PDA

View Full Version : Rogues without darkvision



m4th
2014-07-17, 06:16 PM
Playing through the Starter Set with a human rogue, I am having difficulty sneaking through dark areas like the first cave system. In order to see where I am going I carry a lamp, but it seems like that should make it impossible to remain hidden. Reading the block on Hiding in the Basic PDF, it does not state that carrying a light source automatically reveals my position, only making noise or approaching an enemy in combat. Later in the book, it states that attacking gives away my position as well. It seems like RAW, you can carry a light source and remain hidden, which I don't think was possible during the playtest/previous editions.

Does anyone have a different interpretation of the rules? Not a houserule, but a genuine rule that I missed in the book. Without some kind of illumination, human and halfling rogues are at a severe disadvantage to elves or dwarves.

pwykersotz
2014-07-17, 06:30 PM
Playing through the Starter Set with a human rogue, I am having difficulty sneaking through dark areas like the first cave system. In order to see where I am going I carry a lamp, but it seems like that should make it impossible to remain hidden. Reading the block on Hiding in the Basic PDF, it does not state that carrying a light source automatically reveals my position, only making noise or approaching an enemy in combat. Later in the book, it states that attacking gives away my position as well. It seems like RAW, you can carry a light source and remain hidden, which I don't think was possible during the playtest/previous editions.

Does anyone have a different interpretation of the rules? Not a houserule, but a genuine rule that I missed in the book. Without some kind of illumination, human and halfling rogues are at a severe disadvantage to elves or dwarves.

The only thing I can find that is relevant is page 65 of the basic rules that details noticing threats and illumination, which isn't very helpful to your point. I'll peruse in more detail when I have time (if no one else has found an answer by then).

Tholomyes
2014-07-17, 06:33 PM
I think you're unlikely to find a definitive 'answer.' It really just depends on your DM's place on the sliding-scale of "willing to fudge things such as 'wouldn't having a light source give away a rogue's position?'" and "liking to keep enemies and NPCs intelligent."

Of course, there's a decent mid-point that I'd probably use, where, without darkvision, you can see well enough, with the way even human eyes adjust to the darkness. You can't see details all that well, but you could make out the places where a corridor turns, and you can make out humanoid shapes in the distance, if you're actively looking out for them and making a perception check. Races with darkvision get a major bonus, but it's not mandatory to be a decent rogue.

And of course, I may decide to drop a tried and true "shadesight goggles" option, which would be a magic item which gives limited use darkvision, if the campaign requires it.

da_chicken
2014-07-17, 06:44 PM
:smallsigh: Rules in D&D in general and 5e in particular are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. There isn't enough room to codify everything. Thus, "there's no rule against it," is a very poor argument. Rules in general say what you can do, not what you can't.

If you are carrying a light source in an otherwise pitch black room, even if it is as dark as a hooded lantern, you're still carrying a light source that would be illuminating yourself. You're going to be somewhat less subtle than someone checking their phone in the middle of a movie theater.

Sartharina
2014-07-17, 06:47 PM
:smallsigh: Rules in D&D in general and 5e in particular are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. There isn't enough room to codify everything. Thus, "there's no rule against it," is a very poor argument. Rules in general say what you can do, not what you can't.

If you are carrying a light source in an otherwise pitch black room, even if it is as dark as a hooded lantern, you're still carrying a light source that would be illuminating yourself. You're going to be somewhat less subtle than someone checking their phone in the middle of a movie theater.

Fortunately, unlike checking a phone in the middle of a movie theater, it doesn't come with a free 1-way ticket to whatever hell may or may not exist.:smalltongue:

m4th
2014-07-17, 07:01 PM
:smallsigh: Rules in D&D in general and 5e in particular are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. There isn't enough room to codify everything. Thus, "there's no rule against it," is a very poor argument. Rules in general say what you can do, not what you can't.

If you are carrying a light source in an otherwise pitch black room, even if it is as dark as a hooded lantern, you're still carrying a light source that would be illuminating yourself. You're going to be somewhat less subtle than someone checking their phone in the middle of a movie theater.

Bolded section I agree with, and I played it that way. The elves took point, I stayed in the back with the rest of the humans. Frustrating though that humans and halflings have this remarkable disparity.


I think you're unlikely to find a definitive 'answer.' It really just depends on your DM's place on the sliding-scale of "willing to fudge things such as 'wouldn't having a light source give away a rogue's position?'" and "liking to keep enemies and NPCs intelligent."

Of course, there's a decent mid-point that I'd probably use, where, without darkvision, you can see well enough, with the way even human eyes adjust to the darkness. You can't see details all that well, but you could make out the places where a corridor turns, and you can make out humanoid shapes in the distance, if you're actively looking out for them and making a perception check. Races with darkvision get a major bonus, but it's not mandatory to be a decent rogue.

And of course, I may decide to drop a tried and true "shadesight goggles" option, which would be a magic item which gives limited use darkvision, if the campaign requires it.

Having experienced the utter pitch blackness of the interior of a cave, I can assure you human eyes do not adjust to the dark. :smallsmile: It's no so much the absence of vision that bothers me, but the prevalence of darkvision in so many monstrous races. As a human, I'm just not very good at something that my character is supposed to be pretty good at.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 02:33 PM
My favorite way to counter not having dark vision as a rogue is to grab a stone with light cast on it then have a mage cast invisibility on my rogue.

Silly fudging rules and all but my DM loved it. The light was invisible unless you had see invisibility or was part of the same invisibility spell.

I need to see how well that works with 5e hmm...

Tholomyes
2014-07-18, 02:49 PM
Having experienced the utter pitch blackness of the interior of a cave, I can assure you human eyes do not adjust to the dark. :smallsmile: It's no so much the absence of vision that bothers me, but the prevalence of darkvision in so many monstrous races. As a human, I'm just not very good at something that my character is supposed to be pretty good at.Which is why I was saying it was a mid-point. Yes, pitch black darkness isn't something your eyes can just adjust to, but for the sake of not making Human/halfling rogues just yards worse at what they're supposed to be doing, I'm willing to compromise realism, especially if a big part of the class is about sneaking and navigating dark, trap-filled dungeons.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-18, 04:04 PM
Yes, pitch black darkness isn't something your eyes can just adjust to, but for the sake of not making Human/halfling rogues just yards worse at what they're supposed to be doing, I'm willing to compromise realism, especially if a big part of the class is about sneaking and navigating dark, trap-filled dungeons.

Arguably, the human/halfling rouges are not supposed to be good at sneaking and navigating in complete darkness, hence the lack of dark vision. I mean, if we envision a world with humans and elves and halflings, do we imagine that the only thieves would be elves because they have dark vision? Would we say that the human thieves aren't good thieves because only the elves can see in the pitch dark?

Tholomyes
2014-07-18, 04:37 PM
Arguably, the human/halfling rouges are not supposed to be good at sneaking and navigating in complete darkness, hence the lack of dark vision. I mean, if we envision a world with humans and elves and halflings, do we imagine that the only thieves would be elves because they have dark vision? Would we say that the human thieves aren't good thieves because only the elves can see in the pitch dark?I was talking purely class-only. And, if the class is built, to some degree, around sneaking around in the dark, either in a pitch-black dungeon, or as a skulking thief in a city at night, I'm not all that comfortable with the notion of darkvision being (effectively) a prerequisite to playing a rogue. It might make you better at it, in certain circumstances, but to be significantly worse, doesn't strike me as very fun to play. Especially when you're talking about an edition where it's not too difficult for low-level single class wizards to be walking around in Half-plate.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-18, 04:56 PM
I've always supported the idea of all rogues gaining low light or dark vision...


1st level: Low Light

X level: Dark vision

Y level: Blindsight.

Z level: True seeing

Give the rogue some Ex up in here.

da_chicken
2014-07-18, 08:46 PM
My favorite way to counter not having dark vision as a rogue is to grab a stone with light cast on it then have a mage cast invisibility on my rogue.

Silly fudging rules and all but my DM loved it. The light was invisible unless you had see invisibility or was part of the same invisibility spell.

I need to see how well that works with 5e hmm...

That's possibly the most absurd interpretation of the rules I've seen in weeks.

But then, I dont frequent the 3e boards here anymore.

PinkysBrain
2014-07-18, 09:24 PM
It doesn't work in 3e to begin with (invisibility specifically forbids it) and even if it did it's extrapolating from common sense ... which is much more old school behaviour than the stereotype of 3e behaviour (being overly literal).

