Wow...I didnt think the thread would go this long...lol
I appreciate your input James, it helps to deal with this long-time debate once and for all but I also agree with others some official errata or rewording of the spell would prevent future confusion as has happened here.
|
LOL, I have been keeping up with this thread since the beginning. At first I was, there's no way sneak attack is allowed. Later, I really was kind of liking the optical illusion argument where it took concentration to focus on the target. But if you could, you would get a sneak attack. But since James has spoken I will definitely go with that definition. Now I would say that you have a point Zurai about AOO's and being able to use stealth except that the spell specifically gives you a marker that defines the exact square you are in thus causing you to A) be unable to hide (or you could go the Glitterdust route and give a hefty negative to the Stealth check (also see - ignoring concealment pg. 197 core rulebook)) and B) letting someone know when you are passing within a couple of feet of them so they can take that AOO (still with the 50% miss chance of course). Anywho, seems pretty straightforward logically to me. I do agree that defining the spell better would be a great help. Just take a look at the Hypnotism spell if you want to see something just as confusing in how it works.
Having the 'projection' in the same square as yourself doesnt give you an advantange to stealth (its still perfectly visible as much as you'd be normally) and you still provoke AoO's technically because the opponent can clearly target the square you occupy (but they'd still suffer the 50% miss chance of course) All the spell does is prevent accurate enough location to make sneak attacks and cause all attacks directed at the character to suffer a 50% miss chance due to concealment.
Theres no advantage in having the spell active to try and stealth, unless your a naturally very stealthy character but even then its use is only for defense, it has little application elsewhere. Even though its a form of concealment, the projection hovering nearby negates the point of using it for stealthy purposes (its only really useful for defense)
That being said, as it gives a form of concealment, a character under this spell should benefit from catching his foe flat-footed but in the case of having his projection in the same square mimicing his movements, its hard to say for sure how this would work. They know the character is there, they just dont see the exact angle the attack is coming from so technically they would be flatfooted as such as they would against a foe with total concealment, but since the illusion is there in the same square and mimics the character its hard to say - the spell's pretty good as it is, its purpose is primarily for defense, since it grants a form of concealment, it provides the defensive benefits I'd rule, not the benefits for offense due to the give-away projection that hovers nearby. Thats a fair compramise.
That being said theres a easy remedy to that - the "Blind-Fight" feat, that prevents you from being pummeled badly by an invisible foe, and to date I have seldom seem a fighter-type character without it, especially when they tend to fight spellcasters and such.
|
|
Hmmmm, this line under concealment bothers me though, "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." Although I would still have to extrapolate from the ignoring concealment section that these circumstances merit that line above from concealment be ignored.
Hmmmm, this line under concealment bothers me though, "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." Although I would still have to extrapolate from the ignoring concealment section that these circumstances merit that line above from concealment be ignored.
I read that as well...but I'd assume the fact you can accurately target the opponents square you should be able to due to the presence of the projection that fills the same square.
Total Concealment prevents someone from being targeted specifically, but this spell allows someone to know what square that character occupies at all times so I'd think that overrules the "no attack of opportunity vs an opponent with total concealment" element.
Reason for that particular line would be with regards to someone hitting an invisible character or one with total concealment from some other source, if they hit the hidden foe they couldnt use that 'hit' to execute an AoO but since this spell allows someone to be 'targeted normally' it allows someone to know what square they occupy at all times regardless of how they move, but it doesnt allow anyone to pinpoint someone well enough in that square to make sneak attacks or to bypass the 50% concealment/miss chance.
I think what we need is a new term called 'Partial Concealment', and then have that defined. Then specify the spell gives 'Partial Concealment'. Partial concealment would prevent sneak attacks, allow attacks against the target but with a 50% miss chance, not affect the ability to stealth, and still allow Attacks of Opportunity.
So we'd have Total Concealment (50% miss chance, no AoO, no Sneak Attack, stealth and hide in plain sight). Then we'd have Partial Concealment (50% miss, AoO allowed, No Sneak Attack, No stealth and Hide in plain sight). Then we'd have Concealment (20% miss chance, no AoO, No Sneak Attack, No Stealth or hide in plain sight).
Not that it's 3AM so I might have messed up some of those details above, if so, I'm sure someone will correct them. Just please correct politely and not with a flame war, thanks. :)
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.
