| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question regarding Blur/Displacement Spells and Mirror Images and how they interact with each other, as well as the results of using them in conjunction.
So let's say I'm some Bard who can cast 2nd level spells, which include Blur and Mirror Images. I have enough spell slots to buff both myself and the party with Blur, and a cast of Mirror Images on myself, before we engage the room where the BBEG is.
As the fight progresses, some of the mooks try to hit me while I'm supporting the Martials with aiding to AC/Attacks. My question is to how the attacks made against me are resolved. I'll quote text relevant to the spell effects active on me:
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.
...These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.
So here is/are my question(s):
1a. When I cast Blur/Displacement, does it affect only me, or does it affect the Images as well?
1b. If an attack hits an image, does the Blur/Displacement spell grant its miss chance for the image being destroyed?
|
I always ruled that Blur/Displacement stacked with Mirror Image, giving all images Blur/Displacement, so that if you get attacked, first roll for Mirror Image and then Displacement, and if an Image gets hit, still roll Blur/Displacement. Makes for a powerful combo. That said, this isn't RAW, but more personal rulings.
I apologize for the thread-spam, the Paizo servers were being wonky.
@EvilPaladin: It's not an unheard of ruling; in my home game, I'm sure the GM would rule it that way, but I do want a RAW viewpoint so that way I'm not really being a munchkin about the rules.
Here's a bit more relevant information:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
Reading this, it tells us that before you roll for miss chance, the attack has to hit. This does pose another question:
If an attack is successfully avoided by Blur/Displacement, does that attack then affect an image as if the attack was a miss by 5 or less?
And a slightly unrelated (but fairly relevant) note, what about deflected attacks from effects such as (the now crappy) Crane Wing, or Deflect Arrows?
Bump.
this is an interesting question and i would be interested in knowing what the official answer (if any) would be. that said, i've no idea what the right answer might be, only what i want it to be.
|
This is the order I would use to resolve the attack after the attack roll is made and there's a chance of a hit being made against you;
1)Attacker rolls against Displacement (you may not be where he thinks you are)
2)Attacker rolls against Blur (both you and your images are all blurry and hard to make out the edges of your person)
3)Attacker rolls against Mirror Image (even after bypassing 1 and 2 there's still a chance the attacker hits an image instead of you).
Of course that being said, if I were the GM I'd probably just have the attacker close it's eyes while it swings on you so it only has to make one miss roll of 50/50.
This is the order I would use to resolve the attack after the attack roll is made and there's a chance of a hit being made against you;
1)Attacker rolls against Displacement (you may not be where he thinks you are)
2)Attacker rolls against Blur (both you and your images are all blurry and hard to make out the edges of your person)
3)Attacker rolls against Mirror Image (even after bypassing 1 and 2 there's still a chance the attacker hits an image instead of you).
Of course that being said, if I were the GM I'd probably just have the attacker close it's eyes while it swings on you so it only has to make one miss roll of 50/50.
Concealment doesn't stack; only the highest amount applies.
It would make some sense, though the rules only have this to say as to what the Mirror Images have in association with you:
These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly.
The figments follow with you, make the same noise, and copy what actions you do, according to RAW. Whether it has the same qualities that you have is a completely different matter. (I'd assume so, since the spell calls them out as "illusory doubles," but since they're merely figments, they might not have the same qualities.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blur creates concealment mirror image triggers on a hit. You check concealment if the Concealment allows a hit you check mirror image.
That is how I do it. Concealment first then if hit mirror image 2nd.
Blur creates concealment mirror image triggers on a hit. You check concealment if the Concealment allows a hit you check mirror image.
But that doesn't really make any sense to me.
If an attack barely grazes you, an image gets taken down, no questions asked, but if an attack (practically) hits you, you have a chance to make the attack miss entirely, which questionably still removes the image in doing so?
How is an attack that barely misses you apparently more potent in removing images than actually hitting the character's AC and bypassing his miss chance?
Its not. In order for an image from mirror image to be taken down you need to be "hit". If you are hit you role to see if you were really hit or if one of the images was hit.
