Scratch that, the minor only gives a 20% miss chance, not concealment.
The only mechanic in the game that grants a miss chance is concealment. Total concealment is simply a variant case based on concealment.
The mechanics and fluff are different.
Not when the question is intent of the spell over misinterpreted wording.
Blur distorts the image, making it fuzzy. Distortion displaces your image, you are still seeing the real deal in all of its fine details.
Both are doing the same thing in different degrees -- providing a miss chance.
|
The only mechanic in the game that grants a miss chance is concealment. Total concealment is simply a variant case based on concealment.
This displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.
No mention of concealment. Just a 20% miss chance.
No mention of concealment. Just a 20% miss chance.
Miss chance = concealment. Any time there's a miss chance, there's concealment of some degree.
Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
While the term "concealment" applies to 20% miss chance, greater or lesser miss chance is still the concealment mechanic. Total concealment simply means you can't see the target at all. Displacement effectively gives concealment at a 50% chance (instead of 20%).
While the term "concealment" applies to 20% miss chance, greater or lesser miss chance is still the concealment mechanic. Total concealment simply means you can't see the target at all. Displacement effectively gives concealment at a 50% chance (instead of 20%).
No it doesn't. It very clearly states that you don't have concealment. 5 pages and this is still discussed? Has anyone pointed out yet that the whole, "you're attacking 2 feet from the target" is silly because nothing in the spell says that you're invisible? There's just you and an image of you, like a single mirror image. You flip a coin to pick one, and then you try to sneak attack it. If it's the right one, you succeed. The end.
Stop tacking on effects to spells that they don't actually grant, your life will be simpler.
No it doesn't. It very clearly states that you don't have concealment. 5 pages and this is still discussed? Has anyone pointed out yet that the whole, "you're attacking 2 feet from the target" is silly because nothing in the spell says that you're invisible? There's just you and an image of you, like a single mirror image. You flip a coin to pick one, and then you try to sneak attack it. If it's the right one, you succeed. The end.
Stop tacking on effects to spells that they don't actually grant, your life will be simpler.
That's pretty much it right there.
It's not like Blur at all.Minor displacement = blurBlur = Blur
Displacement = DisplacementThe mechanics and fluff are different.
Cloak of Displacement, Minor = Blur
Cloak of Displacement, Major = Displacement
Your argument is wrong.
Dogs are mammals. Dogs have hair. Porpoises are mammals. Therefore porpoises have hair.You are qualifying the spells based on a poor naming convention of two magic items.
No mention of concealment. Just a 20% miss chance.Miss chance = concealment. Any time there's a miss chance, there's concealment of some degree.
This forum needs, in addition to a rolling eye smiley, a face palm smiley.
Now you people are just plain making stuff up to try and make your argument. It was ok when you were being absurd, but you have progressed to outright ridiculousness.
So alot of people are ignoring the whole "You appear to be two feet from your true location" element of the spell is NOT somehow being invisible or unseen?
Since when does Sneak Attack, which requires a specific attack attempt at a vital area have a margin of error of 24 inches?, that not what Sneak Attack says. You must be able to see the target well enough to pick out this vital area. You could very well aim for someones artery or other vital spot and hit nothing but their arm unintentionally with such a HUGE margin of error, that is NOT how sneak attack works, it requires absolute precision and certainty.
Sure your looking at the glamer of the guy standing 2 feet from where he is, but that is NOT his jugular your tryig to sneak attack at, its a space 2 ft away from where that jugular really is.
I am not disputing that a Displaced character cant be hit, of course they can.
But Sneak Attack requires specific conditions to be met, and nowhere does Sneak Attack bypass or negate invisibility which this spell clearly grants you a large element of.
SINCE WHEN DOES "You appear to be two feet from your true location" quantify as criteria for a sneak attack?, the Rogue is not pinpointing the target he wants to strike, he cannot see the real foe, but the illusion gives away the opponents rough location. Having an illusion thats 2ft away from you in ANY direction is a HUGE margin of error to a Rogue's precise sneak attack, but not so much against someone whos just swinging a longsword at the guy who gets to roll his miss chance (and if he has Blind-Fight gets to roll twice).
Seems black and white to me. Thats how its been used since 3.5 and I'll continue to use it this way, wether people want to awknowledge it or not, being 2 ft from the attacked location IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THE PRECISION NEEDED FOR A SNEAK ATTACK ATTEMPT WHICH HAS ZERO ROOM FOR ERROR.
If people advocate that hitting an illusion 2 ft away means you can sneak attack someone invisible standing nearby whos not even standing in the same space, then you better go back and rewrite invisibility rules then to say Rogues can sneak attack invisible characters without difficulty because thats whats happening here.
