Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Displacements prevent sneak attacks?


Rules Questions

801 to 850 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

Dosgamer wrote:
Thanks, James!

I fear this is not the last we'll hear on this issue |: Someone has found a core reference that explicitly says displacement is concealment. While an official source can present an official ruling to an undefined situation, only errata can directly change what the book says.

The secondary sources rule only applies if one source obviously overrules another source -- in this case, there is nothing obvious. . . and there's a history of changing minds (:


meabolex wrote:
Dosgamer wrote:
Thanks, James!

I fear this is not the last we'll hear on this issue |: Someone has found a core reference that explicitly says displacement is concealment. While an official source can present an official ruling to an undefined situation, only errata can directly change what the book says.

The secondary sources rule only applies if one source obviously overrules another source -- in this case, there is nothing obvious. . . and there's a history of changing minds (:

I am perfectly willing to have it work either way (per my previous post when SA was not applicable to someone under displacement), I just wanted some clarification (since I play a rogue in the current game, but will undoubtedly run again sometime and be in charge of numerous npc's). I now have my clarification. It also jibes with my own understanding of how they work, so I'm all set for now.

I even took a screenshot of the post, hehe. /salute!


meabolex wrote:
Dosgamer wrote:
Thanks, James!

I fear this is not the last we'll hear on this issue |: Someone has found a core reference that explicitly says displacement is concealment. While an official source can present an official ruling to an undefined situation, only errata can directly change what the book says.

The secondary sources rule only applies if one source obviously overrules another source -- in this case, there is nothing obvious. . . and there's a history of changing minds (:

While this is still devil's advocacy, no, it doesn't explicitly say displacement is concealment. It suggests it is (at least as long as you're still refering to the faerie fire source), but doesn't explicitly say it is. Much as how the original spell doesn't say it is/isn't.

It's REALLY up to one's interpretation. I prefer the "only 50% miss chance, nothing else" solution, if nothing else then because spells are more unique this way.

(Sorry for bad english, I'm a frikkin swede and drunk as we usually are. Seriously, swedes should get +4 on all proffession (alcohilic) checks)

Taldor

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

--> sneak attack: yes


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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

--> sneak attack: yes

I agree. Still it seems to me that this is something that belongs in the errata thread for a possible re-write to make the intended meaning clearer. One of the rules of technicial writing is that if words or phrasing do not add additional information that is relevant to the topic at hand, do not include them. With that in mind, I'd suggest changing the phrasing to something like the following:

Displacement wrote:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance. The miss chance granted by displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

This has the benefit of being fewer words with the same meaning and less ambiguity.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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

--> sneak attack: yes

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but as I stated all through this thread, the definition of being "able to see a target well enough to make out its vital areas" and what constitutes as "targeting" are based on other examples throughout the book for "targeting" in particular.

Alot of people assume "targeting" qualifies for Sneak Attack, but look at when it comes up through the book - splash weapons, AoE spells, and of course "attacking into squares" with reference to Total Concealment.
Now reference the spell to Total Concealment for a moment and see what Total Concealment mentions about targeting, and also reference sections such as 'target/targeting' to see what conditions have to be met to use spells like "Charm Person" against opponents with Total Concealment, normally you cant - targeting is done on a targeting 5ft square basis rather than to beat the AC of whats in it, that implies "targeting" means the general effort of attacking into the square, not the implicit clinical accuracy required to carry out a Sneak Attack attempt. James has ruled one way then the other, either way the spell works, (its either the same as concealment and does not stack with "Blur" or it is different (as has been ruled) and does stack, giving a calculated Miss Chance of 60% with SA immunity from "Blur", which is a well worthwhile tactical choice)
The lack of definitive explination of what kinds of attacks that can be used when "targeting" a enemy, in my opinion, it means one can directly attack the enemy with a degree of certainty but not accurately enough to be precise as is required with Sneak Attack. Again, there are people who believe the two are connected and those like myself who believe one does not count for the other.

