Lighting + LoS woes

[Weissrolf]

Hello. I experience some oddities with Lighting + LoS. Tested with extensions enabled and disabled, same results.

1. 40" light + 40" distance to target = target not visible?

https://i.imgur.com/gosMmZY.png


2. What wall blocks LoS here ("Dreamgate Waystation" map from Age of Ashes 3 AP)?

Walls disabled on image 2, enabled on all others. Map lights disabled, token light set to "torch" (20/40):

https://i.imgur.com/khHijDS.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/UvKmaqy.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/ohykfSy.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/Odyte6q.png

[MrDDT]

You only having this issue with that map? Because I'm not seeing this issue.

[Weissrolf]

The distance problem was already present during the Lighting beta, no one cared. The LoS blocking wall of nothingness surely is somewhat map specific, but if it happens in this map ('s specific corners) then it may happen in others, too.

[LordEntrails]

I saw it (vision distance) or something similar on a custom map in the last build (was actually with VISMAX). Have not had a chance to re-test and document. Will try to see if I can reproduce this week.

[Weissrolf]

The distance thing only seems to happen with DIM light, not with BRIGHT light. So in the first screenshot 40" bright light would have made the target visible, while 40" dim light does not.

[Weissrolf]

It's possible, though, that internally dim light is always 0.1 larger than bright light. So 40/40 would internally be 40/40.1, which in turn makes the token visible.

[Weissrolf]

Token lights should be measured from the *edges* of a token anyway, not from the center. Token size is *not* creature size, but creature *space*, so a creature can hold its light-source at all points of its token space. Yes, that means that large creatures have an advantage and, yes, it makes sense.

Currently we get into these kind of situations where large creatures are even at a disadvantage, because the light cone doesn't even touch the targeting distance.
https://i.imgur.com/zVViRIX.png

Same goes for how FGU determines if a creatures is visible. We already know that visibility only works one-way (creature A cannot see creature B, but creature B can see creature A). But the current system seems much too determined by the center point of a token, not only for source but also for target. It could be argued that a token/creature space being covered less than half in light counts as darkness. But the following screenshot again demonstrates how the current "center" light implementation cuts the light circle too short to begin with.

https://i.imgur.com/ORrVOA5.png

Here is the same example using 2.5" larger light circles (=measured from the edge, albeit sauqre corners would need even more added). This makes more sense in term of targeting and square based rulesets (like Pathfinder). But even then the large creature remains invisible, despite large portions of its space being in the light. Again, one could argue for higher concealment, but then the player at least needs to know/see that the target is there. Currently it's completely invisible.
https://i.imgur.com/ypnUc10.png


Much to my delight I noticed that FGU pointer distances are finally rounded down instead of being rounded up, so that small/medium tokens' emanation pointers now show the correct distance. Unfortunately lights do not match these rounded measurements now, because lights start at the center instead of the edge. So now we get different measurement and rounding systems mixed up.

https://i.imgur.com/AVaZmNM.png

[Moon Wizard]

As mentioned in other posts, the lights will always originate from the center; otherwise you get varying "sizes" for lights based on token size. If you measure center to center with your pointer arrow, it will also read 40'.

As for tokens visibility at the edge of lights, it's something that we're reviewing. It gets a bit complex, since every game system has it's own determination system; cpinder is actually working on a prototype right now to make checking more points faster to see if we can do something nicer on the edges.

Regards,
JPG

[Weissrolf]

As mentioned in other posts, the lights will always originate from the center; otherwise you get varying "sizes" for lights based on token size.
Which is exactly how it should be.

This guy can stretch his lantern arm further from the center of his token space...
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51mDhqlZOjL._AC_.jpg

...than these guys holding the same lantern.
https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/38900000/Harry-Potter-and-the-Philosopher-s-Stone-harry-potter-38912577-500-500.jpg

Not without reason do "tall" creatures get longer reach. And you seem to forget that it is *not* the creature that is alight, but an *item* (torch, lantern) in its hand, which can be at any point of its token space at any time.

