If you want game balance I have put in a suggestion.
Roll to hit
Roll miss chance 50%(if needed)
Roll base damage
Roll miss chance 50% (for SA damage)
Roll SA damageIt seems that we are in an all or nothing situation. The mechanic says 50% why not apply it also to the SA damage, which really is a 25% chance of taking SA damage....
No one has agreed to this because its more nonsense than everything else.
|
Addressing the Mislead spell, that spell states that the caster gains the benefit of invisibility. Displacement does not, so there isn't much benefit in comparing the scenarios, regardless of where the caster chooses to stand.
And now, a tangent for Mislead
Attacks against an image created by Mislead in the caster's own square aren't "targeting" the caster or the caster's square, so taking the rules literally there is no chance (not even 50%) of the caster being damaged by an attack directed against his own image (assuming it isn't an area attack). If you are concerned with correcting my assertion with this spell, let's not threadjack here please.
That's my interpretation.
I think this thread should be stickied.
Sorry, but by that logic, you're saying the illusion blinks in and out of existence. The spell doesn't say that. What it says is that the illusion is 2 feet displaced from the person you are attacking. That 2 feet could be east, west, northeast, etc, and when they move it resets to a different spot. The 50% miss chance is that if you attack, you may still hit them (imagine a sword swing, if the sword comes in from the east, and the illusion is directly east or west of the person, you're going to hit them anyway, but if they are north or south you either hit them with your arm and did no damage or missed them entirely).
However you want to assume the magic of the spell works, the effect is that there is a 50% miss chance for any and all attack rolls. Since the effect doesn't go away with the first hit, I have to assume that there is some sort of shifting going on. After all, once I hit I would not have the 50% miss chance any more, right? But I do. It's still there.
For me, the "about 2 feet" this way or that way or the other way is just fluff or special effect. The net effect is that it grants a 50% miss chance. Period. If I hit with my sneak attack then I got lucky and I hit the target right where I wanted to (in a vital area). If I miss then I swung in a spot where they weren't. I didn't miss the vital area...I missed completely.
You know the reason I was quiet for a while was because I wanted to see everyone elses input in this and I have to say the following...
The whole arguement I was trying to make MAY sound like I am trying to inject too much realism into the scenario (but then again why is the Drowning rule THAT realistic for that matter if the game isnt supposed to be realistic to some degree)
But the way I have always interpreted Sneak Attack based on the writing is that the Rogue needs to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN hes striking the creatures vital areas. He cant use guesswork and cannot rely on luck alone.
People that suggest that by beating the 50% miss chance are ASSUMING the real character is standing right in the same inch of space as his projected image...that isnt the case, the image is up to 2 feet away from him what the Rogue is 'sneak attacking' wont hit the vital spot he was aiming for by that distance differential BUT it would still hit the character nonetheless...not just where he intended, because the character occupies the same square as his image.
"Targeting" is an attribute defined through areas of the book primarily for ranged attacks and spellcasters, its also mentioned with regards to TOTAL CONCEALMENT that a hidden/invisible foe cant be targeted acurately but attacks can be made into empty 5ft squares to locate them. This isnt the case with Displacement, since the projection makes the hidden characters location perfectly clear.
While 'projecting' an image up to 2 feet way doesnt mention invisibility implicty, the spell DOES mention "you appear to be up to 2 feet from your true location"...why else would the spell mention this "true location" other than to insinuate you are hidden for that purpose?
And a hidden character whos vitals cant be accurately pinpointed cant be sneak attacked...but they CAN be hit by any good standard attack, a punch, sword swing, crossbow bolt, etc. As long as you make that 50% miss chance.
I dont care if people think its being "too realistic" or not - its simple common sense, a character whos not standing right where you think he is when you make such an accurate and precise attack on a vital area should not suffer sneak attack damage - otherwise people should advocate that any random attack delivered in a round could ALSO result in a sneak attack since the attack is made in the heat of battle when you and your opponent is moving simultaneously. (That would be the Telling Blow feat from the PHB2, which makes it clear sneak attack isnt some randomised effort normally)
That and remember, a character only has 6 seconds in a combat round I believe...you dont have time to 'watch the projections reaction' to one attack and then line up and adjusted effort to hit the vital area you missed. That would imply that it would ALSO count that way for 'feeling the target' and making a sneak attack as others have suggested by landing a primary blow on the hidden character - it doesnt work that way against invisibility and it doesnt work here.
