Displacements prevent sneak attacks?

[Princess Of Canada]

ruemere wrote:

What a funny thread.

Question: assuming that there was no way for the Rogue to penetrate Displacement effect before an attempt to make an attack was made, how the Rogue is going to account for 2' difference?

In other words, a Rogue is about to make an attack. His target is off by 2' from its position. The specific direction of 2' vector is assumed to be horizontal (flying or buried images would be automatically discovered to be false). Assuming that a Rogue goes for sneak attack, he has a 4' diameter circle around each of his locations, and the targetted spot is somewhere on the circumference 12,56 feet long.

So, the Rogue has almost 13 feet to choose from.
How could that possibly result in a sneak attack?

A critical (i.e. a lucky hit) is understandable. Aiming for a specific spot with allowable deviation of, say, 1 inch, and trying to find that spot on 12,56 feet long circumference appears to be pretty difficult.

Regards,
Ruemere

That is more or less part of the arguement I have been making all along, there is much more to it though - other factors as well, see my last post for something more in depth. But thank you for your input.

[TriOmegaZero]

meatrace wrote:

the Smurfoz wrote:

Smurf.

Go smurf yourself!

I already did! :P

[meatrace]

How did my profile pic become a smurf up there?

[Zurai]

meabolex wrote:

If you can find a non-concealment based form of miss chance, then my assertion is incorrect.

Entropic shield. As I've pointed out continually since the first page.

[Zurai]

Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

For the pencil thing. THe pencil is not displaced in the water. The pencil is exactly where it should be. The displacement is in the visual perception of the pencil.

Which, if you bother reading the spell and the description of the glamer subschool, is PRECISELY what is happening with displacement.

[Zurai]

ruemere wrote:

Question: assuming that there was no way for the Rogue to penetrate Displacement effect before an attempt to make an attack was made, how the Rogue is going to account for 2' difference?

False assumption. Whenever you're fighting in melee combat, you're continually making attacks, even if you're not making attack rolls. That's the abstraction for threatened squares.

[james maissen]

Zurai wrote:

ruemere wrote:

Question: assuming that there was no way for the Rogue to penetrate Displacement effect before an attempt to make an attack was made, how the Rogue is going to account for 2' difference?

False assumption. Whenever you're fighting in melee combat, you're continually making attacks, even if you're not making attack rolls. That's the abstraction for threatened squares.

Yeah, but this would perhaps enter into where one interacts with an illusion. (Not that I am going this route in the argument, just playing Devil's advocate in this case).

Personally I think that the miss-chance from displacement must come from concealment as there's no other reason for it to occur (unlike, say, entropic shield or 3.x's incorporeal damage immunity). The wording of the spell does support this despite what some have (erroneously) claimed.

You don't see the subject of the spell, only an image of them. While the spell says that it is sufficient for you to target them that is not sufficient to sneak attack them imho.

Consider the mislead spell, from what others are saying about displacement they should be able to argue that the caster of this should be able to be sneak attacked even though they are (greater) invis'd by this spell!

So while I grant you that it doesn't say 'the subject gains concealment' I think that is simply because the subject gains far more than simple concealment. The spell goes on to say the limitations of the degree of concealment granted which is more like total concealment than anything else.

-James

[Zurai]

james maissen wrote:

So while I grant you that it doesn't say 'the subject gains concealment' I think that is simply because the subject gains far more than simple concealment. The spell goes on to say the limitations of the degree of concealment granted which is more like total concealment than anything else.

-James

No. As I've pointed out half a dozen times, if the spell granted concealment, it would also give the target Hide In Plain Sight and make them immune to AOOs. No one so far has supported that. Thus, it does NOT grant total concealment.

There are four properties of total concealment:

Immunity to precision damage.

Immunity to AOOs.

Can use Stealth to hide.

Grants a 50% miss chance if the attacker correctly guesses which square you're in, and a 100% miss chance otherwise.

The ONLY property of total concealment that displacement grants is the last one, and even then only partially (no square guessing involved). We can thus quite safely state that displacement is very definitely NOT total concealment.