Wether people say myself and others are being overly realistic I dont see how - characters using Sneak Attack require to be very precise with a small margin of error and counting Concealment, thats only one obstacle. A Rogue whose senses are being fooled enough to attack the wrong point in space cannot be said to be using the accuracy to achieve Sneak Attack, but due to the way the spell works - once someone knows what theyre up against they can attack into the square knowing they have a 50% chance of hitting the foe hidden somewhere near their projected image. (Which would explain why the spell mentions Total Concealment in the first place with regards to the miss chance, but the targeting aspect is removed meaning characters dont have guess which square an invisible character is hidden in for example)

In the end - a spell that grants something that is like Total Concealment that doesnt work completely like Total Concealment could only mean it offers some kind of Concealment period, such as normal Concealment but with a 50% miss chance. (Such as "Blur" allows a character to target them normally because the opponent can see which square they occupy despite the illusion that distorts their image). Myself and others see the spell in this light.

Not to mention the Rogue should not be able to spontaneously account for miss chance in a Sneak Attack attempt period, he doesnt strike at what he thinks is his enemy only to plunge through the projected image of the opponent and hit some obscured character standing somewhere nearby. 2 feet is a large margin of error with Sneak Attacks, which in alot of peoples opinions should have a small margin of error logically.

Taldor

Just rename the spell to "Blur, Greater" and everything is fine. They wouldn't have had to put this "not like actual concealment" bit if the spell provided 49% miss chance... they just included the wording to make sure people wouldn't confuse this defensive spell for actual total concealment.

Clearly, they failed as far as you are concerned. :)


meabolex wrote:
Either way, there has to be errata. Either displacement is incorrectly written or faerie fire is. Furthermore, the implication that blur is a weaker form of displacement in the major/minor cloaks of displacement also needs to be updated.

+1

Quote:

I'm just amazed about the differences in the 3.0 FAQ vs. the 3.5 FAQ on this issue. The wording doesn't change at all, but the intent of the spell definitely does: (...)

Displacement and Faerie fire have the same text between all 3 versions. No wonder people who played 3.0 significantly were confused by this thread q:

Yeah, 3.0->3.5 seems to have followed the progression of James' comments in this thread :-).

Obviously, the wording of the rules themselves should change to actually clearly indicate rules-relevant distinctions.
I doubt it really takes any more space to do so.


How about this, guys? An excerpt from the 3.5 Rules Compendium:

Concealment
One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy.

Or, how about this, from the 3.5 PHB:

In addition, some magical effects (such as the blur and displacement spells) provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.

I'm sorry, but a lot of you guys sound like you're reaching. It may not be explicit in the spell text if you feel that way, but it is implicit. More than that, it's explicit elsewhere in other spells and books.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

They won't accept that. They'll just point out how 3.5 is contradictory and you can't trust those sources. And then say they're talking PF-only. We're all just arguing from entrenched positions and won't budge no matter what the argument.


Swivl wrote:

How about this, guys? An excerpt from the 3.5 Rules Compendium:

Concealment
One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy.

First, the Rules Compendium outright changed quite a few rules. It's not a valid source of rules for Pathfinder, because Pathfinder's rules are derived from the SRD.

Second, that makes wind wall and entropic shield (among other things) into concealment ... which is moronic.


Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:

How about this, guys? An excerpt from the 3.5 Rules Compendium:

Concealment
One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy.

First, the Rules Compendium outright changed quite a few rules. It's not a valid source of rules for Pathfinder, because Pathfinder's rules are derived from the SRD.

Second, that makes wind wall and entropic shield (among other things) into concealment ... which is moronic.

Hmm... okay, but it doesn't say that all miss chances are concealment. Further, why ignore the PHB citation? Does it not suit your needs?


Swivl wrote:
Further, why ignore the PHB citation? Does it not suit your needs?

Because I have no clue where that's from in the PHB. It's certainly not in the SRD. Without any references to the citation, I can't examine it to determine its context or, indeed, its veracity.

