I have always operated under the assumption that if you have two people standing on the edge of an obscuring mist (one inside and one outside) both get a 20% miss chance.
I have run into two GMs lately that interpret it that the person standing in the mist gets a 20% miss chance when attacked, but they can see out of the mist just fine and attack with no penalty.
I have read the spell a few times and logically this doesn't make much sense to me, and I am really on the fence as to whether or not RAW supports it. Is there anything official on this.
I tried to do a quick search but didn't find anything remotely official, in agreement, or even focused on this case.
Thanks
There's nothing official, but logically, I'd definitely rule it the way the two GMs did. You get concealment for being in the mist--if you're not in the mist, no concealment. That said, you could only be seen at all by someone at the edge of the mist, since they couldn't see through any squares of mist.
Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.
Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.
The exact same amount of mist infact.
- Torger
Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.
They do receive penalties, your two DMs were wrong.
Why does the person in the mist not receive penalties? He is looking through the mist as well.
Because he's not looking through mist due to the way "squares" work. I'm not going to argue the point, though, because I think squares are stupid anyway and totally hate using the battlemap, anyway.
I can very easily see a guy standing in mist peeking his head out to attack, though.
Combat is abstracted. The moments he peeks his head out to strike are the same times the other guy chooses to attack. :p
The guy in the mist is attacking an opponent in a normal square. The guy outside the mist is attacking an opponent in an Obscuring Mist square and so gains concealment.
RAW this is probably correct.
In terms of making logical sense it's ridiculous. There's the exact same amount of mist obscuring each of their vision.
- Torger
I can very easily see a guy standing in mist peeking his head out to attack, though.
The game doesn't model poking your head out of a square. You're either in that square when you take your attack or you're not.
- Torger
What Torger said.
What if it were an area of deeper darkness? Would you allow a creature occupying the edge square of a deeper darkness to 'poke his head out' then attack without penalty?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This - and many similar issues - is solved by viewing square occupancy as incomplete. That is... a person occupies a portion of a 5ft square, not the whole thing. The person is dynamic, moving about within that space at will. My rule is to mentally view that position within a 5ft square always benefits the occupant.
So, at will the person within the final square of obscuring mist can elect to occupy a point within that square very close to the outside edge, and make their attacks unhindered. That benefits them. They can also elect to occupy a point deepest within their square, forcing their opponent to attack with interference. Again, that benefits the occupant.
I don't require actions to move about in the square, and I don't (as DM or player) talk about it. It's just mechanical detail in the background that explains and enables literal edge-conditions like this one.
This exactly.My rule is to mentally view that position within a 5ft square always benefits the occupant.
What if it were an area of deeper darkness? Would you allow a creature occupying the edge square of a deeper darkness to 'poke his head out' then attack without penalty?
Yes.
This - and many similar issues - is solved by viewing square occupancy as incomplete. That is... a person occupies a portion of a 5ft square, not the whole thing. The person is dynamic, moving about within that space at will. My rule is to mentally view that position within a 5ft square always benefits the occupant.
So, at will the person within the final square of obscuring mist can elect to occupy a point within that square very close to the outside edge, and make their attacks unhindered. That benefits them. They can also elect to occupy a point deepest within their square, forcing their opponent to attack with interference. Again, that benefits the occupant.
I don't require actions to move about in the square, and I don't (as DM or player) talk about it. It's just mechanical detail in the background that explains and enables literal edge-conditions like this one.
Ok, I'm the guy outside the mist I have a bow. I ready an action to shoot the guy in the mist the moment he "occup(ies) a point within that square very close to the outside edge".
Or in less gamist terms, I'm waiting to take my shot for the moment he pokes his head out.
Does my shot suffer from concealment?
If the answer is no then I'm on board. If the answer is yes then I call BS. If he can get a clear shot at me then I can get a clear shot at him.
- Torger
The concealment chance covers that. If you don't miss the shot from concealment, you took it at the right moment. If you roll that 20% miss chance, well, you misjudged the shot...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems obvious to me according to the rules how this is handled.
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment."
Is the character in the Obscuring Mist? Yes, he has concealment. No, he does not have concealment.
Unless I am missing something, it is pretty cut and dry.
The problem becomes when we try and make a game mechanic make perfect sense in real life terms.
It is a game mechanic. We are adjacent and I am in the mist attacking you who is outside the mist, I do not have a miss chance but you do.
|
Combat is abstracted. The moments he peeks his head out to strike are the same times the other guy chooses to attack. :p
By that reasoning if I peaked out of an arrow slot at any point during my turn I would lose all the benefits of cover. That is neither logical nor RAW. Just because at some point in the round you could see my eyes clearly does not mean my entire body becomes a clear target.
I have always operated under the assumption that if you have two people standing on the edge of an obscuring mist (one inside and one outside) both get a 20% miss chance.
I have run into two GMs lately that interpret it that the person standing in the mist gets a 20% miss chance when attacked, but they can see out of the mist just fine and attack with no penalty.
I have read the spell a few times and logically this doesn't make much sense to me, and I am really on the fence as to whether or not RAW supports it. Is there anything official on this.
I tried to do a quick search but didn't find anything remotely official, in agreement, or even focused on this case.
Thanks
You want to see how RAW determines line of sight and line of effect.
To determine if your medium sized character can see another medium sized character (and how clearly) you have the observer pick a corner of their square and then draw 4 lines from that corner to each of the 4 (or 8 if you want to be 3-dimensional) corners of the target's square.
In the case of someone in mist, but who borders clear space (and thus the path between the squares is free of mist) it is indeed the case that someone trying to see them would have some (two) of those lines pass through the mist, while they could pick a corner a draw lines to their target without going through any mist.
Likewise they could take a step further back into the mist and still see their target with concealment, while the target would no longer be able to see them.
