I just want to say that the scientific deconstruction of four sentences into 12 pages of complex calculations and theory's would make Wil. E. Coyote proudfixed ;)
It was 11 pages at the time however.
Smurf :) - this thread is crazy!
I wanted to add a small bit (that I don't think has been covered), regarding the wording.
Displacement originally comes from the 1st edition "Cloak of Displacement" - there was no spell.
The cloak was an oddball item, that basically acted as a Cloak of Protection +2 (AC and Saves), but also had the effect that the first time you were targeted in a combat, it would automatically miss because you were displaced. Following that, it acted as an AC boost because of uncertainty, instead of ignorance.
In 3rd it does not do that, but many were used to that effect. Hence the importance to point out in the spell description that you are still targetable (unlike normal Total Concealment).
Personally, I'm totally with Displacement = Blur++, it just doesn't make sense to me any other way.
|
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).
Actually I thought it was specifically stated in D&D that magic rings are worn outside gloves and amulets are worn outside clothing unless otherwise specified, as a requirement for the magic they provide to work.
I can't find a reference for that so I assume it was actually a house rule one of my DMs used and I just didn't realize it was a house rule.
If a caster casts mislead superimposing it upon themselves (going invisible) and keeps the image in their own square, can the (greater) invisible caster be subject to sneak attacks simply because the rogue an see the image of the target?Now you can see the image of your target to see it's vital spots, just as you can with displacement. But you don't see your target directly, again just as with displacement.
This is a fallacious comparison. Mislead is not an appropriate place from which to draw an analogy.
Mislead is (figment/glamer); displacement is only (glamer). Mislead causes the subject to disappear and an image to appear. Displacement only alters how the subject is seen; what is seen is still the real subject, or Displacement would have a figment component. Even causing the image from Mislead to appear two feet away from you and otherwise in the exact position and orientation as you cannot, by the letter of the rules, be considered an equivalent case because the effects are still not the same.
And again, I'll ask.. if the miss chance is not due to concealment (as you claim) then what is it due to? Wind wall and Entropic Shield deflect attacks, is displacement doing that?-James
I'll bite; the miss chance is due to the effect of the spell Displacement, which grantes a 50% miss chance.
I personally still believe that Displacement should prevent sneak attack and Disguise Self should not (and I don't consider my reference to Disguise Self to be perfect by any means, but I do still think it is the most apt comparison). I also happen to believe that we are not going to come up with a definite answer without an official Word from On High, although I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
Oh, and I think it's kind of amusing that we have (I am fairly certain) both posts saying more or less "I don't know why I'm arguing, nobody's going to change their minds over this" and posts saying "I used to think it should work one way, but this thread has convinced me otherwise" in this same discussion.
A Rogue has to meet three conditions to perform a sneak attack, the projection caused by displacement messes with the Rogues senses, concealment or not, the spell seems to grant an effect that produces a light-bending/redirecting effect to make you appear nearby.
What gets me is that some people are assuming that the projection is layered right ontop of the hidden character (but what then is the point of the spell?). The spells intention is to throw people off slightly, they can attack into the space the foe occupies but not well enough to make 'precise' attacks.
Rogues, Ninjas and Scouts all use "Precision Damage" which is the term coined throughout all of 3.5, and the "Rules Compendium" also states that the target's vitals must be clearly seen - in this case, how could the Rogue see the vitals of something thats visually off-target from where hes trying to attack?
Miss chance/concealment arguement aside for a moment, the Rogue fails to meet this most important criteria in this circumstance, hes improperly (though not due to his fault) judged the angle of his attack to strike the targets vitals and winds up clipping the character unexpectedly in another location. At no point does the spell ever say the projection is in a fixed point at all times, the hidden character could move around while the projection stays close, but it could change sides, go in front of or behind the character through the round. Nothing about the spell says the character has to pick one side of his 5ft square that the glamer alway occupies.
End Result?, someone with Blind-Fight stands a good chance of hitting you anyway. I'd rather stick with Blur since it ALSO fool with the Rogues senses as this spell does but no-one ever seems to argue about that. It seems to be that some people latch onto the wording of the spell...
The only definition of the phrase of "targeting" seems to relate to making attacks into 5ft squares with splash weapons and ranged attacks/spells. Throughout the book look at the occasions the word itself is used, it always mentions "target squares". To me that would imply the character that is "displaced" can be targeted normally (which the spell suggests) in relation to Total Concealment which the spell implictly mentions twice. (The spell itself makes the distiction that unlike Total Concealment, the subject can be targeted....now consider what Total Concealment means, it prevents AoO's and suchlike because the creatures presence/location is unknown.)
