Why would I answer you? Stop being obtuse and I might.
I apologize. I'm just trying to determine where you're headed with the pencil/water/displacement analogy. In order to do that, I have to ask questions, some of which delineate the differences in the discussion and the analogy you have provided. Perhaps I leapt ahead without fully grasping the information you are introducing. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated.
Noone has yet to mention the fact that "Displacement" produces a Glamer effect and this is defined as
"Glamer : A Glamer spell changes a subjects sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell or sound like something else, or even seem to dissapear."
If a subject under a Glamer effect changes its appearance, as it happens in this case (the subject appears to be 2 feet from where it really is), how is the actual character not invisible then?, nothing about the spell states the caster is visible, only this Glamered projection of themselves that occupies the same square.
So if a Glamer spell masks and hides your presence, as is done with this spell, then the real character is invisible as I said, or enjoys an invisibility like effect with one change - the projection within 2 feet takes away the need to randomly attack into squares to find the character, all you need roll is miss chance due to the concealment of the hidden character.
Noone has yet to mention the fact that "Displacement" produces a Glamer effect and this is defined as"Glamer : A Glamer spell changes a subjects sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell or sound like something else, or even seem to dissapear."
If a subject under a Glamer effect changes its appearance, as it happens in this case (the subject appears to be 2 feet from where it really is), how is the actual character not invisible then?, nothing about the spell states the caster is visible, only this Glamered projection of themselves that occupies the same square.
So if a Glamer spell masks and hides your presence, as is done with this spell, then the real character is invisible as I said, or enjoys an invisibility like effect with one change - the projection within 2 feet takes away the need to randomly attack into squares to find the character, all you need roll is miss chance due to the concealment of the hidden character.
But it hasn't truely dissapeared if the Displacement spell states that the subject can still be targeted. If it couldn't be targteted then the MM would not hit. Same with a miss-chance from a weapon blow.
Dungeon Master Player Character.Dumb Mother Power Complex?Not as Chaotic Evil as Superman.Superman is a DMPC.
And here I thought it was Dude Most Played Cheesily.
Noone has yet to mention the fact that "Displacement" produces a Glamer effect and this is defined as"Glamer : A Glamer spell changes a subjects sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell or sound like something else, or even seem to dissapear."
If a subject under a Glamer effect changes its appearance, as it happens in this case (the subject appears to be 2 feet from where it really is), how is the actual character not invisible then?, nothing about the spell states the caster is visible, only this Glamered projection of themselves that occupies the same square.
So if a Glamer spell masks and hides your presence, as is done with this spell, then the real character is invisible as I said, or enjoys an invisibility like effect with one change - the projection within 2 feet takes away the need to randomly attack into squares to find the character, all you need roll is miss chance due to the concealment of the hidden character.
I 100% want to believe you PoC, but the fact is that the game has essentially ruled against common sense.
Displacement doesn't provide concealment of any kind. It apparently never has, even in the 3.X version. It provided just a blanket miss chance -- and blanket miss chances aren't enough to prevent sneak attack. There *was* historical basis for it in 3.0 (thanks to the 3.0 FAQ), but later editions combined with rules of the game articles simply "forgot" or "changed their minds" without actually bothering to change the wording of the abilities.
This greatly increases the benefit of blur in my eyes -- or in the benefit of stacking both blur and displacement. Since blur provides actual concealment (but not a miss chance when stacked), its useful to have both together.
I'm with you, it's ridiculous -- but it seems to be how it is q:
Cartigan wrote:
Why would I answer you? Stop being obtuse and I might.
I apologize. I'm just trying to determine where you're headed with the pencil/water/displacement analogy. In order to do that, I have to ask questions, some of which delineate the differences in the discussion and the analogy you have provided. Perhaps I leapt ahead without fully grasping the information you are introducing. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated.
But it hasn't truely dissapeared if the Displacement spell states that the subject can still be targeted. If it couldn't be targteted then the MM would not hit. Same with a miss-chance from a weapon blow.
Noone has yet to mention the fact that "Displacement" produces a Glamer effect and this is defined as"Glamer : A Glamer spell changes a subjects sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell or sound like something else, or even seem to dissapear."
If a subject under a Glamer effect changes its appearance, as it happens in this case (the subject appears to be 2 feet from where it really is), how is the actual character not invisible then?, nothing about the spell states the caster is visible, only this Glamered projection of themselves that occupies the same square.
