|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Per the PRD:
Improved Precise Shot wrote: Improved Precise Shot (Combat)
Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.
So I'm looking at the miss chance aspect, not the AC from cover. I've seen a couple of other threads on IPS and people seem to be parsing it incorrectly. IPS ignores anything except Total Cover and Total Concealment. Previous posts have read that it only works against miss chance vs Concealment.
Let's look at Displacement:
Quote: The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance. Displacement is NOT Total Concealment. It simply creates a 50% miss chance. Per IPS...that should be ignored since it's a miss chance that is not created by Total Concealment.
Is there a FAQ or post from a designer which addresses this?
If the miss chance from displacement is the same as that from total concealment its hard to define its effect as "the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment." Its not less than, its equal to.
Additionally the exception to displacement acting as total concealment is irrelevant to the situation. The general application of the displacement affect in which "the creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment." So the effect is as if total concealment for all effects other than targeting (and being subject to true sight).
I don't believe there is a faq and I don't believe one is needed.
Your logic is flawed. IPS says nothing about the miss chance as a reason why Total Concealment is effective.
A 50% miss chance does not equal Total Concealment. In fact, the text for Displacement explicitly points out how it is NOT like total concealment in that you can still see the target.
The error you and others are apparently making is falsely equating that if something creates a 50% miss chance, then it must be the same as total concealment for IPS. That is incorrect.
Quote: as if it had total concealment That's right "as if", which is another way of saying that it's NOT Total Concealment, but simply produces a similar "miss chance."
Total Concealment means you can't see the target. That's why IPS doesn't work. IPS does not say that something with a 50% miss chance still affects it. Nor does IPS say that it's only good up to anything <50% miss chance. It says anything except, and I quote, "total concealment."
Is Displacement tantamount to Total Concealment per the rules? Absolutely not. It just has a similar miss chance. What does provide Total Concealment? Invisibility, 10' of fog, etc. Displacement does not provide Total Concealment.
On second thought, you're right. A FAQ is not needed. IPS does exactly what it says and that is ignore the miss chance from "anything" that is not Total Concealment.
I agree with 959. The feat does not say it fails against a 50% miss chance. It says it is feated by miss chance "granted by total concealment". Since this miss chance is not granted by total concealment then the feat should work.
Though I have to admit, the way it's worded, the context suggests that IPS is only affective against Cover and Concealment.
In other words, is it saying:
"ignore the miss chance form any concealment less than total concealment"
or
"ignore the miss chance form anything that creates a miss chance, except total concealment."
hmmmm
I would say that the feat does not ignore the miss chance from displacement as it says "by anything less than total concealment."
and displacement says "as if it had total concealment."
I would say this works in the same way that other abilities emulate the effects spells. If an effect said a creature is able to see "as if it had true seeing" it would ignore miss chance from displacement despite it not technically being the effect "True Seeing."
Or in the description of the stealth skill:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.
This too says "as if you had total concealment." I don't think the feat is intended to ignore this simply because it doesn't say "You gain concealment against creatures that fail to beat your stealth checks."
The magic item "Robe of Scintillating Colors" also implies that 50% miss chance IS the equivalent of total concealment (as far as miss chance goes).
A Robe of Scintillating Colors explicitly states that it grants "concealment." The rod increases concealment until it's Total Concealment. The text is just telling the reader what the miss chance is.
The stealth skill implies that a person can't see you = Total Concealment.
Displacement only compares it's "miss chance" to Total Concealment, it does not grant you Total Concealment. In fact, unlike Stealth and the Rod, you can still see the target. Big difference.
The answer to this question does not revolve around whether Displacement = Total Concealment for IPS...it does not. The answer revolves around whether IPS works on anything that that grants a miss chance, or only on things that grant Concealment less than Total Concealment.
For example, does it work against Entropic Shield
PRD on Entropic Shield wrote: make an attack roll has a 20% miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment In this case "similar to the effects of Concealment" is similar to Displacement. It's not concealment, it's only similar to the miss chance.
I'd say that RAW is surprisingly very clear. IPS works against displacement!
RAI is very unclear however and I could see it ruled either way. Even when saying that RAI is very unclear, I usually have an idea of how I would rule myself, but this time I'm not even certain of that. If I had to lean somewhere, I'd lean towards IPS working against displacement, but it is probably the closest I've been to a stalemate in my head for a long time
Improved Precise Shot wrote: Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.
Seeking wrote: Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby. Notice the difference in the wording. While it is not as clear as it should be, IPS only removes miss chances from concealment less than total concealment. Seeking removes miss chances from any source.
IPS is better against cover, including soft cover; Seeking is better against miss chances, including blur, displacement, and blink.
IPS works against Blur since the spell definition explicitly states it provides concealment rather than just referencing concealment.
Had that problem come up in a game. My player had IPS and the dragons had displacement.
After careful reading I decided, that by RAW, IPS would not work with displacement. I told him to get a seeking bow.
At this point the various BBEG of this region knew about this insanely dangerous zen archer (Level 15+) and took measures. Mostly he let his caster buddy destroy the displacement spell before he obliterated my dragons... It's fun to play at this level. :)
Jeremias wrote: Had that problem come up in a game. My player had IPS and the dragons had displacement.
After careful reading I decided, that by RAW, IPS would not work with displacement. I told him to get a seeking bow.
At this point the various BBEG of this region knew about this insanely dangerous zen archer (Level 15+) and took measures. Mostly he let his caster buddy destroy the displacement spell before he obliterated my dragons... It's fun to play at this level. :)
This is how I would play it too. Remove the spell and then there is no 50% chance to miss. You would need truesight to see through displacement, IIRC.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
