What is going on with a rogue in the middle of a fireball who evades damage?

[ShurikVch]

Darkvision doesn't grant you a "moving spot" - it grants you perfect visual acuity, except for color.

"Except for color" is kinda a big clue here: colors are differ from each other only by the wavelenghs

[Pleh]

I would imagine, rogues being known for quick thinking and improvisation, it depends on the situation at hand. In a cave? The floor's probably uneven, as has already been said; throw yourself into a crack and cover exposed skin. Or duck behind a stalactite stalagmite slowly growing calcite formation.
In the middle of a field? They jump very high. In a bar? They flip over a table and duck behind it.

Except that Evasion, by RAW, has to work in every situation that does not render the Rogue helpless. A Rogue in a 5ft cage or caught in a Grapple (even if they are pinned) that is hit with fireball can still use Evasion. Even if they cannot move and are held immobile, they can use Evasion. Just so long as they are not completely helpless.

I'm sorry, but Skeletons have no business to shamble around a moonless tundra: Skeletons (unlike, say, Zombies) aren't animating spontaneously - they always created by some master.
Lacking any orders, they would just stay in the place.
And any master without Int or Wis penalty wouldn't send a Skeleton on it's own to tundra at moonless night: Skeleton, lacking any ranks in Survival, will be inevitably lost

Not only irrelevant, but spotty on the truth scale. Necromancy can vary from table to table and naturally occurring skeletons can exist without houseruling. They can be wandering monsters too, since undead are sometimes described as unrestful souls that defend their own Graves from intruders.

In such a case, it matters little if the skeleton has any understanding of where it is or why and the negative energy animating it drives it to seek out life and crush it.

But let's consider exclusively skeletons animated by casters. The necromancer may have an Arctic lair and commanded a Skeleton to guard or patrol this particular snowy meadow which is considered part of the necromamcer's territory.

[Bohandas]

Hey, who said anything about "all sources of EM radiation"?
How about the IR and UV?

Wrong edition

[Karl Aegis]

They cheat. Half the sides of their d6s are zeros and they have a different set for rolling sneak attack damage.

[ShurikVch]

Not only irrelevant, but spotty on the truth scale. Necromancy can vary from table to table and naturally occurring skeletons can exist without houseruling.

How?

They can be wandering monsters too, since undead are sometimes described as unrestful souls that defend their own Graves from intruders.

"Undead" is a very very broad category - easily on par with "Aberration" (or even "Outsider"!); speaking of "Undead" behavior in general is incorrect at best

In such a case, it matters little if the skeleton has any understanding of where it is or why and the negative energy animating it drives it to seek out life and crush it.

Let's look at actual source:

Skeletons are animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters.
...
A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions on it's own snd take no initiative. Because of this limitations, its instructions must always be simple, such as "Kill anyone who inter this chamber."

But let's consider exclusively skeletons animated by casters. The necromancer may have an Arctic lair and commanded a Skeleton to guard or patrol this particular snowy meadow which is considered part of the necromamcer's territory.

Darkvision is only 60'
Please, check range increments of bows/crossbows

[lesser_minion]

Except that Evasion, by RAW, has to work in every situation that does not render the Rogue helpless. A Rogue in a 5ft cage or caught in a Grapple (even if they are pinned) that is hit with fireball can still use Evasion. Even if they cannot move and are held immobile, they can use Evasion. Just so long as they are not completely helpless.

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss an explanation for evasion working in a particular case on the grounds that it doesn't also suffice to explain how it works in every other conceivable case. Evasion is just an out-of-character model for one specific effect of what in-universe is really just the rogue being nimble and quick to respond to threats. Evasion itself doesn't really mean anything specific in-universe at all.

In general, you can't really use RAW to win arguments over what is really going on in-universe, because the rules are nothing more than an out-of-universe model, and they are generally expected to favour playability over accuracy and precision. There are always going to be edge-cases that produce weird results: all you can really do is remember that like any other tool, rules won't work for every conceivable thing you might hope to accomplish with them.

[Strigon]

Except that Evasion, by RAW, has to work in every situation that does not render the Rogue helpless. A Rogue in a 5ft cage or caught in a Grapple (even if they are pinned) that is hit with fireball can still use Evasion. Even if they cannot move and are held immobile, they can use Evasion. Just so long as they are not completely helpless.

See, I'd argue that someone who cannot move and is held immobile is helpless. Since the exact phrasing of the condition, per the PHB, is:
"Paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy". Someone who can't move and is completely immobile seems to fit that description quite nicely.

