I found a nearly 1000 post long thread but i don't think there was ever an official ruling....
Would casting Blink (50% miss chance for not being on the material plane) work with the spell Displacement (50% miss chance for not being where the attacker thinks you are)?
If they do would it be a 75% miss chance total or two separate 50% miss chances.
If this has already been covered I apologize ahead of time.
thanks
I'd say 2 separate 50% chances, on to tag where he actually is, the second to see if he's there at that particular moment.
thats what i figured... all the same I appreciate it greatly
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, multiple effects that grant concealment do not stack. I'd say that having blink and displacement effects going simultaneously would only result in one 50% miss chance as a result (even though blink's effects grant a miss chance in a manner rather different than actual concealment, the in-game effect is identical). By not having multiple rolls to determine if the concealment works and consolidating them all into one, combat should run quite a bit smoother (since any time you can eliminate the need for a die roll during play, the result is faster combat).
First after blue ... no wait, wrong game. ;-)
I'm with James Jacobs here - my answer as a GM would be "You're already blinking. So, you're 'displaced' well and good. There's no chance to increase that without going fully ethereal or something else. Period. Now suck it up like a man."
I stand corrected, tell your wizard he can save his life preserving magic up to last twice as long in a fight.
So someone protected by blink, displacement, and entropic shield would only have a 50% miss chance against a crossbow wielder?
The only real value of having 3 different effects that give miss chances is when you get someone who has see invis to ignore your displacement the blink and entropic shield are still there.
Or if you get hit by faire fire now your blink and displacement are hosed but you have entropic shield.
So having them both helps you if someone pwns one of your defenses.
Is this official errata, or just a personal house-rule to expedite gameplay?
That'll revise a heck of a lot of people's spell selection.
If you're completely invisible, then you have a 50% miss chance.
Its really hard to get better concealment than complete concealment.
Although Blink might work a little different since its not so much concealment as it is just not being there at all.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this official errata, or just a personal house-rule to expedite gameplay?
Nothing is official errata until it's incorporated into a hardcover or PDF. And this isn't even errata. It's a clarification; the rules are already in the book, so they don't need to actually change. They just need to be clarified. That's something that, hopefully, the upcoming FAQ will help to handle.
In the end, play the game you like the way you like. I'm just here to provide clarifications where I can and to explain rules interpretations. Personally, I think that reducing extraneous rolls during combat is a good thing overall and that adding more roles than is really necessary is clutter.
There's no need to make any extra rolls for multiple percentage dice. Two 50% miss chances = 75% miss chance. Two 50% miss chances and a 20% miss chance = 80% miss chance.
Is that RAW or RAI?
Hopefully, it's RAW and i haven't found it yet, as i'm playing a wizard a ruling on that would be orsm. Where specifically is that rule?
The only real value of having 3 different effects that give miss chances is when you get someone who has see invis to ignore your displacement [...]
See Invis don't help. You need True Seeing.
See Invis don't help. You need True Seeing.The only real value of having 3 different effects that give miss chances is when you get someone who has see invis to ignore your displacement [...]
Stated the wrong spell, see invis reduces blink chance of miss to 20%.
My bad sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the problem with combining the miss chances.
Lets say you have displacement and blurr. 50% and 20% chance.
Some argue that you should not have a 60% miss chance.
Both effects are a visual distortion of the true location of the creature. If I close my eyes the visual distortions are not precieved and are in face useless. Now I am at a 50% miss chance due to total concealment.
Now let's just look at the rules. Like effects do not stack. If I have concealment, adding more concealment does not improve the miss chance until I have total concealment.
Displacement: as if it had total concealment
Entropic Shield: similar to the effects of concealment
Blur: grants the subject concealment
Invisible: total concealment
Attacker blinded: total concealment
Obscurring Mist >5': total concealment
So a Displaced, Entropic Shielded, Blurred, Invisible guy being attacked by a blind guy in an obscuring mist has Total concealment a 50% miss chance.
The only one that you can argue to help is blink, since it does not provide concealment but a miss chance due to being etheral 50% of the time. Since you first have to hit him visually then hope the target is not on the etheral plane at the split second in time.
