Now, as stated before, the rules as written do NOT say this. Unfortuately, the fluff text describing Displacement does not match up with the mechanical effect of the spell. If we removed the first sentence, "The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet from its true location," there would be no arguement at all.
You are abosultely correct there. The line about being able to target a displaced person doesn't help.
By all intensive purposes then Displacement is practically useless then against Rogues, everyone should use Blur instead even through that spell is a weaker version of Displacement. I would rather have a 20% miss chance that guarantees a Rogue could never sneak attack me whereas I'd have a spell that might protect me from it 50% of the time.
1. Once again, it's "for all intents and purposes". "... intensive purposes" is nonsensical.
2. A mid-level rogue will deal less damage against a target with displacement while using sneak attacks than a target with blur without, if the displaced target has a halfway decent AC, and displacement is vastly more useful against every other character class, including wizards and clerics.Missing a target by 2 feet and winging it accidentally (and luckily) is not delivering precise attacks to vital areas.
Once again, if you beat the AC and miss chance, you, by definition, do not miss.
From D20PFSRD - Sneak attack:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
There are 2 separate statements here. You can rule that Displacement does not provide concealment. You can also rule that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to sneak attack!
|
Add: While observed.Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?Yes, but I'd allow a non-displaced character to do it too.
While observed, no.
As to why I would allow it otherwise, this is precisely how you sneak up on someone. A Stealth check opposed by a Perception check. There are plenty of times I've snuck up on someone in broad daylight. How many times have you been scared by someone walking up while you've been distracted?
Once again, if you beat the AC and miss chance, you, by definition, do not miss.
Beating the miss chance means you managed to hit something you could not see by luck. It does not mean you made an accurate, precise attack.
|
Why is there still an argument? This spell is pretty short, there really isn't much to go on. You either:
A. Think that the fluff part is a bit of a misnomer and that the target doesn't gain concealment since the spell doesn't say they do, and only uses it as an example for the miss chance.
or
B. You think the fluff (displaced by 2 feet) combined with the mention of concealment is enough to justify that the target gains concealment, or even if they don't that the displaced fluff is enough to prevent them from being sneak attacked.
Personally I think A, Princess thinks B, Zurai thinks A, etc. Is repeating said arguments really going to take us anywhere? :)
Missing a target by 2 feet and winging it accidentally (and luckily) is not delivering precise attacks to vital areas.
Even under the assumption that siad blow against a displaced individual has been grazed, there are still alot of arteris and tendons just below the surface that would be susceptable to harm (i.e. precision/sneak attack damage). In these cases you do not need to go deep at all.
The intent of this spell is pretty obvious, in that it is meant to be a ramped-up version of Blur. And the intent of Blur is simply to give the subject of the spell a 20% miss chance due to not being able to see the target properly.I don't think it is safe to assume that the parameters of one spell carry over to a separate spell that is related only in function when said parameters are not explicitly stated.
...Similarly, displacement makes great pains to not grant concealment (whereas blur explicitly does grant concealment) or any of the benefits thereof except for miss chance. It also very specifically says it does not interfere with targeting.
That's why I keep comparing it to entropic shield, and Princess keeps ignoring that comparison.
The spells are quite clearly related however. The fact that they don't share language is very unfortunate. Both Blur and Displacement are Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard Illusion (glamer) spells, while Entropic Shield is a Cleric Abjuration.
Personally, I think Displacement should have read something along the lines of "As Blur, but you gain a 50% miss chance due to appearing to be 2' from your actual location." Period.
Again Zurai, I don't disagree with your interpretation of the spell's mechanical effects. I have a problem in that the mechanical effects don't match the visual description of the spell.
I can see theres alot of confusion going on with regards to the wording of the Total Concealment element of the spell.
Now compare the entry to the actual Total Concealment entry under the Concealment area of the Core Rulebook, and now compare the wording. Both mention what targeting is, its hitting the target square you think the opponent is in, but this spell explicitly mentions the ONLY difference is that you dont need to cherry pick a random square to hit like you would against an Invisible opponent.
Since the spell MADE this exception and no other, it works just as Total Concealment.