So if a Glamer spell masks and hides your presence, as is done with this spell, then the real character is invisible as I said, or enjoys an invisibility like effect with one change - the projection within 2 feet takes away the need to randomly attack into squares to find the character, all you need roll is miss chance due to the concealment of the hidden character.
My point is, if the Rogues senses are being fooled by the Displacement, how are they pinpointing the actual character despite this?, they dont percieve the real character, only the projection that occupies the same square. They dont possess the ability to 'see through it' without True Seeing/Blindsight, etc. So how can they effectively land a sneak attack on something thats not clearly distiguished?
Any influece on a Rogues senses that alter their perception such as with what occurs with Displacement, foils all Sneak Attack attempts since the Rogue must be able to see the targeted vital spot with absolute clarity.Thats my point. Just as natural darkess foils a non-darkvision Rogue or a Blur spell makes a character harder to accurately distinguish, then a character who is not where he seems to be when you attack is a logical step in this - how can someone precisely attack something thats fooling your senses to say its standing somewhere else?
I 100% want to believe you PoC, but the fact is that the game has essentially ruled against common sense.
Displacement doesn't provide concealment of any kind. It apparently never has, even in the 3.X version. It provided just a blanket miss chance -- and blanket miss chances aren't enough to cause sneak attack. There *was* historical basis for it in 3.0 (thanks to the 3.0 FAQ), but later editions combined with rules of the game articles simply "forgot" or "changed their minds" without actually bothering to change the wording of the abilities.
This greatly increases the benefit of blur in my eyes -- or in the benefit of stacking both blur and displacement. Since blur provides actual concealment (but not a miss chance when stacked), its useful to have both together.
I'm with you, it's ridiculous -- but it seems to be how it is q:
The definition of Glamer type Illusion spells gives the character the ability to vanish, which seems to be the case with this spell, with a projection that occupies the same square.
A Rogue MUST be able to clearly define his target with his senses, anything that fools with a Rogues senses when he attacks negates any and all Sneak Attack. Not being where you appear to be when attacked certainly qualifies.
Noone has yet to mention the fact that "Displacement" produces a Glamer effect and this is defined as"Glamer : A Glamer spell changes a subjects sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell or sound like something else, or even seem to dissapear."
If a subject under a Glamer effect changes its appearance, as it happens in this case (the subject appears to be 2 feet from where it really is), how is the actual character not invisible then?, nothing about the spell states the caster is visible, only this Glamered projection of themselves that occupies the same square.
So if a Glamer spell masks and hides your presence, as is done with this spell, then the real character is invisible as I said, or enjoys an invisibility like effect with one change - the projection within 2 feet takes away the need to randomly attack into squares to find the character, all you need roll is miss chance due to the concealment of the hidden character.
Sure, it "seems to disappear" except it reappears in a slightly different location than it actually is in. There is not a character and a figment of the character, there is the character who has magically distorted light to make it appear he is someplace he isn't. It's a magical cloaking field.
Cartigan wrote:
Why would I answer you? Stop being obtuse and I might.I apologize. I'm just trying to determine where you're headed with the pencil/water/displacement analogy. In order to do that, I have to ask questions, some of which delineate the differences in the discussion and the analogy you have provided. Perhaps I leapt ahead without fully grasping the information you are introducing. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated.
I think where he is coming from is due to refraction, that can cause a spoon or pencinl that is in a glass of water to appear to be bent when it truely isn't.
I think where he is coming from is due to refraction, that can cause a spoon or pencinl that is in a glass of water to appear to be bent when it truely isn't.Cartigan wrote:
Why would I answer you? Stop being obtuse and I might.I apologize. I'm just trying to determine where you're headed with the pencil/water/displacement analogy. In order to do that, I have to ask questions, some of which delineate the differences in the discussion and the analogy you have provided. Perhaps I leapt ahead without fully grasping the information you are introducing. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated.
Not so much bent as "dislocated a fraction of an inch." Though it probably depends on the angle of observation for that.
Not so much bent as "dislocated a fraction of an inch."I think where he is coming from is due to refraction, that can cause a spoon or pencinl that is in a glass of water to appear to be bent when it truely isn't.Cartigan wrote:
Why would I answer you? Stop being obtuse and I might.I apologize. I'm just trying to determine where you're headed with the pencil/water/displacement analogy. In order to do that, I have to ask questions, some of which delineate the differences in the discussion and the analogy you have provided. Perhaps I leapt ahead without fully grasping the information you are introducing. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated.
