| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Assume it's not granted by invisibility.
This is one of the most annoying gray areas in the "invisibility" rules. If someone is ten feet away in an Obscuring Mist spell, how are they not effectively invisible? Hell, they're arguably better than invisible—with invisibility, you can still seek visual cues like displaced earth. Same thing for smoke or deeper darkness effects.
So how is this adjudicated? Is there a rule I'm missing? If not, what's a rational interpretation?
|
From Perception:
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.
If there is no line of sight to the target during the entire round, then the target has zero chance of being seen. No Perception (sight) check could even be made. However a Perception (sound) to discern the target's general location would make sense, but I assume the DC would be difficult since all this is likely happening during a battle.
I figured I'd add a little bit of background information on the topic. :)
The +20 Stealth bonus on invisibility was changed when Pathfinder streamlined the skill system. Stealth was covered by Hide and Move Silently in 3.5. Hide and Move Silently were covered by two of the three skills Perception absorbed, Spot and Listen. Invisibility gave you a +20 bonus on Hide, but no bonus to Move Silently. ie people could still have a good chance of hearing someone invisible trying to sneak past, but have a hard time spotting them.
No it doesn't. Is it not enough that it allows you to make a stealth check? Without obscuring mist you couldn't make a stealth check at all.
And if you are 10' away you have the same miss chance as invisibility, but it will be easier to find you. Obscuring mist obscures, it doesn't hide. You will likely be a shadow, or blur, or even leave little whorls of movement in the mist, enough to block line of sight but you haven't disappeared.
I've always ruled it that if they can't see you or have no line of effect, you only need Stealth checks if you move. You could have Obscuring Mist up but if they have Blindsense or even have you know, EARS, and you start walking, you will still need to roll Stealth because not being able to see you is less of an issue then. And with spells like Displacement where you gain concealment but you are still visible it wouldn't make sense to give a Stealth bonus, so the current rules do make some sense. I usually apply the above as needed by circumstance. Best all around is just to gain Hide In Plain Sight ability and then you don't care either way.
No it doesn't. Is it not enough that it allows you to make a stealth check?
That's granted by even just ordinary Concealment, or even just ducking behind a log. It may be "enough", but it's not especially "realistic" that they're all the exact same benefit.
And if you are 10' away you have the same miss chance as invisibility, but it will be easier to find you. Obscuring mist obscures, it doesn't hide. You will likely be a shadow, or blur, or even leave little whorls of movement in the mist, enough to block line of sight but you haven't disappeared.
Actually, it does hide.
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
Both of these indicate you flat-out can't see them and have to guess the square (barring hearing/smell/whatever). I think most posters would back that interpretation up. You don't know where someone is in Obscuring Mist—not by visuals, anyways.
And how does Deeper Darkness fit into your interpretation? Does that not hide, either?
"That's granted by even just ordinary Concealment, or even just ducking behind a log. It may be "enough", but it's not especially "realistic" that they're all the exact same benefit."
That would be Cover and not Concealment, so bonuses to hiding and AC. Cover blocks fire, Concealment just makes you harder to hit.
Concealment is something obscuring the object so as to make it hard to aim at, but it is not invisibility. A person standing right next to you in thick smoke can still see you, its just harder. Invisibility has always been portrayed as you not being there visually at all. Thus concealment would give you miss chance, and invisibility would give you hide bonuses. Honestly though, rule wise in combat its about the same. Total Concealment and Invisibility still have a 50/50 chance of you getting smacked if they know what square you are in.
Again, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that. Total concealment has to make you impossible to see for the above quote to make sense. That's the whole idea of deeper darkness and similar spells—it prevents line of sight and forces enemies to guess your location. Deeper darkness is supposed to be pure darkness—as in, unless you have See In Darkness, you flat-out can't see where people are.
I have never known anybody to let people know the squares of people with Total Concealment. It's...total. That's the whole point.
A person standing right next to you in thick smoke can still see you, its just harder.
That's concealment - 20% miss chance. Total concealment is when there's so much smoke between you that you can't see them at all.
I treat all forms of "can't be seen" the same - blindness, invisibility, impenetrable darkness, etc.