| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've always believed that having total concealment is just like being invisible and I want to see what the community's, as well as the game developers' stance was on the matter. As we all know, "invisible" is a defined term in the Glossary:
Note the definition of being invisible. If I am visually undetectable (such as when I have total concealment) than I am considered invisible.
As such, targets who are unable to detect me or otherwise determine my exact location lose their Dexterity bonuses to AC against my attacks.
(However, this is not the same thing as true invisibility, which grants a +20 bonus to Stealth and has rules all its own, such as the you getting a +2 attack bonus against your target.)
For example, a sniper/rogue is standing off in the dark and has total concealment due to both the cloudy, moonless night, and to his extreme range from his target, an off-duty city guard standing underneath a lamp post (in normal light). The would be assassin shoots the guard, who is flat-footed, and flees further into the darkness. The wounded guard grabs the lamp from the post and, quickly determining the direction he was shot from, gives chase. However, the assassin is the beneficiary of a PASS WITHOUT TRACE spell and is far, far faster than the guard (who is wearing armor). Round after round he shoots and moves, shoots and moves, always with total concealment, always ignoring the guard's Dex bonus to AC (even though the guard is no longer flat-footed) since he is wholly unable to see the assassin. Note that the guard is NOT blind, nor is the assassin truly invisible, he merely cannot be seen.
In short, I want to know whether you think TOTAL CONCEALMENT, by itself, is enough to get someone to lose their Dex bonus to AC against your attacks.
Am I right? Why or why not? I prefer a developer response, but I welcome anyone provided...
A WORD OF WARNING: This subject arose in another thread where it was off-topic and the arguments got pretty heated. I don't mind people disagreeing with me on the subject, or even trying to prove me wrong. However, I will NOT stand for rudeness and insults, publicly holding one's self above another, or even posts with a strongly negative tone. REMAIN CIVIL AND POLITE AT ALL TIMES. As adults, I expect nothing less than the respect I try and show all of you. If you can't handle such a simple thing, than you are not welcome here and I ask that you not post at all. I will not tolerate the kind of malicious behavior that came up in the other thread.
(However, this is not the same thing as true invisibility, which grants a +20 bonus to Stealth and has rules all its own, such as the target of your attacks taking a -2 to AC.)
Where are you seeing a -2 to AC?
(However, this is not the same thing as true invisibility, which grants a +20 bonus to Stealth and has rules all its own, such as the target of your attacks taking a -2 to AC.)Where are you seeing a -2 to AC?
Sorry, I meant +2 to attacks for invisibility. I was misremembering. Fixed the OP.
From the Concealment section of the PRD
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. 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).
If you are invisible, you have total concealment. If you are concealed by say darkness, it is not the same as being invisible.
From the Concealment section of the PRD
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. 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).
If you are invisible, you have total concealment. If you are concealed by say darkness, it is not the same as being invisible.
So, to be clear, you are saying that being invisible = total concealment, but total concealment =/= being invisible?
So, to be clear, you are saying that being invisible = total concealment, but total concealment =/= being invisible?From the Concealment section of the PRD
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. 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).
If you are invisible, you have total concealment. If you are concealed by say darkness, it is not the same as being invisible.
Correct. If someone is invisible (as in under the effect of the invisibility spell) you dont have line of sight (cant see them) but you do have line of effect (nothing is completely blocking their square like a wall or something). So they have total concealment by definition. They get the benefits of total concealment AND invisibility.
Invisible on the other hand is a defined term that can only be granted by specific effects. Concealment doesnt make you invisible, just hidden.
i would have to agree with you ravingdork manly on the point that it is simpler to rule that way till something is put in a book this the way i would do it (simpler = faster = more game time less talking about rules time)
Invisibility provides Total Concealment, however total concealment doesn't provide invisibility.
I found references that state being invisible is equivalent to total concealment, but none that state the opposite, i.e. total concealment is also considered invisible. Therefore, you will have to take a step back and review the rules for stealth and sniping; considering darkess and/or low light conditions. This would involve making a stealth rolls and perceptions checks, and using the miss chances for attacking someone with total concealment; that is not considerd blocked by a physical barrier.