True.
LOL... I have a feeling the guys at Paizo are getting a big giggle out of watching us rip at each other here... lol
I'd side with the RAW people here and say that sneak damage is allowed (at least at "my" table (we play at my friends place :P )). You can clearly see the target. Nothing in the spell says that it changes what you see other than that the subject is displaced. Have you ever looked at a chain-link fence and felt that it was much closer than it really is? That's essentially the sort of illusion the spell creates. Overcoming the 50% miss chance is seeing through that illusion and going for the kill.
But hey, let's give the realism troup the benefit of a doubt. Say I want to stab his kidney, so I stab, roll my miss chance and beat it. I would probably not hit the kidney, but the other one! =D
It's an abstract system and trying to shoehorn halfway realism into it doesn't really work. But this (and more) has already been said and I doubt peoples opinions will change, because it's just that, opinions.
Sure, it "seems to disappear" except it reappears in a slightly different location than it actually is in. There is not a character and a figment of the character, there is the character who has magically distorted light to make it appear he is someplace he isn't.
Isnt that what I have been saying all along...the figure seems to vanish and a glamer projection of the character appears in the same square but not right next to them.
Since this effect distorts and plays with light, isnt that fooling with the Rogues senses - in this case, sight. And he requires his sight to percieve and pick out the vital areas he wants to strike...how can he achieve this when his senses are fooled by the spell and making him believe hes attacking the real opponent.
Sure, it "seems to disappear" except it reappears in a slightly different location than it actually is in. There is not a character and a figment of the character, there is the character who has magically distorted light to make it appear he is someplace he isn't.Isnt that what I have been saying all along...the figure seems to vanish and a glamer projection of the character appears in the same square but not right next to them.
Since this effect distorts and plays with light, isnt that fooling with the Rogues senses - in this case, sight. And he requires his sight to percieve and pick out the vital areas he wants to strike...how can he achieve this when his senses are fooled by the spell and making him believe hes attacking the real opponent.
No, you keep talking about the person becoming invisible and creating a figment (a different type of Illusion) that appears 2 feet away.
The pencil is still clearly there, all you have to do is recognize that it is not where it appears to be.
Not so much bent as "dislocated a fraction of an inch." Though it probably depends on the angle of observation for that.
Ahh, but don't we know of the dislocation only because we can see both the refracted and unrefracted portions of the object?
Sure, it "seems to disappear" except it reappears in a slightly different location than it actually is in. There is not a character and a figment of the character, there is the character who has magically distorted light to make it appear he is someplace he isn't.Isnt that what I have been saying all along...the figure seems to vanish and a glamer projection of the character appears in the same square but not right next to them.
Since this effect distorts and plays with light, isnt that fooling with the Rogues senses - in this case, sight. And he requires his sight to percieve and pick out the vital areas he wants to strike...how can he achieve this when his senses are fooled by the spell and making him believe hes attacking the real opponent.No, you keep talking about the person becoming invisible and creating a figment (a different type of Illusion) that appears 2 feet away.
The pencil is still clearly there, all you have to do is recognize that it is not where it appears to be.
Yes its still there but its not clearly percieved, in this case it appears to be up to 2 feet away. If something appears to be 2 feet away and you attack it in some precise manner to achieve a Sneak Attack, anything that fools with a Rogues senses disrupts his Sneak Attack because the Rogue can t clearly see his target to pick out a weak point. If an illusion hides the target and creates a projection within 2 feet then how is the Rogue achieving a Sneak Attack against the hidden, glamered foe?
Not so much bent as "dislocated a fraction of an inch." Though it probably depends on the angle of observation for that.Ahh, but don't we know of the dislocation only because we can see both the refracted and unrefracted portions of the object?
Which is why you would have to hit the character first *face palm*
This has been done to death. Next time I see some one try to make an argument that has been beaten to death, I am going to say "read the thread."
Yes its still there but its not clearly percieved, in this case it appears to be up to 2 feet away. If something appears to be 2 feet away and you attack it in some precise manner to achieve a Sneak Attack, anything that fools with a Rogues senses disrupts his Sneak Attack because the Rogue can t clearly see his target to pick out a weak point. If an illusion hides the target and creates a projection within 2 feet then how is the Rogue achieving a Sneak Attack against the hidden, glamered foe?
