Cheese Level

[LordOfCain]

How cheesy is it to say your race with racial hit dice, say a centaur, got level drained of his racial hit dice by a level draining effect, say a vampire, and was left with only class levels?

[Doc_Maynot]

Before or after the game starts? Because if before, that is pretty cheesy. Otherwise, it's a common strategy to dump RHD.
The difference, one has risk (the fight with the creature) and actually penalizes the player until they can level up.

[Troacctid]

I think it's about on par with saying you were infected by lycanthropy, qualified for a high-level prestige class using the extra hit dice, and then cured the lycanthropy.

[Beheld]

Like all things, it depends on what you get. I couldn't possibly care if you were a Centaur without Racial HD. You spend two levels worth of XP to get some stat mods that you can probably get with fewer LA elsewhere, you are large (which is good and bad) and you have a faster movespeed, but have difficulty with stairs.

[Necroticplague]

Incredibly cheesy. Actually, downright munkinry, because it involves flat-out breaking the rules to do. You can't get rid of the last racial hit dice, because if you ever had that many negative levels, you would die.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Incredibly cheesy. Actually, downright munkinry, because it involves flat-out breaking the rules to do. You can't get rid of the last racial hit dice, because if you ever had that many negative levels, you would die.Retrain it.

[Troacctid]

Retrain it.

How, exactly?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How, exactly?...Via the retraining rules?

[Necroticplague]

...Via the retraining rules?

If they allowed you to retrain RHD, we wouldn't need this trick in the first place.

[Beheld]

Incredibly cheesy. Actually, downright munkinry, because it involves flat-out breaking the rules to do. You can't get rid of the last racial hit dice, because if you ever had that many negative levels, you would die.

You can lose Racial HD when you have class levels.

[Seppo87]

Define what you mean by "cheese" and why you see it as a bad thing and then we can answer.

For example, cheese is probably "too much optimization", but too much for what? There is no such thing as an estabilished limit, it depends on the group.

For your group? You know it better than us.

In general? There's no such thing.

For us? For me it's "quattro formaggi" tier.

On a scale from 1 to 5 of "measurable cheesyness" ? I'd say around 4

[Ruethgar]

You can lose Racial HD when you have class levels.

Except that you lose them in the reverse order you gained them, so your class levels would disappear first then your RHD.

[Beheld]

Except that you lose them in the reverse order you gained them, so your class levels would disappear first then your RHD.

Where are you getting that from. Certainly not the DMG or PHB.

[Zanos]

Most races with RHD are pretty terrible to start out with, so how cheesy this is varies a lot.

Using it to play a Black Etherguant with 17th level casting at ECL 6? Extremely cheesy.
Using it to play a Lizarfolk without any RHD, but still a +1 LA? Not even remotely cheesy.

While there are ways to dump RHD by RAW, you might just want to talk to your DM about reducing or removing them from the race you want to play.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If they allowed you to retrain RHD, we wouldn't need this trick in the first place.Depending on reading, one can sub out the first racial hit die for a class level, if it's the only one you have. That's why you take permanent negative levels down to 1, then retrain the 1, then restore your XP level while taking class levels all the way up. As mentioned, it's not powerful at all for some races. Others...well...

[Barbarian Horde]

Oh zat eez a love-lee piece of cheese you 'ave zéir Monsieur. Ai too wish ai was supairman.

"Best of Both Worlds" So now not only do you get your racial bonus, but you now get class levels too?

No I'm simply gonna throw a book at that player. I don't have the time to want to deal with balance issues when it comes to building an encounter.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Sylph_14/1poster-monsterNPCs.jpg
Otherwise crap like this becomes possible and I have to cringe when I look at it.

[Ruethgar]

Of course if you have a Monster Class, you can technically finish it then rebuild it all away if you just wanted the look of the creature, but you would lose you most of the bonuses too.

[Vizzerdrix]

How cheesy is it to say your race with racial hit dice, say a centaur, got level drained of his racial hit dice by a level draining effect, say a vampire, and was left with only class levels?

Less than playing a caster. Any DM worth theirbsalt will work with a player if something as trivial as this is all they want, so long as they arent trying to pull this off with a caster.

[LordOfCain]

Right now I am considering doing this with a satyr to have the pipes ability.

[Inevitability]

If a player told me he wanted to play a gloura or couatl with all but one RHD drained, I'd throw a book at him.

However, if the player wanted to play a race with far too many RHD to be playable, I might use RHD-draining as a way to allow the player to play a balanced character that can exist without having to alter the rules.

[Bronk]

Where are you getting that from. Certainly not the DMG or PHB.

From the SRD section on level loss:


A character who loses a level instantly loses one Hit Die.

So far, it doesn't give any indication which Hit Die you lose, but later on:


The victim’s experience point total is immediately set to the midpoint of the previous level.

They roll back in the order you gained them.

[Beheld]

They roll back in the order you gained them.

That does not follow. Obviously you can't be a level 5 Fighter who doesn't have the fourth level of fighter, but no part of resetting your Experience to a lower level determines what HD you lose.

[OldTrees1]

Extreme Cheese

Either the DM agrees that the race has too many RHD for a playable race or they do not agree. In the first case the race should be changed and in the second case this Cheese is intentional cheating.

[Khedrac]

That does not follow. Obviously you can't be a level 5 Fighter who doesn't have the fourth level of fighter, but no part of resetting your Experience to a lower level determines what HD you lose.

Except, without extreme cheese, it does determine what hit dice you lose:
You are set back to the mid point of the previous level.
Consider a simple fighter 2/rogue 2 who took the levels in the order fighter, fighter, rogue, rogue.
This means that the previous level was fighter 2/rogue 1. The word "previous" defines this as what came before.
By arguing he can choose which level to lose you are suggesting that he could become a fighter 1/rogue 2, however this is not the previous level - it is a level the character has never had.
Futhermore, you are also saying (even though everyone agrees that this is wrong) that he could lose his first level of fighter or rogue without losing his second! This uses exactly the same logic, and is not stopped by the rules as you see them either (afaik the rules only state that you cannot take fighter 2 without being a fighter 1).

The word "previous" prevents the choice of hit dice to lose, there is no need for an extra rule to this effect.
Whether it would be unreasonable to allow it is another question, but it remains homebrew.

[Beheld]

Except, without extreme cheese, it does determine what hit dice you lose:
You are set back to the mid point of the previous level.
Consider a simple fighter 2/rogue 2 who took the levels in the order fighter, fighter, rogue, rogue.
This means that the previous level was fighter 2/rogue 1. The word "previous" defines this as what came before.
By arguing he can choose which level to lose you are suggesting that he could become a fighter 1/rogue 2, however this is not the previous level - it is a level the character has never had.