[Amofus]

The most comparable effect for comparison by the rules as written, in my opinion, is actually Disguise Self. If Disguise Self (prior to making the will save) cannot protect from sneak attacks (which in my opinion it shouldn't) and Displacement can (which in my opinion it should), that is a judgement call by the DM regarding how far a vital spot can be from where it appears and the rogue still be able to see it well enough to pick it out.

These are what I consider to be relevant points:

Zurai is absolutely correct. The spell does not grant concealment.

Therefore, the question is whether the spell prevents sneak attack in some other way, which means it is a question of whether it prevents the rogue from seeing his target well enough to pick out a vital spot.

The spell is a (glamer), not a (figment/glamer) like Mislead. The rogue is NOT looking at an image of the target while the target is invisible a couple of feet away; the rogue is looking at the target and perceiving that target as being displaced (in the sense of coordinates).

As a side note: This means that either appearing to be two feet from where one truly is constitutes making it look like something else, or "changes a subject's sensory qualities" is the active phrase and the examples listed after that in the rules for a glamer are not exhaustive. "seem to disappear" is insufficient because it does not provide for the replacement image.

Disguise Self is the only comparable glamer I can find in terms of potentially making one's vital spots appear to be other than where they actually are, but not providing concealment either explicitly or by providing invisibility.

I don't consider this argument about glamers and figments to be as bulletproof as the assertion that Displacement does not grant concealment, because False Vision and Mirage Arcana seem to stretch the categories somewhat.

[Vendle]

This has been an entertaining read!

It does follow logically (and scientifically, which is one of the most amusing angles of this issue) that Displacement does provide a mellow 'form' of concealment such that precision damage would be prevented. It has all the intent of a glamour obfuscating to the utmost of its ability; woe to the rogue enemy that relies on sight!

However, by my reading it seems pretty clear that concealment is not involved (although it is given a tip of the hat), and I think that most people would interpret "may target the subject normally" to include precision-based attacks.

That's my take on it until I see errata that says otherwise. Excellent post Amofus.

[spalding]

My take on this:

Displacement doesn't prevent sneak attacks:
You can in fact see the target and know precisely where you want to strike -- The visual is in fact there, complete and correct, you can local the arteries on what you see and attempt to stab them. However you will probably miss due to the miss chance. This doesn't mean that you can't see the target, or that you can't find the vital spot, it simply means that when you went to stab it wasn't quite where it was supposed to be -- which isn't the same as not being able to target it.

It's much like mirror image -- you can actually see the target(s) -- you can see where you want to stab -- you know how to line up the shot -- however there is a chance that you choose the wrong one (or that they aren't where what you saw is). Just because it might not be where you see it doesn't mean you aren't targeting correctly (in the wrong spot in actual space), and if you do connect you are going to hit exactly where you were planning on hitting.

Blur however would prevent sneak attack -- it specifically states that your form is blurred and difficult to see -- which means difficult to target.

[Carpjay]

Last post:

"It's much like mirror image -- you can actually see the target(s) -- you can see where you want to stab -- you know how to line up the shot -- however there is a chance that you choose the wrong one (or that they aren't where what you saw is). Just because it might not be where you see it doesn't mean you aren't targeting correctly (in the wrong spot in actual space), and if you do connect you are going to hit exactly where you were planning on hitting."

Well stated, but my problem with this is that in Mirror Image, you have d4+x (less than 10) possible choices, which you resolve using d10, d8, etc., not great odds, but you are attacking the image as it truly exists, and a small chance of getting it exactly right.

In Displacement, however, you are not targeting in imgage that could be the right one: you are either (a) targeting the displaced imagbe and by default the one place in the square that does NOT contain the true shape (which would leave "precision" damage to luck, i.e., critical), or (b) you are effectively ignoring the displaced image (as you would against an unseen foe in a known square) and trying to hit...how many possible images in the square, 10, 20, 100?

