You can see the target just fine. They're just not where you stab 50% of the time. For the 50% of the time when you do stab them, you stab them right where you wanted, and can sneak attack if you have that class ability.
As far as illusions blocking sneak attack, it would depend entirely on the illusion (if I were DM). An illusion of patched up armor would not disallow a sneak attack if I were DM, though. There are a myriad choices of where to sneak attack. It doesn't have to be anywhere covered by armor. Which isn't to say that sufficiently different illusions (look! I'm now a xorn!) wouldn't ruin a sneak attack if the WILL save was failed.
I don't see how the class ability says you have to see a vital spot well enough to pick it out and then have the rules say you don't.
You only have to be able to pick the vital spot out and reach it. You don't have to "pinpoint it exactly" or any of that overly-precise hogwash. And the example Cartigan has been using about a pencil's location being displaced by water is apt. The pencil isn't invisible. You still see it precisely. You can easily pick out any of its details.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*blink blink*
Uhm, because if you wrap an illusion around the person, the rogue can't actually SEE the real person. You do realize what see means right? You can't pick out a vital spot on the person because you can't see what they really are, or where they really are, so you can't see them well enough to pick out a valid spot. For example, if I am a halfling and I make an illusion of myself as being a kobold for example (or vice versa) then you see the wrong vital spots.
I understand your logic, but I think for a game balance issue I'd disallow it myself. I mean using that logic, glammeredfull plate that looks like a harem dancer's outfit should give 100% fortification since all those soft fleshy parts are actually behind cold hard steel.
Slash across the belly? Breastplate
Kidney punch? Backplate
Slit the throat? Gorget.
etc.
From a realism POV, I see your point, I just wouldn't allow it.
As to the 'halfling as a kobold' bit they both have throats in the same spot ;-) Would the halfling, as a rogue, get sneak attack if he looked like an ogre? Or would the human rogue who's looking like a halfling?
Not calling you out mdt, just explaining why I disagree.
Disbelieve displacement??
WTF?
Displacement is an Illusion (Glamer) spell. Therefore, it can be disbelieved.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Stabbing at someone and missing them would be interacting with the illusion. Of course, they could just as easily believe they missed, so it's not automatic on the disbelieve, but they get a chance.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't see how the class ability says you have to see a vital spot well enough to pick it out and then have the rules say you don't.You only have to be able to pick the vital spot out and reach it. You don't have to "pinpoint it exactly" or any of that overly-precise hogwash. And the example Cartigan has been using about a pencil's location being displaced by water is apt. The pencil isn't invisible. You still see it precisely. You can easily pick out any of its details.
Considering I once *caught* a fish with my hands (and sliced my palm open on its back fin) the pencil's an apt description.
Uhm, because if you wrap an illusion around the person, the rogue can't actually SEE the real person. You do realize what see means right? You can't pick out a vital spot on the person because you can't see what they really are, or where they really are, so you can't see them well enough to pick out a valid spot. For example, if I am a halfling and I make an illusion of myself as being a kobold for example (or vice versa) then you see the wrong vital spots.... and you can't see the real person when they're encased in 50 pounds of steel, either.
And, anyway, I was responding specifically to your remark that the character "changed their appearance to put fake chinks in their armor and cover up chinks that actually existed", and thereby gained immunity to sneak attack. Going by what you wrote, which may not be what actually occurred, all that happened is that the armor's weak spots appeared to move; the character himself wasn't veiled at all.
Either way, you can't see 'vital spots' because the illusion covers them up. Let's put it like this, if I put a tube of wax paper around myself, can you tell me the color of the amulet I'm wearing? Or even if I'm wearing one? Then you can't pick out a vital spot.
Either way, you can't see 'vital spots' because the illusion covers them up. Let's put it like this, if I put a tube of wax paper around myself, can you tell me the color of the amulet I'm wearing? Or even if I'm wearing one? Then you can't pick out a vital spot.
And how is wearing a wax paper tube any different from wearing a suit of full plate? I can't see what color your amulet is then, either, or even if you're wearing one.