Ontop of this, the Rogue FAILS to meet the criteria he needs to achieve the sneak attack.
Reason 1 : The target the Rogue is Sneak Attacking is not actually the spellcaster but a figment 2 feet away
Reason 2 : The Sneak Attack descrption itself says you have to be able to see the target clearly...how is a character thats hidden 2 feet away from where your attacking "Seeing it clearly"?
Reason 3 : Concealment, the spell specifically says you appear as if your 2 feet from your real location, that implies invisibility with the difference of having a continually functioning figment that throws opponents off guard. Nowhere does the spell say you are standing there in plain sight with the figment hovering next to you (thats Mirror Image), no, in this case you cant be precisely targeted.
Reason 4 : The Rogue has to hit the vital area targeted, anything hit by miss chance alone is by luck, not skill. And even then its clumsily achieved, something thats a full 24 inches away in a random direction from what you actually tried to hit could be an arm, leg or missed entirely. How is that a sneak attack?, that wasnt the location the Rogue targeted.
|
|
Even under the assumption that siad blow against a displaced individual has been grazed, there are still alot of arteris and tendons just below the surface that would be susceptable to harm (i.e. precision/sneak attack damage). In these cases you do not need to go deep at all.
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.
Can you define Targeting for us then, Zurai?
Courtesy of dictionary.com:
tar·get  /ˈtɑrgɪt/ [tahr-git]
–verb (used with object)
11.to use, set up, or designate as a target or goal.
12.to direct toward a target: The new warheads can be targeted with great precision.
13.to make a target of (an object, person, city, etc.) for attack or bombardment.—Idiom
15.on target,
a.properly aimed or on the right course toward a target.
b.accurate, correct, or valid: Their description of the event was on target.
c.filling or meeting a requirement or expectations: The amount of supplies we took was right on target.tr.v. tar·get·ed, tar·get·ing, tar·gets
1. To make a target of.
2. To aim at or for.
3. To establish as a target or goal.
There is no game definition for "target" (at least not one that's in the Index...), so we look at real-world definitions.
The only thing approaching a definition of "target" or "targeting" I can find with a quick informed glance through the rulebook (I don't have the time for an intensive search at the moment) is the "Aiming a spell" section on Target: spells, which still don't define what a target is.
And as for using it to sneak?, no, because your still there, albeit the illusion is there doing everything you do exactly, and it stays within 2 feet of you, it would not provide you with any advantages for stealth because the illusion is fully visible to all just as you were.
If displacement provides concealment, then it WOULD allow a (visually) observed stealth check.
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.
Slicing a carartic artey, hamstring, or achillese tendon is not precision damage?
mundane ways to deal with concealment
just because a target is behind a desk doesn't mean you can't find a weak point.
it's an abstract system. the figurines on the mat are static, but not the characters, a displaced wizard is effectively a moving target, and you can pick a weak spot on a moving target.
hiding under a table, have swingy mcfighter smash the table for you. the same should work for brush, trees, and even curtains.
darkness, hello! Moonlight! Lit Streets! Torches!
invisible targets, to be truly invisible, one would have to be both completely naked, and completely unarmed. as clothing and weapons would show. flour, rum, hay, whiskey, milk, blood, footprints, can hinder insisibility. just because they can't be seen doesn't mean they can't be heard, touched, smelled and tasted.
all these hint that realistically, you can pick a weak point on a target with concealment. maybe that can be houseruled as an extra benefit of the blind fight feat.
|
|
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.Slicing a carartic artey, hamstring, or achillese tendon is not precision damage?
If you are able to get that precise. If you're just swinging at an illusion and hoping to get lucky, I say it has to be a critical hit.
And yes yes, who do I think I am, etc. :)
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.
Critical hits are governed by luck as much as precision, however.
|
|
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.Critical hits are governed by luck as much as precision, however.
Exactly. Getting a lucky hit on an illusioned target isn't a precise thing, so a displaced target should not be sneak attacked.
Beating the miss chance means you managed to hit something you could not see by luck. It does not mean you made an accurate, precise attack.
