Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KangTheCallipygian 06-18-07, 08:39 AM	Is darkness total shadow, or does it contain no shadow at all, since there's no light to cause objects to cast one? This is posted in Skills and Feats because it has to do with a shadowdancer's ability to make hide checks in plain sight if within 10 feet of some sort of shadow. We have a SD in out party, and this has come up in all of our sessions for the past several weeks. Our DM isn't sure how to rule on this and is open to hearing arguments for either side, but leans toward the 'no shadow without light' interpetation. Some of us agree, others say that when you're underground you're in the complete shadow of the dungeon ceiling. Obviously one interpetation allows the SD's Hide in Plain Sight to work, while the other doesn't. Obviously darkness is completely separate from shadowy illumination (which would certainly count as some sort of shadow), but the ability doesn't say the SD has to be within 10 feet of a square containing shadowy illumination; just 'some sort of shadow' - it even implies another character's shadow would count, and presumably we can all agree a character's shadow could exist in a square whose dominant lighting characteristic falls into the 'brightly lit' category. So not being within 10 feet of a square containing actual shadowy illumination wouldn't appear to be a deal-breaker as far as hiding in plain sight goes. I don't believe the rules address this - haven't been able to find an 'official' definition of a shadow anywhere. This is a slightly different issue than the 'can a shadowdancer use HiPS to hide from someone with darkvision' question of a recent thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=865281) - in that thread, someone quoted a rule from Tome of Magic that implies you can, but that might only mean if the SD is within an area of shadowy illumination, and doesn't really prove you can do so using total darkness to activate HiPS in the first place. So, am I wrong, and this actually is officially explained somewhere, or are the rules truly silent on this one? If the former, please enlighten my group and I with a page reference. If the latter, I'd appreciate hearing how have others ruled on this, and why. Thanks, Kang
BW0222 06-18-07, 09:28 AM	KangTheCallipygian, I don't know of any source which defines a shadow in the context of a shadow dancers abilities. IMO, I'd vote that 'shadowy illumination' equals shadows and everything else isn't. The reasons are two fold. First, is a balance issue. It is a powerful ability and the 'within 10 feet' of a shadow is put there as some type of limiting factor. However, if any shadow (using the real world definition) is sufficient, then presumably there is now never a case when that ability couldn't be used - not even including that the SD can invoke darkness herself. Even under a daylight spell, full sunlight, etc. there are still shadows in the real world sense (another person, tree, cloud, desk, under the bed, clouds, the cave itself blocking the sun, etc., etc.). Honestly, if you can have shadows in bright light and darkness counts, then is there any place where there aren't 'shadows'? Shadowy illumination is about the only thing which puts reasonable limits on the use of the ability. It can be countered by both light sources, darkness, and darkness spells. However, a person with a torch gives the SD the ability to hide in area from 10' out to 50'. Second, it avoids a lot of arguements. Shadowy illumination is an objective rule. In most cases, the DM and players can both determine the areas in which the illumination is shadowy. However, trying to rule on where a shadow (real world sense) might be is terribly complex and subjective. There will need to be rulings on the physical shadows of every object -- person, mountain, tree, etc. leading to angle of the sun, if other light sources are bright enough to destroy shadows created by other objects. Honestly, anyone could argue that a shadow should be virtually anywhere. This leads to the SD player having to continually ask "Is there a shadow here? Is there a shadow there?", arguements about why a shadow isn't there, and accusations about the DM is being 'unfair' anytime the player disagrees with the ruling. As a DM and player, I'd want an objective measure for shadows just to make everyone's life easier. If it fairly easy to determine if you are within X feet of a light source or Y feet of the edge of a light source. There are no arguments about using it under normal daylight, daylight spells, or total darkness conditions. So not being within 10 feet of a square containing actual shadowy illumination wouldn't appear to be a deal-breaker as far as hiding in plain sight goes. Other than on the surface of the sun, I could make an arguement that shadows are anywhere. A tiny bit of morning cloud, the desert sun not being directly overhead, etc.
Dheran 06-18-07, 10:24 AM	It's pretty obvious that "shadowy illumination" counts as D&D shadows. But, as KangTheCallipygian pointed out, the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight doesn't reference "shadowy illumination" but rather some sort of shadow. Since this isn't a D&D defined term, the first place to check is an English dictionary. Here's what Webster's Online Dictionary (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/shadow) gives as the primary definition:Shadow -Noun 1. Shade within clear boundaries. and here's the definition for "shade":Shade -Noun 1. Relative darkness caused by light rays being intercepted by an opaque body. Relative darkness seems to be the key here. If you can see the illumination from a light source (light rays), but they're being intercepted by an opaque body then you've got a shaded area "within clear boundaries". So complete darkness doesn't provide shadows, as there are no visible boundaries between lit and shadowy areas. Also uniform light from all directions doesn't offer shadows. And if you're on a featureless plain or floating on a body of water with the sun overhead your own shadow is probably the only one nearby, and that doesn't allow HiPS either. But it's likely that much of the time there will be useable shadows for the Shadowdancer's ability to function. This seems appropriate to me for the primary ability of a prestige class with steep entry requirements.