Imagine a spell that creates about 30 mirror images, distributes them in very small increments around the square, then shows you only one of them and cancels the rest, and hides the original form to boot...the number of possible true placements of the true image is just too large to allow precision, although we then get to that sticky language about being able to "target" the body normally...drat.

That's how I see Displacement: an equal-level spell to Mirror Image, but in exhcange for the big negative of only one image, you get the two positives that the image is not disrupted by damage, and that your true image is hidden.

Further note (because we have not discussed this subject quite enough ;): if you go the concealment route, you might get your Blindfighting benefit [two attacks against unseen opponent] (if it still works that way).

[Abraham spalding]

Actually displacement is a third level spell, but it doesn't conceal you... it simply tricks them into attacking wrong some of the time -- that's not the same as foiling their targeting. The reason it's higher level is because it doesn't end when you are hit, and it provides a constant bonus that is harder to take out.

[Carpjay]

You are correct, it is higher-level...enter sheepish look here. And I offer no strong argument on the targeting...other than thinking it was intended to allow spell casters to still target, not the specifics of sneak attack...but that is an "I think so" argument, I admit, no real weight except in my own arrival at a DMing choice.

As for the mechanic, though, HOW does it offer the miss chance?

"it simply tricks them into attacking wrong some of the time"

How? Not a physical force or windy presence moving the attack aside half the time, nor the randomness of attacking insubstantial foes...rather, it tricks you--as illusions do--because the target appears in a different place than he really is. Which really is concealment, i.e., one false image nearby (an illusionary image), the true image hidden (a la invisibility, i.e., full concealment). The amount of overlap in the same space is not addressed by the spell...just gives the same miss chance as full invisibility.

I confess we're beating this thing into the ground, but interesting angles keep coming up, which is why I keep returning to it.

[Abraham spalding]

In a three words or less? It's magic.

[Niels]

Pathos wrote:

I would follow with the 50% miss-chance here. Displacement does state that you can target the opponent...

"Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."

Which seems to me, that a Rogue would be able to stake out the sweet spot he wants to hit.

that is the case here. the key word is m´normally, that meens you can taget the user with both AOO and sneak attack, only 50% of the time you will be hitting the ilussion of the taget,..the same goes for mirror image, as sometimes you will hit the ilussion and sometimes the real thing

[james maissen]

Zurai wrote:

We can thus quite safely state that displacement is very definitely NOT total concealment.

I didn't say that it was *total* concealment.

It, however, does appear to be concealment, just stronger than the normal 20% miss chance that 'normal' concealment grants.

-James

[james maissen]

Abraham spalding wrote:

My take on this:

Displacement doesn't prevent sneak attacks:
You can in fact see the target and know precisely where you want to strike -- The visual is in fact there, complete and correct, you can local the arteries on what you see and attempt to stab them. However you will probably miss due to the miss chance. This doesn't mean that you can't see the target, or that you can't find the vital spot, it simply means that when you went to stab it wasn't quite where it was supposed to be -- which isn't the same as not being able to target it.

Much like a caster of mislead who happens to occupy the same square as their figment?

Apply your argument to this, don't you arrive at the same conclusion that you are sneak attacking a (greater) invisible target that you cannot see?

-James
PS: and the target reference is simply referring to total concealment which would prevent such.

In general it's a bit disappointing that Pathfinder didn't address a lot of these rules issues when they redid everything. But then again I was disappointed with WOTC's rules compendium far, far more.

[Robert Young]

One reason that it fails as concealment is that while it benefits the subject of the spell with the miss chance, the square containing the Displaced critter very definitely has a fully visible something in it. Concealment offers a host of benefits which Displacement cannot convey due to the 'unhidden' nature of its visual effect.

So while the caster is provided with a very specific concealment type of benefit, he cannot make use of most other concealment type benefits. Hence, he is somewhat partially pregnant with regards to concealment, which we know he cannot be.

[meabolex]

Zurai wrote:

meabolex wrote:

If you can find a non-concealment based form of miss chance, then my assertion is incorrect.

Entropic shield. As I've pointed out continually since the first page.