The thinking is as plain as 'you need to see all of them, but only your eyes need to do the seeing, not all of your body'. It actually makes sense should you accept it and consider it for a few minutes. But regardless, that's the RAW.
-James
I have considered it, but fail to accept it from a logic point of view. But I do think you make a very strong case for RAW. Thank you.
This is for PFS so at the end of the day RAW is all that matters. My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head. Additionally I would think such contortions would put the balance of the character (AC and Attack) in jeopardy.
But like I said at the start, this is PFS so it doesn't have to make real life sense for me. If I were running a home game, I would probably just do it the way that has always felt intuitive for me and apparently most of the people I have played with.
My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head.
Are you using called shot rules then? Make sure you take the proper penalties for that.
Otherwise, you're making a regular swing at a guy and you know where he is, but can't see all of him--that's pretty much the definition of concealment--so you'd get the 20% miss chance as normal.
By that reasoning if I peaked out of an arrow slot at any point during my turn I would lose all the benefits of cover. That is neither logical nor RAW. Just because at some point in the round you could see my eyes clearly does not mean my entire body becomes a clear target.
Except that's pure hyperbole and my reasoning does not lead there at all because they're completely different things. Also, the arrow slit is giving you cover due to leaving a very small, narrow opening in the wall with which you could be attacked through, while for the archer inside right against the wall, he can target a wide angle field.
If he were instead in darkness, he'd have just as much trouble seeing through it as the other guy.
If D&D darkness worked like real life darkness, I could be in the center of a 60 ft radius of darkness and see a lit up room 100 ft away.
|
|
By that reasoning if I peaked out of an arrow slot at any point during my turn I would lose all the benefits of cover. That is neither logical nor RAW. Just because at some point in the round you could see my eyes clearly does not mean my entire body becomes a clear target.Except that's pure hyperbole and my reasoning does not lead there at all because they're completely different things. Also, the arrow slit is giving you cover due to leaving a very small, narrow opening in the wall with which you could be attacked through, while for the archer inside right against the wall, he can target a wide angle field.
If he were instead in darkness, he'd have just as much trouble seeing through it as the other guy.
I fail to see the difference. If I am sticking my head out from behind a wall targeting my head does not remove the cover as the majority of my body still has cover. In the same exact way, if I am sticking my head out of an Obscuring Mist or Darkness spell, targeting my head does not remove the concealment as the majority of my body still has concealment. The fact you can see my face clearly for a moment when I shoot an arrow out of the mist at an unobscured target has a negligible effect on attacks agaInst me. Both logic and RAW bear that out.
You want to see how RAW determines line of sight and line of effect.
To determine if your medium sized character can see another medium sized character (and how clearly) you have the observer pick a corner of their square and then draw 4 lines from that corner to each of the 4 (or 8 if you want to be 3-dimensional) corners of the target's square.
In the case of someone in mist, but who borders clear space (and thus the path between the squares is free of mist) it is indeed the case that someone trying to see them would have some (two) of those lines pass through the mist, while they could pick a corner a draw lines to their target without going through any mist.
Likewise they could take a step further back into the mist and still see their target with concealment, while the target would no longer be able to see them.
The thinking is as plain as 'you need to see all of them, but only your eyes need to do the seeing, not all of your body'. It actually makes sense should you accept it and consider it for a few minutes. But regardless, that's the RAW.
-James
What James said is the RAW, like it or not (and if you don't like it you can houserule whatever you want - just know that it's a houserule).
To quote it:
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.
When making a ranged attack or a melee reach attack against an enemy, you choose any corner of your square (I recommend choosing whichever corner is closest to the enemy). Draw all four line from that corner to each corner of the enemy's space. If any of those lines pass through the mist then your target gets concealment. Assuming you are at the edge of the mist and didn't pick a corner behind you, none of the lines will pass through any mist.
And if you are inside the mist making a melee attack against an adjacent enemy, he only has concealment if HIS space (not yours) is completely in the area. It is not.
Therefore, no concealment.
My issue with the logic is the same that others have stated earlier in the thread, if the person is sticking the head out of the mist but keeping the body back, the enemy can target the head.Are you using called shot rules then? Make sure you take the proper penalties for that.
Otherwise, you're making a regular swing at a guy and you know where he is, but can't see all of him--that's pretty much the definition of concealment--so you'd get the 20% miss chance as normal.
Well I did overgeneralize a bit because I considered the issue done, but you quote mined me as well. I don't think the person should be able to peak out, but if he does I would consider the vision equal both ways. Like I said above, if he did some funky body bending while trying to imagine what the enemy probably sees in an attempt to only expose a little of his head for a fraction of a second while keeping his body back, I would think that would incur a penalty to hit as well (possibly worse than just having clouded vision). My argument from the start is that the guy in the mist should be penalized.
Read again what I have written. Ever since the RAW about line of sight was broken down I have never "failed to accept it".
I am actually kind of glad I found this, it opens up the door to some new abuse. My sorcerer just picked up Wall of Force. I can angle it to pin a creature in the corner, Elemental Body: earth to glide through the wall, stay in the five feet of wall next to the "cage", and cast at the trapped creatures without fear of reprisal.
Once again, logic dictates this shouldn't happen but RAW does call it good.
Joesi, I think I would have to disagree. Seeing as how mistmail has no time limit on it, it could basically be about the same thing as an item that costs over ten times as much as it does (cloak of minor displacement). The fact that mistmail's language states that it provides concealment and cloak of displacement's language says that it provides concealment for the wearer, I am not overly convinced that it is the desire of the authors for mist to work the way that it does.
To preempt yet another possible accept RAW line, let me reiterate again, I have done so. My arguments now are from an aesthetic point of view.