Blur / Displacement and Mirror Images


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:
jlighter wrote:
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:

Blur wrote:
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:

Concealment wrote:
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...

I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause. My point is that that clause-negation is the only functional difference Displacement has from total concealment, and so the two spells would not stack since Displacement is effectively a concealment effect.

As for a list of precedent rulings and rules:

-Flurry of Blows - functionally equals the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain without requiring the feats; uses "as if" wording
-Stealth Skill - creatures unaware of the Stealthing creature treat it as if it had total concealment
-Shield Master Feat - you treat a shield's defensive enhancement bonus as if it were a weapon bonus too, but it doesn't stack with any existing weapon bonus on the shield (a shield with +2 defense and +1 offense normally attacks with +1, but Shield Master makes it attack with +2)

I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.


jlighter wrote:
I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause.

I could then argue that even if you can attack him normally, you still technically do not have line of sight to him, the parameters for which the Blur clause specifies, and since that aspect of Total Concealment has not changed via its description, the clause of Blur would still take effect, i.e. it would cease to function. But I know better than to go into his silly semantics.

Here's what Displacement says:

Displacement wrote:
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.

Here's what Blur says:

Blur wrote:
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

Notice the bolded parts single out the relevant information we need to intake in terms of effects regarding Concealment.

In both cases, the creature is treated to have (total) concealment. Although Displacement has the "can be targeted normally" clause, nothing else about what it grants changes. Concealment is still Concealment. And Concealment does not stack. It even says so right here:

Concealment Miss Chance wrote:
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.

Both effects grant the target a separate type of Concealment condition, meaning only the highest applies at a given time.

Shadow Lodge

I believe you and I are on the same page then, at least as far as the Blur/Displacement stackage issue?


ryric wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

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.

"by"

That is the word you aren't using properly... as odd as that is.

Quote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less

This clause doesn't simply care if we miss, it specifically wants the cause of the miss to be from the "5 or less".

Concealment is not 5 or less.

You seem to be conflating causes here.

When you roll to hit, you either miss, miss by 5 or less, or you hit. If you miss by 5 or less, destroy an image. If you hit, check for concealment to see if your attack is avoided.

Quote:
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.

That is how concealment works. If you hit (Ie. not a miss of the attack roll) then you check d% to see if you avoid being struck.

It doesn't make any sense to say that "the attack misses by -3". Because the attack didn't miss by -3. It was a successful attack! It hit!

It was then negated by concealment. If you look again, it actually requires a 'successful attack' before you check for concealment.


You aren't using the word "miss" properly either.

The word "by," in this instance, is stating the numerical conditions which lead to automatically destroying the image, i.e. "5 or less." Concealment does not change the numerical parameters for which destroying an image goes off for both the spell's clause, or the result of the attack roll. The factor is that the result of the attack is a miss, a numerical value result from the target's AC being 5 or less. Even if I rolled an effective -4 or -12 to hit the target's AC (which, by a numerical value line, these numbers would be less than 5), but fail the Concealment check, a miss is a miss is a miss.

You know what, as a bonus argument, let's say the creature making the attack can still effectively hit the target's AC on a natural 1; however, rolling a natural 1 on the attack roll is an automatic miss, no questions asked. Are you saying this wouldn't remove an image automatically as well, even though the effective attack roll was 5 or less from the target's AC?

Your sentence about an attack hitting yet missing is absolutely hypocritical in result. How can an attack hit, yet miss at the same time? Do you mean it grazed them? What about the attack doing absolutely nothing?

It doesn't work that way. Saying it was a hit, yet it was a miss, is an oxymoron. Now selling MissHits! Call 1-800-HIT-MISS! You must be 18 years old or older to order! This is the definition of being a munchkin; having the cake and eating it too. Saying it is, and it isn't. There can only be one result from an attack; it's a hit, or a miss. It can't be both.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You aren't using the word "miss" properly either.

The word "by," in this instance, is stating the numerical conditions which lead to automatically destroying the image, i.e. "5 or less." Concealment does not change the numerical parameters for which destroying an image goes off for both the spell's clause, or the result of the attack roll. The factor is that the result of the attack is a miss, a numerical value result from the target's AC being 5 or less. Even if I rolled an effective -4 or -12 to hit the target's AC (which, by a numerical value line, these numbers would be less than 5), but fail the Concealment check, a miss is a miss is a miss.

You know what, as a bonus argument, let's say the creature making the attack can still effectively hit the target's AC on a natural 1; however, rolling a natural 1 on the attack roll is an automatic miss, no questions asked. Are you saying this wouldn't remove an image automatically as well, even though the effective attack roll was 5 or less from the target's AC?

Your sentence about an attack hitting yet missing is absolutely hypocritical in result. How can an attack hit, yet miss at the same time? Do you mean it grazed them? What about the attack doing absolutely nothing?

It doesn't work that way. Saying it was a hit, yet it was a miss, is an oxymoron. Now selling MissHits! Call 1-800-HIT-MISS! You must be 18 years old or older to order! This is the definition of being a munchkin; having the cake and eating it too. Saying it is, and it isn't. There can only be one result from an attack; it's a hit, or a miss. It can't be both.

Read the concealment rules again. I'm not making anything up. I'm just following the RAW.

For your perusal;

Quote:
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.

So... unless you think RAW is wrong...


And you still aren't using it properly.

When you throw Concealment into the mix, it adds on to the otherwise simple "Does the Attack Roll equal to or surpass the Target's AC?" paradigm. Instead of that question, the question then becomes "Does the Attack Roll equal to or surpass the Target's AC and get through the target's concealment?"

And then you throw in the Mirror Image gimmicks, and you suddenly have a completely different question than what is otherwise posed to the simple "Yes, it hits," or "No, it misses" answer that follows.

Shadow Lodge

It's probably not the answer you're looking for, but the table rule our group is currently going with is that mirror image and blur/displacement don't interact.

There's nothing specifically that supports this decision - it just makes life much easier. What made this an easy decision - some BBEGs would be very painful for the melee types if they could both go up at the same time, and the melee types don't need it any worse. And otherwise we'd end up with a lot more less heroic feeling "okay I close my eyes" moments to rule out the mirror images and just have the 50% miss chance while swinging.

I'd be for the rules spelling out how they interact. They do a good job in many other areas (protection from energy and resist energy comes to mind).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

And you still aren't using it properly.

When you throw Concealment into the mix, it adds on to the otherwise simple "Does the Attack Roll equal to or surpass the Target's AC?" paradigm. Instead of that question, the question then becomes "Does the Attack Roll equal to or surpass the Target's AC and get through the target's concealment?"

And then you throw in the Mirror Image gimmicks, and you suddenly have a completely different question than what is otherwise posed to the simple "Yes, it hits," or "No, it misses" answer that follows.

You're making a lot of stuff up to come to your conclusions. I know it is likely because you are trying to simplify the rules. But it isn't RAW.

First you have the attack roll. It either hits or it misses. If it misses by 5 or less an image is destroyed. Then you check concealment if it hit, to determine if it actually hits.

