When under moonlit skies the elves will be able too see farther with their low-light vision than their 30 feet of darkvision will give them. The same thing will apply when travelling with humans underground in torch-light (double torch range is 60'). In fact, the only time the darkvision will at all be useful is when you are dungeon crawling without any humans in the party, since that is the only time you won't have any light sources. Frankly, I can't see that happening very often. So, like I said, a redundant ability.
I'm curious as well, as to what made this change "absolutely necessary". I can't for the life of me recall anything in the books or game material that really harped about being able to see without light sources. The Forgotten Realms certainly did, with all of its books on the underdark. I mean, elves were constantly shifting to "infrared vision" in novels involving that setting. Yet FR seemingly wasn't bothered about simply forgetting about elves being able to see in caves. Yet in Dragonlance, in contrast, all I can remember is "elves see better in the dark". I have no recollection whatsoever of anything that would necessitate giving them darkvision.
In Dragonlance, it seems, it makes even less sense. Aren't elves always being described as being claustraphobic? I beleive it was as late as "War of Souls" where it was said that "elves would no more like to live underground than dwarves would like to live in trees". Sure, there are elves such as the Lucanesti (which may or may not exist) who live underground, but why not give this little quirk to them rather than the Kagonesti, Silvanesti, or Qualinesti?
These elven subraces are very rarely away from moon and starlight.
So I'm confused. What prompted this to be an "absolutely necessary" change. I'm just trying to understand the rationale.
-Robert
For instance, look at the flight from Solace in DoAT: Tanis is the only one of the companions to be able to see the goblins pursuing them. Flint was stumbling in the dark like a human.
For me, I've always had it a house rule when I DM'd dragonlance that only elves had infravision/low-light vision.
Go re-read that first chapter of Chronicles, when Tanis and Flint are walking toward Solace... I believe that there's a line that goes something like:
"I did," Tanis said. He kept staring at the place where he'd seen the metal, and gradually his elven sight began to detect the warm red aura cast by all living beings, but visible only to the elves. "Who goes there?" Tanis called. (Chronicles, Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Chapter 1, page 2.)
We had designed Elvensight to basically detect life, but WotC pointed out that "infravision" was not 3rd Edition, so it got swapped with low-light vision/darkvision combo.
Christopher
The fans would have understood that it was an update for 3e, and probably wouldn't have thought about it at all.
Now sleep, I remember the elves sleeping on numerous occassions rather than the "reverie" of 3e which allows the elves to stay awake all night. That's after all, how Laurana stole those magical items from her father's bedchamber in "Dragons of Winter Night". Again, such a change would have been unneccessary, but if there was any change to the stats of the standard elves, I expected that to be it. This "elfsight" thing was a complete surprise to me.
But, it will only be applicable about once out of every hundred adventures. As long as a torch is around their low-light vision is much better. Darkvision doesn't even cancel out darkness spells. I'd be amazed if my elven players even remembered they have it.
If the girl saw my eyes as the are now, hugley dialated and mostly black (from the pupil expanding) to catch even the faintest bit of light, she would scream.
Or something like that. I always thought this as a cool way to describe what was going on with Low-light vision.
I should also note that, I think when we start playing the DLCS my group is going to keep the Darkvision but drop the old description of how it works and give it the "Life Vision" description.
Or, consider it an adaptation that has occured over time, and that current generations, and those henceforth, shall have.
Christopher
I have been house-ruling that the DL Dwarves have the darkvision (as per the 3.0 rules). It is something that the players accept. Even though we play in DL, not everything is 100% as per the novels, although I have also house-ruled that elves and half-elves are not immune to sleep (although they get a bonus to the save), since in the Chronicles there are instances where elves are put to sleep by the spell.
WoTC isn't interested in continuity. They don't care about keeping everything straight. Hell, look at Monte's review of 3.5, and he's one of the original designers of 3.0!
When it comes down to it, WoTC is interested in making money. Why waste extra time when players will adapt one way or another. What makes you think the marketing team and the design team has read every D&D novel from every setting or wants to waste the money on changes that from their view have little effect in the first place.
Forgotten Realms is nonpsionic? Oh, that just invalidates a large point in several of FR's most popular book series.
No more infravision? Now just Night Sight and/or Low-light vision? That's ok, invalidate every single D&D novel ever written that says anything about seeing in the dark.
