|
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.
The effects are not identical, but the affect from a combat perspective often is.
Does the guard have any concealment from the fog? If so, sneak attack is a moot point.
Yes he does, but not against the assassin (the assassin has magical anti-fogging goggles).
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.
Much like Bill Dunn describes, I see "invisible" and "invisibility" as being two different, but extremely related/similar things (at least as far as the rules are concerned).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the book it's all a right old mess. Old being the operative word: most of the problems were just as bad in 3.5.
The big difference between Invisibility and Total Concealment appears to be that the first uses the sense/pinpoint detection system, and the second straight Perception-vs-Stealth. The sense/pinpoint system is fun, I think, but also extremely tough. Also full of errors, but even if you iron those out, it's a base Perception check of DC20+Stealth (where Stealth is applicable) just to sense a truly Invisible presence, base DC40+Stealth (where applicable) to pinpoint a current square, which is what you really need to fight it.
If you assume some kind of 'mundane invisibility' does or should exist in the rules, then clearly (logically) it should be using the same sense/pinpoint detection system as magical Invisibility. Sim-wise, that makes sense. Game-wise, it makes darkness, Hide in Plain Sight and so forth greatly more potent than they are if you currently allow Perception-vs-Stealth detection for those conditions and abilities.
There is some faint justification for using the sense/pinpoint system more broadly by the book, if you want to houserule. Darkness (Chap 13, Environment, p442-443) states that creatures unable to see in darkness are blinded, and that "A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square", but adds that this pinpoint check is Perception-vs-Stealth (not Perception vs DC40+ potential Stealth, as Invisibility). Blindness (Appendix 1, p565) doesn't say any of that. The Invisible condition (Appendix 1, p567 - not the special ability on p563) defines invisible creatures as "Visually undetectable." But that is a definition of an invisible creature (and so potentially only of magical invisibility), not of invisibility in broader terms.
So as I see it, the problem is a sim-vs-game one. Simulation-wise, if a presence is not visible, it's invisible. It really shouldn't matter what you can or can't do to end that magical or mundane invisibility. Until you light the torch, open the door, or cast dispel, the creature is invisible, and the game mechanic should be the same. The sense/pinpoint mechanic is fun, flexible, and could be easily improved (with a 'determine quadrant' DC, for example), so that should be the way to go.
Game-wise, doing that makes Hide in Plain Sight a game-winner (in the right environment you can use Stealth while you're being visually perceived, therefore you can become invisible a lot), darkness deadly (the archer 300' from the campfire is a killer), and many other kinds of total concealment or cover very much more potent.
Perhaps they should be.
Invisibility means you can't see me even though you have line of sight. Concealment only means you get a 50% miss chance. It does not mean you have no idea where I am.
The lightening stance feat is an example of having total concealment(50% miss chance).
Invisibility means you can't see me even though you have line of sight. Concealment only means you get a 50% miss chance. It does not mean you have no idea where I am.
The lightening stance feat is an example of having total concealment(50% miss chance).
Just wanted to point out that Lightning Stance does NOT give total concealment, just a 50% miss chance (just like the displacement spell).
The difference lies in whether or not there is line of sight to the target.
Having a miss chance means you're just harder to hit for some reason. Having total concealment, on the other hand, literally means you cannot be seen for some reason.
|
The lightening stance feat is an example of having total concealment(50% miss chance). Just wanted to point out that Lightning Stance does NOT give total concealment, just a 50% miss chance (just like the displacement spell).
Wrong... from the PRD
"If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round."50% Concealment is total concealment. They are one in the same, if it simply said "50% miss chance" then you would be right, but the feat actually gives you concealment, just like wind stance.
Quit trying to cheesemonkey the rules here, Invisibility and being invisible are the same thing, they are only used in different places because of the nature of the English language and the fact that saying "Possessing invisibility..." sounds worse and has a clunky meter combated to "Being invisible..."
Invisibility means you can't see me even though you have line of sight. Concealment only means you get a 50% miss chance. It does not mean you have no idea where I am.
The lightening stance feat is an example of having total concealment(50% miss chance).
Just wanted to point out that Lightning Stance does NOT give total concealment, just a 50% miss chance (just like the displacement spell).