The only way to apply the mirror image destruction rule into the concealment check is to say that if that attack misses from concealment on a concealment check roll by 5 or less, it destroys an image.

You could make an argument for that. That is an interpretation of the wording that could be valid. Personally, I think it is too much hassle and annoying to do that and it seems like a completely unintuitive way the spells would interact... so I would never advocate that as the best interpretation of the RAW but... it is a valid interpretation.

Attack roll - hit or miss. (5 or less here means: d20 roll)

If attack roll hit - concealment hit or miss. (5 or less here means: d% concealment roll)

Addition: How this works is rather straightforward. I'm not sure why you wish to needlessly complicate it.

Roll attack. Hit or miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. Roll concealment. If hit, roll to see which image/caster is hit. If image is hit, destroy image. End.


A couple, things.. As i said earlier i dont think Mirror image and Concealment/displacement stack at all. a Good rule of thumb to follow is if you have to create new rules to explain things then it likely isnt intended to work that way.

The reason that displacement is 'as if had concealment' is because 50% concealment would convey total concealment Ie invisibility. It allows people to do things that displacement is not intended to do. Ie if your displaced you cant hide while people are looking at you.

Lastly, And this is where the whole making up rules comes into play that i referenced above. If i roll a hit on the target, and fail to conncect Ie miss because of concealment no images are distroyed. I did not miss by less than 5 i didnt miss by any number i just missed.

Both abilities, work exactly the same as they do alone.


Mojorat wrote:

A couple, things.. As i said earlier i dont think Mirror image and Concealment/displacement stack at all. a Good rule of thumb to follow is if you have to create new rules to explain things then it likely isnt intended to work that way.

The reason that displacement is 'as if had concealment' is because 50% concealment would convey total concealment Ie invisibility. It allows people to do things that displacement is not intended to do. Ie if your displaced you cant hide while people are looking at you.

Lastly, And this is where the whole making up rules comes into play that i referenced above. If i roll a hit on the target, and fail to conncect Ie miss because of concealment no images are distroyed. I did not miss by less than 5 i didnt miss by any number i just missed.

Both abilities, work exactly the same as they do alone.

How are you not missing by less than 5? Are you missing by a positive 6, which is impossible to roll when you already surpassed the target's AC and actually miss his AC number by an effective -X.

And how can you not miss by any number? Are you making an attack that doesn't require an attack roll to hit? That's the only valid explanation, which is practically impossible. Obviously, certain numbers are hits, but "successful" concealment changes them into misses regardless of their outrageous number. It also doesn't change or supersede the effective result of the attack roll in question, meaning if I roll a 40 against a 32 AC, but miss by concealment, I still rolled a 40 against a 32 AC, but I missed by an effective -8 due to concealment.

Let's try a visual aid. Look at this diagram. Going by the logic of numbers, let's assume 0 is the target's AC, and the other numbers are set differences between the attack roll in comparison to the target's AC. Mirror Image destruction would occur if the number I hit is the positive 5, as well as any other numbers to the left, as they are effectively less than 5 as well.

If I am rolling against a 28 AC and roll a 31 or a 37 to hit, when I am denied that hit via Concealment, that turns into a miss. When I compare that difference to the chart I linked to, if it's not a positive 6 or higher, it destroys an image, period, no questions asked.

In addition, you're forgetting that if the attack misses the real one via concealment, the other images don't have concealment to roll for, nor are they assumed to receive your concealment results, so they would still get targeted by the otherwise successful attack.

As far as I'm concerned, at best it's a 50/50 chance to remove you from the selection of images to be destroyed, which is pointless to have, and is exactly why you're right in that they don't stack at all.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How are you not missing by less than 5? Are you missing by a positive 6, which is impossible to roll when you already surpassed the target's AC and actually miss his AC number by an effective -X.

And how can you not miss by any number? Are you making an attack that doesn't require an attack roll to hit? That's the only valid explanation, which is practically impossible. Obviously, certain numbers are hits, but "successful" concealment changes them into misses regardless of their outrageous number. It also doesn't change or supersede the effective result of the attack roll in question, meaning if I roll a 40 against a 32 AC, but miss by concealment, I still rolled a 40 against a 32 AC, but I missed by an effective -8 due to concealment.

Let's try a visual aid. Look at this diagram. Going by the logic of numbers, let's assume 0 is the target's AC, and the other numbers are set differences between the attack roll in comparison to the target's AC. Mirror Image destruction would occur if the number I hit is the positive 5, as well as any other numbers to the left, as they are effectively less than 5 as well.

If I am rolling against a 28 AC and roll a 31 or a 37 to hit, when I am denied that hit via Concealment, that turns into a miss. When I compare that difference to the chart I linked to, if it's not a positive 6 or higher, it destroys an image, period, no questions asked.

In addition, you're forgetting that if the attack misses the real one via concealment, the other images don't have concealment to roll for, nor are they assumed to receive your concealment results, so they would still get targeted by the otherwise successful attack.

As far as I'm concerned, at best it's a 50/50 chance to remove you from the selection of images to be destroyed, which is pointless to have, and is exactly why you're right in that they don't stack at all.

Dude... you got two steps here. Attack roll. Concealment.

The whole "miss by 5 or less" bit is specifically referring to the attack roll. You know that right?

We don't need charts or complex extra steps or any weird new rule creations here.

If you miss by 5 or less on the attack roll, you hit an image. It is very simple.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
jlighter wrote:
I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause.

I could then argue that even if you can attack him normally, you still technically do not have line of sight to him, the parameters for which the Blur clause specifies, and since that aspect of Total Concealment has not changed via its description, the clause of Blur would still take effect, i.e. it would cease to function. But I know better than to go into his silly semantics.

Here's what Displacement says:

Displacement wrote:
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.

Here's what Blur says:

Blur wrote:
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

Notice the bolded parts single out the relevant information we need to intake in terms of effects regarding Concealment.

In both cases, the creature is treated to have (total) concealment. Although Displacement has the "can be targeted normally" clause, nothing else about what it grants changes. Concealment is still Concealment. And Concealment does not stack. It even says so right here:

Concealment Miss Chance wrote:
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.
Both effects grant the target a separate type of Concealment condition, meaning only the highest applies at a given time.

There is a subtle difference though that I pointed out in one of my earlier post though;

Blur specifically calls out that it provides concealment (as the condition), But read the description of Displacement again, it says that that it provides a 50% miss chance but it's not actually Total Concealment (a.k.a. it does not grant the total concealment condition).

Also, from what you're arguing it would sound like ALL miss chances are concealment but what about Entropic Shield? The description says;

Quote:
A magical field appears around you, glowing with a chaotic blast of multicolored hues. This field deflects incoming arrows, rays, and other ranged attacks. Each ranged attack directed at you for which the attacker must make an attack roll has a 20% miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment). Other attacks that simply work at a distance are not affected.

To me this would mean that while all concealment provides a miss chance not all miss chances are from concealment.

So back to my original point Displacement provides a miss chance but not concealment so it stacks with Blur that provides a miss chance because of concealment.