This forum needs, in addition to a rolling eye smiley, a face palm smiley.
Now you people are just plain making stuff up to try and make your argument. It was ok when you were being absurd, but you have progressed to outright ridiculousness.
One of the reasons incorporeal miss chance was removed from PF was to cause all miss chances to be considered concealment miss chance. There is -- to my knowledge -- no other mechanic in the game that is both a miss chance and not a level of concealment.
Edit: Actually, I found one (: Blink has a miss chance if you go incorporeal during the blink spell and you can see invisible. I think this is a hold-over from 3.5 when incorporeal miss chance was in the game. As far as I know, this is the only exception.
So alot of people are ignoring the whole "You appear to be two feet from your true location" element of the spell is NOT somehow being invisible or unseen?
Is a pencil seen as displaced in a cup of water invisible from the surface to its tip?
If the Rogue wants to sneak attack the jugular of an optical illusion (which this spell is) of where he thinks the character is and doesnt HIT that artery because the targets really 2 feet away in a random location nearby, how is that a sneak attack?
I'd LOVE to hear someone explain how a Rogue can miss his mark by 24 inches and accomplish a Sneak Attack against an invisible foe he doesnt even know is precisely standing.
Your argument is wrong.
Dogs are mammals. Dogs have hair. Porpoises are mammals. Therefore porpoises have hair.You are qualifying the spells based on a poor naming convention of two magic items.
Your interpretation of the argument is inaccurate (:
Big dogs have lots of hair.
Little dogs have less hair.
Both have hair (:
If the Rogue wants to sneak attack the jugular of an optical illusion (which this spell is) of where he thinks the character is and doesnt HIT that artery because the targets really 2 feet away in a random location nearby, how is that a sneak attack?
I'd LOVE to hear someone explain how a Rogue can miss his mark by 24 inches and accomplish a Sneak Attack against an invisible foe he doesnt even know is precisely standing.
1) He does know precisely where the foe is standing. I have described that multiple times by now. So has Zurai.
2) If a highly trained archer can hit an egg at 100 feet, it stands to reason he can hit another egg exactly 2 feet to the left (by the way, 2 feet isn't very far) even if it is covered up.3) The foe is not invisible. He is displaced. I'm sure you took 5th grade science at some point. If not, for a refresher, go get a pencil and a cup that you can see through the side of. Fill the cup with water. Place the pencil in the cup. Notice how the image of the pencil is displaced.
Of course none of this would be relevant if you would stop trying to apply realism to an extremely abstract game concept.
I have always interpreted the displacement or blur is based on your originating square, and the spell effect makes your image move in various ways based on that (like a mirror image, except your image phases like a multi-panel cartoon back and forth). Depending on the strength of the spell the image is more distorted.
If in fact you were always X feet away from the square that is being attacked then the miss rate should be 100 percent.
So anyone hitting you is based on the distorted image being in the same origin square as yourself (its all about timing). And if anyone is lucky to hit you, whether it is rogue or fighter, any special attacks should apply because everything is in alignment.
It would be similar to shooting something through a fan blade.
If in fact you were always X feet away from the square that is being attacked then the miss rate should be 100 percent.
This realism argument taken to its logical conclusion leads to Displacement granting 100% miss chance against piercing and ranged attacks.
stop trying to apply realism to an extremely abstract game concept.
Actually, it's reason, not realism (:
OK, folks, here is how it stands. Zurai, myself, and a couple others want to apply RAW to this situation and all come out with the same arguments and results.
Princess of Canada and a few others whose names I didn't catch, want to apply "realism" to RAW to prevent sneak attack from working. They have similar, if not identical, arguments.
The problem is, they are only taking realism half-way in order to get the result they want. That is a fallacious argument to present. If you want to apply realism, go big or go home.
If the Rogue wants to sneak attack the jugular of an optical illusion (which this spell is) of where he thinks the character is and doesnt HIT that artery because the targets really 2 feet away in a random location nearby, how is that a sneak attack?
I'd LOVE to hear someone explain how a Rogue can miss his mark by 24 inches and accomplish a Sneak Attack against an invisible foe he doesnt even know is precisely standing.
1) He does know precisely where the foe is standing. I have described that multiple times by now. So has Zurai.
2) If a highly trained archer can hit an egg at 100 feet, it stands to reason he can hit another egg exactly 2 feet to the left (by the way, 2 feet isn't very far) even if it is covered up.
