Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8263224" data-attributes="member: 6795602">That's not what I'm doing.&nbsp; I simply rule that silhouettes are not possible in areas of darkness.&nbsp; Which in practice means that in describing the environment, when the creature is in an area of darkness I would never describe a silhouette.&nbsp; So no, I'm not changing anything about the darkness or obscurement rules, or brightening squares that would have otherwise been dark or anything along those lines.If you want to criticize what I'm doing with silhouettes it may be that there's a slim possibility that what I describe in game terms isn't 100% realistic - but what I am doing in game terms is rule preserving.Let's acknowledge 1 thing.&nbsp; When the rules are silent on something, it's expected that the DM fill that gap - but it's also expected that he does so without violating whatever RAW is related to that situation.&nbsp; If the gap is filled by altering the RAW for that instance then you've still altered RAW.&nbsp; If you feel the gap while keeping RAW intact then that's a much different thing.&nbsp; That's what I am doing, while what I see most everyone else doing is filling the gap by changing RAW.I'm saying nothing in darkness is seen as a sihlouette.You'll have to explain what you mean by 'transparent wall problem'The issue people took in that series of quotes was in the non-RAW ruling of an area between 2 lit areas not being dark.&nbsp; That's exactly why I responded to Crimson in that section and others were also quoting that same section and gearing their responses toward it because it was so eggregious.&nbsp; Seriously, just go back and read the text they quoted that they were responding to with those responses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8263224, member: 6795602"] That's not what I'm doing. I simply rule that silhouettes are not possible in areas of darkness. Which in practice means that in describing the environment, when the creature is in an area of darkness I would never describe a silhouette. So no, I'm not changing anything about the darkness or obscurement rules, or brightening squares that would have otherwise been dark or anything along those lines. If you want to criticize what I'm doing with silhouettes it may be that there's a slim possibility that what I describe in game terms isn't 100% realistic - but what I am doing in game terms is rule preserving. Let's acknowledge 1 thing. When the rules are silent on something, it's expected that the DM fill that gap - but it's also expected that he does so without violating whatever RAW is related to that situation. If the gap is filled by altering the RAW for that instance then you've still altered RAW. If you feel the gap while keeping RAW intact then that's a much different thing. That's what I am doing, while what I see most everyone else doing is filling the gap by changing RAW. I'm saying nothing in darkness is seen as a sihlouette. You'll have to explain what you mean by 'transparent wall problem' The issue people took in that series of quotes was in the non-RAW ruling of an area between 2 lit areas not being dark. That's exactly why I responded to Crimson in that section and others were also quoting that same section and gearing their responses toward it because it was so eggregious. Seriously, just go back and read the text they quoted that they were responding to with those responses. [/QUOTE]

Verification