Concealment doesn't make you invisible, just hidden.
So the way we view things is a little different, but the end effect is the same? That is, people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC.
Concealment doesn't make you invisible, just hidden.So the way we view things is a little different, but the end effect is the same? That is, people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC.
Yeah... one minute let me look at something...
Ok if we look at blinded we see that all creatures have total concealment against the creature that is blinded.
So total concealment is kind of like a defense: Much like energy resistance or damage resistance (or uncanny dodge) -- several different effects can give you total concealment.
Total concealment doesn't actually grant you much, all you get is what follows:
You can't be targeted -- but your square can be.
Immunity to AoOs.
In fact it doesn't offer any bonuses to your stealth check though the GM might assess penalties on perception checks to find you.
Concealment doesn't make you invisible, just hidden.So the way we view things is a little different, but the end effect is the same? That is, people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC.Yeah... one minute let me look at something...
Ok if we look at blinded we see that all creatures have total concealment against the creature that is blinded.
So total concealment is kind of like a defense: Much like energy resistance or damage resistance (or uncanny dodge) -- several different effects can give you total concealment.
Total concealment doesn't actually grant you much, all you get is what follows:
You can't be targeted -- but your square can be.
Immunity to AoOs.In fact it doesn't offer any bonuses to your stealth check though the GM might assess penalties on perception checks to find you.
Thanks Abraham, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What I want to know is whether or not people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC against your attacks. I'm thinking yes, but I want to know how others see it.
Concealment doesn't make you invisible, just hidden.So the way we view things is a little different, but the end effect is the same? That is, people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC.
Being concealed does not mean you cannot be seen. You still have to make a stealth check to remain hidden if you attack. If you fail, you can be targeted.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Thanks Abraham, but that's not really what I'm looking for. What I want to know is whether or not people who are unable to see you lose their Dex mod to AC against your attacks. I'm thinking yes, but I want to know how others see it.
Yes, I believe that anyone who is unable to see you does not benefit from their Dexterity bonus to AC (barring things like Uncanny Dodge, of course). However, I would say that someone who is concealed rather than actually invisible would not receive the +2 bonus to attack rolls, nor would they receive the +20 to Stealth checks of course.
In short, I want to know whether you think TOTAL CONCEALMENT, by itself, is enough to get someone to lose their Dex bonus to AC against your attacks.
Yes, I think the target would fall under the heading of being unable to "react to an attack".
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Being concealed does not mean you cannot be seen. You still have to make a stealth check to remain hidden if you attack. If you fail, you can be targeted.
This is true. In the scenario you describe in the OP, the guard would still be able to make a Perception check against the assassin's Stealth check, but odds are that the penalties for darkness and distance would make that check virtually impossible. If the assassin is moving at full speed and making no particular use of the Stealth skill, then there's always that (exceedingly small) chance that the guard hits a high roll and catches sight of the assassin's belt buckle or something. :)
EDIT: Actually, looking over the Perception rules, if the assassin was not using the Stealth skill at all and was firing from 300 feet away, the DC for the guard to spot him would be 35, which is certainly difficult, but not impossible for a higher level character with ranks in Perception.
As Fatespinner said -- it gives you the chance to not be realized -- but until that chance is manifested (by a stealth check, or more accurately a failed perception check) then you don't get sneak attack.
Now if someone fails their perception check to notice you then you would have them flat footed I would think.
The correct place to check would be in the stealth and perception skills.
Being concealed does not mean you cannot be seen. You still have to make a stealth check to remain hidden if you attack. If you fail, you can be targeted.This is true. In the scenario you describe in the OP, the guard would still be able to make a Perception check against the assassin's Stealth check, but odds are that the penalties for darkness and distance would make that check virtually impossible. If the assassin is moving at full speed and making no particular use of the Stealth skill, then there's always that (exceedingly small) chance that the guard hits a high roll and catches sight of the assassin's belt buckle or something. :)
EDIT: Actually, looking over the Perception rules, if the assassin was not using the Stealth skill at all and was firing from 300 feet away, the DC for the guard to spot him would be 35, which is certainly difficult, but not impossible for a higher level character with ranks in Perception.