You can see the target just fine. They're just not where you stab 50% of the time. For the 50% of the time when you do stab them, you stab them right where you wanted, and can sneak attack if you have that class ability.
As far as illusions blocking sneak attack, it would depend entirely on the illusion (if I were DM). An illusion of patched up armor would not disallow a sneak attack if I were DM, though. There are a myriad choices of where to sneak attack. It doesn't have to be anywhere covered by armor. Which isn't to say that sufficiently different illusions (look! I'm now a xorn!) wouldn't ruin a sneak attack if the WILL save was failed.
Sorry, but by that logic, you're saying the illusion blinks in and out of existence. The spell doesn't say that. What it says is that the illusion is 2 feet displaced from the person you are attacking. That 2 feet could be east, west, northeast, etc, and when they move it resets to a different spot. The 50% miss chance is that if you attack, you may still hit them (imagine a sword swing, if the sword comes in from the east, and the illusion is directly east or west of the person, you're going to hit them anyway, but if they are north or south you either hit them with your arm and did no damage or missed them entirely).
Either way, you can't see 'vital spots' because the illusion covers them up. Let's put it like this, if I put a tube of wax paper around myself, can you tell me the color of the amulet I'm wearing? Or even if I'm wearing one? Then you can't pick out a vital spot.And how is wearing a wax paper tube any different from wearing a suit of full plate?
I didn't say wearing a wax tube, I said I put a wax tube around me. That is, I wrapped myself in an illusion and prevented you from seeing me. A suit of full plate would be more like me taping wax paper to my body. Now you can see me wearing wax paper and can stab me in the throat.
Considering I once *caught* a fish with my hands (and sliced my palm open on its back fin) the pencil's an apt description.I don't see how the class ability says you have to see a vital spot well enough to pick it out and then have the rules say you don't.You only have to be able to pick the vital spot out and reach it. You don't have to "pinpoint it exactly" or any of that overly-precise hogwash. And the example Cartigan has been using about a pencil's location being displaced by water is apt. The pencil isn't invisible. You still see it precisely. You can easily pick out any of its details.
Agreed, the pencil is a good example. Water displacement is a wonderful example. If you spear where you see the fish, you will miss it everytime due to difraction (it's two feet away) and no matter how good you are picking out it's gills (a vital spot) spearing at them will miss completely.
On the other hand, with training, you can compensate for the difraction of the water and spear the two feet away where you know it actually is. You might even be able to hit it in the gills, but you are compensating for the optical illusion not just stabbing at the optical illusion and magically hitting the gills 50% of the time.
I didn't say wearing a wax tube, I said I put a wax tube around me. That is, I wrapped myself in an illusion and prevented you from seeing me. A suit of full plate would be more like me taping wax paper to my body. Now you can see me wearing wax paper and can stab me in the throat.Either way, you can't see 'vital spots' because the illusion covers them up. Let's put it like this, if I put a tube of wax paper around myself, can you tell me the color of the amulet I'm wearing? Or even if I'm wearing one? Then you can't pick out a vital spot.And how is wearing a wax paper tube any different from wearing a suit of full plate?
...
Please answer my question. You implied that being enveloped in a wax tube would prevent me from sneak attacking you because I wouldn't be able to tell you what color amulet you were wearing. I then replied and said, "How is that different from wearing a suit of full plate? I can't tell what color amulet you're wearing then, either".
Now you're moving the goal posts. Now it's no longer about the color or presence of the amulet, it's about the shape of the body.
the prescence of abscense of an amulet or color is irrelevant to plunging a blade into the neck, back, subclavian artery etc.
In fact the amulet would be something noted later and removed for extra coin, rather than I need to know the color of the amulet first.
If however I am required to identify the target based on something that specific then yes you have a point. Other wise no point at all.
Not sure why I'm posting, nobody on either side is going to change their minds, but if you can't figure out if he's wearing an amulet, how can you pick out the artery and be sure you aren't hitting armor instead? If the artery looks like it's covered up by a steel band of armor, you're going to go for a 'vital spot' that doesn't look like it's covered. That's sort of the point I was trying to make.
