Displacements prevent sneak attacks?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a quick one... is somebody under a Displacement effect not sneak-able?

As a side note, does it prevent an AoO as well?

Relevant rules:

Sneak attack wrote:


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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Combat wrote:


Total Concealment:
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Displacement wrote:


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.


I would say that displacement protects from sneak attacks, as any concealment does, but not from AoO.

Liberty's Edge

What makes me doubt is if Displacement does give concealement or just a plain miss chance, as it says "as if it had". If it read instead "effectively granting" there would be no doubt :-P

In the Blur case, for example, there is no doubt, as it clearly says "This distortion grants the subject concealment".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spot is targeted by the rogue.
It just misses 50% of the time.


I think Freddy's right, if you play RAW, it's allowed.

Nevertheless, according to the sneak attack description, I would not allow it at my table :

Quote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

Well, I guess he can perfectly see the spot, and he can reach it as well... the issue is that he probably won't reach it when he tries:-P


Any degree of cocealment makes Sneak Attack impossible, even "Displacement", and even a character inside a "Darkness" spell's area vs a non-darkvision using Rogue gets 20% concealment or a character under a "Blur" effect gets this same 20% as well...

It states this specifically under Sneak Attack on PG 68

Quote:
The Rogue must be abe to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. A rogue CANNOT sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

So unless a Rogue has some way of penetrating the concealment completely then he NEVER gets his sneak attack, thats the rules as written.

Nothing about Concealment prevents attacks of opportunity however, see this on Page 197. The only time that Concealment does prevent an AoO is when the creature has "Total Concealment" (such as Invisibility).


Princess Of Canada wrote:

Any degree of cocealment makes Sneak Attack impossible, even "Displacement", and even a character inside a "Darkness" spell's area vs a non-darkvision using Rogue gets 20% concealment or a character under a "Blur" effect gets this same 20% as well...

It states this specifically under Sneak Attack on PG 68

Quote:
The Rogue must be abe to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. A rogue CANNOT sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

So unless a Rogue has some way of penetrating the concealment completely then he NEVER gets his sneak attack, thats the rules as written.

Nothing about Concealment prevents attacks of opportunity however, see this on Page 197. The only time that Concealment does prevent an AoO is when the creature has "Total Concealment" (such as Invisibility).

100% correct. Or if a creature is moving past you in the dark (and is effectively invisible to you).

This came up in a game this last week. Two weeks ago a Deeper Darkness spell was cast on the area I was in and, not being able to see a damned thing, I followed the wall away from the warrior attacking me in combat. He took a swing at me. I was unsure of the rules and didn't speak up. The following week our wizard turned invisible and walked past the BBEG but was not attacked, the reason being he was invisible. I argued that invisibility is functionally the same as being blind or being in complete darkness (total concealment) so the rules should apply the same. My DM however is under the feeling that Blind Fight should give one that ability and the guy who took a swing at me had BF. Blah, I'm bitter. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would follow with the 50% miss-chance here. Displacement does state that you can target the opponent...

"Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."

Which seems to me, that a Rogue would be able to stake out the sweet spot he wants to hit.


Pathos wrote:

I would follow with the 50% miss-chance here. Displacement does state that you can target the opponent...

"Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."

Which seems to me, that a Rogue would be able to stake out the sweet spot he wants to hit.

You're confusing things here.

A creature with *total* concealment cannot be the subject of 'targetted' spells nor AOOs.

That is what the line in the spell is referencing.

It still grants concealment, which prevents precision damage.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
Pathos wrote:

I would follow with the 50% miss-chance here. Displacement does state that you can target the opponent...

"Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."

Which seems to me, that a Rogue would be able to stake out the sweet spot he wants to hit.

You're confusing things here.

A creature with *total* concealment cannot be the subject of 'targetted' spells nor AOOs.

That is what the line in the spell is referencing.

It still grants concealment, which prevents precision damage.