You are completely wrong about what the rules actually say. They say you lose a HD, with no specification of which one. And they say your XP is reduced to the midpoint of your previous level. XP and HD are different things. Reducing your XP to a midpoint does not dictate which HD you lose.

If you were reduced to the previous level in HD, you would have an argument, but you are not, your XP is reduced, and you lose a HD.


Futhermore, you are also saying (even though everyone agrees that this is wrong) that he could lose his first level of fighter or rogue without losing his second! This uses exactly the same logic, and is not stopped by the rules as you see them either (afaik the rules only state that you cannot take fighter 2 without being a fighter 1).

If you have one level of Fighter, you are a Fighter 1, by definition. If you have one Racial HD of the animal type, you are an Animal 1. That's how it works. If you take away your Fighter HD, then you lose whatever the most recent level of Fighter HD is. But nothing stops you from being a Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Ninja 1/Beguiler 1/Ur-Priest 1 who takes a negative level and loses his Fighter level.

[Doc_Maynot]

Just mentioning, the Rules Compendium clarifies it to "A victim who loses a level loses the most recent level gained"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Just mentioning, the Rules Compendium clarifies it to "A victim who loses a level loses the most recent level gained"Which honestly doesn't mean much. Only some groups use the RC, and the RC doesn't have the authority to proclaim itself as primary source, because you don't make people pay for errata.

[Sagetim]

You are completely wrong about what the rules actually say. They say you lose a HD, with no specification of which one. And they say your XP is reduced to the midpoint of your previous level. XP and HD are different things. Reducing your XP to a midpoint does not dictate which HD you lose.

If you were reduced to the previous level in HD, you would have an argument, but you are not, your XP is reduced, and you lose a HD.



If you have one level of Fighter, you are a Fighter 1, by definition. If you have one Racial HD of the animal type, you are an Animal 1. That's how it works. If you take away your Fighter HD, then you lose whatever the most recent level of Fighter HD is. But nothing stops you from being a Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Ninja 1/Beguiler 1/Ur-Priest 1 who takes a negative level and loses his Fighter level.

While that may be true from an argumentation standpoint, you'll start running into build trouble if you took anything that was related to that fighter level after the fighter level. An example is necessary, so I'll build off yours:
at rogue 1 you had first level skill points, a x4 bonus in how many skill points you had to spend, lets say you take a bunch of roguey skills, but have nothing in, for example, climb. Now, for the sake of this argument we'll say you got 4 skill points when you got that one fighter level. As a level two character you invested all your 4 ranks into climb. Then, at rogue 1/ fighter 1/ barbarian 1 (total of 3) you took the brachiation feat to prep for being some kind of crazy mobile assassin guy thing that comes flying out of the woods with all the screaming fury of a pent up something something. You take your other levels, get skill ranks invested in various things, but don't really invest more in climb because, well, you already have brachiation.

And then you lose a level from level drain, or getting killed and ressurected, or whatever. Now, for the sake of argument let's say you can pick what level you lose. Can you lose the fighter level? It has a load bearing skill rank investment, Brachiation requires 4 ranks of climb (and jump, I think). Furthermore, if you picked to lose the rogue level, you wouldn't get the x4 skill ranks on anything else. So even if you could pick what to lose, if you lost your first racial hit die like this, you would forever suffer from a lack of skill ranks. It would be a pretty devastating blow to your character's ability to be competent. And while I'm not sitting here with the rules in front of me, feats are something you get at that level, not slots that you get that can be filled in (at least not rules as written). So if you blew out the fighter level, no longer qualified for Brachiation, do you lose the feat you longer qualify for, or does it become inactive because you don't have enough ranks for it? You'll certainly lose it if you get reduce under level 3.

So, to a certain degree you have to keep track of what your build did. Because you have to know that you qualified to take 4 ranks of use magic device at level 1 by being a rogue, for example. Or that you could rank dump your ninja skill points into craft (flying butresses) with impunity because you were high enough level that all the ranks could go into a single uninvested skill. So while there might not be an explicit rule stating in these words 'you must lose the hit die that you most recently gained' it is nothing if not heavily implied by how much book work would generated by allowing you to pick which hit die to lose.

In a similar train of thought: if someone went from 13 wizard/5 archmage down and tried to lose a level of wizard, wouldn't they just deactivate all their archmage levels until they got the wizard level back? I seem to recall power attack works like that (if you don't have at least 13 strength you can't use the feat even if you have it).

[Beheld]

While that may be true from an argumentation standpoint, you'll start running into build trouble if you took anything that was related to that fighter level after the fighter level. An example is necessary, so I'll build off yours:

Skills points are stupid in 3.5, but that doesn't really change anything or matter. Also, no character who isn't stupid would ever care about their skill ranks for like... anything, more than one level into a PrC.


In a similar train of thought: if someone went from 13 wizard/5 archmage down and tried to lose a level of wizard, wouldn't they just deactivate all their archmage levels until they got the wizard level back? I seem to recall power attack works like that (if you don't have at least 13 strength you can't use the feat even if you have it).

No, you would keep all your archmage abilities, obviously, because: 1) You don't have to meet pre-reqs after taking the first level, 2) You would still meet all the pre-reqs anyway.


I mean yeah, you shouldn't use level drain to do weird things, but frankly, you shouldn't use level drain at all.

[Troacctid]

Which honestly doesn't mean much. Only some groups use the RC, and the RC doesn't have the authority to proclaim itself as primary source, because you don't make people pay for errata.
Every book that's officially published by WotC has the authority to proclaim itself a primary source. That's how primary sources work. How you might feel about paying for errata has nothing to do with things. You could choose not to use the book in your game, but that doesn't mean it's not canon.

Considering that most if not all of the rules changes in RC are there to clarify or fix dysfunctions, a game that doesn't use it is a game where many things do not make sense. Lava doesn't deal fire damage, but fire resistance 1 still makes you immune to it. The sun is almost impossible to see from the Earth because of distance penalties to Spot. An actor lit up by a spotlight onstage is invisible to the audience because the rest of the theatre is in total darkness. Some actions in a grapple take the place of an attack, but nobody knows which. Etc.

[Beheld]

An actor lit up by a spotlight onstage is invisible to the audience because the rest of the theatre is in total darkness.

That is not how the rules worked before the Rules Compendium, so I'm not sure why you have that listed as a condition of not using it.