@DarkKnight27

I would rule no you can't get them to stack. RAW obviously points this being the case.

Grand Lodge

Mydrrin wrote:

@DarkKnight27

I would rule no you can't get them to stack. RAW obviously points this being the case.

Please explain because I don't see it that way and the way I'm reading it would imply that the RAW obviously point toward it being allowed.


@darksoul the painbringer.

Your engaging in what I said was best avoided. If you have to write new ruled to explain how things work together it is a house rule. When attacking ac there is no to the left of the target ac you either hit or you did not.

However this may help from concealment "
Concealment Miss Chance: 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."

If I tie or exceed the target ac I have hit. Second according to the wording above concealent means the target has avoided being struck"

So not only do I not hir but effect triggered on a miss do not trigger.


@ DarkKnight27: I already linked both of the spell descriptions. Displacement says "as if the target had Total Concealment," and then says "Unlike Total Concealment, blah blah blah."

Except for the "Unlike Total Concealment" clause, the creature is, for all intents and purposes, treated to have Total Concealment, including being affected by the condition itself, as well as not able to be seen, except for creatures affected by True Seeing.

Blur says if you aren't seen by the target, its concealment doesn't apply. Since Total Concealment says you have line of effect, but not line of sight, you aren't seen, and when you aren't seen, Blur doesn't work.

In addition, other than the listed "can be targeted normally" clause, both effects grant a Concealment effect (Blur grants Concealment, Displacement affects creature as if it had Total Concealment, etc.), and Concealment effects don't stack.

@ Mojorat: Ignoring the whole "Miss by -X" argument, it doesn't change the factor that the miss chance only affects me, myself, and I. The images don't get that benefit, ergo they are still affected by the hit. My point still stands, whether I extrapolate it one way or the other.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ DarkKnight27: I already linked both of the spell descriptions. Displacement says "as if the target had Total Concealment," and then says "Unlike Total Concealment, blah blah blah."

Except for the "Unlike Total Concealment" clause, the creature is, for all intents and purposes, treated to have Total Concealment, including being affected by the condition itself, as well as not able to be seen, except for creatures affected by True Seeing.

Blur says if you aren't seen by the target, its concealment doesn't apply. Since Total Concealment says you have line of effect, but not line of sight, you aren't seen, and when you aren't seen, Blur doesn't work.

In addition, other than the listed "can be targeted normally" clause, both effects grant a Concealment effect (Blur grants Concealment, Displacement affects creature as if it had Total Concealment, etc.), and Concealment effects don't stack.

@ Mojorat: Ignoring the whole "Miss by -X" argument, it doesn't change the factor that the miss chance only affects me, myself, and I. The images don't get that benefit, ergo they are still affected by the hit. My point still stands, whether I extrapolate it one way or the other.

So in order to make your side of this discussion work we have to ignore part of the description of the spell? That doesn't sound right to me.

You have to take the whole description of the spell, power, ability, ect, into account for determining how the thing works. There are plenty of powers and spell out there that if you ignore part of the description or drop off the last sentence or two work entirely differently than RAW.

So lets look at this again using your above argument; The subject of a Displacement spell cannot be affected by a Blur spell because the subject already has Total Concealment and cannot be seen. Well then how is the subject of Displacement able to be targeted normally? It's because Unlike ACTUAL total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. This is the full quote from the spell which to me implies that the subject of Displacement doesn't actually have Total Concealment because if they did then they could NOT be targeted.

The spell Indivisibly provides Total Concealment. So if you had Invisibility and Blur cast at the same time you would NOT get the benefit of both. You would get which ever was more beneficial to you (or neither if the thing attacking you had True Seeing or some other way to ignore the miss chance).

Also, what if a caster had both Entropic Shield and Blur cast on them and an archer with Tree Seeing shot at the caster? Would that archer have a 20% miss chance?

Yes, because like I said, while all concealment provides a miss chance, not all miss chances are from concealment. That's the case with Displacement, it provides a miss chance but not from concealment.


How is being targeted normally equating to being seen? You can have line of effect, but not line of sight. That is the definition of having Total Concealment, and in that respect, RAW, Displacement does not change it.

That exception only allows enemies to target the character specifically, and not have to target the square in which he may or may not reside. He otherwise still isn't visible to the enemies, ergo Blur wouldn't function.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How is being targeted normally equating to being seen? You can have line of effect, but not line of sight. That is the definition of having Total Concealment, and in that respect, RAW, Displacement does not change it.

That exception only allows enemies to target the character specifically, and not have to target the square in which he may or may not reside. He otherwise still isn't visible to the enemies, ergo Blur wouldn't function.

What? Wait, so according to you, you don't need to see something to target it? That's ridiculous.

Please explain to me how a blind human wizard with no other magical aid can target a creature with Magic Missile without seeing it?

If this is how you run the game and your players are OK with it, that's fine, this game is meant to be adjusted to the play style of those who play it (with the exception of PFS which tries to bring everything under one big umbrella) but that's not what the rules say.

Displacement Does not block line of sight or line of effect to the subject of the spell. It's not actually total concealment. You can clearly see the target of Displacement it's just about 2 feet away from where you think it is, hence the miss chance, but if you cast a Magic Missile at it you would hit it fine because you have both line of sight and line of effect to the target.


DarkKnight27 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How is being targeted normally equating to being seen? You can have line of effect, but not line of sight. That is the definition of having Total Concealment, and in that respect, RAW, Displacement does not change it.

That exception only allows enemies to target the character specifically, and not have to target the square in which he may or may not reside. He otherwise still isn't visible to the enemies, ergo Blur wouldn't function.

What? Wait, so according to you, you don't need to see something to target it? That's ridiculous.

Please explain to me how a blind human wizard with no other magical aid can target a creature with Magic Missile without seeing it?

If this is how you run the game and your players are OK with it, that's fine, this game is meant to be adjusted to the play style of those who play it (with the exception of PFS which tries to bring everything under one big umbrella) but that's not what the rules say.

Displacement Does not block line of sight or line of effect to the subject of the spell. It's not actually total concealment. You can clearly see the target of Displacement it's just about 2 feet away from where you think it is, hence the miss chance, but if you cast a Magic Missile at it you would hit it fine because you have both line of sight and line of effect to the target.

How about you change the spell, which Magic Missile would specifically call out in this instance as being unable to target:

Magic Missile wrote:
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

Since the Wizard is Blind, all enemies are treated as having Total Concealment, ergo he cannot cast Magic Missile unless he possesses Blindsense to the respective range, and even then, by RAW, Displacement would cover this base too, unless he dispels it. To be honest, this would be another great topic for discussion. Perhaps you should make a thread for it?

How about you change it to a more fitting spell, such as Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow: Even Blind Wizards can still cast these spells at enemies, targeting the squares he thinks they're in, and this enemy has Displacement cast on him. Since he gets the Total Concealment condition (regardless of how altered) from both the Wizard's Blindness, as well as Displacement, only one miss chance is rolled, because these two separate, yet equal levels of Concealment, don't stack to a 75% (or 100%) miss chance.