Gnomes have bards as a favored class? Ok... pull something out of your ass that is directly contradictory with 20-30 years of D&D history.
WoTC made another arbitrary descsion, just as they had with this. Notice that in this new edition, er revision that there are flat out new rules? Not simple clarifications and integration of eratta (like including Master of the Wild's wildshape rules in the PHB), but flat out complete new rules.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is what you get from the makers of Magic:The Collecting. In ten years we've had Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and this years aniversary set. That makes for a new core set every 1.1 years on average.
So, a new D&D core every 3 years?
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
Forgotten Realms is nonpsionic? Oh, that just invalidates a large point in several of FR's most popular book series.
Forgotten Realms has psionics, they just don't make it a major part of their storyline. You can use and integrate psionics in the Forgotten Realms all you want. The reason that it isn't part of the main storyline is that they didn't want to force people to buy the psionics handbook in order to play in the Forgotten Realms. That's pretty nice of WotC and the designers, I would think.
No more infravision? Now just Night Sight and/or Low-light vision? That's ok, invalidate every single D&D novel ever written that says anything about seeing in the dark.
They didn't do that arbitrarily, they did it because it is almost impossible to come up with good rules for using heat vision to see in the dark. Check out this link here
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/infravision.html
Gnomes have bards as a favored class? Ok... pull something out of your ass that is directly contradictory with 20-30 years of D&D history.
Again not an arbitrary decision. Illusionist as a character class was extremely limited in terms of favoured classes. When examining the "merry prankster" personality of the gnome, coupled with their magical ability, bards are a perfect fit.
So, a new D&D core every 3 years?
Every 3-5 but frankly, that's common in RPG's and what I would expect. It has been that way since the beginning of D&D anyway. We had D&D, and then "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" and then "Arcana Unearthed (1e revised)", AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e "Skills and Powers" (2e revised) and then D&D 3e.
I'm looking forward to the revisions. The ranger needed an overhaul, and I'm hard pressed to find a change that I don't like that I've seen in the revised 3e rules. That's why I've already sold my books a month and a half ago to beat the rush. Got 40 bucks back, which will pay for 1/3 of the cost of the new ones. My books were also falling apart and would have had to have been replaced anyway.
We should really try to take what the Wizards give us, namely CORE books with the rules and then design our own games accordingly. It's kinda like getting the rules pamphlet for a game and a blank gaming board and blank gaming pieces.
The 3rd edition books were great. I haven't yet bought the 3.5 books, but one of my players has and I like what they've done to the classes. But there are parts I don't like about 3.5 so I disregard those and go with 3rd.
Here is what we've done with our DL games thus far:
Elves have low light vision as do some other races used to darkened environments. But as the only race on krynn, the elves have "Aura vision" that can be used as a free action and has roughly the same effect as the Detect magic spell, except it works only for living things.
"Aura Vision"
Elves have the ability to attune their sight to the warm glowing aura of all living things. Using Aura vision can be performed as a free action and allows the viewer to see all living things, regardless of light or dark, as if illuminated by a glowing red-orange light.
Aura vision is good for seeing others in otherwise dark places or if concealed by light cover such as bushes, branches and shadows. It cannot be used to see in the dark such as nightvision or lowlight vision and can only be used to see living beings. (Undeads are not living and thus they do not have an aura of life.)
At the same time they lose their immunity to sleep and need rest just as any human. Other than that we go by standard 3rd edition elves.
My questions are:
1) Wouldn't it give a bonus to spot checks to see people hiding?
2) Are Outsiders covered by this ability? Can you see Elementals and Demons for example? Are they considered "alive"?
3) Does this mean you can see through certain illusions? (For example, if an Irda is masquerading as a gnome with change self, or if someone has used hallucinatory terrain to hide a band of robbers)
Originally posted by ferratus
Forgotten Realms has psionics, they just don't make it a major part of their storyline.
As written, psionics are not in Forgotten Realms. Considering that the majority of DM's here enjoy creating their own rules for the players to endure, the vast majority must hope that their DM will allow the use of the "optional" rules in the back of FRCS when in reality, there are no reasons it should not be fully integrated.
Many books integrate things into them that I might not be using in a campaign, but if WoTC is going to publish it, unless it is mutally exclusive, is it too much to ask that players be automatically allowed to use said products unless their is some overwhelmingly alarming issue to prevent it? If you don't have the book, you can't make a pc that uses it. Any printed psionist is going to have the rules displayed with them.