The Rogue disbelieves the illusion.
|
Overcoming the 50% miss chance is seeing through that illusion and going for the kill.
I would think this be better represented by making your Will Save to see through the illusion. If you don't see through the illusion, you can't hit precisely enough for the sneak attack damage to be applied and you have a chance to miss as well.
That's how I see it at least. Everybody's game is going to be slightly different based upon differing interpretations, so just do what is going to be most fun for you and your players. There really is no need to convince anyone of playing YOUR way or MY way. Play how you like, just make sure that you and your players are all on the same page. The GM is the final arbiter.
EDIT: Actually I take my first paragraph back as Displacement states that the TARGET (which is a touched creature) gets the save to negate the spell taking effect. Ah well, that's what happens when I jump in too quick without doing my research thoroughly. :-)
The Rogue disbelieves the illusion.
Yes its still there but its not clearly percieved, in this case it appears to be up to 2 feet away. If something appears to be 2 feet away and you attack it in some precise manner to achieve a Sneak Attack, anything that fools with a Rogues senses disrupts his Sneak Attack because the Rogue can t clearly see his target to pick out a weak point. If an illusion hides the target and creates a projection within 2 feet then how is the Rogue achieving a Sneak Attack against the hidden, glamered foe?
The rogue doesn't get a will save to disbelieve. It is missing the following line from the save line to allow that:
"Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)"
Instead it has:
"Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)"
You can only save to disbelieve if the spell states that you can do so.
Saying the Rogue can disbelieve the Displacement is as relevant as saying a Rogue can disbelieve Invisibility, as it has been stated, the spell does not allow a saving throw to disbelieve.
A Rogue must be able to see his target precisely an accurately to deliver a sneak attack.
If all they see is a projection of a character thats removed up to 2 feet from the real spellcaster, how do they accomplish this?, anything that fools with a Rogues sense of sight messes up all Sneak Attack attempts.
Its the same with Invisibility, by your arguement that you "have to hit the character first", then someone who hits an Invisible character can deliver Sneak Attacks now he knows where they are...and that ISNT what happens. You dont see the character properly because the Displacement provides a form of Glamer that conceals their location up to 2 feet from the projection, this is why the spell mentions the words "your true location" in its description more than once.
A Rogue HAS to attack a vital area to deal sneak attack damage, if hes attacking what he percieves is the vital area and in reality its not, its only a glamer projection of a being that occupies the same square, how is the Rogue 'precisely' attacking the unseen opponent?, he cant.
End Result - If a Rogue's senses are fooled (as it is in this case with the Rogue not able to see through the Displacement effect) he attacks incorrectly and inaccurately, he can hit and deal damage by catching his enemy who occupies the same square but he cannot see it well enough to deal Sneak Attack. This is more than just a Concealment issue, it is all to do with how the Rogue sees the situation incorrectly due to the spell effect in question.
Which is why you would have to hit the character first *face palm*
This has been done to death. Next time I see some one try to make an argument that has been beaten to death, I am going to say "read the thread."
Or you could make your assumptions known, or be more specific. When someone asks whether Displacement denies Sneak Attack, do you really think they assume that you've already attacked and hit?
Is it your assertion that Sneak Attack is ineligible on the 1st attack against a Displaced target?
Edit: Nevermind. I found your post on page 6 from 3 hours ago. In the same amount of time it takes to insult me, you could have pointed that out.
What's really odd is that, at least partially, I agree with you.
LOL @ wolfie
A Rogue relys on his senses to accomplish a sneak attack, how is it that if the Rogue's senses are fooled into attacking what they percieve to be their enemy only to have their attacks phase through and some hit the character in unexpected places (since they occupy the same square, the hidden character has 50% concealment from an invisibility like effect of the glamor affecting them).
A Rogue absolutely must be 100% precise with his Sneak Attack, he cant be off target by even the slightest degree. If hes fighting an opponent that he can see (which is the glamor projection) but cannot precisely locate (since the opponents image is all he can see but he knows the opponent occupies the same square as the image) the opponent, how does he pick out the vital areas on the opponent that hes trying to hit?
He cant just 'find' the character with the first hit and apply Sneak Attack with every other hit, thats idiotic, thats like saying someone who hits an invisible character or a blurred character could accomplish the same feat. It doesnt happen, not now, not ever.
