Author Topic: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision  (Read 5233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2012, 11:51:40 AM »
   I have played in games where magical darkness did not allow someone with dark-vision to see anything, so I guess as I have learned that you need to be sure that you and the GM are on the same page as to how magic works with in the rule system. Especially if you are new to the group.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Lord Garth

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2012, 06:32:19 AM »
   I have played in games where magical darkness did not allow someone with dark-vision to see anything, so I guess as I have learned that you need to be sure that you and the GM are on the same page as to how magic works with in the rule system. Especially if you are new to the group.
MDC

I'm curious Markc. Was that decided to be some kind of more powerful Utterdark and if so did players get an RR?

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2012, 07:16:18 AM »
   I have played in games where magical darkness did not allow someone with dark-vision to see anything, so I guess as I have learned that you need to be sure that you and the GM are on the same page as to how magic works with in the rule system. Especially if you are new to the group.
MDC

I'm curious Markc. Was that decided to be some kind of more powerful Utterdark and if so did players get an RR?


  No it was ruled that magical darkness (ie no light of any wavelength) blocked all vision, and your eyes need some light (wavelengths) to see.  So magical darkness was not your standard darkness. You could say that this was a big flavor element of the game world.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Lord Garth

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2012, 08:27:58 AM »
   I have played in games where magical darkness did not allow someone with dark-vision to see anything, so I guess as I have learned that you need to be sure that you and the GM are on the same page as to how magic works with in the rule system. Especially if you are new to the group.
MDC

I'm curious Markc. Was that decided to be some kind of more powerful Utterdark and if so did players get an RR?


  No it was ruled that magical darkness (ie no light of any wavelength) blocked all vision, and your eyes need some light (wavelengths) to see.  So magical darkness was not your standard darkness. You could say that this was a big flavor element of the game world.
MDC

Was there some type of heat-vision to counter this or was simply darkness absolute?

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2012, 09:20:07 AM »
Call Galstaff...he will attack the Darkness.

 :whip:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2012, 09:53:07 AM »
   I have played in games where magical darkness did not allow someone with dark-vision to see anything, so I guess as I have learned that you need to be sure that you and the GM are on the same page as to how magic works with in the rule system. Especially if you are new to the group.
MDC

I'm curious Markc. Was that decided to be some kind of more powerful Utterdark and if so did players get an RR?


  No it was ruled that magical darkness (ie no light of any wavelength) blocked all vision, and your eyes need some light (wavelengths) to see.  So magical darkness was not your standard darkness. You could say that this was a big flavor element of the game world.
MDC

Was there some type of heat-vision to counter this or was simply darkness absolute?


 At the time there was heat vision but even that requires light to travel to your sensory organs. So no darkness was absolute unless you had some type of sonar or other sense, but even that requires some transmission element and IIRC darkness interfered with that also.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline providence13

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,944
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2012, 10:49:26 AM »
markc,
Your GM allowed The Ultimate Heat Sink?
I hope you made an atomic pile. My players would..
That'll learn him. :)
"The Lore spell assaults your senses- Roll on the spontaneous human combustion table; twice!"

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2012, 11:30:58 AM »
markc,
Your GM allowed The Ultimate Heat Sink?
I hope you made an atomic pile. My players would..
That'll learn him. :)


 No, this was way back in the mid 80's when were were all young(ish) and did not think about heat sinks and atomic piles. We only thought about that stuff after Red Dawn came out and we stared thinking about Twilight 2000 type campaigns with no magic.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline providence13

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,944
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2012, 11:54:13 PM »
"Better dead than red."
I think I remember that game..
"The Lore spell assaults your senses- Roll on the spontaneous human combustion table; twice!"

Offline Kristen Mork

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 505
  • OIC Points +70/-70
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2012, 04:06:42 AM »
"Better dead than red."
I think I remember that game..

The Price of Freedom?

Offline providence13

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,944
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2012, 11:26:43 AM »
On the breaking of items targeted with light,
  I now feel that the spell would then dissipate very quickly or be cancelled all together. The original "target" doesn't exist anymore.. so the spell shouldn't be in effect, imho.
 If I felt generous, maybe the pieces glow for the rest of the rnd..

The Mage was hit with a hand crossbow bolt enchanted with Utterdark SM to 10' rad. It hit the PC for just a few hits. I told him he couldn't see at all. (Didn't actually say that he was affected by a spell.) He was upset that he didn't even get a save. I told him he wasn't the target of a spell, but later explained that he was in a spell radius.
 After the game he asked "Goose/Gander?" "Yes sir!" I said and he was totally cool with it. Now he knows that he only had to pull the bolt and throw it away from him to get out of the radius. Plus they can do it to others.
 I admitted that a breakage roll should have been made for the bolt, and I would do that in the future. "No problem."
"The Lore spell assaults your senses- Roll on the spontaneous human combustion table; twice!"

