My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near 
absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use 
Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell 
would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target 
when everything around you is dark.

What is the general ruling on this? Could we have a clarification for the 
rulebook?

What about Coruscade? Does it work in bright sunlight? Do the shifting 
patterns of light make a character conspicuous in the dark?

What about shadowform in the daylight?

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Jacqui Smith wrote:

> My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near
> absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use
> Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell
> would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target
> when everything around you is dark.

I'd say this is GM's call, but my call would be that their defense is max
(50, (defense from spell + defense due to poor visibility)), as 50 is the
defense you get for being impossible to see (total darkness or invis.) If
the goblins can negate the darkness problem (do they have infravision?) then
I'd still give them the shadowform defense. I think the magic gets to
interfere with whatever targetting sense the opponents are using.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Shadow form still has a defensive benefit even if they're trying to strangle
you (in close).  Its defence is not purely from some wispy shadows that make
you harder to see, it is magical defence that has a visible effect of wispy
shadows.
So how much of its defence is from being hard to see and how much from other
obfuscation?  Based on how it works in close I'd say 50/50.
So if vision is not being used to target them then halving the benefit of
Shadowform is reasonable.

In your specific case:
 If the goblins can see in the dark then the shadowform works normally.
 If they can't see in the dark but have some other means of targetting which
is as effective then half shadowform benefit.
 If they can't see them but are trying to fight anyway (effectively against
an invisible opponent) then 50% attack penalty for darkness/invis and half
shadowform defence.

That's my humble opinion anyway, though anyone who disagrees is obviosly
wrong ;)

Cheers, Stephen.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 2:36 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near 
absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use 
Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell 
would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target 
when everything around you is dark.

What is the general ruling on this? Could we have a clarification for the 
rulebook?

What about Coruscade? Does it work in bright sunlight? Do the shifting 
patterns of light make a character conspicuous in the dark?

What about shadowform in the daylight?

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I thought the spell covered it, but it doesn't. It does say "Any attack made
without using the sense of sight (either normal, or for that particular
attack) will not be affected by this spell." Thus, invisibility / blindness
/ pitch dark (-50) doesn't stack with it.

The rule that I use is that you get the better of the shadowform or the
penalty to hit from the lighting conditions (given your vision). If the
goblins can see in the dark, shadowform would work. If the gobbos can't see
well enough, they get hit with the general vision penalties.

If you were getting penalties to hit from glare (maybe at midday in a
salt-desert, or glare off snow?), these would not stack with Coruscade for
the same reasons.



Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 2:36 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near 
absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use 
Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell 
would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target 
when everything around you is dark.

What is the general ruling on this? Could we have a clarification for the 
rulebook?

What about Coruscade? Does it work in bright sunlight? Do the shifting 
patterns of light make a character conspicuous in the dark?

What about shadowform in the daylight?

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001095AECC256B0B_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This was discussed a few years ago and the ruling I remember is that 
shadow form doesn't work in pitch darkness and coruscade doesn't work in 
blinding sunlight.  Of course what constitutes pitch dark and blinding 
light was left to GM's common sense.
In practice on many occasions I have seen GM's adjust these spells when 
the lighting conditions were strongly on the same side of lit or shadowed.

Both these defence spells are obvious in the opposite lighting conditions. 
 Don't try mixing invisibility and shadow form on a bright day : - )

Rosemary

 




Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz
22/11/2001 03:36
Please respond to dq

 
        To:     dq@dq.sf.org.nz
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near 
absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use 
Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell 
would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target 
when everything around you is dark.

What is the general ruling on this? Could we have a clarification for the 
rulebook?

What about Coruscade? Does it work in bright sunlight? Do the shifting 
patterns of light make a character conspicuous in the dark?

What about shadowform in the daylight?