Also darkvision is a core 2nd level sor/wiz spell in 3e which lasts an hour per level.

da_chicken
2014-07-18, 09:30 PM
It doesn't work in 3e to begin with (invisibility specifically forbids it) and even if it did it's extrapolating from common sense ... which is much more old school behaviour than the stereotype of 3e behaviour (being overly literal).

When you stop carrying something it ceases to be invisible. IIRC, all versions of the spell state this even 1e. You are neither possessing nor carrying photons emitted by a light source even if you're carrying the light source. They are not affected by the spell.

Tholomyes
2014-07-19, 01:19 AM
Actually, as much as I probably wouldn't allow it, if you bring physics into the equation, it might not be so implausible, depending on how invisibility actually works. Lacking any "true seeing" or "see invisibility" I'd argue that invisibility just made it so that everything affected by the invisibility spell did not absorb or emit photons. But with True seeing being a thing, it's more likely that invisibility simply shifts the ranges of the wavelengths of absorbed light that are absorbed and emitted to a range outside the visible spectrum. As such, all that is needed is a second spell: See invisibility, to expand the wavelengths of light that can be seen, to include the ones of the photons emitted from the light source. Now, since See Invisibility is a personal spell, you'd likely need a wand of it, and a UMD check (depending on your level and wealth, you might want 2, just in case you roll a 1), but with that settled, you could see the invisible light of your invisible light source.

Now, would I allow this? Probably not. The case could perhaps be made, that the level of investment in order to simply see in the dark without darkvision was high enough to allow for this, but I'd much rather just toss a limited use per day item that grants (perhaps limited) darkvision to the party instead.

Sartharina
2014-07-19, 01:28 AM
I was talking purely class-only. And, if the class is built, to some degree, around sneaking around in the dark, either in a pitch-black dungeon, or as a skulking thief in a city at night, I'm not all that comfortable with the notion of darkvision being (effectively) a prerequisite to playing a rogue. It might make you better at it, in certain circumstances, but to be significantly worse, doesn't strike me as very fun to play. Especially when you're talking about an edition where it's not too difficult for low-level single class wizards to be walking around in Half-plate.What's the point in sneaking around in the dark when everything has Darkvision?

The problem with the lightsource, though, is that it gives your location away because of the difference in lighting.

Tholomyes
2014-07-19, 02:12 AM
What's the point in sneaking around in the dark when everything has Darkvision?

The problem with the lightsource, though, is that it gives your location away because of the difference in lighting.

Except my solution isn't to give everyone darkvision. It's to give a character who in one way or another is based (at least partially) around skulking around in the dark, be it from class or background or what have you, the ability to do so without either a) having darkvision from their race or b) being effectively blind while they're supposed to be skulking around.

A rogue, under my way of adjudicating things, would be able to vaguely make out the way a corridor turns and winds, and the ability to make out vague humanoid shapes, with active perception checks. When trying to make out details or trying to hold their own in a fight, however, they're no better off than anyone else. Characters with darkvision, however, are still pretty firmly better off. They can see details just as clearly as if they were in dim light (and dim light as if it were bright), and they're able to fight even in darkness. It's not completely leveling the playing field, it's just making sure those without darkvision aren't completely incompetent.

TheOOB
2014-07-19, 03:54 AM
The basic rules don't really go into depth on the topic, and I doubt we'll have detailed environmental rules until the DMG. That said, hiding in a very dark area with a light source should be near impossible.

Human rogues have been a thing for quite a few editions by now, I assure everyone that it can work.

Person_Man
2014-07-19, 07:34 PM
The answer to your question is "ask your DM." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) that's the answer to almost every rules question for 5E.

The Stealth and hiding rules are very, very vague. I started a thread on them at the WotC forum and got very divergent opinions on how they work. Someone tweeted a specific question to Mearls about them, and his reply was something like 'well it depends on if the monster is looking in your direction or not' even though there are no facing rules, cone of vision rules, no way for a player to know if a monster is looking in his direction before he moves around a corner unless he's using magic, etc.

For DMs like me who see ourselves primarily as an impartial referee (set up a cool game world, fill it with interesting locations, NPCs, monsters, challenges, and other stuff, let the PCs make whatever decisions they want, allow the natural consequences of those decisions to occur, and let the chips fall where they may) this kind of reasoning is absolutely maddening.

But for DMs who see themselves primarily as a storyteller, it makes perfect sense. Leave the rules vague, let the PCs decide the general direction of the story through their actions, but change the outcomes of their actions to whatever fits the narrative that you the DM are trying to tell.

I'm hoping that the Player's Handbook actually addresses this directly, and that it doesn't blow up entirely in their faces when everyone who has been playing 4E looks at the rules and screams at how the same rule applied the same exact way in the exact same situation can lead to very different outcomes depending on your DM.

da_chicken
2014-07-19, 08:51 PM
Actually, as much as I probably wouldn't allow it, if you bring physics into the equation, it might not be so implausible, depending on how invisibility actually works.

Invisibility works how the spell description says it works. It doesn't have to make sense according to physics. It's magic. Magic explicitly and specifically ignores physics. Hence Fly and Levitate don't talk about thrust or anti-bosons, and Teleport doesn't talk about worm holes or space distortions to avoid travelling faster than light. That's part of what makes it magic. The spell description says that you and everything you carry or wear is invisible as long as it is on the target. If you shoot an arrow or throw a rock, it ceases being invisible. If you spit or take a piss, it ceases being invisible. If you're smoking, the smoke is not invisible whether it comes from your mouth or the pipe. Light has all the properties of not being on or carried by the target, thus, it cannot be invisible.


Lacking any "true seeing" or "see invisibility" I'd argue that invisibility just made it so that everything affected by the invisibility spell did not absorb or emit photons. But with True seeing being a thing, it's more likely that invisibility simply shifts the ranges of the wavelengths of absorbed light that are absorbed and emitted to a range outside the visible spectrum. As such, all that is needed is a second spell: See invisibility, to expand the wavelengths of light that can be seen, to include the ones of the photons emitted from the light source. Now, since See Invisibility is a personal spell, you'd likely need a wand of it, and a UMD check (depending on your level and wealth, you might want 2, just in case you roll a 1), but with that settled, you could see the invisible light of your invisible light source.

You're overcomplicating it. To be rendered invisible, you don't need to worry about emitting photons. You just have to worry about interfering with those that strike you. Affecting photons you emit is only useful for concealing a carried light source. That is not necessary to achieve invisibility since all it does it disable a light source. If I had to explain it, I would say that invisibility renders the target perfectly transparent to visible light and whatever form of radiation darkvision uses, as well as perfectly mimics the refractive properties of the surrounding environment, as well as sustaining the target's ability to perceive with it's own vision (necessary since eye lenses and retinas need to interact with light to function). Or, since it's illusory, it simply appears to do the first two and then doesn't have to worry about the third one at all. I prefer the transparent model because it both doesn't interfere with light spells or light sources or darkness spells. Thus, it more closely models what the spell description says happens without inventing new effects like affecting light sources.

See invisibility, truesight, and detect magic allow vision to extend into the magical spectrum (whatever form of radiation magic emits... perhaps out of phase by half a plank unit). If magic is a pervasive and constant force throughout the fabric of the multiverse, there is effectively always light to see by with active spells emitting magical spectrum light differently.

I'd also note that transparent light sources do exist. OLEDs are probably the most well-known recent example. Thus, that which light passes through is capable of emitting light.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-19, 09:07 PM
The way I've been handling this issue is greatly reducing the number of races that have Darkvision in the first place. They get pushed into Low-light vision or standard. Always bugged me how many races (Pathfinder does this a lot) that have better then normal sight. It is not that I am against it, just to common.

This of course will not work for everyone but I've found it levels the field a little more.

TheOldCrow
2014-07-19, 10:01 PM
The way I've been handling this issue is greatly reducing the number of races that have Darkvision in the first place. They get pushed into Low-light vision or standard. Always bugged me how many races (Pathfinder does this a lot) that have better then normal sight. It is not that I am against it, just to common.

This of course will not work for everyone but I've found it levels the field a little more.

I agree with this 100%, and have done the same in past editions of D&D.

