Regardless...at the end of the day - "Blur" and "Displacement" are both the same types of spell - Illusion (Glamer).
And while the spell doesnt mention invisibility alot of people read it as it distorts your image enough to make you seem like your standing where you are really not. The problem is the Rogue cannot account for uncertainty or variables that could change (such as when the character moves or that he doesnt know the characters direction or distance from the projection).
While some may think its being overly realistic to imply that 2 feet of distance (caused by visual distortion) doesnt allow Sneak Attack to occur, the spell needs to be rewritten thats for sure to properly explain the processes going on and moreover, to further define sneak attack.
That and if you look up ANY occasion of the words "target/targeting" throughout the book its always in relation to attacking into empty squares, splash weapons and ranged spells/attacks as well as melee ones with regards to hidden/invisible foes. To say you can attack someone normally doesnt mean with absolute certainty - you only have a sense of where the opponent is (thanks to his distorted image up to 2 feet away). Thusly the miss chance which is due to a form of concealment (personally I think this part needs to be seriously errata'ed and reworded to clarify it). Any concealment, regardless of how its caused prevents Sneak Attack, even if its only 'pseudo concealment' or something.
"Precision Damage" ala Sneak Attack needs to be reworded as well to define what "well enough" means. A "Blurred" characters rough shape can be made out but the fine details are obscured, a character well versed or used to attacking human type opponents should in theory be able to get through Blur once they establish or connect with a hit based on the arguements I have heard if they compare it to this spell in particular.
At the end of the day, we'll agree to disagree and wait until someone errata's it good and proper. You use it however you see fit and I'll use it the way I see fit, everyone else can choose a middle ground or do whatever they want with it.
It is a holdover from 3.5...
That right there is whole problem, and not just for this issue either. This, I think, is just something that happens after you have big game system that undergoes two major revisions. Some things that need clarification simply slip through the cracks.
Besides at the end of the day... does it really matter? Most folks never even run into this question at the table. How many people here have been part of a game that actually had someone sneak attack a displaced creature? I'd bet that very few, if any, have seen it since the release of PFRPG.
Regardless...at the end of the day - "Blur" and "Displacement" are both the same types of spell - Illusion (Glamer).
So are Magic Mouth and Disguise Self.
And while the spell doesnt mention invisibility alot of people read it as it distorts your image enough to make you seem like your standing where you are really not.
Which, again, has nothing to do with invisibility.
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...)
So it would require a perception check under concealment.
Thanks for chiming in btw James, I said my bit, and then bowed out.
In the end of course it's a DMs call (except in PFS campaigns, then it is up to the PFS rules.)
At the end of the day, we'll agree to disagree and wait until someone errata's it good and proper. You use it however you see fit and I'll use it the way I see fit, everyone else can choose a middle ground or do whatever they want with it.
Agreed. I'm less concerned with how the official PFS uses it, or how you or Cartigan or Zurai or TriOmega or any of the other posters use it. I just want an official stance so that I can go from there. Without an official ruling, you end up having to hash out things at the table wrangling back and forth which rules apply (as can be seen from this thread). With an official ruling to start from, I, as the GM, can say 'It works like A', where A is either the official ruling, or A is the house rule I have decided.
I've been on both sides of debates on the forums, some rulings matched my stance, some didn't. In the end, once I had an official ruling, I can then go forward from that and state 'In my games we use the official rule or this house rule'.
I've found players tend to argue less if you have a house rule than if it's just interpretation of a rule. Not sure why, but it happens, so I'll always prefer an official rule that I don't agree with (which I can then house-rule) over no guidance and hashing it out at the table instead of playing the game.
Rule # 1
never hash out rules in gameRule #2
See rule #1Rule #3
NO books for PCs in game
Rule #1 - Try not to hash out rules in game.
Rule #2 - If you can't avoid breaking Rule #1, make sure it's because a character life depends on it.
Rule #3 - Nobody has total recall, so books should only be used as needed, not as reading material when someone isn't actively involved in the game.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want an official stance so that I can go from there. Without an official ruling, you end up having to hash out things at the table wrangling back and forth which rules apply (as can be seen from this thread). With an official ruling to start from, I, as the GM, can say 'It works like A', where A is either the official ruling, or A is the house rule I have decided.
Thing is, I DID post the official ruling upthread. It seems that "official rulings" don't carry much water in a lot of these self-fueling rules debates, though.