Once again, this is an unfounded statement. It could just as easily be skill as luck. Remember, a round of attacks is over the course of six seconds and includes more attacks than you make attack rolls for. The attacks you roll for are merely the only ones that have a chance to solidly connect. A rogue will know within the first round of attacks that his target isn't where it appears to be. Then he starts narrowing it down. Even assuming the spell shifts where the displaced image is relative to where the actual creature is (as it has to do to not be just another version of mirror image), it's entirely possible to land a solid hit entirely where you intend it to land on the target's body. You just aim where you think the guy actually is rather than at the image. Actually, aiming at the image would be the stupidest thing you could do, because you know for a fact that the image is an illusion and the creature is not where the image is.
Personally, I think Displacement should have read something along the lines of "As Blur, but you gain a 50% miss chance due to appearing to be 2' from your actual location." Period.
The problem is it cannot read that way. Concealment does not grant 50% miss chance. If it was worded that way, this thread would instead be about whether displacement granted just concealment or whether it granted total concealment, because only total concealment has a 50% miss chance; normal concealment, which blur explicitly grants, is only EVER 20%.
but this spell explicitly mentions the ONLY difference is that you dont need to cherry pick a random square to hit like you would against an Invisible opponent.
Would you please stop saying this? It's completely and utterly false. You're inverting what the words say. PLEASE, for the love of God, look up the grammar. The spell does NOT say "The only difference from total concealment is targeting". It says "The only similarity to total concealment is a 50% miss chance".
I think those cases are covered by critical hits, which to my knowledge are not canceled by concealment. And even if they are, I still count them if they succeed against the miss chance.Slicing a carartic artey, hamstring, or achillese tendon is not precision damage?
those are indeed precision damage.
Sneak Attack says specifically
The Rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment
How does the Rogue specifically 'see' the hidden spellcaster 2 feet away from the figment/glamer accurately enough to attack them in this vital area?
A vital area is defined as a artery or vital organ that the Rogue is specifically targeting, it is not a critical hit (which is achieved through luck not skill, though skill makes achieving such hits more likely such as "Improved Critical"). Sneak Attack is an exact science, the intention to strike creature in a vital area requires that the Rogue picks out a weak point and go after it - a Rogue hitting something by miss chance does so by luck, there is no precision involved.How a Rogue can miss his target by 2 feet and STILL achieve a hit on a targeted area picked out on the target (which did not happen in this case, the rogue cannot target the spellcaster accurately) is not likely - that would be luck, and as such governed by critical hits, not sneak attack.
In the example, the Rogue would attack the 'figment' by stabbing it in a major artery such as the neck, be shocked when his weapon phases through the target (and assuming he scores his 50% miss chance) and accidentally wings something he didnt realise was there. That ladies and gentlemen, is NOT what Sneak Attack is defined as.
If you are able to get that precise. If you're just swinging at an illusion and hoping to get lucky, I say it has to be a critical hit.
If those are areas you are going for, even a shallow blow can be very exposed. And concidering the Displacement spell does state that you can target the opponent, then yes... an attempted sneak attack at said area would still be very dangerous provided if you hit.
|
Y'know, I'm wondering why the spell even mentions concealment at all if it doesn't grant it. Wouldn't it have been much easier to just say it grants you a 50% miss chance against all attacks? It compares it to total concealment, then makes one specific exception. Why would they do that?
Honestly, this argument is going nowhere fast. People on the internet never change their opinions on anything, so I don't see the point in restating opinions over and over again. An official ruling would be nice, but alas I dream too much.
In the example, the Rogue would attack the 'figment' by stabbing it in a major artery such as the neck, be shocked when his weapon phases through the target (and assuming he scores his 50% miss chance) and accidentally wings something he didnt realise was there.
For the five billionth time this thread (slight exaggeration, but only slight), there is no basis for this in the rules. Also, as I wrote above:
Even assuming the spell shifts where the displaced image is relative to where the actual creature is (as it has to do to not be just another version of mirror image), it's entirely possible to land a solid hit entirely where you intend it to land on the target's body. You just aim where you think the guy actually is rather than at the image. Actually, aiming at the image would be the stupidest thing you could do, because you know for a fact that the image is an illusion and the creature is not where the image is.