Right. I admit there are other forms of miss chance. Remember though, in 3rd edition *any* miss chance would negate sneak attack -- according to the official 3.0 FAQ. . . and in 3.5 you can't figure out if that changed unless you use rulings from both the 3.5 FAQ and the Rules of the Games articles.

Also, I hate it when designers use the word "similar" to define rules. Similar means "alike in substance or essentials". Is the 20% miss chance in entropic shield alike to concealment enough that it gains concealment's effectiveness against sneak attacks? Perhaps to a reader, effectiveness against sneak attack is an essential property of concealment. If you say the word "similar", you must state what is essential and what isn't essential.

For instance, if someone were to apply for a job and that had a degree that was "similar" to the one required, does that mean anything?

[meabolex]

james maissen wrote:

Zurai wrote:

We can thus quite safely state that displacement is very definitely NOT total concealment.

I didn't say that it was *total* concealment.

It, however, does appear to be concealment, just stronger than the normal 20% miss chance that 'normal' concealment grants.

-James

This was negated in the 3.5 FAQ. It clearly states that displacement's miss chance is not due to concealment. Only in the Rules of the Game articles for Sneak Attack (Part 2) does the "sage" negate the 3.0 FAQ ruling that any miss chance is also grounds to negate sneak attack.

[Twowlves]

meabolex wrote:

Right. I admit there are other forms of miss chance. Remember though, in 3rd edition *any* miss chance would negate sneak attack -- according to the official 3.0 FAQ. . . and in 3.5 you can't figure out if that changed unless you use rulings from both the 3.5 FAQ and the Rules of the Games articles.

Given that the developers for Pathfinder intentionally bettered Sneak Attack by making it apply in many more circumstances, I feel it likely they would allow it to work against Displacement.

[unopened]

I stand with Zurai and the others here. As Amofus said (He made a list with all the arguments that i was going to use, so, long story short...) Displacement, does not makes you invisible or gives concealment. (It only gives you, as someone said, a "blanket" miss chance as Total concealment, but it does not gives you the "concealment") So, precision damage is possible.

Also, the caster seems to be displaced, you may see it as the bastard son of Mirror image and Blur (Not so blurry, not so numerous, but useful at least)

[Leonardo Trancoso]

unopened wrote:

I stand with Zurai and the others here. As Amofus said (He made a list with all the arguments that i was going to use, so, long story short...) Displacement, does not makes you invisible or gives concealment. (It only gives you, as someone said, a "blanket" miss chance as Total concealment, but it does not gives you the "concealment") So, precision damage is possible.

Also, the caster seems to be displaced, you may see it as the bastard son of Mirror image and Blur (Not so blurry, not so numerous, but useful at least)

OMG....Blur gives concelment so displacement to!

"Unlike actual total concealment,displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally", TARGETING is only select as a target! you can TARGET a IVISIBLE CREATURE with Scent but you can´t sneak the creature.

The only diference between displacement anda total cover is that you can´t taget creatures with total cover but both gives concelment!

[Zurai]

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

TARGETING is only select as a target!

Please show me where in the rules it states this.

Quote:

you can TARGET a IVISIBLE CREATURE with Scent

No, you can't.

Quote:

The only diference between displacement anda total cover is that you can´t taget creatures with total cover but both gives concelment!

False. Total concealment also provides immunity to attacks of opportunity and allows the concealed character to use Stealth. Neither of those is true for displacement. The only SIMILARITY between displacement and total concealment is the 50% miss chance.

...

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

[delabarre]

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

The only diference between displacement anda total cover is that you can´t taget creatures with total cover but both gives concelment!

What Zurai said AND: cover and concealment are almost completely orthogonal. An invisible creature has total concealment but no cover; a creature behind a wall of force has total cover but no concealment.

[TriOmegaZero]

Did we just start over at square one again?

[Leonardo Trancoso]

Zurai wrote:

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

TARGETING is only select as a target!

Please show me where in the rules it states this.

Quote:

you can TARGET a IVISIBLE CREATURE with Scent

No, you can't.