KangTheCallipygian 06-18-07, 10:52 AM	I'd vote that 'shadowy illumination' equals shadows and everything else isn't.Hmm. I agree that using shadowy illumination would make this an easy call, but then what's with the description implying another character's shadow is enough to activate the ability? In a brightly lit room, everyone is casting a shadow (barring cleverly arranged torches that light up every square from multiple angles or the like), but there's no reason to think those shadows cause squares adjacent to or occupied by the person casting the shadow to be shadowy illuminated. So IMO your ruling conflicts with the RaW, in a (perhaps minor) way. Someone went out of their way to write the description in such a way that only mentions "some sort of shadow" and only disallows the shadowdancer's own shadow rather than everyone's. It would been much more obvious a choice and taken much less effort to say the SD must be within 10 feet of a square containing shadowy illumination. For this reason, I can't fully buy your argument. I do think that what you suggest would make a fine houserule, and much easier to adjudicate than the RaW to boot. But that's not really what I'm after here. FWIW, if we're unable to find an interpretation that is clear on whether darkness is/contains shadows but doesn't conflict with letting other characters' shadows count, we'll likely fall back on this ruling. the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight doesn't reference "shadowy illumination" but rather some sort of shadow. Since this isn't a D&D defined term, the first place to check is an English dictionary. Here's what Webster's Online Dictionary gives as the primary definition:Shadow -Noun 1. Shade within clear boundaries. and here's the definition for "shade":Shade -Noun 1. Relative darkness caused by light rays being intercepted by an opaque body.I agree when you say it is likely there will be usable shadows much of the time, and that this is appropriate for the primary ability of a prestige class with steep entry requirements. But to me, these dictionary definitions which you've used to show that complete darkness does not provide shadows could be used to show the opposite, that darkness does qualify as shadows, at least as easily - if you're underground in total darkness, the clear boundary would be the surface of the earth; above it, there is bright light, while below is an area that is relatively dark as compared to aboveground. Anyhow, that's 2 votes for, "shadows can't exist in total darkness," so far, even if I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning behind either of them 100%. Thanks for getting the discussion rolling, folks. Much appreciated so far. Kang PS.Other than on the surface of the sun, I could make an arguement that shadows are anywhere. A tiny bit of morning cloud, the desert sun not being directly overhead, etc.Note, I should clarify that nobody in our group is enough of a cheezemonger to try using the shadow cast by a blade of grass or a tiny bit of morning cloud in an otherwise clear sky, or claim that the darkness 9 feet underground from the SD standing in bright sunlight should count (even if darkness does end up counting as complete shadow in our campaign), so basically any ruling that a generally reasonable person would find consistent that doesn't conflict with the ability's description in the DMG would be good enough. In other words, that argument would not fly at our table. Nor would any other that concludes a shadowdancer can HiPS no matter where he is standing.
AAB 06-18-07, 12:42 PM	since when does complete darkness not have clearly defined boundaries? if you go far enough you'll find one. i say shadowdancers can basically hide anywhere except outside on a sunny day, and even then i allow it if they're next to something large.
BW0222 06-18-07, 12:47 PM	KangTheCallipygian, Hmm. I agree that using shadowy illumination would make this an easy call, but then what's with the description implying another character's shadow is enough to activate the ability? The books are full of lots of flavor-text rules which can't possibly be enforced. It is then up to the DM to determine hard rules for this. In a brightly lit room, everyone is casting a shadow (barring cleverly arranged torches that light up every square from multiple angles or the like), but there's no reason to think those shadows cause squares adjacent to or occupied by the person casting the shadow to be shadowy illuminated. But of course they don't. Otherwise you would have a 20% miss chance if your opponent was in one of these squares. So IMO your ruling conflicts with the RaW, in a (perhaps minor) way. IMO, that statement isn't a rule. I put it in the same category as "creatures without fingers can't cast magic missile because the spell says that the missiles exit your fingers." By the RAW, they can't. Any DM needs to separate flavor-text from hard rules. IMO, that statement can not be considered as a hard rule. It relying on information outside of the books (i.e. what is a shadow) and is too vague to be enforced objectively. Someone went out of their way to write the description in such a way that only mentions "some sort of shadow" and only disallows the shadowdancer's own shadow rather than everyone's. It would been much more obvious a choice and taken much less effort to say the SD must be within 10 feet of a square containing shadowy illumination. For this reason, I can't fully buy your argument. Except