You'd be correct, if Displacement was not supposed to function as a(n) (slightly) altered Total Concealment. It's also important to point out that being targeted normally isn't really clearly defined, nor does it solve all of the qualms you say it does.


Remy Blaster said wrote:
Roll attack. Hit or miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. Roll concealment. If hit, roll to see which image/caster is hit. If image is hit, destroy image. End.

This.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ DarkKnight27: I already linked both of the spell descriptions. Displacement says "as if the target had Total Concealment," and then says "Unlike Total Concealment, blah blah blah."

Except for the "Unlike Total Concealment" clause, the creature is, for all intents and purposes, treated to have Total Concealment, including being affected by the condition itself, as well as not able to be seen, except for creatures affected by True Seeing.

Blur says if you aren't seen by the target, its concealment doesn't apply. Since Total Concealment says you have line of effect, but not line of sight, you aren't seen, and when you aren't seen, Blur doesn't work.

In addition, other than the listed "can be targeted normally" clause, both effects grant a Concealment effect (Blur grants Concealment, Displacement affects creature as if it had Total Concealment, etc.), and Concealment effects don't stack.

@ Mojorat: Ignoring the whole "Miss by -X" argument, it doesn't change the factor that the miss chance only affects me, myself, and I. The images don't get that benefit, ergo they are still affected by the hit. My point still stands, whether I extrapolate it one way or the other.

You and the images are not seperate they can't be targeted seperately. If concealmdnt works there are no benefits to the hit.


Mojorat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ DarkKnight27: I already linked both of the spell descriptions. Displacement says "as if the target had Total Concealment," and then says "Unlike Total Concealment, blah blah blah."

Except for the "Unlike Total Concealment" clause, the creature is, for all intents and purposes, treated to have Total Concealment, including being affected by the condition itself, as well as not able to be seen, except for creatures affected by True Seeing.

Blur says if you aren't seen by the target, its concealment doesn't apply. Since Total Concealment says you have line of effect, but not line of sight, you aren't seen, and when you aren't seen, Blur doesn't work.

In addition, other than the listed "can be targeted normally" clause, both effects grant a Concealment effect (Blur grants Concealment, Displacement affects creature as if it had Total Concealment, etc.), and Concealment effects don't stack.

@ Mojorat: Ignoring the whole "Miss by -X" argument, it doesn't change the factor that the miss chance only affects me, myself, and I. The images don't get that benefit, ergo they are still affected by the hit. My point still stands, whether I extrapolate it one way or the other.

You and the images are not seperate they can't be targeted seperately. If concealmdnt works there are no benefits to the hit.

Except the book calls them out as entities different from the caster, ergo they are separate from the caster himself. They have their own rules, such as they stick in your square, mimick (but not replicate) your actions, movements, etc., and calling them out as "not separate," even though yes, they occupy the same square as the caster, is horsepuckey. (Even now, we're referring to the images and the caster as two separate subjects, which is more than enough proof that they aren't one and the same.)

That bolded part is a lie also. If I miss via Concealment, effects such as Snake Style (or whatever it is Monks use these days, before Paizo nerfs it,) would trigger. Saying I get no benefit to that miss when there are effects which give benefits or options on misses, regardless of cause or reason, is a big fallacy on your part, especially considering you're the one who just made that up.

Also remember that the Concealment benefit only applies to the caster. The images are figments; they aren't real, nor do they have real qualities other than looking real. The Concealment roll doesn't matter if the attack roll beats the AC, but destroys an image (since it didn't really hit the caster, it hit the image), and that you don't roll for Concealment until the target itself is hit, as you so kindly pointed out (as well as everyone else in this thread).

So if I hit AC 28, and rolled an image (and not the caster), my hit goes to the image, destroying it. But if I rolled the caster (and not the images), my hit would go to the caster, the one who has the benefits of Concealment, and I would either miss via Concealment, or hit the caster outright.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How about you change the spell, which Magic Missile would specifically call out in this instance as being unable to target:

Magic Missile wrote:
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

Since the Wizard is Blind, all enemies are treated as having Total Concealment, ergo he cannot cast Magic Missile unless he possesses Blindsense to the respective range, and even then, by RAW, Displacement would cover this base too, unless he dispels it. To be honest, this would be another great topic for discussion. Perhaps you should make a thread for it?

How about you change it to a more fitting spell, such as Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow: Even Blind Wizards can still cast these spells at enemies, targeting the squares he thinks they're in, and this enemy has Displacement cast on him. Since he gets the Total Concealment condition (regardless of how altered) from both the Wizard's Blindness, as well as Displacement, only one miss chance is rolled, because these two separate, yet equal levels of Concealment, don't stack to a 75% (or 100%) miss chance.

You'd be correct, if Displacement was not supposed to function as a(n) (slightly) altered Total Concealment. It's also important to point out that being targeted normally isn't really clearly defined, nor does it solve all of the qualms you say it does

Magic Missile is an appropriate spell for the example I'm using. You are saying that you don't need to see the creature that you're targeting. Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow are not targeted spells like Magic Missile is.

By your interpretation of the rules attacking a creature that is under the effects of a Displacement spell is the same as attacking while blinded because it provides total concealment. So that would mean any targeted spell would not work against that creature such as Magic Missile, Charm Person, Charm Monster, Dominate Person, Hold Person, Feather Fall, etc. because the subject of the Displacement spell has Total Concealment. This is not how it's supposed to work because you are specifically allowed to target the subject of Displacement normally. You can run it however you want in you're own home game but no matter what you say the Displacement spell specifically says it's not actually total concealment that you are granted.

I understand how you're interpreting the spells but I don't think you're interpreting them correctly. So unless you have a new point that you haven't brought up yet I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
You and the images are not seperate they can't be targeted seperately. If concealmdnt works there are no benefits to the hit.

Except the book calls them out as entities different from the caster, ergo they are separate from the caster himself. They have their own rules, such as they stick in your square, mimick (but not replicate) your actions, movements, etc., and calling them out as "not separate," even though yes, they occupy the same square as the caster, is horsepuckey. (Even now, we're referring to the images and the caster as two separate subjects, which is more than enough proof that they aren't one and the same.)

That bolded part is a lie also. If I miss via Concealment, effects such as Snake Style (or whatever it is Monks use these...

Mirror Image says that it creates illusory doubles that inhabit your square. These doubles are supposed to be just that, doubles. That means that if you are effected by a Blur spell of Fire Shield spell your illusory doubles look like they are as well. Otherwise you just target the one that looks different and ignore the rest because they're obviously not the right one to attack.

That being said I still say it goes in this order:
1)Roll to attack
2)Roll Miss Chance (if successful go to step 3)
3)Determine if the attack is a hit, near miss, or miss
4a)If it's a hit, roll for images and resolve normally
4b)If it's a near miss (a.k.a. by 5 or less) destroy an image
4c)If it's a miss resolve normaly

Because the images are doubles of you and look like they're under the same effects as you then if you have the benefits of concealment so do the images. Simple as that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jlighter wrote:
I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.