Quote:

The only diference between displacement anda total cover is that you can´t taget creatures with total cover but both gives concelment!

False. Total concealment also provides immunity to attacks of opportunity and allows the concealed character to use Stealth. Neither of those is true for displacement. The only SIMILARITY between displacement and total concealment is the 50% miss chance.

...

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

1. this is not rules...is reading comprehension

2. Pag 564 "A creature with scent ability can detect an ivisible creature as it would a visible one"

3. Miss chance = concealment! "Rogue cannot senak attack while striking a creature with concealment" so.....

ps.: Pag 197 "Variant Degress of CONCEALMENT: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the MISS chance accordingly"

[Cartigan]

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

OMG....Blur gives concelment so displacement to!

Your argument is demonstrably false.

[TriOmegaZero]

Are we really convincing anyone or are we just enjoying the sound of our own keyboards?

[Freddy Honeycutt]

yes we started all over again....

Do we want to put the measure to a vote?

DM adjudication vote?

[Matthew Morris]

Cartigan wrote:

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

OMG....Blur gives concelment so displacement to!

Your argument is demonstrably false.

Several times over.

1) Yes, it is a reading comprehension, see lack of. A rogue can target a flanked oponent normally allowing sneak attack. A rogue can target a displaced flanked target normally (per spell description), thus sneak attack.

2) A [non existant] quote that does not support your arguement.

3) So entropic shield provides concealment in your game.

re: your post script. So the miss chance can be affected by the amount of concealment. This doesn't mean that concealment equals miss chance.

Edited

[Zurai]

Leonardo Trancoso wrote:

1. this is not rules...is reading comprehension

You're in the Rules Forum. Please cite the rules when you're making statements about what the rules allow or do not allow.

Quote:

2. Pag 564 "A creature with scent ability can detect an ivisible creature as it would a visible one"

That text does not appear anywhere in my rulebook. Here's what my book has to say about Scent and hidden creatures:

Quote:

The creature detects another creature’s presence but not

its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a
move action. If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square)
of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint the area
that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.

That states that you can target the SQUARE, not the creature.

Quote:

3. Miss chance = concealment! Pag 197 "Variant Degress of CONCEALMENT: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the MISS chance accordingly"

Good lord, can't you at least bother reading the last 10 posts of the thread? There are LOTS of sources of miss chance that do not provide concealment. Entropic shield and wind wall are two examples. Miss chance DOES NOT EQUAL concealment.

[TriOmegaZero]

Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Do we want to put the measure to a vote?

When has that solved anything? :P

[mdt]

Personally,
I rule that displacement prevents sneak attacks. Not because of the miss chance, but because of the dislocation of the image to the person it is concealing. I base this on the description of sneak attack that says 'You must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot'. With displacement, you are not seeing the 'target' you are seeing an image of the 'target' which is displaced by 2 feet in some random direction. This, by my interpretation (which you can agree with or not, don't care) means you can't pick out a vital spot on the target because you are not seeing the target, you are seeing an illusion of the target.

EDIT: I came to this decision when I had a player use an illusion to change their appearance, so as to put 'fake' chinks in their armor where none existed and to cover up the ones that did, to circumvent the same passage on sneak attack.

EDIT Redux : Obviously, if someone see's through the illusion, this stops effecting them. Then again, if they see through the displacement illusion, they no longer get the miss chance either, but that's beside the point.

[Zurai]

mdt wrote:

EDIT: I came to this decision when I had a player use an illusion to change their appearance, so as to put 'fake' chinks in their armor where none existed and to cover up the ones that did, to circumvent the same passage on sneak attack.

No offense, MDT, but by that reasoning anyone in full plate is automatically immune to sneak attacks.

[Freddy Honeycutt]

I think anything that negates a major class feature should be very carefully ruled upon...

My two cents

50% miss chance
followed by a 50% chance of not dealing SA damage...

So halfing the chance of consistent SA rather than total negation of it. and retaining the spells 50%

[meabolex]

Matthew Morris wrote:

1) Yes, it is a reading comprehension, see lack of.