When it has reached a point where half (or more) of the PC races have the ability to see in complete darkness, then adventuring in complete darkness is a common activity, and those races with "Darkblindness" are at a major disadvantage. So many of the monster races have Darkvision, too, that entering a lair that is lit with flickering torches is probably not going to happen with things like goblins or orcs or dwarves. Instead, they'll patrol, hold war councils, or have lively banquets, all in complete darkness. I'd rather have some mood lighting going on--glowing fungus, fire beetles, flickering torches, candle chandeliers, lantern light, or light spell. Changing vision so most races have normal vision and only a few have Low Light Vision makes it more interesting in my opinion, and a lot easier.

da_chicken
2014-07-19, 10:22 PM
Honestly, I think 5e handles the situation better than most previous editions. Darkvision is dim light in total darkness, and dim light is described as "very bright full moon" and is about as bright as being on the opposite side of a room as a single lit candle. That's not enough to read by, so I think most creatures wouldn't be completely comfortable living in darkness unless they had no option. It's no longer light infravision or night vision goggles. It takes truesight to see perfectly in all conditions.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-19, 10:54 PM
Honestly, I think 5e handles the situation better than most previous editions. Darkvision is dim light in total darkness, and dim light is described as "very bright full moon" and is about as bright as being on the opposite side of a room as a single lit candle. That's not enough to read by, so I think most creatures wouldn't be completely comfortable living in darkness unless they had no option. It's no longer light infravision or night vision goggles. It takes truesight to see perfectly in all conditions.

It is a little better in some ways but for me personally still a bit much. Seeing in pitching black darkness, even if less effective, is still having the abilities to see. In 5e the 3 of the 9 races don't get Darkvision.

I do agree that most races, even with Darkvision, wouldn't live in completely darkness all the time (barring some outside source forcing that life style). Light can help you easily spot foes trying to sneak up and if your light sources are going out - that is a clue within itself that something is up.

rlc
2014-07-19, 11:28 PM
for the record, it does explicitly say that you'll be seen if you're using a light source...

Sartharina
2014-07-20, 02:30 AM
Invisibility works how the spell description says it works. It doesn't have to make sense according to physics. It's magic. Magic explicitly and specifically ignores physics. Hence Fly and Levitate don't talk about thrust or anti-bosons, and Teleport doesn't talk about worm holes or space distortions to avoid travelling faster than light. That's part of what makes it magic. The spell description says that you and everything you carry or wear is invisible as long as it is on the target. If you shoot an arrow or throw a rock, it ceases being invisible. If you spit or take a piss, it ceases being invisible. If you're smoking, the smoke is not invisible whether it comes from your mouth or the pipe. Light has all the properties of not being on or carried by the target, thus, it cannot be invisible.According to you, then, Invisibility should do nothing - you're not seeing the person, you're seeing the photons bouncing off and leaving the invisible person. Light is not an object, like you seem to be treating it as. Light is nothing more than visibility.


It is a little better in some ways but for me personally still a bit much. Seeing in pitching black darkness, even if less effective, is still having the abilities to see.It's a bit much that races with Darkvision have the ability to see in pitch darkness?

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-20, 02:51 AM
It's a bit much that races with Darkvision have the ability to see in pitch darkness?

For the most part, yes. At least the PC races I've seen in 3.P and 5E. Not to say I wouldn't review each race and make a call based on my world. I am not a pain in the butt about it; if someone could make a case in a sentence or two why their character should have it - I'd allow it. My world does have rules but I don't chain my players to them as a prisoner. I DM with a bit of give and take at the table.

rlc
2014-07-20, 07:34 AM
For the most part, yes. At least the PC races I've seen in 3.P and 5E. Not to say I wouldn't review each race and make a call based on my world. I am not a pain in the butt about it; if someone could make a case in a sentence or two why their character should have it - I'd allow it. My world does have rules but I don't chain my players to them as a prisoner. I DM with a bit of give and take at the table.
basically, because your magic elf has magic eyes. sure, a cat can't see in pitch blackness and needs at least a little light for its eyes to reflect, but these are magic elves we're talking about here.
it's just like how with invisibility, if light is just passing through you, you'd be blind. how many people play that straight?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-20, 10:08 AM
I think they need to bring out a book...

"Dungeons and Dragons 5e Biology"

:smalltongue:

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-20, 11:57 AM
basically, because your magic elf has magic eyes. sure, a cat can't see in pitch blackness and needs at least a little light for its eyes to reflect, but these are magic elves we're talking about here.
it's just like how with invisibility, if light is just passing through you, you'd be blind. how many people play that straight?

You're still there, the environment still effects you. Invisibility is just a illusion that tricks others sight. Try walking across a web invisible and see if that spider doesn't still attack. You can still be hit with a sword, fire on the ground will burn you, powerful winds can toss you around - so light wouldn't just pass through you.

pwykersotz
2014-07-20, 12:04 PM
You're still there, the environment still effects you. Invisibility is just a illusion that tricks others sight. Try walking across a web invisible and see if that spider doesn't still attack. You can still be hit with a sword, fire on the ground will burn you, powerful winds can toss you around - so light wouldn't just pass through you.

Magic can cause you to be insubstantial to a certain thing Like Etherealness and nonmagical matter. You just have to find the right combo of physics/magic to explain it. :smalltongue:

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-20, 12:14 PM
Magic can cause you to be insubstantial to a certain thing Like Etherealness and nonmagical matter. You just have to find the right combo of physics/magic to explain it. :smalltongue:

Well sure, being ghost-like is another matter to invisibility. :smallsmile:

rlc
2014-07-20, 01:08 PM
You're still there, the environment still effects you. Invisibility is just a illusion that tricks others sight. Try walking across a web invisible and see if that spider doesn't still attack. You can still be hit with a sword, fire on the ground will burn you, powerful winds can toss you around - so light wouldn't just pass through you.

so it's more of a cloaking device than actual invisibility then. fair enough, i prefer it that way, too.
but, still, magic eyes.

Sartharina
2014-07-20, 04:49 PM
You're still there, the environment still effects you. Invisibility is just a illusion that tricks others sight. Try walking across a web invisible and see if that spider doesn't still attack. You can still be hit with a sword, fire on the ground will burn you, powerful winds can toss you around - so light wouldn't just pass through you.Get your lack of knowledge about electromagnetic waves out of my magic.

Also - Invisibility doesn't 'trick other's sight' - it's a personal spell that affects the person it's cast on, not something that affects "Anyone with Line of Sight of the person it's cast on"

The technical explanation for how invisibility works would be that it makes the person transparent so that they neither reflect or absorb light, then sets the person's index of refraction to the same as the medium around them.

Knaight
2014-07-20, 07:05 PM
When you stop carrying something it ceases to be invisible. IIRC, all versions of the spell state this even 1e. You are neither possessing nor carrying photons emitted by a light source even if you're carrying the light source. They are not affected by the spell.
You are also neither possessing nor carrying photons that have bounced off of you, which is how people actually see you in the first place. Nor are you possessing photons that you have emitted, though this is a non-issue with the visible spectrum.


Arguably, the human/halfling rouges are not supposed to be good at sneaking and navigating in complete darkness, hence the lack of dark vision. I mean, if we envision a world with humans and elves and halflings, do we imagine that the only thieves would be elves because they have dark vision? Would we say that the human thieves aren't good thieves because only the elves can see in the pitch dark?
Pitch dark is pretty rare in most cases. The human thieves would be just fine outside, particularly in a city. Plus, use of dim lights works just fine, provided that one, say, goes into an area while all the occupants are asleep or away and stays quiet - it keeps them from being seen from outside, which si good enough.


The technical explanation for how invisibility works would be that it makes the person transparent so that they neither reflect or absorb light, then sets the person's index of refraction to the same as the medium around them.
This wouldn't work. It would render the person invisible, but the invisibility spell doesn't also make the user blind. Blindness would occur here, as the eyes have to absorb light to actually see - photons are absorbed to rotate a double bond in a number of different chemicals (largely dependent on what color is being seen). Take that absorption out, and vision goes with it.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-21, 04:32 AM
Get your lack of knowledge about electromagnetic waves out of my magic.

Also - Invisibility doesn't 'trick other's sight' - it's a personal spell that affects the person it's cast on, not something that affects "Anyone with Line of Sight of the person it's cast on"

The technical explanation for how invisibility works would be that it makes the person transparent so that they neither reflect or absorb light, then sets the person's index of refraction to the same as the medium around them.

Fine. Why am I still harmed by the Sunbeam/Sunburst spell if I am invisible?

I know you are trying to nail me with science but seeing it is magic, technical explanation is not going to have firm grounds when you toss magic into that mix. Magic flips the bird to it. There is no real world event where I just wave my hand, say a few words and *poof* your invisible.

Simply put it really comes down to how you think magic works in your world. There is no right or wrong answer as there is no answer for something that doesn't exist.