If I hit with my sneak attack then I got lucky and I hit the target right where I wanted to (in a vital area). If I miss then I swung in a spot where they weren't. I didn't miss the vital area...I missed completely.
Except you need to see the rogue well enough to pick out a vital spot. If you don't see the actual vital spot on the actual rogue, you can't pick out a vital spot.
I think we can agree that because there isn't much to go on in terms of targeting rules, we can't really agree one way or another.
I'd file this under "waiting for official clarification" instead of "resolved by 3.5 precedent".
|
You know the reason I was quiet for a while was because I wanted to see everyone elses input in this and I have to say the following...
The whole arguement I was trying to make MAY sound like I am trying to inject too much realism into the scenario (but then again why is the Drowning rule THAT realistic for that matter if the game isnt supposed to be realistic to some degree)
Let me take a stab at summarizing the source of the cognitive dissonance here.
We have these four sentences to base our opinions on:
1. The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from
its true location.
2. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.
3. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.
4. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
(1) describes the in-story effect of the spell. (2) describes the basic mechanic that this effect causes in the out-of-story gameplay.
The problem, as Her Highness has amply demonstrated, is that (1) does not logically lead to (2). Any realistic analysis of (1) leads to mechanics that are quite clearly different than (2). However, (2) is quite clearly what the authors intended this effect to achieve, and extrapolating beyond (2) from (1) leads to unintended mechanical consequences, as (I think) Zurai et al have demonstrated.
This cognitive dissonance prevents adjudicating edge cases such as sneak attack. It is an example of a dissociated mechanic.
(but then again why is the Drowning rule THAT realistic for that matter if the game isnt supposed to be realistic to some degree)[/i]
Because (1) it's abstracted to fit the system and (2) you don't want to drown soon as you go unconscious underwater, believe you me.
That does not explain that in a system with pseudo-realism that a Rogue who has a ability that he requires his senses to be absolutely accurate with to execute a sneak attack can do so against an opponent whose location is hidden within a 5ft square hes attacking into...sure he can see the projection and knows the opponents there, but he must be able to make the unobscured foe to strike his vital areas.
EDIT : My broswer was acting up and it wasnt showing me any new posts much less my own so I had to repost it.
I would welcome a ruling on this from Paizo but I know it is unlikely to reach one anytime soon. Its safe to say people are going to agree to disagree, but I personally believe if a Rogue isnt attacking his opponents vital areas with absolute accuracy he cannot achieve the sneak attack, if hes thrown off by any distance wether its an inch or 24 inches, that is not how sneak attack functions, it requires absolute certainty. And illusions that fool the Rogues senses should work if he requires those said senses to perform this technique - which he does, though he DOES get to bisbelieve those Illusions which have the Will Save to disbelieve in their descriptions
This cognitive dissonance prevents adjudicating edge cases such as sneak attack. It is an example of a dissociated mechanic.
That's a good article.
I think the current state is that no one is arguing that displacement is concealment (it isn't).
No one is arguing that miss chances negate sneak attack (they don't automatically).
I think the current argument stems on the dubiously named "flavor" text. (Flavor text is usually italicized in most 3.X material.) The key issue is currently how targeting works in PF.
If I see a figment of a creature, then I'm not seeing the actual creature, I'm seeing a figment.
If I see an image two feet away from the actual creature and I swing my sword at that image, I'm not targeting the creature, I'm targeting the image. However, I may hit the creature in the process (50% miss chance).
Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.
If targeting works like Zurai suggests, then sneak attack is allowed. Targeting doesn't change, so I hit the target's vitals as normal. I just happen to miss 50% of the time.
If targeting works like I suggest, then sneak attack isn't allowed. You can't actually see the real vitals (you see an image of vitals) despite the fact that you can see where the creature relatively is. In swinging for the vitals, you could potentially hit some other part of the body instead -- you can't possibly know exactly where the creature is in relation to the displaced image unless you have enough information to render the spell useless.