Like this, but in every direction at once for non-directional games:
https://i.imgur.com/IE0hG4c.png

Not like this (current implementation):
https://i.imgur.com/5Ztffbk.png

[MrDDT]

I disagree.
It might be able to stretch but it would only be direction at a time. Also what if it's not something carried in their hand? What if its like a stone on their shirt?

Light doesn't go further because the person holding the light is bigger.

The issue comes in vision. Something with 15' blightsight and is gargantuan wouldn't be able to see anything but 5' around them.

[Moon Wizard]

This sounds like a "very subjective" argument. Everyone is going to have their own version of how they want to make that work. That's why you can adjust the Token Light effect defaults in the Options; as well as adjust the vision on the PC/NPC sheets to whatever you want for your game.

Regards,
JPG

[BronzeDodger]

It's a weird day when I concur with the most disagreeable person to ever haunt these forums - but I think the only solution is to add more detail that would be *critical* to running a fun game on a VTT.

To do this right you would need we would need the entire dev team to stop all other work to focus on core concepts for lighting such as:

- creature height to the millimetre
- creature width to the millimetre
- creature weight to the milligram
- creature's size relative to other similar creatures (+/- 93% should suffice)
- stats for the size of cloak the creature is wearing
- is the cloak's hood up or down?
- is the cloak transparent?
- is the cloak translucent?
- does the creature have reflective eyes that might also alter the distance the light is visible (this distance measured in nanometres)
- does the creature have 2/4/6/8 appendages with a light setting for each one in case it has a torch in one hand and a lantern in another and a bonfire in a third
- a configurable shadow based on the time-of-day (to the second should be sufficient)
- which of course would require a longitude/latitude setting "for realism"
- configurable temperature and humidity in case the creature's breath impacts the lighting in a cold setting (of course temperature measured in Kelvin)

These are all entirely reasonable settings for lighting right? Combining a hyper-realistic ask with dash of whining and, though I may need to practice at the feet of the master, a whiff of insulting all the devs and everyone else doing their best to make FG great?

[Weissrolf]

A stone on their shirt does the same, because D20 based abstraction rules consider all creatures constantly *moving* inside their token space. You can have your shield and sword - including light spell cast on it - at any place and time, nothing is directional (else you would cast your own shadow towards your back). It's the opposite of "hyper-realistic" while compromising on the fact that a lot can happen in 6 seconds per turn.

Token space is the room needed to move and fight unhampered, it's *not* creature size. This is how D20/Pathfinder abstraction works, there is no such thing as "one direction at a time". And obviously there is no such thing as gargantuan humanoids not being able to see past their own nose when they carry a light.

And yes, vision seems to suffer from the same dilemma with the current system.

[LordEntrails]

It's a weird day when ...
MOD: Not a useful or respectful post. Please refrain from criticizing individuals instead of discussing ideas.

[LordEntrails]

I can see use cases on all sides of this, and I suspect I would often use the different use cases, but I don't think one overrides another in terms of what I would use. i.e. granting a large or huge create that has darkvision 60' to have that effectively be from the outer square center points. Or even from the outsight of their reach (in the lantern example). But, one I don't think I would want that to be the default, and two, it is easy enough for me to increase their darkvision to 65 or increase the range of their lantern to 40 etc on a case by case basis. Or to use a token to place the lantern on and have the player move the token as approriate. Of course, there are always going to be use cases that are different or could be optimized, but not sure changing the current default behavior is the best answer. Thoughts?

What concerns me more is when a non-medium token is revealed. I know you guys are working on this so will wait for that to go too into detail, but I think it might be a good place to start if the center of all squares a token occupies were revealed. Though this causes problems with tokens not centered in squares...

[Weissrolf]

I did not mean outside of reach, though, just token edges. The long arm thing was just an image. Everyone around here always played light and sight from token edges.