Besides, like I said, the rogue does what is best for the situation. In a grapple? Roll so that the opponent is covering you. Being in a cage is a bit iffy, but it's hardly the first weird thing to come out of RAW.

[eggynack]

See, I'd argue that someone who cannot move and is held immobile is helpless. Since the exact phrasing of the condition, per the PHB, is:
"Paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy". Someone who can't move and is completely immobile seems to fit that description quite nicely.

I don't think a grappled rogue qualifies as completely at their foe's mercy, any more than the foe qualifies as completely at the rogue's mercy. It's not just that they can leave the grapple. That's no different from rope. It's that they can do a bunch of stuff in a grapple. Perhaps not well, but they're options. With that in mind, I agree more with your other evaluation. The rogue isn't ever technically made fully immobile by a grapple, so one way they can move is into an area without fire.

I don't see why a cage would change anything, meanwhile. The rogue wasn't leaving the square anyway.

[Psyren]

Except that Evasion, by RAW, has to work in every situation that does not render the Rogue helpless. A Rogue in a 5ft cage or caught in a Grapple (even if they are pinned) that is hit with fireball can still use Evasion. Even if they cannot move and are held immobile, they can use Evasion. Just so long as they are not completely helpless.

Rules Compendium 113:

"A creature must have room to move to evade. A bound creature or one squeezing through an area can’t use evasion."

[eggynack]

Rules Compendium 113:

"A creature must have room to move to evade. A bound creature or one squeezing through an area can’t use evasion."

I dunno if these particular situations would match up that text, but the problem seems mostly solved by said text anyway. There isn't a situation where a character is immobile but where they can evade, cause the rules say there isn't one.

[Strigon]

I don't think a grappled rogue qualifies as completely at their foe's mercy, any more than the foe qualifies as completely at the rogue's mercy. It's not just that they can leave the grapple. That's no different from rope. It's that they can do a bunch of stuff in a grapple. Perhaps not well, but they're options. With that in mind, I agree more with your other evaluation. The rogue isn't ever technically made fully immobile by a grapple, so one way they can move is into an area without fire.

I don't see why a cage would change anything, meanwhile. The rogue wasn't leaving the square anyway.

Pretty sure I explicitly pointed out what a rogue could do in a grapple in my original post.
The helpless part was about the second part, where he said "immobilized", since that seems pretty helpless to me.

[eggynack]

Pretty sure I explicitly pointed out what a rogue could do in a grapple in my original post.
The helpless part was about the second part, where he said "immobilized", since that seems pretty helpless to me.

I thought both parts were about grappling alone, with the first considering the grapple as a source of immobility, and the second considering otherwise.

[Strigon]

I thought both parts were about grappling alone, with the first considering the grapple as a source of immobility, and the second considering otherwise.

That makes sense.
Can't you move, though - albeit with some restrictions - while grappling?

[eggynack]

That makes sense.
Can't you move, though - albeit with some restrictions - while grappling?

Yeah. That's what I was saying. I think we have a few too many evasion stoppers running around.

[Pleh]

How?

Libris Mortis, page 7. An excerpt pertaining to the explanation of Undead Origins.

"A sufficiently heinous act may attract the attention of malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead.

Skeletons aren't typically "recently vacated," but that can happen if a monster ate the flesh or a fire left the bones. They certainly fall under the category of "mindless undead" and Libris Mortis isn't a houserule, it's officially published WotC alternative fluff. Easily in the realm of a standard campaign.

All I'm saying is that it really isn't that far in left field to find a skeleton in an arctic setting wandering aimlessly. Necromancy works that way sometimes. Even if the skeleton were animated, it may have been released when the necromancer replaced it with more powerful servants. The section in Libris Mortis can still be a valid interpretation of what the undirected skeleton would do with itself, since neither the spell nor the monster entry informs us as to a skeleton's default behavior. All they say is that Skeletons are "mindless undead" who normally do nothing without instruction, but it's not that a wandering skeleton in the arctic never happens. It's exceptional, but not impossible.

Yes, you could choose some of the other descriptions in Libris Mortis, but my point is that you're wrong about "a skeleton has no place wandering an arctic tundra at night". There are a good number of scenarios where this could happen.

Darkvision is only 60'
Please, check range increments of bows/crossbows

Consider if it were a Drow trying to notice the skeleton. 120ft darkvision with possible character options that might further improve the range. But the original point was that Darkvision is not equivalent to Infrared Vision and that a skeleton wandering the arctic would be undetectable to infrared, but perfectly detectable to darkvision. Even if we operate only within 60ft, the range increment of a bow is also irrelevant. The point is that even within 10ft, infrared would give you bupkiss on a skeleton, while darkvision shows all (except color, but a white skeleton on a snowy backdrop didn't have much color to observe anyway).