[Troacctid]

That is not how the rules worked before the Rules Compendium, so I'm not sure why you have that listed as a condition of not using it.
In the core rules, if any square between you and the thing you're looking at provides total concealment, then you can't see the thing you're looking at. This means that if you are in total darkness, you can't see outside the darkness. RC adds an exception to this rule allowing you to see normally into well-lit areas even if you are outside the area of illumination.

I think the rule was actually originally in some other splatbook and reprinted in RC, but it wasn't in the core rules, so the point stands.

[Beheld]

In the core rules, if any square between you and the thing you're looking at provides total concealment, then you can't see the thing you're looking at. This means that if you are in total darkness, you can't see outside the darkness. RC adds an exception to this rule allowing you to see normally into well-lit areas even if you are outside the area of illumination.

I think the rule was actually originally in some other splatbook and reprinted in RC, but it wasn't in the core rules, so the point stands.

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly."

"[Shadowy Illumination] Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character."

"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."

Your argument is totally wrong on several levels. Firstly, no rule anywhere says that dark locations "provide total concealment" or in fact that shadowy locations "provide concealment" So right off the bat, your concealment argument is totally wrong. And the people in audience can see just fine.

The less bad argument that I thought you were making, that all characters in the dark are blinded (unless they have darkvision) is still wrong, but at least has some rules support by refusing to read the parts about areas that clearly lay out that creatures are "effectively blinded" without having the blinded condition, with respect to the dark areas, not that they are blind with respect to all areas.

[Sayt]

How cheesy is it to say your race with racial hit dice, say a centaur, got level drained of his racial hit dice by a level draining effect, say a vampire, and was left with only class levels?

This is, as other people have said, is subjective. Doing it on a Centaur is probably fine. On the other hand, doing it on a black ethergaunt or a Solar.... isn't.

[Troacctid]

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment."

"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly."

"[Shadowy Illumination] Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character."

"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."

Your argument is totally wrong on several levels. Firstly, no rule anywhere says that dark locations "provide total concealment" or in fact that shadowy locations "provide concealment" So right off the bat, your concealment argument is totally wrong. And the people in audience can see just fine.

The less bad argument that I thought you were making, that all characters in the dark are blinded (unless they have darkvision) is still wrong, but at least has some rules support by refusing to read the parts about areas that clearly lay out that creatures are "effectively blinded" without having the blinded condition, with respect to the dark areas, not that they are blind with respect to all areas.
Sorry, I mixed up the arguments for total darkness and shadowy illumination. Creatures in total darkness without darkvision are effectively blinded. This glossary entry (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_darkness&alpha=) (DMG 302) spells out all the penalties for being blinded, defines "unable to see through surrounding darkness" as the criteria for being blinded this way, and makes no exception for being able to see into distant illumination. So if you are in the center of a 3x3 square of total darkness, you cannot see, even if there's full daylight outside your 3x3 square, because you are surrounded by darkness.

[Beheld]

Sorry, I mixed up the arguments for total darkness and shadowy illumination. Creatures in total darkness without darkvision are effectively blinded. This glossary entry (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_darkness&alpha=) (DMG 302) spells out all the penalties for being blinded, defines "unable to see through surrounding darkness" as the criteria for being blinded this way, and makes no exception for being able to see into distant illumination. So if you are in the center of a 3x3 square of total darkness, you cannot see, even if there's full daylight outside your 3x3 square, because you are surrounded by darkness.

None of which changes anything, sense if you can see through the surrounding darkness, such as because there is a spotlight on a stage somewhere nearby, then that doesn't apply.

[Zanos]

Which honestly doesn't mean much. Only some groups use the RC, and the RC doesn't have the authority to proclaim itself as primary source, because you don't make people pay for errata.
Are you actually going to take the stance that the Rules Compendium is not an authority on the rules?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Are you actually going to take the stance that the Rules Compendium is not an authority on the rules?Yes, because it's not errata, and as it's not errata, it doesn't supercede the primacy of the primary sources of the Core rulebooks.

[Beheld]

Are you actually going to take the stance that the Rules Compendium is not an authority on the rules?

Doesn't the Rules Compendium have a specific sentence that says it supersedes old rules? I thought it did, you should probably quote that.

[Quertus]

It's pretty cheesy. That doesn't make it unbalanced, however. Those are separate concepts.


I think it's about on par with saying you were infected by lycanthropy, qualified for a high-level prestige class using the extra hit dice, and then cured the lycanthropy.

I never thought to do that... but... wouldn't you need to gain multiple levels to pay off lycanthrope first?


Every book that's officially published by WotC has the authority to proclaim itself a primary source. That's how primary sources work. How you might feel about paying for errata has nothing to do with things. You could choose not to use the book in your game, but that doesn't mean it's not canon.

Considering that most if not all of the rules changes in RC are there to clarify or fix dysfunctions, a game that doesn't use it is a game where many things do not make sense. Lava doesn't deal fire damage, but fire resistance 1 still makes you immune to it. The sun is almost impossible to see from the Earth because of distance penalties to Spot. An actor lit up by a spotlight onstage is invisible to the audience because the rest of the theatre is in total darkness. Some actions in a grapple take the place of an attack, but nobody knows which. Etc.

Of course you can't spot the sun from earth - whenever it gets enough cover to make a hide check, it's an eclipse. :smallwink:

[Beheld]

I never thought to do that... but... wouldn't you need to gain multiple levels to pay off lycanthrope first?

Yes, but the example he should have used was Lycan + Level Drain to just become a level 20 Cleric in no time at all.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Doesn't the Rules Compendium have a specific sentence that says it supersedes old rules? I thought it did, you should probably quote that.Does it have the authority to proclaim that, though? And how do you use it if you don't have it?

[LordOfCain]

How cheesy is it if instead of a centaur it is a satyr?

[Beheld]

Does it have the authority to proclaim that, though? And how do you use it if you don't have it?

Oh course it has the authority to say that if it says that. You can rewrite any rule you want as long as you specify what rules you are rewriting.

[Beheld]

How cheesy is it if instead of a centaur it is a satyr?

It costs 2 levels for a non party friendly sleep or fear effect once per enemy. That's so not OP that I wouldn't even care.

[Troacctid]

None of which changes anything, sense if you can see through the surrounding darkness, such as because there is a spotlight on a stage somewhere nearby, then that doesn't apply.
In this scenario, we're assuming the spotlight only illuminates an area on the stage (say bright light out to 5 feet and dim light out to 10 feet), and the house lights are off.