The frustrating part for me is that this doesn't seem to me to be a case where we need errata; it's more a case of some folks trying to argue their way into having the rules bent for their character's favor. Because the rules are pretty clear:
The rules for sneak attack say: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment." And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
Now, whether or not the rule that rogues can't attack foes who have concealment is a good rule or not is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT argument. It seems to me that's at the core of this entire thread. And that discussion is kind of clouding the tread title's question.
But if you're looking for official rulings... the rules are pretty clear on how things work, I think.
And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
I must disagree. The very reason that this thread exists is because it is NOT clear that Displacement grants concealment.
That's why there is a "Displacements prevent sneak attacks?" thread and not a "Blurs prevent sneak attacks?" thread.
I just want an official stance so that I can go from there. Without an official ruling, you end up having to hash out things at the table wrangling back and forth which rules apply (as can be seen from this thread). With an official ruling to start from, I, as the GM, can say 'It works like A', where A is either the official ruling, or A is the house rule I have decided.Thing is, I DID post the official ruling upthread. It seems that "official rulings" don't carry much water in a lot of these self-fueling rules debates, though.
Sorry James, my statement didn't come off correctly. I was trying to say I was happy that you came on and gave an official ruling, and why I was happy. My 'I just want an official stance' was not directed at this thread specifically, just at these types of threads in general. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Let me do a better job of that. Thank you very much for giving a ruling, I always appreciate your or Jason's rulings, whether I agree with them or not. They give me a nice solid starting point to move on from either to run the game or house rule from a point of concreteness, rather than trying to go forward while walking on shifting sand. :)
The frustrating part for me is that this doesn't seem to me to be a case where we need errata; it's more a case of some folks trying to argue their way into having the rules bent for their character's favor. Because the rules are pretty clear:The rules for sneak attack say: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment." And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
I agree, I've never thought it really needed an errata. Although I do sort of disagree with you on the why. ;) To me, it's the 'must see the target clearly' that breaks it, since the spell is bending and twisting the target so they don't appear where they should be, then to me you can't target a specific spot. But that was hashed out too. :) I agree though, it is a case of people (me included) trying to bend the RAW to fit how we think it should work. In this particular case, my opinion just happened to fall on the side of the official ruling (which is always nice). :)
Now, whether or not the rule that rogues can't attack foes who have concealment is a good rule or not is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT argument. It seems to me that's at the core of this entire thread. And that discussion is kind of clouding the tread title's question.
But if you're looking for official rulings... the rules are pretty clear on how things work, I think.
Yep, that's another discussion. I would love to see the 'no concealment = no sneak attack' addressed and modified. Mainly for the 'back alley knife to the kidneys' thing. The problem would be, of course, that it would require a whole section on when sneak attack can or cannot be applied (perception check at -1 per 5% of miss chance to target a vital spot would be a nice compromise, but also adds complexity to the game).
As there has been an official ruling in this thread (sorry for missing that folks) take my continued discussion as purely argumentative debate.
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.)
First, as was pointed out there is a difference between invisibility and diffraction of light. When invisible I am capable of moving to hide my position. In other words, if one second I am standing right in front of you and you can hit me, the next second I may not be, even if shifted over only a half inch or so. Because with invisibility I have no point of reference to where you are AT ALL you are correct in your analysis that you could not "correct for" an invisible creature. To correct an arrow to hit a target even when line of sight changes I must have a reference point. In archery, if the bullseye were invisible or hidden and able to move it would be impossible for me to consistently correct for it.
However, Displacement is entirely and completely different from Invisibility in that you are not invisible. While your true position may be different from where you are being seen, you are NOT invisible. There IS a point of reference that is clearly and completely visible to me at all points in time while this spell lasts. And to make it more clear, that point of reference is ALWAYS a CONSTANT distance from where exactly you are. Like the fish in the water, if you learn how to correct for the diffraction and learn where to stab one fish crossing a particular line in the water and hit it, you will hit EVERY FISH EVERY TIME. If the diffraction of light from a spell were to place a bullseye exactly 2 feet to the left of the bullseye's actual location, and you were to create an illusion of a magical ruler extending 2 feet to the left from the visible location of that bullseye then aiming at the spot pointed to by the ruler would allow my arrow to hit that bullseye EVERY TIME I SHOT. If you were then to move the target 3 feet to the right I would STILL be able to hit that bullseye exactly in the center again by aiming 2 feet to the left of the new location. In other words, Displacement does not affect precision once the diffraction of light is accounted for.