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss an explanation for evasion working in a particular case on the grounds that it doesn't also suffice to explain how it works in every other conceivable case. Evasion is just an out-of-character model for one specific effect of what in-universe is really just the rogue being nimble and quick to respond to threats. Evasion itself doesn't really mean anything specific in-universe at all.

In general, you can't really use RAW to win arguments over what is really going on in-universe, because the rules are nothing more than an out-of-universe model, and they are generally expected to favour playability over accuracy and precision. There are always going to be edge-cases that produce weird results: all you can really do is remember that like any other tool, rules won't work for every conceivable thing you might hope to accomplish with them.

That's actually more or less my point. Evasion doesn't really mean anything specifically, which kind of implies that it works regardless the circumstances. You're right that rules won't work for every conceivable thing you might hope to accomplish with them, but my point is that they could work for any given conceivable thing you might hope to accomplish with them. Until you ask your GM, the answer is always no. If you ask, the answer might be yes or no. Of course, the counterargument follows:

See, I'd argue that someone who cannot move and is held immobile is helpless. Since the exact phrasing of the condition, per the PHB, is:
"Paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy". Someone who can't move and is completely immobile seems to fit that description quite nicely.

Besides, like I said, the rogue does what is best for the situation. In a grapple? Roll so that the opponent is covering you. Being in a cage is a bit iffy, but it's hardly the first weird thing to come out of RAW.

Rules Compendium 113:

"A creature must have room to move to evade. A bound creature or one squeezing through an area can’t use evasion."

Pretty sure I explicitly pointed out what a rogue could do in a grapple in my original post.
The helpless part was about the second part, where he said "immobilized", since that seems pretty helpless to me.

Rule compendium changes the wording for pinned from "immobilized" to "held stationary" (RC pg 61), but neither truly are listed in the conditions that define "helpless" condition. ("Bound" is a listed condition, but poorly defined. I'll get to that a little further down.)

I find it interesting that in my copy of the PHB and the Rules Compendium, under "helpless", it italicizes the word, "held," but not any of the other conditions that makes a creature helpless. It makes me think they are referencing the spell, Hold Person, which specifically says it Paralyzes the victim. Paralysis is a definite condition of being Helpless and disallows Evasion. But if they're implying the Spell Effect, does that mean they are not referring to the mundane grappled condition?

Interestingly, Rules Compendium on Pinning says that when YOU pin a creature, it is at your mercy (a technical condition for helpless), but it also says that when you are pinned by another creature, you are "held stationary, (but not helpless)". The PHB uses identical language except "immobile" instead of "held stationary".

Rules Compendium DOES mention that "bound" characters cannot use Evasion, but to what extent do they need to be bound? Hands? Feet? Hands and feet? Arms and Legs?

So where does that leave us? Is a pinned creature helpless? At what point do they become "bound"?

And, while the rules for Pinned say you can't take any actions (including speaking) that the creature pinning you does not allow, it also says that Evasion is reflexive and that you don't even have to be aware of the attack that triggered it. It might be hard for the creature pinning you to prevent you from doing something before either of you have time to know what is happening.

So maybe a better RAI argument is that a creature pinning you can prevent you from using Evasion if they know you are about to use it, which would mean they knew you were about to be subject to an area effect. Considering they must be occupying the same space as you to pin you, this might be a less than optimal strategy (unless the type of area damage doesn't affect the creature pinning you, but we're getting into VERY specific scenarios now).

I would rule the distinction is too vague. Evasion trumps ambiguity. If it were at my table with me as DM, I might houserule a requirement for them to make an Escape Artist check, but I wouldn't be inflexible to my player's arguments if they didn't feel it was fair. And it would be a houserule. Especially with Rogues being relatively low tier and most area attacks coming from casters (who are generally upper tier), I don't mind giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

As for the cage, I specifically mentioned it was 5ft so effectively it doesn't restrict their movement within their own square. By RAW, it makes no difference, since Evasion does not require you to leave your space. 5ft is technically all the room to move that you need.

---

But stepping out of RAW for a moment, there is a RAI trope to be argued for. Rogueish characters often find themselves tied up with rope right when the fighting and chaos break out, then they start rolling around on the ground despite being "bound" (which technically makes them "helpless," unless we are very strict about how much binding makes someone "bound"). We'd be killing a very popular trope to rule out that Evasion can operate freely on a very limited budget. Not that it can always work universally, it outlines its own limitations. It's just outstanding how broad and unimposing those limitations really are.

