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.
What Zurai said, not to mention that there's nothing in the rules at all that says that you can make an attack vs just Touch AC to deal the energy damage alone. Which is what you seem to be suggesting here.
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
This is correct. I was confusing dependent vs. independent probabilities. Since one dice roll does not affect the out come of another, the resulting probabilities are multiplied. Thus a miss chance of 60%. Thank you guys for teaching me that I should not do math when I'm about to go to bed. ;)
Why do they miss? Because you don't roll for them or because of the miss chance?
Now you're just yanking my chain :p
And the answer is "irrelevant".
Huh? It grants a miss chance. You're implying that if something grants a miss chance, then it has to be concealment? Does not compute.
Wha? Where'd you get that from?
My computer died four days ago and I just cast ressurect motherboard and this thread is still going!
My computer died four days ago and I just cast ressurect motherboard and this thread is still going!
Spacelard: "Ressurect!"
"Motherboard come back to me!"This thread says what now?
|
Huh? It grants a miss chance. You're implying that if something grants a miss chance, then it has to be concealment? Does not compute.Wha? Where'd you get that from?
It was directed at james maissen. It sounded like, in the post above me, that he was implying that because the spell gave a miss chance, that means it must be concealment, or a type thereof. I don't agree, I'm pretty much with zurai on this, I was just commenting.
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?
Wrong.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
The text says whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll (requires an attack roll is a modifier on the spell verbage, as AoE spells don't damage images). Per your attempt to use 3.5 verbage in PF, if I make 5-6 'attacks' per attack roll, then I have to check each one to see if they hit a mirror image. Is this in the spirit of the spell? No. But, using your definition that an attack roll represents 5-6 attacks, the RAW of the spell says each of those attacks has a chance to pop an image.
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.
I'll give you that one, but it seems like the miss chance is fluctuating from 0 to 100% depending on which of the 6 attacks or so you are making in a round is actually the one you want. Confusing.
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.
Ah, but remember, a miss is not always a miss. AC is, to use a favorite term of yours, an abstract system. Any attack which would hit your AC sans armor, but miss with armor, is a 'skitter' off your armor, or a solid hit on armor that does no damage.
And, since Jason has already stated in threads that energy weapons, once active, damage surrounding environment until deactivated or sheathed, then a solid hit on armor that prevents the blade from doing damage would still transfer the energy into the target, just like slapping the wall with the side of your blade (again, active energy weapons can damage things just by touching them, such as setting hay on fire if you drop a fire weapon into it, or just touch it to a torch to light it).
All that is besides the point however. Whenever PF changes wording, you have to use the PF wording because it is the RAW, not the previous wording of the 3.5 version. If the wording is unchanged, you have an argument to use the 3.5 FAQ, but you can't cherry pick your rules between the two systems, unless you are houseruling of course. And, per PF, an attack roll is one attempt to attack, not five or six attempts with one roll to see if one of them hit.
|
|
It was directed at james maissen. It sounded like, in the post above me, that he was implying that because the spell gave a miss chance, that means it must be concealment, or a type thereof. I don't agree, I'm pretty much with zurai on this, I was just commenting.No. I am not saying that. Please re-read my post and what I say below.
It's not just that it grants a miss chance, but the real question is what is it doing to grant the miss chance?
Is it deflecting attacks? This is what is happening with Entropic Shield and with Wind Wall.
Is it obscuring where you see your target? Why yes it is.
So, that sounds like a miss chance via concealment rather than deflection. These are the only kinds of miss chance in Pathfinder of which I know. In 3x you had a 50-50 chance for incorporeals to be immune to damage from a hit which was called by lay people the 'incorporeal miss chance' but was never really a miss chance.
Likewise, you will note in my prior post that Faerie Fire calls it concealment directly.
Also Blindsight foils it because it is an effect that obscures your normal vision to the target. It certainly is neither mind effecting, nor physically deflecting.
So, again, what's causing this miss chance? It would be concealment of the target.
-James
What's causing the miss chance is simple. The spell says it grants it. In D&D/Pathfinder the rules are usually pretty good at saying if something grants it or not. Some spells say they grant Concealment, they do. Displacement says it grants a miss chance that's LIKE concealment, but that's it.
If it doesn't say it grants the spell, then it doesn't. There's no "well it sounds like it should so I'll toss it in there" logic. :) It's all about exceptions to the rules. If there's no other place where a miss chance occurs without concealment, then Displacement is an exception.
|
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.