The difference lies in whether or not there is line of sight to the target.
Having a miss chance means you're just harder to hit for some reason. Having total concealment, on the other hand, literally means you cannot be seen for some reason.
PRD=Benefit: If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round.
It does not use the words "total concealment", but 50% concealment is = total concealment. The displacement spell which gives a 50% miss chance does not give concealment at all.
In any event line of sight gets rid of concealment, but not invisibility so they are still not the same thing.
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.
This obviously means that line of sight negates concealment. When you are invisible line of sight does not matter.
Edit:Wind Stance might need to be written better since it does not say you can't be seen, but the fluff hints strongly that you are hard to see.
OK, wait..... what is 20% vs 50% vs 100% concealment?
(looking at the Wind and Lightning Stance Feats)
Was there an errata that changed the wording, or has anyone posted this before?
Because there is a huge difference between 50% concealment and a 50% miss chance.
IMHO if it is concealment I should be able to hide if I double move and have the lightning stance feat. If it is purely a miss chance, I cannot.
So, did I miss something?
|
|
Invisibility means you can't see me even though you have line of sight. Concealment only means you get a 50% miss chance. It does not mean you have no idea where I am.
Concealment is a 20% miss chance and allows for a stealth check. If you don't make a stealth check, people know where you are.
Total concealment provides a 50% miss chance (plus other stuff), and whomever you have total concealment from cannot see you. They don't know where you are via sight. Light of sight is disrupted, but line of effect is not interrupted.
OK, wait..... what is 20% vs 50% vs 100% concealment?
(looking at the Wind and Lightning Stance Feats)
Was there an errata that changed the wording, or has anyone posted this before?
Because there is a huge difference between 50% concealment and a 50% miss chance.
IMHO if it is concealment I should be able to hide if I double move and have the lightning stance feat. If it is purely a miss chance, I cannot.
So, did I miss something?
There is no such thing as 100% concealment (or 100% miss chance for that matter). There is only ever 20% or 50% miss chances.
50% miss chance by itself does not negate line of sight (does not make you disappear; example, the displacement spell). However, total concealment DOES negate line of sight and ALSO grants you a 50% miss chance (example, complete darkness or the invisibility spell).
Concealment on the other hand, grants a 20% miss chance and does NOT negate line of sight (example, a light fog). It is possible to obtain a 20% miss chance without having concealment.
I can see why you are so confused.
Wrong... from the PRD
"If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round."50% Concealment is total concealment. They are one in the same, if it simply said "50% miss chance" then you would be right, but the feat actually gives you concealment, just like wind stance.
Quit trying to cheesemonkey the rules here, Invisibility and being invisible are the same thing, they are only used in different places because of the nature of the English language and the fact that saying "Possessing invisibility..." sounds worse and has a clunky meter combated to "Being invisible..."
I may have misread the feat earlier, but I maintain that people with total concealment (not merely a 50% miss chance or 50% concealment*) cannot be seen and, as such, fall under the definition of "invisible" (but NOT "invisibility" however, as there is a subtle difference between the two).
* You may be right in "50% concealment" (as opposed to 50% miss chance) being completely synonymous with "total concealment," but I don't much care to argue the point as I myself am uncertain on the matter at this time.
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.
As far as I am concerned BigNorseWolf already answered this question properly. In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. The assassin is in an area of darkness and the guard is effectively blinded to him. The guard loses his dex bonus to ac, automatically fails any perception checks based off of sight, etc. Now if the guard wants to track down the assassin, he must deal with a distance penalty and a terrible conditions penalty because he cannot use his main sense to locate the assassin. Then, even if he succeeds on a perception check to locate the assassin, he is still denied his dexterity because he is still effectively blinded to the target. A perception check will only help him locate the area/square the assassin is in. It will not let him see a target in complete darkness.
I don't see how the assassin could be considered blind. The very definition of blind requires that you be unable to see ANYTHING. In the circumstances provided, the assassin can see the guard just fine and so can't possibly be blind (much less taking penalties for it).
There is a world of difference between looking through darkness at something lit up in the distance, and being blind.