[ShurikVch]

About the OP: Evasion is one of the "Proud Nails":

Among the things I should have learned from wood shop is the notion of the “proud nail.” In woodworking parlance, the proud nail is the nail that isn’t quite far enough into the wood. It’s sticking out just a little bit—just enough to tick you off.

D&D has some proud nails. They’re rules that are just a little bit off. They’re things that aren’t explained quite right. They won’t mess up your game on a week-by-week basis, but you sure notice them when they rear their ugly heads.

Here are some aspects of D&D I consider to be proud nails. If they weren’t already in black and white, I’d take an extra swing of the ol’ design hammer at them.

Wrong edition

While 2e explicitly said it worked this way, 3e doesn't say it don't

Libris Mortis, page 7. An excerpt pertaining to the explanation of Undead Origins.

Skeletons aren't typically "recently vacated," but that can happen if a monster ate the flesh or a fire left the bones. They certainly fall under the category of "mindless undead" and Libris Mortis isn't a houserule, it's officially published WotC alternative fluff. Easily in the realm of a standard campaign.

Nitpick: the quote says "flesh", not "bones"

But the original point was that Darkvision is not equivalent to Infrared Vision and that a skeleton wandering the arctic would be undetectable to infrared, but perfectly detectable to darkvision. Even if we operate only within 60ft, the range increment of a bow is also irrelevant. The point is that even within 10ft, infrared would give you bupkiss on a skeleton, while darkvision shows all (except color, but a white skeleton on a snowy backdrop didn't have much color to observe anyway).

Allow me to quote NASA on this matter:

Even objects that we think of as being very cold, such as an ice cube, emit infrared.

[Psyren]

Just wanted to point out that Drow in both 3.5 and PF have ways to increase their Darkvision all the way to 240'.

Allow me to quote NASA on this matter:

This quote is irrelevant; the point was never "cold things don't emit infrared." Rather the point is "The skeleton or ice elemental would emit the same amount as their surroundings and therefore be indistinguishable from the background under the IR theory." But Darkvision plainly allows you not only to see them, but to see them with full clarity.

[ShurikVch]

This quote is irrelevant; the point was never "cold things don't emit infrared." Rather the point is "The skeleton or ice elemental would emit the same amount as their surroundings and therefore be indistinguishable from the background under the IR theory." But Darkvision plainly allows you not only to see them, but to see them with full clarity.

They totally would be distinguishable, because their surroundings doesn't moving
If they would just stand still, then they, indeed, would be "indistinguishable from the background", but in that case they would be equally indistinguishable even in the bright daylight: you will confuse Ice Elemental with a simple piece of ice

[Psyren]

They totally would be distinguishable, because their surroundings doesn't moving
If they would just stand still, then they, indeed, would be "indistinguishable from the background", but in that case they would be equally indistinguishable even in the bright daylight: you will confuse Ice Elemental with a simple piece of ice

They have to actually make a Hide check for standing still vs. moving to matter. Skeletons can't use skills and therefore they cannot do this, you will automatically see them regardless.

[Strigon]

They totally would be distinguishable, because their surroundings doesn't moving
If they would just stand still, then they, indeed, would be "indistinguishable from the background", but in that case they would be equally indistinguishable even in the bright daylight: you will confuse Ice Elemental with a simple piece of ice

If I understand the claim being made - and it's possible I've lost the plot, so please bear that in mind - a moving creature of ambient temperature would not be distinguishable under the IR theory. They would be distinguishable under Darkvision RAW.

It would appear to be the exact same "colour" and shade as everything around it. It would be moving, but it would be like a perfectly grey disc moving along an identical grey plane; you wouldn't see it moving at all. There would be no shading, even, to give it away.

[ShurikVch]

Skeletons can't use skills and therefore they cannot do this, you will automatically see them regardless.

It doesn't matter anyway: Skeleton's eyes are glowing; in a moonless night, you should seen it for miles even without any Darkvision

[Pleh]

Nitpick: the quote says "flesh", not "bones"

Yeah, I figured someone was gonna hit me on that. Thankfully, the distinction is somewhat inconsequential.

They totally would be distinguishable, because their surroundings doesn't moving
If they would just stand still, then they, indeed, would be "indistinguishable from the background", but in that case they would be equally indistinguishable even in the bright daylight: you will confuse Ice Elemental with a simple piece of ice

Not if their surroundings were snowing, then there would be a large haze of cold things moving about in strange patterns, masking a skeleton's movement. Now the skeleton has total darkness, invisibility to IR, AND partial concealment. Go.

