RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
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.
You may be right, but I see no RAW evidence for that interpretation. His way also has the odd effect of making it worse to roll high on an attack roll, whereas my way a high roll is consistently a good thing. My way also doesn't involve inventing some new state of attack that counts as both a hit and a miss.
My table makes jokes about "sine wave AC" when a player forgets a modifier and blurts it out after the roll's success has already been established:
"I roll a 26"
"That hits."
"Oh wait I forgot heroism - it's a 28."
"Well in that case you miss."(joke)
Remy's version makes this exchange a reality.
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.You may be right, but I see no RAW evidence for that interpretation. His way also has the odd effect of making it worse to roll high on an attack roll, whereas my way a high roll is consistently a good thing. My way also doesn't involve inventing some new state of attack that counts as both a hit and a miss.
My table makes jokes about "sine wave AC" when a player forgets a modifier and blurts it out after the roll's success has already been established:
"I roll a 26"
"That hits."
"Oh wait I forgot heroism - it's a 28."
"Well in that case you miss."(joke)Remy's version makes this exchange a reality.
Uh.. what? No it doesn't.
Rolling higher is always better. In either interpretation. The goal is to hit the target isn't it? If you roll below his AC you don't get to hit him.
Higher is always better...
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.
Because of how concealment works. Concealment, by the RAW, is hard to get your head around. I get that. It has some very counterintuitive wording.
So, naturally how that interacts with other stuff can make it even harder to parse out properly... But it is absolutely doable.
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.
Alright, read how concealment works. Take a close look at how they word it, because it is tricky.
For concealment to kick in, for us to even roll the d%... the attack had to be successful. Those are the words they use here. "the subject of a successful attack".
Then it says that the attack has a 20% (or 50% for total) chance of missing 'because of the concealment'. So, the successful attack can miss. Hard to process? Wait it gets worse! The next line tells us the procedure for doing this, and again, pay close attention to the words they use here.
The process we use is to: Make the attack normally... and "if the attack hits" then apply d% to "avoid being struck".
Okay, so what just happened? Well, they are using the terms "successful attack" and "if the attack hits" interchangeably here it would seem, right? They mean pretty much the same thing I guess. They are also interchanging "miss" and "avoids being struck". Pretty much the same thing too. But this leads us to a very counter intuitive reading of how concealment works.
You only roll concealment if you are hit, and it causes the attack to miss.
That is how you can both hit and miss with an attack... because the wording of concealment is such that you have to be hit by the attack before you find out that the attack missed instead.
I would love for them to have worded concealment differently, but.. that is what we have as RAW, so... thems what we got.
Why does that matter in this discussion? Because the "miss by 5 or less" is clearly talking about the attack roll. The attack roll has to hit before we know it misses from concealment. Concealment is a totally different step, it comes after the attack roll step is finished.
Normally we follow these steps for Mirror Image:
Roll. If miss by more than 5, then miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. If hit, then roll image/caster is hit. If image, then destroyed. if caster, then damage.
But when we add in concealment, this triggers immediately after we determine that we might have an actual hit on our hands... it looks almost the same, but concealment squeezes in like this:
Roll. If miss by more than 5, then miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. If hit,[then roll d% for hit or miss. If miss, then misses. If hit,] then roll image/caster is hit. If image, then destroyed. If caster, then damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
But concealment turns a hit into a miss, is entirely my point. Now you have missed, and you trigger the missing clause in mirror image. Compare your attack roll to 5 less than the target's AC, and pop an image if needed. Mirror image doesn't say "check this exactly once and then ignore it if something besides AC causes the miss."
And your way does make it worse to roll high: (AC20 example again)
Your way:
1-14: clean miss
15-19: destroy image - guaranteed
20+: chance again for clean miss because of concealment. You say the attacker can't even get the consolation prize of a popped image if they roll too high.
Roll. If miss by more than 5, then miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. If hit,[then roll d% for hit or miss. If miss, then misses. If hit,] then roll image/caster is hit. If image, then destroyed. If caster, then damage
emphasis mine - now that you are missing, you still need to check if it was by less than 5. Since you beat their AC, it was.
I think you think that I don't understand your argument. I do understand it, I'm just rejecting it as nonsensical. I see no reason to treat a miss from concealment as somehow different from any other miss. I see no reason to penalize attackers for rolling too high by removing their ability to pop an image on a miss, just because of the source of the miss.
In your version an attacker than rolled high enough to hit the target, but then misses due to concealment, is worse off than if he had missed by 1, because then he would have popped an image. He does worse for rolling higher.
But concealment turns a hit into a miss, is entirely my point. Now you have missed, and you trigger the missing clause in mirror image. Compare your attack roll to 5 less than the target's AC, and pop an image if needed. Mirror image doesn't say "check this exactly once and then ignore it if something besides AC causes the miss."
And your way does make it worse to roll high: (AC20 example again)
Your way:
1-14: clean miss
15-19: destroy image - guaranteed
20+: chance again for clean miss because of concealment. You say the attacker can't even get the consolation prize of a popped image if they roll too high.Roll. If miss by more than 5, then miss. If miss by 5 or less, destroy image. If hit,[then roll d% for hit or miss. If miss, then misses. If hit,] then roll image/caster is hit. If image, then destroyed. If caster, then damageemphasis mine - now that you are missing, you still need to check if it was by less than 5. Since you beat their AC, it was.
