I hate to dredge this old argument up, but I can't seem to find an answer. There was a lengthy thread not long ago about how Displacement doesn't prevent sneak attack since it isn't proper concealment (though blur would) what about Blind Fight?
Whether it is genuinely concealment or not, it makes sense to me that if you aren't precisely where you seem to be Blind Fight would help you figure that out. If nothing else, a fighter could close his eyes and gain the benefit of Blind Fight against a monster with full concealment, same 50% miss chance really.
I hate to dredge this old argument up, but I can't seem to find an answer. There was a lengthy thread not long ago about how Displacement doesn't prevent sneak attack since it isn't proper concealment (though blur would) what about Blind Fight?
Whether it is genuinely concealment or not, it makes sense to me that if you aren't precisely where you seem to be Blind Fight would help you figure that out. If nothing else, a fighter could close his eyes and gain the benefit of Blind Fight against a monster with full concealment, same 50% miss chance really.
Looks that way. If you miss because of concealment reroll is the rule in blind-fight. I would say displacement counts as 50% concealment regardless of the wording issue, that is what it does and it works against invisible which is way stronger than displacement.
If he closed his eyes he would have the 50% chance to miss to contend with, but he would get two rolls to make the hit instead of just one.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yeah; Blind Fight and closing one's eyes when the attack occurs is actually a not-bad option when you're facing foes with effects like displacement or mirror image.
Since the combat round is supposed to approximate simultaneous full-round actions, I'm a stickler for allowing only a standard action with eyes closed unless the person wants to be blind until the start of their next turn. Basically, if you're spending _your_ whole round with your eyes closed (which is what taking a full action action implies), you're spending the whole round with your eyes closed :) It can still be a good choice under those rules, especially with a low-Dexterity fighter and foes who don't gain anything special against Dex-down enemeis.
IMHO: If you think the spell effect can count as a form of concealment (imo it should, but it isn't clear) then the feat works without closing your eyes.
The feat speaks only of one exception (altough other exceptions may apply):
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a
character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Furthermore the spell is a glamer(a type of illusion), it means:
Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory
qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like
something else, or even seem to disappear.
The spell doesn't really makes the spellcaster move or blink, if you can't see the illusion the spell isn't relevant.
So always you can close your eyes and use the "blind" condition rules, concealment never stacks!I'm not sure if I would allow that for a charge, if you are blind when you are moving you can't charge, and closing your eyes just before you do the attack looks strange to me.
Yeah; Blind Fight and closing one's eyes when the attack occurs is actually a not-bad option when you're facing foes with effects like displacement or mirror image.Since the combat round is supposed to approximate simultaneous full-round actions, I'm a stickler for allowing only a standard action with eyes closed unless the person wants to be blind until the start of their next turn. Basically, if you're spending _your_ whole round with your eyes closed (which is what taking a full action action implies), you're spending the whole round with your eyes closed :) It can still be a good choice under those rules, especially with a low-Dexterity fighter and foes who don't gain anything special against Dex-down enemeis.
The problem with that ruling, imo, is that you've essentially made opening your eyes a move action. Therefore closing your eyes would have to be a similar action (it takes the same amount of effort). So as long as everyone blinks once every 6 seconds, no one gets a turn at all!
Yeah; Blind Fight and closing one's eyes when the attack occurs is actually a not-bad option when you're facing foes with effects like displacement or mirror image.
In our games, we haven't been all that specific on how the attack occurs when using different feats, but I imagined Blind Fight being used in that way, sort of using the other senses to locate a target (a certain Jedi training exercise comes to mind). So really, I just assumed they closed their eyes anyway if only for a moment. I gave them the re-roll without another thought.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The problem with that ruling, imo, is that you've essentially made opening your eyes a move action. Therefore closing your eyes would have to be a similar action (it takes the same amount of effort). So as long as everyone blinks once every 6 seconds, no one gets a turn at all!
