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.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
Exactly. A 50% flat miss chance w/o immunity to sneak attacks is far better than being immune to something that can only occur to you when flanked by a Rogue or attacked from the shadows. Ooh, scary. Some one might conditionally attack me and do more damage, if they can get past the 50% miss chance.
Sure, if you stumble into a Thieve's Guild uninvited, Blur might be a good idea, but otherwise, just cast Displacement. Or just cast both and get a 60% miss chance and immunity to sneak attack.
First the spell says it works like TOTAL CONCEALMENT, not just concealment.
No.. is say it works AS IF it had total concealment.
If it truely granted Total Concealment, we would neither be able to see nor target the subject. A huge difference there.
Cartigan wrote:
Or just cast both and get a 60% miss chance and immunity to sneak attack.
Multiple concealment conditions do not stack. So it would only be a 50% miss chance still (Displacement "The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.)
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance. This seems far more problematic to me than just considering Displacement to give concealment. How problematic could this be? Well consider the following;
Blur + Displacement + Blink = 120% miss chance!
(Depending on where you consider the miss chance of Blink to come from.)
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance. This seems far more problematic to me than just considering Displacement to give concealment. How problematic could this be? Well consider the following;
Blur + Displacement + Blink = 120% miss chance!
(Depending on where you consider the miss chance of Blink to come from.)
Even though it no where suggests such, I'd personally rule it just like "Keen" effects, only allowing the highest mis-chance to be in effect. Thereby bypassing the stacking rules.
To be perfectly honest, using "Displacement" may be a fine option in a number of situations or against a certain type of enemy, the problem is I dont agree with how people interpret the loose wording of the spell.
When you compare the Total Concealment circumstance with regards to targeting, it is a general effort to 'find' the unseen character by attacking into 5 ft squares in the hopes of locating them.
That being said, the spell takes pains to mention that unlike Total Concealment that a creature can be targeted normally. Look at the "Spellcasting" section with regards to Targeting, and look at other areas of the book (in particular splash weapons, etc.) and you'll see that 'targeting' is infact attacking the right 5ft square...but that being said people want to interpret that "targeting" also means to attack with great accuracy (ala Sneak Attack). That is all down to interpretation too.
But the spell does not mention anything with regards to people being able to see you or not other than to say "you appear to be up to two feet from your true location". Concealment or not that is a HUGE issue for me, because it has a significant impact on the precision of what counts as a Sneak Attack.
The wording of what "Sneak Attack" is allows a tiny bit if wiggle room but common sense says you cant be more than an inch or so off your mark to hit that vital area. Up to 2 feet is a significant distance, that would make the difference between the head and and chest by such a large difference, or the gut and to catch the edge of someones arm.
Because if Sneak Attack is functioning normally here, then Rogues are being given alot of licence to perform it with up to 24 inches of room for error and that doesnt seem practical at all considering it like all other forms of "Precision Damage" have to be made with certaity with what your attacking - if something messed with your senses and you attack the wrong point in space your not logically going to sneak attack what you tried to hit...but you'll hit something nonetheless IF you make the 50% test and score a normal hit in that case.
I personally think the wording of the spell and the wording of "Total Concealment" should be compared here (thats what I did all along), targeting is mentioned as with regards to finding the right square to pinpoint, nothing more.
So a Mage could easily 'Fireball' or use 'Charm Person' on a displaced character without knowing the last inch where he is - he just needs to know which square to make his attack into, as would anyone trying to locate a hidden character but the projection means the character knows what square theyre attacking and nothing more.
Plus it should be said if a Rogue doesnt see the spell being cast, and he attacks the spellcaster - how is he going to 'figure out' that the character is displaced?, there is a higher DC for figuring out a spell that is active but hasnt been seen cast, and assuming he didnt pass that then he may very well guess his opponent is a Ghost or something instead. They wouldnt 'metagame' to try and hit the unseen opponent in the same square if they didnt know that was going on in the first place.
"Blur" is a pretty devastating spell against a Rogue, no doubt. And while "Displacement" seems a bit finicky now based on James ruling on it, it has its uses but I dont agree as do others that missing a point in space should somehow result in the precision needed for a Sneak Attack on some randomly struck body part of the opponent.