It doesn't matter anyway: Skeleton's eyes are glowing; in a moonless night, you should seen it for miles even without any Darkvision

Two small pinpoints of light visible for literal miles? That might be quite the exceptional spot check unless these skeletons (who can see in perfect darkness) are illuminating the area with their eye sockets.

But let's say the skeleton is looking for its head buried in the snow. Back to square 1.

[Psyren]

What Pleh said

If I understand the claim being made - and it's possible I've lost the plot, so please bear that in mind - a moving creature of ambient temperature would not be distinguishable under the IR theory. They would be distinguishable under Darkvision RAW.

It would appear to be the exact same "colour" and shade as everything around it. It would be moving, but it would be like a perfectly grey disc moving along an identical grey plane; you wouldn't see it moving at all. There would be no shading, even, to give it away.

Precisely.

[ShurikVch]

They have to actually make a Hide check for standing still vs. moving to matter.

Spot skill:

Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

If I understand the claim being made - and it's possible I've lost the plot, so please bear that in mind - a moving creature of ambient temperature would not be distinguishable under the IR theory. They would be distinguishable under Darkvision RAW.

It would appear to be the exact same "colour" and shade as everything around it. It would be moving, but it would be like a perfectly grey disc moving along an identical grey plane; you wouldn't see it moving at all. There would be no shading, even, to give it away.

At night, air is colder than ground; Skeleton will be warmer than air - thus visible in IR just fine

Not if their surroundings were snowing, then there would be a large haze of cold things moving about in strange patterns, masking a skeleton's movement. Now the skeleton has total darkness, invisibility to IR, AND partial concealment. Go.

Eh... I don't get what's you able to say there?
Do you mean snow went in some recent time, or going right now?
If first - then Skeleton truly may be less visible in IR, but still relatively easily detectable by the movement of snow
If the second - then, considering penalties for range and snow, Skeleton may as well be invisible for creatures outside of it's reach, but wouldn't see anything too

Two small pinpoints of light visible for literal miles? That might be quite the exceptional spot check unless these skeletons (who can see in perfect darkness) are illuminating the area with their eye sockets.

Light of weakest candle in darkness may be seen up to 30 miles; do you mean glowing eyes of Skeleton couldn't be noticed from the modest 2 miles?

But let's say the skeleton is looking for its head buried in the snow. Back to square 1.

Show me the RAW for headless Skeletons

[Psyren]

Spot skill:

But a creature with Darkvision doesn't need to roll Spot to see a skeleton in a snowfield. You're proving my point.

At night, air is colder than ground; Skeleton will be warmer than air - thus visible in IR just fine

So it's impossible for air and ground to ever have the same temperature? Source?

Show me the RAW for headless Skeletons

Show us the RAW for illumination level of skeleton eyes.

Alternatively, zombies have no glow or hiding skills, how about them.

[Strigon]

At night, air is colder than ground; Skeleton will be warmer than air - thus visible in IR just fine

Why would the skeleton's surface - which is in contact with the air - be affected by the temperature of the ground?

[Ellrin]

While we're still on the subject of darkvision vs infravision and undead, I'm curious: in previous editions that had infravision, would a creature that possessed it have been able to tell that a creature that otherwise seemed alive—e.g., a vampire, or lich under disguise self (or whatever the previous editions' version of that spell was), etc.—was actually undead simply from being able to see that they were emitting less heat than they should be?

[ShurikVch]

But a creature with Darkvision doesn't need to roll Spot to see a skeleton in a snowfield. You're proving my point.

Yes, doesn't need -because, when Skeleton is beyond the Darkvision range, it doesn't matter anyway, and when Skeleton is withing the range - it's already too close for checking

So it's impossible for air and ground to ever have the same temperature?

Possible - in the morning and evening

Source?

Weather observations.

Show us the RAW for illumination level of skeleton eyes.

Why?

Alternatively, zombies have no glow or hiding skills, how about them.

Zombies are rotting, rot is exothermal process

[Stealth Marmot]

While we're still on the subject of darkvision vs infravision and undead, I'm curious: in previous editions that had infravision, would a creature that possessed it have been able to tell that a creature that otherwise seemed alive—e.g., a vampire, or lich under disguise self (or whatever the previous editions' version of that spell was), etc.—was actually undead simply from being able to see that they were emitting less heat than they should be?

Probably, but it would have to be dark. Infravision only comes "on" when there is no light.

Infravision was also very very stupid. I put it next to first edition psionics and weapon speeds as "things that rightfully died before third edition".

[TaiLiu]

The whole "What is Darkvision?" thing seems like an excellent thing to start a new thread about.

But we all agree that Darkvision isn't the equivalent of IR vision, right? ShurikVch is just being silly, right?