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --



--=_alternative 001095AECC256B0B_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This was discussed a few years ago and the ruling I remember is that shadow form doesn't work in pitch darkness and coruscade doesn't work in blinding sunlight. &nbsp;Of course what constitutes pitch dark and blinding light was left to GM's common sense.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In practice on many occasions I have seen GM's adjust these spells when the lighting conditions were strongly on the same side of lit or shadowed.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Both these defence spells are obvious in the opposite lighting conditions. &nbsp;Don't try mixing invisibility and shadow form on a bright day : - )</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Jacqui Smith &lt;flamis@ihug.co.nz&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">22/11/2001 03:36</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to dq</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;[dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">My low-ish party were wandering around a dungeon full of goblins in near <br>
absolute darkness, using witchsight to see with. They wanted to use <br>
Shadowform for defence, but I ruled that under those conditions the spell <br>
would be ineffective - shifting shadows won't make you harder to target <br>
when everything around you is dark.<br>
<br>
What is the general ruling on this? Could we have a clarification for the <br>
rulebook?<br>
<br>
What about Coruscade? Does it work in bright sunlight? Do the shifting <br>
patterns of light make a character conspicuous in the dark?<br>
<br>
What about shadowform in the daylight?<br>
<br>
Jacqui<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 001095AECC256B0B_=--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

While I am obviously wrong, I still think the spell says "Any attack made
without using the sense of sight (either normal, or for that particular
attack) will not be affected by this spell."

Perhaps its because I fight with my eyes open in close.

Humbly

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 3:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


Shadow form still has a defensive benefit even if they're trying to strangle
you (in close).  Its defence is not purely from some wispy shadows that make
you harder to see, it is magical defence that has a visible effect of wispy
shadows.
So how much of its defence is from being hard to see and how much from other
obfuscation?  Based on how it works in close I'd say 50/50.
So if vision is not being used to target them then halving the benefit of
Shadowform is reasonable.

In your specific case:
 If they can't see in the dark but have some other means of targetting which
is as effective then half shadowform benefit.
 If they can't see them but are trying to fight anyway (effectively against
an invisible opponent) then 50% attack penalty for darkness/invis and half
shadowform defence.

That's my humble opinion anyway, though anyone who disagrees is obviously
wrong ;)

Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Interesting variety of responses...
Well...Actually, most people seem to think that it doesn't stack with light or 
darkness mods...Except for Stephen, who has humbly pointed out that we're all 
wrong...

I suppose he's right, in a way...We have rushed in to say how it ought to be 
implemented, rather than addressed what would be best for the game...I don't 
recall any direct change being made to ShadowForm, except for the one years ago 
which halved its value in close...I think the idea that it didn't stack with 
darkness mods was a decision generally accepted, but whether or not it was 
actually written down anywhere is a mystery, and the only simple way to find 
out exactly what happened involves using a glass and a Ouija board.

Perhaps it is time to address what people think the spell should do, and how. 
Perhaps defense is not appropriate for this spell...Although, I'd be profoundly 
surprised if it wasn't.

Consider that both Dark AND Shadow Celestials get ShadowForm. We might 
reasonably believe that the spell might behave differently.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

mutter mutter, teach me not to read the rules before my fingers start
typing...

Who put that in there anyway????  Time to change the rules to make my
opinion right!

The rule is broken because it's not intuitive - oops can't say that we'd
have to change most of the rules then...
The rule is broken because it contradicts my opinion of the day and... it
makes Mind mages and Binders tougher!  (that should get the votes).


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 4:09 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


While I am obviously wrong, I still think the spell says "Any attack made
without using the sense of sight (either normal, or for that particular
attack) will not be affected by this spell."

Perhaps its because I fight with my eyes open in close.

Humbly

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 3:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


Shadow form still has a defensive benefit even if they're trying to strangle
you (in close).  Its defence is not purely from some wispy shadows that make
you harder to see, it is magical defence that has a visible effect of wispy
shadows.
So how much of its defence is from being hard to see and how much from other
obfuscation?  Based on how it works in close I'd say 50/50.
So if vision is not being used to target them then halving the benefit of
Shadowform is reasonable.