Originally posted by ferratus
it is almost impossible to come up with good rules for using heat vision
Heat vision in the dark - real simple. "In the dark, you can see in the infrared perspective, upto however many feet." You want rationalization on the limitation? I have a friend, because of the design of his eyes, he can't see much farther than 15' at night. I mean, nightime, suburbia, streetlamps and all.
As for the link, I can address that easily:
"infravision would need rules to determine how far out a creature's heat signature extends beyond its body" Nope. No need for it. completely ignore it, unless you're superheated.
Tracking skill by infravision: Those skilled in tracking know how best to track by infravision, and those skilled in evasion of trackers know how best to evade trackers as all types part of their skills/feats.
Spells: Blur - The illusion extends to the infrared level. End of story. Burning Hands - Last I checked, a torch temporarily suspend infravision so this would probably do it too, especially if anything caught on fire. And Ice creatures are inherently colder, so you can see the absence of heat in comparison to it's surrondings. Cone of Cold - heat may be drained, but new heat is continually produced, unless you're dead. Darkness does not keep heat from flowing through the air, it is simply an illusion that extends to infravision as well. Displacement can and does create an illusion that displaces all visual elements of your location, including heat trails. Faerie Fire creates a glow much brighter and greater than a mere heat signature (assuming we're not talking about a huge fire elemental). Gaseous Form presents the same infrared characterestics as it does visiually. Heat Metal would not make an entire person glow, as it is the metal being heated, not the person, which certainly wouldn't blind them. Invisibility does not have to use either rediculous non-suggestion your linked page says. It mearly presents an illusion of utter transparency of the character, including heat signatures. Iron Body Gee, this is rocket science. An iron body is the tempature of Iron. mirror image creats the illusion in all ways, including in the infrared perspecitve. Otiluke's Sphere For God's sake, infravision is just another form of LIGHT! It works with Otiluke's Sphere the same way any other form of light would. statue same answer as Iron Body. Wall of Force if it allows visible light, it allows infravision. Just as enough heat will hurt someone, enough light will too (talk about sunburn...).
All right, enough spells, get my point? Any idiot with a few seconds can work with it, unless they're being seriously anally repressed.
Originally posted by ferratus
Illusionist as a character class was extremely limited in terms of favoured classes. When examining the "merry prankster" personality of the gnome, coupled with their magical ability, bards are a perfect fit.
First, Merry prankster has always been nothing but a line in the PHB. It has never been illustrated or protrayed in ANY D&D source, other than that line in the PHB. Additionally, if illusionist is being gimped, then give them Wizard or Sorcerer (though Sorcerer and Bard are more of an elf flavor than gnome... after all, who'se more likely to be singing and frolicking). Hell, are there any core races that have Sorcerer as a base class? Nope? Gnomes would have made decent sorcerers, as they already start with racial spells.
Originally posted by ferratus.
a new D&D core every 3-5 [years is] common in RPG's and what I would expect.
3-5 years is a typical RPG revision cycle? What are you smoking?
*1973: Dungeons & Dragons first appeared at EasterCon.
*1977-79: Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide (in that order).
*1985: Unearthed Arcana
*1989:AD&D, 2nd edition was born in February 1989-Dungeon Master Guide, '89; 2100, Player's Handbook, '89; 2101
*1993: Monstrous Manual
*1995: The Player's and DM's Option books (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, High-Level Campaigns) were published, though largly ignored by most people (and published adventures/accessories)
*1996: Player's Option: Spells & Magic, also mostly ignored, to my dismay. If memory serves, only one published adventure, and zero accessories included the possibility that you might use this.
*2000: 3e PHB, DMG, and MM are published. I purchase each for $19.99 - 10% book club discount + 7% tax
*2003: 3.5e PHB, DMG, and MM are published. I return each 3.0 book to bookstore, to find, to my surprise, the register shows each book as costing $29.99, so I get a refund of $29.99x3+8% sales tax - and procede to buy new books off of bookstores website for 33% off cover price with free shipping, namely, $60.
Let's do the math - '73-'77 gives us a run of 4 years for a band new entire first edition of an entire genre (D&D). '77-'85 for a new edition (AD&D) and it's first optional revision (called Unearthed Arcana)= 12 years. '77-'89 was the lifespan of AD&D, that's.... 16 years. '89-95 of AD&D 2nd ed before the first revision which was given as optional= 6 years. '89-2000 for change from AD&D 2nd to 3e... that's... omg! 11 years!