Right, if you succeed at the stealth check (which is likely given the bonuses for total concealment) then the target would lose its bonus to AC just like anyone targeted by a stealthed opponent.
Edit in response to the edit:
Correct, but being 300 feet away is not being invisible, its just very very hard to see. Though ofcourse the attacker would also have to be able to make the dc 35 perception check going the other way in that case.
The correct place to check would be in the stealth and perception skills.
I checked, and they don't really have much to say on the issue, frankly.
I remember that in 3.5, Skip Williams finally came out and said "yes, if your target can't see you, then you're effectively invisible".
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm of the opinion that total concealment, invisibility, and blindness all have the same game effect regarding the targeting and dex-denial status between the two characters. I'll be pulling together my references on it, and evaluating regarding how stealth/perception in pathfinder may make this different than in 3.5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That invisible creatures are visually undetectable does not automatically mean that visually undetectable creatures are invisible. (this is called affirming the consequent)It also doesn't mean that they're not invisible however.
For being completely in the dark i can't see any logical reason to treat them differently, but strict raw may differ.
It's a tough call for sure. I would say just based on the number of cases where the book specifically calls out when you are denied you dex bonus and the fact that it does not specifically call it out in the concealment section that you are not denied you dex bonus when concealed. I would tend to agree with Fatespinner and Abraham's last posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Edit in response to the edit:
Correct, but being 300 feet away is not being invisible, its just very very hard to see. Though ofcourse the attacker would also have to be able to make the dc 35 perception check going the other way in that case.
Well, as the guard was described as standing under a lamp, it would only be DC 30 for the attacker, but your point is taken. :)
It's a tough call for sure. I would say just based on the number of cases where the book specifically calls out when you are denied you dex bonus and the fact that it does not specifically call it out in the concealment section that you are not denied you dex bonus when concealed.
The problem with this kind of logic is that the rules are more likely to point out the rules (e.g. you lose your Dex bonus to AC when you can't react to an attack) in an unusual case (like being invisible or stunned) than they are in a case where common sense should apply (like being in a pitch-black room).
For instance, the rules for encumbrance and the "entangled" condition mention that they reduce a character's speed. But having your leg cut off could reduce your speed as well, even though that's not explicitly stated in the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
For instance, the rules for encumbrance and the "entangled" condition mention that they reduce a character's speed. But having your leg cut off could reduce your speed as well, even though that's not explicitly stated in the rules.
Well, to be fair, there's nothing in the RAW to even address the notion of removing limbs. The rules basically just assume that this sort of thing never happens.
For instance, the rules for encumbrance and the "entangled" condition mention that they reduce a character's speed. But having your leg cut off could reduce your speed as well, even though that's not explicitly stated in the rules.Well, to be fair, there's nothing in the RAW to even address the notion of removing limbs. The rules basically just assume that this sort of thing never happens.
I was about to add that, but you beat me to it. :-)
Note that there's still a Regeneration spell, though.
It's a tough call for sure. I would say just based on the number of cases where the book specifically calls out when you are denied you dex bonus and the fact that it does not specifically call it out in the concealment section that you are not denied you dex bonus when concealed.The problem with this kind of logic is that the rules are more likely to point out the rules (e.g. you lose your Dex bonus to AC when you can't react to an attack) in an unusual case (like being invisible or stunned) than they are in a case where common sense should apply (like being in a pitch-black room).
For instance, the rules for encumbrance and the "entangled" condition mention that they reduce a character's speed. But having your leg cut off could reduce your speed as well, even though that's not explicitly stated in the rules.