Oh, these troublesome two sentences....
Both sides have valid interpretations of the sentences so this debate will not be resolved without the updated FAQ or final words from Paizo staff. The official response went both ways at one point or another.
Trying to summerize what I see here
It could mean...
1) that the only thing it has in common with total concealment is the 50% miss
2) that the only thing is doesn't have in common with total concealment is the ability to target.
from side 1, you could say you discern the targets location successfully (your 50%) by intuition and your other senses(dust from their footsteps, etc.).
From side 2, you would never hit something vital (only normal damage hits) due to not being able to pinpoint a soft spot on the "real" person.
I personally am in the camp of #1. That by analysis, you are able to anticipate actual location (make your 50%) and hit the spot you were aiming for(seeing in the image where the vitals are in relation to the spot you think them to be in reality)
Both sides have valid arguments.
This is still going on?, James has already ruled on it twice (the second was a mind change) several pages ago.
It doesnt matter much - I argued for the first 10 pages of this thread about the logic of being able to hit a vital area that is in reality 2 feet from where that vital area really is...
Concealment is only one issue the Rogue has to overcome, in my opinion and others as well the Rogue cannot make out the target properly (since his opponent's visage is projected up to 2 feet to the side, this would mean the Rogues attack would be off by the same distance). The character would of course manage to hit the opponent normally (but unexpectedly due to the fact he cannot account for this miss chance) if he overcomes the miss chance however (just not in in a particularly vital area, excluding if the attack was a critical hit) he would be able to deal normal damage to the target.
That and you cannot 'account' for miss chance just as you could not account for it vs "Blur". The projection exists in the same square as the character, so people can 'target' the 5ft square normally (which is normally impossible vs an opponent with total concealment), but the issue here is what constitutes as "targeting"...
...well reading through the book, it mentions 'targeting' in regards to picking squares to aim spells (see 'spellcasting' section of the book), splash weapons and attacks into (the latter with regards to attacking hidden/invisible foes). I have never yet seen targeting mentioned in the book in reference to Sneak Attack, only attacks made into 5ft squares (which to me sounds like a general effort, with some guesswork and little to no precision beyond hitting the target square regardless whats in it.)
But James has already shared his revised opinion/ruling on it, so I let it stand. But now thanks to that "Blur" can be stacked with "Displacement"(for a net 60% miss chance by multiplying the miss chances together as shown by others earlier in this thread) since both spells offer different types of bonuses, one from concealment and the other from a miscallaneous source (despite the reference of Total Concealment in the spell)
Everyone is free to use it in any way they see fit in their games at the end of the day.
|
Personally, I would actually roll the miss chances separately. Once for the displacement, then again with the blur. I'm sure it works out to a 60% either way, just that's how I do it.
Yeah, me too, rolling the greater miss chance first (since it has the greater chance to prevent me from having to roll a second time).
|
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?
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.
Actually, my question wasn't regarding to accuracy of your math at all but, more to the point, why you were deciding to use two separate rolls instead of just one additive one (both of which would be wrong since only the highest percentage should be used (in this case displacements 50% miss chance - which is the only thing under displacement that is defined as acting like concealment)). So no I won't ask someone else but think I can help so other people are less confused. Thanks for not clarifying anything.
Displacement says it grants a miss chance that's LIKE concealment, but that's it.No, it doesn't. Please read it again.
And there are other miss chances besides concealment (I mention them in the post you quoted, but perhaps didn't read fully).
However displacement describes what it does, and that is concealment.
Also faerie fire directly says that displacement gives concealment (and that it is trumped in turn by faerie fire along with blur and invisibility). But that was also in my post in the part that I don't think you fully read.
-James
Hes actually right about the Faerie Fire, it mentions Displacement as concealment there alongside Blur, Invisibility and suchlike and this spell functions against Displacement in the description.
This is an interesting development.
If this spell mentions Displacement as a form of concealment then it confirms the miss chance provided by Displacement is due to concealment if this spell cancels it out (which it says it does).
Hes actually right about the Faerie Fire, it mentions Displacement as concealment there alongside Blur, Invisibility and suchlike and this spell functions against Displacement in the description.