[Zacchaeus]

I think posts #8 and #10 pretty much sum up the situation. So I'm not sure further discussion would be terribly productive. Thanks everyone for their insights into the thread topic.

[Weissrolf]

Of course both Roll20 and Foundry measure light and vision from the edges of tokens, because it makes sense in D20 type of games. Astral does not, though.

[Lo Zeno]

I'd like to point out that there's an episode of the Wotc's Dragon Talk podcast out there (I just wish I could remember which one, there are too many) in which Jeremy Crawford was asked if the 60 feet of light (30 bright + 30 dim) of a lantern include the square in which the character is placed, and he did explain that it doesn't: paraphrasing a little (because I don't remember every exact word) the torch gives a 60 feet radius light around itself as an object, but since the characters hold them in front of them to look around it means that anything 1 to 6 squares away from the character is considered in bright light not up to five and a half squares away (these were his words, that I remember clearly).
Of course, though, he was speaking about using battle maps on the table, not VTTs, for context.
I'll try to dig out the podcast episode, if I can

[Kelrugem]

A stone on their shirt does the same, because D20 based abstraction rules consider all creatures constantly *moving* inside their token space.

That is true, but there are also systems with facing rules and then this argument would fail; I play for example with facing rules and prefer the actual way :) (of course one could say that the place of the torch on the token should then matter, too, but I do not care in this case)

Also, that creatures are constantly moving into all directions is an assumption to simplify certain explanations and rules, so, one needs to discuss for which aspects of the game one actually wants to use this simplifying assumption. I personally do not want that one applies this assumption to lighting, too, and other persons here agree seemingly, and Lo Zeno actually cited someone of WotC with a similar argument. I do not see why the same torch should be better/have more reach just because it is now carried by an extremely big dragon :p It would be then suddenly an additional tactical component of the game to decide who should carry the torch because of size of the possible carriers and the relative size to the torch. I do personally not want that this size factor of lighting becomes a tactical component :D

[Lo Zeno]

I personally do not want that one applies this assumption to lighting, too, and other persons here agree seemingly, and Lo Zeno actually cited someone of WotC with a similar argument.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly (my bad, English is not my first language) but Jeremy Crawford argument actually agrees with what Weissrolf suggests:
anything 1 to 6 squares away from the character is considered in bright light, not anything up to 5 and a half squares means that you start measuring the 30 feet of bright light of the lantern from the edge of the space occupied by a character.
1 square = 5 feet => 6 full squares are 30 feet. He was using a medium sized character as an example, but he was very clear (as far as I can remember) when he said that the square occupied by the character is not counted as part of the distance covered by the lantern's light.
I'm trying to find the episode to get the exact words he used but going through 327 episodes of 1 hour and 40 minutes each will take time

[Kelrugem]

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly (my bad, English is not my first language) but Jeremy Crawford argument actually agrees with what Weissrolf suggests:
anything 1 to 6 squares away from the character is considered in bright light, not anything up to 5 and a half squares means that you start measuring the 30 feet of bright light of the lantern from the edge of the space occupied by a character.
1 square = 5 feet => 6 full squares are 30 feet. He was using a medium sized character as an example, but he was very clear (as far as I can remember) when he said that the square occupied by the character is not counted as part of the distance covered by the lantern's light.
I'm trying to find the episode to get the exact words he used but going through 327 episodes of 1 hour and 40 minutes each will take time

aaah, I see, then I indeed misunderstood your post, sorry :D

[Weissrolf]

In a grid based game everything fits into grids. No one at the tables around here ever doubted that light fits into full grids just the way that everything else does. VTTs and then DnD 5E started to uses circle templates on top of grids, which added to the confusion but makes creating templates easier.

[Weissrolf]

Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two things— whether creatures or objects— start counting squares from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in the space of the other one. Count by the shortest route.