The 2nd one is a great find, but not for you.

Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
James Jacobs wrote:

At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:

Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.

Flavorwise... with blur, which actually grants concealment, you can't see the target clearly enough to aim at hearts or aortas or kidneys or other sneak attack targets. Therefore, sneak attack doesn't work. With displacement, you CAN see the target clearly. The problem is that when you stab, the target simply might not be there. If he's not there, then you miss and do NO damage. If he IS there, you hit where you were aiming at anyway and thus do sneak attack damage.

Since Sneak Attack works on Displacement, Displacement is NOT concealment. Since Blur IS concealment, the two conditions are not the same, therefore they stack.

Since Displacement is not concealment, the first link of JJ's is moot. Lastly, both are from 2010. Things might have changed since then.

/cevah

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Remy Balster wrote:

Dude... you got two steps here. Attack roll. Concealment.

The whole "miss by 5 or less" bit is specifically referring to the attack roll. You know that right?

We don't need charts or complex extra steps or any weird new rule creations here.

If you miss by 5 or less on the attack roll, you hit an image. It is very simple.

Right if you miss, and you rolled at least 5 less than the target's AC, you destroy an image. It is simple. That's what the spell says happens. The spell doesn't care whether you miss from a low roll or whether it's from concealment - that's you adding extra stuff in.


DarkKnight27 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
You and the images are not seperate they can't be targeted seperately. If concealmdnt works there are no benefits to the hit.

Except the book calls them out as entities different from the caster, ergo they are separate from the caster himself. They have their own rules, such as they stick in your square, mimick (but not replicate) your actions, movements, etc., and calling them out as "not separate," even though yes, they occupy the same square as the caster, is horsepuckey. (Even now, we're referring to the images and the caster as two separate subjects, which is more than enough proof that they aren't one and the same.)

That bolded part is a lie also. If I miss via Concealment, effects such as Snake Style (or whatever it is Monks use these...

Mirror Image says that it creates illusory doubles that inhabit your square. These doubles are supposed to be just that, doubles. That means that if you are effected by a Blur spell of Fire Shield spell your illusory doubles look like they are as well. Otherwise you just target the one that looks different and ignore the rest because they're obviously not the right one to attack.

That being said I still say it goes in this order:
1)Roll to attack
2)Roll Miss Chance (if successful go to step 3)
3)Determine if the attack is a hit, near miss, or miss
4a)If it's a hit, roll for images and resolve normally
4b)If it's a near miss (a.k.a. by 5 or less) destroy an image
4c)If it's a miss resolve normaly

Because the images are doubles of you and look like they're under the same effects as you then if you have the benefits of concealment so do the images. Simple as that.

The bolded part is the only thing the illusory doubles have. They look like they have Concealment, but they don't. The mirror images are a figment of your own (as well as everyone else's) imagination. Mirror Image, a spell that has the figment descriptor, follows the rules regarding figments.

Here's the section for it:

Illusion (Figment) wrote:

A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).

Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

Notice the bolded parts. Figment spells mess with the mind; they don't create actual coincidental effects related to the spells, because they themselves aren't real. In this case, Mirror Image wouldn't actually make the images it creates have Displacement. It'd most certainly look like it, due that the original target itself has it active, but it otherwise shares no other qualities than what's already described.

The concealment applies when a hit towards the creature is confirmed, yes? Images aren't creatures, ergo Concealment wouldn't proc if the AC being hit actually hits an image instead of the creature. So your steps are flawed. It should go as follows:

1) Roll to Attack the target
2) Determine if the attack is a "hit", near miss, or miss
3a) If it equals or surpasses the target's AC, roll for images
3aa) If the roll is an image, image is destroyed.
3ab) If the roll is the caster, roll for concealment and resolve as normal.
3b) If it's a near miss, destroy an image.
3c) If it's a miss, it's a miss, nothing happens.


ryric wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

Dude... you got two steps here. Attack roll. Concealment.

The whole "miss by 5 or less" bit is specifically referring to the attack roll. You know that right?

We don't need charts or complex extra steps or any weird new rule creations here.

If you miss by 5 or less on the attack roll, you hit an image. It is very simple.

Right if you miss, and you rolled at least 5 less than the target's AC, you destroy an image. It is simple. That's what the spell says happens. The spell doesn't care whether you miss from a low roll or whether it's from concealment - that's you adding extra stuff in.

Uhm...

Quote:
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.

Specifically talking about attack rolls. I'm not adding anything.


DarkKnight27 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How about you change the spell, which Magic Missile would specifically call out in this instance as being unable to target:

Magic Missile wrote:
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.

Since the Wizard is Blind, all enemies are treated as having Total Concealment, ergo he cannot cast Magic Missile unless he possesses Blindsense to the respective range, and even then, by RAW, Displacement would cover this base too, unless he dispels it. To be honest, this would be another great topic for discussion. Perhaps you should make a thread for it?

How about you change it to a more fitting spell, such as Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow: Even Blind Wizards can still cast these spells at enemies, targeting the squares he thinks they're in, and this enemy has Displacement cast on him. Since he gets the Total Concealment condition (regardless of how altered) from both the Wizard's Blindness, as well as Displacement, only one miss chance is rolled, because these two separate, yet equal levels of Concealment, don't stack to a 75% (or 100%) miss chance.

You'd be correct, if Displacement was not supposed to function as a(n) (slightly) altered Total Concealment. It's also important to point out that being targeted normally isn't really clearly defined, nor does it solve all of the qualms you say it does

Magic Missile is an appropriate spell for the example I'm using. You are saying that you don't need to see the creature that you're targeting. Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow are not targeted spells like Magic Missile is.

By your interpretation of the rules attacking a creature that is under the effects of a Displacement spell is the same as attacking while blinded because it provides total concealment. So that would mean any targeted spell would not work against that creature such as Magic Missile, Charm Person, Charm...

What I said was Total Concealment applies when you have line of effect, but not line of sight. In this case, Magic Missile has clear line of effect, but when you have no line of sight, Total Concealment applies, and Magic Missile states it always hits, except in cases of Total Concealment or Total Cover. Ergo, you would technically still fire the spell, but it would not hit. There's a joke in here somewhere...

The thing is, when said Wizard is Blind, the Wizard treats all other creatures as if they had Total Concealment from the Wizard, and unless the Wizard has Blindsense, he cannot target creatures with Magic Missile. I'm not sure how that's tripping you up.

Also remember that, as you gladly pointed out, Displacement treats the target as if they had Total Concealment, with the granted exception of being able to be targeted. Problem is, being able to target them doesn't mean you are able to see them, which means we're running right back into square 1 again of Blur's effects being superseded.

Of course, that's just following the RAW interpretation of the matter, in which is about as coherent as trying to understand what this clown is trying to say or do.