Blur explicitly says it provides concealment...
I will argue that Displacement still doesn't give concealment because the spell wasn't changed by Paizo and is using the same 3.5 wording so James' statement on how it works is just as much opinion as our arguments are. So unless it is errata'd, I will hold my position. Bam.
That's a quick one... is somebody under a Displacement effect not sneak-able?
As a side note, does it prevent an AoO as well?
Relevant rules:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Total 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.
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.
Displacement prevents sneak attacks. Stop all your bantering. You need true seeing to get around it.
Form of concealment.
Interesting. I like it as concealment (not total concealment), but with a 50% miss chance.
JJ had a chance to call it a form of 'total concealment'. He did not. He called it a form of 'concealment'.
LOL,
I love the fact that despite the fact James ruled on it, people still won't give it up. What is even funnier is that the people that won't accept the answer are usually the people that when the ruling goes in the favor of their argument insist that a ruling from on high is law. ;)
EDIT: Fixed a typo (see above)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
LOL,
I love the fact that despite the fact Jason ruled on it, people still won't give it up. What is even funnier is that the people that won't accept the answer are usually the people that when the ruling goes in the favor of their argument insist that a ruling from on high is law. ;)
*shrug* I just don't like a spell that completely shuts down a major class ability, and know how it will work at *my* table. Good to have an official ruling for PFS or cons though.
I think the problem comes in it's still a 'pseudo-concealment' that ruling the other way opens up a can of worms in another direction (blurred/displaced rogues sneak attacking, hide in plain sight, avoiding AoO's etc). Just saying 'it gives a 50% miss chance' and leaving it at that would have made me happy, and that's how it works at my table
(aside, does blur's miss chance shut down sneak attack too?)
But Blur is explicitly concealment. It literally states "This distortion grants the subject concealment." Blur doesn't magically make people miss, it magically grants you concealment, which opens up an entire new can of worms. The ONLY link anyone has to Displacement from Blur is a tenuous one involving poorly named magic items.
That comes with its own can of worms. The issue with Displacement is it is poorly worded and has been poorly worded. And since the poor wording is a holdover and not a Paizo rewrite (like Mirror Image), it is going to need an errata to settle this.
so, to add another wrinkle, does the Rogue/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple's Blindsense negate this effect? I am assuming it would since it is bending light, hence visual
Honestly, if you have Blindsense, just tie a blindfold on at the start of every fight. Buy some goggles with lenses you can't see through. You can still fight perfectly normally but you are immune to a number of illusions and gaze attacks.
LOL,
I love the fact that despite the fact Jason ruled on it, people still won't give it up. What is even funnier is that the people that won't accept the answer are usually the people that when the ruling goes in the favor of their argument insist that a ruling from on high is law. ;)*shrug* I just don't like a spell that completely shuts down a major class ability, and know how it will work at *my* table. Good to have an official ruling for PFS or cons though.
I think the problem comes in it's still a 'pseudo-concealment' that ruling the other way opens up a can of worms in another direction (blurred/displaced rogues sneak attacking, hide in plain sight, avoiding AoO's etc). Just saying 'it gives a 50% miss chance' and leaving it at that would have made me happy, and that's how it works at my table
(aside, does blur's miss chance shut down sneak attack too?)
Major class abilities get shut down all the time (anti-magic zone negates all spell-casting, cone of silence shuts down a bunch of spellcasting, heck, disguise can shut down a Ranger's favored enemy bonus (he doesn't realize it's a <insert race here> so he doesn't target the right bits)).
I never understood the rational 'Oh, it cuts out an ability I have, it can't be in the game, that's not fair' mentality. I mean, I know that's pretty much a lot of the rational in 4th ed, but I never understood it. To me, the fun is in figuring out how to overcome something when you can't always do everything exactly the way you want. Most stories have the protagonist at a disadvantage, nobody wants to go see a movie of Hercules beating up drunks in an alleyway. He's gonna do it, you know he is, there's nothing spectacular there. Hercules fighting a hydra or a titan, there's something worth seeing (and yes, I did recently see Percy Jackson : The Lightning Thief).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Major class abilities get shut down all the time (anti-magic zone negates all spell-casting, cone of silence shuts down a bunch of spellcasting, heck, disguise can shut down a Ranger's favored enemy bonus (he doesn't realize it's a <insert race here> so he doesn't target the right bits)).
