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.
Zurai, I actually agree with you with regards to Entropic Shield because it mentions what the 'miss chance' is, the aura causes ranged attacks to miss by pushing them off target, but the 80% that arent affected find their mark just fine. No arguements there because it clearly describes how the miss chance is created.
Displacement on the other hard, with regards to Cartigan...
Lets break it down...
"The subject of the spell appears to be about 2 feet from its true location"
(now this part implies the character is invisible, otherwise it would be clearly seen)
"The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment"
(because its invisible, yes, this is the same for an invisibility using character)
"Unlike total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally"
(because under the Total Concealment aspect of the Concealment section it explains that invisible characters are in this category. But the spell makes an exception because of the illusionary decoy that gives you away revealing your relitive location)
"True Seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance" (this confirms the creature enjoys an invisibility-like effect that requires a particular means to overcome)
The Rogue would be able to figure out where his opponent approximately is once he knows what hes up against, but since the opponent itself is invisible still they cannot deliver sneak attacks against the target because they do not know its location, and they cannot accurately percieve them (the illusionary copy nearby does not count for this purpose because that would be like using a diagram or a picture of someone to sneak attack them if you couldnt see them).
An invisible character cannot be sneak attacked unless you can somehow get through the displacement effect. It plays on your sense of sight, moreover than a Invisibility spell it is a glamer that masks your presence like Invisibility but recreates it nearby as an illusionary double.
|
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.
And I can totally understand that. I'm trying to narrow people's positions down.
Like with others, the displacement spell could have been written better.
"Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
I think they should have added "...but still grants the subject concealment." Its the designers fault for not putting that line in there.
I think the two of you have a legitimate argument about this, but instead of arguing about it, just play it how you wish if you were the DM and let Paizo send out the correction when they get around to it..
Zurai, I actually agree with you with regards to Entropic Shield because it mentions what the 'miss chance' is, the aura causes ranged attacks to miss by pushing them off target, but the 80% that arent affected find their mark just fine. No arguements there because it clearly describes how the miss chance is created.
You're reading it wrong: ALL attacks are deflected. Only 20% of them are deflected enough to be clean misses.
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.
Forget the eggs. By RAW you have to see the vital area. By Displacement you cannot 'see' the vital area, only a glamer. What's the problem here?
By RAW you have to see the vital area.
Actually, by RAW, you have to be able to see the target well enough to make out a vital spot. Displacement explicitly does not interfere with targeting.
Forget the eggs. By RAW you have to see the vital area. By Displacement you cannot 'see' the vital area, only a glamer. What's the problem here?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.
Thats precisely the point I have been getting at all along, ty.
|
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.
Ah, indeed. Again, hooray for poor wording.
Egads this thread is pretty active for late sunday night.
Who all here is unemployed?
By RAW you have to see the vital area.Actually, by RAW, you have to be able to see the target well enough to make out a vital spot. Displacement explicitly does not interfere with targeting.
And you cannot see the target either, just a glamer.
Edit: Hey I can see the target, but, I can't see the vital area, but I can make it out. Huh? You don't think that's a stretch!?
By RAW you have to see the vital area.Actually, by RAW, you have to be able to see the target well enough to make out a vital spot. Displacement explicitly does not interfere with targeting.
You make out the vital spot of an illusionary clone, not the real target your after. The actual spell grants an invisibility-like effect upon the caster that has a illusionary decoy attatched to them, if it didnt grant an invisibility-like effect it would be more specific like Blur which says it distorts your appearance/outline and makes it hard to pinpoint your exact weak areas enough to make it impossible to sneak attack.
You have to see the target well enough to make out a vital spot, be in range and also the target cannot benefit from concealment.
The Rogue sizes up the illusion, believing it to be the opponent, and tries to sneak attack, only to fail and possibly clip (by luck, through the miss chance) the foe, even if they make out its location through the hit they cannot define the opponent visibly enough to make sneak attacks since thee character possesses this INVISIBILITY like effect still.
If someone would please link this it may help...
Done.
The Rogue sizes up the illusion, believing it to be the opponent, and tries to sneak attack, only to fail and possibly clip (by luck, through the miss chance) the foe, even if they make out its location through the hit they cannot define the opponent visibly enough to make sneak attacks since thee character possesses this INVISIBILITY like effect still.
And here's where you go raring off down into Layer 2 again, which has already been thoroughly debunked because according to Layer 2, ie the entire text as written, once you hit the displaced target you know the exact relative distance and location from the image and thus can target him precisely.
okay, the caster is 2 feet away from his displacement. you argue that you cannot pick a weak point on a target with total concealment. i argue that if you are a soldier wearing camoflouge made to fit the exact enviroment, one can still target your vital spots from 30 feet away, and they can definitely do it up close. i can argue that concealment doesn't protect you from melee atacks because you are essentially right under the attacker's nose. some people can see just fine in darkness and dim light, without issues, nor needing magic items. your pupils will expand to pick up a little excess light. without darkness there cannot be light and vice versa. the 2 need each other. concealment can also be negated by the other senses, in addition to standing right over the individual. if a little girl with a dagger is right next to you, even if you have concealment, she can still shank your kidney for serious damage.
And here's where you go raring off down into Layer 2 again, which has already been thoroughly debunked because according to Layer 2, ie the entire text as written, once you hit the displaced target you know the exact relative distance and location from the image and thus can target him precisely.
But you still can't see the target.
|
|
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?
Zurai, still need help with this. Does it give 50% miss chance or 50% of concealment? XD
And here's where you go raring off down into Layer 2 again, which has already been thoroughly debunked because according to Layer 2, ie the entire text as written, once you hit the displaced target you know the exact relative distance and location from the image and thus can target him precisely.But you still can't see the target.
Thats exactly my point - otherwise people will be ruling that people after striking an Invisible character you can deliver sneak attacks now they know its location (even though you cannot currently see what your trying to attack)...
...and thats not how it works, and its already been decided. You cannot use sneak attack on an Invisible character period. It doesnt matter if you know where they are, 2 feet or not of distance there is, this invisibility-like effect works like invisibility all the same regardless of the illusionary decoy being there or not.
You'd need Blindsight or something to get through it, etc.
Zurai, still need help with this. Does it give 50% miss chance or 50% of concealment? XDThen 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?
Lightning Stance is one of those "Oops, we're not seeing the forest for the trees" additions to the game. I believe the intent is to grant a 50% miss chance, as if one had total concealment, but without any of the other effects of total concealment. Pretty much exactly like displacement.
Unfortunately, the rules are totally mucked up and unclear. There's no such thing, technically, as "50% concealment". There's concealment, which grants 20% miss chance, and total concealment, which grants 50% miss chance if you know the square the target is in.
But you still can't see the target.
But you can discern his vital spots, which is the actual object and point of the rule. A rogue using Blindsight can use sneak attack, after all, even though he's not seeing anything.
And to quote someone who went over this very same issue back in 2007.
The thing you and your players are getting hung up on is the "unlike actual total concealment" part of the spell description. The designer is trying to tell you that a person under this spell's effect is not actually invisible or otherwise completely unseen. If a creature had total concealment, you would have to guess just to figure out what square that opponent was in because you can't see him, and they're telling you that that isn't the case.However, in all other instances it has the same rules mechanic. Thus, as is the case for all other situations, a rogue CAN NOT perform a sneak attack on anyone that has concealment. You can see the opponent, but it's a 50/50 chance you actually land a blow. Precision attacks? Forget it. You're lucky if you actually hit the guy at all.
Makes perfect sense as does the whole thread, they go into detail about it and the rules then are no different about this now as they were then. And for another example...
You're targeting the square of a creature that is effectively invisible. The only difference is there is a visible effect to clue you in to the square of the target. If you target a sneak attack two feet away from where the target appears to be, you might hit. But since a sneak attack needs to be precise it has to be exact. If the target was 23 inches away - no sneak.The rogue needs to know exactly where he's hitting and exactly how to hit that vital area - otherwise a fighter might get lucky and deal an extra 6d6 of damage when hitting a vital area.
If the rogue couldn't see where he was hitting, he couldn't get sneak attack.[/QUOTE}
|
|
Lightning Stance is one of those "Oops, we're not seeing the forest for the trees" additions to the game. I believe the intent is to grant a 50% miss chance, as if one had total concealment, but without any of the other effects of total concealment. Pretty much exactly like displacement.
Unfortunately, the rules are totally mucked up and unclear. There's no such thing, technically, as "50% concealment". There's concealment, which grants 20% miss chance, and total concealment, which grants 50% miss chance if you know the square the target is in.
Yeah, I just had a laugh how we're getting even more unclear and contradictory rules.
And to quote someone who went over this very same issue back in 2007.Makes perfect sense as does the whole thread, they go into detail about it and the rules then are no different about this now as they were then.
The thing you and your players are getting hung up on is the "unlike actual total concealment" part of the spell description. The designer is trying to tell you that a person under this spell's effect is not actually invisible or otherwise completely unseen. If a creature had total concealment, you would have to guess just to figure out what square that opponent was in because you can't see him, and they're telling you that that isn't the case.However, in all other instances it has the same rules mechanic. Thus, as is the case for all other situations, a rogue CAN NOT perform a sneak attack on anyone that has concealment. You can see the opponent, but it's a 50/50 chance you actually land a blow. Precision attacks? Forget it. You're lucky if you actually hit the guy at all.
All of that has been covered by this thread and by me personally. And my coverage of it has been ignored by you personally. Now taking bets on how long the ignoring continues...
But you can discern his vital spots, which is the actual object and point of the rule. A rogue using Blindsight can use sneak attack, after all, even though he's not seeing anything.
And if the Rogue had Blindsight, I'd allow it. Artful dodge, btw.
So, even though it says you have to see the target to make out a vital area, that's not really what it's saying?
Zurai, while it is never intentional that I ignored your posts I was dealing with many people going on about different aspects of the same thing.
Your for all purposes invisible with Displacement, if you want to start sneak attacking invisible characters without Blindsight and so on, then you'd need to retroactively go back and change invisibility as well since thats what this spell grants effectively, thats the RAW.
there is no core way to gain permanent reliable blindsight. and i doubt there's one in the many 3.5e splats. the most i can think of is limited use magic items that really aren't worth the slots they take. i think blindsight is worth maybe a feat or 2.
|
|
there is no core way to gain permanent reliable blindsight. and i doubt there's one in the many 3.5e splats. the most i can think of is limited use magic items that really aren't worth the slots they take. i think blindsight is worth maybe a feat or 2.
Capstone ability of the Complete Adventurer Scout base class.
All of that has been covered by this thread and by me personally.
Except for this part right?
However, in all other instances it has the same rules mechanic. Thus, as is the case for all other situations, a rogue CAN NOT perform a sneak attack on anyone that has concealment.
Nope, I covered that. Early on, in fact. Displacement does NOT grant "total concealment except". It grants "miss chance like total concealment". The two concepts are perfect inversions of each other. The rules say "take this one element of total concealment and apply it". Princess (and the post you quote) say "take this one element of total concealment and exclude it". Total opposites.
there is no core way to gain permanent reliable blindsight. and i doubt there's one in the many 3.5e splats. the most i can think of is limited use magic items that really aren't worth the slots they take. i think blindsight is worth maybe a feat or 2.Capstone ability of the Complete Adventurer Scout base class.
Also the 15th level ability of a Clouded Vision-cursed Oracle.
It's been fun, gang. But I have to depart. Always a pleasure to dig into the rules!
|
|
And to quote someone who went over this very same issue back in 2007.
The thing you and your players are getting hung up on is the "unlike actual total concealment" part of the spell description. The designer is trying to tell you that a person under this spell's effect is not actually invisible or otherwise completely unseen. If a creature had total concealment, you would have to guess just to figure out what square that opponent was in because you can't see him, and they're telling you that that isn't the case.However, in all other instances it has the same rules mechanic. Thus, as is the case for all other situations, a rogue CAN NOT perform a sneak attack on anyone that has concealment. You can see the opponent, but it's a 50/50 chance you actually land a blow. Precision attacks? Forget it. You're lucky if you actually hit the guy at all.
Actually Steve Greer has authored and co-authored the GameMastery/Pathfinder Modules "Gallery of Evil", "Sins of the Saviors", Part 5 of the Rise of the Runelords series, The Demon Within, and LB1: Tower of the Last Baron. He has also contributed sections of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book and co-wrote Pathfinder Chronicles: Dark Markets - A Guide to Katapesh. If anyone should be best in the position to answer this quandary, it would be him.
As a GM, I would have to agree with him and the group on this thread that says Displacement would negate the Sneak Attack damage of a Rogue.
To me it just makes more sense that way.
Even so, this is your game to have fun with. Make your ruling as you feel is best for you and your players.
cheers!
If anyone should be best in the position to answer this quandary, it would be him.
No. If we were talking about Jason Buhlman, here, I'd agree, or even Monte Cook or one of the 3.5 designers. A guy who's written modules, as admirable and cool as that is, doesn't get any special insight into the rules, and is certainly not "in the best position to answer this quandary". There are any number of instances where published modules have false rules interpretations in them, even in Paizo modules. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Greer by saying that he's no authority on the subject, but it's simple truth.
Especially when he's dead wrong. Displacement does not say it grants concealment, except for targeting. It says it grants a 50% miss chance, as if the creature was totally concealed. Those are completely different, logically and grammatically. "Miss chance as if concealed" is nothing remotely like "concealed except for targeting", logically or grammatically. As I have pointed out four or five times now, if the effect was "concealment except", it would allow Stealth checks in plain sight and would make the target immune to attacks of opportunity, both of which are properties of total concealment but not the displacement spell. The ONLY property that displacement has in common with total concealment is the property that the spell explicitly compared to total concealment, a 50% miss chance.
Zurai, I don't always agree with you but I do here.
If I can target a displaced person normally, that's what I can do. Of course I may not hit them but if I do, I hit them as I intended. If I can normally backstab them, or touch attack them, or paint them blue that is what happens when I hit. If I hit.
The target might not be there but he\she is somewhere in the 5' square and until I don't hit, I don't know any better. If I always hit it may not even be apparent to me, the attacker, that they are even displaced. Wouldn't I be silly to not try backstabbing.
Sigurd
|
Zurai - Definitely with you. Even from a complete flavor standpoint it makes sense. There's still two guys you can very visibly see, so there's nothing preventing you from going after the vital points on one of them. It may end up being the wrong one (50% chance actually, funny that) but if you get the right one then you should still get sneak attack.
Total Concealment prevents that because, surprise, you can't actually see them. If you could, they wouldn't have that protection.
|
Displacement is a glammer(a very specific subset of illusion spells). It doesn't create a figment(another entirely different subset of illusions) of anything. It doesn't make the caster disapear and a "false image" appear 2 feet away. What it does is make the other person believe it's two feet away. It tricks the mind like an optical illusion.
The miss chance (or hit chance if you look at it the other way) could just as easily be explained as the times when your brain has worked out the real location of the target, not because of luck. The problem is it continues to be tricky and makes your brain hurt trying to stay focused. Think of one of those tesselation pictures where you have to blur your eyes to see the 3d picture. Now try doing that in combat. That's effectively what glammers do to you.
You can see the actual target. You can see the weak spots on the target. You can line up that sweet sneak attack. But half the time your brain is telling you it's in the wrong spot.
I'm with Zurai on this. Sneak attack counts.
Cheers
Heh five pages huh. I am with the others it does not offer concealment, just a displaced "Clearly visible image} so sneak attack counts
Not that anything I or anyone else can say matters much at this point.
I am with the others it does not offer concealment, just a displaced "Clearly visible image} so sneak attack counts
O_O
<checks date>
Nope, not April yet.
<checks forum>
Nope, not an APG forum.
O_O
There you have it, folks, seeker and I agree on a rules question. That's the most definitive proof I've seen yet this thread!
(all in jest, of course)
Bound to happen at some point man
I know, it's happened before. It's just rare, and I'm feeling silly. Don't mind me.
|
I'm with Zurai 100% on this. You see the target just fine, he's not invisible, blurry, out of phase, moving really fast, nothing. Pick your sweet spot and aim 2' to the left or right and there is a 50% chance you picked the right spot to sink your blade into.