I completely agree with you. However there is a group of people that will argue that if something isn't explicitly in the book then it isn't a valid rule. My point was that if someone is going to argue strict RAW then this is the outcome you'll probably reach. IMO, based on the intentional vagueness of the stealth and perception rules this is one of those cases where it has to be the GM's call. The fact that common sense is not written into the rule book has been a point of contention for many of the rules questions posted.
Yes, I believe that anyone who is unable to see you does not benefit from their Dexterity bonus to AC (barring things like Uncanny Dodge, of course). However, I would say that someone who is concealed rather than actually invisible would not receive the +2 bonus to attack rolls, nor would they receive the +20 to Stealth checks of course.
This is what I believe as well.
To those of you who are saying that the assassin would need to make stealth checks, I ask this: Why?
He has total concealment, which means he cannot be seen AT ALL. Stealth checks would be totally unnecessary unless he wanted to mask his sounds and other non-visual signs IN ADDITION to remaining unseen.
If he was only concerned about being UNSEEN, such as a rogue hoping to get sneak attack, then stealth shouldn't matter, only maintaining total concealment relative to his target.
The devil is in the details, so you will have to explain how the assassin has gained total concealment, due to stealth, spells, lighting, class ability, etc. and whether he or she has a surprise round to attack, etc.
The devil is in the details, so you will have to explain how the assassin has gained total concealment, due to stealth, spells, lighting, class ability, etc. and whether he or she has a surprise round to attack, etc.
Let me see if I can come up with an easier example.
The assassin likes to be prepared. For a particular target he uses a magical item to set up a magical fog cloud that is so thick as to grant total concealment to all those inside. He also has a pair of magical goggles which allow him to see through the fog. He is stalking his prey in the fog, taking advantage of his total concealment to get sneak attacks. The fight has already started and his prey knows that the assassin is "out there, somewhere." He knows the assassin is determined and so decides to stand and fight, despite his clear disadvantage.
Does the prey lose his Dexterity bonus when the assassin attacks him (presumably from range)? Assume that the assassin is playing with his target and is NOT making stealth checks.
|
First, a Stealth check is required while moving to be "hiding". Granted, the concealment does provide a nice bonus.
Second, there are penalties to the Stealth check for movement speed and other actions taken during the turn, such as attacking.
Third, I would likely impose a circumstance penalty on the assassin's attack roll if they don't have darkvision or a similar ability, since the darkness they are in would prevent them from being able to accurately aim their ranged attack. Probably just a -1 or -2, though. Although they could sight down the shaft of the arrow and be much more careful in taking the shot, but then it would be more than the 3 seconds normally allotted for a standard action IMO.
And last, the guard can make a Perception(Sight) check as well as Perception(Sound). And hopefully the guard let's their attack dog off the leash when the attack happens! I've seen what canines can do in terms of tracking someone without sight or sound (anyone else seen that Mythbusters episode?!).
First, a Stealth check is required while moving to be "hiding". Granted, the concealment does provide a nice bonus.
Second, there are penalties to the Stealth check for movement speed and other actions taken during the turn, such as attacking.
Third, I would likely impose a circumstance penalty on the assassin's attack roll if they don't have darkvision or a similar ability, since the darkness they are in would prevent them from being able to accurately aim their ranged attack. Probably just a -1 or -2, though. Although they could sight down the shaft of the arrow and be much more careful in taking the shot, but then it would be more than the 3 seconds normally allotted for a standard action IMO.
And last, the guard can make a Perception(Sight) check as well as Perception(Sound). And hopefully the guard let's their attack dog off the leash when the attack happens! I've seen what canines can do in terms of tracking someone without sight or sound (anyone else seen that Mythbusters episode?!).
First, what bonus are you referring to?
Second, said penalties shouldn't matter in this case. All the assassin needs is to remain visually hidden, which total concealment does on its own.
Third, why should the assassin be penalized when he can easily see into the light provided by the (not so smart) guard?
Last, Perception (sight) checks will do no good against someone with total concealment, though other forms of Perception checks (and attack dogs) remain quite useful.
Thread jack?