I never understood the rational 'Oh, it cuts out an ability I have, it can't be in the game, that's not fair' mentality. I mean, I know that's pretty much a lot of the rational in 4th ed, but I never understood it. To me, the fun is in figuring out how to overcome something when you can't always do everything exactly the way you want. Most stories have the protagonist at a disadvantage, nobody wants to go see a movie of Hercules beating up drunks in an alleyway. He's gonna do it, you know he is, there's nothing spectacular there. Hercules fighting a hydra or a titan, there's something worth seeing (and yes, I did recently see Percy Jackson : The Lightning Thief).
Antimagic is 6th level, Improved invisibility is 4th, silence doesn't make the bad guy immune to spells, you can bypass it, leave the area, etc.
I guess for 'Matt's rules for game design' Rule 2 is that it's not until 4th level spells I want effects to start locking off huge chunks of class features (lesser globe, improved invisiblity, anti-magic, etc) because by then it's easier to allocate finite resources to negating such things. (keeping a glitterdust handy, wands of see invisible for UMD, spells that can be up prior to charging in the globe, etc)
Now the BBEG can break those rules, but he's the BBEG.
Rule 1, of course, is learn to draw maps ;-)
And I'll point out, Pathfinder did take large steps to make sure no one is useless (sneak attack constructs and undead, channel energy being more useful, caster tricks, etc) as often.
Reread his post, he said "Blindsense."
What James said overrides the 3.5 FAQ ruling that it isn't a form of concealment -- which is fine, it's not unreasonable to assume displacement is blur++.
I have no further comment.
"Displacement" and "Blur" work in a similar way - both mess with your senses to percieve the opponent BUT both also have the target be in the same 5ft square (unlike say, a "Mirror Image" spell). Being able to accurately percieve your opponent is a absolute neccesity for setting up a Sneak Attack and while "Blur" accomplishes this clearly with the wording, "Displacement" can be confusing to understand but it breaks down like this.
- The character appears to be in another location in the same 5t square, wether this is an inch or two feet, its enough to throw off precision damage but not enough to warrant a character needing to 'target empty squares' looking for a hidden character - they know where the opponent is and can attack into that square normally.
- The spell is essentially useless for sneaking around, it creates a perfect projection of yourself which everyone can see, so unless your naturally stealthy anyway it doesnt do a single thing for you.
- The projection allows a character to accurately judge which square his foe occupies, this would permit them to make AoO's against them but with the 50% miss chance (this is part of the slight difference to Total Concealment the spell mentions vaguely)
- A "Displaced" character isnt concealed enough technically to attack an opponent as an invisible opponent, I'd rule that the spellcaster doesnt get the offensive advantages the spell implies by the pseudo-total concealment, I treat it as "Blur" but with a better miss chance for this purpose.
The whole intention of the spell is to make the caster difficult to hit, it just so happens this difficulty to hit also impairs the Rogue's ability to deliver a precise sneak attack. But I do agree without arguement the spells description could use more elaboration to prevent future confusion.
As for people complaining about Rogues getting a raw deal - come on, seriously...Rogues have been SO amped up since 3.5, you can sneak attack more creatures than you were able to before and now they have access to Conan-esque Talents that allow them to deal X bleed damage on a sneak attack equal to the number of dice rolled (compliment this with TWF and a decent attack bonus and the amount stacks up quick) among other amazing talents. Rogues have always had to contend with concealment as a major issue, its ALWAYS going to be there just as Fighters get stuck dealing with a Ooze without decent ranged attacks that can hurt it or the spellcaster that gets hit with a antimagic field spell or a silence effect.
End of the day, I just consider it an improved version of "Blur" as do alot of other people, with all the pro's and con's of "Blur" though it doesnt allow someone to hide if they arent naturally stealthy in the first place or to hide via concealment given the visal aspect of the spell in this case.
|
Damn, I typed blur and meant blink.(aside, does blur's miss chance shut down sneak attack too?)Yep. If it didn't, I wouldn't have argued that displacement did too.
I'm going with no. The only time it mentions concealment is if the enemy can strike ethereal. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hey.
|
|
Reread his post, he said "Blindsense."