a) you can't possible enforce that as a rule, b) folks can challenge it in every case, and c) there is virtually no case where shadows of some sort don't exist in the real world. I agree when you say it is likely there will be usable shadows much of the time, and that this is appropriate for the primary ability of a prestige class with steep entry requirements. IMO, real world shadows is not an appropriate limitation. There are always real world shadows. Even with a 'shadowy' illumination ruling, the SD can still use the ability most of the time. Outdoors, it means twilight, dusk, or near any light source (PCs with light, camp fires, etc.) He can normally hide in darkness anyway. Indoors it means any place with narrow windows, shutters, no light and light sources, etc. Underground it means within a certain range from light sources. In practical cases, the only limitation is that you can't do it in broad daylight or within X-10' of a light source. On the battlemap, a single torch or light spell allows you to use the ability on nearly half the playing surface (10'-50' away) and you can likely hide in normal darkness at 60'+ away from creatures with darkvision. It's primary use is that the SD can hide in any typical situation except daylight or a daylight spell provided that someone in the party has a light source -- which is a pretty safe bet. Considering where most adventures take place, a shadowy illumination ruling is hardly a limitation. But to me, these dictionary definitions which you've used to show that complete darkness does not provide shadows could be used to show the opposite, that darkness does qualify as shadows, at least as easily - if you're underground in total darkness, the clear boundary would be the surface of the earth; above it, there is bright light, while below is an area that is relatively dark as compared to aboveground. Wait a second. If you enter the mouth of a deep cave... at some point you reach a point where you can see the shadow of the sun blocked by the ceiling. It is clearly a shadow. If you continue moving into the cave, the darkness is still part of the same shadow. Unless you are trying to rule that the shadow's edge must be within 10' of the SD, darkness underground is by definition a shadow created by the mountain blocking out the sun. And BTW, there are lots of dictionary definitions of shadow -- including ones which make the area included in the shadow. In other words, that argument would not fly at our table. Nor would any other that concludes a shadowdancer can HiPS no matter where he is standing. Why not? Is it cheeseweaseling to claim that a cloud, a mountain, or the roof of a house creates a shadow? Well... sorry... it does. Regardless of ones motivations for arguing the issue -- the simple fact is that they do produce shadows in the real world. If you want to use the real world arguement that a person standing next to a daylight spell (or light spell, torch, bull's eye lantern, etc.) sheds a shadow, then exactly how can you keep a straight face and argue that the roof of a building or cloud doesn't shed a shadow from sunlight? Sorry, but the 'cheeseweasel' exception to a rule is a clear sign that you don't have a rule. Why not make a ruling which doesn't allow the 'cheeseweasel' case in the first place, rather than one which those cases are perfectly valid by the rules you just made up. Assuming that we agree (for balance) we don't want the ability used in full daylight (and presumably next to a daylight spell) or in total darkness. Why not use shadowy illumination as the definition for shadows? a) It is an easy rule to arbitrate. b) Players know where they can use their ability without asking over and over. c) It is balanced. d) It specifically excludes those cases when we don't want it used (darkness and lighted conditions, clouds, mountains, etc.). e) We know that any real world rule for shadows isn't technically correct. f) We don't have to resort to 'cheeseweasel' exceptions to avoid all those cases were we don't want it -- and yet your ruling clearly allows for it. g) We don't come across as wishy-washy or arbitrary when subjectively deciding h) Arguements over the ability are kept to a minumum. The trade off is that the SD can't use it in a shadow created by a person standing next to a light source -- which the text suggests is possible. BTW. Arcanis has several spells and abilities which require shadows. The issue comes up reasonably often when Cadic worshippers cast shadowstride, animate shadows, or use similiar spells or abilities. Some are more clear -- the don't function within the radius of a light spell -- but during Living Arcanis games the issue has come up fairly often. "Shadowy illumination" makes the games go a lot faster.
LoreleiIsildae 06-18-07, 02:05 PM	I'm not sure which thread I read this in, but I remember quite a few people saying that since the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight was a supernatural ability, as opposed to the ranger's HiPS which is an extraordinary ability, you are not using the darkness to hide, but the essence of shadow itself, drawing upon shadow from the Shadow Plane. I'm not sure about the accuracy of this, but to me it makes sense, since all of the Shadowdancer's abilities rely on using shadow, like shadow jump, or shadow illusion. I would rule that, yes, you can use HiPS anywhere there is shadow, including complete darkness such as an unlit room or underground. But this is only my opinion.