Unfortunately, there's no resolution without rules that say how targeting actually works.
Displacement's still a lousy spell for 3rd level....
Displacement's still a lousy spell for 3rd level....
I prefer blink. It's a more fun spell q:
The difference would be that the amulet was swinging around my neck, and not covered by the full plate.Uh, no. You do not wear amulets outside of armor. That's asking to be jerked down by your jewelry. Same reason why you don't wear long hair outside of a helmet (watch what happens to WRs with dreadlocks in the NFL -- they get tackled by their hair).
The example was that if you can't see the target as it truely is, you can't pick out a vital spot. You know that, you're not responding to that though, because you can't.Yes, actually, I did. I pointed out the water displacement example. You can go off in a huff because your example is truly lousy and you know it if you want, but don't try to say that I havn't addressed your points when you've acknowledged that I addressed them already.
*sigh*
Ok, bad example. Here's a different one. I put a tube of wax paper around me. Now, pick out exactly where my kidney is, and then find the chink in my armor that let's you hit it with your dagger?
Oh? You can't tell exactly where that chink in my armor is? Well, then you can't do precision damage.
And before you say 'I don't have to pick a precise spot to hit you, just target you', we'll use your definition of how things work. There is nothing defined as to what precision damage or vital spot is in the game, so we'll go to real world definitions.
Main Entry: vi·tal
Pronunciation: \ˈvī-təl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin vitalis of life, from vita life; akin to Latin vivere to live — more at quick
Date: 14th century1 a : existing as a manifestation of life b : concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life <vital organs> <blood and other vital fluids>
2 : full of life and vigor : animated
3 : characteristic of life or living beings
4 a : fundamentally concerned with or affecting life or living beings: as (1) : tending to renew or refresh the living : invigorating (2) : destructive to life : mortal b : of the utmost importance <a vital clue> <vital resources>
5 : recording data relating to lives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting the staining of living tissues
I think we all agree that #1 is the important one here. Especially the Vital Organ section.
Main Entry: 1spot
Pronunciation: \ˈspät\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English; akin to Middle Dutch spotte stain, speck, Old Norse spotti small piece
Date: 13th century1 : a taint on character or reputation : fault <the only spot on the family name>
2 a : a small area visibly different (as in color, finish, or material) from the surrounding area b (1) : an area marred or marked (as by dirt) (2) : a circumscribed surface lesion of disease (as measles) or decay <spots of rot> <rust spots on a leaf> c : a conventionalized design used on playing cards to distinguish the suits and indicate values
3 : an object having a specified number of spots or a specified numeral on its surface
4 : a small quantity or amount : bit
5 a : a particular place, area, or part b : a small extent of space
6 plural usually spot : a small croaker (Leiostomus xanthurus) of the Atlantic coast with a black spot behind the opercula
7 a : a particular position (as in an organization or a hierarchy) b : a place or appearance on an entertainment program
8 : spotlight
9 : a position usually of difficulty or embarrassment
10 : a brief announcement or advertisement broadcast between scheduled radio or television programs
11 : a brief segment or report on a broadcast especially of news
Again, I think it's easy to agree that 5a is the one by context. So, we have a small particular place or area which contains a vital organ which must be targeted.
Now, Sneak Attack deals Precision Damage. There is no in game definition of this, other than speaking about when it applies. So, we are forced to fall back on the dictionary. No arguments over what Damage means please, so we'll look for precision.
Main Entry: 1pre·ci·sion
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈsi-zhən\
Function: noun
Date: 17401 : the quality or state of being precise : exactness
2 a : the degree of refinement with which an operation is performed or a measurement stated — compare accuracy 2b b : the accuracy (as in binary or decimal places) with which a number can be represented usually expressed in terms of the number of computer words available for representation <double precision arithmetic permits the representation of an expression by two computer words>Main Entry: pre·cise
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈsīs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French precis, from Latin praecisus, past participle of praecidere to cut off, from prae- + caedere to cut
Date: 15th century1 : exactly or sharply defined or stated
2 : minutely exact
3 : strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention
4 : distinguished from every other <at just that precise moment>
Precision is the act of being 'precise', precise in this instance can only be 2. We aren't defining the attack, we aren't conforming to a pattern or distinguishing the attack from a different attack, we are being precise (minutely exact) about where we are placing the attack.