I think he was referring to you saying that you can just tie a blindfold on and be done with it, but blindsense doesn't work that way. Blindsight, on the other hand would suit your example perfectly.
Here:
Blindsight and Blindsense
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description.
Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight.
Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does).
Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures that use blindsight.
Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing.
Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum.
Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects.Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm going with no. The only time it mentions concealment is if the enemy can strike ethereal. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hey.Damn, I typed blur and meant blink.(aside, does blur's miss chance shut down sneak attack too?)Yep. If it didn't, I wouldn't have argued that displacement did too.
I agree, but I was wrong apparently on Displacement... what do I know? ;-)
Reread his post, he said "Blindsense."I think he was referring to you saying that you can just tie a blindfold on and be done with it, but blindsense doesn't work that way. Blindsight, on the other hand would suit your example perfectly.
Jesus Christ. THE GUY I QUOTED SAID BLINDSENSE. Get off my ass and then climb down from your high horses.
Get off my ass and then climb down from your high horses.
is it wrong that I find this a very amusing visual?
Get off my ass and then climb down from your high horses.is it wrong that I find this a very amusing visual?
Very likely, yes
Not that this is terribly applicable to Pathfinder, but in 3.0 (dunno about 3.5) the displacement spells mentions that it emulates the ability of a displacer beast. I'm guessing that the displacer beast isn't open content so that bit had to be left out, but if you thumb over to the displacer beast ability of the same name it says nothing about concealment, it's just a supernatural ability with a 50% miss chance. I think Zurai is right about the concealment bit only being there as a referral to the miss chance rules, but that it's not part of the ability.
I've never ruled that displacement negates sneak attack previously, but I guess I'll take it how James says, or else I risk my list of house rules overtaking the core-rule book in length if I changed everything I didn't like.
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...)
The wording says the rogue has to see the target "well enough." That's a lot of wiggle room, a silhouette of the target should be enough. I'd only rule that you can't sneak attack only when light conditions are so bad that the target has concealment anyway.
To understand this, you've got to understand what the displacement effect is.
The "pencil" anology is not just an anology it is an exact definition of what happens in this case. "Displacement" in D&D is the magical effect of bending light around the target. As with water, when light filters through a different medium it is "bent", refracted so that the angle with which it bounces back to your eye is not the ACTUAL angle between you and the object you are observing. Because our eyes only display what we see due to reflection of light, the eye is tricked, it shows the target somewhere it is not.
Now, here's where the water analogy ends. While the light is reflected off the target's body differently, making it appear to be about 2 feet off, it does not CONCEAL the target in any way. Unlike water (which, because of it's ripple effect causes the image you see to undulate and move) every detail, every nuance of the target is EXACTLY as it appears on the target, it's just moved differently. As the target moves so too does the "image".
It is IMPORTANT to understand that this is NOT an illusion, there is no created "copy" of the original target, there is nothing to modify. The "magical effect" is doing nothing more than fooling the observer's eye into believing the target is X distance from it's original location. The REASON this is important, is that because the moment you understand the effect you can, technically, be EXACTLY as accurate in your strike as you would be if the person were standing there without the spell.
Anyone here shot archery (in real life) with any regularity? A target 20 yards out sighted down the arrow is actually well below where your eye tells you the arrow is pointed. If you sight down the arrow to the tip and put the tip at the bulseye your arrow will practically miss the target off the top, this is because the angle of your eye to the arrow tip is not even with the angle of your eye to the target...
Once you UNDERSTAND This phenomenon it is easy to correct for. You angle your shot down to somewhere off the bottom of the target and release...once you know that spot you can release the arrow at that spot the same way every time and perpetually bulseye the target. Same effect with displacement: with experience, you an easily gauge EXACTLY where that kidney or armor chink would be, even if you cannot exactly see it, because you know both the distance away and exactly where your eye thinks it is. You CAN make a precise strike because you know EXACTLY where the part you want to strike is, it's EXACTLY X distance in Y direction from where it is on the visible entity. The 50% miss rate accounts for the fact you must figure out exactly what X and Y are above before you can make a precise strike. Some rogues are going to guess correctly and get that exact strike in, some aren't.