EDIT:

OK, I found it. However, if we're using the 3.5 stuff, I'll note that displacement specifically mentions that it's a copy of the Displacer Beast ability, and Displacer Beasts don't mention concealment anywhere in their Displacement ability entry.


Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Further, why ignore the PHB citation? Does it not suit your needs?
Because I have no clue where that's from in the PHB. It's certainly not in the SRD. Without any references to the citation, I can't examine it to determine its context or, indeed, its veracity.

Page 152, the last paragraph of the section, "Concealment"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This has turned into a RAW Vs. RAI, Crunch Vs. Fluff battle.

While RAW hasn't come out and just said "Displacement is concealment" there are several sources that that do prove otherwise. As I believe has already been brought up, attacking a displaced creature is like trying to hit a target under water (in real life, not in game). You have to aim for the the creature you can't see, not the illusion you can.

A creature that can't be seen has a 50% concealment chance. However, The fact that an illusion is present in nearby proximity allows for the area to be targeted regularly. You could still hit the target, but a precise attack would be impossible (the illusions heart may overlap with the targets arm for instance). The fact that you may still hit the target in a vital position does not make it a sneak attack, it makes it covered under the critical hit rules.

I've always seen displacement (3rd level) as combination of Minor image (1st) and invisibility (2nd), with the exception of trading the untargetability for the ability to attack without losing the spell.

If displacement is still a problem for your group, I suggest you change the spell to a +8 cover bonus to AC (as if the target were under water) and see if that doesn't get annoying.


Erik Herrin wrote:
As I believe has already been brought up, attacking a displaced creature is like trying to hit a target under water (in real life, not in game). You have to aim for the the creature you can't see, not the illusion you can.

<chuckles>

This shows a very basic lack of understanding of the analogy.


Swivl wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Further, why ignore the PHB citation? Does it not suit your needs?
Because I have no clue where that's from in the PHB. It's certainly not in the SRD. Without any references to the citation, I can't examine it to determine its context or, indeed, its veracity.
Page 152, the last paragraph of the section, "Concealment"

Okay, seriously. Displacement is an illusion that conceals your true location. Displacer beasts conceal their true location. It might not have been mentioned in certain entries because it was obvious. As I said earlier, implied, even.

Since you need Pathfinder, here's something (page 210 Core):

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory
qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like
something else, or even seem to disappear.

This miss chance granted by displacement seems to have only one possibility with this in mind: concealment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zurai wrote:


<chuckles>

This shows a very basic lack of understanding of the analogy.

How so? Explain, please.


Swivl wrote:
It might not have been mentioned in certain entries because it was obvious.

This is an exceptionally slippery slope. When you start saying that rules apply that are never stated because "they're obvious", you start running into all sorts of potential problems. It's generally best to stick to doing what the rules actually tell you to do.

Quote:

Since you need Pathfinder, here's something (page 210 Core):

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory
qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like
something else, or even seem to disappear.

This miss chance granted by displacement seems to have only one possibility with this in mind: concealment.

Does that mean that disguise self is concealment? It's a glamer, after all, that changes your appearance, by a potentially significant amount. Make yourself appear a foot taller and a couple hundred pounds fatter and "it's obvious" that it would provide concealment, especially if you were short to begin with.

Erik Herrin wrote:
How so? Explain, please.

There aren't two different locations with natural displacement (ie, a pencil in water). Your perception of the pencil's location is altered, but the pencil isn't invisible with a duplicate image of it elsewhere.

Taldor

Spell descriptions trump the rest of this bull's cake. 50% miss chance, but NOT ACTUAL CONCEALMENT.

Roll with it boys... roll with it. Rogues need something they're good at. Wonder why they can now crit undead and constructs? hmmm? They needed fixing. Unless the foe is invisible, sneak attack is a go in my book. I guess this thread taught me that people in dim lit areas (20% miss chance) are immune to sneak damage... but it's not sitting well with me, and I might houserule zero that. I mean, do you think rogues hone their sneak attack skills in broad daylight?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:


Concealment
One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy.
Second, that makes wind wall and entropic shield (among other things) into concealment ... which is moronic.