On this one I am torn, though since others do not stack for consistency I would say it does not stack and best miss chance if 50%.
Though I can see how you could require two rolls one for concealment effects and one for blinking.
Concealment may grant a miss chance, but not all miss chances are concealment, and it's very explicitly concealment that doesn't stack. If you ignore the invisibility portion (the concealment) of blink, then you have a 20% miss chance that exists because the person flat-out isn't there to be struck. Blur is actually a concealment effect, displacement is vague enough with the "as if it had total concealment" line to argue/clarify its status as concealment, while entropic shield says that it's only similar to, but not actually concealment (and in fact states that it deflects attacks). If it were concealment, then the language in Paizo and 3.5 would both say concealment, like blur does.
A suggestion or rule-of-thumb to just use the largest miss chance, though it would be more accurate to multiply the %'s together, is one thing and could be considered a viable house rule. Stating that it's a clarification is misleading, because the rules say nothing of the sort. If it was intended to be a change from 3.5, and its lack of change in the wording an oversight for whatever reason, then that's effectively future errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OgeXam: As written, because concealment doesn't stack, and that is an established written part of the rules; this is how an extreme situation should go:
Concealment: displacement*, blur, obscuring mist, invisibility, and a blind attacker.
Non-concealment miss chance: entropic shield
Total: two checks with a 50% & 20% miss chance = statistically identical to a single check with a 60% miss chance
*Interpreting the "as if it had total concealment" line to mean it stacks with other concealment effects as if it were
The only reason blink is such a bother is because its own math is wonky. Two separate 20% miss chances do not equal a single 50% (should be 36%), but it does for this spell for some reason, which makes predictions based on other effects wonky. I'd personally shoot from the hip and declare that any concealment greater than 20% would override the invisibility portion of blink and you'd have one chance for concealment and another for ethereality; which would be 60% miss chance mostly since any concealment greater than 20% would be 50%.
EDIT: Mathematically, here's a list of multiple miss chances and their equivalent, so it can be reduced to a single roll without changing the chances.
*20% and 20% is equal to a 36% miss chance
*50% and 20% is equal to a 60% miss chance
*50% and 20% and 20% is equal to a 68% miss chance
...that last one is for a displaced blinker shielded by entropy. It's a good thing that the resolution text for mirror image makes it effectively a form of concealment.
Is this official errata, or just a personal house-rule to expedite gameplay?Nothing is official errata until it's incorporated into a hardcover or PDF. And this isn't even errata. It's a clarification; the rules are already in the book, so they don't need to actually change. They just need to be clarified. That's something that, hopefully, the upcoming FAQ will help to handle.
Any news when it will it come?
all this is well and good, but I don't have it with me but I believe somewhere in the OGL rules that miss chance cannot be higher then 50%.
They did that change from back in 3.0 when there was so many different levels of concealment players where getting confused, so 3.5 stated only 2 types of concealment, partial (20%) and total (50%).
Pathfinder rules are based on that.
3.5 Unearthed Arcana flaw caused you to have to re-roll miss chances and take the WORSE result-so there's a WOTC example of higher than 50% miss chance.
That is re-rolling a miss change, it doesn't mean you change the 50% to 25%.
The Blind Fighting Feat allows a player to Re-roll miss chance too.
but that still doesn't change the fact that the miss chance is either 20% or 50%.
I got a question: How does Mirror Image interact with Blink?
Do the figments also shift into the ethereal plane and gain the 50% miss chance?
Not to mention that combining those two spells seems like a tad overpowered defensive option, since it creates a very high chance the caster won't be hit. Mirror Image could be controlled with Great Cleave, yet if for every image there is a 50% chance to miss it, that option falls away.
For that matter, how does Displacement work with Mirror Image?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got a question: How does Mirror Image interact with Blink?
Do the figments also shift into the ethereal plane and gain the 50% miss chance?