The important part of the rules is the fact that it states that the miss rate was "AS IF" you had concealment. That clearly states you DO NOT have concealment, only the miss rate associated with concealment. Again, this makes sense because the original target CANNOT move without it's move registered EXACTLY on the seen image.
The difference between this and an illusion is that the visible entity and the "warped" entity are the SAME entity (not different as in the case of an illusion). Move a finger on the warped entity and the visible entity moves exactly. Once the displacement is cast there is no way to increase, decrease or otherwise change the distance you are being seen from where your original position is. It's just the bending of light, it will always bend the same way and thus X and Y above are always the same through a single casting of the spell.
To the question of "why wouldn't I just cast blur?" You should. The two spells have two completely different uses. Blur has the effect of making you immune to sneak attack, because of this it's miss percentage is tuned down to 30%...you cast blur in the situation where you are ok with less protection but need more protection from sneak attacks...if you were facing off against a rogue you'd want blur on.
If, however, you aren't afraid of sneak attacks and you're trying to prevent something like a warrior from chopping you into little pieces, then you would throw on displacement. A higher % miss rate but no protection against sneak attack. In this way, the spells are balanced, one doesn't replace the other. If Displacement protected from sneak, why would you EVER cast blur? Displacement would be the "big brother" of blur and you could pretty much remove blur from your spellbook at that point.
I understand the mentality of protecting against sneak attack with Displacement, originally I was agreeing with it, but the language of displacement drove me the other direction. If it was meant to protect against sneak, it would have stated that the spell provided concealment. The "as if" in the displacement description guarantees that the intent of this spell is NOT to provide concealment and thus not to protect against sneak attack.
--Illydth
To understand this, you've got to understand what the displacement effect is.
The "pencil" anology is not just an anology it is an exact definition of what happens in this case. "Displacement" in D&D is the magical effect of bending light around the target. As with water, when light filters through a different medium it is "bent", refracted so that the angle with which it bounces back to your eye is not the ACTUAL angle between you and the object you are observing. Because our eyes only display what we see due to reflection of light, the eye is tricked, it shows the target somewhere it is not.
Now, here's where the water analogy ends. While the light is reflected off the target's body differently, making it appear to be about 2 feet off, it does not CONCEAL the target in any way. Unlike water (which, because of it's ripple effect causes the image you see to undulate and move) every detail, every nuance of the target is EXACTLY as it appears on the target, it's just moved differently. As the target moves so too does the "image".
It is IMPORTANT to understand that this is NOT an illusion, there is no created "copy" of the original target, there is nothing to modify. The "magical effect" is doing nothing more than fooling the observer's eye into believing the target is X distance from it's original location. The REASON this is important, is that because the moment you understand the effect you can, technically, be EXACTLY as accurate in your strike as you would be if the person were standing there without the spell.
Anyone here shot archery (in real life) with any regularity? A target 20 yards out sighted down the arrow is actually well below where your eye tells you the arrow is pointed. If you sight down the arrow to the tip and put the tip at the bulseye your arrow will practically miss the target off the top, this is because the angle of your eye to the arrow tip is not even with the angle of your eye to the target...
Once you UNDERSTAND This phenomenon it is easy to correct for. You...
By that analysis your saying since that someone manages to 'hit' an invisible character, they should be able to correct remaining shots (in their limited combat round of 6 seconds no less) to hit vital areas. That doesnt work against Invisibility, and James has already ruled it prevents Sneak Attacks - mechanically you cant make sneak attacks against a foe whose anatomy isnt precisely visible to you (otherwise you could Sneak Attack a "Blurred" character using that analysis and thats already been proven impossible beyond reproach.)
A Rogue has to be able to see his target well enough to pick out a vital spot...does he know WHERE the opponent is in that 5 ft square?, no, but he can attack into that square reasonably confidant he'll catch them somehow (for normal attack damage unless they score a critical)
The opponent cannot benefit from concealment in any way - James has already established the spellcaster benefits from a "form of concealment", which grants the mechanics of Total Concealment save from the 'targeting 5ft square' issue thats usually a randomised effort against a hidden/invisible foe isnt the case here. "Targeting" is a generalised effort such as throwing splash weapons or targeting opponents with spells (such as using 'Charm Person' on an 'Invisible Opponent' would fail because you cannot target them, whereas you could with a 'Displaced' foe because you can aim correctly at that 5 ft square. Trust me...read what targeting means under spellcasting for an example and look for other examples through the book (Alchemists Fire, Holy Water, Thunderstones.) and see where it comes up. You CANNOT account for diffraction of light against an opponents vitals that you cant make out in the first place.