Combine those definitions and you get the requirement that precision damage of a sneak attack requires minutely exact placement of the attack into a vital organ. By definition you cannot be minutely exact if anything interferes with your placement of the attack. Again, using your requirement of real world definitions if nothing in game defines the game words.
So, any illusion that keeps you from being able to see the target clearly and completely would obviously stop you from minutely and exactly placing an attack against a vital organ. Be it covering the vital organs with an illusion, or making them appear 2 feet away, or anything else that prevents you from seeing the target as it really is. By it's nature, worn armor is incorporated into it, you are slipping the knife into a chink in the armor. But if you can't see what he's actually wearing, you can't. I would say a glamoured armor probably would interfere with sneak attacks after doing this research.
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.
|
|
So, any illusion that keeps you from being able to see the target clearly and completely would obviously stop you from minutely and exactly placing an attack against a vital organ. Be it covering the vital organs with an illusion, or making them appear 2 feet away, or anything else that prevents you from seeing the target as it really is. By it's nature, worn armor is incorporated into it, you are slipping the knife into a chink in the armor. But if you can't see what he's actually wearing, you can't. I would say a glamoured armor probably would interfere with sneak attacks after doing this research.
So you are ready to change how several established game elements work to fit your interpretation? If glammered armor can stop sneak attacks, everyone would wear it!! If Disguise Self stops sneak attacks, it's too powerful for a 1st level spell, and everyone would cast it!! By your definition, you can't sneak attack people wearing full plate armor under a robe.
Ridiculous.
So you are ready to change how several established game elements work to fit your interpretation? If glammered armor can stop sneak attacks, everyone would wear it!! If Disguise Self stops sneak attacks, it's too powerful for a 1st level spell, and everyone would cast it!! By your definition, you can't sneak attack people wearing full plate armor under a robe.
Ridiculous.
Errr, yeah. I don't think those abilities actually obscure where your eyes or ears are. Or where your crotch is. . .
Crotch relocating amulet. . . maybe next year's RPG Superstar item?
So, any illusion that keeps you from being able to see the target clearly and completely would obviously stop you from minutely and exactly placing an attack against a vital organ. Be it covering the vital organs with an illusion, or making them appear 2 feet away, or anything else that prevents you from seeing the target as it really is. By it's nature, worn armor is incorporated into it, you are slipping the knife into a chink in the armor. But if you can't see what he's actually wearing, you can't. I would say a glamoured armor probably would interfere with sneak attacks after doing this research.
So you are ready to change how several established game elements work to fit your interpretation? If glammered armor can stop sneak attacks, everyone would wear it!! If Disguise Self stops sneak attacks, it's too powerful for a 1st level spell, and everyone would cast it!! By your definition, you can't sneak attack people wearing full plate armor under a robe.
Ridiculous.
No, what is rediculous is insisting on using real world terms without regard for the results. That was what Zurai said to do. I followed it to it's logical conclusion.
My statement was that if you wrap the target in an illlusion, the rogue has to interact with the illlusion and disbelieve it before he can apply precision damage.
I think my original interpretation was balanced, as it only gave an illusion a round or two of effectiveness. However, following the logic I was given, then the above applies.
Personally, I think it would be rediculous to take it this far. I think saying that an illusion that is wrapped around the target has to be disbelieved first (be it displacement or blur or any other illusion) before you can apply SA damage is not unbalanced and is a protection that makes sense. Taking it all the way down the logical road we started down due to Zurai's insistence on following real world deffinitions if a game deffinition doesn't exist get's us to really bonkers results.
Smurfing for posts.
I swear I'm not a smurf. Really.
You know the best smurf? Grumpy smurf.
Or maybe it was Hefty Smurf that was the grumpy one.
Grumpy Smurf? Really?