KangTheCallipygian 06-18-07, 02:35 PM	BW0222, I simply don't see, "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow," as flavor text, but I respect that this is your opinion. I pretty much take any statement in an ability's description that seems to clearly explain a specific thing that the ability does or does not allow as rules text, if that statement is not clarified and expanded upon elsewhere in the ability's description. The difficulty in enforcing this which you point out is exactly my reason for posting, in fact. A clear definition of a shadow would make it possible to use this rule consistently, but I'm not even asking for that much - just for whether darkness counts as shadows. IMO, saying a caster can't use magic missile if they have no fingers because (what I agree is) flavor text says the missiles come out of the fingers is not the same kind of situation at all - Magic missile does not go so far as to say, "a caster with no fingers cannot use this spell," but HiPS certainly does say the SD cannot use her own shadow to activate the ability. To use your fingerless mage in a real analogy: Just as I'd allow a wizard to cast a stilled (to fend off irrelevant dispute regarding casting components) magic missile sans fingers, I'd allow a shadowdancer who happens to be standing in her own shadow to use HiPS - providing she was also within 10 feet of some sort of other shadow. Wait a second. If you enter the mouth of a deep cave... at some point you reach a point where you can see the shadow of the sun blocked by the ceiling. It is clearly a shadow. If you continue moving into the cave, the darkness is still part of the same shadow. Unless you are trying to rule that the shadow's edge must be within 10' of the SD, darkness underground is by definition a shadow created by the mountain blocking out the sun.I think we're saying the same thing here - that the dictionary definitions Dheran posted don't show that darkness cannot include shadows. At the very least we don't disagree. You even seem to be going one step farther, claiming darkness does count as shadows. I'm not sure how this supports your position that a SD can't use darkness to activate HiPS. Far as cheeseweaselry/cheezemongering goes, I think we are in agreement there too - a ruling that shows a SD can HiPS no matter where she is because shadows exist everywhere but the surface of the sun does not a meaningful rule entail. Did you think I said differently? Seemed like you thought I was arguing the opposite point. Anyhow, I guess I had you in the wrong category last time I tallied up the "votes" on either side of the question - you're saying darkness is shadows, not that darkness cannot contain shadows. Given AAB's and LoreleiIsildae's posts, that's now just one saying darkness prevents shadows, and three saying darkness is shadows (one of the latter of whom adds the unexpected caveat that this sort of shadows should not allow HiPS). Thanks, Kang PS. LoreleiIsildae, the thing about a SD's HiPS ability being (Su) speaks more to whether it would work against a creature with DV than to whether darkness counts as shadows, from what I can tell, but the opinion you included at the end of your post was just what I'm looking for here. Feel free to post your reasons for holding that opinion. Oh, and I think the thread you are referring to is the one linked in my OP.
Cormroc 06-18-07, 03:48 PM	I'm feeling bored so I figured I'd throw in my two cents. I have considered making a Shadowdancer before and so have thought about this ability some. Personally I have no need for a rule that explicitly defines every conceivable, possible (or not so possible) situation that may or may not actually happen. If you are one that needs to know exactly which loopholes you can and can't use and that wants to hide using the shadow of a blade of grass or some such go ahead and ignore this. If you find such fun then have fun, I don't. To the OP I would say that the ability can't be used in complete darkness. I would adjudicate each situation on a local basis, locally you need a light source and something to obstruct it. Some examples: A light forest in daylight (or even under the light of the moon)-most likely able to use ability at will Dense rain forest (no direct sunlight reaches the ground)-no A forest between the two (fairly dense yet there are scattered spots of light)-a little more difficult, I would probably say no Grasslands-alone no, if you have party members you have shadows unless it is high noon Overcast day-no Underground with a torch, lantern, etc-within the area of shadowy illumination at will, within the bright illumination you will still have shadows of objects and people that I would say are valid. Complete Darkness-no Shadowed side of a hill in morning or afternoon-no As a player I would only attempt to use the ability in such conditions even if the DM interpreted the rules more loosely. If you come across something that seems perfectly split discuss it briefly, dice off if necessary and keep playing. I understand that it is a fairly subjective system and there are some situations that are extremely difficult to adjudicate, as such it will not work for some of you. Neither style of play is better or worse, it is just a matter of personal taste, for me it works just fine.
Tectorman 06-18-07, 03:53 PM	I think it depends on the nature of the universe. If the world is a spherical body traveling around a source of light and rotating so that there is a night and a day, then yeah, there is a shadow (the planet's shadow caused by the sun). Ask your DM if the world is round or flat.
Knightblde 06-18-07, 04:05 PM	There are some pretty good arguments in this post. I am not sure what side I would take. To say that a SD in broad daylight, in the shadow of a warehouse can use the ability, while at night with no lights on, at the same spot he cannot, just sounds dumb. Right or wrong, it sounds dumb. Also, if a person around the corner lights a torch, now he can do it? So basically we are saying the harder it is to do, the more likely a SD can do it? As far as Darkness, the spell, just rule that the magic makes the shadow. Anything that causes Concealment should also count as shadow's, IMHO. What is the flavor of the class? I have never read it. Figure that out and you should be able to determine what will and will not work for your campaign. Happy Gaming!
