Then, better miss chance it is, then. Why it doesn't also provide concealment along with a better miss chance, as total concealment does, is something that now needs to be proved, considering the evidence shown earlier in the thread.
The burden of proof is on you, in other words.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.
The spell does not state that it provides concealment. Thus, the burden of proof is to prove that it DOES do so.
Well, I won't be around for Zurai to accuse of trolling much longer, seeing as I've got dinner and then gaming.
/Shrug. You've openly bragged about it to my face in the past. What do you expect? I'm not the most mentally agile person in the world, but even I understand the concept of "once fooled, twice shy".
Then, better miss chance it is, then. Why it doesn't also provide concealment along with a better miss chance, as total concealment does, is something that now needs to be proved, considering the evidence shown earlier in the thread.
The burden of proof is on you, in other words.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.
The spell does not state that it provides concealment. Thus, the burden of proof is to prove that it DOES do so.
If you need the spell to be completely explicit, it won't just show up that way suddenly. I and other posters provided enough secondary and tertiary sources that show and understand that displacement provides concealment.
Whenever there's a rules question at my table, we go for the primary source first. When it's unclear (as is the case with displacement), we look at other sources to see what they have to say.
It's quite natural to come to the same conclusion I did when you look at everything.
|
Well, I won't be around for Zurai to accuse of trolling much longer, seeing as I've got dinner and then gaming./Shrug. You've openly bragged about it to my face in the past. What do you expect? I'm not the most mentally agile person in the world, but even I understand the concept of "once fooled, twice shy".
Yes yes Zurai, that one time that I continued to argue for the enjoyment of the argument rather than let the enjoyment end. That I apologized for after you explained you get very upset over things like that. Should I continue to apologize for eternity or just not talk to you? I'm sorry there is no ignore option for you to put me on.
The funny part is we both agree that the spells should not incur concealment, we're just arguing about WHY it doesn't. You because it makes no common sense, me because I don't believe the rules read like you read them.
Then, better miss chance it is, then. Why it doesn't also provide concealment along with a better miss chance, as total concealment does, is something that now needs to be proved, considering the evidence shown earlier in the thread.
The burden of proof is on you, in other words.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.
The spell does not state that it provides concealment. Thus, the burden of proof is to prove that it DOES do so.
It doesn't say that it doesn't provide concealment. In fact it says you get miss chance AS IF it were, and then provides a single exception as to how it isn't total concealment-you can target them normally.
The point is that the language is ambiguous, and no amount of you asserting it's CLEARLY this or that will change the fact that reasonable people interpret it both ways, as did James Jacobs himself. Suggesting that anyone who interprets it differently than you is a troll, and insulting their reading comprehension does nothing to add to the debate and in fact pants you as the troll moreso than others.
If, in a world of magic, the mayor tells you his daughter disappeared before his eyes "AS IF by magic" would that to you mean it absolutely CANNOT be magic in any way shape or form. No it is in fact suggestive of the idea of it being magic. It all comes down to how you interpret "as if". Just food for thought.
That I apologized for after you explained you get very upset over things like that. Should I continue to apologize for eternity or just not talk to you?
Did you apologize? That's an honest question. I don't recall it, but I'm not saying you didn't either. Maybe I just felt it was insincere, which could have been caused by a lingering irritation from the incident.
OK, I'll give you benefit of the doubt. You're forgiven and I won't jump to that conclusion so quickly in the future.
You because it makes no common sense, me because I don't believe the rules read like you read them.
OK, onto some light-hearted debate...
Actually, common sense almost never plays a part in my arguments in the Rules Questions forum. I rule on the basis of common sense in my games all the time, but here I try to stick as closely to the letter of the rules as possible. This is because I believe two things to be important.
Firstly, conversing about the rules on a level playing field. That's very nearly impossible when people start talking about "it should be obvious that <something the rules don't say>" and such. This forum is for discussion of the rules as they apply to all games.
Secondly, I very firmly believe that one should only alter the rules that one understands. It's perfectly OK to (to use an old example from these very forums) make it so that an Air Elemental is incorporeal, which makes perfect logical sense -- but only so long as you understand all the ramifications of doing so, such as changing its CR, moving it around on the summon monster charts, and so on. It doesn't do anyone's understandings of the way the rules are designed and balanced if you go in half-cocked and start adding in traits and keywords that are not stated and do not apply as written.