The above interpretation (that the assassin would be blind just for standing in the dark, despite there being light he can see into) is SO literal, so gamist, as to be frighteningly illogical. I seriously doubt that was the developers' intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how the assassin could be considered blind. The very definition of blind requires that you be unable to see ANYTHING. In the circumstances provided, the assassin can see the guard just fine and so can't possibly be blind (much less taking penalties for it).
Its the guard we're considering blind. Relative to the assassin. By the raw it might not work but its the only sane interpretation i can come up with, otherwise an invisible assassin standing in the dark is somehow different than a non invisible assassin standing in the dark.. THATS the rules layering inanity.
I don't see how the assassin could be considered blind. The very definition of blind requires that you be unable to see ANYTHING. In the circumstances provided, the assassin can see the guard just fine and so can't possibly be blind (much less taking penalties for it).Its the guard we're considering blind. Relative to the assassin. By the raw it might not work but its the only sane interpretation i can come up with, otherwise an invisible assassin standing in the dark is somehow different than a non invisible assassin standing in the dark.. THATS the rules layering inanity.
Ah. Sorry. Misread the post.
I usually consider them identical save one thing:
Having total concealment doesn't grant you giant stealth bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add some more food for thought, I was reading the description for blindsense:
Blindsense: Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent that cannot be seen has total concealment (50% miss chance) against a creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
Emphasis mine. So note that a creature with blindsense is denied its Dex bonus to AC against (non-invisible) creatures it can't see.
|
|
Yeah, I think it's clear that while being unable to be seen and being invisible are different in game terms they have similar effects.
In each case, using the rules NorseWolf found us, the poor bastard has -2 to AC (effectively the same thing as invisibility's +2 to hit) and loses their Dex bonus to AC.
In RD's first example, the hapless guard would have a very difficult time seeing the assassin and would take the above penalties whenever he failed his perception test.
It's his own damn fault for leaving his post instead of going inside and raising the alarm.
|
|
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.
Because that it is not granted that he has total concealment.
You speak of a moonless cloudy night if I am not mistaken.While the guard will ruin his night sight keeping the lamp with him, there is still the chance the assassin position will be revealed by a random opening in the clouds, a reflection from a street lamp or some other small thing.
If he is trying to stay within 30' to benefit from his sneak attack capacity he will be within the dim light range of the lamp.
I would give a good circumstance bonus to the assassin stealth skill, over and above his range bonus, if he is keeping the distance.
Note that it being dark only allow him to use his stealth, it don't give a modifier to the stealth or perception check.
If the situation is one where there is a total absence of light (like in a cavern) there would not be the need to roll stealth if the assassin is always at a distance that will keep him outside the area do dim light after the guard has moved.
|
|
Ah. Sorry. Misread the post.I don't see how the assassin could be considered blind. The very definition of blind requires that you be unable to see ANYTHING. In the circumstances provided, the assassin can see the guard just fine and so can't possibly be blind (much less taking penalties for it).Its the guard we're considering blind. Relative to the assassin. By the raw it might not work but its the only sane interpretation i can come up with, otherwise an invisible assassin standing in the dark is somehow different than a non invisible assassin standing in the dark.. THATS the rules layering inanity.
This give me a reason for a question: the assassin has darkvision?
If not he is suffering the reduced movement penalty for moving in darkness. And the guard isn't.
|
This give me a reason for a question: the assassin has darkvision?
If not he is suffering the reduced movement penalty for moving in darkness. And the guard isn't.
Good (side) question (but not related to invisibility).
The assassin can't run. The guard could.You can't run across difficult terrain or if you can't see where you're going.
Will the guard eventually catch the assassin ?
Assuming low levels humans (no magic items):
- The guard is heavily armored but can run because he has a lamp (speed = 20' x 3 = 60').
- The assassin is lightly armored but can not run because moving in the dark (speed = 30' x 2 =60').
Hey ! The assassin can stay away only with a double move. Each time he stop to shoot the guard, the guard will catch up with him.
In fact if the guard has a better Constitution he could catch the assassin in the long term because the assassin is likely to miss his Constitution checks before the guard.
But I am sure the assassin has an escape route requiring Jump or Climb checks ...
This brings up one of my bigger peeves with the stealth rules.
By RAW.
Invisibility gives you +20 to stealth.
