What are the bonuses/penalties associated with an oracle with Wave Sight firing arrows at a target under the following scenarios?
1) The Oracle is totally concealed by the Obscuring Mist, but the target is not.
2) Both the target and the Oracle are within the obscuring mist and are more than 5 feet apart
3) The obscuring mist cloaks only the target, and the target is more than 5 feet into the mist and unable to see the Oracle.
PRD wrote: Water Sight (Su): You can see through fog and mist without penalty as long as there is enough light to allow you to see normal. Obscuring Mist does not change lighting conditions. The only relevant penalties would be those like soft cover, target being in melee, etc.
If the target can't see the shooter AT ALL (total concealment), the shooter would effectively be invisible (+2 to hit and target is denied it's DEX). (IMHO)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If the oracle has watersight, they do not suffer any concealment caused by the mist. In all three scenarios the oracle can attack the target without penalty, but the oracle would have total concealment from the target, so the oracle would have +2 to hit and the target would be denied dex to AC.
Also, the target would need to make a perception check to even make a return ranged attack, and then would have a 50% miss chance.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Total concealment, without having spent the action to hide with Stealth, does not actually provide any offensive benefit. You think it does, but the rulebook doesn't support it.
@nosig: "IMHO" doesn't really belong in clear-cut rules questions. Attacking from concealment does not deny DEX to AC.
@Question: As writen in Obscuring Mist, 5ft away grants 20% concealment. This includes standing next to each other within the mist and the relation between one at the edge and one outside of the mist (at any distance from the mist and both are affectd by the mist). If it's more than 5ft apart, you gain total concealment.
Wave Sight lets you ignore concealment. There are no bonuses from attacking from concealment (the bonuses granted by invisibility does not apply, as you are not invisible).
The answer to all three questions are the same: the target/enemy has to deal with concealment miss chance. Who's in the mist does not matter to you, you ignore concealment.
Attacking from an unseen position does not grant the "invisible" condition. No +2 attack bonus.
Attacking from an unseen position will cause your opponent to be dex-denied, as they can't react to an attack they can't see happening.
ShieldLawrence wrote: Attacking from an unseen position will cause your opponent to be dex-denied, as they can't react to an attack they can't see happening. I can not find any rules supporing this statment. Keep in mind that other effects, such as the Blind condition and areas of darkness without Darkvision, are not the same as concealment. They grant concealment and other effects (such as denying DEX to AC). Obscuring Mist only grants concealment.
Ability Scores wrote: You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
•Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
•Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
If you can't see an attack happening because it is happening within total concealment, you can't react to the attack.
Where is it stated that you can't react to the attack because of total concealment? I'm asking because I really need to know if I'm wrong.
Rub-Eta wrote: Where is it stated that you can't react to the attack because of total concealment? I'm asking because I really need to know if I'm wrong. It's more common sense and logic than an explicit statement anywhere.
If your attacker has total concealment, you do not have line of sight to him. You can't see him. You can't see his attacks. If you can't see his attacks, you can't react to those attacks.
If you need an explicit rules text statement on the logic, it isn't there. Same problem for attacking from stealth. We have developer commentary on it working this way, but it's absent from the Rulebook.
ShieldLawrence wrote: If you need an explicit rules text statement on the logic, it isn't there. Then it's also not a part of the game's rules. You can't call it "common sense". What you call "common sense" is not represented within the rules. Unlike being blind or enveloped in darkness, Obscuring mist does not render you effectively blind and unable to react to attacks. If it did, it would be stated to deny DEX to AC.
ShieldLawrence wrote: If your attacker has total concealment, you do not have line of sight to him. You can't see him. You can't see his attacks. If you can't see his attacks, you can't react to those attacks. There are some heavy leaps in this logic and it's not based in the game's rules. You draw the conclusion that you can't react to his attack because you can't see him making the attack, but that's not reflected at all in the rules regarding Obscuring Mist (unlike the blind condition). This is by no means "common sense".
If someone's eyes are closed, are they blind?
Is that in the rules?
Frankly I'm in favor of treating the attacked character as blinded, after all, if your sight at a certain distance is obscured, then past that you can't see, which is kinda the definition of blind.
_Ozy_ wrote: If someone's eyes are closed, are they blind?
Is that in the rules?
As far as I know, it's not reflected in the rules. But what is in the rules is that Obscuring Mist is not the same as closing your eyes or being blind, as it's defined as something else.
Val'bryn2 wrote: which is kinda the definition of blind. Not within the game's rules. Also, take a look at the situations provided in the OP. How is it that someone outside the mist can't see the arrow that is shot out at him?