No, I haven't. I've said that if you want to move, then attack with your eyes closed, no problem, you can keep your Dex bonus. If you want to attack four times with your eyes closed, you have to keep them closed for the whole round (i.e. until the start of your next turn), because you're keeping them closed for the duration of an action that's supposed to last an entire round. If someone took a double move with their eyes closed (say to avoid a trap), I'd handle it the same way.
You still get your full number of actions.
Not sure how you got the idea I was requiring a move action to close your eyes, but it's not even close to what I wrote.
Not sure how you got the idea I was requiring a move action to close your eyes, but it's not even close to what I wrote.
You're right. Replied without really thinking it through, I suppose. Apologies for being snarky unnecessarily.
The problem with that ruling, imo, is that you've essentially made opening your eyes a move action. Therefore closing your eyes would have to be a similar action (it takes the same amount of effort). So as long as everyone blinks once every 6 seconds, no one gets a turn at all!No, I haven't. I've said that if you want to move, then attack with your eyes closed, no problem, you can keep your Dex bonus. If you want to attack four times with your eyes closed, you have to keep them closed for the whole round (i.e. until the start of your next turn), because you're keeping them closed for the duration of an action that's supposed to last an entire round. If someone took a double move with their eyes closed (say to avoid a trap), I'd handle it the same way.
You still get your full number of actions.
Not sure how you got the idea I was requiring a move action to close your eyes, but it's not even close to what I wrote.
I can see the reasoning behind that, but I don't agree. There's a difference between a full-round action and a 1-round action; the latter is completed just before your initiative count next turn, but the former is completed on your initiative count and not still ongoing when your opponents take their turns.
You can take a full attack action with a weapon and then drop is as a free action, which would leave you unarmed during all of your opponents' turns -- despite obviously having a weapon in your hand during all of your attacks. If we agree that opening or closing your eyes is also a free action, there seems little reason not to allow it similarly.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The only reason I need is that I dislike combat tactics that take undo advantage of the phased nature of the combat round. I'm also not likely to let someone take the run action up to a horse, quick mount it, and then use the horse's movement. Or let someone use a wand and then hand it to a friend to use on their turn (and in the same round). I like to enforce some level of the implied simultaneity of the combat round.
The only reason I need is that I dislike combat tactics that take undo advantage of the phased nature of the combat round. I'm also not likely to let someone take the run action up to a horse, quick mount it, and then use the horse's movement. Or let someone use a wand and then hand it to a friend to use on their turn (and in the same round). I like to enforce some level of the implied simultaneity of the combat round.
Fair enough. I don't really believe in the "implied simultaneity of the combat round", and believe that attempting to enforce it results in a lot of absurdity, while accepting the actual (and rules-enabled) chronology of combat leads to none.
In fact, RAW, there is no such thing as simultaneous actions; things always resolve in some order.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Fair enough. I don't really believe in the "implied simultaneity of the combat round", and believe that attempting to enforce it results in a lot of absurdity, while accepting the actual (and rules-enabled) chronology of combat leads to none.
In fact, RAW, there is no such thing as simultaneous actions; things always resolve in some order.
The 3.5 rules actually went in to this, along with some other useful concepts that fell by the wayside as two books were condensed into one. But if nothing else, the mere existance of the full round action, which "requires a full round to complete" (PF RPG p. 187) implies actions are going on simultaneously, and are handled phased (sensibly) for ease of play.
I'm prone to judge the game in way that keeps in the spirit of its roots in fantasy literature, rather than letting "rules as written" turn the game into mere numbers. Luckily, I play a game that endorses that approach :)
I can see the reasoning behind that, but I don't agree. There's a difference between a full-round action and a 1-round action; the latter is completed just before your initiative count next turn, but the former is completed on your initiative count and not still ongoing when your opponents take their turns.