Let's not even touch the other RPG's, many of which have never had a new revision (Amber DRPG will never need one, it's so damn good), or others like Shadowrun, Gurps, Rifts, etc.
Time to go back to Math School ferratus.
Anywho, there are some cool things about the revision, but the revision shouldn't require that you shell out the entire cost of the OS, er Game system every three years ;). This isn't Mircrosoft for God's sake - This is an update not a new edition, but the way they're doing it, you have to buy all new books and only some of the things are backwards compatable (need a new MM, for example) - this isn't the change from Windows 95 to 95 OSR 2.5, this is Windows 95 to Windows XP - it still looks mostly the same, but the engine and core components are vastly different, and have no place being in an "update." The majority of these changes belong in a new edition.
-Robert
I have been playing since the early 80s and you think all of that stuff you stated about reintroducing infravision is easier than just letting the elves have low-light vision and 30' of darkvision?
3.0 and higher is supposed to make the game run smoother/easier/quicker and I don't think all of that stuff does.
Does the fact that the elves not having infravision stay true to the novels? No, but the funny thing about people is they adapt. So the novels use infravision and the game uses low-light/dark vision.....not a big deal to me.
I really don't want to see things become more complicated than they need to....
Originally posted by Robert N.
Heat vision in the dark - real simple. "In the dark, you can see in the infrared perspective, upto however many feet."
There are too many "heat vision" situations to handle efficiently. Can you hide from heat vision? Can you hide behind objects effectively? If so, can I hide behind a table or a transparent curtain? If not, then "heat vision" has become a necessity for any guards/spotters. Does your heat vision see the halfling behind that ogre? What if the halfling's behind an undead ogre? What if an undead halfling's behind the normal ogre? If I use heat vision and a mage casts fireball, how long am I blinded? How does "room temperature" figure into this?
These aren't hard questions to answer, but add in the spell revisions and you have spent way too much time on heat vision. It simply wasn't worth it to the designers.
Gnomes would have made decent sorcerers, as they already start with racial spells.
I agree.
3-5 years is a typical RPG revision cycle? What are you smoking?
He's pretty much correct, Robert. Some companies go longer, and a minority of RPGs haven't been revised, but 5 years is an appropriate benchmark.
Let's not even touch the other RPG's, many of which have never had a new revision (Amber DRPG will never need one, it's so damn good), or others like Shadowrun, Gurps, Rifts, etc.
Let's not touch any RPG outside of D&D? That's hardly fair...
Ars Magica: 4th edition.
Battletech: 4th edition.
Cyberpunk: 2nd edition.
GURPS: 3rd edition.
Heroes Unlimited: 2nd edition.
Palladium FRPG: 2nd edition.
Shadowrun: 3rd edition.
Star Wars:2nd edition (after WOTC bought the rights).
Time to go back to Math School ferratus.
Apparently you forgot your math as well.
Originally posted by Robert N.
Many books integrate things into them that I might not be using in a campaign, but if WoTC is going to publish it, unless it is mutally exclusive, is it too much to ask that players be automatically allowed to use said products unless their is some overwhelmingly alarming issue to prevent it?
Check your FRCS again. It says specifically under the subheading "Psionics" that they do exist on Faerun. They also say that you are more than welcome to use psionics in your campaign. Heck, there is psionic Forgotten Realms stuff on the WotC website.
However, since money is tight, and stats published with villains are going to raise questions to the unitiated that only the Psionics Handbook can solve (such as what does this psionic power called "Time Hop" or "Thrall" actually do?). It would be like playing the Forgotten Realms without access to the wizard spells in the PHB. Since the "Psionics" handbook isn't a core book (3 essential books costing $19.00-$29.00 is expensive enough) WotC is not forcing you to buy it to play in the Forgotten Realms. It think that was very sensible of them.
Heat vision in the dark - real simple. "In the dark, you can see in the infrared perspective, upto however many feet."
You can see in the dark for 60'. Great, that's Darkvision. However, that's not infrared vision. The reason for the change from a vision based on physical reality to a magical form of vision that doesn't use light was simply to cut all of the in-game arguing with the DM about what you should be able to see. I mean, I can get into an argument and pester you for months in this thread about what I should be able to see in any given scenerio. Darkvision is simple. You see a black and white image up to 60 feet away. Low-light vision: You see twice as far as you normally could under moonlight and torchlight. You don't even have to spend 500 words to address all the spells, or the questions. I'm done.