I think you think that I don't understand your argument. I do understand it, I'm just rejecting it as nonsensical. I see no reason to treat a miss from concealment as somehow different from any other miss. I see no reason to penalize attackers for rolling too high by removing their ability to pop an image on a miss, just because of the source of the miss.
In your version an attacker than rolled high enough to hit the target, but then misses due to concealment, is worse off than if he had missed by 1, because then he would have popped an image. He does worse for rolling higher.
Re-emphasis mine
How do you know that "miss by 5 or less" is talking about the d20 anymore? To check this clause again, should you not apply the 'miss by 5 or less" to the roll you just made that caused it to miss? Ie the d% concealment check?
Why are you retroactively applying it to a step you have already finished? The attack roll is done and over. The attack roll hit. The attack roll did not miss. The concealment check is why it missed.
Therefore, if you truly wish to apply the clause “missed by 5 or less” then it should be applied to the concealment check. But this just seems silly to do. I do concede that it is a valid interpretation; it just seems like an artificially forced one.
But, I totally disagree that rolling lower is better. Unless you believe the goal of an attack is only to destroy an image. I don't think it is. I think the goal of an attack is to damage the target. An attack that misses on the attack roll has no chance to damage the target at all. An attack roll that hits does have a chance to damage the target.
I thought about this for a bit and I think I've isolated the reason I reject your interpretation.
See, when we read the text of Mirror Image, we must add something to it for it to make any sense. I admit, I am doing exactly that. The text "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss." simply doesn't make any sense without adding context to it.
If the attack misses by 5 or less... what?
5 or less feet? 5 or less minutes? 5 or less apples? We need context!
The was I read it is thus;
If the attack misses by 5 or less on the attack roll, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
Now, I believe that this is what the line means, though I certainly couldn't prove that. But I have good reason to suspect strongly that on the 'attack roll' is exactly the context we should be seeing here... namely that everything in this section is talking about your results from the attack roll.
That is where I am coming from... which may not be perfect. But...
What context are you reading into it to come up with your interpretation? I honestly cannot for the life of me figure out what you think the "5 or less" is speaking to. At times you seem to be reading it the same way that I am... and others you seem to reading it otherwise.
Do you think it should be read as one of these?
1. If the attack misses by 5 or less on the attack roll
2. If the attack misses by 5 or less on any roll
3. If the attack misses by 5 or less of anything quantifiable
4. Or... do you have an alternate context?
See, if you read it as I do, option 1, then the only interpretation that follows is the one I've proposed. If you read it as option 2, you get weird results, those silly ones I brought up earlier about comparing your d% to the 'miss by 5 or less' clause. And if you choose option 3, well, then any attack that misses for any reason will destroy an image... in fact, even an attack against someone else would destroy an image... lol. 'miles' are quantifiable, after all. Maybe option 4 is what you have used... but if it is you haven't stated precisely what context you are interjecting here.
So, my question is: What context are you using to justify a concealment miss to cause an image to be destroyed?
Write it in the form:
"If the attack misses by 5 or less insert context here. "
I think that would go a long way to seeing how you are getting to your interpretation, knowing what it is that you think needs to miss by 5 or less.
|
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:
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.
So ignore the part where I said call it an effect instead of a bonus. It comes out to the same thing. Similar effects in differing strengths only grant the stronger effect. Effects can render each other irrelevant. Did you read the entirety of the rules-section I quoted?
Out of curiosity, where are the types of bonuses listed? I've never seen a comprehensive list, and I can almost guarantee you never have either because there isn't one.
And out of curiosity, are you implying that miss chances do stack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So ignore the part where I said call it an effect instead of a bonus. It comes out to the same thing. Similar effects in differing strengths only grant the stronger effect. Effects can render each other irrelevant. Did you read the entirety of the rules-section I quoted?Out of curiosity, where are the types of bonuses listed? I've never seen a comprehensive list, and I can almost guarantee you never have either because there isn't one.
And out of curiosity, are you implying that miss chances do stack?
Uhm.
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
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. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
So...
Alchemical
Armor
Circumstance
Competence
Deflection
Dodge
Enhancement
Insight
Luck
Morale
Natural Armor
Profane
Racial
Resistance
Sacred
Shield
Size
Trait
Here is a list for you.
Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:
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.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.
Okay, you want me to reply to this whole effects argument too? Fine.
The spells need to be identical for this rule to be called into action. If they are not identical, this rule does not apply.
Can you spot a difference between the spell effects? Any difference at all? Not identical.
Two or more identical spells on the same target but at different strengths refers to more than one mirror image(or whatever) of different caster levels.
If the 8th level bard casts it on himself and then the 10th level wizard casts it on the whole party, then the bard has been affected by "two identical spells of different strength". Mirror image is not identical to blur, they stack
I cast this combo all the time and so do my players. I always roll miss chance first. If they beat the miss chance and hit then I roll to determine if it hit the target or an image