Thus you role concealment first from a spell like blur or displacement. If you aren't hit, you don't even need to see if it was you or an image.
I imagine it like this. If you cast mirror image and have five images, there are six of you, 1 real and 5 images, all swirling around in a 5 foot space. If an attacker tries to hit you but misses everything, then you don't have to worry about anything. But if the attack hits "you", you have to determine if it really hit you or just an image.
That is why you check concealment first.
Its not. In order for an image from mirror image to be taken down you need to be "hit". If you are hit you role to see if you were really hit or if one of the images was hit.
Thus you role concealment first from a spell like blur or displacement. If you aren't hit, you don't even need to see if it was you or an image.
I imagine it like this. If you cast mirror image and have five images, there are six of you, 1 real and 5 images, all swirling around in a 5 foot space. If an attacker tries to hit you but misses everything, then you don't have to worry about anything. But if the attack hits "you", you have to determine if it really hit you or just an image.
That is why you check concealment first.
You didn't read the spell closely enough:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
By this RAW, apparently near misses are a more accurate way of removing images than trying to hit the actual character with the Concealment effect. Which makes no sense.
How can an attack that is more accurate fundamentally have a less chance of removing images via Concealment? It doesn't really make much logical sense.
It's also arguable that even if you check Concealment first, the entry says if the Concealment check fails, the attack counts as a miss, meaning you also still lose another image.
Don't even get me started on attacks you can deflect, via Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing.
To be honest, I think this is the reason why players don't run both Blur/Displacement AND Mirror Image: Because they don't synergize. They actually detriment each other. Blur/Displacement sabotages Mirror Image greatly, and Mirror Image defeats the purpose of having Blur/Displacement active in the first place: To negate attacks.
All the two effects combined do is eat away at each other until one is left standing, in which case a simple Dispel would suffice.
Its not. In order for an image from mirror image to be taken down you need to be "hit". If you are hit you role to see if you were really hit or if one of the images was hit.
Thus you role concealment first from a spell like blur or displacement. If you aren't hit, you don't even need to see if it was you or an image.
I imagine it like this. If you cast mirror image and have five images, there are six of you, 1 real and 5 images, all swirling around in a 5 foot space. If an attacker tries to hit you but misses everything, then you don't have to worry about anything. But if the attack hits "you", you have to determine if it really hit you or just an image.
That is why you check concealment first.
You didn't read the spell closely enough:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.By this RAW, apparently near misses are a more accurate way of removing images than trying to hit the actual character with the Concealment effect. Which makes no sense.
How can an attack that is more accurate fundamentally have a less chance of removing images via Concealment? It doesn't really make much logical sense.
It's also arguable that even if you check Concealment first, the entry says if the Concealment check fails, the attack counts as a miss, meaning you also still lose another image.
Don't even get me started on attacks you can deflect, via Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing.
The bolded parts aren't easy to follow. Can you rephrase with a bit more precise language?
You roll concealment before determining if an attack is actually a real hit or a swoosh. You roll to check which image or caster is hit when you actually hit. If you actually hit an image, it is destroyed.
You destroy an image if your attack failed by 5 or less too. This does not include concealment; therefore a miss from concealment does not destroy an image.
To be honest, I think this is the reason why players don't run both Blur/Displacement AND Mirror Image: Because they don't synergize. They actually detriment each other. Blur/Displacement sabotages Mirror Image greatly, and Mirror Image defeats the purpose of having Blur/Displacement active in the first place: To negate attacks.
All the two effects combined do is eat away at each other until one is left standing, in which case a simple Dispel would suffice.
What??
They synergize particularly well, actually.
The reason many people don't run both is because that takes two rounds to cast two spells which do roughly the same thing. Why use that many resources and overdo your defenses that much? It just isn't needed that often. It is excessive.
Can you? Yes. Is it effective? Yup. Do you need to burn 2 spells when 1 is enough? Hahaha, nope.
The bolded parts aren't easy to follow. Can you rephrase with a bit more precise language?
You roll concealment before determining if an attack is actually a real hit or a swoosh. You roll to check which image or caster is hit when you actually hit. If you actually hit an image, it is destroyed.