I struggle to come to terms with this as do other people, "Sneak Attack" is always as far as I am concerned, is almost like an art form, it requires absolute certainty and the Rogue MUST know what hes up against. If he has no way to see through Displacement the miss chance afforded by this 'concealment like' spell should be sufficient to prevent Sneak Attack period.
I dont care much for the comparisons to shooting fish underwater...why?, its a different situation. The shooter has to allow for the refraction of light in the water, depth of the fish, etc. If that shooter was to exactly aim for the fishes gills and miss (but somehow still HIT the fish), the shot would kill it...why?, the fish would have very low HP for a start. He is unlikely to make the attempt at his first try and may need several tries. So that is a bad analagy. Plus not to metion does Displacement say that the attacker can 'account for it' and adjust their attacks accordigly. They cant - just as they cant against an opponent in shadowy illumination/darkness.
Also a combat round only lasts a few seconds, characters CANNOT go making one attack....check the projections reaction...then line up the next one at the required angle to hit the required artery...it doesnt work that way. You dont have the time, and combatants arent static, they dont move as if frozen in time. The characters occupy their squares normally but are assumed to be animated to some degree, reacting to stimulus around them. This method of 'lining up' attacks fails beyond a initial round of sneak attack against a unwary foe that didnt see the Rogue coming. Feinting is another recourse for Sneak Attack, but a Rogue vs a Wizard in this case without a buddy to help them flank has so many variables...
Frontmost...he doesnt accurstely make out his opponent on accout of the visual discrepency of the projected image to the targets real location and the opponent benefits from a form of concealment.
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
60%
Zophos wrote:
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance. This seems far more problematic to me than just considering Displacement to give concealment. How problematic could this be? Well consider the following;
Blur + Displacement + Blink = 120% miss chance!
(Depending on where you consider the miss chance of Blink to come from.)
Even though it no where suggests such, I'd personally rule it just like "Keen" effects, only allowing the highest mis-chance to be in effect. Thereby bypassing the stacking rules.
I totally agree. This is why I would treat it like concealment (though I am not sure to what degree). In this way, no character can ever have better than "Total Concealment."
60%
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
O,o?
Blur is 20% and Dsiplacement is 50%.. how do you get 60%?
Also a combat round only lasts a few seconds, characters CANNOT go making one attack....check the projections reaction...then line up the next one at the required angle to hit the required artery...it doesnt work that way. You dont have the time, and combatants arent static, they dont move as if frozen in time.
ACtually, yes you can in a way. You can take a 5' step in between itinerative attacks, thereby adjusting/lining up for the next attack.
|
Not a valid representation anyway. The archer practices a few times to get the refraction index correct, the lighting doesn't change (only gradually).
So, he figures out which way the refraction is fooling him, and compensates. Gotcha.
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'd say, oh, about 50% of the time? ;)
60%
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
O,o?
Blur is 20% and Dsiplacement is 50%.. how do you get 60%?
20% of the 50% removed = 60% total
|
20% of the 50% removed = 60% total60%
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
O,o?
Blur is 20% and Dsiplacement is 50%.. how do you get 60%?
As in, your rolling the checks individually? Are you going down this road because you are defining them as two different types of modifiers? A concealment and a miss chance?
Not a valid representation anyway. The archer practices a few times to get the refraction index correct, the lighting doesn't change (only gradually).So, he figures out which way the refraction is fooling him, and compensates. Gotcha.
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'd say, oh, about 50% of the time? ;)
Yes, he figures it out and compensates. AFTER several complete and utter misses. As smart alecky as you like to post, I'd think that particular little point might sink in, but maybe I'm expecting too much.
And yes, they miss the target about half the time, but they are not trying to stab the fish in the eye, they are trying to stab the fish anywhere they can hit him. If they were trying to stab him in the eye, I think the miss percentage would approach infinity.
I love how you cherry pick your points without actually paying attention to either what you are saying or the concept that was put forth in the post you are replying to.
|
|
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.
Essentially, it's doubling the caster's hp. That ain't nuthin' to sneeze at!
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
False. The wording is "like total concealment". That means it stacks in the same manner as total concealment's miss chance. Which means it doesn't stack with normal concealment.
Yes, he figures it out and compensates. AFTER several complete and utter misses. As smart alecky as you like to post, I'd think that particular little point might sink in, but maybe I'm expecting too much.
The thing you're missing is that you don't have to roll an attack roll in order to attack and miss someone.
The thing you're missing is that you don't have to roll an attack roll in order to attack and miss someone.Clarify pls?