First, Merry prankster has always been nothing but a line in the PHB. It has never been illustrated or protrayed in ANY D&D source, other than that line in the PHB.
The Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings. The 3e Dragon Magazine article about gnomes last year. Mongoose Publishing's the Quintessential Gnome. On, and on, and on. I even have a product called "City Sites" in which a Spelljamming Tinker Gnome is married to a regular Rock Gnome. They frequently got into fights because of the husband's continual pranking!
Additionally, if illusionist is being gimped, then give them Wizard or Sorcerer (though Sorcerer and Bard are more of an elf flavor than gnome... after all, who'se more likely to be singing and frolicking). Hell, are there any core races that have Sorcerer as a base class? Nope? Gnomes would have made decent sorcerers, as they already start with racial spells.
We already have elves as the big spellcasters with the wizard favoured class. As well, given that dragon blood is the default explanation for sorcerous abilities, I think that would have taken the gnomes into an even more extreme direction than turning them into bards.
'Sides... I like gnomish bards. They have style. I mean, did you see the picture. The old half-elf bard Devis was boring as sin.
Let's do the math - '73-'77 gives us a run of 4 years for a band new entire first edition of an entire genre (D&D). '77-'85 for a new edition (AD&D) and it's first optional revision (called Unearthed Arcana)= 12 years. '77-'89 was the lifespan of AD&D, that's.... 16 years. '89-95 of AD&D 2nd ed before the first revision which was given as optional= 6 years. '89-2000 for change from AD&D 2nd to 3e... that's... omg! 11 years!
Yep, and it will be about 6-9 years between 3rd edition and 4th edition. Presuming 6 years (which I doubt... I predict 9 years myself), that's $10-15 a year for at least 50 hours of entertainment, with the posibility of hundreds of hours if you are a dedicated designer of adventures or play a lot more than an hour a week. It is pretty much the cheapest form of entertainment out there, especially since it is a game you don't gamble any money on.
If you want to buy 3.5, you still spent only $20 a year on your hobby. Well, unless you bought all those splat books like Sword and Fist etc.
However, that's your own fault for spending unwisely. Even given 12 years you'll never be able to play all the optional rules given to you in those. Never buy any more of those than absolutely necessary. So don't buy Manual of the Planes unless you want to adventure in the Planes. Never buy Dieties and Demigods unless you want them up close and personal, and are using traditional earth pantheons.
Never buy splat "player's books" such as Sword and Fist, because you'll never use more than one or two feats, items, or prestige classes. Heck, Dragon Magazine will give you the same stuff, for much cheaper. (Though I don't buy that either).
For new material, turn to Dungeon Magazine. The adventures (and the maps) will always be useful. As well, you can't go wrong with products like the "Living Greyhawk Gazeteer", FRCS, and DLCS. World information books are mostly non-rules content, and survive the rise and fall of editions.
Let's not even touch the other RPG's, many of which have never had a new revision (Amber DRPG will never need one, it's so damn good), or others like Shadowrun, Gurps, Rifts, etc.
Heh, isn't Vampire the Masquerade up to 8th edition or something? Eidilon covered the rest. (gratias).
Time to go back to Math School ferratus.
I've never been to math school. ;) I'm currently taking a breather from the Classics, Medieval and Rennaissance program in the college of Arts and Science.
Is this your original version of Elfsight, or did Wizards changed the mechanics drastically in editing?
Is this your original version of Elfsight, or did Wizards changed the mechanics drastically in editing?
I'm tired of Wizards editing items out of the book. It seems like they have no idea what a Dragonlance campaign is about. The nerve of taking things like hoopaks out. I'm afraid we are going to hear that draconians were edited out as well.
In addition, anyone can pester you about anything. Changing infravision to darkvision, or even a dark/low-light vision isn't going to stop someone who wants to pest you from pestering you.
-Robert
I thought this "Elfsight" is a combination low-light vision and limited darkvision, which in mechanical effect similar to infravision of the previous edition? If that is the case, why are you ****** off?
Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I'm just asking.