It's about as precise as I can put it. Let's take two different rounds of combat with a BBEG:
1st Round: Makes attack against Blur/Displacement + Mirror Image character. Attack surpasses target's AC. Needs to roll d% to determine if it really was a hit. If successful, then needs to roll to determine if it hit an image or the character. If failed, attack does nothing (if the concealment miss chance really doesn't affect an image, but I highly doubt it.)
2nd Round: Makes attack against Blur/Displacement + Mirror Image character. Attack misses target's AC by 3. By the rules of Mirror Image, he automatically destroys one of the images because it was a near miss. No concealment applies whatsoever, because the attack is a miss regardless.
As you can clearly tell, simply missing the attack means you automatically destroy an image, in which case later down the road you can just deal with Concealment. However, if you actually hit or surpass the target's AC, you actually have a 20/50% chance to do absolutely nothing.
So wait, let me read that again. Huh...If I actually hit the AC (the proxy of which Concealment takes place, not on just any attack roll, the attack HAS to equal or beat your AC for Concealment d% to apply), I actually have a worse chance to accomplish something than I do by purposefully whiffing it? That makes total sense!
It's not excessive; it's counterproductive. If you put it on, it simply eats the images much faster than if you didn't. Sure, the Concealment from Displacement is nice, but also fairly common to bypass, and just as well proves its mutual exclusion from effects like Mirror Image.
So wait, let me read that again. Huh...If I actually hit the AC (the proxy of which Concealment takes place, not on just any attack roll, the attack HAS to equal or beat your AC for Concealment d% to apply), I actually have a worse chance to accomplish something than I do by purposefully whiffing it? That makes total sense!
It's not excessive; it's counterproductive. If you put it on, it simply eats the images much faster than if you didn't. Sure, the Concealment from Displacement is nice, but also fairly common to bypass, and just as well proves its mutual exclusion from effects like Mirror Image.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. What do you mean by purposefully whiffing? And why would you purposefully whiff?? Is that even something the rules allow as an option?
You cannot select an image as a target to attack specifically, if that is what you mean? You cannot tell them apart from the caster, you just have to attack any/all of them and determine which is hit randomly.
But... yes, for concealment to apply, you have to beat your target's AC. That isn't generally considered controversial. Why is it now??
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now add Blink on top of the Displacement/Mirror Image combo. ^^
|
|
In your 2nd Round example, it could actually be interpreted that you would roll concealment for the image itself. It missed the original target, but it "hit" the image, resulting in the image's destruction. The Blur spell would be affecting all of the images as well, and so you could roll concealment for the image as well. One possible interpretation.
Honestly, though, I don't think that Blur triggers the secondary miss condition for Mirror Image. The attacker didn't miss by that margin, he hit. He missed for unrelated reasons.
Intentionally whiffing is not possible, unless you're doing things to make sure your attack has penalties.
Random numbers to show the protective values.
This is our base example. Monster has +9 to hit. You have AC 20. He hits 50% of the time. Let’s say average damage for him is 20. You take 20 damage on 50% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 10 per round.
Now let’s see what displacement does. He now hits only half the time he would otherwise successfully hit. Thus he misses 75% of the time. You take 20 damage on 25% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 5 per round.
Or with Mirror Image. This one is trickier, because the protective value fades over time. Let’s do a round by round comparison with two fewer image left so we can see the difference as the protective value fades. We’ll start with 5 just cuz. He has a 50% chance to hit you or an image. And a 25% chance to hit an image, or a 25% chance to miss.
With 5 images. If he hits you, it is a 1/6 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 8.3% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 1.7 per round. There is a 66.7% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
With 3 images. If he hits you, it is a 1/4 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 12.5% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 2.5 per round. There is a 62.5% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
With 1 image. If he hits you, it is a 1/2 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 25% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 5 per round. There is a 50% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
And now, the grand finale. Let’s see what happens when we have both effects active. At 5, 3, and 1 image again.