The spell grants from reading it...some kind of image displacing effect that suggests the actual character is somehow hidden nearby, but the image is close enough that any attacks into that square may hit the real character hidden by this spell inside that 5ft srea. ANY effect that sees the target fooling the Rogues senses enough that the targeted vital points are difficult or impossible to pinpoint (as it should be in this case) prevents Sneak Attack.
Sneak Attack is an exact science, it talks about striking vital areas. How can an attack made with a margin of error by 1 to 24 inches be a Sneak Attack?, the Rogue could attack the Displaced character without a doubt, but his odds to hit the opponent meaningfully are just as equal to anyone else, he just cant pinpoint his opponents anatomy. The Rogue cannot also 'adjust' his aim mid-turn (given the limited amount of time a characters round lasts) to account for a successful (though lucky due to miss chance) hit as others have suggested - because then this would foil Invisibility and suchlike too which the vast majority seems to awknowledge cant be beaten by Sneak Attack without seeing through the invisibility first by some means.
Sneak Attacking may be an exact science. Good thing this is an abstract game with specific rules to support its abstractness and by those rules Displacement doesn't stop sneak attack. /thread
Sneak Attacking may be an exact science. Good thing this is an abstract game with specific rules to support its abstractness and by those rules Displacement doesn't stop sneak attack. /thread
Unfortunately that is only opinion Cartigan, not fact. Its obviously a grey area - the mechanics are confusing as is the terminology, the spell clearly isnt one way or another. Its all down to interpretation.
Some people want to use it one way, then fine, the others can use it their way too. End result?...either way it works regardless. But its still pretty poor for a 3rd Level Spell, I'd rather rely on Blur to prevent future arguements, even though the mechanics of playing with light and the appearance of an opponent is the same in both examples.
(One spell distorting the image and the other shifting the image to a new location...why doesnt both prevent Sneak Attack?...they do, well at least alot of people agree with that. But if you want to rule it doesnt prevent it, thats your choice, you can run it anyway you like in your own games)
Even though I have read the posts on this thread, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that the posts aren't actually there, I can't actually imagine how it would actually get to be this long.
Therefore, this thread can't be this long.
amiright?
Even though I have read the posts on this thread, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that the posts aren't actually there, I can't actually imagine how it would actually get to be this long.
Therefore, this thread can't be this long.
amiright?
I choose to disbelieve in this thread.
|
|
I choose to disbelieve in this thread.Even though I have read the posts on this thread, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that the posts aren't actually there, I can't actually imagine how it would actually get to be this long.
Therefore, this thread can't be this long.
amiright?
Sorry, the save for this thread is will negates(harmless), not will disbelief.
|
Sneak Attack is an exact science, it talks about striking vital areas. How can an attack made with a margin of error by 1 to 24 inches be a Sneak Attack?
This is the one point that you are really sticking with, the issue of the rogue not being able to target accurately. So putting the other requirements aside, let's look at the targeting aspect.
The spell specifically states:
The subject of the spell appears to be about 2 feet away from it's 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.
So the target can still be targeted normally (enemies can see an image of the target). That takes care of the visual aspect, as the rogue actually has a target to pinpoint on.
You also apparently conceded the point that the image is not fixed and the subject of the spell is able to move around within the 5' square:
At no point does the spell ever say the projection is in a fixed point at all times, the hidden character could move around while the projection stays close, but it could change sides, go in front of or behind the character through the round. Nothing about the spell says the character has to pick one side of his 5ft square that the glamer always occupies.
So, as the target is able to move in relation to the image, and the rogue is able to target the image, why then would a rogue not be able to make a precision attack? A successful SA would, it seems to me, be a case of the spell's subject moving within the 5' square and, for all intents and purposes, stepping into the rogue's precision attack of the image the rogue has to work with. After all, this would entail:
1) a successful hit2) succeeding in overcoming the miss chance
This would be the same scenario I would see as taking place for a successful critical hit made against the subject of the spell.
On the flip side of the coin, would you allow a character to utilize their Weapon Specialization (normal or Greater), Vital Strike (normal or Greater), Precise Shot (normal or Improved), Pinpoint Targeting (normal or Improved) or Penetrating Strike (normal or Greater)? And what about the more Monk specific feats of Stunning Fist, Deadly Strike, etc? The same argument you are making against the rogue (it is an exact science ... especially with stunning fist and deadly strike) could feasible be used in some fashion against all of these and perhaps more.
EDIT: looks like James just shot down the mental pathway I was running down.
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.
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.)
By gazing through my crystal ball at the tarot cards surrounding the tea cup with remaining leaves ... I would say six posts from your answer. ;)
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.)