BW0222 06-18-07, 04:46 PM	KangTheCallipygian, A clear definition of a shadow would make it possible to use this rule consistently, but I'm not even asking for that much - just for whether darkness counts as shadows. Only there isn't one. Any real world definition would make all forms of non-magical darkness shadows. IMO, you don't make up a definition and then see what the effects are on the game. You look at what effects you want on the game and then select a definition which results in what you want. IMO, saying a caster can't use magic missile if they have no fingers because (what I agree is) flavor text says the missiles come out of the fingers is not the same kind of situation at all - Magic missile does not go so far as to say, "a caster with no fingers cannot use this spell," but HiPS certainly does say the SD cannot use her own shadow to activate the ability. To use your fingerless mage in a real analogy: IMO, it is the same. It says that the magic missles come out of your fingers. If you don't have fingers, then you must rule that they come out of somewhere else, which is against what it said. By the RAW, the missiles must come out of your fingers. Now, of course we just look at that, say "flavor text", and disregard it. The question is why do we say that is flavor text and not a hard rule? IMO, it is because we look at the "rule" and decide that it is unworkable. In order to play the game, we must break the rule. So we classify it as flavor text and move on. IMO, same thing as the "shadow" thing. Hiding in someone else's shadow isn't a terrible workable rule anymore than that the magic missiles must come out of someone's fingers. However, like the magic missile "rule", there is an easy solution -- call it "flavor text" and move on to a hard rule which one can enforce. (i.e. your take on the spell, even though it breaks part of what the spell actually says.) I think we're saying the same thing here - that the dictionary definitions Dheran posted don't show that darkness cannot include shadows. At the very least we don't disagree. You even seem to be going one step farther, claiming darkness does count as shadows. I'm not sure how this supports your position that a SD can't use darkness to activate HiPS. I don't see any definition of shadow in which one can claim that a light source behind a human sheds a 'shadow' on the ground and yet a mountain top doesn't cast a 'shadow' inside. Of course it is dark in the cave because the rock is blocking the sunlight from getting to you. That is a shadow caused by the mountain blocking the light. If you move to the entrance of the cave you can even see the edge of the shadow. My point isn't that I consider it shadow or not (as far as the ability), but that if you rule in anyway that a normal human can cast a shadow in daylight, then you must allow shadows to exist in darkness -- and IMO under clouds, mountains, etc. -- since the rule you are using to create the shadow (any object between a light source and an open surface) applies equally in those cases also. Far as cheeseweaselry/cheezemongering goes, I think we are in agreement there too -... Seemed like you thought I was arguing the opposite point. Understood. However, you must then accept that any ruling which allows a human to cast a shadow will lead to a mountain, cloud, etc. casting shadows. If you wish to prevent it from applying in all these cases, then you must rule that "hiding in someone else's shadow" is box-text. You can't rule that a human casts a shadow and a cloud doesn't. Anyhow, I guess I had you in the wrong category last time I tallied up the "votes" on either side of the question - you're saying darkness is shadows, not that darkness cannot contain shadows. No. I'm saying if you rule that the ability works on shadows (based on some real world definition) then you better accept that it can always be used as there are always shadows. Again, IMO, you look at the effect you are trying to get. Darkness, daylight, etc. should be excluded. You need some type of light source in the area. The rule should provide enough cases for the player to use it. However, it should not operate (or allow other to argue) that it could apply in all cases. It must be easy enough to apply at the table and not completely subjective. Again, I vote 'shadowy illumination'. It meets all these criteria. The fact it doesn't allow people to shed shadows... tough. Again, that "rule" isn't workable. It forces all the above problems on the DM and players. Call it "box text", use an existing (and workable) mechanic and move on.
LoreleiIsildae 06-19-07, 12:51 AM	Okay, I hope this will clear things up for everyone. I just got a copy of the new Forgotten Realms adventure, Cormyr - The Tearing of the Weave. In it, on page 5, under the heading "Combat in the Dark," it very clearly states the following: "A creature can't use Hide within 60 feet of a character who has darkvision unless it is invisible, has cover, or has the hide in plain sight ability." Now I know this is just a Realms adventure supplement and not a rulebook, but as far as I know, it is the only thing I've seen so far to clarify the issue. So in terms of the Shadowdancer's HiPS ability, then yes, you can be in total darkness to use it. Spread the word.:P
BW0222 06-19-07, 10:35 AM	LoreleiIsildae, I appreciate the input, but that isn't the issue. Shadowdancer's HiPS ability, then yes, you can be in total darkness to use it. A Shadow Dancer only gains the ability to hide in plain sight when within 10' of a shadow. The central issue is what constitutes a shadow for the use of this ability. If one's definition for shadow does not include darkness, then the SD can't hide in plain sight anyway, so darkvision isn't an issue anyway. As a side note, a FR module is about the weakest source you can get. Living Campaigns do not accept the FAQ as actual rules, since actually isn't reviewed by the writters, so a module (not written by them) is hardly a trusted source. My use of the Arcanis books was just as an example of a system which used shadows and had much better descriptions and that in LA games the ruling that shadows = shadowy illumination has allowed games to run smoother. IMO, yes if someone had HiPS, I would allow it to operate against darkvision. If someone ruled that a darkness was a shadow (not that I agree, but no proof either way), then I would say that a SD could hide from darkvision. However, darkvision brings up the issue of whether any definition of 'shadow' also applies to other sources of vision. For example, if the definition was you must see a distinct edge of a shadow (plus some rule on where that edge is), what happens if you have low-light or darkvision? Obviously, they don't see the shadow since they see through the darkness. Does the definition of shadow only apply to the SD or does there need to be a visible shadow for everyone to see? What about if the SD has darkvision? Is there possibly ever a shadow within 10' of him? Can one 'surpress' their darkvision to see the shadow? If the SD is blind... are there still shadows if he can't see?