With 5 images + displacement. If he hits you 50% actually hits, and then it is a 1/6 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 4.2% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of .8 per round. There is a 45.8% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
With 3 images + displacement. If he hits you 50% actually hits, and then it is a 1/4 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 6.25% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 1.3 per round. There is a 43.75% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
With 1 image + displacement. If he hits you 50% actually hits, and then it is a 1/2 chance of connecting. You take 20 damage on 12.5% of the rounds he attacks, a net average damage taken of 2.5 per round. There is a 37.5% chance an image is destroyed(meaning you were unharmed).
So… as you can clearly see by the numbers… the effects of concealment and the effects of mirror image complement one another very nicely. Not only does the damage you take drop considerably from the application of both effects, but the concealment helps keep the mirror image effects around even longer than they otherwise would have.
|
|
Concealment doesn't stack; only the highest amount applies.This is the order I would use to resolve the attack after the attack roll is made and there's a chance of a hit being made against you;
1)Attacker rolls against Displacement (you may not be where he thinks you are)
2)Attacker rolls against Blur (both you and your images are all blurry and hard to make out the edges of your person)
3)Attacker rolls against Mirror Image (even after bypassing 1 and 2 there's still a chance the attacker hits an image instead of you).
Of course that being said, if I were the GM I'd probably just have the attacker close it's eyes while it swings on you so it only has to make one miss roll of 50/50.
The description of Total Concealment is this:
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).
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Displacement is not concealment. The spell reads:
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.
You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target concealment. So as far as I can see Displacement, Blur and Mirror Image all stack.
It actually doesn't matter at all which you apply first. There's a 20% chance to miss entirely, and a random selection of who gets hit if it goes through. Assuming, say, 3 images (and a real target), the chance to be hit is the same; 0.8 x 0.25 if blur is done first or 0.25 x 0.8 if it's done second.
It's faster to do Blur first, since you can ignore the Mirror Image check if they miss, whereas if you do Mirror first, you still have to check for Blur.
This makes a bit of a difference regarding how long mirror images last. Check conceal before attack roll and images last longer, check concealment after successful attack roll and mirror images last less...
The difference is minor, but noticeable enough.
|
|
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.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...
Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.
@Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math:
5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image.
3 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 75% chance to destroy an image. 6.25% chance of taking damage, 43.75% chance of losing an image.
1 image + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 50% chance of destroying an image. 12.5% chance of taking damage, 37.5% chance of destroying an image.
He was trying to make the point that the odds are significantly in favor of images being destroyed with a concealment effect in play. The percentages go up if concealment counts as "missing by 5 or less" for purposes of the Mirror Image spell.
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.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.
@Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math:
5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image.
My math accounted for everything that was happening.
If you miss from concealment it doesn't destroy an image.
With 5 images and displacement.
50% chance on attack roll he will hit your ac or higher.
25% chance on attack roll to miss by 5 or less.
25% on attack roll to miss entirely.
50% a hit will miss entirely.
50% a hit is a hit.
16.7% chance a hit hit you.
83.3% chance a hit hits an image.
So the first half is easy. 25% outright miss. 25% an image is destroyed.
The next half is more complicated. Of the 50% chance on attack roll to hit... 50% of those miss entirely.
So. Now we are up to a 50% chance to miss entirely. and 25% chance to hit an image.
That leaves us with the hits that connect to you or an image. Of those 25% of the attacks, 16.7% hit you, 83.3% hit an image. (16.7x.25=4.175) (83.3x.25=20.825)
That gives us our full 100% breakdown of:
50% miss entirely.
45.8% hit an image.
4.2% hit you.
The chance an image is destroyed is less when concealment is in play. The numbers do not lie.
That gives us our full 100% breakdown of:
50% miss entirely.
45.8% hit an image.
4.2% hit you.
The full 100% breakdown for just mirror image with 5 images is:
25% miss outright
66.7% hits an image
8.4% hits you
I'm agreeing with Bizbag (and a few others) - this shouldn't matter. Concealment triggers off a hit, and images can be hit, so it should apply to them. It's just easier to roll beforehand.
I believe what Darksol was saying (moreso) is that the ratio of Hits:Image-Hits goes up if you resolve the mirror image first. He was expressing it as absolute because he was using a two-step process:That gives us our full 100% breakdown of:
50% miss entirely.