---
So, my argument isn't about common sense, it's about very precise definitions of terms.
I removed some ad-hominem attacks.
Please behave like adults.
|
|
Did you apologize? That's an honest question. I don't recall it, but I'm not saying you didn't either. Maybe I just felt it was insincere, which could have been caused by a lingering irritation from the incident.
I did and do. I'd go dig it up for proof, but my posting rampage since then has moved it out of my recent posts search.
OK, onto some light-hearted debate...
Just remember, everything I say is meant to be taken lightly. Even when I'm frustrated and sarcastic. ;)
So, my argument isn't about common sense, it's about very precise definitions of terms.
I agree completely with your explanation. I think that was a big argument between me and LilithsThrall about Rule 0 and RAW. I try to stick as closely to the rules as possible, but even with my habit of reading the rulebooks for fun, I don't always remember correctly. Especially with the PF update and not choosing to upgrade. So I do apologize when my memory fails me. I try to use the PRD as much as possible, but I tend to post first and confirm second. Otherwise my goldfish memory will force out the idea. XD
Have you ever tryed to walk in 50+ mph wind? it is a physical force hindering your movment. do you know what entropy is? Well...
–noun
1.Thermodynamics.
a.(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b.(in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2.(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3.(in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).
4.a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.
It, quite frankly, is a wall of failure.
Did you apologize? That's an honest question. I don't recall it, but I'm not saying you didn't either. Maybe I just felt it was insincere, which could have been caused by a lingering irritation from the incident.I did and do. I'd go dig it up for proof, but my posting rampage since then has moved it out of my recent posts search.
OK, onto some light-hearted debate...Just remember, everything I say is meant to be taken lightly. Even when I'm frustrated and sarcastic. ;)
No worries. Water under the bridge :)
... (maybe that wasn't the best metaphor to use at the moment...? heh)
So, my argument isn't about common sense, it's about very precise definitions of terms.I agree completely with your explanation. I think that was a big argument between me and LilithsThrall about Rule 0 and RAW. I try to stick as closely to the rules as possible, but even with my habit of reading the rulebooks for fun, I don't always remember correctly. Especially with the PF update and not choosing to upgrade. So I do apologize when my memory fails me. I try to use the PRD as much as possible, but I tend to post first and confirm second. Otherwise my goldfish memory will force out the idea. XD
Yeah, that happens to me, too, and more frequently than I like to admit. I've been trying to get into the habit lately of checking the PRD or my PDF of the core rulebook before hitting the post button, but I don't always do it still.
Have you ever tryed to walk in 50+ mph wind? it is a physical force hinderind your movment.
Yes, actually. I went to college in Orlando a few years back when we had those 3 (or was it 4?) hurricanes all converge on the city.
50+ MPH winds are a physical force, but not a physical object.
But really, I'm not going to continue this line of discussion any further. It's all based out of the Rules Compendium, which changed rules as often as it clarified them. Considering that Paizo cannot, legally, use any of the changes in the RC, because they aren't OGL, I personally consider the entire book irrelevant to Pathfinder rules debates.
Now, the 3.5 Concealment section does give me pause, but as I've said, I consider the primary source more important than any number of secondary sources. It's clear to me that displacement doesn't give concealment as written.
As I've pointed out in this thread before, it really doesn't matter to me either way. My stake in this race is that if the spell is intended to grant concealment, it needs to explicitly state that. Hidden rules are bad business.
Then, better miss chance it is, then. Why it doesn't also provide concealment along with a better miss chance, as total concealment does, is something that now needs to be proved, considering the evidence shown earlier in the thread.
The burden of proof is on you, in other words.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.
The spell does not state that it provides concealment. Thus, the burden of proof is to prove that it DOES do so.
It doesn't say that it doesn't provide concealment. In fact it says you get miss chance AS IF it were, and then provides a single exception as to how it isn't total concealment-you can target them normally.
The point is that the language is ambiguous, and no amount of you asserting it's CLEARLY this or that will change the fact that reasonable people interpret it both ways, as did James Jacobs himself. Suggesting that anyone who interprets it differently than you is a troll, and insulting their reading comprehension does nothing to add to the debate and in fact pants you as the troll moreso than others.
If, in a world of magic, the mayor tells you his daughter disappeared before his eyes "AS IF by magic" would that to you mean it absolutely CANNOT be magic in any way shape or form. No it is in fact suggestive of the idea of it being magic. It all comes down to how you interpret "as if". Just food for thought.
+1 Good perspective.
Have you ever tryed to walk in 50+ mph wind? it is a physical force hinderind your movment.Yes, actually. I went to college in Orlando a few years back when we had those 3 (or was it 4?) hurricanes all converge on the city.
50+ MPH winds are a physical force, but not a physical object.
But really, I'm not going to continue this line of discussion any further. It's all based out of the Rules Compendium, which changed rules as often as it clarified them. Considering that Paizo cannot, legally, use any of the changes in the RC, because they aren't OGL, I personally consider the entire book irrelevant to Pathfinder rules debates.
Now, the 3.5 Concealment section does give me pause, but as I've said, I consider the primary source more important than any number of secondary sources. It's clear to me that displacement doesn't give concealment as written.
As I've pointed out in this thread before, it really doesn't matter to me either way. My stake in this race is that if the spell is intended to grant concealment, it needs to explicitly state that. Hidden rules are bad business.
In this case, we will never agree. I like to read, and look at, everything. I don't only look at only Paizo or only Pathfinder sources, just as during 3.5, I didn't only look at WotC. The game I run is mine, because I make it everything I can, and I use everything available to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love everything to be clear, concise, and easy to read, but the reality of this game and indeed all of this type, is that it isn't always as you need it.
In this case, we will never agree. I like to read, and look at, everything. I don't only look at only Paizo or only Pathfinder sources, just as during 3.5, I didn't only look at WotC. The game I run is mine, because I make it everything I can, and I use everything available to me.
I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, so please disregard my imminent natural 1 on my Diplomacy check.
This is the Pathfinder Rules Questions forum. It is specifically for discussions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and its rules. This is not really the place to discuss rules that only exist in other game systems. At best it will just cause confusion.
I've been known to bring 3.5 rules into discussion here, but I'm very careful to only use such rules that have the exact same mechanical text in both the SRD and the PRD, but have more elucidation in 3.5 material. The Rules Compendium actively changes rules that are present in the SRD such that they do not read the same as the rules that are present in the PRD; thus, it's not really a valid source for Pathfinder RPG rules.
In this case, we will never agree. I like to read, and look at, everything. I don't only look at only Paizo or only Pathfinder sources, just as during 3.5, I didn't only look at WotC. The game I run is mine, because I make it everything I can, and I use everything available to me.I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, so please disregard my imminent natural 1 on my Diplomacy check.
This is the Pathfinder Rules Questions forum. It is specifically for discussions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and its rules. This is not really the place to discuss rules that only exist in other game systems. At best it will just cause confusion.
I've been known to bring 3.5 rules into discussion here, but I'm very careful to only use such rules that have the exact same mechanical text in both the SRD and the PRD, but have more elucidation in 3.5 material. The Rules Compendium actively changes rules that are present in the SRD such that they do not read the same as the rules that are present in the PRD; thus, it's not really a valid source for Pathfinder RPG rules.
+1 to this and Zurai's other recent posts. Well said, sir.
In this case, we will never agree. I like to read, and look at, everything. I don't only look at only Paizo or only Pathfinder sources, just as during 3.5, I didn't only look at WotC. The game I run is mine, because I make it everything I can, and I use everything available to me.I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, so please disregard my imminent natural 1 on my Diplomacy check.
This is the Pathfinder Rules Questions forum. It is specifically for discussions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and its rules. This is not really the place to discuss rules that only exist in other game systems. At best it will just cause confusion.
I've been known to bring 3.5 rules into discussion here, but I'm very careful to only use such rules that have the exact same mechanical text in both the SRD and the PRD, but have more elucidation in 3.5 material. The Rules Compendium actively changes rules that are present in the SRD such that they do not read the same as the rules that are present in the PRD; thus, it's not really a valid source for Pathfinder RPG rules.
Fair enough on the PF only rules, but consider that the spell is unclear. Also, there's no contradiction with the 3.5 set and PF in this case. The difference lies in that 3.5 actually says what's going on, and the PF Core Book doesn't define concealment, only when it applies.
Well, I consider the spell pretty durn clear :Þ
As I've said, it really doesn't matter to me what the official ruling is, so long as the text ends up supporting that ruling. And I can agree that, given the 850+ posts in this thread, displacement definitely needs clarification, one way or the other. Not everyone can read as perfectly as I can, after all (tongue firmly in cheek).
|
Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?
Hell no.
And for what it's worth, displacement does not nullify a sneak attack attempt. Zurai has used the same logic I would have, so I don't need to nit pick further.
The only benefit displacement gives is a 20% chance for the attack to miss after all rolls are said and done, not remove options for a rogue to attempt a sneak attack.
What you are trying to do is "weeze the juice" as my group calls it, it's munchkin.
Well, I consider the spell pretty durn clear :Þ
As I've said, it really doesn't matter to me what the official ruling is, so long as the text ends up supporting that ruling. And I can agree that, given the 850+ posts in this thread, displacement definitely needs clarification, one way or the other. Not everyone can read as perfectly as I can, after all (tongue firmly in cheek).
That is firmly agreeable.
|
Spell descriptions trump the rest of this bull's cake. 50% miss chance, but NOT ACTUAL CONCEALMENT.
Roll with it boys... roll with it. Rogues need something they're good at. Wonder why they can now crit undead and constructs? hmmm? They needed fixing. Unless the foe is invisible, sneak attack is a go in my book. I guess this thread taught me that people in dim lit areas (20% miss chance) are immune to sneak damage... but it's not sitting well with me, and I might houserule zero that. I mean, do you think rogues hone their sneak attack skills in broad daylight?
Wait, so your argument is that Rogues need displacement to not be concealment. That, and I simply need to accept that.
Well, what if I say that Wizards need displacement to be concealment (considering they "made" the spell), and you just need to accept that.
This sort of thing doesn't help. I'm showing evidence and reason that supports the idea, and you just show me the reasons you think it's wrong. But with nothing there to support it, I don't see the reason to roll with it.
It's actually pretty sweet also for ranged fighters/rangers/rogues if displacement is NOT total concealment: it allows someone with the Improved Precise Shot feat to bypass that annoying 50% miss chance granted by the spell, and makes invisibility better again (as it should be).
Chew on that Swivl! :P
Improved Precise Shot (Combat)
Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment
and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot,
base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus
granted
to targets by anything less than total cover, and the
miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total
concealment. Total cover and total concealment
provide
their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and
concealment in Chapter 8.
|
|
+1 to this and Zurai's other recent posts. Well said, sir.In this case, we will never agree. I like to read, and look at, everything. I don't only look at only Paizo or only Pathfinder sources, just as during 3.5, I didn't only look at WotC. The game I run is mine, because I make it everything I can, and I use everything available to me.I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, so please disregard my imminent natural 1 on my Diplomacy check.
This is the Pathfinder Rules Questions forum. It is specifically for discussions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and its rules. This is not really the place to discuss rules that only exist in other game systems. At best it will just cause confusion.
I've been known to bring 3.5 rules into discussion here, but I'm very careful to only use such rules that have the exact same mechanical text in both the SRD and the PRD, but have more elucidation in 3.5 material. The Rules Compendium actively changes rules that are present in the SRD such that they do not read the same as the rules that are present in the PRD; thus, it's not really a valid source for Pathfinder RPG rules.
+2... Zurai rocks. :)
Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?Hell no.
And for what it's worth, displacement does not nullify a sneak attack attempt. Zurai has used the same logic I would have, so I don't need to nit pick further.
The only benefit displacement gives is a 20% chance for the attack to miss after all rolls are said and done, not remove options for a rogue to attempt a sneak attack.
What you are trying to do is "weeze the juice" as my group calls it, it's munchkin.
Wow, that quote of mine is like 800 posts old and in support of Displacement NOT providing concealment. And Displacement is a 50% miss chance not 20%. I don't see where I 'weezed the juice'. Pretty sure it's illegal in my state...
Spell descriptions trump the rest of this bull's cake. 50% miss chance, but NOT ACTUAL CONCEALMENT.
Roll with it boys... roll with it. Rogues need something they're good at. Wonder why they can now crit undead and constructs? hmmm? They needed fixing. Unless the foe is invisible, sneak attack is a go in my book. I guess this thread taught me that people in dim lit areas (20% miss chance) are immune to sneak damage... but it's not sitting well with me, and I might houserule zero that. I mean, do you think rogues hone their sneak attack skills in broad daylight?
Wait, so your argument is that Rogues need displacement to not be concealment. That, and I simply need to accept that.
Well, what if I say that Wizards need displacement to be concealment (considering they "made" the spell), and you just need to accept that.
This sort of thing doesn't help. I'm showing evidence and reason that supports the idea, and you just show me the reasons you think it's wrong. But with nothing there to support it, I don't see the reason to roll with it.
It's actually pretty sweet also for ranged fighters/rangers/rogues if displacement is NOT total concealment: it allows someone with the Improved Precise Shot feat to bypass that annoying 50% miss chance granted by the spell, and makes invisibility better again (as it should be).
Chew on that Swivl! :P
Improved Precise Shot (Combat)
Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment
and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot,
base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus
granted
to targets by anything less than total cover, and the
miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total
concealment. Total cover and total concealment
provide
their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and
concealment in Chapter 8.
LOL, chew on what?
Again, just because it's more advantageous for one or the other to have it one way or the other doesn't mean squat. It's more advantageous for the class that casts the spell to have it grant a form of concealment. Why, though, should invisibility be a better spell? It's 2nd level, and displacement is 3rd. Going by that logic, no sorcerer ever would take displacement, as it's just a waste when so many other 3rd level spells rock.
So, going by your reasoning, this spell should be as powerful and as useful as dispel magic and fireball, but you're showing me exactly why it isn't. In fact, what you say shows why the wording needs updated.
So, um, chew on that?
Actually, displacement is incredibly powerful. It's even incredibly powerful vs rogues even if it doesn't prevent sneak attack.
It effectively halves all incoming physical damage. That's huge.
Why, though, should invisibility be a better spell? It's 2nd level, and displacement is 3rd. Going by that logic, no sorcerer ever would take displacement, as it's just a waste when so many other 3rd level spells rock.
So, going by your reasoning, this spell should be as powerful and as useful as dispel magic and fireball, but you're showing me exactly why it isn't. In fact, what you say shows why the wording needs updated.
Wait, whut? Invisibility is better in certain cases, mostly out of combat, just like how shield or floating disc might be better than Horrid Wilting in certain circumstances. In combat, though, I'd prefer displacement anyday. Invisibility can be more easily countered (see invisibility, or possibly even a sack of flour) and once you've made any kind of offensive action, invisibility ends.
And displacement is IMO FAR more powerful than fireball. It's less circumstantial, don't carry any risk of destroying loot or killing innocents, and don't require as much planning to use. Also, in almost all cases fireball will do less damage than most of your other teammates could do, while the effect of displacement is something they can't copy. Not saying fireball is straight off bad, but I'd take displacement over it any day. I'd probably pick Fly or Haste before displacement though.
Actually, displacement is incredibly powerful. It's even incredibly powerful vs rogues even if it doesn't prevent sneak attack.
It effectively halves all incoming physical damage. That's huge.
Wait, whut? Invisibility is better in certain cases, mostly out of combat, just like how shield or floating disc might be better than Horrid Wilting in certain circumstances. In combat, though, I'd prefer displacement anyday. Invisibility can be more easily countered (see invisibility, or possibly even a sack of flour) and once you've made any kind of offensive action, invisibility ends.
And displacement is IMO FAR more powerful than fireball. It's less circumstantial, don't carry any risk of destroying loot or killing innocents, and don't require as much planning to use. Also, in almost all cases fireball will do less damage than most of your other teammates could do, while the effect of displacement is something they can't copy. Not saying fireball is straight off bad, but I'd take displacement over it any day. I'd probably pick Fly or Haste before displacement though.
What I was getting at was the claim that invisibility was strictly better needed revising. I agree that it's a great spell.
|
|
One thing to note about this which changed my mind.
The minor cloak of displacement grants blur, which grants concealment.
The major cloak of displacement grants displacement, which is the questionable total concealment.
I would now rule in my games that it does grant a form of concealment because under no logical circumstances should a major item be have an inferior aspect compared to the minor item version that costs 26,000 less.
One thing to note about this which changed my mind.
The minor cloak of displacement grants blur, which grants concealment.
The major cloak of displacement grants displacement, which is the questionable total concealment.
I would now rule in my games that it does grant a form of concealment because under no logical circumstances should a major item be have an inferior aspect compared to the minor item version that costs 26,000 less.
So does your major cloak of displacement also function continuously, rather than 15 rounds per day? Because that's also an inferior aspect compared to the minor item version that costs 26,000 less and works continuously.
EDIT: Not to mention that the minor cloak of displacement doesn't grant concealment either. It works similarly to the blur spell by granting 20% miss chance. If it was supposed to grant concealment, it would say "by granting concealment" or "the user is continually affected by the blur spell". That's even fewer words.
One thing to note about this which changed my mind.
The minor cloak of displacement grants blur, which grants concealment.
The major cloak of displacement grants displacement, which is the questionable total concealment.
I would now rule in my games that it does grant a form of concealment because under no logical circumstances should a major item be have an inferior aspect compared to the minor item version that costs 26,000 less.
So does your major cloak of displacement also function continuously, rather than 15 rounds per day? Because that's also an inferior aspect compared to the minor item version that costs 26,000 less and works continuously.
EDIT: Not to mention that the minor cloak of displacement doesn't grant concealment either. It works similarly to the blur spell by granting 20% miss chance. If it was supposed to grant concealment, it would say "by granting concealment" or "the user is continually affected by the blur spell". That's even fewer words.
You're nitpicking again. Similar doesn't mean "has nothing to do with". If the language said the user is continually affected by the blur spell, then that blur spell itself would be seen by detect magic and dispellable. The way it works similar to the Blur spell is that it grants concealment, or at least that would be my interpretation. The item operates at 3rd caster level and is 12k gold, and by their own formula that exactly fits the SL*CL*2000 for continuous spell effect, so logically they are continually effected by the spell it is based on, Blur.
If the language is too ambiguous you can simply craft your own Cloak of Blur for the same price.
Zurai rocks again! Concealment is a huge advantage, as it gives you the right to make stealth checks. Chew on that Swivl. Or should I say, ponder this. The guy that comes to my games with displacement turned on and starts making stealth checks will get a laughter from me at best...
No need to keep going after me, there are plenty others that feel the same as I do. There's the exception in the text to remember, though. When I don't DM, the guy running those games said to me, "Sure, you can hide. They don't see you. They see your image, though. And now they're hostile."
That's a reasonable assessment, and one that I agree with.
You're nitpicking again. Similar doesn't mean "has nothing to do with". If the language said the user is continually affected by the blur spell, then that blur spell itself would be seen by detect magic and dispellable. The way it works similar to the Blur spell is that it grants concealment, or at least that would be my interpretation. The item operates at 3rd caster level and is 12k gold, and by their own formula that exactly fits the SL*CL*2000 for continuous spell effect, so logically they are continually effected by the spell it is based on, Blur.
If the language is too ambiguous you can simply craft your own Cloak of Blur for the same price.
Exactly. If the item functioned this way, my group would get the item made custom for their needs, as they would feel ripped off otherwise.
But there goes Zurai again. If you need it with clear, unambiguous language, a lawyer would have to come in and expand the descriptions ten-fold to fit everyone's needs. It should be understood that blur is blur regardless of where you find it.
But there goes Zurai again. If you need it with clear, unambiguous language, a lawyer would have to come in and expand the descriptions ten-fold to fit everyone's needs. It should be understood that blur is blur regardless of where you find it.
I have to say this a pet peeve of mine. In 90%+ of cases, clearer wording would NOT take more word space. I've posted many cases where a SHORTER wording is in fact clearer as to the rules interactions, which would help balance any cases that might need an extra word or two.
Verbose expansions on the rules (FAQs) = No,
Clearly written, non-conflicting, self-explanatory RAW = Yes!
But there goes Zurai again. If you need it with clear, unambiguous language, a lawyer would have to come in and expand the descriptions ten-fold to fit everyone's needs. It should be understood that blur is blur regardless of where you find it.I have to say this a pet peeve of mine. In 90%+ of cases, clearer wording would NOT take more word space. I've posted many cases where a SHORTER wording is in fact clearer as to the rules interactions, which would help balance any cases that might need an extra word or two.
Verbose expansions on the rules (FAQs) = No,
Clearly written, non-conflicting, self-explanatory RAW = Yes!
Maybe true, and it'd be great if it were always true, but we're getting off-topic now. I think we've collectively agreed that clarification is in order, just for all of us to be on the same page regarding displacement.