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 11:32 AM
Fine. Why am I still harmed by the Sunbeam/Sunburst spell if I am invisible?

I know you are trying to nail me with science but seeing it is magic, technical explanation is not going to have firm grounds when you toss magic into that mix. Magic flips the bird to it. There is no real world event where I just wave my hand, say a few words and *poof* your invisible.

Simply put it really comes down to how you think magic works in your world. There is no right or wrong answer as there is no answer for something that doesn't exist.You're the one trying to bring science into the equation by treating light as an object, when it's not.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-21, 01:20 PM
You're the one trying to bring science into the equation by treating light as an object, when it's not.

No, no I wasn't. Nor am I going to continue anything that gets into being picky about words said or used. If that is all you are going to do, leave me alone please. Invisibilty is a spell. Spells are not real. There is no real life thing to compare it to. So anything we come up is just friendly bullpoo fun for the sake of a game. Find what works at your table and have at it.

Angelalex242
2014-07-21, 05:52 PM
I...actually like the idea of rogues naturally getting low light/dark/true sight as class features. Perhaps with a caveat that races that have better vision, avoiding the 'department of redundancy department' get the next step up the vision ladder at the same levels. Thus, dwarven rogues get true sight first, elven rogues next, and human rogues last, but at least human rogues do get better vision as time goes on. Perhaps the blindsight levels simply go higher and higher, depending on race, at higher levels.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 12:10 AM
I...actually like the idea of rogues naturally getting low light/dark/true sight as class features. Perhaps with a caveat that races that have better vision, avoiding the 'department of redundancy department' get the next step up the vision ladder at the same levels. Thus, dwarven rogues get true sight first, elven rogues next, and human rogues last, but at least human rogues do get better vision as time goes on. Perhaps the blindsight levels simply go higher and higher, depending on race, at higher levels.


This seems silly. What, their skill at rogueishness manifests itself in genetically superior eyes?

I don't understand why it's such a concern that certain races get something that synergizes well with a particular class. We don't complain that elves make better mages than orcs, why do we complain that races with darkvision have an edge in certain things over races that don't have darkvision?

Besides, is this really going to be a dealbreaker for human rogues? It certainly hasn't been an issue in prior editions where the same restrictions existed, and the rogue class can mean a lot of things other than "skulks around in the dark"

Tholomyes
2014-07-22, 12:32 AM
This seems silly. What, their skill at rogueishness manifests itself in genetically superior eyes?Not genetically superior, but it's the same logic behind pretty much every other class feature in the game. Classes are, essentially, a collection of features which are intended to mechanically enforce or support the tropes that are common to members of that certain class. One trope for rogues is the ability to skulk around in dark dungeons and such. The lack of Darkvision or a feature that fills the same role.


I don't understand why it's such a concern that certain races get something that synergizes well with a particular class. We don't complain that elves make better mages than orcs, why do we complain that races with darkvision have an edge in certain things over races that don't have darkvision? The difference is that, while elves are better at wizardry than orcs, the benefits are not so great to make common wizardry tropes impossible. Sure, they lag behind slightly in Intellegence, and trance is more useful for casting classes than other classes, but otherwise, the elven class features don't favor Wizards beyond (presumably) those of orcs, unless they decide to somehow penalize orcs, from the baseline, in terms of spellcasting (which would be pretty bad design IMO). With universal stat maximums, the Int boost isn't all that huge, and Trance is a pretty minor boost. Darkvision is a lot larger, and it is not easy to get a similar feature


Besides, is this really going to be a dealbreaker for human rogues? It certainly hasn't been an issue in prior editions where the same restrictions existed, and the rogue class can mean a lot of things other than "skulks around in the dark"Usually Darkvision isn't so common. This makes it easier to give a little more wiggle-room, in terms of what normal vision allows for.

Noldo
2014-07-22, 12:38 AM
This seems silly. What, their skill at rogueishness manifests itself in genetically superior eyes?

I don't understand why it's such a concern that certain races get something that synergizes well with a particular class. We don't complain that elves make better mages than orcs, why do we complain that races with darkvision have an edge in certain things over races that don't have darkvision?

Besides, is this really going to be a dealbreaker for human rogues? It certainly hasn't been an issue in prior editions where the same restrictions existed, and the rogue class can mean a lot of things other than "skulks around in the dark"

I think that it is actually not that much about PC races with darkvision per se, but the fact that prevelance of villanous races with darkvision means that there is too little reason for them to have lightsources around their encampments. Even if orcs and goblins have to keep alight torches of light emitting fungus around for themselves, a rogue with darkvision will work better as a scout than one without, but the human or halfling rogue will still be able to perform the role.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 01:04 AM
Not genetically superior, but it's the same logic behind pretty much every other class feature in the game. Classes are, essentially, a collection of features which are intended to mechanically enforce or support the tropes that are common to members of that certain class. One trope for rogues is the ability to skulk around in dark dungeons and such. The lack of Darkvision or a feature that fills the same role.

But they don't accomplish skulking around in the dark by literally being able to see things that other types of people don't. They don't have magic eyes. They have skill and cunning. Just because something makes a particular class better at something doesn't mean it makes sense in the context of the class. Being able to transform into a giant would totally reinforce the fighter's role and make them better at the kinds of things they're supposed to be good at, but it would make absolutely zero sense based on what a fighter is (a martial warrior who uses skill and conventional weapons/armor). That makes more sense for some kind of shifter, which is not a fighter.

Rogues are already better than others at skulking around in the dark based on

-Their ability to do so quietly and remain undetected
-Their ability to make better use of the sight that they do have (they're more likely to notice things they can see, e.g. perception/spot/listen checks)
-Their ability to react quickly to surprises

I have never seen a rogue in popular fantasy whose power was derived from the ability to see better in the dark than anyone else.


The difference is that, while elves are better at wizardry than orcs, the benefits are not so great to make common wizardry tropes impossible. Sure, they lag behind slightly in Intellegence, and trance is more useful for casting classes than other classes, but otherwise, the elven class features don't favor Wizards beyond (presumably) those of orcs, unless they decide to somehow penalize orcs, from the baseline, in terms of spellcasting (which would be pretty bad design IMO). With universal stat maximums, the Int boost isn't all that huge, and Trance is a pretty minor boost. Darkvision is a lot larger, and it is not easy to get a similar feature


Then presumably your argument is that certain races' class features are too powerful?

Besides, I don't think darkvision makes one disproportionately good at rogueish stuff. Sure, it makes you better at skulking around in the dark, but it also makes you better at fighting enemies who use such tactics. As you mentioned, an orc camp derives great benefit from the fact that it's hard to use the cover of night to sneak up on them. Darkvision makes you better in the dark period.


Usually Darkvision isn't so common. This makes it easier to give a little more wiggle-room, in terms of what normal vision allows for.


This sounds like an argument for limiting darkvision, rather than changing the way rogues work.

Inevitability
2014-07-22, 01:21 AM
I think the 'improved vision' features should either be a feat or a Ranger feature. For rogues... no.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 07:57 AM
I'm not sure why enhanced eyesight can't be a base Extraordinary class feature.

Is this not fantasy?

Hell I would take the genetic explanation.

How about this: The plane of shadows is closely connected to the material plane. Those that live in the shadows, almost to the point of worshiping the shadows, have learn to use the excess energy from the plane of shadow in order to see in the darkness.

Boom, extraordinary explanation of seeing in darkness. The human body has adapted to using whatever advantage it can and now has dark vision. For the bio nerds (coughmecough) this makes sense too, because they aren't using light reflections to see but have adjusted their sight extraordinarily (past what real world humans can do) in order to see the magical energies of the plane of shadow reflect off from things in the dark.

Or you know, this is fantasy and the rogue is just that damn good. If a wizard did it is good enough explanation then he is just that good should be too.

da_chicken
2014-07-22, 08:10 AM
I would have no problem with a feat, path feature (Shadowdancer Rogue path, anyone?), or alternate class feature granting darkvision to any class. Hell, you could call the feat "Elftouched" if you're really that picky about it.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 08:33 AM
Is this not fantasy?


It isn't that you couldn't come up with a good explanation, it's that the base rogue class has always been nonmagical. The goal of the suggestions in this thread is to make the rogue better at skulking around in shadows, ostensibly to make it more closely fit the standard fantasy archetype of "rogue". However, by giving the rogue magical or extraordinary powers, you're changing what a rogue is. And, as I've mentioned before, fantasy rogues (D&D and otherwise) have never needed to see perfectly in darkness to do their jobs.