Actually Zurai, Wind Wall and Entropic Shield DO physically block the attack, where as the quoted bit states concealment is situations where nothing physically block the attack. Therefore, Wind Wall and Entropic Shield do not count as concealment.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:


Concealment
One way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy.
Second, that makes wind wall and entropic shield (among other things) into concealment ... which is moronic.
Actually Zurai, Wind Wall and Entropic Shield DO physically block the attack, where as the quoted bit states concealment is situations where nothing physically block the attack. Therefore, Wind Wall and Entropic Shield do not count as concealment.

Incorrect. They do not block the attack. That'd be wall of force or the like. They deflect the attack. They make the attack land where it wasn't aimed. Entropic shield also isn't physical.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
Incorrect. They do not block the attack. That'd be wall of force or the like. They deflect the attack. They make the attack land where it wasn't aimed. Entropic shield also isn't physical.

So you're making the distinction between a deflection effect and a physical obstruction? What is the difference between a wall of force and entropic shield? Both are a physical force against the attack.

"A wall of force creates an invisible wall of pure force."

"A magical field appears around you, glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues."

"Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."


Where does it state or even imply that entropic shield is a physical force?

I suggest you look up the definition of entropy.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:

Where does it state or even imply that entropic shield is a physical force?

I suggest you look up the definition of entropy.

The magical field part.

entropy: a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy

Pressure is not a physical force?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:

Where does it state or even imply that entropic shield is a physical force?

I suggest you look up the definition of entropy.

The magical field part.

How does that state or imply physicality?

Ever heard of an electromagnetic field? There's nothing physical at all about it. It has no substance. It's a field, though.

Quote:


field
&#8194; &#8194;/fild/ Show Spelled[feeld] Show IPA
–noun
12.
Physics. the influence of some agent, as electricity or gravitation, considered as existing at all points in space and defined by the force it would exert on an object placed at any point in space.Compare electric field, gravitational field, magnetic field.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

An electromagnetic field does exert a force, or else magnets would not pull or push.

Wow we got far afield.


Yes, you managed to succeed at derailing the discussion into irrelevancies.

A field of entropic force does not physically block the ranged attack, but it does affect the attacker's accuracy. Thus, entropic shield is concealment, according to the Rules Compendium.

The only definition for "block" as a verb at dictionary.com that is relevant to the rule is:

Quote:

–verb (used with object)

32.
to obstruct (someone or something) by placing obstacles in the way (sometimes fol. by up): to block one's exit; to block up a passage.

Thus, any change in accuracy that does not involve physical obstacles is concealment. According to the Rules Compendium.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:

Yes, you managed to succeed at derailing the discussion into irrelevancies.

A field of entropic force does not physically block the ranged attack, but it does affect the attacker's accuracy. Thus, entropic shield is concealment, according to the Rules Compendium.

Alright, so you are stating that the magical field of Entropic Shield and the wind barrier of Wind Wall do not have a physical effect on the attack to cause the 20% miss chance?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:

Yes, you managed to succeed at derailing the discussion into irrelevancies.

A field of entropic force does not physically block the ranged attack, but it does affect the attacker's accuracy. Thus, entropic shield is concealment, according to the Rules Compendium.

Alright, so you are stating that the magical field of Entropic Shield and the wind barrier of Wind Wall do not have a physical effect on the attack to cause the 20% miss chance?

No, I'm saying they don't block the attack. Which is what I said originally.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zurai wrote:


There aren't two different locations with natural displacement (ie, a pencil in water). Your perception of the pencil's location is altered, but the pencil isn't invisible with a duplicate image of it elsewhere.

But the pencil is invisible in it current location, otherwise you would see it. light refracting through the water causes an illusion that the object is somewhere that it isn't. The physics behind it are the same, one is just produced by "magic".

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Spell descriptions trump the rest of this bull's cake. 50% miss chance, but NOT ACTUAL CONCEALMENT.