For what it's worth, in 1st/2nd ed D&D, displacement made you automatically miss the first attack, then just gave a +2 to AC thereafter, mimicing the "fool me once" nature of the 2' shift.
|
|
If anyone should be best in the position to answer this quandary, it would be him.No. If we were talking about Jason Buhlman, here, I'd agree, or even Monte Cook or one of the 3.5 designers. A guy who's written modules, as admirable and cool as that is, doesn't get any special insight into the rules, and is certainly not "in the best position to answer this quandary". There are any number of instances where published modules have false rules interpretations in them, even in Paizo modules. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Greer by saying that he's no authority on the subject, but it's simple truth.
Especially when he's dead wrong. Displacement does not say it grants concealment, except for targeting. It says it grants a 50% miss chance, as if the creature was totally concealed. Those are completely different, logically and grammatically. "Miss chance as if concealed" is nothing remotely like "concealed except for targeting", logically or grammatically. As I have pointed out four or five times now, if the effect was "concealment except", it would allow Stealth checks in plain sight and would make the target immune to attacks of opportunity, both of which are properties of total concealment but not the displacement spell. The ONLY property that displacement has in common with total concealment is the property that the spell explicitly compared to total concealment, a 50% miss chance.
I meant that he was in the best position from those that had, up to this point, posted on the subject having worked with the game designers. Of course Jason would be the best, but he hasn't chimed in yet.
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. 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. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
Okay, so we get 50% miss chance as if we have total concealment. That's the easy part since it says that right in the description of the spell.
Then it goes on to say what the difference is between actual total concealment and the version that this spell gives us, namely that you can target the creature without guessing which square it is in (I know the wording at this point leaves it up to interpretation). Because normally (with total concealment) we would have to guess the square before we could attack. However, the displaced image 2' away negates the need to guess.
To me this sounds simple and RAI, and this is how I will be using it in the game I run should it ever come up. It would be nice to get clarification though. It's just too easy to get hung up on word choice.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but Karui Kage, are you suggesting that you have TWO targets (one real and one glamer)? That's not how I would read the spell since it is a glamer and not a figment. A figment creates something where nothing exist (for example a second image), but can't conceal or change something that already exists (which a glamer can do, see below).
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.
Hence the 2' displacement. Something displaced, is shifted from one place to another... not in both at the same time.
Here:
Main Entry: dis·place·ment
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dis-ˈplā-smənt, di-ˈsplā-\
Function: noun
Date: 1611
1 : the act or process of displacing : the state of being displaced
2 a : the volume or weight of a fluid (as water) displaced by a floating body (as a ship) of equal weight b : the difference between the initial position of something (as a body or geometric figure) and any later position c : the volume displaced by a piston (as in a pump or an engine) in a single stroke; also : the total volume so displaced by all the pistons in an internal combustion engine (as in an automobile)
3 a : the redirection of an emotion or impulse from its original object (as an idea or person) to another ]b : the substitution of another form of behavior for what is usual or expected especially when the usual response is nonadaptive —called also displacement activity, displacement behavior
2b being the one for this example.
Question: why does a minor cloak of displacement prevent sneak attacks -- but a major cloak of displacement does not?
Or, to word the question differently:
Why does a weaker spell do something more powerful than a more powerful version of the spell?
Technicality? Or misread?
I'm pretty sure it's a misread. The intent of displacement is to make the location of the individual with the displacement ability known ("displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally").
You normally can't attack an opponent that has total concealment. You attack the square they're in. You also can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square they're in.
Displacement gives a target total concealment without the above "additions" by total concealment. You can execute attacks of opportunity against a displaced target. You can attack them directly. In effect, you can see the target, but you have a hard time landing a meaningful blow. That "hard time landing a meaningful blow" is still concealment -- it still prevents sneak attacks. Miss chance is the key that prevents the sneak attack. You only have miss chances if concealment is involved.
Displacement is simply a version of blur with a higher miss chance. Any other reading is based on faulty logic -- that a cloak of minor displacement does a better job than a cloak of major displacement (:
It's not like Blur at all.
It's not like Blur at all.
Minor displacement = blur
It's not like Blur at all.Minor displacement = blur
Blur distorts the image, making it fuzzy. Distortion displaces your image, you are still seeing the real deal in all of its fine details.
It's not like Blur at all.Minor displacement = blur
Blur = Blur
Displacement = DisplacementThe mechanics and fluff are different.