This discussion has already been done, with the appropriate rule quoted:
Quote: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
@Rub-Eta The rules are in a narrative format. They do not explicitly say everything, they can't. It comes down to what you wanna rule on it.
You can react to attacks from total concealment.
•Stealth and Obscuring Mist don't deny dex.
-OR-
You can't react to attacks from total concealment.
•Stealth and Obscuring Mist deny dex.
Make your own call. The phrase "provided the character can react to the attack" does exist in the rules, and that leaves some room open for interpretation.
Now, here's an interesting proposition based on the concealment rules.
If you're in the square that's 10' inside of an Obscuring Mist, shooting arrows at a target outside of of the mist (no 'water sight'):
You get to choose the vertices of your square 5' from the mist edge to calculate concealment, meaning your target only gets partial concealment (20% miss chance).
Your target must draw lines to each of your vertices to determine concealment, meaning you get the full 10' total concealment from the mist.
True?
ShieldLawrence wrote: Make your own call. The phrase "provided the character can react to the attack" does exist in the rules, and that leaves some room open for interpretation. Yes, the phrase exists. And nowhere is it stated in the rules that Obscuring Mist does not allow you to react to an attack. Interpreting it to say otherwise is the opposit of logic and common sense.
This is a rules question in the Rules Questions forum, a proper answer isn't "it's up to you". Because it really isn't. It's up to the DM at any given table. And that's why both players and DMs need to refer to the same rules. And that's why the question is being asked. Don't give an answer that assumes going outside of the rules is allowed.
@_Ozy_: Quote: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see. Can you point me to the general rule that states that you are denied you Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures you cannot see? Because that's what's missing here. You can't "still" apply penalties that were never there (in regard to Obscuring Mist).
_Ozy_ wrote: You get to choose the vertices of your square 5' from the mist edge to calculate concealment, meaning your target only gets partial concealment (20% miss chance).
Your target must draw lines to each of your vertices to determine concealment, meaning you get the full 10' total concealment from the mist.
True?
No. As stated in Obscuring Mist, any further away than 5ft is total concealment. Also: Concealment wrote: If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment. This means that you have concealment when you're standing at the edge of the mist (5ft into it). You can not treat 5ft and 10ft as the same distance.
Rub-Eta wrote: Can you point me to the general rule that states that you are denied you Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures you cannot see? Because that's what's missing here. You can't "still" apply penalties that were never there (in regard to Obscuring Mist). Are you serious? You think that sentence means nothing? Wow. I just pointed you to the rule in black and white. That sentence, interpreted by RAW, means that a creature doesn't get its dex bonus against a creature it can't see.
Quote: No. As stated in Obscuring Mist, any further away than 5ft is total concealment. Also: Concealment wrote: If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment. This means that you have concealment when you're standing at the edge of the mist (5ft into it). You can not treat 5ft and 10ft as the same distance. No, that isn't true. If you draw a line from the vertex closest to the boundary to all vertices of the target square, you only pass through 5' of mist. There is no other way to calculate distance regarding concealment.
Furthermore, if you're standing in the square right on the edge and select a vertex on the edge, the line does not pass through a boundary granting concealment. The vertex is on the boundary. So the target would not have any concealment from you.
It does say in Ultimate Intrigue is that they would be Unaware even if not Total Unaware (since I assume they previously would know they are there).
But that doesn't mean, they retain their dex as the next status is Aware of Presence (but not Location since can't see).
_Ozy_ wrote: Rub-Eta wrote: Can you point me to the general rule that states that you are denied you Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures you cannot see? Because that's what's missing here. You can't "still" apply penalties that were never there (in regard to Obscuring Mist). Are you serious? You think that sentence means nothing? Wow. I just pointed you to the rule in black and white. That sentence, interpreted by RAW, means that a creature doesn't get its dex bonus against a creature it can't see. Please understand that a specific rule is not a general rule. You can not referens a specific ability or spell (etc) and cite it as a rule that should be applied outside of the context of that specific rule. There are instances where you are denied DEX to AC because of your inability to see, such as areas of darkness and being blind. This is where you apply that sentence in blindsense, that's where it has it's meaning. Not in regards to Obscuring Mist or concealment in general.
EDIT: I should probably also bring this up: Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn stats 'Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.'
Now, Obscuring Mist does not make you unaware of a threat. You can be fully aware of the threat even if you can't see them (and there are other specific rules that overrides this, but not Obscuring Mist). You actually don't need concealment at all for this condition to be fulfilled.
From Ultimate Intrigue:
Quote: Owl Style (Combat, Style)
You can move with the quiet grace of an owl.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Skill Focus (Stealth), Stealth 1 rank.