Total Concealment from any other source(like being inside a fog cloud or on the other side of a 3 foot thick stone wall) gives you no bonus to stealth.
Which brings me to a great example.
Waves Oracle with Water Sight inside the middle of a cloud or Obscuring Mist. They can see everyone else normally and have total concealment from anyone who is farther than 10 feet from them, but somehow inexplicable this is not as good as being invisibile.
Total concealment does not make your opponent lose their dexterity bonus. By the core rules you need to invisible to do that or gain surprise on your opponent. With new play test rules on Stealth in the Paizo blog gives your the hidden condition which can achieved via stealth in concealment. It give the exact same bonus that Invisible gives in your definition that was quoted. I find the New Stealth rules work much better.
Total concealment does not make your opponent lose their dexterity bonus. By the core rules you need to invisible to do that or gain surprise on your opponent.
Could you please point out the RAW that confirms this? I'm pretty sure there have been multiple rules quotes up thread that pretty much disproves this.
Total concealment does not make your opponent lose their dexterity bonus. By the core rules you need to invisible to do that or gain surprise on your opponent.Could you please point out the RAW that confirms this? I'm pretty sure there have been multiple rules quotes up thread that pretty much disproves this.
Nothing under concealment in the Combat Section of the Core Rule Book says you gain any bonus for attacking with total concealment.
There are two charts. One for Attack Roll Modifiers, concealment has no entry in that chart. As well there is an Armor Class Modifier chart which does have entry for Concealment that says see below. Under the Concealment entry nothing is said for attack bonuses. For defense you don't get AC bonus but you do get miss chance. 20% for partial concealment and 50% for total concealment. As well total concealment allows you to use Stealth and Invisible gives you the Total Concealment condition applying the 50% miss chance if you are attacked.
On the attack bonuses Invisibility gives you +2 to hit and your target loses their Dexterity bonus to AC. Just because you get the defensive bonus the same as invisibility doesn't mean you get the offensive bonus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing under concealment in the Combat Section of the Core Rule Book says you gain any bonus for attacking with total concealment
While that is so, TC may be granted by something which is sufficiently similar to, from the target's perspective, being blind vs. his adversary. I.e., if it is impossible for your opponent to see you by any means at his disposal, while you can see him without restriction (i.e., you're a dwarf rogue fighting a human without a light source in a cave), they are ipso facto blind relative to you.
If something is concealed in a defined area (e.g. smoke), an observer can see the areas not concealed, and have an idea where an unseen threat may lurk.
If something is invisible, the observer doesn't have that advantage. An invisible thing can be anywhere.
If if the observer can't see at all (e.g. total darkness), then the observer is blind, which is even worse, since not only is the opponent invisible (could be anywhere) but they can't even see their surroundings (might trip over an object or even stumble over their own feet).
They are progressively more limiting situations, each inclusive of the lesser, so appropriate to handle that way.
Nothing under concealment in the Combat Section of the Core Rule Book says you gain any bonus for attacking with total concealmentWhile that is so, TC may be granted by something which is sufficiently similar to, from the target's perspective, being blind vs. his adversary. I.e., if it is impossible for your opponent to see you by any means at his disposal, while you can see him without restriction (i.e., you're a dwarf rogue fighting a human without a light source in a cave), they are ipso facto blind relative to you.
You are correct but blind is covered under the AC Modifiers as -2 to AC and denied you dexterity. I find that kind of silly because it is basically exactly what invisibility gives you just displayed in a different manner which adds to confusion. Still it's addressed as specific condition under Armor Class Modifiers and doesn't apply to concealment.
Now I'm not saying this makes sense but that is the rules.
You are correct but blind is covered under the AC Modifiers as -2 to AC and denied you dexterity. Now I'm not saying this makes sense but that is the rules.
It makes sense in that if you're blind you're more awkward than if you can see your feet and surroundings. Swing a bat around your living room with your eyes open then try it with your eyes closed. Not being able to see your opponent's blows is another problem, and lays on top of it. That explains why one's a - to ac and the other a + to hit. I believe they're supposed to stack, even.
It´s not that complicated, but it depends on something Ravingdork left unsaid.