This is the VAST difference between Invisibilty and Displacement. You cannot correct for invisibility because there are no reference points for the invisible creature. You can correct for displacement because the creature is still visible, there is a reference point for your shot, aiming at the reference point or two feet to the left of that reference point is immaterial.
You CANNOT account for diffraction of light against an opponents vitals that you cant make out in the first place.
This, right here, is the exact part of your argument I do not understand. "that you can't make out in the first place". Why can I not make out my opponent's vitals? If I build a wall and put you behind it, and then take a device that would display a photographic image of you SOMEWHERE on the front of the wall a random set distance from where you were standing we have replicated Displacement. If I were to then take a device and pinpoint a spot on the wall and the device would tell me whether I hit or missed you, I would eventually be able to pin point any spot on your body every shot I made no matter how much you moved up or down that wall, why? Because once I figure out how far the image is away from you I know where you are because I can see where the image is being displayed...it's simply a matter of correcting for it. If I want to hit you in the chest, the stomach, the head, the eye, etc. I can do that because you are displayed a set range distance from where the image appears to me.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the image displayed to me is in some way distorted, that, like a fish in the water, the image shimmers or is "unclear" in some way. Given this argument I would agree that I could not heart shot you if I cannot find your heart in the image I see...but this is NOT the case. I CAN account for diffraction of light against my opponent because his vitals ARE able to be made out precisely and completely in reference to his form, JUST as if he were not under displacement.
As I am simply arguing to enhance the discussion however here's an argument for the other side to work against:
Remember that a sneak attack both must hit a vital area AND must be "unexpected", thus the rule that your opponent must be flat footed to even attempt a sneak attack. What do you think the likely hood will be that a rogue will be able to sneak up on a displaced caster and, on the FIRST STRIKE with no prior knowledge that the mage is actually Displaecd or testing to determine distances that the image is from the real mage, be able to hit the mage in EXACTLY the place he or she wants?
I would call those chances "astronomical". Keep in mind my arguments above could be made to allow a sneak attack at a later point in the combat (i.e. if the rogue can manage to get behind the mage after several rounds of attacking), but everything I argue above predicates one fact:
The rouge knows how far away the real mage is from where he sees his image. Even though this distance is a constant, the rogue still must have time to "figure out" that constant. In other words the ability to sneak strike on the opening round of combat by a rogue on a displaced creature or person without prior knowledge or any testing would be so astronomical as to be, effectively, not possible.
If the rogue wants to wait two or three rounds of combat observing, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a rogue to be able to sneak strike a displaced creature or person. If they're going in with the rest of combat, I agree, this should be forbidden.
|
Creative Director
|
And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
I must disagree. The very reason that this thread exists is because it is NOT clear that Displacement grants concealment.
That's why there is a "Displacements prevent sneak attacks?" thread and not a "Blurs prevent sneak attacks?" thread.
Upon a closer read of displacement, I do see what you're talking about. It grants a miss chance, but then also says it "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
Therefore, I would say that blur DOES prevent sneak attacks but displacement does NOT. Still seems pretty clear... although only if you read the ENTIRE spell (which isn't something I did when I first piped up on this thread).
And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
I must disagree. The very reason that this thread exists is because it is NOT clear that Displacement grants concealment.
That's why there is a "Displacements prevent sneak attacks?" thread and not a "Blurs prevent sneak attacks?" thread.Upon a closer read of displacement, I do see what you're talking about. It grants a miss chance, but then also says it "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
Therefore, I would say that blur DOES prevent sneak attacks but displacement does NOT. Still seems pretty clear... although only if you read the ENTIRE spell (which isn't something I did when I first piped up on this thread).
*sigh*
Which now starts the whole thing over again.
May I ask if you consider the requirement to be able to clearly target a specific vital spot to be violated by the fact that the target's image appears in a different location than the actual body they are trying to stab?
|
And the rules for blur and displacement are pretty clear about saying that they grant concealment.
I must disagree. The very reason that this thread exists is because it is NOT clear that Displacement grants concealment.