-James

Actually that line could easily read as meaning you DON'T have concealment. "Unlike actual total concealment"

That line wouldn't be written that way if they intended you actually treat it like real concealment. Instead, you're to treat it like concealment only for effects expressly mentioned in the description, like miss chance. Miss chance is not automatically the same as concealment and they were clear about the two being separate in that spell.

If you were supposed to treat it like actual concealment the spell description would be much shorter: "This grants the recipient x% concealment." or something like that.

EDIT

Just to reiterate, because it's important, this spell does NOT grant concealment. It grants miss chance. (I checked the SRD to make sure I wasn't misremembering)


It should be mentioned that Displacement specifically states...

Quote:


Displacement
The subject of the 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 locatio and negates the miss chance

Total Concealment ordinarily prevents a creature from being specifically targeted - the spell provides this effect with the exception that the creature CAN be hit but ever in the way one expects - swinging at a Displaced opponent would provide unexpected and unpredictable results (stabbing a displaced foe in the back may infact catch it unexpectedly in the leg or the arm or something by accident (but is intetionally the way the spell works)).

So how can someone 'hit the sweet spot' of a creature that ISNT really standing where it appears to be?, you arent hitting the creature in the exact same place even if you get through the 50% miss chance. The exception to the 'concealment' rule here is that unlike TOTAL CONCEALMENT the creature CAN be attacked, there is NO guesswork (eg, like to 'target' the square you think a invisible character is in).

I fail to see how anyone can hit the "sweet spot" of a creature thats in reality 2 ft away from where it really is.

Thats like saying a rogue is stabbbing someone in the back and in fact his reach is unexpectedly had to extend further when he 'stabs' through the illusion (and assuming he makes the 50% miss chance) and catches the enemy in the arm or something instead.
How is that a sneak attack?...the spell specifically spells it out. The rogue can infact 'target' the opponent but given the fact the creature isnt really standing where it should be then it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a sneak attack without somehow bypassing the DISPLACEMENT effect


And that right there is why we have the 50% mis-chance. Because he does not appear where he actually is.

However, if fate is with the rogue and he succeeds on that check, then yeah.. that blade will certainly be hitting his target in the kidney.

Why? Because he can see just where he is targeting.


The Displaced creature isnt standing where the Rogue intends to strike however - so while he sees the illusionary figment of the target he isnt going to hit the targets kidney, hes going to poke the unseen character in an unexpected place and that is NOT how precision damage works.

In any case, having concealment is the same as miss chance - exactly the same, miss chance IS concealment - its only ever mentioned BECAUSE of concealment and is how the % is quantified as 'miss chance'. It works exactly the same way...where is the confusion here?...

The Sneak Attack says explicitly...that having ANY concealment makes sneak attack impossible. You cannot make sneak attacks against a creature if it has ANY amount of concealment (which is where miss chance comes from in the % value listed) because it cannot make out its opponent well enough or cannot see its true location which is how this spell works!


Interesting choices here. It depends on whether (A) there two and only two exact positions available: the real (beat the miss chance) and displaced/false (do not beat the miss chance), or (B) there are any number of true positions available that you can't detect, you're just hoping to get lucky and hit one of them, much like an invisible target.

At first I thought case A was the right choice, specifically because of the language "as if it had total concealment." I.e., it does not have invisibility/total concealment if you guess right, so to speak, and in that case, you are targeting exactly where you thought you were.

But I am moving toward the idea of case B, in which there are any number of positions the shifted target could occupy, the spell is like invisitibility regards hitting the actual body (swinging away in the dark at a 5-ft-square), BUT you do get the bonus of seeing a perfect image of what you're trying to hit. In other words, the chance of hitting the overall shape is 50%, but the chance of hitting that sweet spot is much less because it's like hitting a kidney or gap-in-the-armor sized target in the while 5-foot square...a small enough chance to say that precision is not possible.

As a DM, I would rule that you do not get sneak attack...and the discussion actually changed my opinion based on my thoughts coming into it, although both sides are well argued and appreciated.

Of course, there may be more to follow...


Displacement for all intensive purposes incorporates the various features...