1. Invisibility makes you invisible, but not undetectable.
You get +2 attack, +20/40 on stealth, what is important when others try to locate you via perception. Anyway they can just locate the field you are standing and still have a 50% miss chance to hit you as long as you are invisible.
2. Concealment means, the others can not see you.
Total concealment means they cannot see you at all, if its behind a wall or because of darkness (what really leaves them blind without darkvision, but they can still sense you with other senses). They still have to make a perception check to locate you and here comes the difference to invisibility: you don´t get a +20/40 on stealth, but its still 50% miss chance.
How do stealth rules and flat-footed apply here?
It´s said the archer is sniping, what means he does one shot and goes stealth again. That means a new stealth roll and a new perception roll after each shot. Thats missing in the example.
Vision and Light rules[/url]]
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.
Not sure if this has been said, but See Invisibility doesn't grant any bonus to see enemies that benefit from total non magical concealment, no?
I think what the OP is trying to get at is this question; does having total concealment vs an opponent make the opponent flat footed(lose his dex)?
I don't even remember anymore.
Neither do I.
Flat-footed and losing dex bonus are not the same thing. Flat-footed characters lose their dex bonus but someone who lost their dex bonus isn't necessarily flat-footed. Just wanted to get that in there because terms.
--------------
I was about to start quoting some rules about Stealth providing Total Concealment, and how a rogue can use Stealth to get sneak attacks vs opponents that are unaware of the rogue, but I can't seem to find anything in the rules to back that up. (with the exception of the surprise round rules, which are irrelevant to the discussion.)
To put a finer point on it: I was going to point out that if rogues can deny someone their dex bonus with a good stealth roll (gaining total concealment), enabling them to sneak attack an unaware opponent, then the only different between total concealment and invisibility (or for the sake of terms, being invisible) would be the +2 to hit and the +20/40 to stealth... but apparently I've accidentally been house-ruling for years that rogues can sneak attack people who having successfully rolled a perception check vs their stealth. (I think I still will, since it makes sense.)
**correction. I suppose there is a ruling on this.
};-\
It's a 5 year old thread. Nothing to see, move along.
Ha! I failed to notice the putrifying flesh hanging off of this necro. Oh well, it's a good topic anyway.
|
|
It was posted earlier that the developers intended for sneak attacks to work against enemies denied their Dex bonus to AC via any method that causes them to lose their Dex bonus to AC such as total concealment. They did not get it errata'd or written in, something about lack of word space in the core book for Stealth.
EDIT: got ninja'd
The (partial) stealth rework happened somewhere in 2012-13 IIRC, while this thread died out in 2011. Some of the points made in it may refer to rules which have since been altered.
They are similar, but not identical and I would specify that in games. Otherwise it will lead to a similar situation where people confuse being flat-footed and not having a dex bonus to AC as being the same.
|
|
You being blind or the enemy being invisible are not the same thing.
Being blind is worse; you're also having trouble with moving about without stumbling, reducing your movement and such. As a way of expressing this, blind creatures take a penalty to AC, while invisible creatures get a bonus to hit (same amount). But blind creatures also need to roll Acrobatics to move around effectively.
|
|
This is what confuses me, as to why Paizo ignored some important facets of the 3.5 rules in favor of mass confusion.
If we go to the D&D 3.5 Rules Compendium, here is what is says for BLINDED:
BLINDED:A blinded creature can’t see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC, moves at half speed, and takes a –4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment against the blinded creature. A blinded creature pinpoints targets and deals damage to them as if those targets were invisible. Blinded creatures are immune to gaze attacks and other attacks that require the target to be able to see in order to be affected.
Simple. Why this was taken out in PF, I have no clue.
Because the open source document say:
BlindedThe character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. [/quote+
and that is what Paizo can use as its source.
Actually: "All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character." (the text used by Paizo) work better in a system where Listen, Search and Spot have been grouped into a single skill.
For some thing I liked more the separate skills, but then every class should have received at least 2 more skill point (and that would have been a positive change).
So, there's still no official answer on whether one-way total concealment allows free sneak attacks?
|
So, there's still no official answer on whether one-way total concealment allows free sneak attacks?
You only add your dex to AC if you can react to the blow and most would say if you can't see an attack coming, you can't react to it.
This isn't straightforward, but was cleared up by the developers somewhere on the boards.