Benefit: While using this style, you can use your base attack bonus in place of your ranks in Stealth to determine your Stealth skill modifier (as usual, this does not replace your ranks for other purposes, such as determining the effects of Skill Focus). While in this stance and using Stealth, you can charge at a –10 penalty beyond the penalty you take for using Stealth at full speed (which is typically –5). Foes that fail their Perception checks and don’t otherwise notice you (for instance, with an ability like blindsight) are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against all attacks you make against them during or at the end of that charge instead of just against the first attack.
How many rules like this is it going to take to convince you?
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
How can you be fully aware of a threat if you can't see an attacker?
EDIT: What's the functional difference between someone inside obscuring mist with greater invisibility and without greater invisibility with respect to someone who can't see them?
Again, you can NOT apply a specific rule to general situations.
This is what "Unaware" is defined as, by the rules, which is what is required to lose DEX to AC Unaware wrote: On one end of the spectrum, a sneaking creature can succeed at Stealth well enough that the other creature isn’t even aware that the creature is present. This state allows the sneaking creature to use abilities such as the vigilante’s startling appearance. The Stealth skill description in the Core Rulebook says that perceiving creatures that fail to beat a sneaking character’s Stealth check result are not aware of the sneaking character, but that is different from being totally unaware. This is also true of a creature that has previously been made aware of the creature’s presence or location (see below) but is currently unable to observe the sneaking creature. In those cases, the sneaking creature can’t use abilities such as startling presence. Unless you're sneaking (which the question that I'm answering is NOT assuming), you still retain your DEX to AC.
EDIT: _Ozy_ wrote: What's the functional difference between someone inside obscuring mist with greater invisibility and without greater invisibility with respect to someone who can't see them? I suggest that you start your own thread to discuss this, as it's not a part of or relevant to the original question posted here. But as writen, on a quick glance, target loses DEX to AC and +2 to hit with attacks. If you don't agree, please don't derail this thread, start a new one instead or post on one of the other threads already covering that topic. But what ever you do, don't confuse other strange rules and their weird interactions as proof of how Obscuring Mist works.
Again, what is the functional difference between someone who is invisible inside obscuring mist, and someone who isn't?
Let's say someone watched you walk into obscuring mist, knows you're in there.
Round 1. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he gets his dex bonus.
Round 2. You drink a potion of invisibility.
Round 3. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he doesn't get his dex bonus.
How? Why?
_Ozy_ wrote: Again, what is the functional difference between someone who is invisible inside obscuring mist, and someone who isn't?
Let's say someone watched you walk into obscuring mist, knows you're in there.
Round 1. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he gets his dex bonus.
Round 2. You drink a potion of invisibility.
Round 3. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he doesn't get his dex bonus.
How? Why?
Because Invisibility has additional rules.
Invisibility Rules
Rub-Eta wrote: ShieldLawrence wrote: Make your own call. The phrase "provided the character can react to the attack" does exist in the rules, and that leaves some room open for interpretation. Yes, the phrase exists. And nowhere is it stated in the rules that Obscuring Mist does not allow you to react to an attack. Interpreting it to say otherwise is the opposit of logic and common sense.
This is a rules question in the Rules Questions forum, a proper answer isn't "it's up to you". Because it really isn't. It's up to the DM at any given table. And that's why both players and DMs need to refer to the same rules. And that's why the question is being asked. Don't give an answer that assumes going outside of the rules is allowed. I never stated the Obscuring Mist rules came into play. It's the Dexterity rules being used here. Don't deflect.
Can you react to an attacker you cannot see?
•Yes. You are not dex denied.
•No. You are dex denied.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Should the reaction be as if the person was blind?
That is, the person can not see the character, and the character has total concealment, so...
thaX wrote: Should the reaction be as if the person was blind?
That is, the person can not see the character, and the character has total concealment, so...
No, because Blinded has its own set of rules, and the Obscuring Mist doesn't cause blindness.
Blinded Condition
Xaimum Mafire wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Again, what is the functional difference between someone who is invisible inside obscuring mist, and someone who isn't?
Let's say someone watched you walk into obscuring mist, knows you're in there.
Round 1. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he gets his dex bonus.
Round 2. You drink a potion of invisibility.
Round 3. You shoot an arrow at him. You say he doesn't get his dex bonus.
How? Why?
Because Invisibility has additional rules.
Invisibility Rules What is the functional difference? How does the target even know the attacker is invisible? What physically changes?
The biggest difference to keep in mind with Blinded, Invisible, and total concealment is that with the first two, you can't see anything from your attacker at all. With total concealment, they can still give off visual queues which you can pick up when they act.