Displacement is not an Enchantment (compulsion) spell. It does not force the rogue to attack the image. Attacking the image is utterly moronic as soon as you realize it's a glamer, which will be almost instantly.
Personally, I think Displacement should have read something along the lines of "As Blur, but you gain a 50% miss chance due to appearing to be 2' from your actual location." Period.The problem is it cannot read that way. Concealment does not grant 50% miss chance. If it was worded that way, this thread would instead be about whether displacement granted just concealment or whether it granted total concealment, because only total concealment has a 50% miss chance; normal concealment, which blur explicitly grants, is only EVER 20%.
...unless the rules state otherwise. It's an exception-based system, and I'm saying that this spell should have created one. Alas, I'm tilting at windmills because it doesn't, and likely won't.
Unless I'm the DM. ;D
|
|
You just aim where you think the guy actually is rather than at the image. Actually, aiming at the image would be the stupidest thing you could do, because you know for a fact that the image is an illusion and the creature is not where the image is.
So what I'm hearing is that the rogue should be ignoring the image he can see to attack where he thinks the enemy is. Which means he is attacking what appears to be empty air. This sounds exactly like attacking an invisible enemy. And we know invisible enemies cannot be sneak attacked.
Again, making an educated guess means you are swinging blindly, unable to accurately target the sneak attack spots. Therefore, actually hitting those spots is more a case of luck and should be covered by critical hits, not sneak attack.
f those are areas you are going for, even a shallow blow can be very exposed. And concidering the Displacement spell does state that you can target the opponent, then yes... an attempted sneak attack at said area would still be very dangerous provided if you hit.
But you can't go for those areas because you can't see them. You see an image of them and have to guess where they might actually be. You can only target the subject of the spell because you can see the image. Otherwise, it is no different than invisibility. See above reply.
Y'know, I'm wondering why the spell even mentions concealment at all if it doesn't grant it. Wouldn't it have been much easier to just say it grants you a 50% miss chance against all attacks? It compares it to total concealment, then makes one specific exception. Why would they do that?
The concealment section is the only section in the rules that deals with miss chance. It basically has to reference concealment to give you the rules.
You just aim where you think the guy actually is rather than at the image. Actually, aiming at the image would be the stupidest thing you could do, because you know for a fact that the image is an illusion and the creature is not where the image is.So what I'm hearing is that the rogue should be ignoring the image he can see to attack where he thinks the enemy is. Which means he is attacking what appears to be empty air. This sounds exactly like attacking an invisible enemy. And we know invisible enemies cannot be sneak attacked.
Again, making an educated guess means you are swinging blindly, unable to accurately target the sneak attack spots. Therefore, actually hitting those spots is more a case of luck and should be covered by critical hits, not sneak attack.
No. You can still tell exactly what you're fighting an exactly how it's oriented when you're fighting a caster with displacement up. You know he's facing to your left and his kidney's exposed at belly height, you just have to guess whether he's to the left or the right of the image. If you guess right, your dagger is buried in his kidney.
This is different from invisibility because you can't see the target, its orientation, its height, or any of its anatomy when the target is invisible. You have no basis with which to make judgments about what to attack. You're truly attacking blindly.
With displacement, you aren't attacking blindly. You're making informed decisions about how and where to attack. You're just hitting air instead of flesh half the time.
|
|
At first, I was in the "no precision damage" camp, but the more I look at the rules, I'm leaning towards allowing precision damage on displaced creatures. The reason for this is that the displacement effect clearly does nothing to hide (conceal) the creature. In effect, the displacement is giving the attacker two clearly visible targets, two feet apart, one of which is real. Which you hit is the 50% roll. Hit the glamer, no good; hit the true creature, full damage.
So what I'm hearing is that the rogue should be ignoring the image he can see to attack where he thinks the enemy is. Which means he is attacking what appears to be empty air. This sounds exactly like attacking an invisible enemy. And we know invisible enemies cannot be sneak attacked.
Again, making an educated guess means you are swinging blindly, unable to accurately target the sneak attack spots. Therefore, actually hitting those spots is more a case of luck and should be covered by critical hits, not sneak attack.