Keep in mind the game doesn't help with both the history and insinuations inside the game.

A minor cloak of displacement doesn't use the blur mechanic -- but it is similar -- so if a reader would assume that a minor cloak of displacement grants concealment (as blur does), why wouldn't a greater cloak of displacement -- which works just like displacement. How is greater actually lesser?

Also in 3.0 there was an official ruling that any miss chance negates sneak attack. No pertinent wording on the subject (either displacement text or sneak attack text) has changed since then. In 3.5 the Sage eventually decided this was incorrect.

[mdt]

Zurai wrote:

mdt wrote:

EDIT: I came to this decision when I had a player use an illusion to change their appearance, so as to put 'fake' chinks in their armor where none existed and to cover up the ones that did, to circumvent the same passage on sneak attack.

No offense, MDT, but by that reasoning anyone in full plate is automatically immune to sneak attacks.

Sorry Zurai, but that response is pretty much completely full of it. A person in full plate is not protected over every square inch of their body. They have joints, places where the plates overlap, and other areas that are 'Vital Spots' and there is nothing interfering with the rogue 'seeing' those vital spots.

PRD wrote:

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

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.

Note the text I bolded, the rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. If there is an illusion surrounding the target that interfere's with seeing it in any way, then the Rogue cannot see to pick out a vital spot. He's either picking the wrong vital spot (because of the illusion) or he's picking the wrong location of the correct vital spot (displacement, finding the vital spot but thinking it's 2 feet from where it actually is). In both situations, something is interfering with the rogue's ability to pick out a vital spot.

[meabolex]

mdt wrote:

He's either picking the wrong vital spot (because of the illusion) or he's picking the wrong location of the correct vital spot (displacement, finding the vital spot but thinking it's 2 feet from where it actually is). In both situations, something is interfering with the rogue's ability to pick out a vital spot.

I'm guessing this is why the sage ruled the way he did in 3.0. In 3.5 he changed his mind that the miss chance only granted from concealment could negate sneak attack -- a loose interpretation to a strict one. And he officially ruled that displacement did not grant concealment.

[Freddy Honeycutt]

those were not votes those were more of the same....

[Zurai]

mdt wrote:

Zurai wrote:

mdt wrote:

EDIT: I came to this decision when I had a player use an illusion to change their appearance, so as to put 'fake' chinks in their armor where none existed and to cover up the ones that did, to circumvent the same passage on sneak attack.

No offense, MDT, but by that reasoning anyone in full plate is automatically immune to sneak attacks.

Sorry Zurai, but that response is pretty much completely full of it. A person in full plate is not protected over every square inch of their body. They have joints, places where the plates overlap, and other areas that are 'Vital Spots' and there is nothing interfering with the rogue 'seeing' those vital spots.

Then how does covering up weak spots in armor prevent sneak attacks via the "you must be able to see a vital spot" clause?

[meabolex]

Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

yes we started all over again....

Do we want to put the measure to a vote?

DM adjudication vote?

I think it's not an issue of community consensus versus poor word choice. The same rule in 3.5 flowed into Pathfinder. And in 3.5, displacement didn't grant concealment. It granted an untyped miss chance. And since the miss chance was not derived from concealment, it doesn't help against sneak attack. There's no voting -- as long as you're willing to check the myriad of official sources for 3.5, you can see it's set in stone.

The only thing that would refute it is an official response from James or Jason that refutes the old FAQ/Rules of the Game sources.

[mdt]

meabolex wrote:

mdt wrote:

He's either picking the wrong vital spot (because of the illusion) or he's picking the wrong location of the correct vital spot (displacement, finding the vital spot but thinking it's 2 feet from where it actually is). In both situations, something is interfering with the rogue's ability to pick out a vital spot.

I'm guessing this is why the sage ruled the way he did in 3.0. In 3.5 he changed his mind that the miss chance only granted from concealment could negate sneak attack -- a loose interpretation to a strict one. And he officially ruled that displacement did not grant concealment.

