Shadowdancer's Hide in plain Sight

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

Why don't we ask WotC directly? I once was surprised when I thougt that when you take a PrC that boost one of your spellcasting classes, you have to choose the spellcasting class to boost at 1st level and could all other boosts would go to it. After a long argument, I decided to send the question to WotC, and the answer was "you choose what spellcasting class to add the boost to each time you go up a level on the PrC".

The link is here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=company/feedbackform

So, who sends the question?

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

One thing, the SRD has no flavor text at all. The flavor text is explicitly not covered by the OGL and thus not included in the SRD. That part Thanee mentions is included in the SRD. Also, note that flavor text is a whole paragraph in italics. I checked the PHB, and I see no italics nor flavor text for the spell.

 

[Thanee]

The link is here: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=company/feedbackform

So, who sends the question?

If that link goes to the WotC customer service, then I do not care for their answer at all.


Just recently, someone (on another board) was of the opinion, that the shadow must be big enough for the shadowdancer to actually hide in and that the shadowdancer actually moves into the shadow (up to 10 ft. away) while hiding.

The customer service agreed with him.

Then another user sent the same question.

The customer service contradicted itself, by giving a completely different answer.




Also, even if the "official answer" was, that True Seeing would not work, then I would still play it that way (as a house rule), because it seems much more consistent and reasonable that way to me. Unless, of course, they would provide us with a reasonable explanation of what HiPS actually does.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If that link goes to the WotC customer service, then I do not care for their answer at all.

<off topic>
In both the Player's Guide To Faerun and Libris Mortis, they printed a version of the Summon Undead spells. These spells were cut-and-pasted directly from the 3.0 sources without being edited (as is the fashion at WotC), even though undead went through some major changes during the 3.5 revision. This means that a 5th level cleric who casts Summon Undead III can under the current RAW summon a 17 HD cloud giant skeleton with a CR of 7 and an attack that does 4d6+18 damage.

In an effort to get this errataed, since it's gone into print twice without anyone noticing the error, I emailed custserv. They told me that my reading of the rules is correct, and that the only limitation is that the cleric "has to locate a cloud giant skeleton."

So I wrote them back, and informed them that since Summon Undead is a Conjuration (Summoning) spell, the caster no more needs to have access to a giant skeleton than a cleric casting Summon Monster needs to have access to a celestial badger. ...A completely incompetent interpretation of the rules from custserv that shows that the cubicle monkey at WotC didn't even bother to look up the damn spell before replying to a query about it.

Custserv have no idea what they're doing. They should all be fired and the value of their wages taken out of the price of the books.

(edit)

Or, better yet, use their wages to hire someone to actually edit the books!

 

[UltimaGabe]

See, and to me the so-called flavor text is part of the rules. Just that in some cases the game mechanics cannot completely describe what the spell does, or take every eventuality into consideration.

Once again, you're missing my main point. Nowhere in the PHB- and I repeat, nowhere- does any spell do more than its description allows, with the exception of Wish and Miracle. "Sees things as they truly are" is a statement in the description which is later contradicted, and is flavor text and nothing else. If you keep using that as your evidence, you MUST explain to me how that is possible when it ignores darkness and mundane disguises. Until you do so, that piece of evidence has no merit whatsoever. Either way, you are correct in saying that they cannot take every eventuality into consideration- but, for the fourth or fifth time, THIS SPELL IS NOT OPEN-ENDED. They give a SPECIFIC list of things that the spell does. If you can tell me how this spell can do more than its specific list of uses, then I'll bow down and agree with you. BUT IT DOESN'T. There is no passage in the description allowing the spell to do more than its specific list, nor is the list even said to be "examples". THE SPELL ONLY DOES WHAT ITS SPECIFIC LIST ALLOWS. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere whatsoever that allows it to do anything more than this list that isn't contradicted by its own description. (Thus, since the first sentence is contradicted by its own description, that is not evidence at all.)

One thing, the SRD has no flavor text at all. The flavor text is explicitly not covered by the OGL and thus not included in the SRD. That part Thanee mentions is included in the SRD. Also, note that flavor text is a whole paragraph in italics. I checked the PHB, and I see no italics nor flavor text for the spell.