How about this: The plane of shadows is closely connected to the material plane. Those that live in the shadows, almost to the point of worshiping the shadows, have learn to use the excess energy from the plane of shadow in order to see in the darkness.


You just described a shadowdancer, not a rogue specifically. Of course, a shadowdancer rogue subclass that got enhanced eyesight as one of its bonuses would be pretty cool...

Tholomyes
2014-07-22, 09:02 AM
I'm not sure why enhanced eyesight can't be a base Extraordinary class feature.

Is this not fantasy?

Hell I would take the genetic explanation.

How about this: The plane of shadows is closely connected to the material plane. Those that live in the shadows, almost to the point of worshiping the shadows, have learn to use the excess energy from the plane of shadow in order to see in the darkness.

Boom, extraordinary explanation of seeing in darkness. The human body has adapted to using whatever advantage it can and now has dark vision. For the bio nerds (coughmecough) this makes sense too, because they aren't using light reflections to see but have adjusted their sight extraordinarily (past what real world humans can do) in order to see the magical energies of the plane of shadow reflect off from things in the dark.

Or you know, this is fantasy and the rogue is just that damn good. If a wizard did it is good enough explanation then he is just that good should be too.Not a big fan of the first explanation, but I think all that really needs to be said is the latter one. The PCs are Big Damn Heroes, if not in the "fighting off the apocalyptic demonic incursion" variety, at least the "Badass crew of a firefly-class starship adventuring company" variety. It's something that always bugs me when people try to talk about realism when the topic of mundanes comes up. The fantasy tropes common to these characters don't necessarily conform to reality, so why should the mechanics intended to simulate these tropes have to? They're called extraordinary abilities for a reason, after all.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 09:06 AM
The fantasy tropes common to these characters don't necessarily conform to reality, so why should the mechanics intended to simulate these tropes have to? They're called extraordinary abilities for a reason, after all.

"Seeing in the dark" is not a fantasy trope common to rogueish characters, at least not one that I've ever seen.

Tholomyes
2014-07-22, 09:13 AM
"Seeing in the dark" is not a fantasy trope common to rogueish characters, at least not one that I've ever seen.Perhaps not to extent of darkvision, but to the extent of actually being able to see (not even particularly well, just so much as to not be actually blind) in dark alleys or in pitch black dungeons, or what have you.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 09:16 AM
Perhaps not to extent of darkvision, but to the extent of actually being able to see (not even particularly well, just so much as to not be actually blind) in dark alleys or in pitch black dungeons, or what have you.
Example?

All the characters I'm aware of typically associated with rogues in popular fantasy have been just as blinded by poor lighting than other kinds of characters. They may navigate such a situation with more finesse, but that's not due to eyesight, that's due to


-Their ability to do so quietly and remain undetected
-Their ability to make better use of the sight that they do have (they're more likely to notice things they can see, e.g. perception/spot/listen checks)
-Their ability to react quickly to surprises

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 09:28 AM
You just described a shadowdancer, not a rogue specifically. Of course, a shadowdancer rogue subclass that got enhanced eyesight as one of its bonuses would be pretty cool...

You seem to think that a shadowdancer is anything different from a rogue.

Also the point of Ex abilities is to push the bounds of reality, to the point of breaking them, all without being magical.

Way to many people have the notion of "can't do in real life = magic" when that is what has been holding D&D back for decades.

You shouldn't limit yourself to what has come before or else you can never build anything new or worth using. Just think if the patent office stayed closed in the 30's-40's or whenever because they said "no new technology can be created" (this actually happened mind you, just not sure when), and people listened to them and stopped inventing.

A few years later we wouldn't have stepped foot on the moon and we sure as hell wouldn't have these here internets.

So basing everything a rogue should be able to do off from tropes is stupid. Give the rogue he abilities they need to be competent, then give the rogue the abilities needed to be awesome.

Want to play a rogue that doesn't get Ex see in darkness (which by the way, doesn't the current rogue get blind sense at a high level :smallamused:) then ignore that feature.

It is easier to ignore than to create after all.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 09:42 AM
So basing everything a rogue should be able to do off from tropes is stupid.

I don't disagree; I was not the one who brought fantasy tropes into this discussion. My original reasoning was that

a) It's unnecessary
b) It doesn't make sense given the fluff of the class


It is easier to ignore than to create after all.


No, it isn't, because the class is balanced and designed for all of its features to be intact.

With regards to shadowdancers vs rogues:
Are we talking about the vague character concept of a rogue, or are we talking about the rogue base class? I'm talking about the latter. Yes, a shadowdancer is a rogueish class, and deserves all manner of extraordinary and supernatural abilities. I am referring to the rogue base class.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 09:53 AM
I don't disagree; I was not the one who brought fantasy tropes into this discussion. My original reasoning was that

a) It's unnecessary
b) It doesn't make sense given the fluff of the class



No, it isn't, because the class is balanced and designed for all of its features to be intact.

With regards to shadowdancers vs rogues:
Are we talking about the vague character concept of a rogue, or are we talking about the rogue base class? I'm talking about the latter. Yes, a shadowdancer is a rogueish class, and deserves all manner of extraordinary and supernatural abilities. I am referring to the rogue base class.

Fluff for the rogue and shadow dancer or even a ninja can be changed all you want with very little effort. They are all the same archetype. Super stealthy kill bots with some skill.

Limiting the rogue just because it has never gotten cool things before is bad design.

As to balance...

Please show me where WotC was good at balancing of each class versus each class. Even 4e had the "haves" and "have nots".

Classes aren't even balanced of game versus PC for the most part in any edition of wotcD&D (including PF).

So no, you are wrong about this. It would be easier to ignore rather than create.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 10:23 AM
The fact that D&D has not been balanced in the past does not mean that you should intentionally attempt to break the game.


Fluff for the rogue and shadow dancer or even a ninja can be changed all you want with very little effort. They are all the same archetype. Super stealthy kill bots with some skill.


Yes, but they do those things very differently, which is why they are typically distinct classes or at the very least subclasses.


Limiting the rogue just because it has never gotten cool things before is bad design.


Who says they've never gotten cool things before? Are supernatural powers required for something to be cool? Maybe you think so, in which case I think you should play a class that fits that, but I and others don't.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 10:26 AM
I wouldn't mind rogues being given some sort of darkvision. Not because they're better at seeing in the dark, but because they can understand and figure out what little they can see instead. I'm kind of reminded of Vimes in Night Watch - "Don't carry a torch - it just ruins your nightvision" "See that unusually dark spot in that shadow? There's someone there", etc.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 10:36 AM
So something like low-light vision, improving your ability to notice stuff in dim light? Could be interesting, though it would be difficult to work out how that interacted with various' races abilities to see in the dark. Also, I couldn't find any actual rules for things being harder to see in dim light, so what would this ability actually do?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 11:40 AM
The fact that D&D has not been balanced in the past does not mean that you should intentionally attempt to break the game.

Yes, but they do those things very differently, which is why they are typically distinct classes or at the very least subclasses.

Who says they've never gotten cool things before? Are supernatural powers required for something to be cool? Maybe you think so, in which case I think you should play a class that fits that, but I and others don't.

Who says just the past? Look at the current rules, they are already doing the same. But everyone is so hung up on keeping everything the same they are afraid to do anything really cool.

Not supernatural, Extraordinary. I never said to give the rogue magical powers. Everything I talked about was an Ex ability.

So far with this edition, like 3.5, if you want something cool and useful then yeah it does need to be magical.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 01:14 PM
The rules are basic because what we have now are the basic rules, containing the basic classes, designed to be simple and palatable for people who have never played D&D before.



Not supernatural, Extraordinary. I never said to give the rogue magical powers. Everything I talked about was an Ex ability.

So far with this edition, like 3.5, if you want something cool and useful then yeah it does need to be magical.


The problem posed by this thread does not apply to many races - only humans, halflings, and any others without darkvision. If you think that rogues don't have enough cool and useful stuff, then presumably it's not a problem that can be solved just by giving rogues a darkvision-equivalent.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 01:36 PM
The rules are basic because what we have now are the basic rules, containing the basic classes, designed to be simple and palatable for people who have never played D&D before.



The problem posed by this thread does not apply to many races - only humans, halflings, and any others without darkvision. If you think that rogues don't have enough cool and useful stuff, then presumably it's not a problem that can be solved just by giving rogues a darkvision-equivalent.

Who said otherwise?

See you are limiting yourself again. It would be easy, and precidented, to do something like.

At level X gain dark vision, if you already have dark vision increase its range by 25%.