I never thought to do that... but... wouldn't you need to gain multiple levels to pay off lycanthrope first?
So, for example, you might be a rogue 3 who wants to become an assassin. So you become an afflicted werewolf, gaining two hit dice which allow you to qualify for the prestige class. After taking two levels of assassin, you no longer need those animal HD to continue taking assassin levels, so you have your cleric friend cast remove curse on you during a full moon, curing your lycanthropy and removing the werewolf template. Now you are a rogue 3/assassin 2 with no level adjustment and no racial hit dice.

The trick in the OP would be like coming into an 11th level game as a rogue 1/assassin 10 and saying that in your backstory, you used to be a werebear, but you cured it and now you're fine.

[prufock]

Does it have the authority to proclaim that, though? And how do you use it if you don't have it?
By this logic, the errata doesn't have that authority either. Both errata and RC self-proclaim their own rules primacy.

[Beheld]

In this scenario, we're assuming the spotlight only illuminates an area on the stage (say bright light out to 5 feet and dim light out to 10 feet), and the house lights are off.

Yes, and according to the rules, people in the room can see the stage, so they can see through the surrounding darkness. So the rules that only apply if they can't see through the darkness don't apply to them.


So, for example, you might be a rogue 3 who wants to become an assassin. So you become an afflicted werewolf, gaining two hit dice which allow you to qualify for the prestige class. After taking two levels of assassin, you no longer need those animal HD to continue taking assassin levels, so you have your cleric friend cast remove curse on you during a full moon, curing your lycanthropy and removing the werewolf template. Now you are a rogue 3/assassin 2 with no level adjustment and no racial hit dice.

His point is that you would have to collect XP while being 5 levels higher, so basically, you would collect less XP and never actually level up.

[Troacctid]

Yes, and according to the rules, people in the room can see the stage, so they can see through the surrounding darkness. So the rules that only apply if they can't see through the darkness don't apply to them.
The rule that allows you to see distant illumination is in the Rules Compendium. In the core rules, the surrounding darkness would prevent them from seeing the stage.

[Beheld]

The rule that allows you to see distant illumination is in the Rules Compendium. In the core rules, the surrounding darkness would prevent them from seeing the stage.

As I have pointed out several times now, the rules allowing you to see distant illumination are in the PHB. You have yet to provide any argument of any kind based on actual rules text for your repeated claim that intervening darkness prevents you from seeing distant illumination.

[Sagetim]

In this scenario, we're assuming the spotlight only illuminates an area on the stage (say bright light out to 5 feet and dim light out to 10 feet), and the house lights are off.


So, for example, you might be a rogue 3 who wants to become an assassin. So you become an afflicted werewolf, gaining two hit dice which allow you to qualify for the prestige class. After taking two levels of assassin, you no longer need those animal HD to continue taking assassin levels, so you have your cleric friend cast remove curse on you during a full moon, curing your lycanthropy and removing the werewolf template. Now you are a rogue 3/assassin 2 with no level adjustment and no racial hit dice.

The trick in the OP would be like coming into an 11th level game as a rogue 1/assassin 10 and saying that in your backstory, you used to be a werebear, but you cured it and now you're fine.

So, about that...even if you suddenly gained animal hit dice, the curse does not mention gaining the minimum xp to be your new adjusted level for free. So wouldn't you need to not only earn the xp to make up for the hit dice if they are permanent, but also to make up for whatever ecl adjustment the templated added to you before you can take that first level of assassin? Essentially, if you go from being level 3 with 4000 xp, the curse of lyncanthropy would set you to ecl 8 and your new xp to gain your next level would shoot up from 6000 to...36,000? So this example person would need to gain 32,000 experience points with 3 actual class levels, 2 handicapping animal hit dice, having their alignment set to chaotic evil, and probably some other hurdles in the way. And they have to accomplish the monumental task of xp earning within a relatively short time frame, because if they take too long, then they lose their window for being cured of lyncanthropy.

Further, this lyncanthrope would be bringing the average party level up, so even if you were facing the same encounters as everyone else and decimating what your DM has prepared, you would be causing the entire party to get less xp than they would otherwise be getting from the encounters. And by the time the lyncanthropy afflicted rogue hit enough xp to take his first level of assassin, he would have earned enough xp with the rest of his party that they would be up to 4 levels into their chosen prestige classes....so, basically, it's not a short cut.

But running into problems like that, essentially getting a small boost but encountering a massive hurdle to making any forward progress with your skills or capabilities after that quick, front loaded boost, would explain why lyncanthropy is a Curse and not a Blessing.

[prufock]

As I have pointed out several times now, the rules allowing you to see distant illumination are in the PHB. You have yet to provide any argument of any kind based on actual rules text for your repeated claim that intervening darkness prevents you from seeing distant illumination.
Since you seem to be in the dark about this:


In areas of darkness, 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, moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and most Strength and Dexterity-based skill checks.

Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#visionAndLight)

Example: In a 60' hallway, there is a torch on the wall at the far end. The torch casts a bright area to 20', and shadowy illumination out to 40'. Beyond 40' is darkness. From the opposite end of the hallway, you are in an area of darkness. Unless you have low-light vision or darkvision, you are therefore effectively blinded (see above). Blinded means you can't see (see below). Therefore, you can't see the torch 60' away.


Blinded
The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

[Beheld]

Since you seem to be in the dark about this:

Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#visionAndLight)

Example: In a 60' hallway, there is a torch on the wall at the far end. The torch casts a bright area to 20', and shadowy illumination out to 40'. Beyond 40' is darkness. From the opposite end of the hallway, you are in an area of darkness. Unless you have low-light vision or darkvision, you are therefore effectively blinded (see above). Blinded means you can't see (see below). Therefore, you can't see the torch 60' away.

Why would you say that I am in the dark about rules I already quoted. But unlike you, I quoted all the relevant rules.

"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly."

"In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character."

"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."

So if a character is in a 60' hallway with a torch at the end than he is "effectively blinded" which is not the same thing as blinded. How is it different from the blinded condition? Well let's ask the rules that define it? "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded." Oh, so he's only effectively blinded in the area that is dark, he's not effectively blinded in the area of shadowy illumination, there he can see dimly, and he's not effectively blinded in the area of bright light, he can see clearly. So someone on the dark end of a 60' hallway is effectively blinded for 20', sees dimly for 20' and sees clearly the 20' next to the torch.

[prufock]

Why would you say that I am in the dark about rules I already quoted.
Because the pun was hanging there, ripe for the plucking.


unlike you, I quoted all the relevant rules.