That's why there is a "Displacements prevent sneak attacks?" thread and not a "Blurs prevent sneak attacks?" thread.Upon a closer read of displacement, I do see what you're talking about. It grants a miss chance, but then also says it "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
Therefore, I would say that blur DOES prevent sneak attacks but displacement does NOT. Still seems pretty clear... although only if you read the ENTIRE spell (which isn't something I did when I first piped up on this thread).
LoL! Reload yer cannons, me hearties!!
LoL! Reload yer cannons, me hearties!!
LoL.
Honestly though, I'm afraid my cannons are smoking and the casings are showing signs of cracking from all the use in this thread. I think I'll just wait for an official errata (which although James had said didn't need to be done, I think he has just thrown fuel on the fire of it needing to be errata'd) so I can either agree with it or write up an official house rule. Trading cannon-loads of forks, flasks and fake eyes get's tedious after awhile.
Displacement, the spell
"Do I get a Sneak Attack?"
The fight continues
|
Nice to see the people in charge coming in to these threads too :) Cheers James.
For those looking for a realistic reason why someone could taget a sneak attack on a displaced image - During combat the targets are constantly shifting. The displaced image does exactly what the real person is doing, only slightly off skew. Now imagine the area they were in had some form of obstacle or dirt or rubble in it. This interacts with the real person, not the image. Therefore it is possible to know where the actual person is standing in the square sometimes from things such as foot prints, air movements in fog or smoke, the way they step over or stumble on a piece of rubble that happens to be two feet away. These are giveaways for the attacker that allows them to compensate their attack. It just comes down to lining up your targets across that gap (similar to knowing where to stab someone fully enveloped in a cloak).
That's three alternate methods I've proposed for how this could work. This is one of the reasons I like mechanics that don't spell out exactly what the miss chance is or the way the spell functions. It allows for creative interpretation. Unfortunately it also leads to arguments.
Oh well.
Cheers
You know, I once saw an episode of That's Incredible whrere a guy hit a bull's eye on a target behind him while aiming with a mirror.
Bull's Eye = Sneak Attack Precision
Mirror = DisplacementFire in the hole!!
I'd say a better example would be :
Take an Olympic Archer.
Take a swimming pool.
Set up 100 lights in 100 random locations in and around the pool.
Place the target underwater.
Put the archer on a platform.
Turn off all the lights. Adjust the target up or down up to 4 inches.
Turn on 10 random lights, give the archer 6 seconds to fire one arrow at the target.
Turn off all the lights. Adjust the target up or down up to 4 inches.
Turn on 10 random lights, give the archer 6 seconds to fire one arrow at the target.
Repeat 98 more times.
Count how many times the olympic archer hits the bullseye.
The refraction index will change every time you turn the lights back on because they will be at different angles to the target, which changes where you have to aim to compensate for the refraction of the water. This is compounded by the target's moving up or down random amounts.
This simulates a target moving in a 5 foot space with an image that appears to be 1 to 24 inches from him in a random direction.
Nice to see the people in charge coming in to these threads too :) Cheers James.
For those looking for a realistic reason why someone could taget a sneak attack on a displaced image - During combat the targets are constantly shifting. The displaced image does exactly what the real person is doing, only slightly off skew. Now imagine the area they were in had some form of obstacle or dirt or rubble in it. This interacts with the real person, not the image. Therefore it is possible to know where the actual person is standing in the square sometimes from things such as foot prints, air movements in fog or smoke, the way they step over or stumble on a piece of rubble that happens to be two feet away. These are giveaways for the attacker that allows them to compensate their attack. It just comes down to lining up your targets across that gap (similar to knowing where to stab someone fully enveloped in a cloak).
That's three alternate methods I've proposed for how this could work. This is one of the reasons I like mechanics that don't spell out exactly what the miss chance is or the way the spell functions. It allows for creative interpretation. Unfortunately it also leads to arguments.
Oh well.
Cheers
I would be perfectly fine with all these, but the problem I see with it is that the rogue would need to make a perception check to pick out the difference between where the target is and where they appear to be.
Then again, I'd be fine with altering the rules (as I said earlier) to allow concealment sneak attacks with a perception check by the rogue. It would add a roll to all sneak attacks (to find a vital spot to attack) but would then allow things like sneak attacking in an alley, determining the refraction of the displaced image, etc.
(Sighs) Here we go again...
