Can some one under the spell blur be sneak attacked? Using feint, if they are prone or something like that?
What does the Blur spell say ?
grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
What does the description of sneak attack from the rogue class say ?
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Seems fairly straightforward to me
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Can some one under the spell blur be sneak attacked? Using feint, if they are prone or something like that?
Under normal conditions, no, since blur grants concealment and concealment negates sneak attack.
However, rogues with the Shadow Strike feat could sneak attack a blurred target normally (but not one under displacement).
Displacement does not negate sneack attack, as it does not grant concealment.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Displacement does not negate sneack attack, as it does not grant concealment.
Hmm. This looks like a GM call to me.
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
The only thing it notes is that the creature can still be targeted normally, unlike true total concealment in which Perception checks must be made to determine the creature's square and then make an attack with a 50% miss chance. It can therefore be argued that, in all other ways, it acts identically to total concealment. If it wasn't intended to, then it would simply say "50% miss chance" instead of adding the "as if it had total concealment" clause.
Displacement does not negate sneack attack, as it does not grant concealment.Hmm. This looks like a GM call to me.
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.The only thing it notes is that the creature can still be targeted normally, unlike true total concealment in which Perception checks must be made to determine the creature's square and then make an attack with a 50% miss chance. It can therefore be argued that, in all other ways, it acts identically to total concealment. If it wasn't intended to, then it would simply say "50% miss chance" instead of adding the "as if it had total concealment" clause.
The fact that the creature can be target normally other than the 50% miss chance means SA works, and that it can be targeted by spells.
The sentence is that " The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.", meaning the 50% chance is the what it has in common with total concealment. Note that is all one sentence meaning it only applies to the 50% miss chance
Go on to the next sentence "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. "
That clarifies that the 50% chance does not stop normal targeting.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The fact that the creature can be target normally other than the 50% miss chance means SA works, and that it can be targeted by spells.
The sentence is that " The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment.", meaning the 50% chance is the what it has in common with total concealment. Note that is all one sentence meaning it only applies to the 50% miss chance
Go on to the next sentence "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. "
That clarifies that the 50% chance does not stop normal targeting.
I respectfully disagree.
The text "as if it had total concealment" would not even be there if the spell meant to convey a simple 50% miss chance and nothing else. It would simply say "benefits from a 50% miss chance."
The line "Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally" is meant to say that the spell does not prevent the recipient of the spell from being targeted by spells or attacks that require line of sight. You can't cast magic missile at a target with total concealment (since you can't see it) but you can cast it at the recipient of this spell. The rogue in question can still make an attack roll against the target, subject to the normal 50% miss chance, but the distortion is significant enough that, even with the Shadow Strike feat, the rogue has no way of accurately striking the vitals and receiving his Sneak Attack bonus. With blur, the image might be fuzzy, but a rogue with Shadow Strike can "cut through the fog" as it were and pick out the vital spots even though his vision is somewhat obscured.
(To the OP: Glad we could help!)
Aaaaand here is where I disagree.
I would interprete Displacement like a switching between 2 distinct Positions in Space really really fast.
So Rogue can SA the Target and will have SA Dmg if his 50% Roll hits.
SImple as that.
Where as true concealment will have the target so blurred up, the rogue doesnt have vital spots to aim for.
my2cent
I would say the rogue vs displacement, only gets sneak attack if the attack hits, to which they would have to roll the % first.
|
Displacement clarifies "as if it had total concealment", which means you cannot normally Sneak Attack someone under its effects. It also protects against Attacks of Opportunity.
In order for a Rogue to gain Sneak Attack, you'd need THIS ITEM.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule basically says you get A (miss chance) as if you had total concealment, but you do not get B (impossible to target) as if you had total concealment. It says nothing about C (sneak attacks) or anything else, and a reasonable reader might infer either position from the current text.
FAQ: Can a rogue use sneak attack on a creature under the effects of displacement?
Edit: Relevant rules:
Do we really need an FAQ for this? I feel that this is one of those things that if you explain everything to a reasonable person you can only come to one conclusion. I've never encountered problems during any of the Society games I've attended or hosted.
I don't think an FAQ is necessary either, but we already have at least two different sides being claimed as correct. I think it is clear that displacement would deny sneak attack (without some further ability), but it could be made more clear. Of course, lots of things in the game could be made more clear. But thats not really the point.
Should Blur, and all similar spells and abilities, be included as well?
Blur actually grants concealment.
No, Sneak Attack doesn't need a FAQ about any spells.
If anything is going to be FAQ'd (or better still, erratta'd), then it should be the wonky Displacement spell. That's where the weird wording comes into play. Does the displaced guy have total concealment or not? Evidently not. At least, not quite. But where is the line drawn? Who knows?
Perhaps Displacement should say:
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance. Unlike total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally with spells or special attacks, though all such attacks are subject to the 50% miss chance. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.
I agree that the problem is with the displacement description and not with sneak attack itself. As with a great many things, the problem stems from the writer's use of "as if [other rule]" or "per [other rule]" without clarifying exactly which aspects of [other rule] do and do not apply. It's the same issue with "as if affected by invisibility" or "treated as if it were a shield".
I'd ballpark that somewhere around half of the nontrivial, nontroll questions around here are because of this phenomenon. Something that seems obvious to the writer--and to some readers--is not at all obvious to others.