I already have many, many times in this thread.
Attacks don't just happen when you make attack rolls. Pathfinder isn't a Street Fighter clone where your characters only attack when you hit the Strong Punch button. Characters are constantly attacking, feinting, parrying, and so on, as long as they're engaged in melee combat. We only roll attack rolls for attacks that actually have a chance to deal damage; most of the attacks made every round are handwaved away as having no chance to hit.
The thing you're missing is that you don't have to roll an attack roll in order to attack and miss someone.Clarify pls?I already have many, many times in this thread.
Attacks don't just happen when you make attack rolls. Pathfinder isn't a Street Fighter clone where your characters only attack when you hit the Strong Punch button. Characters are constantly attacking, feinting, parrying, and so on, as long as they're engaged in melee combat. We only roll attack rolls for attacks that actually have a chance to deal damage; most of the attacks made every round are handwaved away as having no chance to hit.
Ah, we are adding in now rules for attacks that aren't attacks and don't require attack rolls and automatically miss?
I'm sorry, I'll need a quote from the rules that discusses this, otherwise it's just Zurai's house rule for handwaving logical disconnects within the rules.
Ah, we are adding in now rules for attacks that aren't attacks and don't require attack rolls and automatically miss?
I'm sorry, I'll need a quote from the rules that discusses this, otherwise it's just Zurai's house rule for handwaving logical disconnects within the rules.
Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.
Ah, we are adding in now rules for attacks that aren't attacks and don't require attack rolls and automatically miss?
I'm sorry, I'll need a quote from the rules that discusses this, otherwise it's just Zurai's house rule for handwaving logical disconnects within the rules.
Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.
Hmm, I don't see that, not in the combat chapter or in the appendix.
What I do see is on page 178
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
It then goes on to talk about automatic hits and misses. Note that it's attack roll (single) not attack rolls (plural).
Quite the inverse, actually. It only acts like total concealment with respect to one factor (50% miss chance). All other factors of total concealment are ignored.
Forgive me for going back to page one, but you seem to want it both ways. Either the target has concealment or it does not. If it is not treated like normal concealment then:
concealment bonus + non-concealment bonus = stack
The problem is it cannot read that way. Concealment does not grant 50% miss chance. If it was worded that way, this thread would instead be about whether displacement granted just concealment or whether it granted total concealment, because only total concealment has a 50% miss chance; normal concealment, which blur explicitly grants, is only EVER 20%.
This is from page two of this thread. I feel it is relavent because you have made the same mistake several times throughout this thread. You have stated repeatedly that there are only two kinds of concealment. There are in fact THREE.
Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with 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.
Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
This last type makes it possible to have 50% concealment even if it is not actual total concealment.
Now look at the following:
In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.
This whole buff everyone with 10 spells and stacking effects is (one reason)why the weenie anti-magic field came about in the first place...
Two spells miss chance goes to 0%, by my calculation.Do we really need anti-magic field?
Apparently yes!
or true strike, or area of effect attacks/spells (well blink is somewhat effective there), or dispel magic, or save or foo...
or true strike...This. Talk about a spell that get's no love for what it does. 99% miss chance from uber stacking cheest? 1st lvl spell negates. I cast Enervation.
plus, rogue can get this as a SLA with 2 talents and even quicken it at higher levels. so it is possible to sneak attack a displaced target!!!!
This thread has turned into a really bad car accident....
I want to look away, but cant!!
"Help me!!! I'm here... Trapped inside!!!!"
|
Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.
Don't you love all the little changes Pathfinder made? Isn't it fun trying to figure out how things work now?
So are we using PF or 3.5 in this discussion? I forgot?
As in, your rolling the checks individually? Are you going down this road because you are defining them as two different types of modifiers? A concealment and a miss chance?20% of the 50% removed = 60% total60%
Not only are you correct, but you bring up a sticky point. For those that consider Displacement to not grant concealment, that means that it must stack with Blur. This would yield a 70% miss chance.
O,o?
Blur is 20% and Dsiplacement is 50%.. how do you get 60%?
Now, my math is terrible, but I am pretty sure I have gotten this wrong enough times in the past to be right here. It's a math thing. Ask some one else.
Displacement grants concealment. The miss chance it grants is on par with *total* concealment, i.e. 50%.