We created it from reading the chronicles and decided that it should be a supplement for low-light vision. It doesn't say that elves are the only ones who can see in the dark, it just states they see WELL in the dark. But the aura thing is only an elf trait. So here we go:
Aura Vision (Elfsight)
Elves are the only race in Krynn who has the natural ability to see the aura of every living thing. They see this aura as a bright orange-red glow illuminating the living. It is useful for detecting enemies or prey hiding in the dark, behind light cover or through invisibility.
Game Mechanics
- Aura Vision grants a +10 circumstance bonus to Spot skill checks versus living hiding in shadows, bushes, light foliage or other cover that does not block the target from view, but merely obscures it. (Aura Vision can not detect living hiding behind a wall, as the aura does not penetrate objects. The Aura works kind of as if the living was glowing in the dark.)
- All creatures that do not have the undead subtype are considered living. (Note, some monsters such as outsiders may have different auras or no auras. DM choice.)
- Aura Vision can be used to see any invisible or blured creatures (if they have an aura) on a succesful spot skill check (DC 15) as the viewer must be aware of the invisible presence. (If you don't think someone is lurking, you wouldn't run around focusing on "detecting living" by straining your eyes.)
- Aura Vision is an extraordinary ability and can be used as a free action and lasts one round. When using Aura Vision you are caught flat footed as you devote your concentration to detecting any auras, and thus loose your DEX to AC. Using Aura Vision does NOT provoke an AoO.
- Aura Vision only detects the aura of a living being, it cannot be used to detect what type of creature, amount of HPs, Equipment or other. (Although size often gives you a hint.)
- Aura vision only detects auras, and thus it cannot be used to see in the dark or otherwise see non-living objects when normal eyesight cannot. (If in a dark room you would still see only darkness, but any living beings would glow orange-red. If in a dark room with undeads, you're pretty much doomed as you can't see the room or the undeads.)
Did I miss something?
Originally posted by Archaeon
Aura Vision is an extraordinary ability and can be used as a free action and lasts one round. When using Aura Vision you are caught flat footed as you devote your concentration to detecting any auras, and thus loose your DEX to AC. Using Aura Vision does NOT provoke an AoO.
First of all, a pet peeve - it's "lose", not "loose". To loose something is to let it go or release it. Something that you lose becomes lost. In almost every case, if you have to pick one or the other, you probably want "lose". You would not believe how often this error shows up these days.
Secondly, it almost sounds like you want a variant of blindsight that only affects living things. I'd add constructs to the list of things that aren't living, since a golem's not alive.
Also, does this living aura include the equipment, clothing, and weapons of the creature? If I have aura vision and look at an ogre in the dark who's carrying a 10 foot long spear and about to poke me with it, will I see the ogre and the spear, or just the ogre? Do I see a naked ogre? If the ogre's wearing plate armor, does his aura extend from within?
Cheers,
Cam
Elves are the only race in Krynn who has the natural ability to see the aura of every living thing.
Do all elves (i.e. Dargonesti too) have this? What about half-elves?
- Aura Vision grants a +10 circumstance bonus to Spot skill checks versus living hiding in shadows, bushes, light foliage or other cover that does not block the target from view, but merely obscures it. (Aura Vision can not detect living hiding behind a wall, as the aura does not penetrate objects. The Aura works kind of as if the living was glowing in the dark.)
If I make my Hide check in a forest, how do you determine if I'm hiding behind a bush or tree? Likewise, what degree of cover blocks Aura Vision? Also, as Cam stated, if Aura Vision doesn't penetrate objects then someone will ask about equipment.
- All creatures that do not have the undead subtype are considered living. (Note, some monsters such as outsiders may have different auras or no auras. DM choice.)
I'd also exclude constructs and plants - unless elves see one giant blob when they're out of doors.
- Aura Vision can be used to see any invisible or blured creatures (if they have an aura) on a succesful spot skill check (DC 15) as the viewer must be aware of the invisible presence. (If you don't think someone is lurking, you wouldn't run around focusing on "detecting living" by straining your eyes.)
Just some math - an invisible creature probably isn't hiding behind anything, so the +10 competence bonus applies. Coupled with the elves' racial bonus, this means that the average elf can see invisible/blurred creatures on a roll of 3 on 1d20.
- Aura Vision is an extraordinary ability and can be used as a free action and lasts one round. When using Aura Vision you are caught flat footed as you devote your concentration to detecting any auras, and thus loose your DEX to AC. Using Aura Vision does NOT provoke an AoO.