45.8% hit an image.
4.2% hit you.
- Check mirror image,
- Check concealment.
- Check mirror image 'miss by 5' clause,
- Check concealment,
- Check for Image-Hit.
- Check concealment,
- Check mirror image.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I see what is being said I only check concealment if I hit. If I'm attacking a displaces mirror imaged person and roll with 5 of their ac ill remo e images and never check concealment.
Pretty sure that's working as intended. Blur and displacement are not there to protect your images.
25% miss outright
66.7% hits an image
8.4% hits you
Is it just me, or is your sum higher than 100%?
*ducks for cover*
It could be argued that images have an AC equal to your AC-5. After all, the spell says there is a chance the attack targets one of your images instead.
If the attack misses you but hits an image in that AC-5 zone, I would say you still roll concealment for displacement as an image was targeted in this scenario.
Provided of course that the images get the benefit of displacement of course, which I have no idea.
Majuba has how I think it should work: If a Mirror Image is supposed to be an exact copy of you that shifts in and out of your square and follows you down to the T, it should have the same qualities as you. Granted, these images only mimick casting spells, making attacks, performing special abilities, etc. they still get attacked like the character does, and in those instances, effects that apply to being attacked should also apply to the images.
In this case, since a character (as well as his images) is being attacked, rolling for concealment should apply to both images and the character.
But then there is another problem: The images are only a figment. They aren't actually there, and they aren't affected by any of the buffs or abilities a character might have, they simply copy what the character does in terms of actions and movements.
Well, this (ironically enough) answers my (own) question: Definitely not worth it to stack both Blur/Displacement and Mirror Images.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If you miss from concealment it doesn't destroy an image.
This is the part I'm not so sure about. Look at mirror image:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
So we roll to hit and beat the target's AC. Then concealment rears its ugly head and causes us to miss.
So we have now:
1. missed
2. by less than 5. In fact, by a negative number. Missing by -3 is less than missing by 5.
So it seems to me that an image is destroyed.
Edit: the key distinction is that here it's not a hit that destroys an image - they are destroyed by being missed so concealment on the images doesn't help them.
Upon further consideration, I'm not convinced the images benefit from displacement. Displacement works by shifting where enemies perceive you are. In essence, where you are is not where you appear.
Mirror images aren't there in the first place. You'd have a hard time convincing me that you shifted the appearance of something that was never there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this question reaches farther than we understand... It's not that common for someone to have blur AND displacement up.. but what about fighting in obscuring mist? Dim light? Magical Darkness? These are a lot more common.
I'd say roll miss chances from concealment/cover first, and then deal with any other defenses the character has.
|
|
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.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.
@Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math:
5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image.
My math accounted for everything that was happening.
If you miss from concealment it doesn't destroy an image.
With 5 images and displacement.
50% chance on attack roll he will hit your ac or higher.
25% chance on attack roll to miss by 5 or less.
25% on attack...
Except you just did it again. Your final percentage only includes the image destruction resulting from an attack that could have hit the unbuffed target. You have to add in the 25% from missing the target in the first place, in which case Concealment doesn't, by RAW, come into play. I'm not disagreeing that your math is correct for the times when the initial attack roll hits, but there is that 50% of the time when the initial attack missed outright that it auto-destroys an image before the Concealment check.
According to mirror image, an attack that misses by 5 or less destroys an image from the near miss. Concealment is not checked unless the attack hits, so you don't check for Concealment on a near miss. Thus, that 25% of the time when the attack is a near-miss, as opposed to a miss, the image is destroyed, adding 25% to your image destruction numbers.
Even applying the idea I proposed earlier (and the Dr Grecko also proposed) that you could roll Concealment separately for attacks that hit the figment AC, there is still a flat percentage of attacks that hit the figments that was left out of your final percentage. There is only a 25% chance in your scenario of it being a True Miss, or a 37.5% chance if you're rolling concealment for the figments. It's never a 50% chance of true miss until the images run out.
25% miss outright
66.7% hits an image
8.4% hits youIs it just me, or is your sum higher than 100%?