If total (100%)concealment provides a 50% miss chance, and unspecified concealment provides 20% miss chance (Both on p197 Core Rules), then what does 20% concealment vs. ranged attacks and 50% concealment provide as a miss chance? (looking at wind and lightning stance, feats section)
IMHO, you can't see someone (aka total concealment) they sure as crap can knife you in the back for SA.
...then what does 20% concealment vs. ranged attacks and 50% concealment provide as a miss chance?
20% and 50% miss chance, respectively.
It is possible to have a miss chance without having concealment, such as with the blur or displacement spells.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion has always been silly, to me. Let me use an example I threw up in the other thread.
Let's say you have two drow assassins. Both are in the underground, fighting a human paladin with no light source. The human paladin has no other means of seeing in the dark, it is, for all purposes, pitch black.
Drow Assassin 1 has nothing special on him. He can see, because of darkvision, but otherwise has no spells cast.
Drow Assassin 2 is much the same way, except he also has Greater Invisibility cast on him.
1 has Total Concealment. 2 has Invisibility.
A lot of people seem to say that only #2 would be able to treat the target as if he was denied his Dex bonus. Some would even argue that the Human Paladin was not Blinded in this area.
This, is frankly, dumb.
Blinded is defined as "The creature cannot see." I know the Paladin isn't *really* blind, you know that, but for all game purposes, he's blind in a dark tunnel like this.
Invisibility is much the same way. You know only one of the Drows is invisible, I know that. But to the Paladin, they're one and the same.
It gets a little bit muddier when you get into Stealth, but the core question to ask is: can the defender see his attacker?
Let's say the Paladin is outside, and the attacker is some orc hiding in the bushes. Paladin fails his perception check to spot him. Certainly the Paladin is no longer Blind, he can see in the outdoors. Can he see the orc? Nope. The orc, for all game mechanics, is treated as invisible.
The orc can and should be able to get one shot off at the Paladin with the Paladin being denied his Dex bonus. After that, he'd have to make a Stealth check -20 to get 're-stealth'. If the Paladin still couldn't see him after that, then the orc remains 'invisible'. If the Paladin makes his Perception check, then we move to regular combat.
In the end, if you can ignore these words for what you know they mean "Invisible", "Blind", and look at them in a game sense instead, I think you'll be all the better for it.
|
I'm inclined to agree that the dex bonus would not apply if you could not see your attacker and did not know where the attack was comming from, for mush the same reason as Hogarth, as you wouldn't be able to react to the attack. However, what is reacting? Is ducking when you hear the click of a crossbow? (is this Uncanny Dodge?)
There is a real world and a game mechanic to argue however. In game terms you have no facing, and might see the missile incomming. You could argue the case that the same is true of an invisible attacker firing a missile (the missile becomes visible when leaving the invisible creature) and Dex is still not applied in this case.
Invisibility is a condition you have invested to gain however (spell, item etc), total concealment can be gained without investment as detailed in your example. In game terms (RAW) this often makes a difference.
In the real world, it is very likely you would be unable to react to this kind of attack. What is invisibility if not being seen. If you continued to run around blindly, not seeking any sort of cover, it is likely you would die very quickly. It's why most guards have a way of raising the alarm and something to hide behind when possible (and ready an attack).
It's unlikely that the assassin would be able to sneak attack as he would almost certainly be over 30ft away. At 30ft, the lamp would probably provide some manner of illumination. I realise this wasn't part of the OP.
Please forgive my ignorance, I don't quite understand. So even though the feat states 50% concealment you get 50% miss chance (the equivilant of 100% concealment)?
True, I do agree and understand miss chance due to the blur or displacement. Is that what lightning stance is supposed to do? I understand if you are moving at mach speeds, then you get a miss chance, but some folk are sticklers and would argue that it only provides you concealment. And others would use it to make stealth checks to HIPS after moving.
PS Mr. Dork, would you like me to repost this elsewhere? I do not want to intrude on the original topic.
Note the definition of being invisible. If I am visually undetectable (such as when I have total concealment) than I am considered invisible.