"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly."
Irrelevant, as the character isn't in an area of bright light.


"In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character."
Also irrelevant, because the character isn't in an area of shadowy illumination.


So if a character is in a 60' hallway with a torch at the end than he is "effectively blinded" which is not the same thing as blinded. How is it different from the blinded condition? Well let's ask the rules that define it? "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."
Repetition is not explanation. Blinded is a clearly defined condition. Being effectively blinded means the rules of the blinded condition apply to you. The first statement in the blinded condition is "The character cannot see." Full stop.

Logic:
Character is in an area of darkness. (premise)
If character is in an area of darkness, he is effectively blinded. (given)
Therefore, character is effectively blinded.
If character is effectively blinded, he cannot see. (given)
Therefore, character cannot see.

[Beheld]

Irrelevant, as the character isn't in an area of bright light.

Relevant, since even characters not in the area of bright light can see clearly in the area of bright light. That's what "all characters" means.


Blinded is a clearly defined condition. Being effectively blinded means the rules of the blinded condition apply to you.

So "almost always" always means "always" then? I ask, because apparently your entire argument is based on your belief that the specifically added qualifier used to distinguish "effectively blinded [within the dark area]" from "blinded" the actual condition, really doesn't exist and means the blinded condition.

"causing creatures to become blinded" "render the subject blinded" (Glitterdust and Blindness) When an effect blinds someone, it blinds them, not effectively blinds them within an area. But the darkness rules specifically don't use the actual blinded condition, they say "effectively blinded [within the area]" to specifically distinguish that the creatures are blinded only in that area, and not in areas of bright light that they have line of sight to.


The first statement in the blinded condition is "The character cannot see." Full stop.

Then the entire argument that Rules Compendium changes this falls apart, if you believe that the sentence about "effectively blinded" really means "blinded as the blinded condition."

The rules compendium restates that all creatures are "effectively blinded" with respect to dark areas using the exact same rules. The blinded condition makes you fail all spot checks "All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail." And the Rules Compendium does not say anywhere that characters in darkness observing distant light are not "effectively blinded" it just says they can make a DC 20 spot check to see the light what it lights up.

So it seems like even the rules compendium is super sure that "effectively blinded [within the area]" is different from "blinded [the condition]."

Probably because qualifiers exist to qualify the difference between things, and "effectively blinded [within the area]" means something different than "blinded."

[prufock]

Relevant, since even characters not in the area of bright light can see clearly in the area of bright light. That's what "all characters" means.
You're ignoring the conditional clause: "In an area of bright light." Area is a defined, bounded term. A torch has a bright light area of 20'. If characters are not inside that 20' area, they are not "in an area of bright light." If the conditional clause is not satisfied, the consequent clause doesn't apply.

By way of analogy: "In Soviet Russia" - conditional - "television watches you!" - consequent. Soviet Russia is a defined, bounded area. "Television watches you" only applies if "In Soviet Russia" is satisfied.


So "almost always" always means "always" then? I ask, because apparently your entire argument is based on your belief that the specifically added qualifier used to distinguish "effectively blinded [within the dark area]" from "blinded" the actual condition, really doesn't exist and means the blinded condition.
"Effectively" does NOT mean "almost always." That isn't a definition of the term in any dictionary source I could find. "Effectively" means "actually but not officially." As in, if one member of a group makes the decisions and gives the orders, he is effectively the leader, even if he has no official rank or designation as such.

Effectively blind means the rules of blind apply, even if the tag "blinded" isn't appropriate (because your eyes still function normally, there is just no light). While in the area, they are treated as blinded.


"causing creatures to become blinded" "render the subject blinded" (Glitterdust and Blindness) When an effect blinds someone, it blinds them, not effectively blinds them within an area. But the darkness rules specifically don't use the actual blinded condition, they say "effectively blinded [within the area]" to specifically distinguish that the creatures are blinded only in that area, and not in areas of bright light that they have line of sight to.
You are correct up the the point where you add "line of sight to." This is language that doesn't exist in the text, that you are adding based on your assumption. The problem is: you don't have line of sight to it, because you cannot see due to being effectively blinded.


The rules compendium restates that all creatures are "effectively blinded" with respect to dark areas using the exact same rules... the Rules Compendium does not say anywhere that characters in darkness observing distant light are not "effectively blinded" it just says they can make a DC 20 spot check to see the light what it lights up.
You're ignoring Specific Over General in the hierarchy of rules. The RC adds text for the exception (specific) to the general case.

[Beheld]

You're ignoring the conditional clause: "In an area of bright light." Area is a defined, bounded term. A torch has a bright light area of 20'. If characters are not inside that 20' area, they are not "in an area of bright light." If the conditional clause is not satisfied, the consequent clause doesn't apply.

No, all characters can see in the area of bright light. If they are not in the area of bright light, they can still see in the area of bright light. Because that is what the rules actually say.


"Effectively" does NOT mean "almost always." That isn't a definition of the term in any dictionary source I could find. "Effectively" means "actually but not officially." As in, if one member of a group makes the decisions and gives the orders, he is effectively the leader, even if he has no official rank or designation as such.

Effectively blind means the rules of blind apply, even if the tag "blinded" isn't appropriate (because your eyes still function normally, there is just no light). While in the area, they are treated as blinded.

Once again: "Effecitvely blinded [within the area of darkness]" means something different from "blinded." We know it means something different because they used different words. It means that the character Is Not Blinded! because they don't have the blinded condition, but that they are "effectively blinded" Within the Area. That means that the effects of blindness, such as not being able to see, apply to the dark area, But not outside that area.


You're ignoring Specific Over General in the hierarchy of rules. The RC adds text for the exception (specific) to the general case.

No, I'm not. There is no specific rules in the rules compendium saying that you are un effectively blinded for distant light. There is no rule anywhere in the Rules compendium that says characters in darkness are not "effectively blinded" exactly like the rules in the PHB says.

So either:

1) Effectively blineded within the area means they can't see within the area but can see outside of it.

2) Effectively blinded within the area means that you are blinded, and the fact that no specific rule exists allowing blinded characters to make spot checks or see distant light means you can never see distant lights even under the Rules Compendium rules.

Those are the only two options.

[Willie the Duck]

Does it have the authority to proclaim that, though? And how do you use it if you don't have it?