*ducks for cover*
Haha, no, you are right. It was 8.3%. Typo. >.<
If you miss from concealment it doesn't destroy an image.This is the part I'm not so sure about. Look at mirror image:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.So we roll to hit and beat the target's AC. Then concealment rears its ugly head and causes us to miss.
So we have now:
1. missed
2. by less than 5. In fact, by a negative number. Missing by -3 is less than missing by 5.So it seems to me that an image is destroyed.
Edit: the key distinction is that here it's not a hit that destroys an image - they are destroyed by being missed so concealment on the images doesn't help them.
If you want to apply the concealment misses to the attack roll clause... then you should be consistent.
You ROLL for concealment, and if your concealment roll causes the attack to miss by 5 or less, then it would apply.
Be consistent at least if you intend to apply rules in places they clearly aren't meant to be applied.
New concealment breakdown with mirror image destruction clause misapplied for some reason:
1-45% Miss.
46-50% Image destroyed.
51-100% Hit.
Except you just did it again. Your final percentage only includes the image destruction resulting from an attack that could have hit the unbuffed target. You have to add in the 25% from missing the target in the first place, in which case Concealment doesn't, by RAW, come into play. I'm not disagreeing that your math is correct for the times when the initial attack roll hits, but there is that 50% of the time when the initial attack missed outright that it auto-destroys an image before the Concealment check.
According to mirror image, an attack that misses by 5 or less destroys an image from the near miss. Concealment is not checked unless the attack hits, so you don't check for Concealment on a near miss. Thus, that 25% of the time when the attack is a near-miss, as opposed to a miss, the image is destroyed, adding 25% to your image destruction numbers.
Even applying the idea I proposed earlier (and the Dr Grecko also proposed) that you could roll Concealment separately for attacks that hit the figment AC, there is still a flat percentage of attacks that hit the figments that was left out of your final percentage. There is only a 25% chance in your scenario of it being a True Miss, or a 37.5% chance if you're rolling concealment for the figments. It's never a 50% chance of true miss until the images run out.
Wut.
I accounted for that! I'll show you again... with like... all the steps I guess.
D20 roll results;
1-5: Hits AC 10-14: Complete miss with no images destroyed. 25% of d20 rolls.
6-10: Hits AC 15-19: Destorys an image. 25% of d20 rolls.
11-20: Hits AC 20+ : Might hit you. 50% of d20 rolls.
Breakdown: 25% miss. 25% destroy image. 50% might hit. (100%)
Next Step:
Of the 11-20 d20 rolls... 50% will hit something, 50% will miss. This brings our breakdown to:
25% of d20 rolls miss entirely.(from d20 1-5)
25% of d20 rolls destroy an image.(from d20 6-10)
25% of d20 rolls miss entirely. (from d20 11-20 but failed concealment)
25% of d20 rolls hit something. (from d20 11-20 with success concealment)
100% total
Last step:
Of the 25% that hit something. 1 of 6 will hit you(16.7%). 5 of 6 ll hit an image(83.3%).
.25 x .167 = .04175 (~4.2%) Hit you
.25 x .833 = .20825 (~20.8%) Hit image
Final tally:
25% miss (from d20 1-5)
25% hit image (from d20 6-10)
25% miss (d20 11-20 concealment miss)
20.8% hit image (d20 11-20 concealment hit 5/6 image check)
4.2% hit you (d20 11-20 concealment hit 1/6 image check)
totals:
50% miss
45.8% hit image
4.2% hit you
|
|
Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.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.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...
That's right, it's not actually Total Concealment because you can still target subject of Displacement. Total Concealment is a specific condition, Displacement is similar but different so it stacks with Blur which actually provides Concealment.
I usually roll miss chances before AC for simplicity. It also saves time at the table, as if I fail I don't have to bother adding up my attack roll and asking the GM if it hits.
|
|
I usually roll miss chances before AC for simplicity. It also saves time at the table, as if I fail I don't have to bother adding up my attack roll and asking the GM if it hits.
Depending on the situation I will ask a player to roll the attack before the miss chance, it doesn't usually matter but it does one in a while.
