No. No. No.
No. No.
Literally, by RAW, the ONLY thing that total concealment provides is 50% miss chance (and the creature doesn't provoke AoO). Like, how can you be this obtuse?
Now, I understand your problem: You don't know the actual rules.
In order to be hidden, you have to make a Stealth check. You have to hide. That's the reason why Invisibility, by RAW, gives a creature a massive bonus to Stealth checks. Does that make sense to you? Do you understand that you're not automatically hidden just because of total concealment?
Well, I guess they should take "not aware of you" out of the rules for Stealth?
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.
Oddly enough, I think you can find the answer is the blindsense description:
A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.
For the sake of the argument, I hope everybody agrees with the following definition:
You cannot see [X] <=> you have no line of sight to [X] <=> [X] has total concealment relative to you.So, we could say: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures with total concealment.
Now, for those who want to argue that this rule only applies to creatures with blinsense, I point out the adverb "still" => I understand it this way:
1. A creature is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see => this would be the general rule.
2. this rule still applies to creatures with blindsense.
3. It would be otherwise silly if "only creatures with blindsense are denied their Dex bonus to AC against attacks from creatures they cannot see".
So yes, barred specific abilities, total concealment <=> your target is denied its Dex bonus to AC, even if the rule regarding total concealment does not state it that way.
I am pretty sure it has been pointed out many times and I know there will still be someone to think otherwise for some reason... welcome to the internet.
You can also check a 3.5 article from Skip Williams: All about sneak attacks (part 2).
And yes, the rules could definitely be clearer.
Well, I guess they should take "not aware of you" out of the rules for Stealth?Plenty of rules have extra additional describing text.
Find me anywhere where it states what being unaware does
Under Perception for Notice Something/Someone:
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
From "Hide" under Stealth:
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you
If you notice something, you're aware of it.
And if you notice something, you can react accordingly. Being aware = being able to react.
Being Unaware usually involves pre-combat, but since it's also brought up in the Stealth skill...
Tying all of that together:
You're an Unaware Combatant when you don't notice your opponent. Once combat starts, all combatants are aware of each other by the end of the first round assuming they all acted and no one made a Stealth check to hide. If a combatant makes a Stealth check to hide and succeeds, then any creature who failed their Perception check cannot notice said combatant and the combatant is hidden from said creatures because said creatures are no longer aware of the combatant's presence.
If a creature has total concealment, it is not hidden until it makes a Stealth check to hide.
When you actually look at Obscuring Mist things get clear.
Once someone is more than 5 feet away, they not only have total concealment, the spell says: The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
From there on it works like darkness, meaning creatures are effectively blinded, except they have something that lets them see through fog or detect creatures automatically and states they are not denied their DEX.
That´s part of the reason why the ninja trick smoke bombs is very good and a ninja trick actually.
|
Uh, guys, you're kind of missing the point.
The rules are NOT written to the point of mechanical precision that lets you say what RAW clearly is. They can NOT be written to that point.
The rules are somewhat ambiguous. Which means that you make your best stab at what they mean.
Personally, I'm in the "obscuring mist == invisibility" camp but it really is NOT 100% clear cut.
|
Darkness, invisibility, obscuring mist, opaque cover, and various other things can provide total concealment against visual observation (provided the observer has no special ability to see through these things).
A target which is not able to pinpoint an enemy with a precise sense (just vision for most creatures) is not 'observing' that enemy and thus cannot perceive attacks coming from them.
"Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."
It is impossible to react to blows you are unaware of. Ergo, a creature which cannot see an enemy (e.g. through Obscuring Mist) is denied their dexterity bonus to AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, we could say: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures with total concealmentPlease read the thread, what you mention has already been treated. Specific rules are only specific rules, not general rules. You can not add extra conditions to concealment just because it seems to "make sense" to you. Total concealment does not deny DEX to AC (take a look at numerous other threads where this is stated). Having blindsense does not change this.
I am not trying to convince you.
I am merely pointing out a rule in the CRB where it is stated that a creature is denied its dex bonus to AC against attacks from creatures it cannot see, without involving invisibility.What conclusion(s) you draw (or not) from it is none of my business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, something that you can't see and that has total concealment from you doesn't cause you to lose your Dex bonus to AC... despite reason, indirect rules references, and extrapolation. Without that one exact phrase in printed rules, it cannot be so?
This is shaping up to rival the "Adamantine golem's attacks don't overcome DR/Adamantine" idea for sheer absurdity.
|
Then what are you doing in this thread? If you're talking about scenarios not including Obscuring Mist, it's not relevant to a question about Obscuring Mist. We are NOT talking about the general rules of loosing DEX to AC, we're talking about it in the context on concealment, total concealment and Obscuring Mist.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.
Obscuring Mist obscures vision, granting total concealment which means there is NO LINE OF SIGHT to the opponent. You cannot see them.
Hence, I'm taking it to the general loosing DEX to AC rule. If you cannot react to a blow, you don't get your dex. If you cannot see your opponent, how are you reacting?
You want it to be explicitly stated. It currently isn't. However it's hinted at by other rules, like the Blindsense one. It also stays consistent with similar situations such as darkness.