Not to mention that combining those two spells seems like a tad overpowered defensive option, since it creates a very high chance the caster won't be hit. Mirror Image could be controlled with Great Cleave, yet if for every image there is a 50% chance to miss it, that option falls away.
For that matter, how does Displacement work with Mirror Image?
Mirror image doesn't kick in until you hit the target. So... check for miss chance. If you miss, attack ends. If you hit, then check to see if you hit the actual target or an image.
I got a question: How does Mirror Image interact with Blink?
Do the figments also shift into the ethereal plane and gain the 50% miss chance?
Not to mention that combining those two spells seems like a tad overpowered defensive option, since it creates a very high chance the caster won't be hit. Mirror Image could be controlled with Great Cleave, [...]
No it can't.
Edit:Last we heard from Jason on the topic:
Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
Mirror image doesn't kick in until you hit the target. So... check for miss chance. If you miss, attack ends. If you hit, then check to see if you hit the actual target or an image.I got a question: How does Mirror Image interact with Blink?
Do the figments also shift into the ethereal plane and gain the 50% miss chance?
Not to mention that combining those two spells seems like a tad overpowered defensive option, since it creates a very high chance the caster won't be hit. Mirror Image could be controlled with Great Cleave, yet if for every image there is a 50% chance to miss it, that option falls away.
For that matter, how does Displacement work with Mirror Image?
Ugh, I feared as much. That makes combining Mirror Image with either Blink or Displacement grossly overpowered. As if melee didn't have enough problems getting arcane casters under control. >.<
No it can't.
Edit:
Last we heard from Jason on the topic:Although I need to take a closer look at the final wordings, my gut is telling me that the images are not adjacent and that they count as the same target, meaning the Cleave would not work here.
That'd be beyond stupid. Either the images count as separate targets ( in which case Cleave certainly counts ) or they don't ( in which case the spell does nothing ). Do we really need to make arcane casters so good that they show up melee at every turn?
One option for countering someone stacking mirror image with displacement is to close your eyes when you attack; as the first spell doesn't work against people who can't see the mage at all.
As for the separate target with cleave business, it's difficult to predict now that they've been condensed into a single square in the PF system.
@Darkon Slayer: Fine, then, we're not arguing, we're agreeing; displacement stacks with blink because it forces you to re-roll. No SINGLE miss chance is over 50%; there's just two separate miss chances.
you know I've never run into this as a DM, no one in my groups have ever tried to use both spells at the same time.
I'm not sure, there has never been a precedent for this, back in 2nd ed both spells did something entirely different, and that is where I got most of my experience as a player and DM.
I just took the time to read both very carefully, and I'd have to say its two rolls, yes, they are both 50% miss chance at their full capability.
but displacement specifically says as total concealment. Blink doesn't say anything about total concealment, hence they are 2 different sources of miss chance. now depending one the enemies capabilities they may be able to remove some or all of the effects. like using a magic missile while using true seeing negates both spells entirely.
One option for countering someone stacking mirror image with displacement is to close your eyes when you attack; as the first spell doesn't work against people who can't see the mage at all.
Noted. The problem is the Blink / Mirror Image combination, which explicitly, per Blinks text, disallows the blind-fighting solution.
As for the separate target with cleave business, it's difficult to predict now that they've been condensed into a single square in the PF system.
The images count as separate targets. It'd be beyond ridiculous if they wouldn't be affected by Cleave "just because".
Miss chances aren't bonuses, imo, as BAB, Saves, DR, SR... and should have their own rules for stacking, as DR and SR (i.e.)
"Multiple concealment conditions do not stack" and "Certain situations
may provide more or less than typical concealment, and
modify the miss chance accordingly." (Combat chapter) is all I can see in the book.
As a DM I would understand that a spell that gives a X% miss chance with the descripction "similar to the effects of concealment" is a situation that provides more or less concealment, limited by the description of the spell.
So imo Displacement gives 50% miss chance from concealment. Blink isn't concealment, unless you can hit ethereal creatures, then it gives 20% miss chance from concealment.