3) The foe is not invisible. He is displaced. I'm sure you took 5th grade science at some point. If not, for a refresher, go get a pencil and a cup that you can see through the side of. Fill the cup with water. Place the pencil in the cup. Notice how the image of the pencil is displaced.Of course none of this would be relevant if you would stop trying to apply realism to an extremely abstract game concept.
Actually to break down your 'arguement'...
1.) He knows the ROUGH LOCATION of the target, he does NOT know where the target is precisely standing, thats as good as saying the character is in plain sight which your ruling is overriding the "You appear to be two feet from your true location" element of the spell, nowhere does the spell say your standing there like a plebian next to an illusion, your not, you could be ANYWHERE within 2 feet of that illusion, but not far enough to warrant standing in an adjacent square.
2.) How does the Archer know the 'egg' is exactly two feet to the left?, he could be ten inches, the spell says UP TO 2 feet away, the Archer is not firing one arrow and watching the illusion to see what he hits, and then takes his sweet time to line up another arrow and scientifially measure out that many inches to hit what he tries to sneak attack. PLUS the character could move on his turn to the other side of the figment, it doesnt occupy a fixed direction of space, it could be infront of, behind or to the side of the character EVERY TURN as long as he moves about.
3.)
Actually, I'm sure you missed something along the way, when does "You appear to be up to 2 feet from your true location" meet the criteria for a sneak attack?, the Rogue isnt hitting the invisible guy (because we ALL know by now a Rogue cant attack an invisible opponent), he can only see the figment and approximately GUESS where the foe is that hes attacking. GUESS WORK IS NOT HOW SNEAK ATTACK IS PERFORMED. Your arguement is that if I shot a hologram of a guy right between the eyes with a pistol that I should shoot the same guy who could be 2 feet off to the side with that same bullet - which is what your proposing here. How unscientific is that?. You would be a wonderful help if we got invaded by glamered aliens who were two feet off to the side of where they really were, you could argue with them that you "shot them in the head" all you want as they blast you with their weapons.
1) He does know precisely where the foe is standing. I have described that multiple times by now. So has Zurai.
2) If a highly trained archer can hit an egg at 100 feet, it stands to reason he can hit another egg exactly 2 feet to the left (by the way, 2 feet isn't very far) even if it is covered up.
3) The foe is not invisible. He is displaced. I'm sure you took 5th grade science at some point. If not, for a refresher, go get a pencil and a cup that you can see through the side of. Fill the cup with water. Place the pencil in the cup. Notice how the image of the pencil is displaced.Of course none of this would be relevant if you would stop trying to apply realism to an extremely abstract game concept.
1) He can't know precisely where the foe is standing or there wouldn't even be a miss chance apart from the attack roll.
2) So a Displaced egg is always 2 feet to the left. I'll have to keep that in mind.
3) Except there's no part of the pencil outside the cup with Displacement.
While the term "concealment" applies to 20% miss chance, greater or lesser miss chance is still the concealment mechanic. Total concealment simply means you can't see the target at all. Displacement effectively gives concealment at a 50% chance (instead of 20%).No it doesn't. It very clearly states that you don't have concealment.
Actually, it very clearly states you do not have total concealment. Total concealment is a special case of regular concealment -- you can't see the target. If you can see the target, you don't have total concealment.
But any miss chance in PF is a concealment miss chance (barring the 3.5 incorporeal miss chance holdover from the blink spell -- but clearly we're talking about concealment miss chances in the displacement spell). The degree is variable, but it's still concealment.
1.) He knows the ROUGH LOCATION of the target, he does NOT know where the target is precisely standing,
It has been explained multiple times how and why the attacking character knows the displaced character's exact location.
thats as good as saying the character is in plain sight which your ruling is overriding the "You appear to be two feet from your true location" element of the spell, nowhere does the spell say your standing there like a plebian next to an illusion, your not, you could be ANYWHERE within 2 feet of that illusion, but not far enough to warrant standing in an adjacent square.
And as soon as you hit the displaced character, you can immediately gauge and adapt to his exact location. You could indeed be anywhere within two feet of where you appear to be*, but you are always the exact two feet away from where you appear to be with all movements in sync and in parallel.
*It is not a separate illusion, YOU are illusioned - there are not two of you. For the love of god, do the 5th grade science experiment or look it up on youtube to learn what displacement is.
2.) How does the Archer know the 'egg' is exactly two feet to the left?, he could be ten inches, the spell says UP TO 2 feet away, the Archer is not firing one arrow and watching the illusion...
Because for this thought experiment, he was told it was.
1) He can't know precisely where the foe is standing or there wouldn't even be a miss chance apart from the attack roll.