And regardless of what people feel, James shared his ruling on it, and Displacement foils Sneak Attack. Just doesnt help against Joe the Fighter with his Blind-Fight feat very much.
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.
And by Paizo taking an official stance, or stating an official answer, does not necessarily refute or support any of our reasoning or positions on this subject, and you still can make a house ruling either way.
Enjoy!
|
|
I thank Mr Jacobs for coming into this madhouse and issuing a ruling. Thank you sir for your time and attention.
However, I disagree for all the reasons I and others have mentioned, and while I will happily abide by the official ruling in Pathfinder Society games, I will stick with my interpretation in all games I run (be warned, all 5 of you!!). Likewise, I hope that a clearer wording for this spell would appear in the future, or errata in the meantime, and I further hope that any spell that is meant to negate sneak attack clearly states as much in the spell's description.
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.
Very true, I had tried to bring this point up among others before...lol, nobody paid attention to it then. If it took such a powerful spell (or Blindsight/Blindsense/Tremorsense, etc) to get through it then how is the character not under some kind of pseudo-invisibility type effect?, they are, their image is displaced from their real location...thereby the sneak attack location is displaced from the vitals real location.
Invisibility is easily foiled by See Invisibility, so despite Invisibility's versatility its easily overcome by a myriad of spells and abilities
Displacement is not, and please people...note that 24 inches is not an acceptable 'margin of error' for a Sneak Attack, because the Rogue knows the opponents in the square doesnt mean where they stab/attack at the vitals THEY SEE isnt going to be WHAT THEY HIT, thats the whole point.
Otherwise Sneak Attacks would occur wildly if they had that margin of error - (That'd be the Telling Blow feat from PHB2), Sneak Attacks are all part of the "Precision Damage" family that Ninjas and Scouts belong to, they require the Rogues senses to be absolutely accurate even if the target area is more than a few inches across - any effect that causes a Rogue to miss hitting that specific vital area would be a normal hit on a Displaced character.
James has already gotten involved in this, people are free to use the spell in their own games how they see fit - its pretty much a ramped up version of "Blur" with visually different mechanics, the Total Concealment in the spell description has ONE exception with regards to Targeting...check what Targeting is and when it comes up - its always with regards to a target square an opponent occupies.
|
|
Jesus Christ. THE GUY I QUOTED SAID BLINDSENSE. Get off my ass and then climb down from your high horses.
so, to add another wrinkle, does the Rogue/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple's Blindsense negate this effect? I am assuming it would since it is bending light, hence visualHonestly, if you have Blindsense, just tie a blindfold on at the start of every fight. Buy some goggles with lenses you can't see through. You can still fight perfectly normally but you are immune to a number of illusions and gaze attacks.
Cartigan. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. It wasn't my intention at all. Nor was my intention to cause such a reaction from you. Again, I'm sorry.
I got caught up with the "still fight perfectly normally" part in your post. Blindsense doesn't allow that. Blindsight usually does (barring silence for Echolocation example).
EDIT: I just thought that might cause confusion between the two abilities to someone new to the game.
By that analysis your saying since that someone manages to 'hit' an invisible character, they should be able to correct remaining shots (in their limited combat round of 6 seconds no less) to hit vital areas. That doesnt work against Invisibility,
Good thing Displacement isn't invisibility. Invisibility opens up an entire new can of worms revolving around NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE TARGET AT ALL. There is no reference point to correct shots from. Your incessant returning to "invisibility" regardless of how completely unrelated it is is getting quite tiresome.
otherwise you could Sneak Attack a "Blurred" character using that analysis and thats already been proven impossible beyond reproach.)
Christ. NO YOU COULD NOT; not even with your terrible word mincing of his analysis. Blur specifically grants you the concealment condition, for one thing. And for another thing, the description of how the spell affects you is entirely different.
Cartigan. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. It wasn't my intention at all. Nor was my intention to cause such a reaction from you. Again, I'm sorry.I got caught up with the "still fight perfectly normally" part in your post. Blindsense doesn't allow that. Blindsight usually does (barring silence for Echolocation example).