At level Y gain blind sight out to the same range as your dark vision. If you already have blind sight then increase both it and your dark vision by 25%.

At level Z, gain true sight... Etc etc...

Took me 10 seconds to come up with something nice for the Rogue that is thematically appropriate and simple to implement. Plus it doesn't cater toward any specific race.

BRC
2014-07-22, 01:42 PM
The obvious answer is "Sneak around without a light, in the shadows of the lights the guards are using".

But, DnD likes to throw around Magical Darkvision to every monstrous race, which has always bugged me. Seeing in pitch darkness is HUGE, and just about every monster has it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 02:01 PM
The obvious answer is "Sneak around without a light, in the shadows of the lights the guards are using".

But, DnD likes to throw around Magical Darkvision to every monstrous race, which has always bugged me. Seeing in pitch darkness is HUGE, and just about every monster has it.

Well unless they updated the rules on sight... If you are in the darkness you can't see the light from the gaurds.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 02:03 PM
Well unless they updated the rules on sight... If you are in the darkness you can't see the light from the gaurds.
Where the heck are you getting this nonsense?

Is this a piece of 3.5 idiocy?

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 02:05 PM
The wording of the sight rules in the basic PDF could be interpreted to mean that the penalty is applied to creatures standing in darkness, not the light level around the thing you're trying to see.

That's a pretty absurd interpretation of it, though.

Jeraa
2014-07-22, 02:07 PM
Where the heck are you getting this nonsense?

Is this a piece of 3.5 idiocy?

No, it seems to be a piece of 5e idiocy (Basic PDF, page 65).


A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 02:14 PM
No, it seems to be a piece of 5e idiocy (Basic PDF, page 65).

Well at least someone else has been reading the basic ruleset.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 02:16 PM
Oh. Yeah, that's dumb.

BRC
2014-07-22, 02:18 PM
You could argue that, if there is a light you could see, then you are not in total darkness.

But it still dosn't sound right. It sounds like, if the guard is next to a fire with a telescope, and you are 200 feet away with a telescope, you can't see the guard, because you are in darkness, and he can see you, because he's in a well-lit area.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 02:19 PM
Oh. Yeah, that's dumb.

Yeah if you actually read the rule you will find many dumb little things like that.

You would think they would have updated the rules on seeing out of darkness into light... Or you know, split up darkness and fog/other stuff that can blind you.


Edit:

Argue all you want about this, but this is a case of silly RAW. And the RAW is quite clear that you are blinded when in darkness.

Callin
2014-07-22, 02:39 PM
You also suffer from Disadvantage on Perception checks in Darkness if you have Darkvision. Pg 65 once again to page 66. Darkvision only lets you see in Darkness as if it were Dim Light causing that area to be Lightly Obscured.

pwykersotz
2014-07-22, 04:40 PM
Yeah if you actually read the rule you will find many dumb little things like that.

You would think they would have updated the rules on seeing out of darkness into light... Or you know, split up darkness and fog/other stuff that can blind you.


Edit:

Argue all you want about this, but this is a case of silly RAW. And the RAW is quite clear that you are blinded when in darkness.


Vision and Light
The most fundamental tasks of adventuring-noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few-rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix).

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also count as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Quoted and bolded for reference.

Why would they waste the paper? And why are you of all people worried about it? I don't buy that you're incredibly flexible about adding homebrew and special characters and yet this triviality bothers you. It's providing a frame of reference, nothing more. DemonicSpoon is right, it's an absurd interpretation.

da_chicken
2014-07-22, 05:25 PM
No, it seems to be a piece of 5e idiocy (Basic PDF, page 65).

:smallsigh: This is saying you can't see down an unlit hallway into the unlit room at the end, not that all darkness behaves like a black hole.

Jeraa
2014-07-22, 05:58 PM
:smallsigh: This is saying you can't see down an unlit hallway into the unlit room at the end, not that all darkness behaves like a black hole.

I would agree that was the intention. But that is not what it says.


A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix).

In a heavily obscured area, you are effectively "blinded". With blinded being:


A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.

So, as written, if you are in a heavily obscured area you automatically fail any check that requires sight. Which would include seeing someone at the far end of a hallway with a torch in his hand. Which is obviously not what was intended. But as far as we know, the PHB wording may be different.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-22, 06:41 PM
Argue all you want about this, but this is a case of silly RAW. And the RAW is quite clear that you are blinded when in darkness.


Who cares?

No one is going to read that and think that's intended, because it's absurd and clearly not. If no one is going to play it that way and it is almost certainly going to be re-worded in the future, then isn't it pretty pointless to talk about it as if that was how it worked in practice?

da_chicken
2014-07-22, 07:42 PM
I would agree that was the intention. But that is not what it says.

You can drive your RAW wagon off a cliff if you want. I prefer not to be a mindless idiot.

Sartharina
2014-07-23, 01:26 AM
What we have here is the clunkiest attempt at using a keyword (Blind) ever!:smallbiggrin:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 08:17 AM
You can drive your RAW wagon off a cliff if you want. I prefer not to be a mindless idiot.

Be as rude as you want, no one is saying be a mindless idiot.

However when discussing rules for a game you have to go by RAW. If you do not then every argument boils down to "well I think the designers meant for X to be Y".

Which can lead to some pretty stupid stuff and is all opinion. Which will get a debate nowhere.

We are debating fact, and in the game (for however silly it is) when you are in darkness you are blind and wouldn't be able to see into a lit room down a dark hallway.

Silly? Yes. Idiotic to claim that the facts are there to support this in RAW? No.

I'm not sure why you are being so damn hostile about this, have you never read a rules book put out by WotC or Paizo? This type of stuff is everywhere (healing by drowning for example). But sadly, we have to assume those are the rules in play, because those are the rules. If we had a specific DM in a specific campaign say otherwise then we would be good to change them. But alas, we are talking about the rules as written for the game and not a specific game under a specific DM.


What we have here is the clunkiest attempt at using a keyword (Blind) ever!:smallbiggrin:

Par for the course, I guess?

WotC still hasn't learned that not everything is combat and exploration needs some love too.

Jeraa
2014-07-23, 08:46 AM
The problem is, if something as relatively simple as this (darkness making you blind) wasn't caught, what else made it into the rules that is stupid and incorrect?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 08:52 AM
The problem is, if something as relatively simple as this (darkness making you blind) wasn't caught, what else made it into the rules that is stupid and incorrect?

Oh, I have no doubt they know about it.

They just either don't care, think it is legit, or just want people to homebrew without telling them to homebrew.

Holy hot damn, maybe the darkness rules is a golden cow for someone and they are afraid gronards will freak out if they fix them?

1337 b4k4
2014-07-23, 09:25 AM
Oh, I have no doubt they know about it.

They just either don't care, think it is legit, or just want people to homebrew without telling them to homebrew.

Holy hot damn, maybe the darkness rules is a golden cow for someone and they are afraid gronards will freak out if they fix them?

Or they could just figure that the players are smart enough to apply rules sensibly rather than needing to waste space, text and resources outlining absurdities. Should they have included rules for your characters using the toilet too? How about eating? I mean, heck, by RAW, all swords everywhere, regardless of market conditions, availability of materials or quality of sword maker cost the exact same amount. Seriously, you mean to tell me that if you were writing these rules, you'd bother wasting the space to break out absolute darkness and heavy fog just to point out that "Hey, if there is light in the darkness, then you're not in total darkness"? Interpreting everything with RAW leads us down the path to rules lawyers. The game rules are not a legal contract, and do not need to spelled out in legalese. Besides, if we're going with pure RAW, the rules note that the area between a source of bright light (like a torch near your guard) and the "surrounding darkness" is dim light. By that, if you can see the light, you're in dim light and therefore not blinded.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 09:47 AM
Or they could just figure that the players are smart enough to apply rules sensibly rather than needing to waste space, text and resources outlining absurdities. Should they have included rules for your characters using the toilet too? How about eating? I mean, heck, by RAW, all swords everywhere, regardless of market conditions, availability of materials or quality of sword maker cost the exact same amount. Seriously, you mean to tell me that if you were writing these rules, you'd bother wasting the space to break out absolute darkness and heavy fog just to point out that "Hey, if there is light in the darkness, then you're not in total darkness"? Interpreting everything with RAW leads us down the path to rules lawyers. The game rules are not a legal contract, and do not need to spelled out in legalese. Besides, if we're going with pure RAW, the rules note that the area between a source of bright light (like a torch near your guard) and the "surrounding darkness" is dim light. By that, if you can see the light, you're in dim light and therefore not blinded.