Displacement would not stack with Invisibility, which also gives concealment. And makes sense, as both spells prevent the attacker from knowing where the target is, Displacement can't be of any use if you can't see the target displacing (the target doesn't really moves). Instead a target blinking stays 50% of the time in another plane, so not only you can't properly see where he is, he isn't here 50% of the time.
I have checked the 3.5 FAQ to know how it was in 3.5, Skip Williams says that Blink stacks with Displacement for those reasons, Displacement gives concealment, Blink doesn't. He also says that a miss chance that doesn't come from concealment isn't concealment and thus doesn't prevent sneak attacks and such stuff.
However, since it is Pathfinder I will apreciate any clarification :-)
Edit: Oops what I checked is the 3erEd FAQ.
That'd be beyond stupid.
I actually agree wwith Jason. Calling it stupid isn't very nice.
But if you don't agree the 'rule' that's fine by me.
That'd be beyond stupid.I actually agree wwith Jason. Calling it stupid isn't very nice.
But if you don't agree the 'rule' that's fine by me.
To clarify: I didn't read your edit as a direct quote from Mr. Jacobs.
That being said, I am utterly aghast that he would rule the spell as such. I thought one of the intention of Pathfinder was to reduce the god-like status of arcane spellcasters compared to melee. Making them nearly untouchable as low as level 5 with the application of only two defensive spells is not right.
Nerfing Great Cleave, without even any real explanation why the images would not count as separate adjacent targets for the purpose of cleaving them, is beyond my comprehension.
Damn right I won't be ruling it that way. It's unbelievably wrong.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify: I didn't read your edit as a direct quote from Mr. Jacobs.
That being said, I am utterly aghast that he would rule the spell as such. I thought one of the intention of Pathfinder was to reduce the god-like status of arcane spellcasters compared to melee. Making them nearly untouchable as low as level 5 with the application of only two defensive spells is not right.
Nerfing Great Cleave, without even any real explanation why the images would not count as separate adjacent targets for the purpose of cleaving them, is beyond my comprehension.
Damn right I won't be ruling it that way. It's unbelievably wrong.
Wow. "Utterly aghast" seems like a pretty strong reaction. "Nearly untouchable" and "god-like" are also great examples of internet overreaction.
First: If you think it's so wrong that it insults and harrows you to the core of everything you know... don't listen to me. Run the spell the way you want.
Personally, I probably WOULD allow cleave/great cleave to take out mirror images, but folks didn't ask me how I would run things. They asked me for an interpretation of the rules as written, which, in my opinion, is a TERRIBLE way to slave yourself to the game. If you as the GM can't adjust the rules as you wish to make the game more fun for you and your players' play style, you might as well just be playing an MMORPG.
The way the feat and the spell are worded it seems pretty obvious that it wouldn't work that way. Because as written in Pathfinder RPG, you can't actually target a specific image; the only time you hit one is when you miss the target by 5 or less. You can't actually separately target an image, because the way the spell works, the caster PLUS his images is a single target.
Mirror image is a troublesome spell. It DOES extend combat unnecessarily, I think. Fundamentally, the goal of the spell is about the same as blur, and I think that ditching blur and just having mirror image grant 20% concealment would be a pretty good fix. That's not something we wanted to do with Pathfinder though. Maybe if the game stays popular long enough for us to do a 2nd edition a decade or so from now we'll make that change.
Eh, the original ruling (displacement and blink don't stack) is fine. I used to rule that it was a 20% miss chance (in ethereal plane) with an additional 50% miss chance (can't properly see the target) = 60% total miss chance. The difference of 10% miss chance is not worth ablooblooblooing about.
The ruling about Cleave not working on mirror image is simply a simplification of the mirror image spell. If you let Cleave work, then the images don't stay in one square (Cleave hits adjacent enemies, each enemy must be in its own square). If they're not in one square, then there's a whole bunch of management problems with that.
And it's not horribly broken -- just close your eyes. You ignore the mirror image effect entirely.
@ JJ
While I understand what you are saying may I suggest NOT doing that in any way for future editions?