James, and others who advocate Sneak Attack be allowed on "Displaced" opponents, there are three important factors to a Rogue making a successful Sneak Attack, failing at any one of these hurdles makes the attempt impossible. People are latching onto the wording of the spell with disregard for the whole entry of 'Total Concealment' with regards to what it says about targeting and then what it explains in the spell.
1.) The Rogue must be able to see the target well enough to make out the vital areas
Problem : How does the Rogue pick out the vital areas of a being whos appearance has been shifted to another position within 2 feet which he cannot clearly see, by that logic than aiming for this 'projections' artery with say, a rapier or an arrow should veer off to whatever side the opponent stands of his projection and hit the same artery anyway - much like it was a "homing missile". Thats not how this works. The Rogue can make out the vitals of the projection he is studying, but the fact he can only see this projection leads anyone to assume the character being projected from is infact unable to be seen (hence the element of the spell that discusses Total Concealment and the sole minutae exception with regards to targeting)
2.) The Rogue must be in range
No arguements here, the Rogue knows WHICH 5ft square to target but he cannot PINPOINT the target well enough to achieve a Sneak Attack.
3.) The opponent cannot benefit from concealment of any kind
Problem : How does the spell mention "Total Concealment" then be disregarded?, it mentions the same miss chance but not where it comes from (granted), but the spell requires a "True Seeing" effect to see through (short of "True Seeing"). Why oh why would the spell take pains to describe how this is the only way to SEE THROUGH this glamer effect if it is so easily overcome?. Thats illogical, and the spell is perhaps the most useless 3rd level spell in the entire list if someone can be so accurate - and let me explain why.
- If the characters vitals are so easily accessable, why does the spell bother to project your image up to two feet from your true location?, that makes no sense.
- If the Rogue picks out a vital spot to hit and its in reality, up to two feet from where he really attacks - how is that a Sneak Attack?, it may be a hit (in an unexpected location on the foes body) but that is NOT a sneak attack.
- If you overcome the 50% miss chance it does not automatically mean a character knows exactly what he hit, hes hitting through a projection at something standing nearby, you cannot account for angle and distance in the limited round time of 6 seconds in the middle of an attack routine.
I would appreciate it very much if James would consider these points and make a formal judgement. Concealment is NOT the only aspect of the spell that I bring into question.
|
|
You know, I once saw an episode of That's Incredible whrere a guy hit a bull's eye on a target behind him while aiming with a mirror.
Bull's Eye = Sneak Attack Precision
Mirror = DisplacementFire in the hole!!
I'd say a better example would be :
Take an Olympic Archer.
Take a swimming pool.
Set up 100 lights in 100 random locations in and around the pool.
Place the target underwater.
Put the archer on a platform.
Turn off all the lights. Adjust the target up or down up to 4 inches.
Turn on 10 random lights, give the archer 6 seconds to fire one arrow at the target.
Turn off all the lights. Adjust the target up or down up to 4 inches.
Turn on 10 random lights, give the archer 6 seconds to fire one arrow at the target.
Repeat 98 more times.
Count how many times the olympic archer hits the bullseye.
The refraction index will change every time you turn the lights back on because they will be at different angles to the target, which changes where you have to aim to compensate for the refraction of the water. This is compounded by the target's moving up or down random amounts.
This simulates a target moving in a 5 foot space with an image that appears to be 1 to 24 inches from him in a random direction.
Or, just watch a bow fishing show on ESPN 4.
"Tuesdays at 3AM, only on ESPN4!"
I think the eratta needs to come in the form of a clarification on the following:
"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."
There are a few contradictions above that cause the discussion.
1) The words "as if" in the first sentence seem to indicate that the spell DOES NOT provide concealment, ONLY THE MISS CHANCE of concealment.
2) "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement...", in a 180 degree reverse of the wording of the first sentence, the second sentence seems to indicate that in fact displacement ONLY differs from full concealment in that you can target normally.
One and two are a contradiction with each other, either the first sentence's "as if" means it's not concealment or the second sentence's "Unlike" means it is concealment.
And this is only blurred farther by the words:
3) "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
Which can be interpreted to either mean
A) the creature itself can be targeted (with spells like Magic Missile) but since it doesn't explicitly state that parts of the target can be targeted sneak is prevented.
B) Since the creature can be targeted normally, normal targeting allows the specific targeting of parts of the creature...thus allowing sneak.