I just want to clarify - a free action means that the elf can still move, attack, etc., and can also activate Aura Vision every single round, granting him a new Spot check as well. Most elven rogues are unaffected by the penalties, as they never lose their Dex modifier when flat-footed.
- Aura Vision only detects the aura of a living being, it cannot be used to detect what type of creature, amount of HPs, Equipment or other. (Although size often gives you a hint.)
Aura Vision is rather powerful already - I agree that it shouldn't do any of these.
- Aura vision only detects auras, and thus it cannot be used to see in the dark or otherwise see non-living objects when normal eyesight cannot. (If in a dark room you would still see only darkness, but any living beings would glow orange-red. If in a dark room with undeads, you're pretty much doomed as you can't see the room or the undeads.)
OK, but the parenthesis specifically lets an elf use Aura Vision to see creatures even in absolute (or magical) darkness.
Of course, you might be fine with AV as it is. In that case, you should know that it's a fairly powerful ability and probably worth a +1 level adjustment. If you're looking for suggestions, hopefully we help you out.
Some brief suggestions:
1. I believe Aura Vision would be a Supernatural ability. It's racial, but it's more than merely "natural".
2. Aura vision probably shouldn't let you see creatures with 100% concealment (i.e. darkness, intense fog, invisible, etc).
3. Change the circumstance bonus to Spot checks, maybe something like "+4 to notice hiding creatures that do not have AV".
4. You might want to clarify the "concentration" bit in a different way - maybe the elf is reduced to a single move-equivalent or standard action while it's being used, or maybe opponents gain a +2 circumstance bonus to hit the elf since he's distracted.
It's a decent write-up, Archaeon. I look forward to seeing what you do (or have done) with it!
---------------------------------------
Concerning the detecting hiding, I based this on the qoute above from page 2 of the first chronicles book. Where Tas is hiding and scaring flint with a ghostly voice. Tanis focuses (ie elves don't see aura vision all the time, it is something they have to concentrate on) and sees tas' aura among the bushes, thus knowing it isn't a ghost. Tanis does Identify Tas, but I choose to atribute this to other things such as voice etc. rather than actively using the aura to identify Tas (see images above).
Dealing with what cover counts, we play with a losely termed game rather than a fixed miniatureish game. If a character is "hiding" behind a large tree, then you probably can't see their aura as you can't see them. (and the aura extends beyond your equipment, see images above).
If a characetr is simply "hiding" in the forest, you will assume they are covering behind bushes, high grass, light or medium foliage, or any other growth that will camouflage them, thus they can be spotted by aura vision as the bright glow is visible through the foliage. Basically think bright orange vest on hunters. They wear these so another hunter won't accidentally shot them because they stand out in the foresty environment. (I hope you follow me on this).
Yeah, maybe the +10 to spot is a bit high, but if a person is in line of sight, it takes nothing to spot them with aura vision. We don't even roll for the spot check cuz if you use aura vision and the target is within line of sight, you can see them.
So here is a list of examples where you can and can't see someone with aura vision:
You can see:
- A rouge hiding in the shadows/darkness ready to jump out at you.
You can't see:
- A rouge hiding around the corner, ready to jump out at you.
You can see:
- The goblins hiding in the bushes and trees waiting to ambush you.
You can't see:
- The goblins hiding behind the trees. (Requires that the goblins are actively using the trees as cover, rather than just "hiding in the forest")
The +4 Spot check applies for any creatures hiding behind light or medium cover. Creatures hiding behind no cover (ie shadows/darkness/invisible) can be seen with no skill check, and creatures hiding behind solid cover (only if fully concealed) cannot be seen. That way you can both use the "hide actively behind tree for solid cover" and the "I hide in the forest, and you get a +4 Spot skill check".
Yes, constructs don't have an aura either ( I knew I forgot something important.).
1. I believe Aura Vision would be a Supernatural ability. It's racial, but it's more than merely "natural".
2. Aura vision probably shouldn't let you see creatures with 100% concealment (i.e. darkness, intense fog, invisible, etc).
3. Change the circumstance bonus to Spot checks, maybe something like "+4 to notice hiding creatures that do not have AV".
4. You might want to clarify the "concentration" bit in a different way - maybe the elf is reduced to a single move-equivalent or standard action while it's being used, or maybe opponents gain a +2 circumstance bonus to hit the elf since he's distracted.