I've played (like many here) since advance and one thing I do mourn is the fact that each edition cuts out a few more spells and reduces the ones left just a bit more. While the end effect of mirror image maybe similiar to blur it does it in a different way with a different mechanic which is something to be prized in my opinion. Yes it does add a layer of complexity in it's current incarnation, however the game is a complex one and to some extend that should be savored not banished simply to save a die roll.
I see it as a situation much like what's happened in evocation, where what damage dealing spell you cast doesn't really matter since they are all the same: This area for this save does 1d6 energy damage/level.
It's nice to use spells that have some different effects, or do something in ways that are not just "I swing my sword again."
Wow. "Utterly aghast" seems like a pretty strong reaction. "Nearly untouchable" and "god-like" are also great examples of internet overreaction.To clarify: I didn't read your edit as a direct quote from Mr. Jacobs.
That being said, I am utterly aghast that he would rule the spell as such. I thought one of the intention of Pathfinder was to reduce the god-like status of arcane spellcasters compared to melee. Making them nearly untouchable as low as level 5 with the application of only two defensive spells is not right.
Nerfing Great Cleave, without even any real explanation why the images would not count as separate adjacent targets for the purpose of cleaving them, is beyond my comprehension.
Damn right I won't be ruling it that way. It's unbelievably wrong.
And yet, the things flashing through my mind when I read your interpretation ( as cited by Zark ) was "OMG, this is terribly wrong!".
Looking once more at the exact wording of the spell, I think I was mixing the old rules with the new rules. As you explain below, the rules as written don't specify the images as separate targets. Why exactly the rules then were changed to make the spell even more powerful is another topic. Which I'd love to see addressed, because, really, this way arcane casters are obscenely overpowered in their defensive capabilities against melee, combinging Blink and Mirror Image. My reaction was more geared towards game balance reasons than your rules interpretation itself ( which was conflated from my old 3.5 memories of Mirror Images text )
First: If you think it's so wrong that it insults and harrows you to the core of everything you know... don't listen to me. Run the spell the way you want.
Personally, I probably WOULD allow cleave/great cleave to take out mirror images, but folks didn't ask me how I would run things. They asked me for an interpretation of the rules as written, which, in my opinion, is a TERRIBLE way to slave yourself to the game. If you as the GM can't adjust the rules as you wish to make the game more fun for you and your players' play style, you might as well just be playing an MMORPG.
Duly noted and I will do so. I don't want a game where it is an utter waste of an melee opponent to attack the arcane caster instead of the other characters.
The way the feat and the spell are worded it seems pretty obvious that it wouldn't work that way. Because as written in Pathfinder RPG, you can't actually target a specific image; the only time you hit one is when you miss the target by 5 or less. You can't actually separately target an image, because the way the spell works, the caster PLUS his images is a single target.
Mirror image is a troublesome spell. It DOES extend combat unnecessarily, I think. Fundamentally, the goal of the spell is about the same as blur, and I think that ditching blur and just having mirror image grant 20% concealment would be a pretty good fix. That's not something we wanted to do with Pathfinder though. Maybe if the game stays popular long enough for us to do a 2nd edition a decade or so from now we'll make that change.
You are right about how the current text works with Great Cleave. This is really making me unhappy, because I don't really understand why exactly Mirror Image was changed to be even more of a melee screw-over. I've been GM'ing for about six years now, and Mirror Image in combination with Displacement ( Blink was always banned in our campaigns for being too broken... in complete agreement with the arcane caster players, btw. ) has always been a source of much frustration for me, since it made it very difficult for melee opponents to really threaten the arcane caster.
My relief that arcane casters would get a check on their abilities in Pathfinder seems to have been premature. Oh, well. I guess I'll ban Blink once more and simply rule that Mirror Image will be Cleave-able. But I honestly don't get why the damn spell was made even more of a melee screw-over than before.
And it's not horribly broken -- just close your eyes. You ignore the mirror image effect entirely.
Not with Blink. Hence me, as noted above, effective now banning Blink once more in my campaign. A 20% miss chance for the arcane caster is not worth making him almost impossible to hit.
|
Creative Director
|
My relief that arcane casters would get a check on their abilities in Pathfinder seems to have been premature. Oh, well. I guess I'll ban Blink once more and simply rule that Mirror Image will be Cleave-able. But I honestly don't get why the damn spell was made even more of a melee screw-over than before.
