Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8263961" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Would it help if I used your most recent dog/bunny/cat example? Or are you ok on the mechanics of it now?Interesting. In my mind "can't see" is basically the entire point of the Blinded condition, because it fundamentally changes how the character interacts with the game world (plus it's in the name of the condition <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). A suddenly (actually) Blinded character no longer knows what the environment looks like (they have to operate from memory), they can't see what actions other creatures are taking (have to rely on hearing alone), don't know the locations of creatures beyond hearing range, etc. To me the rest of the Blinded condition is just details about action resolution. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Of course, how to interpret "can't see" when someone effectively suffers from the Blinded condition with respect to an opaque foreground object but not with respect to a background object it was occulting, that's a 40-page-thread can of worms.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sure, but you can move through foliage that dense because the smaller branches and leaves bend away as you move through them, not because there are clear paths and long sight-lines. A line of landscaped bushes, for example, can easily be dense enough to be an opaque area yet let someone push their way through the line between bushes.[USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER] seems to be arguing that a character in such a line of opaque bushes couldn't be seen, but that the character behind such a line of opaque bushes could be seen. There is support for that in the text of the Heavy Obscurement rules, but since it creates a paradox where the bushes are both an opaque area and not an opaque area, I consider that another place where the vision/darkness/obscurement rules are incomplete and/or contradictory.Ok, so in the weeds I've let the overall point of why I'm discussing transparent walls get lost. Thanks! I can address that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In this thread I've made (several formulations of) one central claim: that the vision/darkness/obscurement (v/d/o) rules are incomplete, and can't be run as-is. From this central claim I've made several derivative claims:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The v/d/o rules are too incomplete to permit a close reading of those rules to resolve whether the darkness created by the Darkness spell is opaque or transparent.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Because spells are theoretically supposed to be self-contained (i.e. only do what they say they do, and no more), the fact that the text of the Darkness spell does not provide sufficient detail to resolve how the transparent interpretation would interact with the incomplete v/d/o rules is evidence that the transparent interpretation was not intended by the designers. (If it was intended to be transparent, the designers could have written the spell more like the 3.5 version.) I think this evidence is particularly strong because the edge cases where the v/d/o rules fall apart (e.g. backlighting) are much more likely to come up with magical darkness that can be summoned into a well-lit area than they are with natural darkness.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Because the rules can't be run as-is, every DM is making choices about how to run the v/d/o rules that depart (to varying degrees) from the small amount of rules text we actually have. If every DM has to make atextual choices, criticizing a DM for a particular atextual choice on the grounds that it is atextual is meaningless.</li> </ol>I've presented a particular contradiction in the v/d/o rules as evidence supporting my central claim that the rule can't be run as-is. That contradiction involves silhouettes: adding silhouettes into the game (atextually, I note) contradicts the Blinded condition by letting observers see creatures that they are effectively Blinded with respect to. Not adding silhouettes would (if taken to an absurd logical consequence) lead to heavily obscured opaque creatures/objects/walls not being able to block vision of well-lit areas behind them.Obviously no DM is going to go so far as to let observers see through walls just because those walls are in natural darkness. But avoiding that outcome while not allowing creatures/objects/walls to be visible as silhouettes requires making other atextual choices. I've spoilered my description of two examples of other atextual choices a DM could make to be able to run the game without silhouettes and still keep walls opaque.[SPOILER="Example Work-Arounds"]One example suggested in this thread (I don't remember by who) was to make all silhouettes blobby and not outline the creature/object/wall. That totally works: observers would see a blobby patch of darkness where an a opaque creature/object/wall is located, rather than seeing the creature/object/wall OR seeing whatever the creature/object/wall was concealing. (For a similar effect, see Shadow of Moil.) But blobby silhouettes are definitely atextual.Another work-around is to allow natural darkness to make opaque creatures effectively transparent, but not allow the same for objects or walls, and just accepting the (lesser) absurdity of transparent creatures. But again, making such an artificial distinction in what can and cannot be seen as a silhouette would be atextual.[/SPOILER]So, to recap, I'm discussing the contradiction in the v/d/o rules between the "can't see" wording of the Blinded condition and the ordinary definition of the word "opaque" in the edge case where Heavily Obscured objects/creatures/walls are backlit. I'm using that contradiction as evidence in support of my central claim, that the v/d/o rules are incomplete. (I've offered as evidence another example of a contradiction in the v/d/o rules vis-a-vis the visibility of a character in heavy obscurement vs behind heavy obscurement, but that one seems less controversial.)I recognize that you view my central claim as uncontested in this thread. However, my interpretation of the views of other posters conflicts with your interpretation. My understanding is that some posters think the v/d/o rules can be run as-is, and may still be arguing that doing so requires the transparent interpretation of the Darkness spell. If I'm wrong, great!</blockquote>

Verification