You are arguing a COMPLETELY different argument than the other anti-sneak attack people are. But I find your argument far less factually based. It's too sketchy.
|
Now, my math is terrible, but I am pretty sure I have gotten this wrong enough times in the past to be right here. It's a math thing. Ask some one else.
You are right.
The key is to multiply the success chances together.
0.5 (displacement hit) * 0.8 (blur hit) = 0.4 (combo hit chance)
-> 60% miss chance combined
The end result from combining both (since its been ruled they are not the same thing now) is that the spells could stack - whereas they wouldnt have been able to before.
Its now definately a tempting tactical option for spellcasters to use both spells in the heat of a difficult battle.
Since both bonuses originate from difference sources, one from concealment and the other now ruled to come from some miscalleous source (despite the metion of Total Concealment in the spell), then you would have a Displaced character who is now immune to Sneak Attack because his 'projection' is distorted as much as he would be under the 'Blur' effect.
End result?, ordinarily you only take the higher miss chance, but since one source of miss chance comes from concealment (20%) and the other is a straight up miss chance (50%) now, then as others have demonstrated mathematically it provides a 60% miss chance or higher, depending how you work it out and has the added bonus of granting immunity to Sneak Attack barring Blindsight and so forth.
In this instance now "Displacement" is actually a much better defensive spell when stacked with "Blur", its a tactic anyone with access to both spells would use when faced with a difficult or hard hitting opponent. Yes the Mage would need to cast two spells in a consecutive rounds but with a net 60% miss chance then why not?, thats definately worth it.
That and scrolls/potions/wands of "Blur" are much more common and tend to show up on NPC bad guys equipment more often since its cheaper and a low level. Concealment has and always will be the biggest bone of contention for Rogues - logical or scientific arguements aside for correcting attacks or accounting for diffraction and so forth. A character has 6 seconds in a combat round, I'd be very surprised in those examples that the character could get two shots off at the most allowing for this 'correction'. Just because you weigh up your options for the round, doesnt mean a 'clock is ticking', but it does mean if you plan to make a 'full attack' in your round, your not going to have that much time to make these corrections between attacks (nevermind the fact the rules allow for no such nosense in the game, otherwise effects like "Blur" could be bypassed by a Rogue who is well versed in humanoid anatomy and is given this ample time to figure out a weak spot)
Dont get me wrong, I am all for Rogues being able to deliver Sneak Attack to more opponents than they could before (vital areas may as well have meant weak points in nonliving foes) there were alterate class features (such as one in "Dungeonscape" that allowed a Rogue to attack undead, constructs and so forth but used d4's for Sneak Attack instead of d6's). I like the fact Rogues have more broad scope now, and the Talents make them so much better than before too. But I definately would like clarification on how precise a Sneak Attack could be - I still feel attacking the displaced image of a being thats actually 2 feet away would be enough alone to prevent Sneak Attack based on the incorrect perception on the Rogues part (though its certaily not his fault).
That and assuming the Rogue didnt identify the target as having used "Displacement" then he may very well make a Spellcraft test at a higher DC to identify the spell when he sees it 'work' against one of his attacks. Assuming he doent pass it - he may well assume hes fighting a Ghost, he doesnt apply metagame knowledge. If he does pass it, well hes entitled to choose any action he feels is appropiate given the new guidelines that allows a SA/normal attack with a 50% miss chance.
Actually Blink + Mirror Image would be a better defensive combination, but that's neither here nor there.
Actually Blink + Mirror Image would be a better defensive combination, but that's neither here nor there.As hold as the images hold out. TWF rogues can burn through images fast. Archers even faster. Now Blink + Displacement...THERE'S a combo. 75% miss chance, and concealment to boot!
The archer would have to overcome both Blink and your AC before actually getting a chance to try and pick you out among your images. And since Mirror Image got a buff from 3.5, they can no longer AoE your images away.
50% miss chance + avg 71% miss chance = 85% miss chance (89% for Bards and Sorcerers because the number of avg Mirror Images increases due to having to have a higher caster level to cast 3rd level spells)
Actually Blink + Mirror Image would be a better defensive combination, but that's neither here nor there.As hold as the images hold out. TWF rogues can burn through images fast. Archers even faster. Now Blink + Displacement...THERE'S a combo. 75% miss chance, and concealment to boot!
I wish Greater Mirror Image was back (PHB II- mirror image as an immediate action with regenerating images, 4th lvl). That spell kept my beguiler gish alive.