It has the authority to proclaim itself WotC's attempt to clarify the rules of the game. Whether or not you choose buy it, defer to it, or declare it RAW is entirely up to you. RAW uber alles is a convention invented by the internet that WotC never declared itself as buying into. What they did do was produce a product that attempted to address claims that their system had holes, gaps, or just lack of clarity. The idea that they produced an entire book of rules that don't count (because they can't supersede the unclear rule set they are addressing) puts WotC in the impossible situation where even they can't put to rest any of the holes in their own product*.

*Yes, there is the argument that what they should have done is put these clarifications in the errata documents. Your you-shouldn't-make-people-pay-for-errata comment leads me to believe that you might agree with that argument. Let's lean towards realism for a moment: that was never going to happen. The effort was too costly (and, to-be-honest, the number of people who really were ditching 3.5 for other games because of some unclear rules that can be house-ruled was relatively low) for them to do so without some form of revenue benefit. So if what you want (a free errata document that clarifies all rule issues) was never going to be, what do you go with: the arguable rules that you have or the attempt WotC put out as clarification that you aren't happy with? The choice is really up to you.

Oh well. It's not like previous editions did not have are arguable rules or ambiguous officiality of rules.



<SNIP>
Seriously. Don't bother. your up against a person who uses the phrase "Your argument is totally wrong" where a person who actually wanted to be taken seriously would use "I think there's a flaw in your argument." You will spend the next three pages arguing and end up at the same place you are now-- they will be utterly convinced that they are unequivocally right, no one else will, and everyone will be frustrated and angry. No one will get out feeling satisfied or clean. Seriously. just. let. them. win. in. their. own. mind. It is better for your sanity.

[prufock]

No, all characters can see in the area of bright light. If they are not in the area of bright light, they can still see in the area of bright light.
First part correct, second part not. The conditional clause is "in an area of bright light," and the subject is "the character." If the character is not in an area of bright light, the second clause "can see" doesn't apply.

What you seem to want it to say is "Any character can see into an area of bright light." But that is not what it says.


Once again: "Effecitvely blinded [within the area of darkness]" means something different from "blinded." We know it means something different because they used different words. It means that the character Is Not Blinded! because they don't have the blinded condition, but that they are "effectively blinded" Within the Area. That means that the effects of blindness, such as not being able to see, apply to the dark area, But not outside that area.
Yes, they used different words. Fortunately, we know what those words mean.

Effectively:
- In effect, virtually (Merriam-Webster)
- Actually, but not officially or explicitly (Google dictionary)
- Used when you describe what the real result of a situation is (Cambridge)

Similar words: virtually, really, in fact, essentially, in effect, in reality, in truth, as good as, in actual fact, to all intents and purposes, in all but name, in actuality, for practical purposes

You are unable to define how "effectively blinded" and "blinded" are different in the rules, except to assume it works the way you wish it to.

The rules don't support your statement that "the effects of blindness apply to the dark area." They apply to the character while the conditional statement is true ("in areas of darkness").


There is no specific rules in the rules compendium saying that you are un effectively blinded for distant light. There is no rule anywhere in the Rules compendium that says characters in darkness are not "effectively blinded" exactly like the rules in the PHB says.
There very obviously is, under Distant Light, subheading Observer in Complete Darkness ("A light source can be spotted at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination") and subheading Using Distant Illumination ("Observers outside the illumination radius of a light source can see into the illumination just fine, making Spot checks as normal to discern creatures or objects in the illuminated area"). To claim that either these passages don't exist or that these passages are not more specific than the Darkness and Dim Lighting rules is to be obtuse on purpose.


So either:

1) Effectively blineded within the area means they can't see within the area but can see outside of it.

2) Effectively blinded within the area means that you are blinded, and the fact that no specific rule exists allowing blinded characters to make spot checks or see distant light means you can never see distant lights even under the Rules Compendium rules.

Those are the only two options.

Or the actually true option, that while a character is in an area of darkness, it is blinded, except that it can see distant light sources, as the rules (post-RC) state clearly.

[Telonius]

To the OP: not very cheesy. I generally encourage monstrous characters in my games, and racial hit dice are usually one of the things I'm willing to ditch for the sake of fun. There are probably a few odd exceptions - things like Rakshasas or Dragons - but for most things I don't see a problem. A Level Adjustment +1 Bugbear isn't going to break the game because he's lacking 3 humanoid RHD. Want to play a Centaur? Go ahead! +2 Level adjustment will apply, but I see no reason to force a player to take additional levels out of their build. If the level adjustment of whatever you want to play is huge, then I break out a savage progression (or write my own).

[Beheld]

You are unable to define how "effectively blinded" and "blinded" are different in the rules, except to assume it works the way you wish it to.

No, I clearly explained how the rules say precisely how effectively blinded is different from the character being blinded.

See again:
1) When a character has the blinded condition, the rules say the character is blinded, not effectively blinded.
2) When a character is not blinded, but has to treat a certain area as if he was blinded (but not treat other areas as if he was blinded) the rules say "creatures are effectively blinded for this area only" which is what the rules actually say, despite your steadfast refusal to accept that conditionals that come before a sentence modifying that sentence.


The rules don't support your statement that "the effects of blindness apply to the dark area." They apply to the character while the conditional statement is true ("in areas of darkness").

Not only do the rules in fact absolutely support my statement that effective blindness effects only apply in areas of darkness, they specifically say so.

Again, your refusal to accept that characters in darkness can see lighted areas nearby has committed you to a reading of the rule with an outrageous flaw.

Please find me any rule anywhere in any book that says that a character (without Darkvision) can't see just fine if he stands in a circle of light and looks out into the darkness. What is the rule that says such a character can't see a creature 80ft away in the darkness? And remember, you can't use the actual rule that says that "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded." Because you are claiming that the conditional "in the areas of darkness" means that the sentence only applies to creatures in the darkness, not to how all creatures, in darkness or in light, are effectively blinded within the area of the darkness.


There very obviously is, under Distant Light, subheading Observer in Complete Darkness ("A light source can be spotted at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination")

Right, it can be spotted, with a spot check, that you can't make, because you are blinded. Again, no rules say that such an "effectively blinded" character can succeed on spot checks, unlike all other blinded characters. So the only rule that governs this spot check is:

1) You can spot it with a successful DC 20 spot check.
2) You can't succeed on a spot check, because you automatically fail from being blinded.


subheading Using Distant Illumination ("Observers outside the illumination radius of a light source can see into the illumination just fine, making Spot checks as normal to discern creatures or objects in the illuminated area").

Yes, they can make spot checks as normal. And the normal spot check result for a blinded character is to automatically fail the spot check. So they automatically fail the spot check, because they are blind.