PWNED!
|
|
For what it's worth, I think that rogues SHOULD be able to sneak attack concealed foes. This prevents this whole argument from happening, but more importantly lets rogues sneak attack victims in shadowy alleys.
(Just to revitalize the thread a little... mwa ha ha ha...)
OK, to throw a little twist into this ... would a rogue with Improved Precise Shot be able to SA a target using the blur spell? Assuming within 30', etc.
More importantly, since displacement is not a true total concealment, would the same rogue be able to SA, with Improved Precise Shot, a subject using displacement?
Wow I just read alot of this and I have a few things to say about it too
First I don't remember reading anything about being invisible in this spell so any benefits that invisibility gives do not apply to this spell (yes I understand your real self is seen 2ft in what ever direction but it doesn't state that you gain any benefits of invisibility)and to say it does in just your own interpretation of the spell so according to RAW yes you can sneak attack.
Second as I read through any D&D book I've noticed that if something denies sneak attack damage it will tell you and no were in this spell does it say anything about denying sneak attack damage (keeping in mind this does not grant concealment but only a miss chance)
Finally this is just another one of those things in this game that are just unclear and do not have a definite answer and should really be left up to your DM.
Thats all I have to say on the matter
groundhog day
For what it's worth, I think that rogues SHOULD be able to sneak attack concealed foes. This prevents this whole argument from happening, but more importantly lets rogues sneak attack victims in shadowy alleys.
(Just to revitalize the thread a little... mwa ha ha ha...)
OK now you're just making it worse.
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.
Sorry, that's a FAIL. Concealment is defined by the rules.
Then please address my mislead question.And you do. Return to the pencil-in-water analogy.
Also, the necessary element in sneak attack to pick out vital spots is not targeting them -- you *must* see them.
I already have. With mislead, there is no correlation between the illusory double and the actual character. They don't move in synch, they don't face the same direction, etc etc. That is NOT the same thing as a pencil-in-water displacement.
Zophos, D&D/Pathfinder has its own definitions for various words.
Listen to the Zurai for he is wise and knowledgeable. Even more than that he is right in this case.
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. ... 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...
That's not my rule. That's PAIZO'S rule. I know you hate my guts, but blaming me for other peoples' rules is just sour grapes and only demeans yourself.
(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)
Sweet, so that means displacement can be used to hide in plain sight and makes the caster immune to attacks of opportunity?
|
|
OK, so here's a question. Why does the SA of the rogue get DQed for concealment spells like blur and displacement, but abilities tied to feats which by their nature should be precision based are not? I am thinking specifically of Vital Strike (one would think in order to make a vital strike, one would need to be able to precisely hit your target, which these spells would not allow due to their concealment nature).
EDIT: and no "because it's the rules" responses please ... I'm wondering about the logic of it.
(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)Sweet, so that means displacement can be used to hide in plain sight and makes the caster immune to attacks of opportunity?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess no on both counts. Well ok a maybe on the hide one, but immunity to attacks of opportunity nah you just get the miss chance on it.
But I'm not the designer.
(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)Sweet, so that means displacement can be used to hide in plain sight and makes the caster immune to attacks of opportunity?I'm going to go out on a limb and guess no on both counts. Well ok a maybe on the hide one, but immunity to attacks of opportunity nah you just get the miss chance on it.
But I'm not the designer.
But total concealment grants immunity from AOOs! And according to James, it's total concealment. Normal concealment only grants 20% miss chance, and the spell specifically says total concealment. Ergo, if it grants a form of total concealment, and the only "except" in the spell is "except for targeting", then it lets you hide and makes you immune to AOOs.
|
God I keep trying to not comment in this thread but keep coming back.
If James is right (and he's James, so of course he's right) then I think Displacement needs some errata. Really, as written, the miss chance in it just uses Total Concealment as an example for something else that has a 50% miss chance, it goes out of its way to not say "this is just like total concealment" much like Blur does with normal concealment.
If Displacement does provide it, it should just come right out and say it. :)
God I keep trying to not comment in this thread but keep coming back.
If James is right (and he's James, so of course he's right) then I think Displacement needs some errata. Really, as written, the miss chance in it just uses Total Concealment as an example for something else that has a 50% miss chance, it goes out of its way to not say "this is just like total concealment" much like Blur does with normal concealment.
If Displacement does provide it, it should just come right out and say it. :)
This. It's not that I object to displacement granting total concealment-minus-certain-effects, it's that the spell just simply doesn't say it does as written. If that's the intent, it needs to be rewritten. And it needs to be rewritten with an eye to the other effects granted by total concealment (hiding, AOO avoidance).
What would we argue about then?Green or Purple.