EDIT: I just thought that might cause confusion between the two abilities to someone new to the game.
I know Dragon Disciple grants the ability to fight blind, and thus that was what I was assuming was what he was talking about and skimmed over what he said. Then at least two people jump down my throat for referring to the ability incorrectly despite it being what the person I quoted used.
|
|
I know Dragon Disciple grants the ability to fight blind, and thus that was what I was assuming was what he was talking about and skimmed over what he said. Then at least two people jump down my throat for referring to the ability incorrectly despite it being what the person I quoted used.
Cartigan. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. It wasn't my intention at all. Nor was my intention to cause such a reaction from you. Again, I'm sorry.I got caught up with the "still fight perfectly normally" part in your post. Blindsense doesn't allow that. Blindsight usually does (barring silence for Echolocation example).
EDIT: I just thought that might cause confusion between the two abilities to someone new to the game.
Fair enough. Hug? :-)
Then why is it Catigan that I have heard many people say they could 'pinpoint' an opponents vitals then despite visual distortions and such using scientific analysis of whats going on. (And the combat round lasts 6 seconds, thats not enough for a scientific breakdown of 'what did I hit' and adjustment reactions)
People 'assume' to know a characters vital areas through guesswork, and that is whats going on. One person 'hitting' a character thats obscured in some fashion cannot by any basic means see these vital areas just because he 'found something' with his attack in 'that' square.
So Cartigan, please explain how being visually distorted from your true location can allow a Rogue to achieve an accurate sneak attack, keep in mind that he has to be absolutely certain his target's vitals are where hes striking. There is not as much "wiggle room" as others have said if the Rogue is going to hit the actual character, but thats not what theyre targeting - theyre attacking into the square the opponent occupies with the hopes of catching whoever or whatever is standing in there.
Sneak Attack is part of the "Precision Damage" family that Ninjas and Scouts belong to, it requires to correctly pick out the area to sneak attack within a small margin of error (not up to 24 inches thats for sure - perhaps a few inches at the VERY most)
So while the spell does not mention "invisibility" it IS implied, otherwise the character would be visible as well as this distortion of light, or a projection that is the ONLY thing the opponent sees. The fact the spell mentions the words "true location" twice and "True seeing" to counteract it is as clear to me that the Rogues visual senses are being fooled - which is an obvious problem if he has to see the target clear enough to attack vital areas - hes not seeing the character the distortion/projection eminates from visibly.
Regardless, the ruling was made and James likened Blur and Displacement in the same post so their intention was clearly to have one an improved form of another (but to say a higher level spell gives you 50% concealment would be invisibility proper, this spell is sort of like a half-way house between Invisibility and Improved Invisibility with a visual aspect thrown in for good measure) - I dont even know why I am continuing to argue this. Use the spell in your own games however you see fit.
At the end of the day I'd like to see it more clearly worded myself as I have said before, but James has ruled it prevents Sneak Attack, and the spell otherwise is useless for stealth. Its purely defensive.
Then why is it Catigan that I have heard many people say they could 'pinpoint' an opponents vitals then despite visual distortions and such using scientific analysis of whats going on. (And the combat round lasts 6 seconds, thats not enough for a scientific breakdown of 'what did I hit' and adjustment reactions)
Mostly because we are arguing ad absurdum against your attempt to apply reality to the rules to get a result you like.
People 'assume' to know a characters vital areas through guesswork,
Wrong, please read the thread.
One person 'hitting' a character thats obscured in some fashion cannot by any basic means see these vital areas just because he 'found something' with his attack in 'that' square.
See my first sentence.
So Cartigan, please explain how being visually distorted from your true location can allow a Rogue to achieve an accurate sneak attack,
Please read the thread.
keep in mind that he has to be absolutely certain his target's vitals are where hes striking.
See first sentence.
Regardless, the ruling was made and James
1) He didn't write the spell text. It is a holdover from 3.5, so unless they plan to errata it, I'm not intending to hold his opinion any higher than my own.
2) He also said his opinion is sneak attack should not be negated by concealment.likened Blur and Displacement
No, he didn't. His opinion was that they both offered a form of concealment. Which is obvious in the case of Blur where it explicitly states as much.