For me anyway, the idea of being Invisible is tied directly to Invisibility and Magic/Spell-like abilties. IMO you cannot gain the benefits of the key word invisible without being so through invisiblity. Even if you are visually undetectable through another means. Note the part of the definition you're leaving out "See Invisibility, under Special Abilities."
Visually undetectable has a key term already: concealment. If you are completely visually undetected you have total concealment and it's benefits. You are not "invisible" per the game rules.
While they are similar, they are not the same. As someone said before in the thread you had invisibility you would gain the benefits of Total Concealment and the extras for being invisible. Pathfinder has pretty clear delineations in states and conditions and while they don't really make sense in the real world, in the game that's the way they are treated.
I see other posters are getting into the "does this make sense?" discussion, but that's not what you're asking for. Based on the rules in place that's how things shake out. Of course you can extend your own personal touches to the rules. If the defender can't see you does that give them the Blind condition and you the Invisible condition? I wouldn't say so, but others may.
In a somewhat related, but completely illustrative point: See Invisibility does not reveal targets with total concealment. Only targets that are "invisible".
Note the definition of being invisible. If I am visually undetectable (such as when I have total concealment) than I am considered invisible.
Invisibility is a status effect, just because you are unseen doesn't mean you are invisible. Now I'm not saying what benefits you do or don't get just that you are not invisible unless you are invisible.
Invisibility is a status effect, just because you are unseen doesn't mean you are invisible. Now I'm not saying what benefits you do or don't get just that you are not invisible unless you are invisible.
Agreed Abraham.
Does the guard have any concealment from the fog? If so, sneak attack is a moot point.
He has total concealment, which means he cannot be seen AT ALL.
No, that's not a necessary logical byproduct at all. This is an English language vs the rulebook situation. In reality a fighter wearing full plate while his helm is on and wearing gauntlets is fully concealed; an observer cannot observe even a small portion of the fighter. Yet it is entirely possible to attack that fighter.
Concealment is closely related to cover for a reason. The assassin in your scenario is using the cover of darkness and trees to mask his presence. Still, as long is it is possible to observe his actions, he is not invisible, merely concealed. It may be that the guard being sniped at sees the rustle of disturbed bushes as the assassin does his movement. The glint of starlight reflected off a belt buckle. A shiny bit of leather bouncing a stray portion of light from his lantern. That's not enough to see the assassin, not in the sense that you can tell who it is, what race it is, how many limbs it has, or even what weapon it's using, but it's enough to say "there... I think he's right about... there". That's total concealment.
That ALL being said, I do agree that as a DM I can think of scenarios where invisibility applies. In an underground cavern, a half-orc versus a human. No light source. The half-orc is invisible to the human. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
I think the easiest way to differentiate the two is the RAW. If you're hiding in the dark and have total concealment, darkvision can still see you. If you're invisible and have total concealment, darkvision does nothing.
If we're talking about someone without darkvision it's not terribly different. Invisible is a status effect. You only get the +20/+40 Stealth bonus if you are invisible, not for total concealment, by RAW. So, invisibility and total concealment are fundamentally different.
|
|
I think the easiest way to differentiate the two is the RAW. If you're hiding in the dark and have total concealment, darkvision can still see you. If you're invisible and have total concealment, darkvision does nothing.
If we're talking about someone without darkvision it's not terribly different. Invisible is a status effect. You only get the +20/+40 Stealth bonus if you are invisible, not for total concealment, by RAW. So, invisibility and total concealment are fundamentally different.
It *is* very different. And kind of ridiculous really. If you look back to my example, what's the difference between the two drow? Invisibility doesn't help a character if your enemy couldn't even see you without it to begin with. Really, go in a room at night. Close all the windows, turn off all the lights. Imagine there's someone else in the room with you. Could you see them? If not, would the fact that they were Invisible make *any* difference?
I think people are being a bit too stubborn with these definitions. If you can't see someone, treat him as Invisible. If you can't see, treat yourself as Blinded.