Exactly...thank you.
You can ignore the image all you want, but the spell says the target appears 2 feet from its real location, and this is NOT dispelled if that character takes offensive actions. You know roughly to within a few feet where the target is, but you cannot hit it accurately enough to make the Sneak Attack.
Please read the description of Sneak Attack people, it says "You must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot". If you cannot precisely see the real target, how can you pick out its vital areas to get sneak attack?, you cant. The spell says the target appears 2 feet away from its real location, its not standing there visible for all to see.
All those who advocate allowing Sneak Attack would actually be dealing the damage to the glamer that stands there instead of the character, but since it cant be hurt nothing would happen. Its the GLAMER that the Rogue is targeting, not the actual character!!!!,ontop of this there can be no sneak attack if miss chance is EVER rolled. (Miss chance is a product of Concealment)
The rogue fails two of the three neccisary conditons to make the sneak attack in this example.
You just aim where you think the guy actually is rather than at the image. Actually, aiming at the image would be the stupidest thing you could do, because you know for a fact that the image is an illusion and the creature is not where the image is.So what I'm hearing is that the rogue should be ignoring the image he can see to attack where he thinks the enemy is. Which means he is attacking what appears to be empty air. This sounds exactly like attacking an invisible enemy. And we know invisible enemies cannot be sneak attacked.
Again, making an educated guess means you are swinging blindly, unable to accurately target the sneak attack spots. Therefore, actually hitting those spots is more a case of luck and should be covered by critical hits, not sneak attack.
No. You can still tell exactly what you're fighting an exactly how it's oriented when you're fighting a caster with displacement up. You know he's facing to your left and his kidney's exposed at belly height, you just have to guess whether he's to the left or the right of the image. If you guess right, your dagger is buried in his kidney.
This is different from invisibility because you can't see the target, its orientation, its height, or any of its anatomy when the target is invisible. You have no basis with which to make judgments about what to attack. You're truly attacking blindly.
With displacement, you aren't attacking blindly. You're making informed decisions about how and where to attack. You're just hitting air instead of flesh half the time.
How do you know you're fighting someone with Displacement up (assuming you didn't make a Spellcraft check when the spell was cast)? There is no save to recognize the illusion in this case. The target of the spell is the one who's displaced, not the attackers. Without foreknowledge, you have no reason whatsoever to guess he's really on one side or the other.
But you can't go for those areas because you can't see them. You see an image of them and have to guess where they might actually be. You can only target the subject of the spell because you can see the image. Otherwise, it is no different than invisibility. See above reply.
Yes you can... the spell creates a duplicate you 2 ft from its origional possition. A swing a neck level at the displaced image is still going to be a neck level swing if it hits you. the spell does not blur your image like blur does. you have a clear target to go for.
|
|
With displacement, you aren't attacking blindly. You're making informed decisions about how and where to attack. You're just hitting air instead of flesh half the time.
Hmm, put that way, I can see that ruling as more reasonable. I will point out that the two feet shift can be more than just right or left since we have 360 degrees to go with. Or even two feet UP or DOWN. So I still think that hitting is too much a matter of luck to allow precise striking.
A swing a neck level at the displaced image is still going to be a neck level swing if it hits you. the spell does not blur your image like blur does. you have a clear target to go for.
By that logic you can swing at neck level on a Blurred target because it only blurs the outline of a creature and doesn't even disguise the position of the target. Again, nothing in Displacement says the two feet shift is limited to one axis.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.
There're no rules that govern this condition concerning Displacement. I'd find it entirely reasonable to say that a 2 foot displacement is (as a visual effect) sufficient to qualify for 'not well enough' here.
Displacement's a lousy spell anyway....
But you can't go for those areas because you can't see them. You see an image of them and have to guess where they might actually be. You can only target the subject of the spell because you can see the image. Otherwise, it is no different than invisibility. See above reply.Yes you can... the spell creates a duplicate you 2 ft from its origional possition. A swing a neck level at the displaced image is still going to be a neck level swing if it hits you. the spell does not blur your image like blur does. you have a clear target to go for.