Sorry, but by that logic, you're saying the illusion blinks in and out of existence. The spell doesn't say that. What it says is that the illusion is 2 feet displaced from the person you are attacking. That 2 feet could be east, west, northeast, etc, and when they move it resets to a different spot. The 50% miss chance is that if you attack, you may still hit them (imagine a sword swing, if the sword comes in from the east, and the illusion is directly east or west of the person, you're going to hit them anyway, but if they are north or south you either hit them with your arm and did no damage or missed them entirely).You can see the target just fine. They're just not where you stab 50% of the time. For the 50% of the time when you do stab them, you stab them right where you wanted, and can sneak attack if you have that class ability.
As far as illusions blocking sneak attack, it would depend entirely on the illusion (if I were DM). An illusion of patched up armor would not disallow a sneak attack if I were DM, though. There are a myriad choices of where to sneak attack. It doesn't have to be anywhere covered by armor. Which isn't to say that sufficiently different illusions (look! I'm now a xorn!) wouldn't ruin a sneak attack if the WILL save was failed.
It doesn't reset to a different spot, it moves in tandem. It doesn't say the displacement shifts randomly.
Also your sword swing gave me another idea. If displacement worked how anti-sneak attack people proposed, then a displaced character would always attack a character's flat footed AC - you can't effectively block an attack coming from an unexpected angle.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone looking at the evidence you offered should reach the same conclusion you did. This is clearly not the case and will not ever be the case... in the game or out of it.
Actually, I'm going to be completely honest. When I see posts that have a huge amount of alternating bold and italic text, I just avoid them. I'm sure she made some very valid points at times |:
If displacement worked how anti-sneak attack people proposed, then a displaced character would always attack a character's flat footed AC - you can't effectively block an attack coming from an unexpected angle.
Oo, good point. Where's Princess, the main proponent of A DISPLACED CHARACTER IS INVISIBLE!!!!1!? If they were invisible, they'd be attacking flat-footed AC and have a +2 to attack rolls.
It doesn't reset to a different spot, it moves in tandem. It doesn't say the displacement shifts randomly.
Correct. But I think argument says that since you can't pinpoint the exact vital areas on the non-displaced real body, you can't get the sneak attack. There is no random positioning, but you are taking aim at something that you can't see *exactly* -- you can *guess*, but it's not the same thing as pinpointing. The *guessing* is why the miss chance happens at all.
I didn't say wearing a wax tube, I said I put a wax tube around me. That is, I wrapped myself in an illusion and prevented you from seeing me. A suit of full plate would be more like me taping wax paper to my body. Now you can see me wearing wax paper and can stab me in the throat.Either way, you can't see 'vital spots' because the illusion covers them up. Let's put it like this, if I put a tube of wax paper around myself, can you tell me the color of the amulet I'm wearing? Or even if I'm wearing one? Then you can't pick out a vital spot.And how is wearing a wax paper tube any different from wearing a suit of full plate?...
Please answer my question. You implied that being enveloped in a wax tube would prevent me from sneak attacking you because I wouldn't be able to tell you what color amulet you were wearing. I then replied and said, "How is that different from wearing a suit of full plate? I can't tell what color amulet you're wearing then, either".
Now you're moving the goal posts. Now it's no longer about the color or presence of the amulet, it's about the shape of the body.
*SIGH*
I am not moving the goalposts Zurai, you're just being a PITA about this. You know exactly what I was getting at. The difference would be that the amulet was swinging around my neck, and not covered by the full plate.
The example was that if you can't see the target as it truely is, you can't pick out a vital spot. You know that, you're not responding to that though, because you can't. Instead, you are picking and choosing specific things about my statement to argue when you know the meaning instead of the specific words I posted. I'm not perfect, apparently you are. I stop this as of now. I posted several times that the illusion prevents you from seeing reality until you disbelieve it, therefore making it impossible to pick out true vital spots. You disagree. Fine. I said in my original post you could disagree if you liked. It was my opinion. You are entitled to your own.