1.) The displaced character is for all intensive purposes 'invisible' while an illusionary figment, complete in every detail stands 2 feet away from the target - this distance is what creates the 50% miss chance from the concealment (the 50% comes from the fact the real target is within reach but unseen, as it would be if it were someone attacking an invisible creature)

2.) The illusion changes the quality of this pseudo-invisibility by placing this figment/illusion 2 feet away, this allows a character to target the right square the target under displacement is under and that is why the normal qualities for 'total concealment' do not apply but the target is for all intensive purposes hidden invisibly 2 feet removed from what the characters is actually hitting.

3.) It doesnt matter if the Rogue can see the illusionary projection of the target, when they attempt a sneak attack they are striking at the vital areas of this illusion and unlike a 'Mirror Image' this replica doesnt vanish when hit, though since the real character is within 2 feet the odds of still striking the character is there sice the correct square is targeted (as it would be if you were striking an invisible character) but you CANNOT deliver precision damage to a invisible creature whose anatomy you cannot see). Striking the figment does NOT mean the character whos 2 feet away in any given direction is going to be standing right behind the figment - they could be off to the side, etc of it.

4.) You cannot deliver precision damage to a creature that has any degree of concealment - and miss chance is a product of concealment, not a seperate value. The rogue in this case is not really striking the target's true vital areas, they are attacking the figment they can see which is a totally different thing.

5.) Displacement's projection of the target 2 feet away is almost like the 'Mirror Image' spell, saying that a character can 'Sneak Attack' one of the copies and hurt the spellcaster who could be a few feet away or next to the attacked figment/illusionary double is preposterous. Even though the rogue can study the targets anatomy he is not striking the real one, but if by some odd luck he picked the right target and delivered sneak attack then it would be allowed since hes striking the real character who he can see clearly and isnt hidden nearby such as it is with Displacement.

In short, ANY effect that gives miss chance also means it has concealment - Displacement causes the target to be effectively invisible and have an illisionary copy appear 2 feet away from where they really are. To say a Rogue who cant see through this illusion can still deliver Sneak Attack is stupid frankly - because the you would be ruling that sneak attacks can be delivered within a whopping 24 inches (2 feet) margin of error. And that is NOT how Sneak Attack works as it requires PRECISION and is an exact science and cant be a 'coincidece'.

There really shouldnt be any confusion about this. If someone or something has miss chance/concealment it cannot be sneak attacked period unless the Rogue can see through it somehow. Thats the rules as written, not a houserule, it worked this way in 3.5 and here in Pathfinder.

The Exchange

Although she uses bold and italics way too much, she is right. Displacement acts like concealment except in the one way that it specifically states- being able to be targeted. Which means that spells such as Charm Person/Hold Person/Targeted Dispel Magic work without a problem, and that you will always know the right square to hit when you try to attack. Otherwise, it functions exactly like concealment.

Dark Archive

On the other hand. Can a displaced rogue sneak attack to an enemy like being invisible?


elnopintan wrote:
On the other hand. Can a displaced rogue sneak attack to an enemy like being invisible?

O,o?

LOL... good question.


elnopintan wrote:
On the other hand. Can a displaced rogue sneak attack to an enemy like being invisible?

Apoligies for the use of Italics and Bold in my posts, just stressing key points is all.

A Rogue using "Displacement" to achieve Sneak Attacks?, technically it would be allowed since the opponent knows the square where the attack is coming from but cant see attack coming from the hidden Rogue. Though that being said, "Blink" works terrifically to achieve this as well, giving round after round of sneak attack assuming of course his foe didnt have True Seeing or such active.

The Exchange

Actually, Blink specifically states that you are not treated as invisible while attacking anymore. Shame, but that's how it works now.


Hunterofthedusk wrote:
Actually, Blink specifically states that you are not treated as invisible while attacking anymore. Shame, but that's how it works now.

Ah, your right, didnt check that particular spell since running 3.5. Well Rogues have enough attack options as it is anyway, they are much better off than they were in 3.5 thats for sure. But concealment has always been and will always be a Rogues worst nuisance.