In your specific case:
 If they can't see in the dark but have some other means of targetting which
is as effective then half shadowform benefit.
 If they can't see them but are trying to fight anyway (effectively against
an invisible opponent) then 50% attack penalty for darkness/invis and half
shadowform defence.

That's my humble opinion anyway, though anyone who disagrees is obviously
wrong ;)

Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
> 
> Shadow form still has a defensive benefit even if they're 
> trying to strangle
> you (in close).
> So how much of its defence is from being hard to see and how 
> much from other
> obfuscation?  Based on how it works in close I'd say 50/50.

Even in close, surely you are normally watching to see what where someone's
arm/head is as you try to whack them. I've always assumed that this is why
it is 1+1 in close, not 2+2 for melee - the confusing shadows make it harder
to tell what defensive moves they are making, while in melee you aren't even
sure exactly where in the area they are.

> 
.
> 
> That's my humble opinion anyway, though anyone who disagrees 
> is obviosly
> wrong ;)
> 

IMNSHO anyway <g>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Oooh ooh I know!

Shadowform decreases your chance of random encounters by 5% per rank and
gives you a 5% per rank bonus to reaction rolls with Dark Aligned and a
penalty penalty to reaction rolls with light aligned.
Coruscade does the opposite and has a Rank% chance of blinding entities in
adjacent hexes.

-----Original Message-----
From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 4:17 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions

Consider that both Dark AND Shadow Celestials get ShadowForm. We might 
reasonably believe that the spell might behave differently.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Hey no fair! Why do those poncy light type get the extra blinding attack!
I'm calling the Darky Union!

BIG <G>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 16:28
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions
> 
> 
> Oooh ooh I know!
> 
> Shadowform decreases your chance of random encounters by 5% 
> per rank and
> gives you a 5% per rank bonus to reaction rolls with Dark 
> Aligned and a
> penalty penalty to reaction rolls with light aligned.
> Coruscade does the opposite and has a Rank% chance of 
> blinding entities in
> adjacent hexes.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 4:17 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions
> 
> Consider that both Dark AND Shadow Celestials get ShadowForm. 
> We might 
> reasonably believe that the spell might behave differently.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

No, thats silly - you should take into account the target's Dark/Light
alignment as well. Hobbits, Orcs, etc. should not be liked by humans just
'cos the sun shines out of their ... skin. 

BTW, does Coruscade _increase_ your chance of encounters - I could see
parties being keen on that - "lets have a coruscade and go kill some ghouls
in that field".


Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 4:28 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions


Oooh ooh I know!

Shadowform decreases your chance of random encounters by 5% per rank and
gives you a 5% per rank bonus to reaction rolls with Dark Aligned and a
similar penalty to reaction rolls with light aligned.
Coruscade does the opposite and has a Rank% chance of blinding entities in
adjacent hexes.

-----Original Message-----
From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 4:17 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Celestial defence spells and lighting conditions

Consider that both Dark AND Shadow Celestials get ShadowForm. We might 
reasonably believe that the spell might behave differently.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> ...the only simple way to find out exactly what happened involves using a glass
> and a Ouija board.

Ouija board?!  Who died?  Or is the plan to use the glass (presumably full of some
pleasant spirit) to loosen the tongues of aged GMs and the ouija board is there as
a) a suitable visual pun and b) a threat.  (If you don't tell us, well.... "Ask
Dead" it'll have to be).  :)

> Perhaps defense is not appropriate for this spell...

Stealth Mod?  :)

Regards,
Martin

PS: With reagrds to the original question... I don't ever recall it coming up...
when was the last time you dealt with a party who couldn't see in the dark?

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

> BTW, does Coruscade _increase_ your chance of encounters - I could see
> parties being keen on that - "lets have a coruscade and go kill some ghouls
> in that field".

I'm not certain that Ghouls can be found in fields, although I seem to recall
that Skeletons can.... at least according to the DQ random encounters table.

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --