If we are using "real-world" logic, it has to be.Only if you're using metagame knowledge. And for the sake of this discussion, let's assume this is the first round of combat. How does the Rogue make his assertion where the mage actually is?
There is no "metagame" in the real world. There is only the knowledge of observation and analysis. You feel your weapon connect with the opponent, you observe his reaction does not match where you thought you hit him. You analyze they he must not be where he is and, in a world of magical offense and defense, you - as a well-trained and practiced fighter - realize that you must adjust, or at least try to adjust your attack, to the direction the character is actually in.
FYI, I said it is only effectively dispelled after the first hit. You are purposefully twisting my argument to try discrediting me. Sadly I realize and point it out to you to make you look foolish instead. Riposte!
That abstraction does not work for ranged weapon attacks.
You're right, but only because ranged weapons don't threaten and thus are not used to make constant attacks with.
We've already established that using Princess's logic, displacement is near-total immunity to ranged attacks.
Well, let's see. For one thing, displacement is rounds/level. That means it will NOT be pre-cast barring something like a scry-and-fry (in which case the rogue is utterly screwed because he's probably naked and boinking a tavern wench). That means he sees the mage cast a spell, then sees the mage "jump" exactly two feet to one side instantly. When he attacks said mage's image and hits nothing but air, and the mage continues to do whatever, there's only two logical conclusions: one, he teleported away leaving a total illusion behind, or two he made an illusion of himself 2' from where he really is. Since the second is testable, it will be tested, and proven.
No metagaming or spellcraft involved.
Spellcraft checks, seeing the spell cast, assuming facts not in evidence. I'm more comfortable with the Rogue doing a lot of poking with a pointy thing.
|
Then you argument implies that they couldn't constantly target a moving target in ANY location relative to themselves. At that point they should take up smithing and leave adventuring to competent fighters.
My argument implies that the added difficulty of that action prevents the precise targeting required for sneak attack, and that rogues are not full fighters either.
Spellcraft checks, seeing the spell cast, assuming facts not in evidence.
I am making no assumptions. You're the one making assumptions. I clearly state the conditions of my arguments.
Then you argument implies that they couldn't constantly target a moving target in ANY location relative to themselves. At that point they should take up smithing and leave adventuring to competent fighters.My argument implies that the added difficulty of that action prevents the precise targeting required for sneak attack, and that rogues are not full fighters either.
Then why does the added difficulty of hitting a target protected by entropic shield (or blink for that matter, which the 3.5 FAQ says does not prevent sneak attacks) with ranged weapons not prevent sneak attacks?
"Displaced" characters are for most purposes Invisible but their locations are given away to some large degree by their illusionary doubles that stand nearby. Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Consider that for a moment Invisibility gives you 'Total Concealment', which it does, and add to that some kind of 'marker' that doesnt take away your invisibility but it hovers around you making everyone aware of where you roughly are. (This is how Displacement works and is described)
Thats how this spell works, you vanish and a illusionary copy sticks within 2 feet of you. Just as sure as you cant sneak attack an invisible character no matter how many times you try to, you cannot sneak attack a displaced one because it funtions in much the same way.
The spell also doesnt expire if you get hit or make an attack, because unlike Invisibility, the spell doesnt mention there are conditons in which it 'vanishes', but the displaced character could be revealed in its real location by a glitterdust spell and suchlike or by pelting the character with a bag of flour successfully by targeting the right square and whatnot.
Quick clarification, Blur does not allow you to hide. It states that the concealment is only effective while someone is looking at you. If someone is looking at you, you can't hide. Sneaky, no? :)I know my voice won't convince anyone in this thread, but I'll add it anyway.
Displacement doesn't grant total concealment, strictly speaking. It's unfortunately worded though, I'll grant you that.
I think the problem with this is that Blur ABSOLUTELY grants concealment, preventing rogues from sneak attacking you with it AND allows a rogue with this spell cast to hide. It also lasts 10 times longer and is a level lower.
I think it's lame that a higher level spell would be mostly worse, but thats how it seems to be.
I wanted to be on your side Princess, but RAW I'd say Zurai is either right or has brought up questions that need an official ruling on.
Why can't you hide with Blur? It gives you concealment. You need concealment or cover to hide.
Saying you can't hide because someone is looking at you makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ever hide. It's also logically questionable "you can't hide cuz I see you" well you can't see me unless you beat my HIDE with a PERCEPTION check!
This belongs in another topic surely, but if Blur grants CONCEALMENT and you need CONCEALMENT OR COVER to hide, why does 2+2 not equal 4 in this situation?
Spellcraft checks, seeing the spell cast, assuming facts not in evidence.I am making no assumptions. You're the one making assumptions. I clearly state the conditions of my arguments.
I assumed a Rogue attacking a Displaced character without the (outside) benefits of Spellcraft and caster observation. Do I actually need to specify other conditions I assume are NOT in place (like true seeing)?
|
|
Then why does the added difficulty of hitting a target protected by entropic shield (or blink for that matter, which the 3.5 FAQ says does not prevent sneak attacks) with ranged weapons not prevent sneak attacks?
Because it's the same effect as a shield. It doesn't change the position of the target. It just blocks the hit. Honestly, Blur shouldn't really deny Sneak Attack and Displacement should.
I realize I am working on three tiers and bouncing between them so let me expand my thoughts.
Tier 1: Game RAW: Each attack has a 50% miss chance. The character is not concealed because it says he is not. You can aim at a weak spot and Sneak Attack. Overcoming the miss chance = sneak attack damage
Tier 2: Full-out real world. Ranged and piercing weapons can ONLY hit a Displaced character with PURE luck since thrusting and ranged weapons cannot EVER be waved about wildly in the method required to hit a Displaced character. Maybe 1/100 chance. Or, assuming we are applying pure real world logic to the game, a 1/20 chance. Though once a hit connects, the character that hit can switch to any weapon and adjust his attacks accordingly, since the image is always parallel to the Displaced character. Sneak Attack will apply.
Tier 3: RAW + Real-world. Every swing until a hit applies the 50% miss chance. As soon as a swing connects, the attackers knows exactly where the Displaced character is and can adjust his attack accordingly. Sneak Attack will work.
Then you argument implies that they couldn't constantly target a moving target in ANY location relative to themselves. At that point they should take up smithing and leave adventuring to competent fighters.My argument implies that the added difficulty of that action prevents the precise targeting required for sneak attack, and that rogues are not full fighters either.
Neither is a mage, but a fighter is one who fights, not a class. They would be significantly experienced in actual combat with other creatures and even a bookworm Wizard or any one short of a frenzied Barbarian could identify something so simple as a displacement once a single hit connects.
Caution science:
Who is looking at their keyboard as they type? No? Why not? Do you just know where the keys are relative to where your fingers are previous to typing them? How do you know this? Experience I posit. What about doing ANYTHING in a mirror? Everything is reversed! Yet no one is completely hindered.
Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Good thing Displacement isn't 'total concealment' then, huh?
Because it's the same effect as a shield. It doesn't change the position of the target. It just blocks the hit.
Incorrect. It deflects the blow, changing the aim of the attack. It does not block the attack, it pushes it aside a bit. 20% of the time, that "a bit" is enough to make the attack fail to hit at all. 80% of the time, it still deals full damage.
Why is that different from displacement? In both cases, the attack isn't landing where it was aimed, to the unaided eye. Yet no one debates that you can sneak attack a target protected by entropic shield.
"Displaced" characters are for most purposes Invisible but their locations are given away to some large degree by their illusionary doubles that stand nearby. Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from, and it explains the difference because the illusionary copy gives away your location, thats the EXCEPTION THAT IS MENTIONED in the spell, nothing else.
Consider that for a moment Invisibility gives you 'Total Concealment', which it does, and add to that some kind of 'marker' that doesnt take away your invisibility but it hovers around you making everyone aware of where you roughly are. (This is how Displacement works and is described)
Thats how this spell works, you vanish and a illusionary copy sticks within 2 feet of you. Just as sure as you cant sneak attack an invisible character no matter how many times you try to, you cannot sneak attack a displaced one because it funtions in much the same way.
The spell also doesnt expire if you get hit or make an attack, because unlike Invisibility, the spell doesnt mention there are conditons in which it 'vanishes', but the displaced character could be revealed in its real location by a glitterdust spell and suchlike or by pelting the character with a bag of flour successfully by targeting the right square and whatnot.
Then why does the added difficulty of hitting a target protected by entropic shield (or blink for that matter, which the 3.5 FAQ says does not prevent sneak attacks) with ranged weapons not prevent sneak attacks?Because it's the same effect as a shield. It doesn't change the position of the target. It just blocks the hit. Honestly, Blur shouldn't really deny Sneak Attack and Displacement should.
That is completely illogical if you read how they are described to work then look at how sneak attack is defined.
Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Good thing Displacement isn't 'total concealment' then, huh?
Good thing Displacement isn't 'total concealment' then, huh?Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Actually it is, with a minor difference, since your invisible and that you know where the target is due to an illusion that hovers nearby, tyvm.
Thats like saying an Invisible character that had a splash from a bag of flour can be sneak attacked...well they cant, you just know where they are because you can see them, but you cant make them out clear enough to strike them in vital areas.
everybody has thier own selective view of what applies and what doesn't. why else does it take a team of writers and millions of testers to make a game? to make it work! it is an abstraction like any other game. most mundane things are glossed over. do we really roleplay the bard bamfing the barmaid? not really! the most you will get told to do is to make a few rolls. it is an abstraction.
|
|
That is completely illogical if you read how they are described to work then look at how sneak attack is defined.
Incorrect. It deflects the blow, changing the aim of the attack. It does not block the attack, it pushes it aside a bit. 20% of the time, that "a bit" is enough to make the attack fail to hit at all. 80% of the time, it still deals full damage.
Why is that different from displacement? In both cases, the attack isn't landing where it was aimed, to the unaided eye. Yet no one debates that you can sneak attack a target protected by entropic shield.
If that is how we rule it, either entropic shield blocks sneak attack or the 'bit' that the attack is diverted is not enough to move it far enough out of the targeted area to no longer count as sneak attack. I would guess the 20% that miss are things that would only be a grazing wound if the shield did not deflect them. You can still accurately target the vital area, but your aim may be deflected enough to miss but not enough to negate sneak attack.
Good thing Displacement isn't 'total concealment' then, huh?Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Actually it is, with a minor difference, since your invisible and that you know where the target is due to an illusion that hovers nearby, tyvm.
Thats like saying an Invisible character that had a splash from a bag of flour can be sneak attacked...well they cant, you just know where they are because you can see them, but you cant make them out clear enough to strike them in vital areas.
You know exactly what the character looks like under Displacement. It just appears to be in a different place: under RAW, that satisfies condition 2. It satisfies condition 3 by explicitly saying it isn't concealment.
Using your "real world" logic, the first time you connect, you now know - for the duration of the spell - exactly where the character is. You arn't blindly stabbing. You are stabbing very specifically 2 feet in a different direction.
And flour spreads wide. If you wrapped the invisible person in bandages, you could sneak attack them.
If that is how we rule it, either entropic shield blocks sneak attack or the 'bit' that the attack is diverted is not enough to move it far enough out of the targeted area to no longer count as sneak attack. I would guess the 20% that miss are things that would only be a grazing wound if the shield did not deflect them. You can still accurately target the vital area, but your aim may be deflected enough to miss but not enough to negate sneak attack.
Which is completely opposite of how you're ruling displacement. The 20% would NOT have been glancing blows. They have already been confirmed as hits. Assuming that the conditions for sneak attack are met in the first place (hidden or invisible, or acting against a flat-footed target, since we're talking about ranged attacks here), those 20% would have hit solidly enough to deal 10d6 extra damage, just as the remaining 80% will, despite not hitting where they were aimed.
Entropic shield: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Allows sneak attack.
Displacement: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Disallows sneak attack.
1+1=0, apparently.
I realize I am working on three tiers and bouncing between them so let me expand my thoughts.
Tier 1: Game RAW: Each attack has a 50% miss chance. The character is not concealed because it says he is not. You can aim at a weak spot and Sneak Attack. Overcoming the miss chance = sneak attack damage
Let's keep it as simple as we can and stick as close to Tier 1 as we can.
By the RAW, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." My argument remains simply that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to make the sneak attack due to the displacement. Displacement is a glamer, it fools the senses (sight here). My leap is that this keeps the Rogue from sneak attack due to the visual inaccuracy provided by Displacement.
Others disagree because a Rogue can use deductive combat tactics to 'see' the vital area he wants to strike.
I just don't buy it.
|
|
Entropic shield: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Allows sneak attack.
Displacement: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Disallows sneak attack.1+1=0, apparently.
I did say that I would disallow sneak attack on ES first, and then went on a supposition. Your misrepresentation of me is very mature, I must say.
Good thing Displacement isn't 'total concealment' then, huh?Thats where the 'Total Concealment' comes from.
Actually it is, with a minor difference, since your invisible and that you know where the target is due to an illusion that hovers nearby, tyvm.
Thats like saying an Invisible character that had a splash from a bag of flour can be sneak attacked...well they cant, you just know where they are because you can see them, but you cant make them out clear enough to strike them in vital areas.
You know exactly what the character looks like under Displacement. It just appears to be in a different place: under RAW, that satisfies condition 2. It satisfies condition 3 by explicitly saying it isn't concealment.
Using your "real world" logic, the first time you connect, you now know - for the duration of the spell - exactly where the character is. You arn't blindly stabbing. You are stabbing very specifically 2 feet in a different direction.
And flour spreads wide. If you wrapped the invisible person in bandages, you could sneak attack them.
So by your logic then, if you got a look at someone before they went invisible and then a fight broke out, they went invisible and you had a 'general idea' where they were, and somehow hit them on the first try you could then sneak attack them?, thats what your proposing.
Having the Illusionary Copy makes no difference to the Invisibility effect other than to take away the randomness of targeting areas you suspect the invisible character is in...all the illusion does is provide a marker and a distraction, to draw people like the Rogue in question into coming after them and epically failing to sneak attack them because they cant see where they really are. The rogue might clip or wing the invisible foe but they cant deliver precision damage.
I realize I am working on three tiers and bouncing between them so let me expand my thoughts.
Tier 1: Game RAW: Each attack has a 50% miss chance. The character is not concealed because it says he is not. You can aim at a weak spot and Sneak Attack. Overcoming the miss chance = sneak attack damage
Let's keep it as simple as we can and stick as close to Tier 1 as we can.
By the RAW, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." My argument remains simply that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to make the sneak attack due to the displacement. Displacement is a glamer, it fools the senses (sight here). My leap is that this keeps the Rogue from sneak attack due to the visual inaccuracy provided by Displacement.
Others disagree because a Rogue can use deductive combat tactics to 'see' the vital area he wants to strike.
I just don't buy it.
I completely agree with you.
I did say that I would disallow sneak attack on ES first, and then went on a supposition.Entropic shield: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Allows sneak attack.
Displacement: Grants miss chance. Attacks don't land where they're aimed. Disallows sneak attack.1+1=0, apparently.
Ah, I missed the first part. My apologies.
You're the first person to support entropic shield blocking sneak attacks I've ever "met", though.
Let's keep it as simple as we can and stick as close to Tier 1 as we can.By the RAW, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." My argument remains simply that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to make the sneak attack due to the displacement.
Unless your argument also involves Displacement disguising the character as a different race, you are using a Tier 3 argument.
You can't say "let's stick to Tier 1" then jump out of the way because you don't like part of the rules. Displacement is explicitly not concealment.
So by your logic then, if you got a look at someone before they went invisible and then a fight broke out, they went invisible and you had a 'general idea' where they were, and somehow hit them on the first try you could then sneak attack them?, thats what your proposing.
No. You're not paying attention. Not surprising, because you've been ignoring every single one of my posts about this very subject for 150 posts now.
If a person goes invisible, you have no clue where they are, nor where their vital organs are relative to you. With displacement, you do have such a clue. You can very clearly see the vital areas and their relative facing and general accessibility.
If an invisible person moves, you have no freaking clue where they are or which direction they're facing.
If a displaced person moves, you know almost exactly where they are and do know exactly which direction they're facing.
|
|
Ah, I missed the first part. My apologies.
You're the first person to support entropic shield blocking sneak attacks I've ever "met", though.
Well, I do try to be as contradictory as I can be. :P
I think I understand your arguments, and I do see the reasoning of it. I think that either really does work, but better wording would have narrowed it down to one reasoning. Ah well.
So by your logic then, if you got a look at someone before they went invisible and then a fight broke out, they went invisible and you had a 'general idea' where they were, and somehow hit them on the first try you could then sneak attack them?, thats what your proposing.
Displacement is Greater Invisibility now? I thought you appeared exactly as you appeared normally but displaced two feet from your actual location (which, if you get a ruler, is NOT very far at all - it's the space of one shoulder to the other)
Let's keep it as simple as we can and stick as close to Tier 1 as we can.By the RAW, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." My argument remains simply that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to make the sneak attack due to the displacement.
Unless your argument also involves Displacement disguising the character as a different race, you are using a Tier 3 argument.
You can't say "let's stick to Tier 1" then jump out of the way because you don't like part of the rules. Displacement is explicitly not concealment.
What part of being invisible is not concealment?
And I never said it was, after all your going to see the illusionary copy coming (thats not Greater Invisibility is it?), so theres no added advantage there, your not going to use it to sneak around - its a defensive spell.The only thing Displacement does is provide you with an illusionary decoy that throws off would be attackers and stops them assuming you just went invisible, the point of it is to draw people in and make it seem as if the spellcaster is still standing there.
The illusionary decoy is the part mentioned in the spell as the exception to the targeting aspect of Total Concealment, I dont know how anyone is misunderstanding that. Your invisible, with something hovering nearby that gives your rough location away, but your invisible nonetheless.
Rogues cannot sneak attack invisible characters, thats how it has been and always will be, even if the characters location is given away somehow as it is with this spell.
better wording would have narrowed it down to one reasoning. Ah well.
I definitely agree here. Displacement could use a one-sentence clarification that it does or does not prevent sneak attack. I'm 100% sure that the mechanics of the spell don't prevent SAs, but I don't deny that the "you're 2' from where you seem to be" is a potential loop-hole to deny SAs. I don't think it's a good enough loop-hole, but I can see and understand where others would.
|
Let me see if i can simplify Princess of Canada's statement about all this...
I think part of the problem of understanding this issue is that everyone is thinking of the person (and yes i know it mentions persons in the spell and concealment rules etc.)
This is what I see by her argument with a few mods:
Dont think of the person...think of the square a person is in. As per invisibility, you dont even know if he is in that square because he is granted 'total concealment' by the spell.
BUT...with displacement, you know what square he is in, but you dont know exactly where in the square he is, because has displacement on him. In either case, no sneak attack is possible because you dont know truly where the person is in the square.
Does this about sum it up Princess??
What part of being invisible is not concealment?
1) The part where you are "displaced" not "invisible."
2) The part where it EXPLICITLY STATES Displacement is not concealment.An illusion that is a shoulder width displayed from your current location and paralleling your movements and actions EXACTLY is a terrible decoy. It's a hall of mirrors with 1 mirror.
Let's keep it as simple as we can and stick as close to Tier 1 as we can.By the RAW, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." My argument remains simply that the Rogue cannot see the target well enough to make the sneak attack due to the displacement.
Unless your argument also involves Displacement disguising the character as a different race, you are using a Tier 3 argument.
You can't say "let's stick to Tier 1" then jump out of the way because you don't like part of the rules. Displacement is explicitly not concealment.
I agree, Displacement is not concealment. That's why I haven't brought it up (ever). I've quoted the RAW (the part in the quotes above). Please explain your post, I don't understand it. A Rogue has to see the target to pick out a vital spot. Yet he cannot see the target, he sees a glamer. Please elucidate.
|
|
I definitely agree here. Displacement could use a one-sentence clarification that it does or does not prevent sneak attack. I'm 100% sure that the mechanics of the spell don't prevent SAs, but I don't deny that the "you're 2' from where you seem to be" is a potential loop-hole to deny SAs. I don't think it's a good enough loop-hole, but I can see and understand where others would.
I think the miss chance line could have been written better.
The creature benefits from total concealment. However, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.
Heh, take out 'a 50% miss chance as if it had' and 'unlike actual total concealment' and there is no ambiguity. Yay for getting paid by the word?
I agree, Displacement is not concealment. That's why I haven't brought it up (ever). I've quoted the RAW (the part in the quotes above). Please explain your post, I don't understand it. A Rogue has to see the target to pick out a vital spot. Yet he cannot see the target, he sees a glamer. Please elucidate.
He sees a glamer that is in a constant relative location that moves completely in parallel.
I definitely agree here. Displacement could use a one-sentence clarification that it does or does not prevent sneak attack. I'm 100% sure that the mechanics of the spell don't prevent SAs, but I don't deny that the "you're 2' from where you seem to be" is a potential loop-hole to deny SAs. I don't think it's a good enough loop-hole, but I can see and understand where others would.I think the miss chance line could have been written better.
The creature benefits from total concealment. However, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.Heh, take out 'a 50% miss chance as if it had' and 'unlike actual total concealment' and there is no ambiguity. Yay for getting paid by the word?
Reread the last sentence and get back to me. I will repeat it
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.Trying to stab some one in the neck? Targeting the creature normally.
Heh, take out 'a 50% miss chance as if it had' and 'unlike actual total concealment' and there is no ambiguity. Yay for getting paid by the word?
As I've pointed out (in a side note, so easily missed, no foul), they basically have to refer to concealment for miss chance (they do for entropic shield, too) because it's the only place where miss chance is defined.
With displacement, you do have such a clue. You can very clearly see the vital areas and their relative facing and general accessibility.
You cannot very clearly see the vital areas. You see the glamer of those vital areas. Any deduction you do after that is not 'seeing' the vital areas.
He sees a glamer that is in a constant relative location that moves completely in parallel.
I agree, Displacement is not concealment. That's why I haven't brought it up (ever). I've quoted the RAW (the part in the quotes above). Please explain your post, I don't understand it. A Rogue has to see the target to pick out a vital spot. Yet he cannot see the target, he sees a glamer. Please elucidate.
And you equate this to visually seeing the vital area?
Edit: That's visualizing, not seeing.
Let me see if i can simplify Princess of Canada's statement about all this...
I think part of the problem of understanding this issue is that everyone is thinking of the person (and yes i know it mentions persons in the spell and concealment rules etc.)
This is what I see by her argument with a few mods:
Dont think of the person...think of the square a person is in. As per invisibility, you dont even know if he is in that square because he is granted 'total concealment' by the spell.
BUT...with displacement, you know what square he is in, but you dont know exactly where in the square he is, because has displacement on him. In either case, no sneak attack is possible because you dont know truly where the person is in the square.
Does this about sum it up Princess??
Thats it exactly yes. Thank you.
You cannot very clearly see the vital areas. You see the glamer of those vital areas. Any deduction you do after that is not 'seeing' the vital areas.With displacement, you do have such a clue. You can very clearly see the vital areas and their relative facing and general accessibility.
What's the armor rating of an egg at 100 feet? Can you hit it with a bow and arrow? If so, can't you hit it with a bow and arrow exactly two feet to the left?
|
|
Reread the last sentence and get back to me. I will repeat it
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.Trying to stab some one in the neck? Targeting the creature normally.
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
The creature benefits from total concealment. However, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.
You were saying?
Let me see if i can simplify Princess of Canada's statement about all this...
I think part of the problem of understanding this issue is that everyone is thinking of the person (and yes i know it mentions persons in the spell and concealment rules etc.)
This is what I see by her argument with a few mods:
Dont think of the person...think of the square a person is in. As per invisibility, you dont even know if he is in that square because he is granted 'total concealment' by the spell.
BUT...with displacement, you know what square he is in, but you dont know exactly where in the square he is, because has displacement on him. In either case, no sneak attack is possible because you dont know truly where the person is in the square.
Does this about sum it up Princess??
And my problem with this is that "As per invisibility, you don't even know he is in that square because he is granted 'total concealment' by the spell" IS WRONG.
Displacement does not grant total concealment. Full stop.
What's the armor rating of an egg at 100 feet? Can you hit it with a bow and arrow? If so, can't you hit it with a bow and arrow exactly two feet to the left?You cannot very clearly see the vital areas. You see the glamer of those vital areas. Any deduction you do after that is not 'seeing' the vital areas.With displacement, you do have such a clue. You can very clearly see the vital areas and their relative facing and general accessibility.
What Tier are you in?
And how do you know there's an invisible egg 2 ft to the left? And even if you do know there's an egg 2 ft to the left, you've got to hit it in a vital area that you can't see.
The creature benefits from total concealment. However, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.You were saying?
This changes the nature of the spell. It allows displacement to be used to make a Stealth check, and it makes the displaced creature immune to AOOs.
|
|
As I've pointed out (in a side note, so easily missed, no foul), they basically have to refer to concealment for miss chance (they do for entropic shield, too) because it's the only place where miss chance is defined.
Honestly, I don't think they would have to. They could just say the subject gains a 50% miss chance. I don't understand the need to refer to concealment unless they meant to grant it with the spell, as Blur does.
|
|
This changes the nature of the spell. It allows displacement to be used to make a Stealth check, and it makes the displaced creature immune to AOOs.
Then I believe even more strongly that it should only have the statement 'subject gains a 50% miss chance' in the same way Lightning Stance does.
Oh crap, that feat says 50% concealment. >.< So is that 50% of a 20% miss chance from concealment, or 50% of 50% miss chance from total concealment?
As I've pointed out (in a side note, so easily missed, no foul), they basically have to refer to concealment for miss chance (they do for entropic shield, too) because it's the only place where miss chance is defined.Honestly, I don't think they would have to. They could just say the subject gains a 50% miss chance. I don't understand the need to refer to concealment unless they meant to grant it with the spell, as Blur does.
Because you already know the rules :)
Imagine you're brand new to the game and playing a wizard (a bad choice for a newbie, but everyone else is new too, so no one knows that). You find a wand of displacement as loot and look up the spell to see what it does. It says "grants 50% miss chance". You have no freaking clue what that means. It's not even in the index, nor is it in the glossary. Without the mention of concealment, you'd have no clue where to look for the rules for miss chances.