|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, I think I may be either reading this feat wrong or it is not a well worded feat.
Cloud Gazer
Your insight into your elemental heritage gives you a clarity of sight few humans possess.
Prerequisite: Sylph.
Benefit: You can see through fog, mist, and clouds, without penalty, ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses from such effects. If the effect is created by magic, this feat instead triples the distance you can see without penalty.
My problem is the last bolded line, I think most if not all of the cloud spells there is always concealment even if you are standing right next to someone within the cloud (20% miss chance), so how do you triple the distance you can see without penalty when there is no distance you can see without penalty?
|
0x3=0, your logic is perfectly sound.
let me quote a spell for you
OBSCURING MIST
School conjuration (creation); Level cleric 1, druid 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 20 ft.
Effect cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you, 20 ft. high
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).A moderate wind (11+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell's area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.
This spell does not function underwater.
So now you can see 15feet without issue.
I agree--you just triple the distances in vision obscuring spells.
|
|
That is not what the feat says though, it does not say It triples the distance you can see with the Penalty it says it triples the distance you can see without penalty. So if there was a way you can see a certain distnace in Magic Conjured Fog without any Penalty, this feat would triple it, but as is alone it does not seem to allow you to see any distance in magic conjured fog without Penalty.
The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
So 4 feet of sight tripled to 12?
|
|
First 15ft increment = See normally (no miss chance)
Second 15ft increment = Concealment (20% miss chance)
Beyond 30ft = Total Concealment (50% miss chance, can't use sight to locate)
The feat wouldn't be all that great if it was gimped to the point that some people here are claiming.
I wish the feat actually said that.
I would most likely do something like that in a Home game but don't have that luxury in a PFS game.
Hmm... you know, when I first read that feat I had thought it would be see without penalty for 15 feet, then total concealment beyond that. Now I see that's not the case. That kind of sucks, and makes the feat rather lame then... much better just to buy a Goz mask.
Related question. Is the smoke from an eversmoking bottle magic? Clearly the bottle is, but is the smoke that pours out?
Whichever way you fall on that it would make the water from a decanter of endless water similarly "magic" or not, though i'm not sure what that would really affect.
I think the problem is that you are considering the 20% concealment at 5 feet to be a penalty, so you think the "without penalty" line prevents this from tripling.
However, you can see 5' normally, it's just that the enemies have concealment in the fog. They are affected, not you. It is not so much a penalty to your actions as it is a bonus to theirs.
Related question. Is the smoke from an eversmoking bottle magic?Just to clear something up, Cloud Gazer does not allow you to see through smoke with no penalty, only fog, mist, and clouds.
You know, I've never noticed that it was based on pyrotechnics and not fog cloud. I guess by RAW one would need the Efrit feat to use that trick. Frankly it's better than cloud gazer because you just see through smoke, magic or otherwise.
Since I prefer sylph's to efrit's lets try something else.
So hypothetically lets say the item is the same, but uses fog cloud as it's prerequisite. Change the item name to Cloud in a bottle. So it's functionally identical, but will allow a Sylph to see through it using cloud gazer. Same question. Is the Cloud/smoke considered magical and if so why or why not? Similarly is the water from a Decanter of endless water magic or non-magic? I would assume the answer is the same for both.
Edit: Actually nevermind. This is clearly DM territory and I don't want to derail the thread. Go about your business. Nothing to see here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Nefreet what do you base that on? There are no 5 feet with no concealment in the particular case of obscuring mist, again, concealment doesn't necessarily negate line of sight, in fact in most cases, apart from total concealment, it doesn't.
In the presence of an Obscurring Mist spell, normally you can see your opponent standing next to you (which = 5ft), and you take a 20% miss chance to hit him.
Cloud Gazer states two things: 1) "You can see through fog, mist, and clouds, without penalty, ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses from such effects", and 2) "If the effect is created by magic, this feat instead triples the distance you can see without penalty."
So, 3 x 5ft = 15ft. You can see your opponent whether he is 1 square away, 2 squares away, or 3 squares away, plus you can target him without a miss chance.
When my group looked at this feat we rationed that you would then have a second range increment where you would suffer a 20% miss chance, because it didn't make much sense for it to go from zero penalty to total concealment after 15 feet, but I suppose given the conflict here that that is up to interpretation.