Quite the inverse, actually. It only acts like total concealment with respect to one factor (50% miss chance). All other factors of total concealment are ignored.
Forgive me for going back to page one, but you seem to want it both ways. Either the target has concealment or it does not. If it is not treated like normal concealment then:
concealment bonus + non-concealment bonus = stack
Maybe you should actually read my statements instead of assuming them?
I have NEVER ONCE contested that displacement grants a 50% miss chance as if it was total concealment. What I have contested is that it grants any of the other benefits of total concealment.
If it grants miss chance "as total concealment", then that miss chance is governed by the normal rules for concealment miss chances (and ONLY the miss chances, because that's the only aspect that is granted by the spell), including stacking.
Displacement grants concealment.
False.
Don't you love all the little changes Pathfinder made? Isn't it fun trying to figure out how things work now?
So are we using PF or 3.5 in this discussion? I forgot?
That's from the 3.5 PHB, but the theory behind it hasn't changed. If you hadn't noticed, Paizo excised almost every bit of flavor text in the rules sections in order to save space. Does that mean there's a change? No, it doesn't. It just means there's no flavor text in the rules text. Given that the rules are utterly identical between the two editions, that Pathfinder is a direct descendant of 3.5, and that Paizo's stated goal is to remain as backwards compatible as possible, I submit that combat still works this way.
Given that the rules are utterly identical between the two editions, that Pathfinder is a direct descendant of 3.5, and that Paizo's stated goal is to remain as backwards compatible as possible, I submit that combat still works this way.Tell that to Manyshot. :) Not contesting you, just amused.
Manyshot's rules aren't identical between the two editions, which thusly violates my first "given" ;)
That's from the 3.5 PHB, but the theory behind it hasn't changed. If you hadn't noticed, Paizo excised almost every bit of flavor text in the rules sections in order to save space. Does that mean there's a change? No, it doesn't. It just means there's no flavor text in the rules text. Given that the rules are utterly identical between the two editions, that Pathfinder is a direct descendant of 3.5, and that Paizo's stated goal is to remain as backwards compatible as possible, I submit that combat still works this way.Don't you love all the little changes Pathfinder made? Isn't it fun trying to figure out how things work now?
So are we using PF or 3.5 in this discussion? I forgot?
I'll disagree with you on this (big surprise). Had they kept it plural, I would agree, but they specifically changed it to singular. Your interpretation has one huge issue you haven't thought about, and is probably the reason why they changed it. If I can make multiple 'attacks' in one round this single roll is the chance I hit you a solid hit and did damage, it causes problems with some of the magical effects.
Mirror Image : If I can make 5-6 attacks in a round that don't actually count as attacks, there is no reason why those shouldn't let me pick out the mirror images (including shutting them down).
Miss Chance : Again, if I can make 5 or 6 'attacks' per attack roll, how does that interact with Miss Chances?
Contact Damage : Weapons that have auras (such as flaming, cold, acid, electrical) would not require solid hits. In which case, I should be able to slap any part of you with the blade 5-6 times in a round, then I can tap you with that contact energy weapon as a touch attack 5 or 6 times in a round and do 5-6D6 damage.
These are just off the top of my head. Reducing it to 1 attack per attack roll negates all those potential issues and makes it much more intuitive to boot.
Remember, PF changed the text of a LOT of 3.5 stuff. They changed it for a reason. You can't interpret it to still mean 3.5 if it's been changed. You have to use the new verbage, otherwise we open a huge can of worms along the lines of 'Well, does the PF words mean the PF words, or the 3.5 words?'.
Mirror Image : If I can make 5-6 attacks in a round that don't actually count as attacks, there is no reason why those shouldn't let me pick out the mirror images (including shutting them down).
You explicitly have to make an attack roll to pop a mirror image. Next?
Miss Chance : Again, if I can make 5 or 6 'attacks' per attack roll, how does that interact with Miss Chances?
Uh, it doesn't? All of the attacks you don't roll for miss already.
Contact Damage : Weapons that have auras (such as flaming, cold, acid, electrical) would not require solid hits. In which case, I should be able to slap any part of you with the blade 5-6 times in a round, then I can tap you with that contact energy weapon as a touch attack 5 or 6 times in a round and do 5-6D6 damage.
Uh, no. All of the attacks you don't roll for miss.