I have no interest in helping you in your perverse 'how can I slice and dice his post to be as annoying as possible' pleasures.
but you are taking aim at something that you can't see *exactly*
And you can't see exactly where a person's throat is in a suit of full plate, either. Maybe they have a really, really skinny neck, but the gorget is much bigger than their neck. You can't tell by looking at them.
The difference would be that the amulet was swinging around my neck, and not covered by the full plate.
Uh, no. You do not wear amulets outside of armor. That's asking to be jerked down by your jewelry. Same reason why you don't wear long hair outside of a helmet (watch what happens to WRs with dreadlocks in the NFL -- they get tackled by their hair).
The example was that if you can't see the target as it truely is, you can't pick out a vital spot. You know that, you're not responding to that though, because you can't.
Yes, actually, I did. I pointed out the water displacement example. You can go off in a huff because your example is truly lousy and you know it if you want, but don't try to say that I havn't addressed your points when you've acknowledged that I addressed them already.
You don't have to "pinpoint it exactly" or any of that overly-precise hogwash.
OK, let's do it step by step.
1. I pick out a vital spot.
2. But I know, because it's displacement, it's not what I can see. Displacement says that what I see is actually 2 feet away from what I can see.
3. I actually target the area 2 feet away from what I can see.
4. I'm technically striking at nothing that I can see.
5. I'm not actually targeting what I perceive to be a vital spot. I'm picking a place that *I'm guessing* is a vital spot.
6. You can't guess. You have to pick a vital spot.
7. Sneak attack doesn't work.
5. I'm not actually targeting what I perceive to be a vital spot. I'm picking a place that *I'm guessing* is a vital spot.
Thank you for using that word.
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally
In reality a vital spot does not have to be an artery, or organ, it can be any joint, neck, groin, head, foot, hand. I find it hard to break down an abstract system in regards to precision striking.
However, if a blurred/displaced/etc. image changes very quickly, like a humming birds wing, where no detail can be made out, and the spell states this grants concealment due to the lack of detail, then I can accept SA being denied.
5. I'm not actually targeting what I perceive to be a vital spot. I'm picking a place that *I'm guessing* is a vital spot.Thank you for using that word.
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally
I know the creature is there. I have targeted them. Thus, for the purposes of combat, I can use spells and abilities that affect the creature (from the targeting rules in the magic section).
The leap you make is that targeting vital spots on a creature is the same thing as targeting the creature. This is effectively undefined in the rules. You assume that targeting a vital spot is the same as targeting the creature. In that sense, my eye is me. If I am any vital spot on me, then clearly I am an eye.
However, if a blurred/displaced/etc. image changes very quickly, like a humming birds wing, where no detail can be made out, and the spell states this grants concealment due to the lack of detail, then I can accept SA being denied.
that should be ok, if the spell states so. However, where does the Displacement spell, says that it grants concealment?
My ruling would be based upon displacement being the upgrade to blur
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.
Blur:
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does.
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Displacement:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
My ruling would be that the rogue would not be able to make a sneak attack at a vital location. That's my ruling for my game. Yes the rogue could attack at a vital spot, but as the opponent is 2 feet from the actual location, might accidentally hit the opponent, but has no chance of scoring the precision damage. The 50% hit chance represents accidentally hitting.
(from the targeting rules in the magic section)
At the risk of being called pedantic, those aren't targeting rules. There ARE no targeting rules in Pathfinder. The text you're referring to only uses "target" in the context of a specific keyword of a method for aiming a spell. It does NOT use "target" in describing how that spell is aimed. Either way, it's very, very specific to spells and only to spells; it cannot be used to draw general-case rules from, because it only applies to spells with a "Target:" line in their text, specifically as opposed to spells with an "Effect:" or "Area:" line.
