? Stealth? Yes. See: stealth skill.
thejeff wrote: Under the Invisibility condition, the table of Perception DC modifiers includes "In combat or speaking -20"...Of course, that may offset the fact that it's normally a 20DC to notice there's an invisible creature about and a +20 to pinpoint them, which is what we're trying to do. Which would put us back to a 20 to pinpoint the one attacking from darkness. Exactly what I was saying, yes.
thejeff wrote: Still, I've got a lot of trouble accepting any of this as RAW. No one is actually invisible or blind. Those are specific rules conditions. There's no rule I'm aware of equating total concealment to invisibility - other than invisibility being one thing granting concealment.
It's not an unreasonable approach, I'm just kind of surprised there isn't something explicit about it.
Sure. The RAW is rather incomplete here. And if anyone could explain the difference between being attacked in total darkness, being attacked by an invisible assailant and being attacked while blind, I'd listen. But until then, I'll fill in the gaps and make the least logical assumptions I can to get me through.
Quixote wrote: You can't use Stealth and attack, so the Perception DC to pinpoint a creature is a flat 20 in such a round. I don't think that is entirely true.
Stealth, Sniping wrote: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location. That being said, it does not seem that using Stealth in the situation the OP is describing is very practical.
I was referring to the phrase "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging."
Quixote wrote: I was referring to the phrase "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." I just wanted to clarify. Also, the OP's party didn't run, charge, or engage in melee at all. They hung back under cover of Darkness, and shot at their opponents. And while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Quixote wrote: I was referring to the phrase "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." I just wanted to clarify. Also, the OP's party didn't run, charge, or engage in melee at all. They hung back under cover of Darkness, and shot at their opponents. And while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed. Actually, I have a character build that maintains Stealth while shooting.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: ...while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed. Sure. Wasn't the point of the post at that time.
I'm fairly confident that passage from the stealth skill means you cannot use the skill *while attacking*, meaning at the *exact* same time. You can use stealth, attack and use stealth again at the stated penalties over the course of a full round. Obviously. It's listed right there under possible modifiers.
Quixote wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: ...while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed. Sure. Wasn't the point of the post at that time.
I'm fairly confident that passage from the stealth skill means you cannot use the skill *while attacking*, meaning at the *exact* same time. You can use stealth, attack and use stealth again at the stated penalties over the course of a full round. Obviously. It's listed right there under possible modifiers. I'm not aware of any modifier to stealth for attacking, other than the special exception of sniping.
There's an "in combat" modifier to the chance of finding someone who's invisible, which I referenced earlier, but that's not likely to apply when you're being stealthy.
I was referring to sniping. Again: just look at the stealth skill. Says it right there. "It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging." --so no, there are no other penalties for attacking while using stealth. Because it's not possible.
thejeff wrote: Quixote wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: ...while using Stealth while engaging in ranged combat is difficult, and even impractical in the OP's situration, it isn't impossible, as I showed. Sure. Wasn't the point of the post at that time.
I'm fairly confident that passage from the stealth skill means you cannot use the skill *while attacking*, meaning at the *exact* same time. You can use stealth, attack and use stealth again at the stated penalties over the course of a full round. Obviously. It's listed right there under possible modifiers. I'm not aware of any modifier to stealth for attacking, other than the special exception of sniping.
There's an "in combat" modifier to the chance of finding someone who's invisible, which I referenced earlier, but that's not likely to apply when you're being stealthy. I don't think Quixote and I have much of a disagreement here anymore. He said you can't Attack and use Stealth, and he pointed to the rules that say that. I pointed out an exception that was relevant to this thread and pointed to the rules that say that while also conceding that it was probably impractical for most of the OP's characters to use in their situation: I'm making a minor point. Quixote acknowledged the exception and argued that technically my exception is something different from using Stealth while Attacking: fine.