Yeah, it is an interesting line in faerie fire. However, I'm not really sure it explicitly states it as concealment. Now, English isn't my main language, so there might be that I misunderstood how the sentence is built, but anyways:
Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. There are two interprentations here:
1. It could (and in my opinion, probably should) be read as blur, displacement and invisibility being examples of things that give concealment,
2. It could be read as "do not benefit from [concealment normally provided by darkness], [blur], [displacement], [invisibility], or [similiar effects]."
That the concealment part only refers to the darkness, and that the other mentioned things are other things that faerie fire counters. It would make sense to some extent.
The text says whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll (requires an attack roll is a modifier on the spell verbage, as AoE spells don't damage images). Per your attempt to use 3.5 verbage in PF, if I make 5-6 'attacks' per attack roll, then I have to check each one to see if they hit a mirror image. Is this in the spirit of the spell? No. But, using your definition that an attack roll represents 5-6 attacks, the RAW of the spell says each of those attacks has a chance to pop an image.
False. Mirror image says IF THE ATTACK IS A HIT, you check to see if it pops an image. The 'extra' attacks never hit.
Ah, but remember, a miss is not always a miss. AC is, to use a favorite term of yours, an abstract system. Any attack which would hit your AC sans armor, but miss with armor, is a 'skitter' off your armor, or a solid hit on armor that does no damage.
As already pointed out, you're trying to invent house rules and use those to disprove something else. There is no provision for energy weapons dealing damage on a miss in the actual game. Do not pass go, do not continue this stupid argument.
So, again, what's causing this miss chance?
Magic.
So, again, what's causing this miss chance?Magic.
YaY Magic! It can do anything!
Yep, magical concealment. Like Blur but stronger.
-James
No, magical displacement. Like a pencil in water, but magic.
No, magical displacement. Like a pencil in water, but magic.Yep, magical concealment. Like Blur but stronger.
-James
So what do you say about the Faerie Fire text? It seems to suggest at least RAI displacement should give concealment.
So what do you say about the Faerie Fire text? It seems to suggest at least RAI displacement should give concealment.
Secondary sources are innately less valuable than primary sources. Displacement itself says it is not concealment. Other spells (which are quite possibly written by other people) don't really change that.
And I personally find the RAI more telling if you follow the evolution of displacement through the editions. As already mentioned in this thread, the original version of displacement caused the first attack directed at the bespelled creature to miss, and thereafter only gave a small AC bonus. This implies that it's something that can be fairly easily compensated for.
|
|
Actually Zurai, I think you are misrepresenting this somewhat. The spell does say that the miss chance is, in fact, just like total concealment ("The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment" - meaning displacements 50% miss chance shares the exact same properties as total concealments 50% miss chance, otherwise you would just say it's a "50% miss chance" and leave it at that). The confusion only crops up with the addendum, "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally." So it really depends on what everyones definition of "targeting normally" is, since it is not really defined in the text. However, to me "targeting normally" means that you can attack the creature and suffer no other penalties than the 50% miss chance (thus sneak attack and AOO's are allowed). You have to extrapolate from that a little to say that since the displaced individual can still be seen (thus targeted) than stealth rolls are not allowed.
I'm willing to go with JJ's and Zurai's translations. They are indeed simple to use and apply.
For another log on the fire, does regular (not total) concealment prevent enemies from targeting a creature normally?
And I still find it somewhat amusing that the EDITOR-in-chief posts 2 contradictory rulings both using the words 'pretty clear'.
As this will be my last post in this thread, I would like point out a couple of things.
Hes actually right about the Faerie Fire, it mentions Displacement as concealment there alongside Blur, Invisibility and suchlike and this spell functions against Displacement in the description.
Yeah, it is an interesting line in faerie fire. However, I'm not really sure it explicitly states it as concealment. Now, English isn't my main language, so there might be that I misunderstood how the sentence is built, but anyways:
Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. There are two interprentations here:
1. It could (and in my opinion, probably should) be read as blur, displacement and invisibility being examples of things that give concealment,
2. It could be read as "do not benefit from [concealment normally provided by darkness], blur, displacement, invisibility, or similiar effects."
That the concealment part only refers to the darkness, and that the other mentioned things are other things that faerie fire counters. It would make sense to some extent.
I would say that the second interpretation can’t be correct because both Blur and Invisibility explicitly grant concealment. It is also interesting to note that Displacement is listed between Blur and Invisibility. This, at least in my opinion, confirms that Displacement grants concealment and settles the issue for me.