That's the correct solution to most concerns with rules, to be honest. If something doesn't feel right or work well in your game, by all means, change it. Just try not to get all self-righteous and insulting and antagonistic if you ask us for a ruling and we happen to rule in a way that you don't like... that's all I ask.
|
Creative Director
|
Is this official errata, or just a personal house-rule to expedite gameplay?You can't get more official than James "Jonah" Jacob. :)
Now... it's comments like these that make me want to test the limits of my power.
NEW RULING: Whenever you cast mirror image, you have to roll an extra number of d20s each time you roll a d20 equal to the amount of additional images you have active. The GM gets to pick which of the d20 results is the ACTUAL result rolled by your actual character if he's annoyed that you cast mirror image.
My relief that arcane casters would get a check on their abilities in Pathfinder seems to have been premature. Oh, well. I guess I'll ban Blink once more and simply rule that Mirror Image will be Cleave-able. But I honestly don't get why the damn spell was made even more of a melee screw-over than before.That's the correct solution to most concerns with rules, to be honest. If something doesn't feel right or work well in your game, by all means, change it. Just try not to get all self-righteous and insulting and antagonistic if you ask us for a ruling and we happen to rule in a way that you don't like... that's all I ask.
My comments as to the rule interpretation being "utterly stupid" were actually a mix-up of my old memories of how Mirror Image was worded in 3.5 and not looking at the actual ruling as it is now, until after you went into detail why Cleave would't work. So that's entirely my fault and I apologize for that.
Now, as to how that new ruling effects game balance is another point. When I said I was totally aghast, I wasn't exaggerating. I am still feeling shocked, because I've had quite enough experience with the frustration of failing to at least control a buffed up wizard with one melee opponent. Making it even more difficult just seems so wrong.
Ah, well. GM fiat it is, then.
Not with Blink. Hence me, as noted above, effective now banning Blink once more in my campaign. A 20% miss chance for the arcane caster is not worth making him almost impossible to hit.
You can't take advantage of the Blind-Fight feat against blink. That is, you have a 50% miss chance with no rerolls against blink if you have the Blind-Fight feat.
If you close your eyes, you completely ignore the effect of mirror image. Even if you're blinking with mirror images, you still ignore the mirror images.
If you're blind and swinging at a blinking opponent, there's a 50% miss chance (blindness) and a 20% miss chance caused by the opponent possibly being in the ethereal plane. You don't stack multiple invisible/blindness/total concealment penalties together -- there's just one. 20% of a 50% chance to hit is 10%. You have a 50% + 10% = 60% chance to miss if you're blind attacking a blinking opponent. That's still a lot better than attacking a mirror-imaged-and-blinking wizard. Actually, if you follow what James suggested with blink not stacking with displacement, then it would just be a 50% miss chance still. . . but I think 60% is fair for stacking abilities.
|
Creative Director
|
Now, as to how that new ruling effects game balance is another point. When I said I was totally aghast, I wasn't exaggerating. I am still feeling shocked, because I've had quite enough experience with the frustration of failing to at least control a buffed up wizard with one melee opponent. Making it even more difficult just seems so wrong.
Ah, well. GM fiat it is, then.
The reason we changed the spell wasn't to make it work better. It was to make it be less complex in play; rather than having to recalculate an image's AC, the new version does that work for you by just saying if you miss a target by 5 or more you take out an image. Unfortunately, rewording the spell's text in this way does imply that you can't specifically attack an image anymore. That wasn't the actual intent of the spell. You SHOULD be able to target an image still, and a more open-minded interpretation of the spell's text would indicate that doing so is certainly possible.
The text: "If the attack misses by 5 or less" basically means that a mirror image's AC is equal to the target's AC – 5. So if someone wants to specifically target an image, say by throwing darts at multiple images or Great Cleaving them, he could do so since the image has an implied AC.