But there goes Zurai again. If you need it with clear, unambiguous language, a lawyer would have to come in and expand the descriptions ten-fold to fit everyone's needs. It should be understood that blur is blur regardless of where you find it.
Let's see, which is shorter?
"This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character, its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually."
OR
"This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character, its magical properties distort and warp light waves. The wearer benefits from concealment, as the blur spell. It functions continually."
Please cease with the straw men. I even pointed out in the post you're referring to that it's fewer words.
The way it works similar to the Blur spell is that it grants concealment
Then why does it not say that? It's fewer words and much more clear if that was the intent. And, for the record, similar means "like, but not the same as".
Note that the wording on minor cloak of displacement changed from 3.5. Here's the 3.5 text:
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the displacement spell except that it only grants a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.
I think that pretty clearly shows the intent is to only provide miss chance, personally.
The way it works similar to the Blur spell is that it grants concealmentThen why does it not say that? It's fewer words and much more clear if that was the intent. And, for the record, similar means "like, but not the same as".
Note that the wording on minor cloak of displacement changed from 3.5. Here's the 3.5 text:
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the displacement spell except that it only grants a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.I think that pretty clearly shows the intent is to only provide miss chance, personally.
Okay, but again, off-topic. It's pretty clear-cut from the 3.5 text, so we should know what the cloak provides given that.
Since you're keen on putting 2 and 2 together on the magic items, why not with the text in the 3.5 PHB and spell description of displacement? It would clearly show the intent, as you put it.
By the way, I'm not interested in placing hyperbole in the argument, just that sometimes I end up exaggerating for emphasis. Sorry about that.
Tee-hee...
If a gargantuan dragon (occupying a 20-foot square) casts displacement on itself, its apparent location is shifted about two feet from the real...giving opponents a 50% miss chance!!
Well, if the sword you attack it with is two feet, it makes sense.
By definition, any spot on the creature with significantly more than two feet to any side of it should still have some body part present regardless of the displacement. Up and down displacement doesn't work well for a creature on the ground...looks like levitation or earthwalk, I suppose; side to side is what we think of, although forward/backward would also cause problems (as with stepping into a punch).
While I agree with your assessment that it doesn't make sense for ranged attacks (and to some extent with certain piercing weapons like longspears), I'll just comment on up-and-down displacement: I've always seen the displacement not as an image of you to the side, but rather that the vision is skewed, so that the displaced subject seems to "bend", much like the pen in the water. Downwards displacement would kind of make the creature look shorter, though not compared to his surroundings. It'd look kind of weird, but then again it's magic.
Geez...this is still going on?...lol
"Displacement" is poorly written, but it is interesting to note that "Faerie Fire" mentions "Dispacement" along with several concealment granting spells and effects as a countermeasure, that implies "Displacement" was supposed to grant something more than basic Concealment but stops short of Total Concealment.
That and I think the whole "may target the creature normally" phrasing of the spell is ambigious. "Targeting" throughout the core rulebook is only ever mentioned in regards to making attacks into 5ft squares, such as aiming spells at an area (and not whats in it), note that splash weapons in particular make this distinction of 'targeting' and note that the 'Concealment' section of the book mentions targeting is normally impossible vs creatures with total concealment even if the character was successfully attacked. "Targeting" implies a general attack can be made into an area, but nothing more precise than hitting whatevers in the square - that doesnt imply precision based damage. But again its down to iterpretation of the wording but I prefer to look over other examples of how the word is used and when it comes up and I dont ever see it ever mentioned with reference to Sneak Attack which requires absolute precision to execute.
At the end of the day, if it is a "form of" cocealment, then its still concealment. It fools the Rogues senses and makes him attack inappropiately enough to make Sneak Attack but he can deal damage to the opponent as well as anyone else.
Rogues get a better deal in PF than they ever did in 3.5, but it seems they are always striving to get Sneak Attack all the time, in every cocieveable situation. This 'Concealment' issue has always been a huge bone of contention, putting logic and science aside or TV programs if you will...characters in this game do not apply such things in their 6 second combat round with that degree of accuracy (its virtually impossible to account for every possible eventuality).
If you let the spell do too much warping, I think then you're actually describing blur, but the generic fiddling with height for the up/down component works for me.Good stuff, stringburka.
I think they appear totally different.
Blur = Like you'd see someone through really thick glasses.Displacement = Like you see someone in a funny mirror.