I don't know if this came up already, but to those who think that Displacement does not prevent sneak attack:
Why does the spell mention "total concealment" at all if it's just a simple 50% miss chance -- and nothing else? Since miss chance is not the same as concealment, why mention it if it has nothing to do with the effect the spell gives?
Because only in the concealment section is miss chance defined. They had two choices: reprint the rules for miss chance everywhere it's mentioned, or refer to where the rules are stated. They chose the method that saved them space.
My ruling would be based upon displacement being the upgrade to blur
Displacement is not an upgrade to blur. The two spells are totally different and do different things. That's like saying displacement is an upgrade to wind wall.
Displacement is not an upgrade to blur. The two spells are totally different and do different things. That's like saying displacement is an upgrade to wind wall.My ruling would be based upon displacement being the upgrade to blur
except wind wall is not an Illusion (glamer) is it?
would you allow blur and displacement to stack?
There ARE no targeting rules in Pathfinder.
Then you can't use the justification...
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally
...to mean anything mechanically.
Also, the necessary element in sneak attack to pick out vital spots is not targeting them -- you *must* see them.
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.
Yes, you can see the target. But can you see the target "well enough to pick out a vital spot" -- when what you see and what you mean to strike are different things?
While I agree the 3.5 rules say displacement doesn't grant concealment, I think there's a strong argument that it prevents you from picking out vital spots. . .
I don't know if this came up already, but to those who think that Displacement does not prevent sneak attack:
Why does the spell mention "total concealment" at all if it's just a simple 50% miss chance -- and nothing else? Since miss chance is not the same as concealment, why mention it if it has nothing to do with the effect the spell gives?
It already came up, and started all this thread : "Poor wording" =)
would you allow blur and displacement to stack?
Define "stack". At my table, you would have concealment (and thus be immune to sneak attacks), and have a 50% miss chance as if you had total concealment. If that's "stacking", then yes. Since concealment and total concealment don't give you a 70% miss chance, then concealment and miss-chance-as-if-you-had-total-concealment wouldn't give you a 70% miss chance.
There ARE no targeting rules in Pathfinder.Then you can't use the justification...
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally...to mean anything mechanically.
Oh, yes, I can. The official Paizo rule is that, any time a term is not defined by the rules, it uses the real-world definition. I covered this back on page 2 or 3, for the record.
Also, the necessary element in sneak attack to pick out vital spots is not targeting them -- you *must* see them.
And you do. Return to the pencil-in-water analogy.
Displacement is not an upgrade to blur. The two spells are totally different and do different things. That's like saying displacement is an upgrade to wind wall.My ruling would be based upon displacement being the upgrade to blur
except wind wall is not an Illusion (glamer) is it?
would you allow blur and displacement to stack?
Why not? They are two different spells.
What you need to do is cast Blur, Displacement, and Mirror Image. Invincible.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone looking at the evidence you offered should reach the same conclusion you did. This is clearly not the case and will not ever be the case... in the game or out of it.Actually, I'm going to be completely honest. When I see posts that have a huge amount of alternating bold and italic text, I just avoid them. I'm sure she made some very valid points at times |:
LOL. I commend you for your honesty!
I'm not a fan of uber italicized, bolded, capped, etc. text myself. That's probably why I limited myself to two italicized words in my rambling response. Less is more. :)
Hello guys!
First real post on here but I was following this discussion and thought I might add my two cents to the mix. I've played 3.5 and rpgs in general for a while, so I've seen the occasional rules question come up over time. :)
The wording from the Pathfinder Core rulebook (which has been stated but I wish to repeat for clarity) states that displacement offers a 50% miss chance "as if" they had total concealment. It goes on to say that unlike total concealment, they can be targetted normally.
Now, let's look at total concealment. Again, direct from PF core rulebook. It mentions very quickly that someone with total concealment can't be targetted; instead, you can target the square they're in and hope for a hit. Hence the 50% miss chance from total concealment, but the important note here is displacement has an additional clause that prevents this last bit: you can target and attack someone with displacement as normal, but you suffer a miss chance. Everyone so far, from what I've read, has agreed to these points... so let's look at the situation a bit closer.