KangTheCallipygian 06-19-07, 12:38 PM	LoreleiIsildae, I appreciate the input, but that isn't the issue.Actually, LoreleiIsildae, that is the issue; your post appears to provide something I never really expected: an official answer! It is the same rule someone quoted from ToM in the other thread (linked in my OP, mentioned above), but yours mentions the "Combat in the Dark" heading, which isn't mentioned in the other thread but makes all the difference in the world in this case.under the heading "Combat in the Dark," it very clearly states the following: "A creature can't use Hide within 60 feet of a character who has darkvision unless it is invisible, has cover, or has the hide in plain sight ability.This basically states, among other things, that when fighting in the dark, a shadowdancer can use HiPS to hide within 60 feet someone who has darkvision. Since the SD's HiPS can only be activated within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, that darkness must count as shadows. Since the question at hand is, "does darkness count as shadows," I consider this to be not just an official answer, but an official answer to the question I actually asked! OK, so maybe an adventure module is not be the best official source there is (even if it is replicated word for word in another official source), but I daresay it is more official than someone just saying, "Ignore where the core rule says 'some sort of shadow' and 'She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow' and call them flavor text so you can simply ignore them, then only allow HiPS within 10 feet of actual shadowy illumination just in case someone in your group uses any other ruling as an excuse to abuse their PrC ability in all sorts of situations other than the one being asked about". Don't get me wrong, that's not unreasonable as a houserule if the DM was worried about players trying to abuse loopholes; there are certainly players out there who would do so if given the chance, and the proposed houserule would neatly prevent it. But in my group, we don't have a problem with finding a reasonable middle ground where the shadow of a person or a building or a large boulder works, but the shadow of that one faint wisp of cloud in the entire sky or a blade of grass doesn't, and nobody argues about it. Maybe we're just lucky enough to play in a relatively munchkin-free zone, or perhaps the fear of being derisively pelted with Chee-tos and other healthy snacks is enough of a deterrent to keep our inner lollypop guild dues-payers in check. At any rate, that's why I don't see a need to set additional limits on when HiPS can be used - for our group, at least - and have just been asking for rules quotes or, failing that, opinions and reasons for whether darkness counts as shadows. The campaign in question is even set in the Realms, so maybe this will do the trick and give our group an excuse to stop debating this every session - at this point, the goal being to stop repeating the same game-killing tableside rules discussions every week, an "official but perhaps flawed*" rule will probably do more to help than a "perhaps well-conceived but not generally accepted" rule. Thanks, LoreleiIsildae. Thanks to everyone else who posted as well, for all the feedback. Kang * not saying I see any flaw here; just trying not to argue with any who do.
LoreleiIsildae 06-19-07, 01:55 PM	KangTheCallipygian, thank you. My reasoning behind the post is that darkvision, while useful in shadowy illumination, is essentially a response to living in total darkness, and what good would HiPS be if you can't use it in total darkness, even against darkvision? The argument of whether or not darkness constitutes some sort of shadow aside, having become an almost purely semantic argument in this thread (in my mind, the two are coterminous), I would say that if you can use HiPS against darkvision, then it stands to reason that you can use it in complete darkness, whether you're a ranger, scout, or shadowdancer. Maybe especially if you're a shadowdancer. PS. LoreleiIsildae, the thing about a SD's HiPS ability being (Su) speaks more to whether it would work against a creature with DV than to whether darkness counts as shadows, from what I can tell, but the opinion you included at the end of your post was just what I'm looking for here. Feel free to post your reasons for holding that opinion. Oh, and I think the thread you are referring to is the one linked in my OP. Okay. Granted, these are only my opinions, and you are all free to disagree with me as you like. These are just the way my DM and fellow gamers have interpreted these situations. A shadowdancer has the ability to shadow jump as if using dimension door. Well, when you use dimension door, where do you go between your departure from point A to your arrival at point B? It doesn't tell you in the spell's description. Do you become ethereal for a split second? Do you cease to exist one moment and then re-exist the next in a new location? It certainly is extra-dimensional, since it can be blocked by dimensional anchor. Since a shadowdancer uses shadows to shadow jump, the extra-dimensional travel would be through the Plane of Shadow. The shadow illusion, while it says that you use the surrounding shadows, would seem to work like Shadow Evocation or Shadow Conjuration, using energy from the Shadow Plane. Again, this is just my opinion, and it is why I feel that no matter where a shadowdancer is, whether it be brightly lit, casting shadows, or in complete darkness, they would be using the essence of the Shadow Plane itself, which is why I think their shadow abilities are supernatural and not extraordinary. I know that none of this is specifically implied; as I said, this is only how my friends and I have interpreted things. I also know that an adventure supplement is not going to be the definitive source to be using for "set in stone" rules. But like I also mentioned, in my previous post, I have yet to find another source with a ruling. If the Tome of Battle has something similar (which I have yet to take a look at), then it seems to reinforce the ruling out there. So if you can hide from creatures with tremorsense or blindsight (by taking the Darkstalker feat from Lords of Madness), then a shadowdancer being able to use HiPS against darkvision in total darkness only makes sense. To me anyway.
ravenshrike 06-19-07, 02:19 PM	So complete darkness doesn't provide shadows, as there are no visible boundaries between lit and shadowy areas. Wrong, living beings emit low levels of infrared light, which means if you're standing 10 ft from a small rock, that rock is casting a shadow in the infrared spectrum, which means you can use your hide ability.