Displacement is not concealment and has no effect on sneak attack, aside from the 50% miss chance. Compare it to entropic shield vs a ranged sneak attack.


Zurai wrote:
Displacement is not concealment and has no effect on sneak attack, aside from the 50% miss chance. Compare it to entropic shield vs a ranged sneak attack.

Zurai...how do you come to this conclusion?

So the fact the actual target is invisible with a decoy 2 feet away does not affect his Sneak Attack in any way when hes WAY off the mark with his attack?. Displacement specifically says you HAVE concealment, how do you say it doesnt?, it only has a minor difference explained below.

Displacement specifically says it has 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment...with the only restriction being you dont need to randomly pick a square to target as you'd normally need to vs a being with total concealment (as you would against an invisible opponent...which is EXACTLY what the spellcaster here is, with an illusionary figment 2 feet away designed to throw his opponents off guard when they try to attack them)

Concealment is Concealment, the target is invisible, and a Rogue cannot sneak attack a creature he cant precisely see and the Rogue is studying a illusion not the real target, attacking an illusionary copy is as silly as saying a Rogue attacking a Mirror Image should achieve Sneak Attack if the real spellcaster stood next to the image that was sneak attacked, when all images would allow a Rogue to 'study where to hit' but hes not hitting the real thing where he should thats the point..

Theres no arrguement that the Rogue is sure hes got a sure thing on his attack, hits what he thinks is the weak point (assuming he makes the 50% chance), but hes not hitting that weak point, hes TWO FEET off his mark and could be hitting just about any part of the opponents body that he CANNOT see and thus cannot get sneak attack.

And on another note, Entropic Shield says you gain a 20% miss chance vs ranged attacks (similar to the effects of concealment). It is NOT caused by not being able to precisely target the characters anatomy, its just a magical effect that deflects the ranged attacks in unpredictable ways that make it impossible to deliver Sneak Attack damage. That means no Sneak attack, because the unpredictable miss chance afforded by the aura makes it hard to deliver the sneak attack. That being said, since it doesnt function exactly the same way (as it states SPECIFICALLY in the spell) it has no effect on ranged attacks other than to make them miss. If the 20% doesnt happen and the attack hits, then precision damage is done in this case.
But this doesnt apply to other spells I have seen - concealment IS concealment with spells that specifically mention it or that give you concealment (such as Deeper Darkness and so on).


Princess Of Canada wrote:
Displacement specifically says you HAVE concealment

False. It says you have a miss chance, AS IF you had concealment. That actually very explicitly states that it is not in any way concealment. Furthermore, the spell explicitly says it does not prevent the creature from being targeted normally.

And your mirror image argument is just beyond logic. Mirror image does not provide concealment. It doesn't even say "concealment" anywhere in the spell. In addition, the actual target isn't hidden in any way by mirror image, so the "must be able to clearly see the target" clause doesn't even come into the picture. Completely invalid comparison.

Like I said, compare it to entropic shield, which is the same thing as displacement except a lower miss chance and only vs ranged attacks.

EDIT: And no, displacement does not make the caster invisible. If it did, see invisibility and invisibility purge would thwart it. They don't.


Again, I will re-iterate...

Displacement says right at the start...

Quote:
"The subject of the spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location"

AND

Quote:
"The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True Seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance"

Zurai, under the effects of Total Concealment it says in the Core Rulebook you have to guess the location of the target and attack into that square, this spell functions in every way as if it had Total Concealment with the difference that the Rogue doesnt HAVE to guess which square to attack, hes just not going to precisely hurt the opponent where he planned to and thusly doesnt deal Sneak Attack.

Hes not where the Rogue thinks he is, he sneak attacks and hits the wrong spot (assuming he passes the 50% chance), he does damage but NOT sneak attack. What your proposing is that despite the unexpected 2 feet of distance the weapon has to travel to hit the target if the 50% chance is made, isnt going to hit the target in the same place that was meant to strike. Otherwise your proposing all Sneak Attacks have a 2 feet margin of error...Sneak Attack is precision damage, nothing about missing the mark by 2 feet is precise.


