| rhacer |
-Givens-
Wind Stance
Benefit: If you move more than 5 feet this turn, you gain 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks.
Lightning Stance
Benefit: If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round.
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
Total Concealment: [...] 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).
Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
-Problem-
I believe the wordings of Wind Stance and Lightning Stance are messed up. If they're used as is, then the feats are pretty crappy. Concealment gives 20% miss chance so modifying the miss chance accordingly, "20% concealment" would only be a 4% miss chance. Likewise, "50% concealment" would only be a 10% miss chance. But a character with these feats could stealth using the appropriate actions?
-Proposed solution-
It should probably be:
"ranged attacks have a 20% miss chance against you for 1 round" for Wind Stance and "attacks have a 50% miss chance against you for 1 round" for Lightning Stance?
This would resolve 2 things.
1) Removes the confusion over the wording as there is no definition for "20% concealment" or "50% concealment". There's just concealment and total concealment and varying degrees of concealment with miss chance percentages changed accordingly, not percentages of concealment.
2) This would resolve some questions on an older thread about wind stance, lightning stance and stealth. Stating it provides miss chance and not concealment means a character can't simply stealth due to the fast movement implied by these feats.
-Conclusion-
I believe these feats are worthy of some errata. Any chance we could get some official word on this? In the meantime, I'm going with my proposal above as a house rule.
Thanks,
Rhacer