That's entirely possible, the logic behind his changing the ruling. But, if that's the case, then the text for sneak attack needs to be changed to just 'The rogue must be aware of a target, and the target cannot have concealment against the rogue'. The generality of the current wording means the Rogue has to be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. Anything that stops him from doing that should prevent a sneak attack from working.

Personally, I think it's not a major issue for illusions to temporarily block an SA. Every time he tries to use the SA and fails, he get's another chance to disbelieve the illusion. If he qualifies for 3 sneak attacks in a round (flanked and full attack say) then he get's 3 chances to disbelieve per round, and bonuses after a bit, so it's only a delay, not a 'Oooh, you broke rogues' thing.

[Freddy Honeycutt]

Disbelieve displacement??
WTF?

[meabolex]

Zurai wrote:

Then how does covering up weak spots in armor prevent sneak attacks via the "you must be able to see a vital spot" clause?

I think the point being made here and even by PoC was that displacement lets you know where someone is, but not *exactly* where someone is. Since you can't see exactly where they are (your image is displaced), you can't *exactly* pinpoint the vital spots. You can strike where you think the vital spots are, but they're not *really* there. Therefore, sneak attack should fail.

Meh, I agree that displacement DOESN'T block sneak attack -- but that doesn't mean I find it logical. Just as the 3.5 FAQ has crap that has been refuted in PF, I think this is one issue that should be refuted too.

[mdt]

Zurai wrote:

mdt wrote:

Zurai wrote:

mdt wrote:

EDIT: I came to this decision when I had a player use an illusion to change their appearance, so as to put 'fake' chinks in their armor where none existed and to cover up the ones that did, to circumvent the same passage on sneak attack.

No offense, MDT, but by that reasoning anyone in full plate is automatically immune to sneak attacks.

Sorry Zurai, but that response is pretty much completely full of it. A person in full plate is not protected over every square inch of their body. They have joints, places where the plates overlap, and other areas that are 'Vital Spots' and there is nothing interfering with the rogue 'seeing' those vital spots.

Then how does covering up weak spots in armor prevent sneak attacks via the "you must be able to see a vital spot" clause?

*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.

[mdt]

meabolex wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Then how does covering up weak spots in armor prevent sneak attacks via the "you must be able to see a vital spot" clause?

I think the point being made here and even by PoC was that displacement lets you know where someone is, but not *exactly* where someone is. Since you can't see exactly where they are (your image is displaced), you can't *exactly* pinpoint the vital spots. You can strike where you think the vital spots are, but they're not *really* there. Therefore, sneak attack should fail.

Pretty much nail on the head. 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. That's a classical disconnect. A = B, B = C, but A <> C. Smoke out of android ears, etc.

meabolex wrote:

Meh, I agree that displacement DOESN'T block sneak attack -- but that doesn't mean I find it logical. Just as the 3.5 FAQ has crap that has been refuted in PF, I think this is one issue that should be refuted too.

Which is why I said originally, 'Personally, I rule...'.

[Zurai]

mdt wrote:

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.

[stormraven]

Princess Of Canada wrote:

I dont see why anyone cannot follow what I am saying...

Princess, you are missing the point. 'They' (i.e. those who disagree with you) understand your logic and your arguments. They dispute some of the evidence you consider factual and they absolutely dispute your interpretation of the rules based on the evidence you presented and didn't present. 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.

Luckily, as a DM, you can apply the rules in any manner you see fit in your game and none of the posters here will have any say in the matter. I think you should probably settle for having made your point and knowing that there are some folks here that agree with your interpretation.

Frankly, I think you are wasting your time (and theirs) trying to convince the folks with the opposing opinion to see things your way... as evidenced by the fact that you have restated your argument multiple times and they clearly don't find your logic compelling. So you either need to provide more conclusive proof or accept that your current evidence is debatable... maybe not to you but certainly to a number of other players here.

Please note - my use of 'they' as a convenient label for your opposition does not indicate, in any way, on which side of the sneak attack argument I stand.

Regards,