I think we're all good here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I didn't see a point anywhere in this thread where there was any kind of disagreement at all, really. But sure.
thejeff wrote:
Still, I've got a lot of trouble accepting any of this as RAW. No one is actually invisible or blind. Those are specific rules conditions. There's no rule I'm aware of equating total concealment to invisibility - other than invisibility being one thing granting concealment.
It's not an unreasonable approach, I'm just kind of surprised there isn't something explicit about it.
I agree that total concealment =/= invisibility. However, the rules for lighting do state that if an individual is in darkness they -are- blind. If an individual -is- blind, they take penalties according to the above Blind condition.
See here for rules on illumination.
Where this gets tricky (of course) is trying to pinpoint a creature in the darkness while you're in the light. The indiviudal can see perfectly well in areas of illumination, but are effectively 'blind' in areas of darkness. If an opponent attacked, it's evident that the attack came from the direction of the darkness if one beats a (non-visual) perception check.
This check is at -4 (since being blind imposes a -4 on perception even after visual attempts are gone) and an additional -1 for each 10 feet of space, culminating in a -8 to you in the above example.
These are the modifiers for the person trying to locate the individual in the darkness, now we look at the modifiers for the person in the darkness. Let's assume that no one is taking a stealth action.
I'd rule any kind of attack (lolsing an arrow, casting a spell with a verbal component, hurling a throwing axe) makes you "in battle" which creates a -10 to the perception DC.
Putting these things together we've got two separate checks. First, there's the "tell the direction that folks in the darkness are coming from check" which comes out at a total of -2 (for the "from 40 ft away" example) against whatever DC is set by the GM. Personally I'd set it at a base 15 for a total of 13, but this one's pretty arbitrary.
The second check is the kicker. Per the core rulebook It’s almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature’s square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
So using the above example, to pin point the exact square the creature you're looking for in the darkness is we add +20 to the DC of the initial "which direction did it come from" check.
However, this check is also modified. If a blinded by darkness creature is struck by an unseen foe, the blinded character pinpoints the location of the creature that struck him (until the unseen creature moves, of course). The only exception is if the unseen creature has a reach greater than 5 feet (in which case the blinded character knows the location of the unseen opponent, but has not pinpointed him) or uses a ranged attack (in which case the blinded character knows the general direction of the foe, but not his location).
What's with the two checks? You just need one.
If you're in the light, you're not blinded, effectively or otherwise. You can view your surroundings just fine; your only issue is an area of darkness that you are not standing in and that your opponent is.
Where it gets stupid is locating their square. There are no rules for pinpointing a creature's location by normal means (no scent, blindsense, magic, etc) when it has full concealment (thatis granted by means other than invisibility) I've been able to find.
The closest thing to a complete set of rules seems to be as follows:
• -1 Perception/10ft
• -20 to Stealth per sniping
• No stealth after a melee attack or regular ranged attack
• +20/+40 to Stealth from invisibility
So if you are invisible and are sniping, you get a regular ol' Stealth check.
If you're, invisible and make a normal attack, it's Perception DC0 to notice you.
Half of the reason you're not totally undetectable with invisibility is that your surroundings might leave visual signs of your presence. The other half is non-visual.
By RAW, I suppose the only way to find someone's occuied square when they have non-invisibility granted total concealment is to guess. Because there just aren't explicit rules for it.
But then, you're allowed to use, stealth if you have concealment. So if youuse can use stealth, opponents can use perception. Maybe they "notice" you without "pinpointing your location"?
It's more than a little absurd. An invisible opponent is almost-but-not-quite as bad as being blind, which is the same as being in total concealment.
I've always run it as +20/40 in darkness, versus blindness and in dark/foggy areas and called it a day. Better that than to assume a guy 10ft 0ft from you in a dark room is IMPOSSIBLE to locate by any means other than chance, where as an invisible one can be found if you're good or lucky.
Besides, worst case scenario: you cast darkness and enjoy a 50% miss chance while you pepper your foes with arrows and spells. And that's if you all use the sniping rules and your opponents beat your stealth rolls every time.
Interesting.
One bit of conflict there that I'd missed before is that under the Vision/Lighting rules it says "creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks."