But an overhead smash at the same squishy melon-like head would miss completly. Let's not confuse the issue by describing exact methods of swinging imaginary swords at imaginary people.
So what I'm hearing is that the rogue should be ignoring the image he can see to attack where he thinks the enemy is. Which means he is attacking what appears to be empty air. This sounds exactly like attacking an invisible enemy. And we know invisible enemies cannot be sneak attacked.
Again, making an educated guess means you are swinging blindly, unable to accurately target the sneak attack spots. Therefore, actually hitting those spots is more a case of luck and should be covered by critical hits, not sneak attack.
Exactly...thank you.
You can ignore the image all you want, but the spell says the target appears 2 feet from its real location, and this is NOT dispelled if that character takes offensive actions. You know roughly to within a few feet where the target is, but you cannot hit it accurately enough to make the Sneak Attack.
Please read the description of Sneak Attack people, it says "You must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot". If you cannot precisely see the real target, how can you get sneak attack?, you cant. The spell says the target appears 2 feet away from its real location, its not standing there visible for all to see.
And Displacement also says that you can target the creature normally unlike normal concealment.
One of your previous arguments was:
The Displaced creature isnt standing where the Rogue intends to strike however - so while he sees the illusionary figment of the target he isnt going to hit the targets kidney, hes going to poke the unseen character in an unexpected place and that is NOT how precision damage works.
Using that logic, you could NEVER hit some one under the effect of Displacement. They would be immune to everything but AoEs.
He can see the subject clearly so he can pick out where exactly to hit. If he manages to hit, it would be in the place picked to hit.Or is the argument that you hit a displaced creature by flailing around madly in its general direction? It's immune to piercing weapons!
But you can't go for those areas because you can't see them. You see an image of them and have to guess where they might actually be. You can only target the subject of the spell because you can see the image. Otherwise, it is no different than invisibility. See above reply.Yes you can... the spell creates a duplicate you 2 ft from its origional possition. A swing a neck level at the displaced image is still going to be a neck level swing if it hits you. the spell does not blur your image like blur does. you have a clear target to go for.
It doesnt matter though, the target could be 2 feet BEHIND the figment, and there is no rules for swinging at peoples heads - it wouldnt do anything special to say you were, its an attack, plain and simple and like all attacks its governed the same way. A critical hit is somewhat like a Sneak Attack but is achieved through skill and deals huge amounts of damage, but sneak attack is an exact science, its not achieved through luck.
And like others have said, the Rogue may not even identify the spell and wouldnt realise what was going on if he attacked the spellcaster, so he wouldnt use out of game knowledge to try and go after an invisible character standing near the figment.
I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
AS Zurai has said, the spell does not grant concealment, it just grants a 50% miss chance.
you can still pick out a vital spot, hit the leg, achilles tendon, femoral artery, back of the knee, the arm, we have the inside of the armpit, the radial nerve, and the soft part of the elbow
you are overanalyzing, you are trying to hard to apply complete realism to an abstract game that really doesn't require that much thought beyond "What am i going to do this turn?" the only real bookkeeping comes from spellcasters, and even then, a less intellectually endowed indiviudal can still play a wizard, just load up on spells you will always be guaranteed to use. you don't need too high a degree of proficiency in newtonian physics and be a master of realism to play.
heres a little mantra i heard from a friend. i hope it helps you too.
"It's just a game, you should all really just relax."
if that is not enough, there is rule 0.
The Displaced character vanishes and a glamer copy of themselves is left standing within 2 feet of their real location.
How does a Rogue manage to sneak attack something he cannot precisely see?, he sees the illusion just fine but he cannot see the character standing close to it.
Sneak Attack says you have to see the target clearly to pick out a vital area....how is targeting an invisible opponent doing this?, the figment just gives away its rough location. The spell does NOT state that the character is standing right behind it, so an attack at the characters main arteries to ACHIEVE the sneak attack (that would count as a vital area, not some general slash with a sword against an opponet) would not work since thats not what hes hitting on an opponent standing TWO FEET away from his adversary.