So your explanation is...

"Hey let's make rules to a game (the fundamental of any game is playing by the rules) that people have to homebrew in order to make any sense"

(Which was one of my points that they could be doing)

That is a pretty crappy design philosophy. Players should be able to come to a table and use the rules they read in a game in order to play. They should not have to assume that every game they go to will be homebrewed the same way because the creators assume DMs will always homebrew the same base rules.

If they need homebrewed then why the hell not just change the rules to work?

It isn't about rule lawyers, it is about everyone having a basic understanding on how the game works and not having to read the minds of the developers or DMs. A new player coming to the table, who had read the rules, will probably be turned off from a game when it turns into Calvin Ball.

I'm not saying I don't homebrew or change rules but there should be a base level of rules put down so stupid stuff like this doesn't hit the shelf.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-23, 10:42 AM
So your explanation is...

"Hey let's make rules to a game (the fundamental of any game is playing by the rules) that people have to homebrew in order to make any sense"

No, I'm saying "Hey let's make rules to a game that cover scenarios that need rules, and not stupid things like 'If you're in a dark room and there's a light at the end of a hallway 30' away, can you see the light?'"

In other words, I'm saying the rules don't need to cover things that are the same as reality. There aren't rules for walking, just how far you can walk on a given turn. There aren't rules for going to the bathroom, it's just assumed if you need to do so in game, that you know how the process works. Likewise, there doesn't need to be rules for "It's a dark night, I'm on the edge of a forest and a guard is 30 feet away bathed in torchlight, can I see that guard?"

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 11:15 AM
No, I'm saying "Hey let's make rules to a game that cover scenarios that need rules, and not stupid things like 'If you're in a dark room and there's a light at the end of a hallway 30' away, can you see the light?'"

In other words, I'm saying the rules don't need to cover things that are the same as reality. There aren't rules for walking, just how far you can walk on a given turn. There aren't rules for going to the bathroom, it's just assumed if you need to do so in game, that you know how the process works. Likewise, there doesn't need to be rules for "It's a dark night, I'm on the edge of a forest and a guard is 30 feet away bathed in torchlight, can I see that guard?"

As apposed to " hey guys, ever since 2000-ish we have been flubbing up the blind/darkness rules, we should fix them".

Now which is better.

Having a problem to a rule that makes no sense, and ignoring it.

Having a problem to a rule (that has been a problem for a long time) and fixing it.

One allows players to come to a table with everyone having a basic grasp for the rules and the other does not. If you don't have a basic trust that everyone is using the same rules (remember a lot of games are not long running friends only games) then why have rules at all?

You have rules to follow said rules, want to change the rules? You can. However it is a horrible quality and flaw to a game where the Devs assumes you have to homebrew to FIX a game.

You should homebrew for fun, not for neccisity.

pwykersotz
2014-07-23, 11:52 AM
As apposed to " hey guys, ever since 2000-ish we have been flubbing up the blind/darkness rules, we should fix them".

Now which is better.

Having a problem to a rule that makes no sense, and ignoring it.

Having a problem to a rule (that has been a problem for a long time) and fixing it.

One allows players to come to a table with everyone having a basic grasp for the rules and the other does not. If you don't have a basic trust that everyone is using the same rules (remember a lot of games are not long running friends only games) then why have rules at all?

You have rules to follow said rules, want to change the rules? You can. However it is a horrible quality and flaw to a game where the Devs assumes you have to homebrew to FIX a game.

You should homebrew for fun, not for neccisity.

I think you'll find that very few people think it's a problem. The rules are for adjudication within the darkness. They are very useful in that regard. The even include the assumption in the game that a common moonlit night is still darkness. Does that mean that we can't see the moon because we're blinded? No. You can see the moon because the moon is lit. You just can't see your area well. The torch 160 feet away can be seen, as can anything within its radius, but it doesn't do anything for your ability to see right around you.

This seems like an odd thing to be vexed about.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 12:52 PM
I think you'll find that very few people think it's a problem. The rules are for adjudication within the darkness. They are very useful in that regard. The even include the assumption in the game that a common moonlit night is still darkness. Does that mean that we can't see the moon because we're blinded? No. You can see the moon because the moon is lit. You just can't see your area well. The torch 160 feet away can be seen, as can anything within its radius, but it doesn't do anything for your ability to see right around you.

This seems like an odd thing to be vexed about.

It is more of the thought process that it takes to get to all this. To willingly ignore something like this is just sad when it would be easy to fix the sight based rules.

It is very unprofessional and quite annoying for a company that is making a product to have this problem, since 2000 ish.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-23, 12:53 PM
As apposed to " hey guys, ever since 2000-ish we have been flubbing up the blind/darkness rules, we should fix them".

Now which is better.

Having a problem to a rule that makes no sense, and ignoring it.

Having a problem to a rule (that has been a problem for a long time) and fixing it.


Better is not designing rules around fools and rules lawyers. There's only a problem with the rule if every single person at the table collectively and completely agrees to throw away all common sense human experience and any semblance of activity in their brains and use only the most literal interpretation of the rules possible to adjudicate the world. By this same logic, dice towers should be illegal at the table since they are not "rolling" dice, as should electronic dice rollers.

I would rather my game designers spend their time and resources solving real problems. Any player who came to me saying "by the rules, if you're on a mountain at night, you can't see the camp fire burning in the distance (or the moon)", I would kick that player out and tell them they're not welcome back until they stop being stupid. I don't play games with people who make the game suck, life (and my gaming time and the designers time) is too limited to indulge such people.

Demonic Spoon
2014-07-23, 12:54 PM
It is more of the thought process that it takes to get to all this. To willingly ignore something like this is just sad when it would be easy to fix the sight based rules.

It is very unprofessional and quite annoying for a company that is making a product to have this problem, since 2000 ish.


Are they willingly ignoring it? You don't know that it isn't going to be fixed. We're still on the first edition of the basic rules, a set of rules that exists entirely online and that can and will be updated.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 01:11 PM
Are they willingly ignoring it? You don't know that it isn't going to be fixed. We're still on the first edition of the basic rules, a set of rules that exists entirely online and that can and will be updated.

Well it had been... 14 ish years and they haven't put out a good version of it yet or even attempted to explain themselves. If they weren't ignoring a huge portion of the game (yes, being in darkness while sneaking is a huge part of the game) that would be easy to fix... I have to say until proven otherwise I think they are specifically ignoring it.

And B4k4 I hope no new player or a player whose DM never houserules it differently plays with you. I see tons of potential d&d players being turned off by such an arrogant attitude.

Oh and make sure you tell your players "these are the rules we are using but they really aren't".

How long does it take to go over every single rule to every player you have to make sure they don't get kicked out for following the rules.

TheOldCrow
2014-07-23, 01:12 PM
Are they willingly ignoring it? You don't know that it isn't going to be fixed. We're still on the first edition of the basic rules, a set of rules that exists entirely online and that can and will be updated.

Right. There will be a few typo's and awkwardly worded sentences. At least in the free basic rules those should be easy to fix, when they get around to it. I'm sure they rephrase it to looking at things in darkness makes one essentially blind, as opposed to standing in darkness doing so. In the meantime, common sense can be used.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 01:20 PM
Right. There will be a few typo's and awkwardly worded sentences. At least in the free basic rules those should be easy to fix, when they get around to it. I'm sure they rephrase it to looking at things in darkness makes one essentially blind, as opposed to standing in darkness doing so. In the meantime, common sense can be used.

One would think that in the past 14 years WotC would have someone say "yo I can see a lit room down a hallway even when I'm in pitch black darkness".

You and I can use all the common sense that we want but that doesn't forgive a company for making the same mistake over and over. Also, 5e is all about brining in new players and what knot, well with new players the only three things you can assume is that either they know the rules, they kinda know the rules, or they don't know the rules.

Also b4k4,

But punishing players for following the rules is counter productive and hypocritical. You punish players for cheating AND for following the rules? That is messed up.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-23, 01:42 PM
I see tons of potential d&d players being turned off by such an arrogant attitude.

Good. Let me be absolutely clear here. Any person that would adhere so strictly to the rules as written in a game so as to be a detriment to the game and fun for the other players is not a person who should be welcomed into the hobby. These people are selfish, rude and ruin games, I don't want them at my table, and you shouldn't want them at yours. This is a social game, being anti-social is the antithesis of the game and has no place in the game.