Xaimum Mafire wrote: The biggest difference to keep in mind with Blinded, Invisible, and total concealment is that with the first two, you can't see anything from your attack at all. With total concealment, they can still give off visual queues which you can pick up when they act. Inside an Obscuring Mist? Absolutely not. There are no visual cues that can be perceived by the target.
Yes, there are. Anything past 5ft has total concealment, but guess what happens to anything within 5ft?
Also, Obscuring Mist is, well, mist. Conceptually, anything that moves through it will disturb the mist (a visual cue), and you'd, by RAW, be able to see it once it comes within 5ft of you. Also, the mist doesn't block sound or smell.
_Ozy_ wrote: What is the functional difference? How does the target even know the attacker is invisible? What physically changes? And the functional difference is in the rules and mechanics? Total concealment doesn't mean you aren't aware of the creature; it just means that you can't visually pinpoint him. A small creature behind a large tapestry has total concealment, but if someone observed it hide behind the tapestry, they are aware of it.
Invisibility grants other bonuses on top of total concealment.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xaimum Mafire wrote: Yes, there are. Anything past 5ft has total concealment, but guess what happens to anything within 5ft?
Also, Obscuring Mist is, well, mist. Conceptually, anything that moves through it will disturb the mist (a visual cue), and you'd, by RAW, be able to see it once it comes within 5ft of you. Also, the mist doesn't block sound or smell.
Dude, we're talking about total concealment, so beyond 5'. You can't see anything, there are no VISUAL cues. Exactly as if that person were invisible. No difference.
Being invisible also doesn't block sound or smell, so I'm not sure why you think that matters.
Once again, someone in Obscuring Mist with total concealment, and someone invisible in Obscuring Mist with total concealment. What is the functional difference. Rules represent function, what's the function.
Xaimum Mafire wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: What is the functional difference? How does the target even know the attacker is invisible? What physically changes? And the functional difference is in the rules and mechanics? Total concealment doesn't mean you aren't aware of the creature; it just means that you can't visually pinpoint him. A small creature behind a large tapestry has total concealment, but if someone observed it hide behind the tapestry, they are aware of it.
Invisibility grants other bonuses on top of total concealment. If someone observes me drinking an invisibility potion, they are still 'aware' of me. So again, what's your point?
The reason they don't get their DEX to AC is because they can't see the attacker, and thus can't respond to being attacked.
This is explained in the rules, and referred to by the other two rules I provided.
_Ozy_ wrote:
If someone observes me drinking an invisibility potion, they are still 'aware' of me. So again, what's your point?
The reason they don't get their DEX to AC is because they can't see the attacker, and thus can't respond to being attacked.
This is explained in the rules, and referred to by the other two rules I provided. You're reaching, buddy. I assumed that you were aware of the bonuses invisibility grants that basic concealment doesn't (since, you know, I told you and linked you to the rules). Invisibility grants you a +40 to Stealth, so that probably helps an invisible creature become/remain undetected. Invisibility grants other bonuses in addition to total concealment and Obscuring Mist doesn't. I don't know how much more plainly that can be stated.
Also, "awareness" involves knowing the creatures exact or general location. That's why Obscuring Mist doesn't grant a Stealth bonus; just total concealment.
If you're not perceptive enough to account for all of the rules, especially once someone gives them to you, then maybe we shouldn't bother answering your questions?
If someone isn't using stealth, because they are, well, ATTACKING, those extra stealth bonuses don't mean squat.
If I pinpoint the square an invisible person is attacking from, I know their location to within 5'. I still lose my DEX bonus because I can't see their attack.
If someone is inside an obscuring mist, I maybe know their location to within 20', and you claim I am more 'aware' of them, than I am of the invisible person sticking me with a sword from an adjacent square?! That makes no actual sense, though I will note you've apparently decided to concede that there is no way for a person to actually differentiate whether someone is or isn't invisible if they have total concealment within an obscuring mist.
The fact is, your definitions of 'awareness' are not supported by the rules and are, in fact, entirely fabricated by you.
Improved Blind Fight:
If you successfully pinpoint an invisible or hidden attacker within 30 feet, that attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you with ranged attacks.
Greater Blind Fight:
If you successfully pinpoint an invisible or hidden attacker, that attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you with ranged attacks, regardless of the range.
Why is the bolded word 'hidden' in those feats? What advantages do they mean?
_Ozy_ wrote: If someone isn't using stealth, because they are, well, ATTACKING, those extra stealth bonuses don't mean squat.
If I pinpoint the square an invisible person is attacking from, I know their location to within 5'. I still lose my DEX bonus because I can't see their attack.