To claim that either these passages don't exist or that these passages are not more specific than the Darkness and Dim Lighting rules is to be obtuse on purpose.

To claim that either of those rules contradict the rule that blinded characters automatically fail spot checks is to grossly misread them because you wish they said something else.

The only actual conclusions that can be drawn are that either:
1) Characters in Darkness fail these spot checks automatically, because they are blinded.
2) Characters in Darkness do not fail these spot checks automatically, because they are "effectively blinded" which only applies in the area of darkness, as the rules say.

[prufock]

1) When a character has the blinded condition, the rules say the character is blinded, not effectively blinded.
2) When a character is not blinded, but has to treat a certain area as if he was blinded (but not treat other areas as if he was blinded) the rules say "creatures are effectively blinded for this area only"
The correct reading would be "creatures are effectively blinded in this area only", not "for this area only." It's a subtle difference, but that is what the rule says. If a character is in an area of darkness, he cannot see. "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded," and therefore cannot see. Is the character in an area of darkness? Yes? Then he cannot see.


Again, your refusal to accept that characters in darkness can see lighted areas nearby has committed you to a reading of the rule with an outrageous flaw.
Reading the rules properly results in the conclusion that characters in darkness cannot see lighted areas if they are in areas of darkness. Because, you know, they cannot see. Being unable to see kind of prevents them from seeing.


Please find me any rule anywhere in any book that says that a character (without Darkvision) can't see just fine if he stands in a circle of light and looks out into the darkness. What is the rule that says such a character can't see a creature 80ft away in the darkness?

"Line of sight establishes whether a particular character can see something else represented on the grid. When using a grid, draw an imaginary line (or use a ruler or a piece of string) from the square the character is in to the object in question. If nothing blocks this line, the character has line of sight (and can thus see it[.]"

"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you."

Total darkness blocks line of sight. This rule also further cements why a creature in an area of darkness can't see a distant light source (pre-RC). The darkness blocks line of sight from you to the light source, therefore you can't see it.


Right, it can be spotted, with a spot check, that you can't make, because you are blinded. Again, no rules say that such an "effectively blinded" character can succeed on spot checks, unlike all other blinded characters.
Specific trumps general. Being able to make a spot check for one particular thing is more specific than being unable to make spot checks. Just like the general rules for actions in combat don't need to say "except for chokers," for the choker's Quickness ability to function, the darkness rules don't need to say "except for distant light sources" for the Distant Light rules to apply. That's how the rules work.

The only argument you could make here to support your conclusion is that the Distant Light section is not more specific than the Darkness heading, which would just imply that you don't know what "specific" means. Spot checks for distant light sources is a subset included within the set of all spot checks, making it more specific by definition. Because it is more specific, it trumps the general rule.

So you're wrong for not just one, but several reasons.

[Beheld]

The correct reading would be "creatures are effectively blinded in this area only", not "for this area only." It's a subtle difference, but that is what the rule says. If a character is in an area of darkness, he cannot see. "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded," and therefore cannot see. Is the character in an area of darkness? Yes? Then he cannot see.

This is a very basic grammar application, when you move a phrase around a sentence, sometimes the preposition needs to change to maintain the same meaning.

"Ares of Darkness" "Creatures effectively blinded" Doesn't mean that only creatures in the area are effectively blinded. It means that "IN the are of Darkness" "Creatures cannot see" Notice how that sentence very clearly to everyone before you committed yourself to this position obviously means that creatures not within the area can't see either. It is very extremely obviously the case that the rules apply to the area, not to only creatures in the area, which is why the rules no where else ever say that creatures in light can't see in darkness.


"Line of sight establishes whether a particular character can see something else represented on the grid. When using a grid, draw an imaginary line (or use a ruler or a piece of string) from the square the character is in to the object in question. If nothing blocks this line, the character has line of sight (and can thus see it[.]"

"Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you’re blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you."

This isn't a rule, it's a function call to the actual rules. Just like the very next (two) words, "invisible" is not a rule, it is a function call to the rules for invisibility. Which is why it doesn't include any of the actual rules for darkness (such as when it doesn't grant total concealment) or say at any point that darkness grants total concealment, it assumes you already read the actual rules which tell you that if you are a character in a lighted area, you are effectively blinded in total darkness.


Specific trumps general. Being able to make a spot check for one particular thing is more specific than being unable to make spot checks.

The rules for blindness do not say you cannot make spot checks. Blind characters can make infinity spot checks, they can make spot checks whenever they want for any or no reason at all. The just automatically fail them.

Saying "Blind characters can make spot checks to see X" would not in any way contradict the actual rules for blindness whatsoever.

So once again, your "specific" rules does not contradict the rule that blind character automatically fail spot checks. So according to your mistaken reading of the rules for darkness, no character can ever see a distant light source, because they are all blinded and therefore fail their spot checks to see it.

[Doc_Maynot]

At this point I wish we could get Curmudgeon in here.

[prufock]

This is a very basic grammar application, when you move a phrase around a sentence, sometimes the preposition needs to change to maintain the same meaning.
Nope. There was no need to change it, and doing so changes the meaning.
https://media.giphy.com/media/uOAXDA7ZeJJzW/giphy.gif


"Ares of Darkness" "Creatures effectively blinded" Doesn't mean that only creatures in the area are effectively blinded. It means that "IN the are of Darkness" "Creatures cannot see" Notice how that sentence very clearly to everyone before you committed yourself to this position obviously means that creatures not within the area can't see either. It is very extremely obviously the case that the rules apply to the area, not to only creatures in the area, which is why the rules no where else ever say that creatures in light can't see in darkness.
Nope. The subject of the sentence ("character") cannot see when the conditional clause is met.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/5e842ba1c809378a580bb80d22993d5f/tumblr_mtu9glCXjh1sx7thko2_500.gif


This isn't a rule, it's a function call to the actual rules. Just like the very next (two) words, "invisible" is not a rule, it is a function call to the rules for invisibility. Which is why it doesn't include any of the actual rules for darkness (such as when it doesn't grant total concealment) or say at any point that darkness grants total concealment, it assumes you already read the actual rules which tell you that if you are a character in a lighted area, you are effectively blinded in total darkness.
Nope. Both are RAW. Concealment rules are rules. Line of sight rules are rules. Total darkness blocks line of sight, without line of sight you can't see. You're grasping at very thin straws now. Rules are rules.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/images.hitfix.com/assets/8985/ironmanexplosion.gif


The rules for blindness do not say you cannot make spot checks.
Nope. The rules for blindness are superseded by the more specific rules of Distant Light. Specifically, for complete darkness, that's "A light source can be spotted at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination." The word can means it's possible, which you're trying to say it isn't. Since the rules say it IS possible, your interpretation can't be right. And even if the check fails, they automatically notice at half that distance.