Yes, as is everything I'm quoting from the SRD. You are a bit incorrect, however- the SRD does include flavor text- quite a lot of it, in fact. Check the description of the Brilliant Energy weapon ability for an example. It states, "A Brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter." It then goes on to say that ignores all armor bonuses, regardless of their source, and other things it does. The passage about "ignoring nonliving matter" has been specifically mentioned by the writers to be flavor text. Many people have made the argument that a brilliant energy weapon should ignore most natural armor, since scales and other such sources of natural armor are, actually, dead cells- and the "flavor text" of the ability describes it as ignoring natural armor. But this isn't on topic- I'm simply stating that although all italicized flavor text is left out of the SRD, there is still an amount of text that is still flavor text.

Thanee, I understand that that's your ruling and that's how you use it. However, your ruling is wrong by the core rules.

 

[Thanee]

Once again, you're missing my main point. Nowhere in the PHB- and I repeat, nowhere- does any spell do more than its description allows, with the exception of Wish and Miracle.

I do not let the spell do anything, which is not in the description.

"Sees things as they truly are" is a statement in the description which is later contradicted, and is flavor text and nothing else.

So, where's the rule which states this?

If you are so sure that the first part is not a valid part of the spell description, then there must be a clear rule somewhere, which differentiates flavor text from game mechanics.

Got any quotes handy?


And where is it contradicted? It's just explained. A mundanely disguised person is seen as what it is... a disguised person. A magically disguised person is also seen as what it is... the person without the disguise. That's not a contradiction, it's an explanation as to what that sentence actually means (because it is hardly sufficient by itself)... that it is meant to pierce magical effects, not mundane effects, since mundane effects are considered real and therefore are part of what something truely is, magic, however, is not. That's what the spell description basically says.

Thanee, I understand that that's your ruling and that's how you use it. However, your ruling is wrong by the core rules.

Even if that is true... which I do not think, but anyways... it's exactly what the thread starter was asking for.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

It's nigh impossible to make a finite list of all situations, which True Seeing applies to by listing specific examples, especially once you branch out into all those myriads of spells and special abilities presented in the other books and future books as well.

For example, if there was a spell, which was similar to Blur or Displacement, but not exactly the same, then it would not work on that, just because it's not listed specifically?

I think new non-core material generally mentions how it interacts with standard abilities like true seeing. At the very least, it should.

Anyway... The DMG was designed by Monte Cook (and Skip Williams). Think we could get either of them to clarify it for us?
Even better, let's ask both so we have two answers - hopefully the same answers.

 

[Hawken]

I'll answer the original questions of this post before making any other comments.

How much can he move around when hidden?

The shadows conceal him while he moves (and for as long as he remains within 10' of some shadow). So, he would just have to make a Hide check as part of his move action, including any applicable bonuses or penalties.

Is it meant to be an "invisibility"?

In my campaigns it is a limited form of invisibility. As a supernatural ability for Shadowdancers, it is basically invisibility that is limited to immersion in or close proximity (10') to existing shadows (other than his/her own). If they leave the shadows or the shadows are removed, then they are as visible as anyone else.

What does a shadow mean? Is it any shadow not cast be himself of any size?

Again, this is my interpretation used in my campaigns. The shadows that can be used are any shadows of any size cast by anyone or anything other than the Shadowdancer.

How do you play this?

I just finished a Ravenloft campaign with a Shadowdancer PC. Whenever he used his HiPS ability, I always described it as the shadows moving as if possessed of their own life and swallowing him from the sight of others. This made it a lot more interesting and eerie for NPCs as well as the PCs (including the Shadowdancer) rather than simply stating that he disappears.

I enjoyed reading the different takes on the ability in this thread. However, my attention was grabbed by the back and forth between Thanee and UltimaGabe. There shouldn't have been any arguement. Thanee nailed it on the first post.

True Seeing reveals the shadowdancer, since the HiPS ability is supernatural and therefore magical in nature.

That's all there is to say about it. It's a magical ability for Shadowdancers, True Seeing penetrates magical effects that conceal or disguise. The ability of the spell to penetrate normal and magical darkness eliminates any possibility of concealment in shadows (the presence of which is required for HiPS to work) from the subject of True Sight who can see in darkness.