If someone is inside an obscuring mist, I maybe know their location to within 20', and you claim I am more 'aware' of them, than I am of the invisible person sticking me with a sword from an adjacent square?! That makes no actual sense, though I will note you've apparently decided to concede that there is no way for a person to actually differentiate whether someone is or isn't invisible if they have total concealment within an obscuring mist.
The fact is, your definitions of 'awareness' are not supported by the rules and are, in fact, entirely fabricated by you.
Them's the rules, bro. Invisible creatures get advantages that go beyond total concealment. If you can't understand that, then house rule it.
And if you don't even know what "hidden" means by RAW, then there's literally no point in continuing this discussion. That would clear up your confusion, if you were willing to actually learn the rules, instead focusing on being "not wrong."
Xaimum Mafire wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: If someone isn't using stealth, because they are, well, ATTACKING, those extra stealth bonuses don't mean squat.
If I pinpoint the square an invisible person is attacking from, I know their location to within 5'. I still lose my DEX bonus because I can't see their attack.
If someone is inside an obscuring mist, I maybe know their location to within 20', and you claim I am more 'aware' of them, than I am of the invisible person sticking me with a sword from an adjacent square?! That makes no actual sense, though I will note you've apparently decided to concede that there is no way for a person to actually differentiate whether someone is or isn't invisible if they have total concealment within an obscuring mist.
The fact is, your definitions of 'awareness' are not supported by the rules and are, in fact, entirely fabricated by you.
Them's the rules, bro. Invisible creatures get advantages that go beyond total concealment. If you can't understand that, then house rule it. Rules represent function. I've asked you again and again, what function does being invisible in Obscuring Mist serve? How can you tell the difference?
And, once again, how does pinpointing an invisible person in an adjacent square make me 'less aware' of them than someone 60' away in an obscuring mist, within some 20' circle? Since you seem to think this 'awareness' is some sort of rules thing, please explain how that works.
Finally, I've shown you several actual rules which seem to contradict your supposed understanding, so since you can't explain how the rules function, can't explain why those other rules say what they say, can't explain this 'awareness', throw out canards like scent and hearing, even though they apply equally to hidden and invisible creatures, isn't it just the tiniest bit possible that you don't actually understand how the rules work in this instance?
Xaimum Mafire wrote: And if you don't even know what "hidden" means by RAW, then there's literally no point in continuing this discussion. That would clear up your confusion, if you were willing to actually learn the rules, instead focusing on being "not wrong." You can disengage any time you like, but you don't get to pretend it's because you have some deep understanding of RAW.
It's a simple question, what advantages do 'hidden' attackers receive?
_Ozy_ wrote:
Rules represent function. I've asked you again and again, what function does being invisible in Obscuring Mist serve? How can you tell the difference?
I've already explained this twice. Either you're not reading, or you're ignoring anything that contradicts what you already think.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Since you seem to think this 'awareness' is some sort of rules thing, please explain how that works.in Obscuring Mist serve? How can you tell the difference?
Figure out what hidden means. Hint: Check the Stealth rules; it involves awareness.
Is it too much for you to answer a simple question?
What advantages do hidden attackers receive?
EDIT: Just so you don't keep replying with the same nonsense, here's what Stealth has to say:
Quote: Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment. So, once again, what advantages do hidden attackers (who are treated as if they have total concealment) gain?
::facepalm::
You literally missed the answer to your question, lol. It's in the first part of your quote.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xaimum Mafire wrote: ::facepalm::
You literally missed the answer to your question, lol. It's in the first part of your quote.
I see no answer to the question 'what advantages do hidden attackers gain'.
Please point out to me any mention of losing dexterity in that quote, or getting a bonus to hit.
Are you just trolling now?
The stealth section says that when you use stealth successfully, you are treated 'as if you have total concealment'. When you are in an obscuring mist 'you have total concealment'.
Any advantages to being hidden apply to being inside an Obscuring Mist.
So, for like the fifth time, what advantages do people get from being hidden/total concealment?
Ok, I'll try to spell it out for you again.
You pulled that from the "Hide" section of the Stealth rules, right? If you hide from a creature, then you're hidden. If you're hidden from a creature, then they not aware of you (can't target you, can't react to you), and you have total concealment from that creature (they can't see you).
You still with me? By RAW, once a creature is aware of you, you have to make a Stealth check in order for it lose awareness of you. By RAW, you can be aware of creatures with total concealment (see Incorporeal and Ethereal creatures).
So, no, simply being in Obscuring Mist doesn't mean you're hidden; it only grants total concealment or concealment, which only grants a 50% miss chance or 20% miss chance, respectively.
|