Upon further consideration, I'm not convinced the images benefit from displacement. Displacement works by shifting where enemies perceive you are. In essence, where you are is not where you appear.
Mirror images aren't there in the first place. You'd have a hard time convincing me that you shifted the appearance of something that was never there.
We just need to follow the RAW. Roll to hit. Apply whatever effects are determined from the roll. If hit- determine concealment % roll. Apply results. If hit, apply hit.
These things have an order; we simply follow them, and apply whenever effects and whatnot need applied whenever we get to the correct step.
conealment is only checked on a hit. if i miss the target by 3 idestroy an image and o not check concealment as i did not hit
conealment is only checked on a hit. if i miss the target by 3 idestroy an image and o not check concealment as i did not hit
yep
|
|
That's right, it's not actually Total Concealment because you can still target subject of Displacement. Total Concealment is a specific condition, Displacement is similar but different so it stacks with Blur which actually provides Concealment.Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.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.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target...
Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If you want to apply the concealment misses to the attack roll clause... then you should be consistent.
You ROLL for concealment, and if your concealment roll causes the attack to miss by 5 or less, then it would apply.
Be consistent at least if you intend to apply rules in places they clearly aren't meant to be applied.
New concealment breakdown with mirror image destruction clause misapplied for some reason:
1-45% Miss.
46-50% Image destroyed.
51-100% Hit.
Huh? I'm not talking about the actual concealment roll. I'm saying that if you beat the target's AC, yet concealment causes a miss, then you have by definition missed by less than 5. Mirror image refers to the attack roll in its "miss by 5 or less" clause. An attack roll is always the d20 roll you used to try and hit. Here's another breakdown:
Assume AC20 target
any roll 1-14 misses everything
any roll 15-19 is going to dispel an image
any roll 20 or higher will either hit the target or dispel an image
...regardless of concealment.
There is no way, by the text of mirror image, to roll higher than 5 below the targets AC and not either hit the target or pop an image. Mirror image doesn't care about why you missed, just that you missed and did better than than 5 less than the target's AC. Concealment causing a miss doesn't matter any more than mage armor causing the miss. A miss is a miss and "good" misses pop images.
Another example:
AC 25 target with mirror image and blur up.
Attacker roll 28 to hit.
Check miss chance - say low is bad - rolls 10. Attack misses.
Did the attacker miss? yes
Did the attacker roll above a 20? (missed by less than 5?) yes
Image pops.
25% of d20 rolls miss entirely. (from d20 11-20 but failed concealment)
So these cause an image to pop due to missing by 5 or less?
I think that is the question that needs to be answered.
/cevah
|
|
Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.
Can you please list these "precedents" that you're referring to so we can make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges.
Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.Can you please list these "precedents" that you're referring to so we can make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges.
Not sure what's tripping you up; there are several subjects in the book that says "This functions like X, except Y," such as Mass or Greater spells, items like Bane Baldric, etc.
Blur and Displacement would fall under this category, since both Blur and Displacement grant a miss chance.
If you think they are different, which is fine, I would also refer you to this line in Blur:
Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
If we want to get into the "can't really see" argument, compare that to this RAW from the Concealment section:
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.
In other words, if you can't see him, he has total concealment. Blur, you can still see as Blur doesn't provide total concealment, only a 20% miss chance, which isn't what total concealment is defined as.
However, if you take Blur to be actual concealment, and try to stack it with Displacement (which you don't claim is actual concealment), which gives additional miss chance, Blur would cancel out due to the clause cited above; in other words, if you're already given an effect that grants total concealment (or enhances the concealment from Blur to equate or become superior to total concealment, which you would treat Displacement to do according to your interpretation), Blur stops working for you, but Displacement would still persist. (Ironically enough, if a caster did have both effects active, and Displacement was dispelled, Blur would resume its function.)
My guess would be it does not stack. Partial and complete concealment do not stack.
Blur and Displacement do the same thing. I would not allow it. Also it says touched creature, not with all the images.
For timing, it says under concealment that for a successful attack roll %. It needs to be a successful attack before rolling to hit you. I would say that a successful hit will trigger the images, than the concealment if it is you.