Pre-RC, characters can't see out of or into an area of darkness. Post-RC, they can. Even if...
http://i.imgur.com/Mr8w3.gif

[Beheld]

Total darkness blocks line of sight

You don't have any rules that actually say this. You have one function call to rules that say this elsewhere that you claim don't say this.


Nope. The rules for blindness are superseded by the more specific rules of Distant Light. Specifically, for complete darkness, that's "A light source can be spotted at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination." The word can means it's possible, which you're trying to say it isn't. Since the rules say it IS possible, your interpretation can't be right.

They can with a spot check. Again, I know why the rules call for a spot check, because being effectively blinded for the purpose of looking at dark areas is different from the blinded condition. But since you refuse to believe that, merely saying they can spot something with a successful spot check does not mean they can succeed on a spot check they otherwise couldn't.

The DC is 20. Are you saying that mere statment of "can spot with a DC 20 check" means that Wisdom 8 characters with no ranks in spot MUST be able to succeed on the check because otherwise they can't? If so, you opened an even bigger whole than any of your others, since this is going to result in people being able to break literally every skill in the game in some way or another.

[gooddragon1]

There are parts of this that I'm not sure about (ordering of level loss), but having a backstory with level loss depends on your DM allowing it. So at that point I'm not sure whether it's still cheese since your dm is either going to allow it or they aren't.

[prufock]

You don't have any rules that actually say this. You have one function call to rules that say this elsewhere that you claim don't say this.
Nope, because I totally do, and already posted it. Perhaps you can't see it because there is an area of total darkness between your square and the square in which I posted it, thus eliminating your line of sight to it.
https://media.giphy.com/media/DhT5w3hkgSBR6/giphy.gif


They can with a spot check. Again, I know why the rules call for a spot check, because being effectively blinded for the purpose of looking at dark areas is different from the blinded condition. But since you refuse to believe that, merely saying they can spot something with a successful spot check does not mean they can succeed on a spot check they otherwise couldn't.
Nope, "can" means something is possible. Your argument that it is impossible is contradicted by the rules, therefore your argument is incorrect.
https://media.giphy.com/media/11YduJvLT2LXNK/giphy.gif


The DC is 20. Are you saying that mere statment of "can spot with a DC 20 check" means that Wisdom 8 characters with no ranks in spot MUST be able to succeed on the check because otherwise they can't? If so, you opened an even bigger whole than any of your others, since this is going to result in people being able to break literally every skill in the game in some way or another.
Nope, because "a character with wisdom 8 and no ranks in spot" is more specific than "an observer." Specific trumps general yet again!
https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnHXbRoaZ1B1Mo8/giphy.gif

[Beheld]

Nope, because "a character with wisdom 8 and no ranks in spot" is more specific than "an observer." Specific trumps general yet again!

"Characters who roll lower than the DC fail a spot check" is if anything, less specific than "Blinded characters always fail spot checks." By what possible basis do you declare that permissive can means that blinded characters can now see, but characters that fail spot checks cannot see?

Look I get it, you committed yourself to a really silly position and now you will say and believe anything to claim that the core rules don't work, even though it was obviously just because you misread the rules. Keep fighting the good fight of refusing to admit that characters can see in areas of bright light.

[prufock]

"Characters who roll lower than the DC fail a spot check" is if anything, less specific than "Blinded characters always fail spot checks." By what possible basis do you declare that permissive can means that blinded characters can now see, but characters that fail spot checks cannot see?
Nope, because we aren't talking about all characters with <+0 spot modifier, nor all blinded characters. Inside the set of all characters is the set of all characters in an area of darkness. Inside the set of all characters in an area of darkness is the set of all characters in an area of darkness who have less than +0 Spot modifier.

Likewise, inside the set of all spot checks is all spot checks in an area of darkness. Inside all spot checks in an area of darkness is all spot checks made within an area of darkness to notice distant light sources.


Look I get it, you committed yourself to a really silly position and now you will say and believe anything to claim that the core rules don't work, even though it was obviously just because you misread the rules. Keep fighting the good fight of refusing to admit that characters can see in areas of bright light.
Yes, the rules are silly sometimes. Actually reading and abiding by them often leads to nonsensical logical conclusions. There are whole threads devoted to that. But the rules are the rules. Of course, if you don't like them, or feel they don't make sense, you're free to ignore them or change them at your own table, but those aren't RAW.

Now, we could go back and forth for pages - me making well-reasoned, factual arguments; you ignoring them - but there isn't much to add. My argument has been presented pretty much in full.

Pre-Rules Compendium, a character in a dark area is effectively blind1 (PHB 164, Vision and Light), meaning they are unable to see (PHB 305, Blind). Furthermore, an area of darkness blocks line of sight (PHB 152, Total Concealment2), and without line of sight to something, you can't see it (DMG 21, Line of Sight). All of this means you can't see out of an area of darkness, can't see into an area of darkness, and can't see light sources beyond their lit area unless they are overlapped by another lit area.

Post-Rules Compendium, you can see distant light sources (RC 79, Distant Light). This ruling is more specific than 1, because it applies to a given type of Spot check, which is a subset of Spot checks3 and specific trumps general (RC 5, Order of Rules Application). Therefore, you can see light sources beyond their lit area.

That the conditional clause of 1 doesn't apply to the subject of the sentence. This is an incorrect reading, but could at least be in the "unclear wording" category if not for 2 above. Your response to 2 is only that it isn't actually a rule - a fallacy commonly known as "No True Scotsman." You can claim that any rule that doesn't support your position isn't really a rule, and arrive at any conclusion you please. You for some reason don't accept subsets in 3 as being more specific than the set to which it belongs. No apparent reason given.

So - because I've spent as much time on this as I care to, because I've already shown your position to be demonstrably false, because I suspect that no amount of evidence will make you realize your mistake (or admit to it if you did), and because in the end I guess I don't really care if someone on the internet misinterprets a rule - here's what I'm going to do:

You get the last word. Enjoy it! Use it well.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Those RHD causing problems again. The OP might want to google the phrase D&D "ECL variant" to find alternatives that the DM will probably consider more balanced.

[Inevitability]

Allow me to join the chain of random gifs:

https://m.popkey.co/98d4e9/1GJN7.gif