20" range on a grid: Creature -> Square 1 -> Square 2 -> Square 3 -> (full) Square 4

[Weissrolf]

According to the "point of origin is the center of a token square" faction I assume that cones should be handled like this? So the "Ugly Fiend" is neither visible via light nor can it be affected by that 15" cone.

https://i.imgur.com/5WZNaau.png

Fair enough, but certainly contradicting rules for DnD and Pathfinder, which FGU seems to be mostly concentrated on in terms of system support.

[Weissrolf]

Big ouch coming in, burn baby burn:

https://i.imgur.com/0qd3zND.png

[Jiminimonka]

Which is exactly how it should be.

This guy can stretch his lantern arm further from the center of his token space...
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51mDhqlZOjL._AC_.jpg

...than these guys holding the same lantern.
https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/38900000/Harry-Potter-and-the-Philosopher-s-Stone-harry-potter-38912577-500-500.jpg

Not without reason do "tall" creatures get longer reach. And you seem to forget that it is *not* the creature that is alight, but an *item* (torch, lantern) in its hand, which can be at any point of its token space at any time.

Like this, but in every direction at once for non-directional games:
https://i.imgur.com/IE0hG4c.png

Not like this (current implementation):
https://i.imgur.com/5Ztffbk.png

That's your opinion.

No p&p game system (except homebrew ones) have rules for giants having big arms so their torch shines a light further.

[Weissrolf]

Again, this was not meant to say that they should use light at their weapon reach, but that they anatomy is able to fill their whole token space and enabled them to hold a light to the edges of their space.

It doesn't even matter, because the abstract rules in DnD and Pathfinder are clear on this. When a grid system is used then area of effect does not start at the center of a creature token, except for emanations in PF that still count distance form the edges of a creature. And all effects cover whole grid square/hexagons, not half or quarter ones.

Telling us that grid systems do not use full grid squares for lights is completely bonkers.

[MrDDT]

Again, this was not meant to say that they should use light at their weapon reach, but that they anatomy is able to fill their whole token space and enabled them to hold a light to the edges of their space.

It doesn't even matter, because the abstract rules in DnD and Pathfinder are clear on this. When a grid system is used then area of effect does not start at the center of a creature token, except for emanations in PF that still count distance form the edges of a creature. And all effects cover whole grid square/hexagons, not half or quarter ones.

Telling us that grid systems do not use full grid squares for lights is completely bonkers.

I see your point. Before I thought only vision was it, but yeah you right lighting would hold the same effect as they would be moving it around in their space.

[Neovirtus]

This is definitely a valid discussion to have. I myself have gone back and forth on the virtues of either implementation. What I keep going back to is a simple logic test. If a dragon holds a candle does it light up the whole dragon plus 5' in every direction? Of course not, the distance of the light is not a function of the size of the creature. Sure you could say that it can hold the candle anywhere within its token, but the second you start breaking down the inherent assumptions of the system, it starts to fall apart. Measurements are performed from the center of the token (including visibility), because that is the "average" position of the creature within its sphere of influence. A medium creature doesn't actually occupy a 5' cube completely, that is just the physical area a Medium sized combatant reasonably controls against opponents. This is why allies can move through that space but enemies cannot. A large creature's light source, on average would be located near the center of their token, not near the edge. If you want to allow your players to "move their light source" away from the center of their token that's fine, but inherently what they are doing is moving their character. Their sphere of influence moves with them and the token which represents them on the grid moves as well. It's all an approximation.

So long story short, I think it's fine for Fantasy Grounds to simplify these interactions to token centers. If you truly feel that Large or Huge creatures should get larger light ranges, make a custom "Large torch", "Large Candle", etc lighting effect that properly increases lighting range by 5' or 10' for these creatures. Alternatively perhaps an extension could be made to automatically bump up values of lights or vision ranges based on token size.

That's my opinion, and I fully understand that some people will disagree. In the end it's never going to be perfect, and I'm perfectly happy with the current implementation and would hate to see it become over complicated to accommodate edge cases.