Princess Of Canada wrote:
this spell functions in every way as if it had Total Concealment

False. The only aspect of total concealment the spell grants is a 50% miss chance. Which is explicitly stated by the spell.

You're trying to define things precisely in an abstract combat system. The combat system is abstract for a reason. Attack rolls don't care where you are. If you beat the miss chance, your hit is exactly as effective as it would be otherwise.

Or are you claiming that a vorpal sword that rolled a natural 20 and confirmed the critical hit, then beat the miss chance, wouldn't decapitate a mage using displacement? After all, according to you, it missed by 2 feet.

Scarab Sages

I have to side with the people that say sneak attack would work against Displacement. The spell says you get a 50% miss chance, then uses Total Concealment as an example of other things that get 50% miss chances and as a place to reference what a miss chance is.

That's it. The spell doesn't say they actually get Concealment, it doesn't say they get anything else that Concealment would grant... it just calls out the 50% miss chance *specifically* and says 'btw, check out Concealment, that's how a miss chance works'.


It says under Sneak Attack

Quote:
"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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment!"

Breaking it down...

Displacement - Target is 2 feet from its true location (The Rogue does not know the true location, only where the creature occupys by the figment/glamer it created).
Does the Rogue precisely pick out the targets anatomy? YES (but it has picked out the glamer/illusions anatomy unknowingly)
Is the Rogue withi range of the attack? YES (Lets assume in this case they are)
Does the Rogue succeed in the 50% miss chance to hit the opponent? YES (but I doubt he was expecting it and certainly cannot predict it).
Is this location the Rogue hits unexpectedly a vital spot that was carefully picked out? NO (It was accidental and unexpected, this is a definitive requirement other than concealment that MUST be met)

End result.... No Sneak Attack, he hits the target and deals normal damage but hes not hitting what he aimed for.

Concealment isnt the only Sneak Attack negting factor, the real target 2 feet away was not seen carefully enough (or at all in this case) and no vital spot on the creature was picked out (only on the glamer/illusion that was the target). Concealment aside, the Rogue failed to see the target correctly and even then did not pick out the vital area he tried to hit because he cannot truly percieve its whereabouts precisely.


Princess Of Canada wrote:
Is this location the Rogue hits unexpectedly a vital spot that was carefully picked out? NO (It was accidental and unexpected)

There is no basis in the rules for this statement.


The Rogue failed to see his oppoent well enough (he could see a glamer/figment, not the real target) and despite Concealment that the target has despite his location being roughly known, the Rogue cannot land a sneak attack period unless hes getting through Displacement.

I am not overcomplicating the rules, it is how it worked in 3.5 and it is how it works here too, nothing has changed.

And as for the effects of Displacement itself, to "appear 2 feet from your true location", how is this NOT a huge issue for a Rogue using Sneak Attack?, hes not precisely seeing his REAL opponent.

He can hit his enemy without a doubt, but hes not getting Sneak Attack because hes not hitting the vital area he aimed for.


Princess Of Canada wrote:


The Rogue failed to see his oppoent well enough (he could see a glamer/figment, not the real target) and despite Concealment that the target has despite his location being roughly known, the Rogue cannot land a sneak attack period unless hes getting through Displacement.
Displacement wrote:
displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.


Zurai...Total Concealment PREVENTS the creature from being precisely targeted at all...Displacement is an exception to this, where the target area is visible but the creature still HAS Total Concealment. Check Concealment factors in the Core Rulebook.

The Rogue has to not only precisely pick out his opponents anatomy, he has to reach it and of course the target cant be obscured with concealment - which is IS in this case. The Rogue isnt seeing his opponent accurately, so it doesnt matter if he strikes the glamer/illusion in a vital area that is not what hes hitting if he passes the 50% miss chance, it could be an arm, leg or whatever else.