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2012, 11:35:36 AM »
On the breaking of items targeted with light,
  I now feel that the spell would then dissipate very quickly or be cancelled all together. The original "target" doesn't exist anymore.. so the spell shouldn't be in effect, imho.
 If I felt generous, maybe the pieces glow for the rest of the rnd..

The Mage was hit with a hand crossbow bolt enchanted with Utterdark SM to 10' rad. It hit the PC for just a few hits. I told him he couldn't see at all. (Didn't actually say that he was affected by a spell.) He was upset that he didn't even get a save. I told him he wasn't the target of a spell, but later explained that he was in a spell radius.
 After the game he asked "Goose/Gander?" "Yes sir!" I said and he was totally cool with it. Now he knows that he only had to pull the bolt and throw it away from him to get out of the radius. Plus they can do it to others.
 I admitted that a breakage roll should have been made for the bolt, and I would do that in the future. "No problem."


 I love the breakage roll rule.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,879
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2012, 03:09:39 PM »
Call Galstaff...he will attack the Darkness.

 :whip:

At least I wasn't the only one who thought of that when I saw the thread title...
Darn that salt pork!

Offline Marc R

  • Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,392
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • "Don't throw stones, offer alternatives."
    • Looking for Online Roleplay? Try RealRoleplaying
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2012, 03:01:39 PM »
I'd certainly allow the attacker to choose a facing to attack the target from, would seem to be a good place to start on bonuses.
The Artist Formerly Known As LordMiller

Looking for online Role Play? Try WWW.RealRoleplaying.Com

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2021, 11:08:44 AM »
Sorry for reviving this age-old thread, but it's probably better to continue here than create a new thread about the same topic and lose the context.

So we did not use the following combination of spells yesterday, but we wondered whether our Dabbler character, who has the Darkness spell available at 5th level as well as the Darkvision spell at 9th level, might cast these two spells on himself (Darkness explicitly states that the area of darkness will then move with the character) and then fire from the protection of a Darkness "aura", where no one can see him, and attacks against him are at somewhere between -50 and -100. He could even do this outdoors during daylight, where it would be quite obvious that the arrows are coming from this strange darkness area, but the attacks against him would still be at this hefty penalty.

Sounds a bit overpowered to me. So am I missing something which would prevent this (except GM intervention)?

We were yesterday a bit surprised about the section 15.12 in RMFRP Of Essence, where it is stated that "Magical Darkness is, to all intents and purposes impenetrable without magical light of some kind". No distinction of a normal Darkness spell and Utterdark. The Utterdark spell itself is only mentioning that magical Light must make a RR.

RMU IMHO is handling these spells a bit better. In the Beta2 A&Ch Law, section 14.7 it says "Darkness and Blindness: For game purposes, blindness and complete darkness may be handled the same way. Magical darkness is equivalent to a very dark night, so that it is considered completely dark unless one has Nightvision. Utterdark is absolutely dark and renders Nightvision useless; only Darkvision allows seeing in Utterdark conditions." According to this a normal Darkness spell (not Utterdark) could be penetrated by Nightvision, which some races already have, and which is easily available as a spell. I still wonder whether a torch or lantern, i.e. a light inside the spell area, would produce light normally.

But whatever the RM version, Utterdark plus Darkvision seems devastating. Any ideas how to handle this?

Thanks

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,111
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2021, 05:38:37 PM »
It's a bit vague how dark darkness is, in previous editions. It often says as dark as a dark night, but the rules also say nightvision lets you see on a dark night, so more than half the races are immune to darkness spells, in one interpretation. That seems a bit silly. But the point stands that darkness isn't impenetrable, you can still see and target someone in darkness, in the RMSS/RMFRP core rules you have a penalty of -25 for standard static maneuvers (and -40 for pitch dark) if you read the maneuver tables, or -100 for complete blindness if you read the description of Spatial Location Awareness (or Blind Fighting in the MAC) which doesn't quite match up. Spell Law says attacks against invisible targets are -50, so that's a different number too, and "characters who are blind or operating in magical darkness operate with a modification of -100" which notably doesn't make any distinction between "darkest night" darkness spells and utterdark. Spell Law also says both that nightvision allows you to see just fine under the stars "or even a tiny point source of light", and darkness spells create the same darkness as "the darkest night", which in my mind is a bit contradictory. So there is a little room for interpretation how it should actually work and I don't know that these rules were compared with each other when they were written.

In RMU as currently written, non-magical light sources produce no light when they are within magical darkness. Since it's not pitch darkness, I imagine you could faintly make out their light, with the brightness of a very dim star -- enough to be faintly seem, not enough to illuminate anything else. So, no, a torch or lantern in such an area would not produce light normally. Utterdark makes even light spells completely imperceptible (but note, it doesn't dispel them, so the light will become visible again immediately if the utterdark is removed or reaches the end of its duration).