@ Cevah: While Blur, as you kindly pointed out in JJ's 2nd, negates Sneak Attack and Displacement does not, Blur still gives a miss chance via Concealment, and Displacement gives its own miss chance. JJ's 1st, which mentions 3 separate types of miss chances (Entropic Shield, Displacement, Blink), all only amount to the highest amount (50%), meaning that while Blur still grants Concealment miss chance of 20%, it won't increase above the 50% mark set by Displacement. I could also then throw in there that since Blur's Concealment miss chance being amplified by Displacement equates to the character receiving the Total Concealment condition, Blur's effects would cease to function. But at this point it doesn't really matter.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How is being targeted normally equating to being seen? You can have line of effect, but not line of sight. That is the definition of having Total Concealment, and in that respect, RAW, Displacement does not change it.

That exception only allows enemies to target the character specifically, and not have to target the square in which he may or may not reside. He otherwise still isn't visible to the enemies, ergo Blur wouldn't function.

What? Wait, so according to you, you don't need to see something to target it? That's ridiculous.

Please explain to me how a blind human wizard with no other magical aid can target a creature with Magic Missile without seeing it?

If this is how you run the game and your players are OK with it, that's fine, this game is meant to be adjusted to the play style of those who play it (with the exception of PFS which tries to bring everything under one big umbrella) but that's not what the rules say.

Displacement Does not block line of sight or line of effect to the subject of the spell. It's not actually total concealment. You can clearly see the target of Displacement it's just about 2 feet away from where you think it is, hence the miss chance, but if you cast a Magic Missile at it you would hit it fine because you have both line of sight and line of effect to the target.

How about you change the spell, which Magic Missile would specifically call out in this instance as being unable to target:

Magic Missile wrote:
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment.
Since the Wizard is Blind, all enemies are treated as having Total Concealment, ergo he cannot cast Magic Missile unless he possesses Blindsense to the respective range, and even then, by RAW, Displacement would cover this base too, unless he dispels it. To be honest, this would be...

Blindsense would not help. He would need blindsight.

Shadow Lodge

Cevah wrote:
jlighter wrote:
I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.

The 2nd one is a great find, but not for you.

Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
James Jacobs wrote:

At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:

Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.

Flavorwise... with blur, which actually grants concealment, you can't see the target clearly enough to aim at hearts or aortas or kidneys or other sneak attack targets. Therefore, sneak attack doesn't work. With displacement, you CAN see the target clearly. The problem is that when you stab, the target simply might not be there. If he's not there, then you miss and do NO damage. If he IS there, you hit where you were aiming at anyway and thus do sneak attack damage.

Since Sneak Attack works on Displacement, Displacement is NOT concealment. Since Blur IS concealment, the two conditions are not the same, therefore they stack.

Since Displacement is not concealment, the first link of JJ's is moot. Lastly, both are from 2010. Things might have changed since then.

/cevah

You have a partial point, but I can actually negate my own argument, and thus invalidate yours, without much effort. *insert standard JJ disclaimer* "He's not a rules guy."

Note that he doesn't say that Displacement isn't granting a miss chance. It does, and if he said it didn't, he'd be wrong. But he does clarify, as I did earlier, that the only difference between Displacement and any other effect that granted Total Concealment is the fact that the creature can be targeted normally, unlike with the Blur spell. This doesn't say that it's not a concealment effect. Even if it were, Miss Chances do not stack. You only get the best one at the time. Displacement + Blur does not give you a 70% miss chance, or a 50% and a 20%, it only gives you a single 50% miss chance.

This is in keeping with the standard practice of saying "X is like Y, except for Z" meaning that for all intents and purposes except those explicitly stated (Z), Y = X. They do this all over the place.

Shadow Lodge

DarkKnight27 wrote:

Also, what if a caster had both Entropic Shield and Blur cast on them and an archer with True Seeing shot at the caster? Would that archer have a 20% miss chance?

Yes, because like I said, while all concealment provides a miss chance, not all miss chances are from concealment. That's the case with Displacement, it provides a miss chance but not from concealment.

Just taking this example out for a spin:

Yes, the Archer in question would be facing a 20% miss chance because Entropic Shield and Blur up, and only one of those is defeated by True Seeing. But, if that same Archer did not have the True Seeing spell, he'd still only face a 20% miss chance, not a 40% miss chance. The two don't stack.

The thing is, the Displacement spell specifically calls out that it's functioning as Total Concealment, with only the listed exception to that condition. Entropic Shield has similar, although slightly different wording: "20 % miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment)."

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

What I said was Total Concealment applies when you have line of effect, but not line of sight. In this case, Magic Missile has clear line of effect, but when you have no line of sight, Total Concealment applies, and Magic Missile states it always hits, except in cases of Total Concealment or Total Cover. Ergo, you would technically still fire the spell, but it would not hit. There's a joke in here somewhere...

The thing is, when said Wizard is Blind, the Wizard treats all other creatures as if they had Total Concealment from the Wizard, and unless the Wizard has Blindsense, he cannot target creatures with Magic Missile. I'm not sure how that's tripping you up.

Also remember that, as you gladly pointed out, Displacement treats the target as if they had Total Concealment, with the granted exception of being able to be targeted. Problem is, being able to target them doesn't mean you are able to see them, which means we're running right back into square 1 again of Blur's effects being superseded.

Of course, that's just following the RAW interpretation of the matter, in which is about as coherent as trying to understand what this clown is trying to say or do.

@ Cevah: While Blur, as you kindly pointed out in JJ's 2nd, negates Sneak Attack and Displacement does not, Blur still gives a miss chance via Concealment, and Displacement gives its own miss chance. JJ's 1st, which mentions 3 separate types of miss chances (Entropic Shield, Displacement, Blink), all only amount to the highest amount (50%), meaning that while Blur still grants Concealment miss chance of 20%, it won't increase above the 50% mark set by Displacement. I could also then throw in there that since Blur's Concealment miss chance being amplified by Displacement equates to the character receiving the Total Concealment condition, Blur's effects would cease to function. But at this point it doesn't really matter.

If a wizard or any other caster or character that is blind is trying to cast a spell, use an ability, or whatever that has to be targeted (such as; Target: One or more creatures) they can't use that spell, power or ability at all because all targets have total concealment and cannot be targeted (without the help of some other type of magic or extraordinary senses).

You claim that targeting a creature doesn't require sight but then I'm going to need you to walk me through how you are targeting anything if you can't see it. The rules provide targeting a square that you suspect a creature is in, but that is NOT the same as targeting a creature. So please explain this to me, is your sense of smell enough to target a creature you can't see? Your sense of hearing? Your sense of taste? Please, explain this to me.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth to try and twist this into something it's not. I NEVER said that Displacement provides total concealment. Quite the opposite I've said repeatedly that it provides a miss chance but it is NOT the same as total concealment.

So, again, unless you have something new to add (that doesn't involve misrepresenting what I've previously stated) I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Grand Lodge

jlighter wrote:
The thing is, the Displacement spell specifically calls out that it's functioning as Total Concealment, with only the listed exception to that condition. Entropic Shield has similar, although slightly different wording: "20 % miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment)."

I disagree. If Displacement said that if functions "as Total Concealment" there wouldn't be any disagreement about the spell. But it doesn't, it says that if provides a miss chance and unlike actual total concealment you can still target the subject of the spell. Hence it does not provide total concealment.