I don't know how else I can explain this. :(
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drow Assassin 1 has nothing special on him. He can see, because of darkvision, but otherwise has no spells cast.
Drow Assassin 2 is much the same way, except he also has Greater Invisibility cast on him.
1 has Total Concealment. 2 has Invisibility.
A lot of people seem to say that only #2 would be able to treat the target as if he was denied his Dex bonus. Some would even argue that the Human Paladin was not Blinded in this area.
This is backed by the rules.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.
This, is frankly, dumb.
The rules are complicated and tricky enough that there's a number of reasonable interpretations even if you legitimately catch everything.
It gets a little bit muddier when you get into Stealth, but the core question to ask is: can the defender see his attacker?
Let's say the Paladin is outside, and the attacker is some orc hiding in the bushes. Paladin fails his perception check to spot him. Certainly the Paladin is no longer Blind, he can see in the outdoors. Can he see the orc? Nope. The orc, for all game mechanics, is treated as invisible.
Can he see the attacker is a good question, and i think here its a legitimate question. It is impossible to stealth while fighting. When is the orc fighting... when he starts the attack or when he finishes it? Can the orc both remain unseen AND swing an axe at the paladin's head? Or when sniping is he visible After he shoots if he makes the check or is he giving away his position AS he fires?
The orc can and should be able to get one shot off at the Paladin with the Paladin being denied his Dex bonus. After that, he'd have to make a Stealth check -20 to get 're-stealth'. If the Paladin still couldn't see him after that, then the orc remains 'invisible'. If the Paladin makes his Perception check, then we move to regular combat.
That's probably how i'd do it for sanity purposes but again, its a little blurry in the raw.
I can't for the life of me figure out though why anyone would give the denile of dex bonus but NOT the +2 to attack... it seems arbitrary to say that stealth is like invisibility... but you only get part of it.
The crux of the discussion, as I see it, is that there are multiple meanings of "invisible" in the rules. There are abilities, usually magical, that confer invisibility as an effect. That's one form of invisibility and the one that will generally give you a bonus on your stealth check. This is not actually synonymous with the status condition because, even if you are invisible, there are other magical abilities that will allow you to be visually detectable (see invisibility comes to mind).
Then there's the status condition of invisible which means visually undetectable. That could be because someone is using the invisibility ability or because someone, for some other reason, cannot be visually detected. Maybe they're totally concealed, maybe they made their stealth check. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why they're visually undetectable, it suffices to say that they are to use the status condition. I might also add that this condition is a subjective one. As I said above, even a creature under an invisibility power may not be visually undetectable to a particular observer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've reviewed the rules on light, stealth, perception, cover, concealment, lowlight vision, darkvision, the invisible condition, blindsight and blindsense, scent, and the blind condition. All of these are relevant to the conversation, and anyone wanting the full picture should review these as well.
OP asks the question "Is Total Concealment the same thing as invisibility?" It isn't the same thing, but in many situations, the result is effectively the same.
If a creature cannot see an enemy there is a package of negative effects. It doesn't matter if the reason is due to darkness, blindness, invisibility, total concealment, or successful stealth. The differences have to due with possible counter measures, whether the situation is one-sided or not, whether it effects all creatures involved, etc., but the share effects are the same. Each of these situations may have additional effects that are not shared.
The shared effects of interest to OP are that the unseen creature cannot be targeted, is subject to a 50% miss chance if his square is attacked; attacks by the unseen creature benefit from the target's loss of dexterity bonus to AC and suffers an additional -2 to AC. While the unseeing creature is not necessarily blind to his surroundings, he is effectively blind regarding the unseen creature.
OP asks the question "Is Total Concealment the same thing as invisibility?" It isn't the same thing, but in many situations, the result is effectively the same.
This. As written, they are different. You can interpret all day with specific scenarios and situations. What it comes down to is that the two effects are not identical.
Believe me, I'm not saying that's how it has to be. You can use whatever rules you want for the two, as long as everyone is having a good time.