[MrDDT]

This is definitely a valid discussion to have. I myself have gone back and forth on the virtues of either implementation. What I keep going back to is a simple logic test. If a dragon holds a candle does it light up the whole dragon plus 5' in every direction? Of course not, the distance of the light is not a function of the size of the creature. Sure you could say that it can hold the candle anywhere within its token, but the second you start breaking down the inherent assumptions of the system, it starts to fall apart. Measurements are performed from the center of the token (including visibility), because that is the "average" position of the creature within its sphere of influence. A medium creature doesn't actually occupy a 5' cube completely, that is just the physical area a Medium sized combatant reasonably controls against opponents. This is why allies can move through that space but enemies cannot. A large creature's light source, on average would be located near the center of their token, not near the edge. If you want to allow your players to "move their light source" away from the center of their token that's fine, but inherently what they are doing is moving their character. Their sphere of influence moves with them and the token which represents them on the grid moves as well. It's all an approximation.

So long story short, I think it's fine for Fantasy Grounds to simplify these interactions to token centers. If you truly feel that Large or Huge creatures should get larger light ranges, make a custom "Large torch", "Large Candle", etc lighting effect that properly increases lighting range by 5' or 10' for these creatures. Alternatively perhaps an extension could be made to automatically bump up values of lights or vision ranges based on token size.

That's my opinion, and I fully understand that some people will disagree. In the end it's never going to be perfect, and I'm perfectly happy with the current implementation and would hate to see it become over complicated to accommodate edge cases.

The problem is that there is no way to put in 2.5' range extra on stuff. You saying the problem is only for a "large or huge" creature is showing you not seeing the issue fully. It's for all tokens that auras, vision, lighting are measured from the center of the token. Thus it's causing issues.

[LordEntrails]

The problem is that there is no way to put in 2.5' range extra on stuff. You saying the problem is only for a "large or huge" creature is showing you not seeing the issue fully. It's for all tokens that auras, vision, lighting are measured from the center of the token. Thus it's causing issues.
All you got to do is make your value the larger increment. i.e. you can make a torch 22.5/42.5' very easily. But if the light source were to include the token size, then it would be more difficult for those who do not want such an implementation to remove it. (edit: maybe, got to think about that more)

Either way their are work arounds that we, the users, have and can easily implement. To me, it's not worth the developer time to worry about adding token size to light sources (edit: and extension can do this if someone really wants to)

But, the other issues this thread started with about the mystery wall, and tokens not being seen when they are within range of existing light sources, that to me is worth developer time :)

[Weissrolf]

Again, grid based systems are based on grids, not half-grids or quarter-grids. You enable grid-based, you disable any assumptions about space within a grid-square/hexagon. One square is the smallest unit used.

And with D20 based system everything is omnidirectional and we don't care for the intricacies of how things move in all directions at once (which way do doors block our way when opened)?

Last, but not least, for 5E:


Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect
Intersection, not center. A light (spell) uses the same Area of Effect as any other spell or ability out there, there are no extra rules other than what people are making up here (while claiming our groups being the ones with the "house-rules").


LINE OF SIGHT: To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space.
"Corner of one space", not center. Yes, every creature out there has its eyes in the corner of its (square) space. This is how omnidirectional grid combat works and has worked for decades.

One a side-note: Light usually is "emited", as in "emanation".


Emanation: An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions

I understand that implementing an option to properly accommodate for grid based tactics is extra work and effort. You did that once with pointers in FG Classic. But don't shove down that "you are using house-rules" nonsense our throat when the basis for your arguments isn't even grid-based to begin with.

[MrDDT]

All you got to do is make your value the larger increment. i.e. you can make a torch 22.5/42.5' very easily. But if the light source were to include the token size, then it would be more difficult for those who do not want such an implementation to remove it. (edit: maybe, got to think about that more)

Either way their are work arounds that we, the users, have and can easily implement. To me, it's not worth the developer time to worry about adding token size to light sources (edit: and extension can do this if someone really wants to)

But, the other issues this thread started with about the mystery wall, and tokens not being seen when they are within range of existing light sources, that to me is worth developer time :)

This would be good if it worked.
Doing a 22.5 gives you a 20 radius. 24.5 is 20 radius. 25, is a 25 radius.