Certainly the combination of darkvision and darkness is advantageous. You could do the same with fogvision and fog, that isn't quite as high a penalty (although up to -75 for extreme fog in RMU) but it defeats Darkvision so that's a useful trick. You're still out of luck with creatures that sense life, like undead. There is also a blindfighting skill which mitigates these penalties, and nightvision aside from being a common racial talent is also a frequent low-level spell. So, that advantage is not absolute, some foes will be able to handle it. Also, darkvision tends to have fairly short range. And unless many party members have darkvision, you might be limited to using it when you are on your own.

Like any good trick, it ought to work sometimes, especially when you are dealing with forces you outclass. But it might not be reliable.

I do recall one case where my nightblade PC used Darkness on a group of enemy nightblades. One of them was skilled enough to operate and darkness and that would have still been a fight. (Except I rolled a natural 100 on the first critical, so, not really.) The rest were low ranked and we did not bother playing out that part of the combat. Seemed like a good way to limit it but acknowledge the utility. Also, I was separated from the party so not dragging out the encounter probably made sense on those grounds too.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline rdanhenry

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,578
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • This sentence is false.
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2021, 06:31:22 PM »
Penalties for darkness are for *being in* darkness. Wandering around in a sphere of Darkness in the noonday sun would be 100% soft cover, but since it is obvious where the boundaries are and the caster is in the center, I would treat it as only half cover, at least for any creature smart enough to shoot for the center. In a dark cave or forest, with the magical darkness blending into natural shadows, I'd increase the effective cover.
Also, I wouldn't allow nightvision or darkvision to let you see inside a darkness if you were outside it in bright light. Magic can exceed common sense limitations, though, so I'd certainly allow researching an improved version at a higher level that did just that.
Rolemaster: When you absolutely, positively need to have a chance of tripping over an imaginary dead turtle.

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2021, 08:04:20 PM »
We were yesterday a bit surprised about the section 15.12 in RMFRP Of Essence, where it is stated that "Magical Darkness is, to all intents and purposes impenetrable without magical light of some kind". No distinction of a normal Darkness spell and Utterdark. The Utterdark spell itself is only mentioning that magical Light must make a RR.
This is how I think it should work. So, the character casting Darkness on themselves are effectively blind. Magically created darkness needs to mean something. In a world full of species that can see excellent at night, what mage would only make a spell capable of affecting the few that can't?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Attacking in Darkness with Darkvision
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2021, 06:03:43 AM »
Thanks for your replies. I think we'll work with the RMU rules for darkness as a basis in our group. But we'll still need to discuss in our group how to prevent the combination of Darkness + Darkvision to get too powerful. Perhaps lowering the usefulness of the Darkvision spell in bright light might be an option (see below).

Penalties for darkness are for *being in* darkness. Wandering around in a sphere of Darkness in the noonday sun would be 100% soft cover, but since it is obvious where the boundaries are and the caster is in the center, I would treat it as only half cover, at least for any creature smart enough to shoot for the center. In a dark cave or forest, with the magical darkness blending into natural shadows, I'd increase the effective cover.
The gist for me is that it might be an option to reduce the penalty for attackers shooting at the person with Darkness around him. This would make this effect a bit less powerful.
Quote
Also, I wouldn't allow nightvision or darkvision to let you see inside a darkness if you were outside it in bright light. Magic can exceed common sense limitations, though, so I'd certainly allow researching an improved version at a higher level that did just that.
Since my intention is to make Darkness + Darkvision less powerful I'd rather not only penalize those outside the Darkness area by not allowing them to look into the Darkness area from a brightly lit area. The question that just comes to my mind is whether it could be a problem also for someone using Darkvision to view outside a darkened area into bright light outside. That would reduce the usefulness of that combination of Darkness + Darkvision IMO, because in brightly lit areas the spell caster using this combination could not attack targets outside the darkness area so well.

We were yesterday a bit surprised about the section 15.12 in RMFRP Of Essence, where it is stated that "Magical Darkness is, to all intents and purposes impenetrable without magical light of some kind". No distinction of a normal Darkness spell and Utterdark. The Utterdark spell itself is only mentioning that magical Light must make a RR.
This is how I think it should work. So, the character casting Darkness on themselves are effectively blind. Magically created darkness needs to mean something. In a world full of species that can see excellent at night, what mage would only make a spell capable of affecting the few that can't?
Our expectation was probably that the normal Darkness spell was indeed significantly weaker than Utterdark. And IMO the ruling from RMU, where the difference between these two spells is more pronounced, is the one that will fit better for our group.