Cormroc 06-19-07, 04:26 PM	"A creature can't use Hide within 60 feet of a character who has darkvision unless it is invisible, has cover, or has the hide in plain sight ability." The problem I see with this statement is there are at least three different versions of Hide in Plain Sight, that I am aware of. I would allow a Ranger or Scout in complete darkness and natural terrain to hide from a character with Darkvision, or the Urban Ranger variant in any terrain, but I wouldn't try it with a Shadowdancer. (Again this is all coming from what I would do as a player, not from a DM standpoint) Wrong, living beings emit low levels of infrared light, which means if you're standing 10 ft from a small rock, that rock is casting a shadow in the infrared spectrum, which means you can use your hide ability. If you believe Darkvision operates on the IR spectrum, this works. The point is easily argued and I believe it does not.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 06-19-07, 05:55 PM	The way I see it, "night" is just being in the "shadow" of the planet. Total darkness is being in the "shadow" of the room, cavern, or whatever else you find yourself in. "shadowy illumination" is "penumbral" shadow, in a sense, and total darkness is the deepest umbral shadows. To me, it seems there are two obvious ways of grounding a decision in the D&D sense: First, you may treat "shadow" to mean the real world concept. In that case, here in the real world, we have light and we have the absence of light. "Shadow" is basically the relative and noticeable absence of light in one area as compared to another. You do not need to be able to see shadows for them to exist (though in game terms you might need line of effect to the shadow in question to use the ability). My personal opinion hinges on the fact that it's always darker in a pitch black room than it is somewhere in the world, so line of effect aside, it seems to me that's "shadow." In any event, all the character needs is a tindertwig and clearly some shadow is created. Second, you might in game rule that "shadow" is in fact invested with some connection to the Plane of Shadow. This answer is more free form and open ended, as then you as DM get to decide which shadows in your game world have this connection. It does provide a sound explanation of any ruling you might think up though, so long as mundane shadows in sunlight all have this connection.
BW0222 06-19-07, 10:22 PM	KangTheCallipygian Actually, LoreleiIsildae, that is the issue; your post appears to provide something I never really expected: an official answer! You asked: 'Does darkness counts as some sort of shadow'? (And specifically with respect to the SD ability) His quote does not address that issue. (See below) This basically states, among other things, that when fighting in the dark, a shadowdancer can use HiPS to hide within 60 feet someone who has darkvision. It doesn't state anything of the sort. It says nothing about whether or not a creature has the HiPS ability. It just says if you have the ability you can hide in the dark against darkvision. Not that a SD has the ability in darkness. Since the SD's HiPS can only be activated within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, that darkness must count as shadows. Except, nothing he quoted says that the condition for the ability applies. Nothing that you state follows. We have: If {within 10' of shadow} Then {SD has HiPS} and If {HiPS} Then {can hide in darkness vs. darkvision} All you can get from these is: If {within 10' of shadow} Then {a SD can hide in darkness vs. darkvision} There is no way to combine those statements to get: {darkness} = {shadow} Since the question at hand is, "does darkness count as shadows," I consider this to be not just an official answer, but an official answer to the question I actually asked! Besides not being anywhere near official, logic can't imply that {darkness = shadows} from his statement. If one says, darkness <> shadows, then both rules still apply equally well -- the SD has not have HiPS and (not being invisible, or having concealment) can not hide in the dark against darkvision. Or one could say that darkness = shadows, and both rules still apply equally well -- the SD has HiSP and can hide in the dark against darkvision. The new rule doesn't force one to make darkness = shadows. One can still rule either way and not have a contradiction. Unfortunately, it does nothing to force an interpretation one way or the other. but I daresay it is more official than someone just saying, ... Gee... thanks? First, personal attacks help your position even less that faulty logic arguements. IMO, they usually show that folks are having a hard time with their arguements. I've kept my posts limited to what you said. I have not put motivations or ulterior motives behind what you say. Second, my post started with the fact that I don't know of any official rule concerning this. (and I still don't). From then on, my post started with IMO... and provided reasons why I would vote for shadowy illumination -- balance and ease of determining where shadows are. I have never said that anything I said was offical. And BTW, you asked for how people rules and why. Third, don't say "someone" when you mean "BW0222". If you want to take jabs at people, at least use their names. Forth, my two reasons for my ruling that 'shadows = shadowy illumination' where clearly given. I never said one of my reasons was to nerf a PrC ability. In various posts I explained that even within this ruling that it appeared balanced and did not unduly prevent the SD from using the ability in most circumstances except sunlight or daylight spells. I also said that I had used it and folks don't seem to find it an undo limitation of this (and similiar) abilities. Fifth, please don't make up direct quotes. I respectfully ask you to produce the quote you referenced from 'someone'? (name, date, URL, and line number?) The fact is, no one actually said what you quoted. False quoting is in poor taste. Sixth, veiled insults at someone's players don't help your position either. I never assumed your players were unreasonable. Please don't assume that my players aren't unreasonable or are munchkins. My reasons for the ruling never included 'preventing munchkins' -- although it would have that would be an additional advantage. Seventh, I've never had a vested interest in this discussion other than at an acidemic level. I've already stated (when you misassumed my position in a previous post) that one should decide on what conditions you want the ability to apply and then make a ruling on shadows consistent with the effects you want. If you want darkness to count as shadows and don't want shadows in daylight, just come up with a definition of a shadow which allows this. I've never said that you can't, that any type of rule prevents you from doing so, etc. Eighth, I've specifically not quoted sources which cover this topic and yet provide rulings on shadows. I respect that you asked for official rules. I have already directed you to the LA system and books. Rules there are a lot more tight than a module quote which only discusses what happens if the condition (in shadows) was true. Look up the Shadow Stride spell. * not saying I see any flaw here; just trying not to argue with any who do. I'd love to believe you, but appearantly you have something against 'someone'. Perhaps if you told us who 'someone' was and provided evidence that she said all these things, was saying them for the reasons you attribute to her, that her players were munchkins, that she provided rules advice rather than opinions, etc., etc. maybe we could all beat her with a stick! If not, the first rule of not arguing is not insulting folks, telling untrue stories about them, casting slurs at them or their friends, etc.