Because then if people advocate the sneak attack on this option, then its not about skill at all, but a simplistic effort with a 24 inch margin of error...you can hit alot of body within 24 inches, and generally your not going to hit a vital area...the Sneak Attack CALLS OUT that you MUST target a specific area to achieve the attack.
Or is the argument that you hit a displaced creature by flailing around madly in its general direction? It's immune to piercing weapons!
I think the arguement is that the Rogue is aiming for a vital area (Ooh, he left his kidney exposed, stabby stabby!), but because of the Displacement even though they thought they were right on target they either miss completely (WTF, I just stabbed air??) or end up hitting a non vital area (Funny, that didn't feel like a kidney) like any other mundane non-sneak attack.
I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
Thanks Meatrace...this is how Displacement and Blur worked in 3.5.
Again I'm waiting to hear from the Rogue players gallery how a Rogue can achieve a sneak attack against a character who is invisible that wasnt the one targeted in the first place - the figment was.
I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
Granted... that is unfortunate that Displacement hadn't expressly stated that it worked like Blur, only with a higher miss-chance.
I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
Quick clarification, Blur does not allow you to hide. It states that the concealment is only effective while someone is looking at you. If someone is looking at you, you can't hide. Sneaky, no? :)
Or is the argument that you hit a displaced creature by flailing around madly in its general direction? It's immune to piercing weapons!I think the arguement is that the Rogue is aiming for a vital area (Ooh, he left his kidney exposed, stabby stabby!), but because of the Displacement even though they thought they were right on target they either miss completely (WTF, I just stabbed air??) or end up hitting a non vital area (Funny, that didn't feel like a kidney) like any other mundane non-sneak attack.
And you have a 50% chance of hitting where you aim. The person is clearly there but you only have a 50% chance of piercing the illusion. Applying too much logic and realism to displacement leads to absolute absurdity.
Or is the argument that you hit a displaced creature by flailing around madly in its general direction? It's immune to piercing weapons!I think the arguement is that the Rogue is aiming for a vital area (Ooh, he left his kidney exposed, stabby stabby!), but because of the Displacement even though they thought they were right on target they either miss completely (WTF, I just stabbed air??) or end up hitting a non vital area (Funny, that didn't feel like a kidney) like any other mundane non-sneak attack.
Thats exactly it, thank you, someone else understands what I am getting at. The Rogue would land an unexpected hit but not a precision damage dealing one, it'd hurt still but not be the devastating result they were hoping for.
I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
Thanks Meatrace...this is how Displacement and Blur worked in 3.5.
Again I'm waiting to hear from the Rogue players gallery how a Rogue can achieve a sneak attack against a character who is invisible that wasnt the one targeted in the first place - the figment was.
So you want to hear from the people you have been dismissing for two pages? Why, oh why, doesn't this forum have a rolling eye smiley.
Blur also works different than displacement explicitly and in fluff. Blur would stop Sneak Attack but not Displacement.
How do you know you're fighting someone with Displacement up (assuming you didn't make a Spellcraft check when the spell was cast)? There is no save to recognize the illusion in this case. The target of the spell is the one who's displaced, not the attackers. Without foreknowledge, you have no reason whatsoever to guess he's really on one side or the other.
As soon as you make an attack (even one that doesn't involve an attack roll) that doesn't meet with resistance when it should, you know the image is illusionary.
And if you want to get real technical, a person isn't going to act to a rogue flailing away at thin air 2 feet from you as they are when the rogue is flailing away directly at you. Displacement has no "in game" effect other than to shift your image 2 feet away from where you really are, so it transmits your actions and reactions exactly as you make them. When you fail to parry or dodge and the rogue skewers an image, only to pull back bloodless weapons, he's going to know something is up.
Thanks Meatrace...this is how Displacement and Blur worked in 3.5.
Again I'm waiting to hear from the Rogue players gallery how a Rogue can achieve a sneak attack against a character who is invisible that wasnt the one targeted in the first place - the figment was.
Because the figment is an exact duplicate of the caster. The spell does not distinguish either in its description as to whether the duplice has a different facing to you nor if it was 2 feet above or blow ground. Leaving that much more up in the air.