Anyway, I think we've driven this discussion not just into the ground but right through it and out the other side.

I do get your point on stacking miss chances, I'm not sure if I completely agree with it in the case of Displacement/Blur but I can at least understand it.


painbringer your images are not seperate they cannot be targeted seperstely. no where in mirror image does it imply they are. if i hit and concealment works how much did i miss by?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jlighter wrote:
Cevah wrote:
jlighter wrote:
I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.

The 2nd one is a great find, but not for you.

Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
James Jacobs wrote:

At this point, barring rewrites to spells and class abilities:

Sneak Attack works on displaced targets because the text of the spell SPECIFICALLY SAYS that you can target a creature normally. It's just that sometimes, the target's not where you think it is...but that doesn't impact your ability to target the foe. The spell says the miss chance works LIKE concealment, but then goes on to say that this doesn't impact your ability to actually target the foe normally.

Flavorwise... with blur, which actually grants concealment, you can't see the target clearly enough to aim at hearts or aortas or kidneys or other sneak attack targets. Therefore, sneak attack doesn't work. With displacement, you CAN see the target clearly. The problem is that when you stab, the target simply might not be there. If he's not there, then you miss and do NO damage. If he IS there, you hit where you were aiming at anyway and thus do sneak attack damage.

Since Sneak Attack works on Displacement, Displacement is NOT concealment. Since Blur IS concealment, the two conditions are not the same, therefore they stack.

Since Displacement is not concealment, the first link of JJ's is moot. Lastly, both are from 2010. Things might have changed since then.

/cevah

You have a partial point, but I can actually negate my own argument, and thus invalidate yours, without much effort. *insert standard JJ disclaimer* "He's not a rules guy."

*grin*

jlighter wrote:

Note that he doesn't say that Displacement isn't granting a miss chance. It does, and if he said it didn't, he'd be wrong. But he does clarify, as I did earlier, that the only difference between Displacement and any other effect that granted Total Concealment is the fact that the creature can be targeted normally, unlike with the Blur spell. This doesn't say that it's not a concealment effect. Even if it were, Miss Chances do not stack. You only get the best one at the time. Displacement + Blur does not give you a 70% miss chance, or a 50% and a 20%, it only gives you a single 50% miss chance.

This is in keeping with the standard practice of saying "X is like Y, except for Z" meaning that for all intents and purposes except those explicitly stated (Z), Y = X. They do this all over the place.

He said "multiple effects that grant concealment do not stack". I have no problem with that. However, Displacement is NOT concealment, thus making that point moot.

Displacement + Blur gives [1 - (1 - 50%)*(1 - 20%)] or 60% miss chance
Blur + Entropic Shield gives [1 - (1 - 20%)*(1 - 20%)] or 36% miss chance

JJ does say "By not having multiple rolls to determine if the concealment works and consolidating them all into one, combat should run quite a bit smoother (since any time you can eliminate the need for a die roll during play, the result is faster combat).", and I can see the sense of eliminating extra rolls, however, the calculation for miss chance above is not easy for most, so using one then the other is usually the quickest.

Now, if you can show me where is states that miss chances from different sources don't stack, this would change. However, I don't recall ever seeing that.

We can add Wind Wall to the list of spells with a miss chance.

True Strike counters miss chance from concealment, but not other sources.

Environmental effects (like smoke, fog, and darkness) also grant concealment, no matter if natural or spell generated. These would not stack with each other or other other sources of concealment.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Cevah: While Blur, as you kindly pointed out in JJ's 2nd, negates Sneak Attack and Displacement does not, Blur still gives a miss chance via Concealment, and Displacement gives its own miss chance. JJ's 1st, which mentions 3 separate types of miss chances (Entropic Shield, Displacement, Blink), all only amount to the highest amount (50%), meaning that while Blur still grants Concealment miss chance of 20%, it won't increase above the 50% mark set by Displacement. I could also then throw in there that since Blur's Concealment miss chance being amplified by Displacement equates to the character receiving the Total Concealment condition, Blur's effects would cease to function. But at this point it doesn't really matter.

JJ sais "I'd say that having blink and displacement effects going simultaneously would only result in one 50% miss chance as a result (even though blink's effects grant a miss chance in a manner rather different than actual concealment, the in-game effect is identical)."

JJ does not want to process multiple miss chances separately even though they are not all from concealment. Understandable, but not RAW.

There are three sources of miss chance with those spells:
Blur: I cannot see you very well
Blink: You might not be there when I attack
Entropic Shield: Something is preventing my attack from getting through.

Each is a separate kind of miss chance, and ALL apply. That is [1 - (1 - 20%)*(1 - 50%)*(1 - 20%)] = 68%

I can see a debate about wind wall and entropic shield not stacking as both interfere with attacks getting through.

/cevah

Shadow Lodge

Cevah wrote:

JJ does not want to process multiple miss chances separately even though they are not all from concealment. Understandable, but not RAW.

There are three sources of miss chance with those spells:
Blur: I cannot see you very well
Blink: You might not be there when I attack
Entropic Shield: Something is preventing my attack from getting through.

Each is a separate kind of miss chance, and ALL apply. That is [1 - (1 - 20%)*(1 - 50%)*(1 - 20%)] = 68%

I can see a debate about wind wall and entropic shield not stacking as both interfere with attacks getting through.

I don't know that I agree it is not RAW to process only one miss chance. For example:

Stacking wrote:
Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
Bonus Types wrote:
Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Combining Magic Effects wrote:
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

Miss chances don't stack even from different sources the same way enhancement bonuses from Masterwork, Magical Enhancement, and Magic Weapon spells don't stack. All enhancement bonuses, but coming from three different sources (one mundane, one magical craftsmanship, and one from a spell). Miss chances from a natural source (smoke), a spell that obscures the target (Blur), and a spell that creates an environmental obstruction (Wind Wall) aren't going to stack because they're all performing the same function (miss chance).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jlighter wrote:
A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

Bolded parts are false.

Worse yet, if you even want to argue that it is a bonus to defense... then it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses explicitly do stack.

Shadow Lodge

Remy Balster wrote:
jlighter wrote:
A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

Bolded parts are false.

Worse yet, if you even want to argue that it is a bonus to defense... then it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses explicitly do stack.

Miss chance is a type. Same-type doesn't stack. Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:

Combining Magical Effects wrote:

Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.
Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

It is, in effect, a bonus. It isn't untyped, it's a miss chance. A miss chance is a miss chance. You want to get to the nitty gritty, I should have quoted the "Same Effect More than Once in Differing Strengths" section above instead, but it comes to the same thing. Spell A provides a Miss Chance (effect). Spell B provides a Miss Chance (effect). Only the stronger one works, RAW.

Grand Lodge

What about circumstance bonuses (penalties)? They stack with each other unless they come from "essentially the same source". Also, Dodge bonuses stack with each other as well.

These are two examples of the same "type" of bonus stacking with itself.

