Rules with Concealment

[Vistcoatis]

We have a guy in our party trying to cheez a rules involving concealment, but I think his interpretation is all wrong. So I am search for approval/Disapproval regarding concealment affects.

Here is the question if someone has a cloak of displacement minor, a ring of blinking, and the lighting stance do you receive a check for all those as concealment(miss chance)or do you just take the highest one, and move on.
The book seems to define all miss chances as concealment, and therefore i am partial to thinking that you can not have more of the same effects stacked up, but dude claims they are from different sources and therefore a roll must be made against each. What say ye?

[Gworeth]

I'm not really sure on this one, but here goes....

In my opinion lightning stance and displacement doesn't stack. The blinking is a bit different though... But I would, as a DM, say cheese and allow the two to work together but be darned sure that he rolls each and every 20% miss-chance he gets himself from the blinking, and maybe once in a while let him be attacked by ethereal creatures at the same time as the 'real' combat is being fought... so sit down, read the blink-spell and have nice thoughts about what creatures can lurk out there on the ethereal plane...

But as I said, I'm not totally sure, but that is how I most likely would handle it...

Just remember that creatures that can see invisible creatures lower the misschance on blink to 20% as far as I can tell...

Let's see if there's another take on this ;-)

[neceros]

I'd have to agree.

The blinking is a different source, and normally I wouldn't allow concealment to double stack like that, but he's already got the downside of concealment versus himself.

I'd have to say that normal concealment, no matter the source, doesn't stack, but blinking gets another check simply because you may not actually be there psychically.

[Beastman]

neceros wrote:

I'd have to agree.

The blinking is a different source, and normally I wouldn't allow concealment to double stack like that, but he's already got the downside of concealment versus himself.

I'd have to say that normal concealment, no matter the source, doesn't stack, but blinking gets another check simply because you may not actually be there psychically.

I would say the following:

From PRD - Combat - Concealment: "...Multiple concealment conditions do not stack." AND

1) If attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking 20% concealment).
So: 20% final miss chance.

2) If not capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking (50% MISS CHANCE but NOT concealment - you are simply not there to be attacked).
So: 50% final miss chance for determining if you are there and can be hit at all and then 20% miss chance from cloak because of concealment.

[Vistcoatis]

Beastman wrote:

neceros wrote:

I'd have to agree.

The blinking is a different source, and normally I wouldn't allow concealment to double stack like that, but he's already got the downside of concealment versus himself.

I'd have to say that normal concealment, no matter the source, doesn't stack, but blinking gets another check simply because you may not actually be there psychically.

I would say the following:

From PRD - Combat - Concealment: "...Multiple concealment conditions do not stack." AND

1) If attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking 20% concealment).
So: 20% final miss chance.

2) If not capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking (50% MISS CHANCE but NOT concealment - you are simply not there to be attacked).
So: 50% final miss chance for determining if you are there and can be hit at all and then 20% miss chance from cloak because of concealment.

Ok I think this makes sense, thanks!

[Some call me Tim]

While I initially concurred with Beastman's well-reasoned opinion, I'm having second thoughts about whether a Cloak of Displacement or blur would indeed provide for an additional concealment miss chance.

Notice that if you can strike an ethereal creature you only get 20% miss chance from concealment. So, we can infer that a Ring of Blinking grants you concealment in addition to making you ethereal.

Yet when you can not strike an ethereal creature you do not have to roll a miss chance for concealment and another miss chance for being ethereal. Only the 50% miss chance applies.

Because of this, I would rule you only make a single 50% miss chance roll.

[ConcentricOO]

Little question.. what about a blur spell while concealed in darkness??

[The Fox]

If you are in darkness, then your opponent cannot see you. Thus the 50% miss chance. If your opponent cannot see you, then being blurry is not going to make him more likely to miss you. Ergo, they do not stack. Similarly for invisibility and blur, or invisibility and displacement, or invisibility and darkness; only use the better concealment.