Your only latching onto the wording of one part of the spell, but it says it functions LIKE Total Concealment with that one singular difference.


Shooting a Displaced spellcaster in the head with a Crossbow who is actually 2 feet away from its true location is also a HUGE margin of error. Your going to wing the person, or clip them at best, but its not a vital strike if you dont accurately see the target properly (and not an illusionary figment thats put out there to fool people into attacking it)

When the spell says that "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally."
It doest mean deliver precision damage, it means you dont have to randomly pick a target area as would be normal for Total Concealment hidden characters (such as those who are invisible)
To argue this point, check the Concealment section (Page 197) and under Total Concealment it says you cannot execute AoO's and cannot target the creature accurately enough. The spell functions exactly like Total Concealment except the location of the character is revealed for the Rogue, he recieves AoO's against them since he can see them but hes not going to get Sneak Attack.

Sneak Attack requires 3 conditions and TWO of them arent met in this case...

Must be in Range, (He is within range)
Must adequately see an opponents anatomy, (No, the character can see the figments anatomy but cannot see the location of the real target 2 feet away)
Target cannot have concealment. (Which it does, you just dont need to target a random square to hit it which is ALL the spell excludes from the effects of Total Cocealment)


Princess Of Canada wrote:
Your [sic] only latching onto the wording of one part of the spell, but it says it functions LIKE Total Concealment with that one singular difference.

Quite the inverse, actually. It only acts like total concealment with respect to one factor (50% miss chance). All other factors of total concealment are ignored.

If it worked like you claim, the spell would read, "The subject of this spell gains total concealment, except that it can be targeted normally" (or something to the same effect).

If displacement provided actual total concealment-except-for-targeting, you would be able to use it to hide in plain sight and you would be immune to attacks of opportunity.


Princess Of Canada wrote:


Shooting a Displaced spellcaster in the head with a Crossbow who is actually 2 feet away from its true location is also a HUGE margin of error. Your going to wing the person, or clip them at best, but its not a vital strike if you dont accurately see the target properly (and not an illusionary figment thats put out there to fool people into attacking it)

This is why I say you're trying to de-abstract the abstract combat system.

  • You don't "try to shoot someone in the head" in Pathfinder, even with sneak attacks. You attack a creature, not a part of a creature (barring very specific monsters).
  • Your interpretation would also mean every attack would deal less damage, because every attack is aimed and thus would miss to some degree and thus cause less damage.
  • That does not happen. If you beat the miss chance, you do 100% of the damage you would normally deal, including critical hits and the effects thereof, including location-dependent effects such as from a vorpal sword.


  • Princess Of Canada wrote:
    Displacement for all intensive purposes incorporates the various features...

    Off topic: It's intents AND purposes, Princess.


    Zurai, how is Sneak Attack NOT attacking people in very precise locations such as the head, a major artery, etc. Thats what your proposing here, that Sneak Attack can be clumsily done with a large margin of error.

    "Shooting something in the head" is an example of Precision Damage, most characters cannot pick out the weak spots like a Rogue can.
    I quote this (again)...

    Quote:


    "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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment!"

    How is missing the target area by 2 feet precision?, thats a huge difference of location. And how is picking out a target thats 2 feet away from where it actually is 'seeing the target well enough to pick out a vital spot'?. the very act of picking the wrong target for the sneak attack is already a failure on the sneak attack attempt

    This is how its ALWAYS worked like since 3.5 and its no different here.


    Princess Of Canada wrote:
    Thats what your proposing here, that Sneak Attack can be clumsily done with a large margin of error.

    You can sneak attack with a banquet table.

    I rest my case.

    Quote:
    How is missing the target area by 2 feet precision?, thats a huge difference of location.

    You're assuming something that has no basis in the rules.

    If the rogue attacks, beats the target's AC, and beat's the target's miss chance, he has not missed by 2 feet. In fact, he's hit dead-on.

    Quote:
    This is how its ALWAYS worked like since 3.5 and its no different here.