[Weissrolf]

There should either be an optional switch or it should (by default) follow both the rules of DnD/Pathfinder (FGU's major systems) and FGU's main competitors (Roll20 and Foundry). If it's too hard to implement then tell us so and don't blame us users for "holding it wrong" (time and again).

[LordEntrails]

This would be good if it worked.
Doing a 22.5 gives you a 20 radius. 24.5 is 20 radius. 25, is a 25 radius.
Huh. Interesting. Tested it cause I thought I had done that, but you are right, it doesn't work. And putting in a decimal value messes it up completely.

[Weissrolf]

All you got to do is make your value the larger increment. i.e. you can make a torch 22.5/42.5' very easily. But if the light source were to include the token size, then it would be more difficult for those who do not want such an implementation to remove it. (edit: maybe, got to think about that more)
Make it an options switch.

Editing distances does work if you edit each token manually. 0.1 steps are allowed and working then. I tried to change token light presets and create my own via Options, but the changes and new presets don't show up.


Either way their are work arounds that we, the users, have and can easily implement. To me, it's not worth the developer time to worry about adding token size to light sources (edit: and extension can do this if someone really wants to)
Yes, and every user who comes to FGU and expects 20" light to cover 4 squares gets confused and has to come up with the workaround themselves. And if developers don't have time then the answer is "we don't have time", not "you are doing it wrong".


But, the other issues this thread started with about the mystery wall, and tokens not being seen when they are within range of existing light sources, that to me is worth developer time :)

https://i.imgur.com/hHyzk98.png https://i.imgur.com/GaHrkBA.png https://i.imgur.com/suvXzeY.png

PS: Changing bright light does not update sight immediately, I first have to click the token again. Changing dim light does update immediate, though.

[LordEntrails]

Make it an options switch.
Moon has made clear SmiteWorks thoughts on a plethora of options. And though I personally like options, I'm a software guy and don't mind researching such (The program I support at work has several thousand user facing options. Most of my users never touch them nor can they even imagine what they do.) So while I like them, I understand most users don't appreciate the effort involved in creating and maintaining them.


Editing distances does work if you edit each token manually. 0.1 steps are allowed and working then. I tried to change token light presets and create my own via Options, but the changes and new presets don't show up. Thanks, I will have to play more.



Yes, and every user who comes to FGU and expects 20" light to cover 4 squares gets confused and has to come up with the workaround themselves. And if developers don't have time then the answer is "we don't have time", not "you are doing it wrong".
Do we really have any idea how many that is though? And there are certainly users who are going to come expecting the current behavior. I just have no way of even estimating the size of the various groups (because we know their will certainly be more than 2).

Note, I'm not sold either way right now. But in part that's because for the most part its not that important to my game playing.

[Weissrolf]

...Most of my users never touch them nor can they even imagine what they do....
Which means that FGU should default to following the rules of its main rulesets and main competitors.


Do we really have any idea how many that is though? And there are certainly users who are going to come expecting the current behavior.
Everyone coming from Roll20 and Foundry and everyone expecting grid combat to follow the grid.

[MrDDT]

Note, I'm not sold either way right now. But in part that's because for the most part its not that important to my game playing.

Biggest thing for me is that lightning was a huge upgrade. However, with the poor system of not able to see your correct vision range nor the lighting range. You end up with a system that is just broken, not really useful. So you can turn off lightning and go back to TOTM, or you can deal with the issues and just tell the players. "yeah there is a guy there you can see but you can't see them because of the system, or you can adjust your rules to make it so that players can see or lighting a little extra far. (giving them 25'/50' lighting or vision +5') which does cause a little issue for the NPCs as they only have 55' DV, but as a GM you can see that easy. (Unless you use exts that allow you to pit 2 parties vs each other, but that's another topic)
You can also do what Weissrolf says and edit each token lighting/vision and put in the +.5.