I would welcome someone try to explain to everyone how someone can pick out the vital areas of a character whose appearance is hidden by a glamor which displaces his image to a given direction in 2 feet.
When the spell says that "The subject of the spell appears to be up to 2 feet from its true location" that IMPLYS that the character is not standing in the same place visually anymore, which IMPLYS he is invisible or has some invisibility type effect upon them granted by the spell. OTHERWISE the spell would read that it conjures an image that is paralell to the character (but then that would be MIRROR IMAGEwould it not?), the differece here is it doesnt say the character is visible, it says they appear to be 2 feet from their true location...
...that wording is quite specific. Meaning no-one can pinpoint their true location (the spell takes pains to explain how True Seeing thwarts this to proove my point) beyond having this projection to give them a clue. If the character was invisible and did not have a projection ext to them, this would not be an issue, but since the projection is there all his opponents know EXACTLY WHAT SQUARE TO TARGET and nothing more, but they still cannot pin down to the precise last detail where in that 5ft square they stand which is where the Sneak Attack fails.
I don't seem to recall angler fishermen being unable to shoot fish despite the "displacement" effect of the water....
They still have to account for refraction.
Mythbusters did a show about recreating ninja's abilities to shoot blowguns from under water (which has a distortion to objects above the surface of the water if you are under water). It was pretty neat, actually.
I have to say, I don't follow PoC's argument. If what she were saying was true, then how would anybody be able to hit someone who is displaced? Magic missiles wouldn't work. There would not be a 50% miss chance (everyone would be swinging 2' away from the actual target). It doesn't work that way.
It gives you a 50% miss chance. Period. That applies to anyone rolling an attack roll against the target. The displaced person is targetable. Let me emphasize that point. The displaced person is targetable. Magic missiles will not miss. Why doesn't the magic missile miss? Who cares?!? They don't. It's an abstract system.
Saying the Rogue can disbelieve the Displacement is as relevant as saying a Rogue can disbelieve Invisibility, as it has been stated, the spell does not allow a saving throw to disbelieve.
It doesn't give concealment either.
Everyone is getting away from the REAL issue here.
PIE>CAKE
Everyone is getting away from the REAL issue here.
Cheesecake>PIE>CAKE
Fixed it for ya. :oP
Saying the Rogue can disbelieve the Displacement is as relevant as saying a Rogue can disbelieve Invisibility, as it has been stated, the spell does not allow a saving throw to disbelieve.
But the caster is not invisible. If he was, the description would say so. As it's written it doesn't actually say anything about the caster becoming invisible.
A Rogue must be able to see his target precisely an accurately to deliver a sneak attack.If all they see is a projection of a character thats removed up to 2 feet from the real spellcaster, how do they accomplish this?, anything that fools with a Rogues sense of sight messes up all Sneak Attack attempts.
Its the same with Invisibility, by your arguement that you "have to hit the character first", then someone who hits an Invisible character can deliver Sneak Attacks now he knows where they are...and that ISNT what happens. You dont see the character properly because the Displacement provides a form of Glamer that conceals their location up to 2 feet from the projection, this is why the spell mentions the words "your true location" in its description more than once.
A Rogue HAS to attack a vital area to deal sneak attack damage, if hes attacking what he percieves is the vital area and in reality its not, its only a glamer projection of a being that occupies the same square, how is the Rogue 'precisely' attacking the unseen opponent?, he cant.
This is more than just a Concealment issue, it is all to do with how the Rogue sees the situation incorrectly due to the spell effect in question.
Since you want to apply realism to the issue, let's do it properly.
1. What the rogue sees is an optical illusion, not a projection (otherwise the spell wouldn't have been named "displacement", and be worded like it is).
2. The spell does not alter sound or tactile feedback, hence the rogue would technically be able to rely on his other senses to ensure that he lands a good hit, using the displaced image as apoint of reference, since it's only his sight which is fooled. You seem to imply that the spell fools all of his senses, which the wording of the spell doesn't support.
The meaning of the actual word glamer support this.
"2. (archaic, Scottish) The visual influence of a charm, causing people to see things differently from what they are. Hence, to cast a glamer is to cause a visual deception."
3. A sneak attack is more than just being able to see the target. The Sneak Attack description says this about sight:
"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."
We have established that the rogue must be able to see his target, we have also established that he can do so (even though you might object).