LoreleiIsildae 06-20-07, 03:45 AM	I was going to make a reply here, then felt stupid after what I was going to say was already mentioned. Sorry!
Gold Katana 06-20-07, 11:10 AM	Here's how this is handled IMC. You must be within 10' of the edge of a shadow, and that shadow must be at least as large as the PC attempting to hide. Why? Well, primarily to avoid such protacted arguments as appear in this thread. Also, for flavor we have decided that it is the actual interaction of light and darkness that opens the power of shadows (i.e. the outline of the shadow). In addition, the size is necessary or else you could argue that as long as there is light anywhere in the vicinity you are going to have shadows, even if they are only the shadows cast by grains of sand. This has worked very well as our houserule in the past several campaigns.
Mirtek 06-20-07, 02:13 PM	Living Campaigns do not accept the FAQ as actual rules, since actually isn't reviewed by the writters, so a module (not written by them) is hardly a trusted source. Living Campaigns are not D&D RAW anyway. They're the house rules of the RPGA, which differ from D&D RAW in many points. My two cents: A SD can use his HiPS within 10 feet of any shadow (RL definition) and in complete darkness (which is nothing but a big shadow). This basically gives him a weaker version of invisibilty as spell-like ability. It's (su) and not (Ex) like the rangers (which I also find completly stupid, the ranger's HiPS should be (Su) as well). However, darkvision brings up the issue of whether any definition of 'shadow' also applies to other sources of vision. For example, if the definition was you must see a distinct edge of a shadow (plus some rule on where that edge is), what happens if you have low-light or darkvision? Obviously, they don't see the shadow since they see through the darkness. Does the definition of shadow only apply to the SD or does there need to be a visible shadow for everyone to see? What about if the SD has darkvision? Is there possibly ever a shadow within 10' of him? Can one 'surpress' their darkvision to see the shadow? If the SD is blind... are there still shadows if he can't see? Just because someone does not see the shadow it doesn't make the shadow non-existent. A SD with Darkvision (which all SDs get as class feature anyway), well, IMO he would simply "feel" the shadows near him, as he has a (Su) connection to them. Or he simply has to try using HiPS/shadowjump on good luck and hope it works as he can't see the shadows himself.
AAB 06-20-07, 03:07 PM	Living Campaigns are not D&D RAW anyway. They're the house rules of the RPGA, which differ from D&D RAW in many points. My two cents: A SD can use his HiPS within 10 feet of any shadow (RL definition) and in complete darkness (which is nothing but a big shadow). This basically gives him a weaker version of invisibilty as spell-like ability. It's (su) and not (Ex) like the rangers (which I also find completly stupid, the ranger's HiPS should be (Su) as well). Just because someone does not see the shadow it doesn't make the shadow non-existent. A SD with Darkvision (which all SDs get as class feature anyway), well, IMO he would simply "feel" the shadows near him, as he has a (Su) connection to them. Or he simply has to try using HiPS/shadowjump on good luck and hope it works as he can't see the shadows himself. good point on the darkvision/shadow interaction that i've seen argued before: just because the character with darkvision can't see the shadows doesn't mean they're not there. the character with darkvision also can't tell that grass is green; that doesn't mean that it is actually gray.
Cormroc 06-20-07, 06:39 PM	You must be within 10' of the edge of a shadow, and that shadow must be at least as large as the PC attempting to hide. This is basically what I was trying to say, although you definitely said it much better Katana. Out of everything discussed this makes the most sense to me. One thing I realized after my post is that allowing it in shadowy illumination presents a problem because creatures with low-light vision have different perceptions of what is classed as shadowy illumination.