While the Blinded rules say "and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail."
As I understand it, that +20 to pinpoint comes entirely from Invisibility. Seems weird to bring that in while saying it's not invisibility.
Still: Pinpoint an enemy 40' away in darkness casting spells: -4 for distance, -4 blind, +10 for in combat, -20 for pinpoint would be an -18 penalty
The 15 you're using as a base seems completely arbitrary. I'd rather use the Invisibility -20 penalty, since it at least comes from somewhere. Of course, if we're looking at invisibility that has a +20 for in combat or speaking, so it would make sense to use that instead of Perceptions 10 for "hear the sounds of battle",
Which I think gets me a base 20 DC +4 for distance, +4 blind, -20 for in combat, +20 for pinpoint would be an 28 DC.
Seems very weird to me to stack the Blind penalties with the one from invisibility though. If that's the intent it seems like it should made clear.
Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in?
I think by RAW, we're back to guess.
Much of this was made more complicated in the game we just had because it was the GM trying to find us and he obviously knew where we were. In past encounters when we fought things we couldn't see, we could just guess and try things. Hard to do when you know.
thejeff wrote: Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in? From the SRD
"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents’ Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”
Unfortunately this appears to be pretty much GM fiat. Since I'm comfortable with arbitrary rulings I'd allow the characters success on the perception check to define a scope of area.
If one were attempting to get as RAW as possible and extrapolating the perception rules one could define each 10 ft of possible space from the target for each point by which the perception check failed by. So if you failed by one you could get within 10 ft, by two within 20 ft, and so on. By the time one hits -5 it may make more sense to simply indicate a compass direction from the character.
Personally I think that's a little harsh and would make it a diff of 3 (so on a DC of 28 a roll of 27-25 gets you in 10 ft, 24-22 gets you within 20, 21-19 gets you within 30 ft)
Halcyon_Janissary wrote: thejeff wrote: Another related question, that would apply to invisible creatures as well: if you fail the pinpoint check, do you have any idea where they are? Perhaps you have a small area effect spell you're hoping to catch them in? From the SRD
"A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents’ Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”
Unfortunately this appears to be pretty much GM fiat. Since I'm comfortable with arbitrary rulings I'd allow the characters success on the perception check to define a scope of area.
If one were attempting to get as RAW as possible and extrapolating the perception rules one could define each 10 ft of possible space from the target for each point by which the perception check failed by. So if you failed by one you could get within 10 ft, by two within 20 ft, and so on. By the time one hits -5 it may make more sense to simply indicate a compass direction from the character.
Personally I think that's a little harsh and would make it a diff of 3 (so on a DC of 28 a roll of 27-25 gets you in 10 ft, 24-22 gets you within 20, 21-19 gets you within 30 ft) Oh hey, those are the actual dealing with darkness rules we've been looking for. Under "Environmental Rules", not "Vision and Light", where I'd expect. That certainly helps.
So the pinpoint check is official. Darkness meaning blinded is official. Looks like the base DC is stealth - or 0 if they're not being stealthy. No need to fold the invisibility rules in to get an extra +20 (I can rationalize that by it being harder to find something when you can clearly see there isn't anything there, than when it's dark and there could be because you can't see anything.)
The only real fiat part left is how to guess if you don't make the pinpoint roll, which I can handle most of the time.
thejeff wrote: So the pinpoint check is official. No, there's an official check to determine that there's someone "over there somewhere". That's it.
thejeff wrote: Looks like the base DC is stealth - or 0 if they're not being stealthy. No need to fold the invisibility rules in to get an extra +20 (I can rationalize that by it being harder to find something when you can clearly see there isn't anything there, than when it's dark and there could be because you can't see anything.) If we're talking about failed Stealth = they notice you're "over there somewhere", then sure. But trying to pinpoint your square seems like it wouldbe quite a bit harder than that.
The differences between invisible opponents and being blinded are just so small, practically speaking.
The Darkness section of the Environmental rules continues after the bit Halcyon Janissary quoted to say "It’s almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature’s square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature)."