<now let's see who can name the source of that argument>
Babylon 5. A Drazi custom where every so often, every Drazi would take either a green or a purple cloth and be part of "that side" until one side or the other "won". Ivonova got fed up with the violence and stopped it by simply making everyone wear the same color, because the entire basis for the disagreement was what color each Drazi was wearing.
IIRC. It's been a while. It was in the episode where B5 was doing a religious festival where EVERY religion was able to observe its normal practices, and that was part of the Drazi "religion".
|
|
Babylon 5. A Drazi custom where every so often, every Drazi would take either a green or a purple cloth and be part of "that side" until one side or the other "won". Ivonova got fed up with the violence and stopped it by simply making everyone wear the same color, because the entire basis for the disagreement was what color each Drazi was wearing.What would we argue about then?Green or Purple.
<now let's see who can name the source of that argument>
+1 to you Zurai. Glad to see the quick response time on that one.
Now, back to the argument.
Purple. ;)
Actually, I would agree the spell needs rewriting (or at least an errata entry). After all it generated about 12 pages of debate until James brought in the Hammer of CD Might.
+1 to you Zurai. Glad to see the quick response time on that one.
B5 is waaaaaaaaay up there on my favorite TV shows. Possibly the #1. Season 1 is kinda iffy, but 2-4 are out-freaking-standing.
But total concealment grants immunity from AOOs! And according to James, it's total concealment. Normal concealment only grants 20% miss chance, and the spell specifically says total concealment. Ergo, if it grants a form of total concealment, and the only "except" in the spell is "except for targeting", then it lets you hide and makes you immune to AOOs.(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)Sweet, so that means displacement can be used to hide in plain sight and makes the caster immune to attacks of opportunity?I'm going to go out on a limb and guess no on both counts. Well ok a maybe on the hide one, but immunity to attacks of opportunity nah you just get the miss chance on it.
But I'm not the designer.
You're doing what you were so angry at others for doing. James says it provides a sort of concealment, one that is wonky and ill-defined and only comes up in this spell, but it is a special type of concealment. We've always known this, or else the language wouldn't even say concealment.
It's too early to say, TBH, how this performs like and how it performs unlike normal total concealment. Concealment does not prevent AoOs, only Total Concealment does.
I submit to you that Displacement acts as if it is Concealment except in that it provides 50% miss chance instead of 20%. I will agree, absolutely, that the language needs some sprucing up and clarifying, but this is how I'll treat the spell from now on.
Dang it you beat me to the punch on the Purple v. Green comment.
/threadjack
Yeah B5 is one of my favorite shows too. Def top 5 space-based sci-fi shows of all time, along with (IMO) Farscape, DS9 and Red Dwarf :)
I know the common wisdom is that season 1 is garbage but I actually like it more and more every time I watch through the show (which I do once every year or two on DVD). The first time I watched through it, only remembering seasons 3 and 4 which I watched when they were new, I was annoyed and anxious to get to the action/meat of the show. Now I appreciate it more for how brilliantly it's written in that EVERY tiny kernel of plot in S1 is paid off if not for 3 or 4 seasons. Babylon^2 is a great example of this. /threadjack
Displacement references total concealment, though, not merely concealment. Since it's a form of total concealment, the same line of argument could be used to indicate that it does in fact protect against AoOs and allow Stealth checks.
Exactly. If it's total concealment, the only EXCEPTION from total concealment provided by the spell is that it doesn't interfere with targeting. That means it does provide the Stealth and AOO benefits.
Umm yes at lest most here an agree on the awesomeness that was B5. Still stands as one of the best shows ever IMO
|
But total concealment grants immunity from AOOs! And according to James, it's total concealment. Normal concealment only grants 20% miss chance, and the spell specifically says total concealment. Ergo, if it grants a form of total concealment, and the only "except" in the spell is "except for targeting", then it lets you hide and makes you immune to AOOs.(AND: as written, spells like blur and displacement DO negate sneak attacks, since they grant a form of concealment.)Sweet, so that means displacement can be used to hide in plain sight and makes the caster immune to attacks of opportunity?I'm going to go out on a limb and guess no on both counts. Well ok a maybe on the hide one, but immunity to attacks of opportunity nah you just get the miss chance on it.
But I'm not the designer.
Actually James never said it was "total concealment". He just said it was a "form of concealment".
EDIT: Whatever the Hell "form of" means....
Actually James never said it was "total concealment". He just said it was a "form of concealment".
EDIT: Whatever the Hell "form of" means....
There are only two forms of concealment: concealment and total concealment. The only form mentioned in the spell is total concealment. Thus, if it offers a form of concealment, the only logical choice is total concealment.