I feel like the first 15ft should not be a debate, though. It seems clearly RAW to me.
|
|
The feat doesn't say that though. The part that lets you ignore concealment is not repeated for the magic effects.
I've already quoted it, even italicized it. It's RAW. I don't see how I can explain it any different. "Without Penalty" = "no miss chance".
I recognize our homerule may be up to interpretation, but again, it's hard to argue otherwise.
|
|
Cloud Gazer
Benefit: You can see through fog, mist, and clouds, without penalty, ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses from such effects. If the effect is created by magic, this feat instead triples the distance you can see without penalty.
Do you seriously need it restated that "without penalty" means "ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses", because obviously the author of the feat didn't think so.
The whole 3 x 0 = 0 is nonsensical. Only blind characters can see zero feet, and this spell isn't that powerful.
|
|
Concealment comes in two forms: a 20% miss chance, and a 50% miss chance, but they are both called concealment. Concealment is a penalty, as you have already agreed to (you just call it "blocked vision"). So, logically, seeing without penalty, as the feat already explains, means ignoring concealment.
In magical fog effects this distance is tripled, which in the case of Obscuring Mist, means you can see/target/etc anyone within 15ft (3 squares) of your character.
|
|
No, having a -4 to perception checks, for whatever reason, is a penalty to vision.
Let's analyze this a bit. By that logic, something just standing 10 feet away is a "penalty to vision", since Perception checks are made at a -1 penalty for every 10 feet that your target is away from you. Does that mean a Sylph could see infinitely through a normal cloudbank? No.
As defined in the feat, RAW, a penalty to vision is concealment, unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Well since it's a grey area without perfect clarity, even if the intent is obvious, just hope that GMs will take the common sense route that nefreet has presented.
Arguing over every piece of minutia never gets you anywhere, our language lacks the precision for that, and the writers them selves use different language to express their intent.
|
"beyond 5'" away does not mean the adjacent square has concealment, it means the square past it (since you are anywhere within your square even at the close edge).
So for normal PCs:
1st square (adjacent): normal vision
2nd square : 20% miss
3rd square and further : total concealment (cannot see), 50% miss
I.e. normal PCs can see for only 10 feet (2 squares), the 3rd square and beyond has total concealment.
If you have been playing that even the adjacent square in a magic fog cloud has 20% miss chance, you have been reading the rule wrong. It is "beyond" 5ft that has 20% concealment. Think about all the 5' auras and spell effects that surround you, does that mean they only affect your square, and every 5' aura is useless at affecting anything? Again that would make no sense.
For Sylph:
3 squares: normal vision
here is it unclear, probably this:
4th square: 20% miss
5th square: total concealment (cannot see), 50% miss
Or think about it this way: if it really is the adjacent square, and therefore 3x0=0, why have the feat at all? That would make absolutely no sense. So obviously that is not the meaning.
When you have a feat that is worded so vaguely, or simply due to the way English can be constructed, it can legitimately be read 2 ways. And one of those ways means the feat does pretty much nothing, and the other way means the feat works the way you feel the feat should work intuitively, guess which interpretation you should use?
The "without penalty" can legitimately refer to either a) the part of the spell that doesn't have a penalty to it (there aren't many of those we have discovered) or b) the removal of a penalty (hey guys and gals, the feat works as intended- yay!).
I support Nefreet & Draudrohs interpretation.
Worth mentioning that there is a square you can see creatures without penalty in obscuring mist: your own square. It is possible for a tiny creature to enter your square and then neither of you would recieve concealment bonuses against the other.
"The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). "
Per that quote directly from the spell even if in the mist your vision isn't obscured until you reach 5ft and beyond so you only incur a "penalty" to your vision at a distance of equal to or greater than 5 feet. So it would still be 5x3 = 15 feet where anything below 15ft doesn't obscure your sight and anything 15ft and greater does. I think the confusion for that is you don't have any "obscured vision" until you get to 5 feet.
An adjacent creature is 5 feet away from you, not >0 but <5 feet away from you. Ex: An aura or spell with 5ft range, or 5ft reach, all effect only adjacent squares. You measure from equivalent positions within the square, not the closest possible positions. A creature less than 5 feet away from you is in your square.