This is official for Darkness. Perception vs Stealth to 'hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.”' Beat the DC by 20 to reveal the square.
These are the actual rules we thought didn't exist and were trying to get to by analogy with blindness and invisibility.
This also avoids stacking the invisible creature's +2 attack bonus and the blinded one's -2 to AC.
Perhaps you misread me originally: When I said the "pinpoint check is official", I did mean with the +20 to the base DC.
I didn't misread anything; I read what was written, which was a quoted text and a conclusion seemingly drawn from it.
But okay. Good. I thought Pathfinder left out a fairly substantial bit of rules from 3.5.
So...just like ininvisibility, then. +20 to Stealth, -20 to Perception, must beat DC by 20 or more. All the same.
Are you blind/is your opponent invisible? Stealth +20
Has your opponent attacked using sniping rules? Stealth -20.
Has your opponent attacked without using sniping rules? Stealth set to 0.
(although, you could argue by RAW that "cannot use Stealth means an auto-fail, not just 0)
So the Perception DC to pinpoint = Stealth roll or 20.
So if your Stealth modifier is less than 20, don't use it.
Quixote wrote: I didn't misread anything; I read what was written, which was a quoted text and a conclusion seemingly drawn from it.
But okay. Good. I thought Pathfinder left out a fairly substantial bit of rules from 3.5.
So...just like ininvisibility, then. +20 to Stealth, -20 to Perception, must beat DC by 20 or more. All the same.
Are you blind/is your opponent invisible? Stealth +20
Has your opponent attacked using sniping rules? Stealth -20.
Has your opponent attacked without using sniping rules? Stealth set to 0.
(although, you could argue by RAW that "cannot use Stealth means an auto-fail, not just 0)
So the Perception DC to pinpoint = Stealth roll or 20.
So if your Stealth modifier is less than 20, don't use it.
I guess you could see it as just like invisibility, but I'd rather leave invisibility out entirely, since the rules don't require the analogy to invisibility, since they're spelled out here.
My point is and has always been that total darkness, blindness and invisibility are all very similar: you can't see your opponent.
The fact that location a foe while blinded or in total darkness involves an extra 20 tacked into the DC--exactly the same as the bonus you get from invisibility--seems to suggest the original designers saw the similarity as well.
I think a far simpler, more streamlined ruling would just combine them all into one "Zero Visibility" rule, instead of having to look at two skills, a spell, a condition, combat and two environmental rules and piecing together all relevant elements and discarding the irrelevant and redundant ones. But it's a big, bulky system and editing existing material isn't going to net sales like new content will, so I get it.
Quixote wrote: My point is and has always been that total darkness, blindness and invisibility are all very similar: you can't see your opponent.
The fact that location a foe while blinded or in total darkness involves an extra 20 tacked into the DC--exactly the same as the bonus you get from invisibility--seems to suggest the original designers saw the similarity as well.
I think a far simpler, more streamlined ruling would just combine them all into one "Zero Visibility" rule, instead of having to look at two skills, a spell, a condition, combat and two environmental rules and piecing together all relevant elements and discarding the irrelevant and redundant ones. But it's a big, bulky system and editing existing material isn't going to net sales like new content will, so I get it.
Yeah, I can see that and I was willing to work with it, but I'm much happier with explicit rules for.
Particularly since there are a lot of specific weirdnesses with the invisibility rules themselves I'd rather not import into this arena.
Sure...but as can be seen, there's no need. Because the complete, explicit rules already account for it.
Yeah, I think Quixote has it right. If you can't see your opponent, but you know he's there, then they're effectively invisible to you. Total Concealment rules also may apply depending on the situation.
You can attempt to locate the target with Perception checks though. Walking, casting a spell, loading a firearm, or drawing a bow string all have Perception DC's listed and you can try to locate their square using that. There are favorable or unfavorable conditions to consider as well, like noise level, light level, etc. And, don't forget +1/10 DC for every 1ft you are away from the target.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
|