To Zurai, I just wanted to say a big thank you. Your insistence in your posts, as frustrating as they have been to read sometimes, has lead me to looking up tons of rules that I might not have paid as close attention to otherwise. This, I think, will make me a far better player and GM in the future.
Finally, to those who may still be lurking and have yet to decide on this issue, I implore you to read page 9 of the PFRPG. It really does state the “Most Important Rule".
Cheers guys… and happy gaming!
|
|
I'm willing to go with JJ's and Zurai's translations. They are indeed simple to use and apply.
Actually, what James Jacobs posted doesn't disagree with what I said above (last post) and I agree with Zurai's end result. Just clarifying what the actual main point of contention is and what I get from it.
So what do you say about the Faerie Fire text? It seems to suggest at least RAI displacement should give concealment.Secondary sources are innately less valuable than primary sources. Displacement itself says it is not concealment. Other spells (which are quite possibly written by other people) don't really change that.
And I personally find the RAI more telling if you follow the evolution of displacement through the editions. As already mentioned in this thread, the original version of displacement caused the first attack directed at the bespelled creature to miss, and thereafter only gave a small AC bonus. This implies that it's something that can be fairly easily compensated for.
To be fair, the displacement spell doesn't explicitly say it isn't concealment - it says it has an effect similiar to concealment, and it says it doesn't affect targeting in the way concealment normally does, and that's about it. It doesn't say it grants, and it doesn't say it doesn't grant. Of course, a lack of explicit concealment is a strong argument for no concealment granted, but that isn't the same thing as if the spell had explicitly stated "This is not concealment" - in that case, we wouldn't have this discussion.
So, the evidence we have in favor of it granting concealment is:
1. The spell grants an effect similiar to concealment
2. Another spell's wording indicate it's concealment
The evidence we have in favor of it not granting concelment is:
1. The spell doesn't say it grant concealment. This is a really strong one.
2. Historically, the spell hasn't granted concealment.
The fluff is an effect that could or could not count as concealment, so I won't include that. Personally, I'm solidly in the camp that think that the spell don't give concealment RAW, and that it shouldn't give concealment. I guess I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate right now, though I'm still unsure what the RAI would be.
I just think the wording should have been clearer, and that faerie fire should mention it.
[devil's advocate]
Hmmm, if a Paizo rep changes his mind, does that negate the previous statement? (:
For instance, if I were to link to someone what James said before he changed his mind, were I wrong to do so making the statement "this is a statement James made about displacement"? The fact that he negates himself several pages later doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the previous statement. Maybe something dominated James and made him spew incorrect information. The important point is: an official statement was made (-;
In this way, anyone can justify their interpretation of what James said -- by simply linking to the post that most justifies their position.
[/devil's advocate]
[devil's advocate]
Hmmm, if a Paizo rep changes his mind, does that negate the previous statement? (:For instance, if I were to link to someone what James said before he changed his mind, were I wrong to do so making the statement "this is a statement James made about displacement"? The fact that he negates himself several pages later doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the previous statement. Maybe something dominated James and made him spew incorrect information. The important point is: an official statement was made (-;
In this way, anyone can justify their interpretation of what James said -- by simply linking to the post that most justifies their position.
[/devil's advocate]
With a 50% miss-chance... yeah. :oP
Displacement itself says it is not concealment.
It says it is not total concealment. The core question is whether the spell provides concealment. There is no information in this source. . . but if we go to a secondary core source:
Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects.
I see no mention of total concealment (: Only the explicit statement that displacement provides concealment -- in a core source that is more official than an FAQ (:
I love this thread hahaha!
It says it is not total concealment.
The spell does not even mention non-total concealment. There is no way a spell can provide something not even mentioned or named in its mechanical effects text. Either displacement grants total concealment minus targeting, or it grants miss chance like total concealment. "Concealment like total concealment but not total concealment because it's just normal concealment, but we don't actually tell you that it's normal concealment" isn't an option on this multiple-choice test.
There is no way a spell can provide something not even mentioned or named in its mechanical effects text.
While we'd all wish rules were explicit, this is an example of a rule by implication. It is implied that while the concealment displacement provides is not total concealment, it is a form of concealment. Just because it doesn't mention non-total concealment doesn't necessarily mean that it was intended to not provide non-total concealment. Faerie fire's text explicitly outlines the implication q:
Hey, it's crappy wording q: But unfortunately thems the breaks. . .