    Please provide proof that this is how it officially worked in 3.5.


    I believe that Zurai is correct with his interpretation of the wording. However, I also believe that said wording is wrong.

    The intent of this spell is pretty obvious, in that it is meant to be a ramped-up version of Blur. And the intent of Blur is simply to give the subject of the spell a 20% miss chance due to not being able to see the target properly.

    In the case of Displacement, you see the subject just fine, but he's not where you think he is. If you poke your sword in his general direction, there's a 50% chance that you're going to miss him completly. If you do hit him, it's lucky, because he's not where you think he is. This is a constant effect. It's not like Blink, where half the time you're in the right place (in Blink's case, the physical plane), and half the time you're not.

    A target under the effect of Displacement is continually and imperceptibly (by most means) shifted to the side by 2'. No matter how carefully you aim, you're not going to hit what you're aiming at.

    Now, as stated before, the rules as written do NOT say this. Unfortuately, the fluff text describing Displacement does not match up with the mechanical effect of the spell. If we removed the first sentence, "The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet from its true location," there would be no arguement at all.


    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?

    Yes, but I'd allow a non-displaced character to do it too.


    i gotta agree with Zurai.

    there are several ways to negate miss chances

    a copper piece buys a bag of flour.


    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?

    Who is "you"?

    Regardless, the answer would be no. Displacement is pretty clear in that it does not provide Concealment, only a 50% miss chance.

    Blur got around this by stating that you have to be able to see the subject of the spell for it to have any effect. If you're being seen, you're being observed, and thus you can't use Stealth.

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?
    Yes, but I'd allow a non-displaced character to do it too.

    Uhm, why?


    ZappoHisbane wrote:
    The intent of this spell is pretty obvious, in that it is meant to be a ramped-up version of Blur. And the intent of Blur is simply to give the subject of the spell a 20% miss chance due to not being able to see the target properly.

    I don't think it is safe to assume that the parameters of one spell carry over to a separate spell that is related only in function when said parameters are not explicitly stated.

    For example, it's pretty clear that wall of thorns is a ramped-up version of entangle. They serve exactly the same intent: long-term area denial. It is not, however, safe to assume that wall of thorns gives creatures within its area the Entangled condition. Why? Because it doesn't say it does.

    Similarly, displacement makes great pains to not grant concealment (whereas blur explicitly does grant concealment) or any of the benefits thereof except for miss chance. It also very specifically says it does not interfere with targeting.

    That's why I keep comparing it to entropic shield, and Princess keeps ignoring that comparison.


    By all intensive purposes then Displacement is practically useless then against Rogues, everyone should use Blur instead even through that spell is a weaker version of Displacement. I would rather have a 20% miss chance that guarantees a Rogue could never sneak attack me whereas I'd have a spell that might protect me from it 50% of the time.

    Missing a target by 2 feet and winging it accidentally (and luckily) is not delivering precise attacks to vital areas.

    That is like saying your poking a training dummy in the heart but its somehow hidden by an illusion and you actually poked at where you thought it was and somehow clipped it in the arm.

    And as for using it to sneak?, no, because your still there, albeit the illusion is there doing everything you do exactly, and it stays within 2 feet of you, it would not provide you with any advantages for stealth because the illusion is fully visible to all just as you were.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?
    Yes, but I'd allow a non-displaced character to do it too.

    Add: While observed.


    ZappoHisbane wrote:
    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?

    Who is "you"?

    Regardless, the answer would be no. Displacement is pretty clear in that it does not provide Concealment, only a 50% miss chance.

    Blur got around this by stating that you have to be able to see the subject of the spell for it to have any effect. If you're being seen, you're being observed, and thus you can't use Stealth.

    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Robert Young wrote:
    Would you allow a displaced character in open, well-lit terrain to make a stealth check due to displacement?
    Yes, but I'd allow a non-displaced character to do it too.
    Uhm, why?

    'You' meaning the participants in this thread.

    1 to 50 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Displacements prevent sneak attacks? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.