I can't say as we've had this spell cast (either for us or against us) in the recent past. As a melee character, I wouldn't mind having a 50% miss chance against me on every attack roll. Rogues are vastly outnumbered by other melee types in our games, so having a 50% miss chance (but no sneak attack immunity) is way better than having a 20% miss chance and concealment.
Now I just need to get a wand of displacement (and increase my UMD skill another 3 points).
Back on topic:
A displaced smurf cannot be sneak attacked.
According to the ABsolute SmUrf Reference Document:
A smurf is awesome. So a smurf cannot be sneak attacked.
Q.E.D.
Rogues are vastly outnumbered by other melee types in our games, so having a 50% miss chance (but no sneak attack immunity) is way better than having a 20% miss chance and concealment.
That's odd, I don't think a session goes by in my game without something having sneak attack. . .
Rogues are vastly outnumbered by other melee types in our games, so having a 50% miss chance (but no sneak attack immunity) is way better than having a 20% miss chance and concealment.That's odd, I don't think a session goes by in my game without something having sneak attack. . .
I don't have any rogues in one of my games, but I do have a scout, so I get precision damage all the time. On top of that, the scout has Ehlonna for a god, and has an Arrow of Ehlonna (name?) and the true believer feat, so has an eternal Bane of Whatever I fire At arrow. It's kind of a headache on my end keeping track of what targets get what bonus's (+1 Frosting Bow (1d8 + 1d6 cold), Crystal of Acidic Energy (+1d6 Acid), Bane (+2 +2d6 against declared target) + Skirmish (+2d6 precision damage).
The other game has a rogue, but he's a 'talking con man' rogue and doesn't sneak attack very well (warmage/rogue).
|
|
Personally, I think it would be rediculous to take it this far. I think saying that an illusion that is wrapped around the target has to be disbelieved first (be it displacement or blur or any other illusion) before you can apply SA damage is not unbalanced and is a protection that makes sense. Taking it all the way down the logical road we started down due to Zurai's insistence on following real world deffinitions if a game deffinition doesn't exist get's us to really bonkers results
Wait, what? "following real world definitions if a game definition doesn't exist gets us to really bonkers results"???? You mean to say every single word has to have a game definition or else you can't have logical results?? That's nonsensical on it's face. Not every word used has to have a glossary/index entry and definition. This is not a legal document nor a game of Advanced Squad Leader.
Again, by your definition, a rogue can't sneak attack someone wearing a hooded robe over armor. Or under the effects of a Mage Armor spell. Or under a Disguise Self spell. In a game that has almost universally expanded the circumstances where sneak attack can be used, your statements seek to, dare I say it, nerf it to the point of near uselesness.
Personally, I think it would be rediculous to take it this far. I think saying that an illusion that is wrapped around the target has to be disbelieved first (be it displacement or blur or any other illusion) before you can apply SA damage is not unbalanced and is a protection that makes sense. Taking it all the way down the logical road we started down due to Zurai's insistence on following real world deffinitions if a game deffinition doesn't exist get's us to really bonkers resultsWait, what? "following real world definitions if a game definition doesn't exist gets us to really bonkers results"???? You mean to say every single word has to have a game definition or else you can't have logical results?? That's nonsensical on it's face. Not every word used has to have a glossary/index entry and definition. This is not a legal document nor a game of Advanced Squad Leader.
Again, by your definition, a rogue can't sneak attack someone wearing a hooded robe over armor. Or under the effects of a Mage Armor spell. Or under a Disguise Self spell. In a game that has almost universally expanded the circumstances where sneak attack can be used, your statements seek to, dare I say it, nerf it to the point of near uselesness.
*shrug* I don't see your point. You are harping on the 'real world defintion' which I didn't want to use but someone else said 'you have to fall back on this if it's not in the game'.
Either we use common sense (which says that you have to be able to see the target, not some illusion that isn't the target) or we use literal definitions rigidly.
Someone in a robe is still someone in a robe, with armor underneath or not. Can you see their throat? Can you tell where it is enough to precisely stab your knife into the side of their neck? Into their eye? Then you are fine. They are wearing plate mail with a robe over, big deal, can you see the eye-slit on their helm? Can you see the wrist they are holding their weapon with to target the slits in the plate mail gauntlet so you can hit the artery in the wrist? Then you're fine.