Roll with it boys... roll with it. Rogues need something they're good at. Wonder why they can now crit undead and constructs? hmmm? They needed fixing. Unless the foe is invisible, sneak attack is a go in my book. I guess this thread taught me that people in dim lit areas (20% miss chance) are immune to sneak damage... but it's not sitting well with me, and I might houserule zero that. I mean, do you think rogues hone their sneak attack skills in broad daylight?

But by doing so your making other problems. Blur and Discplacement stacking, or worse, Improved invisibility and Displacement stacking (SWEET EVIL JESUS...!). Your giving casters a 75% miss chance and immunity to sneak attack.

There's a reason all the powergamers in my groups play races with darkvision or get spellcasters to light enemies when they are playing rogues. Everyone needs defences and offensives, and displacement is one used for rogues.

What is getting to me is some people on this board are making it sound like displacement is an every-combat-anyone-can-do-it thing. Displacement lasts for rounds per level, so a caster will only be able to cast it just prior to or during combat. This is true for the cloak of displacement as well. Most rogue do there sneak attack in the surprise and first round, before the unprepared spellcaster is displaced, or when flanking, a scenerio any good caster doesn't want to be in.

The rogue is not as pitiable as people make her out to be. Sneak attack kills people, which is why you can't do it all the time.

As for the displacer beast, if we are going by pathfinder only, can someone tell me where it is; it seems to have diplaced itself from the beastiary.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
No, I'm saying they don't block the attack. Which is what I said originally.

And I'm more hung up on the 'nothing physically' part of the statement.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:

The only definition for "block" as a verb at dictionary.com that is relevant to the rule is:

Quote:

–verb (used with object)

32.
to obstruct (someone or something) by placing obstacles in the way (sometimes fol. by up): to block one's exit; to block up a passage.
Thus, any change in accuracy that does not involve physical obstacles is concealment. According to the Rules Compendium.

"Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."

So anything that manages "to obstruct" a blow or shot is not concealment. And Entropic Shield does not obstruct the blow or shot?


Erik Herrin wrote:
But the pencil is invisible in it current location, otherwise you would see it. light refracting through the water causes an illusion that the object is somewhere that it isn't. The physics behind it are the same, one is just produced by "magic".

No, the pencil is not invisible. At this point, I'm going to bow out of the discussion, because I am not a physics teacher.

Quote:
But by doing so your making other problems. Blur and Discplacement stacking, or worse, Improved invisibility and Displacement stacking (SWEET EVIL JESUS...!). Your giving casters a 75% miss chance and immunity to sneak attack.

No.

Blur and displacement do not stack; they both give miss chance by concealment or "as if by concealment". Concealment miss chances don't stack.

Note that displacement only gives miss chance as if it was concealment. That's enough to clarify the rules on how to treat the miss chance, without adding in all the extra baggage that concealment has.

Displacement and invisibility do not stack. Displacement causes the caster's appearance to be distorted from where it really is, but while he is invisible he has no appearance. 0*X = 0.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:

The only definition for "block" as a verb at dictionary.com that is relevant to the rule is:

Quote:

–verb (used with object)

32.
to obstruct (someone or something) by placing obstacles in the way (sometimes fol. by up): to block one's exit; to block up a passage.
Thus, any change in accuracy that does not involve physical obstacles is concealment. According to the Rules Compendium.

"Concealment encompasses all circumstances when nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but when something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."

So anything that manages "to obstruct" a blow or shot is not concealment. And Entropic Shield does not obstruct the blow or shot?

Read the entire definition, please. It's a very specific method of obstruction -- obstruction by means of an obstacle or obstacles.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
Read the entire definition, please. It's a very specific method of obstruction -- obstruction by means of an obstacle or obstacles.

So a field that deflects the incoming attack is not an obstacle? Something that impedes progress or achievement?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Read the entire definition, please. It's a very specific method of obstruction -- obstruction by means of an obstacle or obstacles.
So a field that deflects the incoming attack is not an obstacle?

It's not a physical obstacle. Please, read my entire post. Your trolling is getting irritating.