Edit
--------------
The player insisting in adhering to literal and non-sensical interpretations of the rules to the detriment of everyone else is like the person that insists that you have to set up sand lot baseball bases at the exact dimensions specified in the baseball rules despite the fact that you're playing with a bunch of kids not professional ballers and that would require putting first base in the middle of the busy highway.

End Edit
--------------



How long does it take to go over every single rule to every player you have to make sure they don't get kicked out for following the rules.

It's not following the rules. Rule 1 is "use common sense". By the same logic you're using, as I pointed out, players should never be able to use electronic dice rollers or dice towers and a large sheet of paper makes you immune to attacks (Page 74: "A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle" ).



One would think that in the past 14 years WotC would have someone say "yo I can see a lit room down a hallway even when I'm in pitch black darkness".


I suspect that they haven't done this for the same reason they haven't included rules for using the bathroom. Because they view it as unnecessary.



But punishing players for following the rules is counter productive and hypocritical. You punish players for cheating AND for following the rules? That is messed up.

I punish players (and DMs) for ruining the game and the fun. We're here to play a game and have fun. If you're ruining the game and the fun, you are not here for the same reasons the rest of us are, and therefore have no place being here. Life (and gaming time) is too short to indulge ****ty players and DMs. Only play with people who are going to help you have fun. If they are actively hindering your fun, there's no reason for you to play with them.

RedWarlock
2014-07-23, 08:27 PM
(On mobile here, quotes not happening)

The rule says absence of ANY light, right? There's a light over there? WHOOPS! Looks like we're now in dim light conditions!

Sartharina
2014-07-24, 12:57 AM
(On mobile here, quotes not happening)

The rule says absence of ANY light, right? There's a light over there? WHOOPS! Looks like we're now in dim light conditions!

... that is true, and resolves the issue. The only time you have absolute darkness is when there are no sources of light anywhere that would be visible to anyone in a sane world, or if you're in a magical field of darkness.

Dimers
2014-07-24, 01:28 AM
Example?

All the characters I'm aware of typically associated with rogues in popular fantasy have been just as blinded by poor lighting than other kinds of characters. They may navigate such a situation with more finesse, but that's not due to eyesight, that's due to

Jimmy The Hand, from Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar Saga and associated fantasy novels, is what I think of first when I want an example of a very well-trained, nonmagical sneaky sort of person in a fantasy world. Jimmy could get a sense of a place's layout (including where creatures were) in complete darkness from the feel of the air and minute sounds. That's close enough to "truesight" for my purposes. I have no problem giving the effects of advanced vision to high-level rogues as a result of their sheer amount of skill.

As to the blind-in-a-dark-square thing, I'm pretty sure what was intended (*crosses fingers for swift errata*) was that things in dark squares can't be seen, rather than that they can't SEE.


The only time you have absolute darkness is when there are no sources of light anywhere that would be visible to anyone in a sane world, or if you're in a magical field of darkness.

Well, let's just hope that in this edition, casting a darkness spell in a dark area doesn't create dim light. :smalltongue:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-24, 08:59 AM
Good. Let me be absolutely clear here. Any person that would adhere so strictly to the rules as written in a game so as to be a detriment to the game and fun for the other players is not a person who should be welcomed into the hobby. These people are selfish, rude and ruin games, I don't want them at my table, and you shouldn't want them at yours. This is a social game, being anti-social is the antithesis of the game and has no place in the game.

Edit
--------------
The player insisting in adhering to literal and non-sensical interpretations of the rules to the detriment of everyone else is like the person that insists that you have to set up sand lot baseball bases at the exact dimensions specified in the baseball rules despite the fact that you're playing with a bunch of kids not professional ballers and that would require putting first base in the middle of the busy highway.

End Edit
--------------



It's not following the rules. Rule 1 is "use common sense". By the same logic you're using, as I pointed out, players should never be able to use electronic dice rollers or dice towers and a large sheet of paper makes you immune to attacks (Page 74: "A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle" ).



I suspect that they haven't done this for the same reason they haven't included rules for using the bathroom. Because they view it as unnecessary.



I punish players (and DMs) for ruining the game and the fun. We're here to play a game and have fun. If you're ruining the game and the fun, you are not here for the same reasons the rest of us are, and therefore have no place being here. Life (and gaming time) is too short to indulge ****ty players and DMs. Only play with people who are going to help you have fun. If they are actively hindering your fun, there's no reason for you to play with them.

Siiiiigh.

So there is a nonsense rule in the game, that is directly part of the game and you want to compare it to taking a bathroom break?

So insrad of addressing a known nonsensical rule that is already in the book you want the company hat has PRI ted the book just ignore it and expect everyone else that plays with you to read your mind or ask you specifically about it.

We are done here, you need to get over yourself and stop with the Calvin Ball crap.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-24, 09:43 AM
So insrad of addressing a known nonsensical rule that is already in the book you want the company hat has PRI ted the book just ignore it and expect everyone else that plays with you to read your mind or ask you specifically about it.

We are done here, you need to get over yourself and stop with the Calvin Ball crap.

Again, the rule is nonsensical if and only if you apply the most literal interpretation of the rule, ignore all of the surrounding context (including the part that describes the border area between bright light (explicitly called out as a torch) and pure darkness, and if you throw out all the outside general human experience that you are supposed to bring to the table with you and ignore every facet of common sense and reality. It has nothing to do with reading minds or asking specifically about it and everything to do with a player willfully and blatantly choosing the most ridiculous interpretation of the rules and then insisting on that interpretation to the detriment of all the other players. This isn't "Calvin Ball" crap and this isn't expecting mind readers, this is dickery from a player and it's not something any table should put up with.

Again, any player insisting on using this interpretation of the rules rather than the interpretation that actually makes sense to everyone (seriously, ask any person if you're in a dark room and there's a lit doorway at the end of the hall, can you see it?) is the equivalent of insisting that first base must be exactly 90 feet away from home plate, even if that places it in the middle of a highway. Either we are humans and bring a human element to the table, or we are cold calculating machines that can only do exactly what the literal interpretation of the printed words in front of us tells us to do with no free will of our own. I prefer to play my games with humans.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 11:03 AM
Well, let's just hope that in this edition, casting a darkness spell in a dark area doesn't create dim light. :smalltongue:

I totally forgot about this Hahaha.

Oh though I kinda would like to see the darkness spell to work as a dimmer switch (goes from dim light to pitch black light) on existing darkness.

Could be useful... :smalltongue:

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 04:27 AM
Nope. The darkness spell is absolute darkness now, not merely a dimmer switch. And the rules for Darkness being "Blinded" make sense - you cannot see into or out of the sphere of darkness, unless you cover the darkness-radiating object with something.

Beleriphon
2014-07-26, 05:53 AM
Did everybody forget a key word in the statement about Darkness? Effectively blinded. In context of the rules that means in most circumstances using the rules for Blind make sense, but there are exceptions as determined by the DM and players.

Dimers
2014-07-26, 09:13 AM
Nope. The darkness spell is absolute darkness now, not merely a dimmer switch. And the rules for Darkness being "Blinded" make sense - you cannot see into or out of the sphere of darkness, unless you cover the darkness-radiating object with something.

The RAW for darkness makes sense for magical darkness, not for natural. If I'm inside magical darkness, I'm (effectively) blinded, and I can't see a light ten feet away that's outside the sphere. If I'm just standing somewhere naturally dark, I should be able to see areas that are within the radius of a light source even if that light source is fairly far away. The standard rules should only say that things in dark areas can't be seen without darkvision, while the darkness spell should specify that being in the area (or having your sense organs in the area?) disallows sight (including darkvision, which it does mention).

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 02:23 PM
The RAW for darkness makes sense for magical darkness, not for natural. If I'm inside magical darkness, I'm (effectively) blinded, and I can't see a light ten feet away that's outside the sphere. If I'm just standing somewhere naturally dark, I should be able to see areas that are within the radius of a light source even if that light source is fairly far away. The standard rules should only say that things in dark areas can't be seen without darkvision, while the darkness spell should specify that being in the area (or having your sense organs in the area?) disallows sight (including darkvision, which it does mention).If you can see light from somewhere naturally dark, you're in Dim Light, not Darkness.

Dimers
2014-07-26, 03:00 PM
If you can see light from somewhere naturally dark, you're in Dim Light, not Darkness.

That doesn't seem to be the case. "An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness." "A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet." The phrasing is the same for other light sources mentioned in the Basic pdf. So darkness can clearly exist within line-of-sight of a source of bright light, as long as the dark area is sufficiently far away from the source.