If someone has an illusion around them that makes it look like they are not what they are, then you can look at that throat all day but if they are actually 4 inches taller or shorter than the illusion you can't hit that artery in the neck except by accident.
I don't understand why people (you and Zurai especially) keep trying to conflate 'Your senses are fooled' with 'The target is wearing a bunch of crap on him'. No matter what he is wearing, you can see what he's wearing and look for vital spots and hit them. If you can't see his actual form and his actual gear then you cannot see the vital spots to target them.
Honestly, it's not a hard concept. The difference between a guy in a robe or a guy with mage armor up and a guy with an illusion wrapped around him is you can see what the hell you are looking at and it's real if he's wearing armor or robes or has mage armor up. If he has an illusion up you can't see what the hell you are targeting because what you see is a freaking illusion.
I really don't understand how people can't get the concept. It's not like I'm talking about rocket science here people.
|
|
Someone in a robe is still someone in a robe, with armor underneath or not. Can you see their throat? Can you tell where it is enough to precisely stab your knife into the side of their neck? Into their eye?
No, you cannot. Full body robe with cowl concealing their face and "wizard's sleeves" concealing their hands. By your definition, you can't sneak attack a guy just standing there in a robe. Nonsense.
Honestly, it's not a hard concept. The difference between a guy in a robe or a guy with mage armor up and a guy with an illusion wrapped around him is you can see what the hell you are looking at and it's real if he's wearing armor or robes or has mage armor up. If he has an illusion up you can't see what the hell you are targeting because what you see is a freaking illusion.
Mage Armor is an invisible force effect. You can try to stabby-stabby the Mage Armored-Mage in the kidney, but it's behind an invisible force field of armor. By your logic a rogue should have to waste a sneak attack attempt to find out his target was protected. Same with the "can't sneak attack me because I'm Disguised (Self) as a dwarf" arguement. Nowhere in the rules does it even imply that you can negate sneak attacks with a Disguise Self. Or glammered armor. Saying "well the rogue can attempt to disbelieve the illusion and then get in a sneak attack" is giving more power to these effects than intended, and robbing the rogue of his only ability to contribute meanfully to combat.
You and PoC are trying to rob from the rogue to give to the arcane caster.
Still smurfin' along.
No, you cannot. Full body robe with cowl concealing their face and "wizard's sleeves" concealing their hands. By your definition, you can't sneak attack a guy just standing there in a robe. Nonsense.
Not nonsense. One is reality and the other is an imposed illusion that fools the senses. By your definition, nothing stops sneak attack, since an illusion that completely hides the target doesn't stop you from sneak attacking. That means Invisiblity (an illusion) shouldn't stop sneak attack either. Nor should you not be able to sneak attack if you have tremorsense, since you know where the target is and can target him normally despite not being able to see his vital spots. Six of one half-a-dozen of the other. Again, it comes down to a very poorly worded spell and a very poorly worded ability.
My definition says that if you can't trust your senses you can't sneak attack. I think that's a fairly balanced way of handling it. You obviously don't agree. That's fine. If they come out with an FAQ answer, then we'll have an answer. If not, it's just your interpretation vs my interpretation, and neither one of us can force the other to accept their interpretation.
Honestly, it's not a hard concept. The difference between a guy in a robe or a guy with mage armor up and a guy with an illusion wrapped around him is you can see what the hell you are looking at and it's real if he's wearing armor or robes or has mage armor up. If he has an illusion up you can't see what the hell you are targeting because what you see is a freaking illusion.
Mage Armor is an invisible force effect. You can try to stabby-stabby the Mage Armored-Mage in the kidney, but it's behind an invisible force field of armor. By your logic a rogue should have to waste a sneak attack attempt to find out his target was protected. Same with the "can't sneak attack me because I'm Disguised (Self) as a dwarf" arguement. Nowhere in the rules does it even imply that you can negate sneak attacks with a Disguise Self. Or glammered armor. Saying "well the rogue can attempt to disbelieve the illusion and then get in a sneak attack" is giving more power to these effects than intended, and robbing the rogue of his only ability to contribute meanfully to combat.
