Post/Author/DateTime	Post
akhena 04-20-07, 08:45 AM	Imagine the following situation : Two human characters (no low light vision or darkvision) with a ranged weapon are standing at 100ft from each other in total darkness (not magical). Both have a torch. The torch creates a bright illumination up to 20ft then a shadowy illumination up to 40ft. So going from character A to character B you would find 20ft of bright light, 20ft of shadowy illumination, 20ft of total darkness, 20ft of shadowy illumination and finally 20ft of bright light. Now they want to shoot at each other... 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. So according to that rule, as a line is passing through the area of total darkness, both get total cover (50% miss chance). This sounds very illogical to me !!! The rule would be logical if it was a fog in between, as it would block their line of sight. But here, darkness doesn't prevent the illuminated figure of that character with a torch to reach the other character's eyes. Am I missing something ???:confused:
Leilond 04-20-07, 09:15 AM	Well... darkness give concealmente if you're "inside it" not "behind it" Walls insted give concealment if you're behind I think the rule is simply poorly spelled
tarkin 04-20-07, 10:53 AM	I disagree. Magical Darkness blocks light, but non-magical darkness does not. Note Magical Darkness is not just the absence of light. It is the presence of a magical kind of light. If there is an area of MAGICAL darkness, it should and does provide concealment to creatures on the other side of it. This is not true of normal darkness.
Leilond 04-20-07, 10:55 AM	Sorry... I forgot that this forum every single words is double checked.... but I was responding to the poster and magical darkness wasn't an issue because the question doesn't involed We were talking about normal darkness and I thought (how stupid I am) that there wasn't any need to specify
akhena 04-20-07, 02:20 PM	Ok guys, let's keep calm. :) My example was indeed for a non magical darkness, so the darkness we experience in our current world. :D I do agree that a magical darkness would block line of sight. As Tarkin point out, magical darkness is more than the absence of light. But coming back to my "problem", do you both agree that the wording of concealment is a bit weird ? Would it be better to say that when dealing with normal light and darkness effects, concealment rules follow the rules for melee attack, even with ranged attack, that is : the character is concealed only if he's in a square procuring concealment ? BTW, tarkin, where do you find in the rules that normal darkness does not provide concealment ? Thanks for your feed back. Let's keep constructive. :)
Nom 04-20-07, 08:01 PM	Yes, the wording is weird. It's written from the perspective of "positive" concealment (ie obstructions), not "negative" concealment (ie absence of illumination).
SolenVlos 04-20-07, 08:18 PM	But obstructions would give you cover, not concealment.
Centauri 04-20-07, 10:51 PM	Heh, this is a good one. Reminds me of Splinter Cell, in which you can hide from someone even with a light source directly behind you. One thing to do would be to treat any held light source or any light source behind you (relative to an observer) as having the same effect as faerie fire, except that any magical darkness (not just 2nd level or higher) negates the effect.
WinDReiN 04-21-07, 06:21 AM	They would both see each other with no concealment, unless mag darkness was involved between. We can see the stars at night, can't we? :)
Naderion 04-21-07, 10:03 AM	No, the rules say we can't! :D
WinDReiN 04-21-07, 10:09 AM	Crap, I like looking at stars :weep:
Centauri 04-21-07, 10:56 AM	Crap, I like looking at stars :weep: They really are holes in the firmament!
SALDAR 04-21-07, 01:14 PM	The Underdark book for FR covers this. I don't have it with me so can't quote it directly. If an opponent is in a lit area and nothing is preventing you from seeing that area, such as intervening magical darkness, you can attack them without a miss chance, they are not "within" a darkened area. You do not have to be within the area illuminated by a light source in order to see what is being illuminated by that light source.
Dragonteuthis 04-21-07, 03:52 PM	But obstructions would give you cover, not concealment. Not always. Fog, mist, smoke, all obstruct vision, and they certainly don't offer cover. Unless there's some kind of "hard smoke."