UltimaGabe's arguements about True Sight's limitations vs. HiPS are based on flaws. The requirement for shadows for the ability to work is not "flavor crap". By requiring the presence of shadows it is implied that (in whatever manner the DM decides) shadows are used to conceal the Shadowdancer--otherwise, no such requirement would be in place. Now since darkness is darker than shadow and True Seeing (TS) allows sight in darkness, the person with TS would clearly see the person using HiPS. TS does not foil physical means of concealment (fog, physical disguise, etc.) but darkness and shadow are not physical obstructions, they are ambient conditions of visibility which TS allows the subject to see clearly in.

What UltimaGabe is missing is the purpose of the TS spell; to see through all forms of magical concealment. Could the spell description have been worded better? Yes. Without a doubt. Did the writer/editor list every possible method of magical concealment? No. They don't have time or the space for that amount of text. They rightly believe that the DM, and not some rules-lawyer PC, will deduce the purpose and effect of the spell and what it can and cannot do. The PHB would be three or four times its already considerable size if spell descriptions had to include every possible situation that the spell can and cannot be used for. That has nothing to do with the spell being open ended or not. It gets the point across; TS penetrates magical concealment, not physical. The supernatural (magical) ability to use any shadow of any size within 10' to Hide (conceal) yourself from sight easily falls within the purview of a spell designed to penetrate magical concealments.

UltimaGabe is also assuming that he is the authority on flavor text and rules text and he is basing much of his arguments on that which is faulty logic. And he is wrong to say Thanee or anyone else is wrong about their decision on the matter. TS allows the user to see in darkness. If you can see in darkness you can see in the shadows that a Shadowdancer is magically manipulating to conceal themselves.

As for the Ranger ability of the same name, it only works in natural terrain which kind of makes sense for a Ranger. There are too many movies to name as an example where someone is hiding in plain sight (Predator after the waterfall with Schwarzenegger in the mud comes to mind) in natural terrain. That doesn't seem too far fetched or outrageous for a Ranger of that level.

 

[Scion]

It sounds like you would allow darkvision to also cancel the shadowdancers ability, which definately is not the case.

I think that ultimagabe is so far on the right here I am unsure where the counterarguements even think that they have a case.

The shadowdancers ability allows the use of hide in circumstances where it would otherwise not be allowed. True sight does nothing about hiding creatures. Therefore, true sight does nothing in this case.

As ultimagabe said earlier, one would expect that true sight would cancel the bonus from various magical items if the opposite were true. As some have already said that doesnt make sense then it really isnt any stretch to say that hide in plain sight is not effected by true seeing. After all, 'what is truely there' is a guy hiding, which true seeing does not help with.

 

[FireLance]

The shadowdancers ability allows the use of hide in circumstances where it would otherwise not be allowed.

Agree.

True sight does nothing about hiding creatures.

Agree, but with qualifiers (see next bit).

Therefore, true sight does nothing in this case.

Here's where I don't agree. Magical darkness grants concealment. A rogue can use the concealment granted by magical darkness to make a Hide check. True seeing allows a person to see through magical darkness. If the rogue has no other source of cover or concealment, and no extraordinary ability to hide in plain sight, true seeing would automatically reveal the presence of the rogue. The Hide check becomes irrelevant in this case, because the rogue cannot make one in the first place (at least, not against the person with true seeing).

Similarly, in the case of the shadowdancer, he has the supernatural ability to hide when he would otherwise not be able to. True seeing negates his use of that ability, so he cannot even make a Hide check in the first place.

Contrast this with the same rogue hiding in undergrowth (which provides concealment). True seeing cannot see through the undergrowth, and so the rogue can make his Hide check normally.

Anyway, after reading through several Shadowdancer Hide in Plain Sight threads, I've decided on how it works in my campaigns. When a Shadowdancer is near a shadow, he has the ability to leach the colors from himself and his possessions. When the Hide in Plain Sight ability is active, he appears as an almost transparent black-and-white image of himself. True seeing reveals him, but not darkvision. Effectively, it's like a weak form of invisibility that requires him to keep making Hide checks.