Which is EXACTLY why I am arguing against applying realism to this argument.
Duhhhhhhh
That's pretty much it right there.No it doesn't. It very clearly states that you don't have concealment. 5 pages and this is still discussed? Has anyone pointed out yet that the whole, "you're attacking 2 feet from the target" is silly because nothing in the spell says that you're invisible? There's just you and an image of you, like a single mirror image. You flip a coin to pick one, and then you try to sneak attack it. If it's the right one, you succeed. The end.
Stop tacking on effects to spells that they don't actually grant, your life will be simpler.
I love how the flavor concepts of cloaks of major displacement (displacement) and minor displacement (blur) are too abstract to be used mechanically -- but the flavor text of where the image is or what it is doing is being used to justify things one way or another (:
In PF (minus the blink spell), concealment miss chance = miss chance. The degree of miss chance can vary, but the effect is still concealment.
Because the "flavor concept" being used in the argument of the Cloaks is "the name of the magic item." It's absurd on its face.
MEDIC!!!!
Because the "flavor concept" being used in the argument of the Cloaks is "the name of the magic item." It's absurd on its face.
Because no one ever names things based on what they do?
A +1 flaming longsword might involve flame?
Because the "flavor concept" being used in the argument of the Cloaks is "the name of the magic item." It's absurd on its face.Because no one ever names things based on what they do?
A +1 flaming longsword might involve flame?
Because being "blurry" and being "displaced" are two different things and the only way you can try to say "they are the same thing, look at -" is because of two poorly named magic items.
Cloak of Displacement, Minor = Cloak of Blur. Or Cloak of Blurriness. Or let's be fancy and call it a Cloak of ObfuscationCloak of Displacement, Major = Cloak of Displacement
|
|
Because the "flavor concept" being used in the argument of the Cloaks is "the name of the magic item." It's absurd on its face.
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.
This item appears to be a normal cloak, but on command its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works just like the displacement spell and lasts for a total of 15 rounds per day, which the wearer can divide up as she sees fit.
You really shouldn't build strawmen.
I'm surprised that no one has considered building a magic item that gives a 1% concealment miss chance. It may block only 1 in 100 attacks, but it kills sneak attack dead (: I guess the design problems include being unable to properly cost something that is practically worthless most of the time vs. completely dominating to a specific combat mechanic. . .
Because, like the majority of the thread, that is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, it would be completely unbalanced since there is already a fortification enchantment.
Does this mean you feel you could not sneak attack the person until youahve hit him once?
Yes
Does this mean you feel that if you hit him once you can immediately gauge his exact lcoation and are not subject to a 50% miss chance?
Yes. This argument has only been made at least 4 times by myself and twice by Zurai. And once by some guy referencing 1E rules.
Now Lets say you KNOW the person is displaced and that he is exactly 2' from the correct place. You shoot an arrow 2' to the left of his kidney and then anotehr one 2' to the right of him. Both arrows miss because the displacement had him 2' behind where he appeared to be.
Wrong. Once you hit him, you could see him react and by that reaction deduce his exact location. Which never changes relative to where he appears to be.
Because, like the majority of the thread, that is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, it would be completely unbalanced since there is already a fortification enchantment.
Fortification doesn't completely eliminate sneak attack anymore. Heavy only has a 75% chance.
1% concealment miss chance would kill it entirely.
Because, like the majority of the thread, that is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, it would be completely unbalanced since there is already a fortification enchantment.
Fortification doesn't completely eliminate sneak attack anymore. Heavy only has a 75% chance.
1% concealment miss chance would kill it entirely.
Which was my point...
Which was my point...Because, like the majority of the thread, that is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, it would be completely unbalanced since there is already a fortification enchantment.
Fortification doesn't completely eliminate sneak attack anymore. Heavy only has a 75% chance.
1% concealment miss chance would kill it entirely.
I don't disagree that the item would be ridiculous (: It's just surprising that I haven't heard of people trying to craft it. I see a lot more people wanting to make swords of true striking. . .
I don't disagree that the item would be ridiculous (: It's just surprising that I haven't heard of people trying to craft it. I see a lot more people wanting to make swords of true striking. . .
LOL.. only True Strike? We had a player in our group once convince the DM to allow him to make a bow with Hunter's Mercy on it.
That was a nightmare, even with it only being allowed to use the effect on the first arrow shot.
Lets use the pistol shot between the eyes as an example.
Since I like the picture
If the image is two feet behind the caster...
He still gets shot between the eyes, the same is true for being two feet behind the image.
Two feet right or left, the shot misses
Wierd that gives a 50% miss chance....