I wrote:
Thus, any change in accuracy that does not involve physical obstacles is concealment. According to the Rules Compendium.


Zurai wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Read the entire definition, please. It's a very specific method of obstruction -- obstruction by means of an obstacle or obstacles.
So a field that deflects the incoming attack is not an obstacle?

It's not a physical obstacle. Please, read my entire post. Your trolling is getting irritating.

I wrote:
Thus, any change in accuracy that does not involve physical obstacles is concealment. According to the Rules Compendium.

Therefore it must be Concealment, but your own terms.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And my argument is that the field IS a physical force, as we explored with that "derailing the discussion into irrelevancies"

And I'm sorry you feel I'm trolling, but I'm very much enjoying the discussion and I am very earnestly interested in which of us will be proven wrong, if either of us can be.


meatrace wrote:
Therefore it must be Concealment, but your own terms.

Yes, which is ludicrous. Thanks for making my point for me.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
And my argument is that the field IS a physical force, as we explored with that "derailing the discussion into irrelevancies"

By that definition, darkness is a physical obstacle. It's obviously an obstacle (it's impeding the goal of seeing), and it's caused by physical forces (namely, light, or the absence thereof).

Thus, darkness doesn't provide concealment. Glad we could clear that up!

TriOmegaZero wrote:
And I'm sorry you feel I'm trolling, but I'm very much enjoying the discussion and I am very earnestly interested in which of us will be proven wrong, if either of us can be.

Considering how often you've bragged about trolling me in the past, you have very little credibility with me on that subject.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Spell descriptions trump the rest of this bull's cake. 50% miss chance, but NOT ACTUAL CONCEALMENT.

Roll with it boys... roll with it. Rogues need something they're good at. Wonder why they can now crit undead and constructs? hmmm? They needed fixing. Unless the foe is invisible, sneak attack is a go in my book. I guess this thread taught me that people in dim lit areas (20% miss chance) are immune to sneak damage... but it's not sitting well with me, and I might houserule zero that. I mean, do you think rogues hone their sneak attack skills in broad daylight?

Wait, so your argument is that Rogues need displacement to not be concealment. That, and I simply need to accept that.

Well, what if I say that Wizards need displacement to be concealment (considering they "made" the spell), and you just need to accept that.

This sort of thing doesn't help. I'm showing evidence and reason that supports the idea, and you just show me the reasons you think it's wrong. But with nothing there to support it, I don't see the reason to roll with it.


Swivl wrote:
Well, what if I say that Wizards need displacement to be concealment (considering they "made" the spell)

Why? Blur is lower level and lasts longer. Why does displacement need to provide concealment?

It's actually better for the versatility of the game system to have it not provide concealment.


Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Well, what if I say that Wizards need displacement to be concealment (considering they "made" the spell)

Why? Blur is lower level and lasts longer. Why does displacement need to provide concealment?

It's actually better for the versatility of the game system to have it not provide concealment.

Easy. Better concealment than blur. Anything else?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zurai wrote:


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And my argument is that the field IS a physical force, as we explored with that "derailing the discussion into irrelevancies"

By that definition, darkness is a physical obstacle. It's obviously an obstacle (it's impeding the goal of seeing), and it's caused by physical forces (namely, light, or the absence thereof).

Thus, darkness doesn't provide concealment. Glad we could clear that up!

But darkness is not a physical obstacle like Entropic Shield is. Nothing physically affects the shot, only the attackers accuracy. So Darkness provides concealment but Entropic Shield does not.


Swivl wrote:
Easy. Better concealment than blur. Anything else?

There is no such thing as "better concealment". Better miss chance, sure, but it already provides that.


Zurai wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Easy. Better concealment than blur. Anything else?
There is no such thing as "better concealment". Better miss chance, sure, but it already provides that.

Then, better miss chance it is, then. Why it doesn't also provide concealment along with a better miss chance, as total concealment does, is something that now needs to be proved, considering the evidence shown earlier in the thread.

The burden of proof is on you, in other words.

801 to 850 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Displacements prevent sneak attacks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.