Zophos's page

As this will be my last post in this thread, I would like point out a couple of things.

Princess Of Canada wrote:

Hes actually right about the Faerie Fire, it mentions Displacement as concealment there alongside Blur, Invisibility and suchlike and this spell functions against Displacement in the description.

Yeah, it is an interesting line in faerie fire. However, I'm not really sure it explicitly states it as concealment. Now, English isn't my main language, so there might be that I misunderstood how the sentence is built, but anyways:

Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. There are two interprentations here:
1. It could (and in my opinion, probably should) be read as blur, displacement and invisibility being examples of things that give concealment,
2. It could be read as "do not benefit from [concealment normally provided by darkness], blur, displacement, invisibility, or similiar effects."
That the concealment part only refers to the darkness, and that the other mentioned things are other things that faerie fire counters. It would make sense to some extent.

I would say that the second interpretation can’t be correct because both Blur and Invisibility explicitly grant concealment. It is also interesting to note that Displacement is listed between Blur and Invisibility. This, at least in my opinion, confirms that Displacement grants concealment and settles the issue for me.

To Zurai, I just wanted to say a big thank you. Your insistence in your posts, as frustrating as they have been to read sometimes, has lead me to looking up tons of rules that I might not have paid as close attention to otherwise. This, I think, will make me a far better player and GM in the future.

Finally, to those who may still be lurking and have yet to decide on this issue, I implore you to read page 9 of the PFRPG. It really does state the “Most Important Rule".
Cheers guys… and happy gaming!

Cartigan wrote:

Now, my math is terrible, but I am pretty sure I have gotten this wrong enough times in the past to be right here. It's a math thing. Ask some one else.

You are right.

The key is to multiply the success chances together.

0.5 (displacement hit) * 0.8 (blur hit) = 0.4 (combo hit chance)

-> 60% miss chance combined

This is correct. I was confusing dependent vs. independent probabilities. Since one dice roll does not affect the out come of another, the resulting probabilities are multiplied. Thus a miss chance of 60%. Thank you guys for teaching me that I should not do math when I'm about to go to bed. ;)

Quite the inverse, actually. It only acts like total concealment with respect to one factor (50% miss chance). All other factors of total concealment are ignored.

Forgive me for going back to page one, but you seem to want it both ways. Either the target has concealment or it does not. If it is not treated like normal concealment then:

concealment bonus + non-concealment bonus = stack

The problem is it cannot read that way. Concealment does not grant 50% miss chance. If it was worded that way, this thread would instead be about whether displacement granted just concealment or whether it granted total concealment, because only total concealment has a 50% miss chance; normal concealment, which blur explicitly grants, is only EVER 20%.

This is from page two of this thread. I feel it is relavent because you have made the same mistake several times throughout this thread. You have stated repeatedly that there are only two kinds of concealment. There are in fact THREE.

Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

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).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.

This last type makes it possible to have 50% concealment even if it is not actual total concealment.

Now look at the following:

In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.

Zophos wrote:

Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance. This seems far more problematic to me than just considering Displacement to give concealment. How problematic could this be? Well consider the following;

Blur + Displacement + Blink = 120% miss chance!

(Depending on where you consider the miss chance of Blink to come from.)

Even though it no where suggests such, I'd personally rule it just like "Keen" effects, only allowing the highest mis-chance to be in effect. Thereby bypassing the stacking rules.

I totally agree. This is why I would treat it like concealment (though I am not sure to what degree). In this way, no character can ever have better than "Total Concealment."

Cartigan wrote:

Or just cast both and get a 60% miss chance and immunity to sneak attack.

Multiple concealment conditions do not stack. So it would only be a 50% miss chance still (Displacement "The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.)

Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance. This seems far more problematic to me than just considering Displacement to give concealment. How problematic could this be? Well consider the following;

Blur + Displacement + Blink = 120% miss chance!

(Depending on where you consider the miss chance of Blink to come from.)

Zophos wrote:

Why on earth does everyone insist on not reading the last sentence!?

Short answer: it's more fun to argue.

-Skeld

LOL, It certainly seems that way!

Why on earth does everyone insist on not reading the last sentence!?

True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

The whole point of concealment is that the location of a creature is in question. The last sentence shows that it's the location that is not known (unless True Seeing is used).

It is a holdover from 3.5...

That right there is whole problem, and not just for this issue either. This, I think, is just something that happens after you have big game system that undergoes two major revisions. Some things that need clarification simply slip through the cracks.

Besides at the end of the day... does it really matter? Most folks never even run into this question at the table. How many people here have been part of a game that actually had someone sneak attack a displaced creature? I'd bet that very few, if any, have seen it since the release of PFRPG.

Zophos wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Oh, yes, I can. The official Paizo rule is that, any time a term is not defined by the rules, it uses the real-world definition. I covered this back on page 2 or 3, for the record.

Then by your own rules:

Dictionary wrote:

con•ceal (kn-sl)
tr.v. con•cealed, con•ceal•ing, con•ceals
To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide.

Sorry, that's a FAIL. Concealment is defined by the rules.

I'm sorry, but on what page is the word defined? If you refer to pages 196-197 then I assure you that you are mistaken. The rules for concealment from the PRD state:

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.

These paragraphs state what the effects of concealment are on both ranged and melee attacks.It does not define what concealment is. The next is what we are concerned about for this discussion:

In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.

Translation: If magic is being used, disregard normal rules for determining concealment. No further mention of magic is made. To know how these effects should be treated, we must refer to the spell’s description. Now let’s examine the part of my post that you didn’t quote.

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. 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. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Note the last sentence, the one everyone seems to be ignoring, and think about it. It states with extreme clarity that attackers cannot clearly determine the target’s true location.Thus, by definition the target is concealed.

I'm actually a bit boggled at this thread's size, honestly. I'm curious to see how long it'll go! ;-)

(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)

That's certainly the way I see it, but alas some people just can't admit that both sides are making great points. Some points are good and some are bad but almost all are interesting.

Lots of stuff

You know what? I think that this is the best part about this thread. Think of all the things we learn from doing research like this. It's crazy... and a little sad.

Oh, yes, I can. The official Paizo rule is that, any time a term is not defined by the rules, it uses the real-world definition. I covered this back on page 2 or 3, for the record.

Then by your own rules:

con·ceal (kn-sl)

tr.v. con·cealed, con·ceal·ing, con·ceals
To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide.

Read with care:

The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. 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. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.

Well, as great as the last couple of years have been, I would very much like to start picking up some additional Pathfinder Chronicles and PFRPG stuff. To that end, I need to reinvest my monthly gaming budget. Sadly, this puts the Pathfinder AP on the chopping block.

Thanks in advance.