Freddy, the figure could be to the side of or even off to the digonal corner of the illusion they can see.
Why do people assume the 'illusion' is super-imposed over the spellcaster and hes standing there with this 'illusion' is clinging to his skin. (There would be no mention of the distance and you appearing as if your 2 feet from your true location then).
Can you throw a piece of thread through the eye of a needle uexpectedly in another two feet than what you thought the needle's eye was?
Thats sneak attack, its precision, it requires clinical execution, you cant bungle it by trying to sneak attack something thats not there and them somehow your weapon bends and twists in impossible ways to veer off to that hidden foe to catch them in the dame artery that you aimed for to begin with.
You can houserule what you want, have Displacement work anyway you like, but thats the READ AS WRITTEN folks.
The rogue does NOT make out his opponent clearly and visually, he makes out the illusion nearby. He CANNOT see the target hes really after even AFTER hes tried to hit the illusion, the illusion remains and the Rogue has to GUESS to a small degree where they are, but luckily the illusion tells them which square to aim at, but precision is OUT THE WINDOW HERE. How can someone be precise enough to use sneak attack on an opponent they cannot clearly make out?
You can HIT the Displaced character but you do so by LUCK, not skill. Regardless of your attack bonus you will miss 50% of the time (and without Blind-Fight) and whe you hit, its never going to be how you expected. The fact the character shares the same 5ft square of space as his illusion does not justify somehow being able to sneak attack an invisible foe.
Again, go and rewrite the invisibility rules then gentlemen, because thats what your advocating. Your advocating a character has all the time in the world in his turn, everything is static, they actually only have a FEW SECONDS, they dont fire an arrow - watch the illusions reaction and then scientifically measure out the angle or trajectory they need to make it hit what they want.
A Rogue COULD NOT sneak attack an invisible opponent thats trapped down a 5ft alleyway even though he knew he was there, this is no different other than the Rogue can see which square he occupies but his attacks GO INTO THAT SQUARE AS GUESSWORK, he can be precise about something he doesnt perfectly make out.
Lets use the pistol shot between the eyes as an example.
Since I like the picture
If the image is two feet behind the caster...
He still gets shot between the eyes, the same is true for being two feet behind the image.
Two feet right or left, the shot misses
Wierd that gives a 50% miss chance....
Because he could be two feet in front of the image :)
Why do people assume the 'illusion' is super-imposed over the spellcaster and hes standing there with this 'illusion' is clinging to his skin. (There would be no mention of the distance and you appearing as if your 2 feet from your true location then).
Can you throw a piece of thread through the eye of a needle uexpectedly in another two feet than what you thought the needle's eye was?
Thats sneak attack, its precision, it requires clinical execution, you cant bungle it by trying to sneak attack something thats not there and them somehow your weapon bends and twists in impossible ways to veer off to that hidden foe to catch them in the dame artery that you aimed for to begin with.
You can houserule what you want, have Displacement work anyway you like, but thats the READ AS WRITTEN folks.
The rogue does NOT make out his opponent clearly and visually, he makes out the illusion nearby. He CANNOT see the target hes really after even AFTER hes tried to hit the illusion, the illusion remains and the Rogue has to GUESS to a small degree where they are, but luckily the illusion tells them which square to aim at, but precision is OUT THE WINDOW HERE. How can someone be precise enough to use sneak attack on an opponent they cannot clearly make out?
You can HIT the Displaced character but you do so by LUCK, not skill. Regardless of your attack bonus you will miss 50% of the time (and without Blind-Fight) and whe you hit, its never going to be how you expected. The fact the character shares the same 5ft square of space as his illusion does not justify somehow being able to sneak attack an invisible foe.
Again, go and rewrite the invisibility rules then gentlemen, because thats what your advocating. Your advocating a character has all the time in the world in his turn, everything is static, they actually only have a FEW SECONDS, they dont fire an arrow - watch the illusions reaction and then scientifically measure out the angle or trajectory they need to make it hit what they want.
A Rogue COULD NOT sneak attack an invisible opponent thats trapped down a 5ft alleyway even though he knew he was there, this is no different other than the Rogue can see which square he occupies but his attacks GO INTO THAT SQUARE AS GUESSWORK, he can be precise about something he doesnt perfectly make out.
Can you throw a piece of thread through the eye of a needle uexpectedly in another two feet than what you thought the needle's eye was?
I still don't think you understand what displacement (not big D) is...
You can houserule what you want, have Displacement work anyway you like, but thats the READ AS WRITTEN folks.
No, it is not. Demonstrably not. End of discussion.