You and PoC are trying to rob from the rogue to give to the arcane caster.
I'll agree that Mage Armor is a force effect, however, force effects do not stop vision nor do they stop weapons. If they did, Mage Armor would make you immune to attacks, not provide an AC Bonus. You can still see the guy's body, his real body, and his gear. You can therefore pick a weakspot and hit him in it.
And as to disguise self, you are really pulling things out of the air now and putting words in my mouth. The disguise self spell specifically limits the changes you can make (roughly same height and build if I remember correctly). However, if an orc was disguised as a dwarf, then yeah, you might get the wrong vital spot. Again, you have to see the target well enough to hit a vital spot. That's nothing to do with disguise self, it's in the SA power itself. If you can't see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot, you don't get sneak attack damage. The disguise self doesn't need to inject rules for SA, SA handles it's own restrictions internally with that one statement.
Glammered armor is a bit of a side case, but, since you can see the guys face/neck/etc, you can still stabby stabby him in the throat or face, so it's a moot point. If the armor covers that section, you'd get an immediate disbelief check and the GM would have to rule if you got off your sneak attack. Again though, it comes down to 'must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot'.
If there is an illusion involved, you might not be able to do so. Now, if the illusion is he has blue eyes instead of brown and blonde instead of black hair, and that's all, then no, you get to sneak attack all day long. If the illusion is that he's a winged planar avatar who's 10 feet tall when he's really a 3 foot tall halfling illusionist, then trying to stab the planar avatar in the kidneys means you just stabbed a foot over the targets head. Your senses were fooled, you picked out the wrong vital spot. Not because your SA didn't work (it would have worked if it was a planar avatar), but because you coudlnt' see the target well enough to pick out a vital target on him.
The Smurfoz says "Smurf"
So many long threads these days
Yet Smurfs never tire
Disbelieve displacement??
WTF?Displacement is an Illusion (Glamer) spell. Therefore, it can be disbelieved.
Stabbing at someone and missing them would be interacting with the illusion. Of course, they could just as easily believe they missed, so it's not automatic on the disbelieve, but they get a chance.
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Incorrect and already covered earlier in the thread. Page 8~9 I believe. All illusions that can be disbelieved have such in their save throw description. Displacement's save throw line states "Will negates(harmless)" completely different from silent image's Will save to disbelieve.
Incorrect and already covered earlier in the thread. Page 8~9 I believe. All illusions that can be disbelieved have such in their save throw description. Displacement's save throw line states "Will negates(harmless)" completely different from silent image's Will save to disbelieve.
Hmmm,
Ok, I stand corrected. I had thought glamours all had disbelief. Honestly, I don't know why this illusion spell wouldn't have a disbelief. As soon as you interact with it you know it's an illusion, you should be able to disbelieve this one.*le sigh*
Another spell I may have to modify for house rules. I need to think on this one then.
Does it work if it is in your name?
Nope, you must smurf here.
|
|
Not nonsense. One is reality and the other is an imposed illusion that fools the senses. By your definition, nothing stops sneak attack, since an illusion that completely hides the target doesn't stop you from sneak attacking. That means Invisiblity (an illusion) shouldn't stop sneak attack either.
No, you cannot. Full body robe with cowl concealing their face and "wizard's sleeves" concealing their hands. By your definition, you can't sneak attack a guy just standing there in a robe. Nonsense.
No, Invisibility grants total concealment, which DOES stop sneak attacks.
Your use of fluff and non-game defined terms to stop sneak attacks should logically extend to any situation where you can't see a throbbing artery, and thus anyone in a full body robe should likewise be immune to sneak attacks. It's ridiculous on it's face, but you won't admit it, going so far as to throw in saves for disbelief to enable sneak attacks.
Displacement is prety clearly worded, all it gives you is a flat 50% miss chance. That's it. No saves for disbelief, no invisibility-like benefit when attacking, no immunity to sneak attacks, nothing but that 50% miss chance. Giving it any more is unbalancing and not supported by the rules.