Rub-Eta you've failed to actually show why you CAN react to a blow from Obscuring Mist. What is letting you add your DEX to AC normally? What does it mean to be able to react to an attack? Do you have any rules statements to back it up?
"Provided that the character can react to the attack." That is explicitly telling you to provide a reason you can react to the attack, until you do so you can't add your DEX. You need to meet the conditions.
|
|
Target can't react to blow: Dex to AC denied
Target can't see attacker due to darkness: Dex to AC denied
Target can't see attacker due to invisibility: Dex to AC denied
Target can't see attacker due to stealth: Dex to AC denied
If we accept that these are related then we naturally conclude;
can't see attacker = can't react to blow = Dex to AC denied
The opposing view presumably assumes that each of these 'Dex to AC denied' conditions is independent of the others, has no underlying logical reason, and thus does not extend to other situations where the target can't see the attacker. Though it's an illogical stretch even WITH those implausible assumptions.
Being more than 5ft away absolutely definitely means you are hidden. Obviously. Line of sight is blocked. That is what hidden means.
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.
The problem with your logic is you're assuming that lack of sight = not knowing that they're there. I can acknowledge that an enemy is behind a wall (total concealment) and yet I'm aware of his presence, and therefore would certainly retain my Dex bonus vs its attacks. I might have seen him run to the wall, or I might hear him reloading his crossbow, or any other number of reasons why I would be aware of the enemy.
Awareness in Pathfinder is not just sight-based. The Perception skill bundles hearing, sight, and intuition all in one.
Unless you are doing something "by the book" for your opponent to be unaware of you (IE Stealth check, Invisibility, etc), you mustn't assume that Total Concealment = they're not aware of you, and that they are denied a Dex bonus from your attacks.
Being more than 5ft away absolutely definitely means you are hidden. Obviously. Line of sight is blocked. That is what hidden means.
"hidden" has no functional meaning in Pathfinder. Your enemy is assumed to be aware of you unless you have rolled a Stealth skill check, are Invisible, or have some other means that specifically states that your enemy is unaware of your presence.
Line of sight being blocked =/= your enemy being unaware of your presence.
If stealth makes you hidden, which gives you total concealment, then stealth is total concealment.
Which is what the mists do beyond a certain range.
Stealth does grant Total Concealment, but Total Concealment does not grant the same benefits of Stealth.
You may have an idea that an attacker is there, but you can't anticipate any specific attack from him, so you don't get your AC for that attack.
That's why, even though I know an invisible swordsman is standing 5' away poking me with his sword, I can't anticipate his attack because I can't see it. Thus, no dex to AC.
You are absolutely wrong.
There is nothing in the rules backing up your position on this. Only specific circumstances deprive a defender from his Dex bonus, and that is Stealth, Invisibility, and other similar effects.
Your example is not viable because the attacker is Invisible, which has its own set of specific rules -- specifically that the enemy is deprived of their Dex bonus. Specifically being Invisible is not the same as being unseen.
Very odd. Stealth is the ability to remain hidden. Funnily enough not being seen also has the effect of remaining hidden.
Common sense interpretation of the rule can be made here by any reasonable DM.
Stealth is a specific term with a specific set of rules that apply to it. Certainly one can make certain assumptions about it, but assuming that one with Total Concealment gains the same powerful benefits as one who is Stealthed or Invisible doesn't pass the smell test.
Your example is not viable because the attacker is Invisible, which has its own set of specific rules -- specifically that the enemy is deprived of their Dex bonus. Specifically being Invisible is not the same as being unseen.
Why?
Surely invisibility is exactly being unseen. That's what invisible means.
We are talking about a person who is out of sight to you but not to them. That is the same as a person in darkness vs a person who can see in darkness.
Stealth is a method of being hidden. It can be enhanced with invisibility, darkness etc but it is the same effect.
The common term I keep seeing people in this thread use is "see". Combat awareness in Pathfinder is not limited to sight. There is a reason the Perception skill lumped together hearing, sight, skill, and intuition.
Dex bonus is about reacting to danger, but that danger is not limited to something seen. The defender might hear the twang of your bow or recitation of spell components. They might intuit that when you ran into the fog with your crossbow that they should be ready for incoming crossbow bolts.
The combat rules have specific rules for denying Dex bonuses to people, and attacking from total concealment isn't one of them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only specific circumstances deprive a defender from his Dex bonus, and that is Stealth, Invisibility, and other similar effects.
How is, 'the target is unable to see you due to total concealment from Obscuring Mist' not "similar" to;
the target is unable to see you due to total concealment from invisibility
the target is unable to see you due to total concealment from darkness
the target is unable to see you due to total concealment from stealth
the target is unable to see you due to total concealment from blindness
I have to ask. If not being able to see someone does nothing, then what use is the spell?
It blocks line of sight for the enemy (and most casters who aren't Fire Oracles), thus preventing them from attacking without a heck of a Perception check followed by a 50% miss chance.
The spell is still a valuable one.
------------
I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can see the points you folks are making, and they are persuasive, but I disagree as to the conclusions you're drawing. I maintain that denying a target line of sight is not sufficient to deny them their dex bonus, as they can still hear and have combat awareness through other means.
Good discussion. I've said my piece.