The real issue is not Displacement, but the wording for Sneak attack in conjunction with Displacement. The first line for sneak attack reads this: if a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively. Okay, now we know what to look for. It gives clear examples: denied dex bonus or flanked. The description for sneak attack ends with the problem phrasing; again this is repeated just for clarity and ease to find: The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a target with concealment.
That last phrase is the kicker. Now, no one is arguing that displacement acts like concealment. The problem arises is that we are not sure if displacement actually gives a type of concealment.
Here is something that we are not going to find a clear answer for: RAI, RAW, and Fluff appear to be in conflict. RAI is impossible to determine until a FAQ addresses this, RAW is being argued, so let's look at fluff to make a determination.
Back to displacement: The subject appears to be about 2 feet from its actual location. Now, this could be taken a number of ways. Is the original target now effectively invisible, or is the light being bent so to throw off the sight of their attacker, who can see them but has their vision skewed? Frankly, in some of the earlier forms of D&D I believe displacement made a mirror image beside you, and if hit it vanished for 1 round, but could return. If this were the case now it'd be a simple matter of the rogue slicing the throat clearly, but just making sure they have the right target. This, however, is not how the spell's description is worded, but might be what the intention is. I know that's how the displacer beast has been described and displayed in a few occasions. Frankly, I've always thought both images were there: the miss chance was simply the chance you could swing at the wrong target, all the while the image is shifting back and forth, making sure one single strike doesn't negate the defense. and keeping the opponent guessing on which target is real.
What we need to look at is what the spell does not say: besides essentially bending light to shift where the target seems to be, there's no description whatsoever that suggests the target's image is affected in any way other than perceived location. Meaning this: the target appears clearly in a designated spot that is very close to the original target. In fact, the spell description moves on to state clearly the subject can be targetted normally. This last part seals the deal for me: the subject can be targetted. The subject has a 50% miss chance.
That last part is what gets me to think you can: the displacement isn't perfect, some trace allows the original target to be threatened; be it another image of them or whatever. The miss chance comes from, essentially, picking the right person and either hitting a jugular, or empty air.
Anyway, hope to see you all around! :)
Displacement is not an upgrade to blur. The two spells are totally different and do different things. That's like saying displacement is an upgrade to wind wall.My ruling would be based upon displacement being the upgrade to blur
except wind wall is not an Illusion (glamer) is it?
would you allow blur and displacement to stack?
Why not? They are two different spells?
What you need to do is cast Blur, Displacement, and Mirror Image. Invincible.
Not in my game...The new Mirror Image is also an anathema to the original. To much mini thought put into it. I know D&D started as a miniature game with Chainmail, but it evolved into more, but in certain aspects has devolved again.
Oh, yes, I can. The official Paizo rule is that, any time a term is not defined by the rules, it uses the real-world definition. I covered this back on page 2 or 3, for the record.
And how does Pathfinder expect to mandate that everyone use the same real-world definitions? (:
My definition of target in 3.X/PF is to be able to select the creature for an attack without total concealment -- that is, I can see the target. This is a general term that isn't specific and doesn't relate to *how well* I can see the target. I could have a 100% miss chance, but I can still tell that the creature is there.
My definition of targeting vital spots (which implies a precise place on the actual body) is that you must see the actual vital spot to be attacked. If you target anything other than a vital spot, then it's not truly targeted.
And you do. Return to the pencil-in-water analogy.
But that assumes we can agree on the real-world definitions (:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
"It depends on how you define alone…"
This question is obviously one which will need to be on an FAQ. Wish there was a real FAQ already started. Even if it was a Paizo Staffer Only forum board.
Oh, yes, I can. The official Paizo rule is that, any time a term is not defined by the rules, it uses the real-world definition. I covered this back on page 2 or 3, for the record.
Then by your own rules:
con·ceal (kn-sl)
tr.v. con·cealed, con·ceal·ing, con·ceals
To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide.
Read with care:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.