Concealment isnt the only issue here - a Rogue requires three conditions to ALL be met to perform the Sneak Attack.
1.) The Rogue must be able to see his opponent well enough to pick out a vital area to attack
Problem : The Rogue is not seeing the target properly, he is seeing a projection. His plan of attack is based on striking the projections weak points, how does attacking a vital area of something thats in actuality 2 feet away from where it really is count for this purpose?
I have no issue that anyone could hit the character given the straight up 50% miss chance but noone can target the character well enough to pick out a vital area to strike, thats my point. They are basing their sneak attack on a point in space 2 feet away from that weak spot really is. How does that qualify as Sneak Attack, it doesnt.
2.) The Rogue must be within range
The Rogue is within range, he knows the opponent is within the 5ft square his projection occupies (this of course assumes the Rogue properly identified the spell being cast and knows whats going on)
3.) The opponent cannot benefit from any form of concealment
Problem : The spell clearly mentions Total Concealment and then specifies the exception to be with regards to the targeting part of the spell. Now look up the spellcasting section to see what "targeting" is, it is being able to pinpoint the chosen 5ft square your opponent occupies, there is nothing more precise about this than say...throwing a grenade like projectile into the target square. The spell may not mention you benefit from concealment, but the miss chance is derived from the fact the character appears to exist in another point in space, the spell goes on to mention "you appear to be up to 2 feet from your true location"...now ladies and gentlemen, please elaborate why the spell would say this unless infact you are hidden or obscured by some invisibility type effect...because thats certainly how the spell reads.
Summary : No Sneak Attack, the Rogue fails definitively on the "being able to see the opponent well enough to pick out a vital area" requirement of a sneak attack, and while he IS in range they are also attacking an opponent who FOOLS THEIR SENSES, and thusly makes the Sneak Attack impossible. Sneak Attack has NO margin of error, it has to be precise, it has to hit the vitals, otherwise it isnt a sneak attack, its just an ordinary hit like any other attack.
|
|
OK, so I read the first three pages of this thread and jumped to the end and I apologize if this thought has come up before.
With displacement the target is 2' away from where they are, giving a 50% miss chance, like (but not considered equal to) total concealment (after the target can still be targeted normally).
The 2' displacement has been the argument to avoid sneak attacks because they are in reality 2' away from where the target was.
This would seem to indicate a belief that the displaced target is in a static location relative to the perceived image (i.e. - 2' to the left or 2' to the right). If this were the case, the spell should lose it's potency after the first hit is achieved ("oh it's really over THERE" stab, stab, hack).
Some have pointed out there is 360 degrees on both axises the image can appear and, which had not been mentioned in what I had read in the thread, the position between target and it's image should constantly be shifting (which would keep the miss chance intact after the first successful attack). That said, I would think a rouge, who makes a successful hit on a sneak attack AND succeeds on the miss chance would have hit the target with the SA as this shifting carried the actual target into placement for the successful attack.
Just my 2cp in trying to relay something concrete to an abstract scenario (a situation I have found which usually turns into a fool's errand ... for myself at any rate ;) ).
I just want to say that the scientific deconstruction of four sentences into 11 pages of complex calculations and theory's would make Wil. E. Coyote proud
|
|
Problem : The spell clearly mentions Total Concealment and then specifies the exception to be with regards to the targeting part of the spell. Now look up the spellcasting section to see what "targeting" is, it is being able to pinpoint the chosen 5ft square your opponent occupies, there is nothing more precise about this than say...throwing a grenade like projectile into the target square. The spell may not mention you benefit from concealment, but the miss chance is derived from the fact the character appears to exist in another point in space, the spell goes on to mention "you appear 2 feet from your true location"...now ladies and gentlemen, please elaborate why the spell would say this unless infact you are hidden or obscured by some invisibility type effect...because thats...
{emphasis mine}
Here's the rub. Yes you could be 2' away from where you really are. Or you could be a tenth of an inch from where you are. Or even less. By that bit of phrasing it would imply the displacement is a shifting reality, not the static 2' that has continually been bantered about.