When it comes to the miss chance from Displacement and Blur stacking I would say that they stack because they come from different sources (one from not being where you seem to be and the other from concealment).

Shadow Lodge

DarkKnight27 wrote:

What about circumstance bonuses (penalties)? They stack with each other unless they come from "essentially the same source". Also, Dodge bonuses stack with each other as well.

These are two examples of the same "type" of bonus stacking with itself.

When it comes to the miss chance from Displacement and Blur stacking I would say that they stack because they come from different sources (one from not being where you seem to be and the other from concealment).

Dodge bonuses and untyped bonuses are explicitly called out in the rules as breaking the normal rule of same-type doesn't stack. Everything that isn't explicitly called out as breaking the general rule is subject to the general rule. Specific rule trumps general rule, but general rule applies in all instances not governed by a specific rule. Where there is a specific rule, it only trumps the general rule as far as the specific rule spells out, and doesn't extend beyond its specific modification.

Some quotes of interest by JJ in one thread on our topic: here and here. He appears to think it's all already written down, if perhaps not the clearest rule.

Edit: Another example might be to look at armor bonuses. You can get a +4 armor bonus to AC from a chain shirt, mage armor, and bracers of armor +4, all from different sources, but they aren't stacking with each other. You only get the +4 bonus to AC from armor. Miss chance is like armor bonus in that sense. You get the best one, but the rest are redundant unless something has the ability to penetrate one but not the other. A creature with a Displacement spell can be struck by Sneak Attack, but not if he has a Blur spell on underneath it. He only gets to roll the miss chance once, but one is effective where the other had a hole in it.


jlighter wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
jlighter wrote:
A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW.

Bolded parts are false.

Worse yet, if you even want to argue that it is a bonus to defense... then it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses explicitly do stack.

Miss chance is a type. Same-type doesn't stack. Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:

Combining Magical Effects wrote:
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.

Dude you're making hella crap up right now.

First off, miss chance isn't a bonus. What is miss chance a bonus to??? Answer: It isn't a bonus to anything. It is its own thing.

Secondly, even if it were a bonus it would be untyped. The types of bonuses are listed... and I promise you "miss chance" is not a listed type. See above, untyped stack.

You are in left field...deep, deep left field.


jlighter wrote:

Dodge bonuses and untyped bonuses are explicitly called out in the rules as breaking the normal rule of same-type doesn't stack. Everything that isn't explicitly called out as breaking the general rule is subject to the general rule. Specific rule trumps general rule, but general rule applies in all instances not governed by a specific rule. Where there is a specific rule, it only trumps the general rule as far as the specific rule spells out, and doesn't extend beyond its specific modification.

Some quotes of interest by JJ in one thread on our topic: here and here. He appears to think it's all already written down, if perhaps not the clearest rule.

Edit: Another example might be to look at armor bonuses. You can get a +4 armor bonus to AC from a chain shirt, mage armor, and bracers of armor +4, all from different sources, but they aren't stacking with each other. You only get the +4 bonus to AC from armor. Miss chance is like armor bonus in that sense. You get the best one, but the rest are redundant unless something has the ability to penetrate one but not the other. A creature with a Displacement spell can be struck by Sneak Attack, but not if he has a Blur spell on underneath it. He only gets to roll the miss chance once, but one is effective where the other had a hole in it.

Whao dude. Are you playing pathfinder???

Dude.

Miss chance isn't a bonus to anything.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Remy Balster wrote:
ryric wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

Dude... you got two steps here. Attack roll. Concealment.

The whole "miss by 5 or less" bit is specifically referring to the attack roll. You know that right?

We don't need charts or complex extra steps or any weird new rule creations here.

If you miss by 5 or less on the attack roll, you hit an image. It is very simple.

Right if you miss, and you rolled at least 5 less than the target's AC, you destroy an image. It is simple. That's what the spell says happens. The spell doesn't care whether you miss from a low roll or whether it's from concealment - that's you adding extra stuff in.

Uhm...

Quote:
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.

Specifically talking about attack rolls. I'm not adding anything.

This is where I'm confused. Every time you quote the spell it supports my argument but then you make your dissenting point or go off on your oddball concealment roll thing.

Your attack is either a hit or a miss, it's binary.

If you roll higher than the target's AC, and make the concealment roll, you hit. Follow the spell text for a hit. "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 you roll less than the target's AC or flub the concealment roll, you miss. Follow the spell text for a miss. "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."

That's it. That's all you do. An attack roll that beats the target's AC yet still misses is a miss by 5 or less. This bolded statement is the crux of my point and you still haven't really addressed why you think it's wrong. You seem to think there's an extra step in there where you check to see if an image is destroyed by a near miss before you check for concealment - I don't see that in the spell so that's what I'm saying you are adding in.

A concealment miss isn't somehow a different, special kind of miss.


ryric wrote:

This is where I'm confused. Every time you quote the spell it supports my argument but then you make your dissenting point or go off on your oddball concealment roll thing.

Your attack is either a hit or a miss, it's binary.

If you roll higher than the target's AC, and make the concealment roll, you hit. Follow the spell text for a hit. "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 you roll less than the target's AC or flub the concealment roll, you miss. Follow the spell text for a miss. "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss."

That's it. That's all you do. An attack roll that beats the target's AC yet still misses is a miss by 5 or less. This bolded statement is the crux of my point and you still haven't really addressed why you think it's wrong. You seem to think there's an extra step in there where you check to see if an image is destroyed by a near miss before you check for concealment - I don't see that in the spell so that's what I'm saying you are adding in.

A concealment miss isn't somehow a different, special kind of miss.

The spell is specifically referring to the attack roll.

Did you miss by 5 or less on the attack roll? Hits an image. Miss by more than 5? Misses. Hit? Roll to see if it destroys an image or hits you.

That is how mirror image works normally. If we add concealment, that goes in to the "Hit?" step... why? Because that is how concealment tells us it functions.

Mirror image only cares about the attack roll. We know that because that is what it is specifically talking about, which I just quoted and bolded. You have no case here.

Whatever other ruling you create to make up your homebrew way these spells work is your business but you do not need to try to pass it off as RAW. That isn't what this forum is for.

Actual rules showing you are wrong:

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments
Quote:
If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

This is talking about the attack roll. It is absolutely 100% crystal clear.

We now have 3 possible outcomes from the attack roll. Either it hits, it misses by 5 or less, or it misses by more than 5.

3 possible outcomes from the attack roll.

You get that right?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Remy, I think I've made my case as best as I can. If you can't see that rolling above a 15 against an AC 20 guy, and missing, is a miss by less than 5 then I'm not sure how else to explain it.

My position is that an attack above the targets AC that fails the concealment check is an attack roll that misses. You seem to think the opposite, which from my point of view means you seem to think that you can hit and miss at the same time, which makes no sense to me.


I think his view is that its an attack roll that is nullified; as in it no longer counts and ceases to have any operational effect on the game by account of having been nullified.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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.

Raw doesn't cover every way we can decide to wonk up spells. That's the fact of life.

51 to 100 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Blur / Displacement and Mirror Images All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.