"Concealment" and "Total Concealment" are listed under the 'Concealment' section in the core rulebook..
The spell takes pain to explain it is like Total Concealment one way and not the other - so if it isnt Total Concealment then it has to be some kind of concealment in that case (but thats not how I read it and here is why...)
Total Concealment explains what targeting equates to in the description of it, I compare this to the spell and with the targeting exception it works the same way. Problem is what constitutes as "targeting", is it (in my interpretation that fits the RAW of targeting under spellcasting and throwing spash weapons and the Total Concealment entry...but I do see the point of view of those with the opposite view but again theyre latching onto the wording of the spell without comparing it to Total Concealments mention of targeting which the spell clearly makes an exception from) attacking into 5ft squares to 'find' an invisible opponent or to pick a target square to launch a spell into OR is it the ability to completely and accurately see anything in that square so absolutely that something like Sneak Attack (which requires astounding precision based on the principles of how it works) can work against (despite the up to 2 feet of intervening distance between the percieved vital area and the said real location of that jugular that occupies the same square but is actually up to 2 feet away) someone under this effect.
In my opinion and others, we go with the 1st description, "targeting" is imprecise enough to use precision damage but precise enough to know roughly where to hit into to possibly affect the target.
"Faerie Fire" mentions "Displacement" along with other spells that grant concealment and places the spell up on that pedastal. If another spell like this makes mentions it as concealment then it is the "Displacement" spell that is poorly worded and may need elaboration. (Though such is unlikely)
That and I do feel that "to see the target well enough to pick out a vital area" under the Sneak Attack description does not allow for much wiggle room beyond an inch or two...up to two feet is a stretch of the imagination but James has ruled that it works this way after changing his mind about it...so unless he changes it back, Displacement does not offer concealment despite what Faerie Fire and Displacement say.
A character under a Displacement effect does NOT stand idle in such a manner as that someone can 'pick out' where he is and negate the miss chance after hitting him/her once as others suggested much earlier in the thread, the 50% miss chance is always irrevocably there without "True Seeing" or "Blindsight" and so forth.
At the end of the day, the terms "may target the character normally" and "to see the target well enough to pick out a vital area" need a tad more elaboration. This isnt from a realism point of view, but if even the tiniest degree of concealment can ruin a Rogues chances of a good sneak attack, then it would stand to reason that anything that confuses his senses enough to attack the wrong point in space would do the same thing...it just so happens the target actually occupies that same square as his displaced image and you may 'clip'the displaced character concealed in that square somewhere next to his 'image'.
That and unlike "Blur", "Displacement" is useless for stealth, HiPS and once opponents figure out whats going on they can be reasonably sure they stand a 1 in 2 chance to catch you with any attack they want to make.
But with Jame's (second) ruling it opens up an interesting side-avenue, since "Blur" grants concealment and "Displacement" is now decreed to not, then they may be stacked upon one another (not previously possible). Different types of effects can be placed ontop of one another but as others have shown earlier in the thread, the total calculated miss chance would be 60% net, with the immunity to sneak attacks that "Blur" grants.
But again, at the end of the day, just use whatever version of the spell you want to interpret it as in your game. Its not likely to come up that much anyways.
Either way, there has to be errata. Either displacement is incorrectly written or faerie fire is. Furthermore, the implication that blur is a weaker form of displacement in the major/minor cloaks of displacement also needs to be updated.
I'm just amazed about the differences in the 3.0 FAQ vs. the 3.5 FAQ on this issue. The wording doesn't change at all, but the intent of the spell definitely does:
If a blinking character also has concealment (from a displacement spell, blur spell, invisibility, or some other effect or circumstance), both miss chances apply.
Concealment is the most common effect that creates a miss chance, but it would also apply to similar effects such as the displacement spell (PH 223), but not to incorporealness.
Displacement and Faerie fire have the same text between all 3 versions. No wonder people who played 3.0 significantly were confused by this thread q:
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.
Works for me, and fits with how I envision both spells (blur and displacement). And as I've said, I still find displacement to be the superior spell (were I able to cast them) as it grants a higher miss chance against all attacks. Far more of the attacks our party faces are regular melee attacks (or crits, or aimed spells, or power attacked crits, or...) than sneak attacks. Thanks, James!