You can take a full attack action with a weapon and then drop is as a free action, which would leave you unarmed during all of your opponents' turns -- despite obviously having a weapon in your hand during all of your attacks. If we agree that opening or closing your eyes is also a free action, there seems little reason not to allow it similarly.
I am not sure theres a real difference between a full-round action and a 1-round action.
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.
If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.
If you drop your weapon at the end of your turn thats virtually the same as dropping it at the beginning of your next turn. Which is probably what you would do anyway and could easily be assumed.
I'm sure there are very few situation(worth mentioning) where assuming that your turns overlap would pose any significant problems.
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.
To me, I would read this as Displacement working like Concealment except that you accurately know what square to target. Yes, I can see ways it could literally read counter to that, but for the standard of crunch writing we´ve all come to expect, that seems the closest to RAI in my eyes. So I would allow Blind-Sight to work vs. Displacement. I feel like I read a reference some-where saying that ´all miss chance is Concealment´ or something along those lines, except now I can´t find it... Was that in 3.5 or 3.0?
-----------------------------------------------------
Russ´ house rule makes me think about one Ï´ve been working on...
My take is a deeper change to the Initiative system, intended to hearken back to 2nd Edition while retaining the advancements of 3.x. Initiative works normally, except each Round is split into two phases, during which each character can only take a Standard/Move Action (Swift or Free Actions can be tacked on before or after).
If a character wants to take a Full Attack actions, they must start the Full Attack the first phase, and complete it in the second. In the first phase, you only get to take your first Iterative attack: Haste allows an additional attack in this first phase, and so does 2WF... All other additional attacks are taken in the second phase (in the case of Haste + Ki Extra Attack, I think only one bonus attack should be taken in first phase, although either type would be eligible alone). For actions like Charge, half the action would complete in the first segment. Of course, if you don´t take more than 1 attack in the 1st segment, you are free to choose to continue into a Full Attack or take another Move Action in the 2nd segment. I´m not sure how to handle Spring Attack... possibly allow the CHOICE of working like Charge (1/2 movement completes in 1st phase) OR (if you don´t want that because it would leave you in a shitty position) you can wait for the 2nd phase to do the Spring Attack. (possibly that would be a general choice for any Full Action which can be partially completed/started in 1st phase)
This system has alot of other repurcusions centered around action economy and interruption / countering (Move + Cast Spell is somewhat cut-down in power, and maneuvering in general is much more powerful). Re: closing eyes, I could see ruling that one must keep one´s eyes closed for the duration if you want to have them closed for all attacks (of Full Attack), but it would be possible to open them again afterwards (after your entire turn is over). The difference is that in Russ´ version everybody else gets one entire Turn/Full-Round before you open your eyes, while in mine they only get one Move/Standard Action.
I can see the reasoning behind that, but I don't agree. There's a difference between a full-round action and a 1-round action; the latter is completed just before your initiative count next turn, but the former is completed on your initiative count and not still ongoing when your opponents take their turns.
You can take a full attack action with a weapon and then drop is as a free action, which would leave you unarmed during all of your opponents' turns -- despite obviously having a weapon in your hand during all of your attacks. If we agree that opening or closing your eyes is also a free action, there seems little reason not to allow it similarly.I am not sure theres a real difference between a full-round action and a 1-round action.
A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell.If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.If you drop your weapon at the end of your turn thats virtually the same as dropping it at the beginning of your next turn. Which is probably what you would do anyway and could easily be assumed.
I'm sure there are very few situation(worth mentioning) where assuming that your turns overlap would pose any significant problems.
A spell with a casting time of 1 round is a full round action on your turn instead of a standard action, meaning you can not also take a move action. In effect you start casting at the beginning of your turn and finish it just before your turn comes up again.
A spell with a casting time of 1 round requires you to take a full round action, but the two are not the same. Typically a full round action starts and ends in your turn, that is the case with a full attack or a meta-magic spontaneously cast spell, which takes effect in that same turn.