Whe words "targeted normally" here need to in some way identify what that means.
I would suggest either:
(Allowing Sneak Attack)
"The subject of this 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, but the creature is not considered concealed by the effects of this spell. Displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature or parts of the creature normally. True seeing reveals the true location of of the displaced creature and negates the miss chance."
(Disallowing Sneak Attack)
"The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from it's true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance and is considered totally concealed for the purposes of special attacks. Unlike total concealment, however, targeting of the creature itself is unaffected, though targeting specific parts of the creature is still prohibited. True seeing reveals the true location and negates the miss chance."
Just suggestions.
The problem is, Princess of Canada, your argument is entirely based on the flavor text, not the game-relevant rules that proceed from the flavor text.
After that, the wording is confusing. That fact is undebatable.
Princess:
"Why oh why would the spell take pains to describe how this is the only way to SEE THROUGH this glamer effect if it is so easily overcome?"
It is not easily overcome. Just like making a normal attack, you will miss statistically half the time. Taking a 15 AC for the mage you have a 5 in 20 (1 in 5) chance of hitting the mage with your normal D20 roll, Add another 50% miss into that and all of a sudden you went from a 20% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit. That is a statistically significant drop in your ability to hit the target.
What True Seeing does is removes the chance to miss (explicitly stated in the spell description), nothing more, nothing less.
Or, just watch a bow fishing show on ESPN 4."Tuesdays at 3AM, only on ESPN4!"
Not a valid representation anyway. The archer practices a few times to get the refraction index correct, the lighting doesn't change (only gradually). The fish do change height, but they do miss some as well.
NOTE: I've not seen a bow fishing show on tv, but I have watched people spear fish (who spear fish regularly) and they warm up by targeting specific spots on the bottom of the stream until they have the refraction down for the light around them, and they still miss as often if not more often than they hit.
I would suggest either:(Allowing Sneak Attack)
"The subject of this 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, but the creature is not considered concealed by the effects of this spell. Displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature or parts of the creature normally. True seeing reveals the true location of of the displaced creature and negates the miss chance."(Disallowing Sneak Attack)
"The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from it's true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance and is considered totally concealed for the purposes of special attacks. Unlike total concealment, however, targeting of the creature itself is unaffected, though targeting specific parts of the creature is still prohibited. True seeing reveals the true location and negates the miss chance."
This would be a nice rewrite.
The problem is, Princess of Canada, your argument is entirely based on the flavor text, not the game-relevant rules that proceed from the flavor text.
After that, the wording is confusing. That fact is undebatable.
Actually, to me, the major problem is that the SA text says you have to be able to pick out a vital spot (Rules, not fluff), but gives no details or guidelines as to what that means. Honestly, if it gave some guidelines at least this would be easier.
Well, there you have it. It doesn't fit my understanding of the spell, but I'll abide by the decision nonetheless. I will go with the interpretation that it is concealment but not total concealment, but that it does offer a 50% miss chance rather than a 20% miss chance.
Thankfully, like I said, it doesn't seem to come up in our games.
|
Creative Director
|
At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:
Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.
Flavorwise... with blur, which actually grants concealment, you can't see the target clearly enough to aim at hearts or aortas or kidneys or other sneak attack targets. Therefore, sneak attack doesn't work. With displacement, you CAN see the target clearly. The problem is that when you stab, the target simply might not be there. If he's not there, then you miss and do NO damage. If he IS there, you hit where you were aiming at anyway and thus do sneak attack damage.
Why on earth does everyone insist on not reading the last sentence!?
True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
The whole point of concealment is that the location of a creature is in question. The last sentence shows that it's the location that is not known (unless True Seeing is used).
Well based on this, I'd rather rely on a lower level spell to protect my hide in that case, plus its much cheaper to create an item with "Blur" as a constant effect over "Displacement". (Even though there are items in the game that do this, you could create items with permanent spell effects as long as you follow the appropiate formulae)
But a 2nd Level spell shuts down a Rogue's bread and butter...whereas a 3rd Level spell which functionally isnt that much different fails to do so (it plays with light and distorts one perception to fool someone into seeing something thats not really there). I can hear the sound of Wizards ripping pages out of their spellbooks right about now - a Fighter with Blind-Fight stands a good chance of hitting 50% or 20% it doest make much difference, but with Rogues having so many advantages over their 3.5 counterparts, this makes this spell somewhat useless.