1: Yep. I wanted that too, but we argued a bit back and forth, and went for natural, but let's change it back to Supernatural.
2: Actually it does. You may hide but the 50.000 watt glowing light around you cannot be hidden unless by magical means. We had a mage cast invisibility and Nystyl's undetectable aura on himself and presto! Aura vision rendered useless. And using the rules I stated in the last post, the dense fog would count as medium cover and require the AV user to make a +4 Spot skill check. I forgot to mention DC for those checks above, but I would go with either 15 or 20, but it is really up to the DM to decide.
3: Agree, and I changed it in my last post.
4: OKay, here comes a new rules bit: Aura Vision is used as a free action on a successful Concentration check (DC 15). Each turn a new Concentration ceck must be made (DC like spellcasters). When using AV you are caught flat-footed and reduced to a single move-equivalent or standard action while it's being used.
originally posted by Archaeon
Right then, here is the complete write up of our DL Elven "Aura Vision".
Was this complete write up from a house rule? Or is this something that was edited from the DLCS by WotC?
I have only glanced over it at this point, but it does look very interesting. From what I read so far, it does look powerful. I will have to take the time to read all of the posts to have a better idea.
The +4 spot bonus is about right (+3 would make it equal to Skill Focus (spot) ), but it should only apply in indoor or underground settings. After all, trees and foliage are alive right? The fuzzy aura displayed by the trees should obscure the aura of the creature hiding among them. Tanis just saw Tas because Tas failed his hide check by attempting to move, which Tanis' aura vision picked up. ;) Otherwise, you have to include plant subtype creatures in amongst the undead and the constructs, which doesn't make much sense.
Secondly, you haven't addressed illusions quite enough. You mentioned blur and invisibility, but not other illusions spells. The way I would work it is to simply make illusion spells take aura vision into account (elves after all, are numerous in the conclave).
The one side effect of "aura" vision is that it makes the elves natural enemies of the undead. Vampires would be screwed if they entered an elven village. To enhance this, you may want to mention that illusion spells do not fool aura vision when used to disguise undead or constructs, unless the spell is specifically designed for that purpose. So an elf wouldn't be fooled with a "change self" spell put on a zombie, but he would be fooled by a "feign life" spell.
As for the illusion spells; Regardless what type of illusion you use to alter your physical appearance it will never change your aura. Yes, I would agree that a feign life spell would fool AV just like Nystul's magical Aura fools detect magic.
The only thing that can obscure your aura is spells that effectively remove you from the prime plane (like Ethereal Jaunt).
A polymorph spell changes your physical body, so your aura would follow the outline of your new body. So a druid changing into a rhino would appear as a rhino both to the normal eye and to AV.
For each of those RPGs listed earlier, their lifecycle was at least 1.6x longer (that's for the shortest one) than 3e to 3.5.
P.S. Vampire is at Revised (i.e. 3rd).
ArsMagica is at 4th (and has been there since like '96 or so)
And I'm too damn lazy to look up the rest again, but anyone who wants can feel free to look 'em up (*waits for the idiot who manages to find just one book that had a shorter lifecycle*).
Amber DRPG was designed so damn good, they didn't need any revision, just expansions to make it bigger and better.
As for making things less complicated - change for the sake of change, be it between 2e and 3e or 3e and 3.5 is more complicated. Infravision was just a nifty thing, sorta like Predator, not some cheezeball gimp toy for idiots to argue that it lets you do anything more than darkvision. It's just that infravision is something we've all seen and looks cooler. No one but a retard is going to moan and groan about the horable abuses inherent in the system - because a good player wants to have fun with the rest of us, not **** and moan.
Have fun, everyone
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
Amber DRPG was designed so damn good, they didn't need any revision, just expansions to make it bigger and better.
Not quite. One expansion, which added powers many people thought were ridiculous, and nothing since then since Phage Press doesn't seem as if it wants to pursue anything with its license but make T-shirts to sell at GenCon.
Not that I have a problem with their T-shirts. But anybody who thinks the Amber DRPG is perfect hasn't been part of the Amber gaming community for very long.
Cheers,
Cam, ex-Jurt & ex-Martin at AmberMUSH
I've been part of my local (read: I dm) Amber community ;)
I have to say, I like it. Sure, some things are unbalanced, and the fun part is - the rules are so sweet, you can still have fun with it!
-Robert