"Well enough to pick a vital spot" implies that while indeed he has to be able to see a vital spot, it doesn't have to be perfect in order to be effective. So we could argue that while he does indeed see an illusion, he could rely on his other senses, intuition or just plain dumb luck to land a striking blow.
Also, as I stated earlier, sneak attack is more than sight.
"If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
Again, sight is a part here, but we're being realistic here right? The "catch an opponent off guard" part implies that while indeed he needs to see the target and a vital spot of it, a successfull sneak attack is also the attack where the rogue has used his cunning and wit to attack at the right moment. It could be that the character accidentally or unknowingly made a sound or something other which the rogue picked up and acted upon. The rogue would have to beat the miss chance again because the caster most likely would not stand in the same spot if he got stabbed at (successfully or not), thereby moving the illusion with him.
5. As earlier stated, the attacks rolled are not the only ones that actually take place (although most people visualize it that way, which is perfectly fine). But the rolls are the attacks that matter, the ones where a character gets a big enough advantage to cause serious injury.
Still, 50% is a pretty big chance of failure. Add to that, also, that in order to get that 50% roll the rogue has to either get the character flanked or be concealed himself, as well as actually get over the AC.
I see your reasoning in that the vital spot isn't actually where appears to be, but that reasoning starts to crumble when you apply the other possibilities (which you have to if you want to apply realism).
Also:
Kladdkaka>>Cheesecake>PIE>CAKE
I can't believe I wasted time looking through this thread.
This is one of the simplest spells to use in the game. If you attack someone with displacement on, you...check your miss chance, and if you beat it(and the AC), ...you hit! If the attack happened to be a sneak...well then it is a sneak attack. taaadaa!
|
|
It doesn't give concealment either.
It does, however, act as if it gives you total concealment
...as if it had total concealment
then it goes on to say why it isn't actual total concealment.
Unlike actual total concealment...
You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
So, by the way I read the displacement spell description, it acts as if you have total concealment with the caveat that you already know what square the displaced character is in, therefore, no guess required to target. Hence, the "does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally" line.
EDIT: so coming back to the original question on page 1 (wow this is a crazy discussion), it depends...
It depends on if you think the spell gives enough concealment to negate the Rogue's sneak attack ability.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot
|
Any of you ever tried to spear for fish in water? The image of the fish appears further ahead of the actual location of the fish. This is known as apparent displacemnt as a consequence of light difraction (bending of light as it passes from one medium to another).
You can still see the fish perfectly fine. You can still line up the spear to pass through the gill region for a quick and clean kill. However you'll miss if you don't adjust for the apparent displacemnt.
This is basically what the displacemnt is doing. You're not invisible. You don't have any concealment. You're image just appears to be in a slightly differnt spot to where you actually are.
The spell doesn't say the image shifts. It doesn't say the 50% chance to hit is due to luck either. It's just a miss chance. See my post earlier about possible alternatives to "luck" that makes this % chance reasonable. People keep adding their own addendums to why this shouldn't work despite the fact the rules don't say them at all. (Luck isn't mentioned anywhere in the miss chance for the spell). It's merely a mechanic to explain any number of ways the spell could make you miss sometimes.
Cheers
It doesn't give concealment either.It does, however, act as if it gives you total concealment
In such a manner as it explains - by providing a 50% miss chance.
|
|
Any of you ever tried to spear for fish in water? The image of the fish appears further ahead of the actual location of the fish. This is known as apparent displacemnt as a consequence of light difraction (bending of light as it passes from one medium to another).
You can still see the fish perfectly fine. You can still line up the spear to pass through the gill region for a quick and clean kill. However you'll miss if you don't adjust for the apparent displacemnt.
This is basically what the displacemnt is doing. You're not invisible. You don't have any concealment. You're image just appears to be in a slightly differnt spot to where you actually are.
The spell doesn't say the image shifts. It doesn't say the 50% chance to hit is due to luck either. It's just a miss chance. See my post earlier about possible alternatives to "luck" that makes this % chance reasonable. People keep adding their own addendums to why this shouldn't work despite the fact the rules don't say them at all. (Luck isn't mentioned anywhere in the miss chance for the spell). It's merely a mechanic to explain any number of ways the spell could make you miss sometimes.
Cheers
I think that the best way to put it.
BTW Cheesecake with strawberry topping trumps all!!