A bad guy is more likely to carry a Potion or Wand of "Blur" than of "Displacement". But heres a interesting result - since both spells give you miss chance and one is determined to give concealment (despite the fact both spells metion it in their descriptions for a moment), you should now be able to have both cast on yourself. Have a Blurred & Displaced character since one spell does not relate to or have any effect on the other, you would have a Blurred projection that would give you immunity to sneak attack and a 50% miss chance, since you take the greater effect granted by either spell. Since one offers concealment and one is not (despite the use of Total Concealment in its description) not, then they should be stackable aside from the miss chances.
End result?, you get the same scenario with adding a Blur spell ontop of it - both spells offer different visual effects. But at the end of the day, a 2nd Level Spell shuts down a Rogues class ability and a 3rd Level Spell doesnt...infact, it looks more useless in comparison to be completely honest. I'd take the 20% with immunity to SA over a 50% dice toss to see if your jugular is going to get slit or not.
The fact the spell even bothers to mention "True Seeing" as a countermeasure against it seems pointless. I'd rather take the 50% chance to hit with Sneak Attack TYVM and not expend my resources using a costly spell like "True Seeing" to overcome this if it isnt that much of a nuisance...and I am sure many Rogues in the world of Pathfinder will do the same and rejoice.
Zophos wrote:
Why on earth does everyone insist on not reading the last sentence!?
Short answer: it's more fun to argue.
-Skeld
LOL, It certainly seems that way!
Actually, to me, the major problem is that the SA text says you have to be able to pick out a vital spot (Rules, not fluff),
That IS fluff. It then proceeds into ACTUAL rules based on the fluff. Like Blur.
but gives no details or guidelines as to what that means.
Yes it does - right here
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
DISPLACEMENT PREVENTS SNEAK ATTACK!
i am glad i could help.
Thank you - what is everybody's problem? If a DM has a problem, house rule it. that is what makes the game great. Just deal with it people!!!!!!!!!!!
End result?, you get the same scenario with adding a Blur spell ontop of it - both spells offer different visual effects. But at the end of the day, a 2nd Level Spell shuts down a Rogues class ability and a 3rd Level Spell doesnt...infact, it looks more useless in...
By that same token... "True Seeing" is also negating your precious "Blur" also. Each spell/power is once relagated to what ever situational purpose in which they are most needed.
But a 2nd Level spell shuts down a Rogue's bread and butter...whereas a 3rd Level spell which functionally isnt that much different fails to do so
And? This argument is based on nothing but wanting to achieve the result you want. You are working the wrong way.
|
|
And? This argument is based on nothing but wanting to achieve the result you want. You are working the wrong way.
But a 2nd Level spell shuts down a Rogue's bread and butter...whereas a 3rd Level spell which functionally isnt that much different fails to do so
Not to mention, not to be a jackass, that Displacment is a finer effect against everyone -else-. My wizards don't walk only in rogue strewn streets.
Edit:
In fact the more I think about it the more I like the distinction from a flavor point of view: wizards are creatures of versatilitiy. See a Rogue? Blur? See a Purple Snorklewack? Displacement. Right tool for the job.
Edit 2: I see POC's point and I get the descriptive dissonance but I think that the disparity of power in the spells when compared to one power set does not accurately model the spell's efficacy.
And? This argument is based on nothing but wanting to achieve the result you want. You are working the wrong way.
But a 2nd Level spell shuts down a Rogue's bread and butter...whereas a 3rd Level spell which functionally isnt that much different fails to do soNot to mention, not to be a jackass, that Displacment is a finer effect against everyone -else-. My wizards don't walk only in rogue strewn streets.
Edit:
In fact the more I think about it the more I like the distinction from a flavor point of view: wizards are creatures of versatilitiy. See a Rogue? Blur? See a Purple Snorklewack? Displacement. Right tool for the job.
Edit 2: I see POC's point and I get the descriptive dissonance but I think that the disparity of power in the spells when compared to one power set does not accurately model the spell's efficacy.
Couldn't have said it better myself... the right tool for the job.
And besides, there is already a 2nd lvl spell that grants immunity to SA... "Invisibility".
EDIT: And lets not forget "Obscuring Mist" (1st lvl spell).