These are all pretty poor options for a simple toggle that says "center of token raidus or edge of token radius". I have no idea how hard that would be to code, but it doesn't seem like it's that hard when we can go into the token lighting/vision and add a +.5 per token size.

[Weissrolf]

https://i.imgur.com/hHyzk98.png https://i.imgur.com/GaHrkBA.png https://i.imgur.com/suvXzeY.png
I feel that I have to comment on these, else no one is looking at them close enough.

1. Target invisible with bright range 7.9 and dim range 10.
2. Target visible with bright range 1 (irrelevant) and dim range 10.1. This results in dim range reaching over the center point of the target token.
3. Target visible with bright range 8.0 (dim range irrelevant). This results in bright range reaching over the front corners of the target.

So bright light vision is calculated different from dim light vision, with bright light making the target visible much too soon and dim light very slightly too late when calculated from the center.

Now let's solve this with our workaround:

https://i.imgur.com/gTMIVfO.png

Things are not so easy when the target is large, though, because its center shifts away then:

https://i.imgur.com/XuKvKi8.png

To solve this with the current implementation of dim light we need to add another 0.3 more to the light radius (onto top of the 2.5 already added):

https://i.imgur.com/m8grPXJ.png

[MrDDT]

I feel that I have to comment on these, else no one is looking at them close enough.

1. Target invisible with bright range 7.9 and dim range 10.
2. Target visible with bright range 1 (irrelevant) and dim range 10.1. This results in dim range reaching over the center point of the target token.
3. Target visible with bright range 8.0 (dim range irrelevant). This results in bright range reaching over the front corners of the target.

So bright light vision is calculated different from dim light vision, with bright light making the target visible much too soon and dim light very slightly too late when calculated from the center.

Now let's solve this with our workaround:


Things are not so easy when the target is large, though, because its center shifts away then:



To solve this with the current implementation of dim light we need to add 0.3 more to the light radius:



Confused why you would add .3? When you would need to add .5 to get it to start at the edge of the token for a medium token.
Next, I don't see an issue from DIM light being included into the bright light. As you would see to say how far the dim light goes. So if you have dim 40', that means 20 of it would be also in the bright light not, that it gets 20' of bright, +40' feet of dim (total 60').

I do feel there is an issue with (even using the current rules) that a target at 10' away from a token that even if you count the 2.5' extra from the center of the token would still be able to see 7.5' away to a target who is 10' away as it goes to 1/2 of it's token which should allow for it to be seen.

[Weissrolf]

Look again, I added an *additional* 0.3 on top of the 2.5 already added, for a total of 2.8 added. This is only necessary for the large target with the shifted center point.

And I don't know what you mean by "dim light being included in bright light issue"?

What I reported is that bright light needs *less* than the targeting range to reveal a token, because it reveals tokens whose *edges* are covered.

On the other hand dim light needs slightly *more* than the targeting range to reveal a token, because it reveals tokens whose *center* is covered.

Two different systems for the two rings of light intensity.

[MrDDT]

Look again, I added an *additional* 0.3 on top of the 2.5 already added, for a total of 2.8 added. This is only necessary for the large target with the shifted center point.

And I don't know what you mean by "dim light being included in bright light issue"?

What I reported is that bright light needs *less* than the targeting range to reveal a token, because it reveals tokens whose *edges* are covered.

On the other hand dim light needs slightly *more* than the targeting range to reveal a token, because it reveals tokens whose *center* is covered.

Two different systems for the two rings of light intensity.

Thanks for clearing that. Again just goes to show you, how hard it is for players and DMs with the current lighting/vision issue.

[Weissrolf]

...and tokens not being seen when they are within range of existing light sources, that to me is worth developer time :)
It should be emphasized that this is a direct consequence of current preset light sources not covering squares properly! This in turn is a consequence of not calculating from the edges but the center, plus using the target's dead center point/pixel for dim light.