EDIT: Also, wondering when the Hell someone from Paizo is actually going to comment on this thread....
|
In such a manner as it explains - by providing a 50% miss chance.It doesn't give concealment either.It does, however, act as if it gives you total concealment
Except it calls out the difference that it allows normal targeting. So you can interpret it as only the 50% miss chance, or everything but the unable to be targeted bit. It is an unclearly written rule that can be ruled either way.
EDIT: Also, wondering when the Hell someone from Paizo is actually going to comment on this thread....
Never. I think they purposefully ignore rule question threads.
Heh guys are we really on page 8 of something that got answered on page 1?
Just checking
I dont see why anyone cannot follow what I am saying...
"Displacement" says specifically you appear up to two feet from your true location.
So by some peoples arguements, it doesnt matter if that person is 2 feet to the left or the right, an attack on the projected image should score a sneak attack regardless if it beats the 50% miss chance.
Here is the question...why would the spell even bother to metion that you appear up to 2 feet from your true location?, thats not visual fluff text there, thats a legitimate effect of the magic itself.
My arguement is this, to put it simple.
1.) "Sneak Attack" specifically states they must see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. Now, this very definition implies the Rogue is targeting the characters vital areas without any sort of impairment of complication.
2.) A "Displaced" character occupies the same 5ft square as his projected image, WHY would there be a 50% miss chance at all if it was not based on visual input which the Rogue requires to make the sneak attack in the first place.
3.) Even if the Rogue were to rely on his other senses (as others have said) then that very logic would imply that someone could use this method on an Invisible character. ("Oh I hit him in the body, let me aim a little higher with the next one to catch him in thr throat!") No, that doest work, you dont 'adjust' your aim mid-turn. A Sneak Attack attempt is made from the beginning of the turn onward, you dont approximate an opponents weak points if you dont see them - thats guesswork and Sneak Attack is NOT guesswork. That and a combat round only lasts a few seconds, you dont have time to 'analyse' each hit as it lands
4.) "Displacement" says you appear to be 2 feet from your true location. So your 'vital areas' that a Rogue tries to sneak attack are actually 2 feet away from where they are trying to strike at. Sneak Attacks are about precision, nowhere does Sneak Attack say you have a 24 inch margin of error. Sneak Attacks are about analytical precision, you pick out a target and strike at it, this isnt some vague or clumsy effort as some people made it sound like - its something Rogues and Ninjas are good at, and its about hitting an opponents weak points but they have to accurately see whats before them first.
5.) It doesnt matter if a Rogue hits a target he cannot accurately make out or see, such as a Blur effect, Invisibility or Displacement effect, because hes not able to accurately pick out the vital areas hes trying to strike. In the case of Displacement, hes picking out the vital areas of this projection he sees, and not the vital areas of the character standing 2 feet to the side, diagonal corner away from or even in front of or behind the projection.
6.) The Displaced character occupies the same 5ft square as his projection, it doesnt matter how they are attacked, all attacks into that 5ft square recieve the same 50% chance to hit afforded by the Total Concealment like effect the Displaced character has. Having Blind-Fight will give someone a second chance to hit. A fighter type with this feat stands a very good chance of hitting his opponent, even so does a Rogue, but concealment/miss chance can spoil even the most skillful attack, which is why the miss chance is based on luck not skill because a character cannot overcome this simply from having a good base attack bonus and good ability scores, and is dictated by a percentile die roll that can ruin the whole attack (Example..."I scored a critical hit!, and confirmed!....oh crap, I didnt make the 50% roll, what a waste...").
7.) If "Displacement" worked less usefully than "Blur", then why would anyone bother with it?, both spells are Illusion(Glamer) spells. One spell is a natural progression of the other. If one spell did not have the same descriptor as the other, this would not be an issue. Plus there are items that grant miss chance as these two spells, and one is a greater version of the other.
8.) Further more, read the spell fully. 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." Why would the spell bother to metion Total Concealment and then explain the singular exception to it?, Total Concealment offers a 50% miss chance due to Concealment...so the miss chance is due to concealment. The spell defines the sigular difference in that as is normal with Total Concealment, foes have to randomly target empty squares to try and find a hidden or invisible foe. That doesnt happen here, if you apply the mechanics of the spell and attribute it to the Concealment section of the book, compare them. You'll see the only difference is there is no random squares to target, you know which square to 'target', not the opponent itself, and attacks are made into that square.
Smurf.
Smurf.
Go smurf yourself!