ShieldLawrence wrote: If you cannot see your opponent, how are you reacting?
Rub-Eta you've failed to actually show why you CAN react to a blow from Obscuring Mist.
I don't have to thematically justify that you can react. As per the rules, you can. I don't need more than that.
You need to provide the specific rule that specifically calles out that you are denyed DEX to AC within the context of Obscuring Mist. Total Concealment does not and neither does being unable to see the attacking character (otherwise it would be stated within Total Concealment or somewhere else). If you want to apply "logic": Any attack made against someone within Obscuring Mist needs to pass through 5ft away from the target, where it (the arrow in this case) can be seen. Unlike compleate darkness or someone who's blind, this is a huge difference.
Cavall wrote: Ok let me ask this then. Why "one heck of a perception check?" My mind was on the pinpointing invisible targets rules, which would not apply here. ...though, after looking at the Perception skill modifiers there are not sufficient modifiers for this situation unless you conflate the "spirit" of the term Invisible with being unable to be seen, in the context of a perception check.
RAW it would indeed not be that hard to pinpoint an unseen target that wasn't technically invisible.
CBDunkerson wrote: If we accept that these are related then we naturally conclude;
can't see attacker = can't react to blow = Dex to AC denied
Here's the flaw in your logic. You, for some reason, draw the conclusion that the common denominator between darkness, invisibility and stealth is that you can't see the attacker. There are no rules supporting this, you're just guessing. The actual common denominator, as writen in the rules, is that the target is unaware of the attacking creature because of darkness, invisibilty and stealth. Or the fact that it's stated that it does deny DEX to AC. Obscuring Mist does not provide this, unless you attempt stealth through the total concealment it provides.
Driver_325yards wrote: Unless your proposition is that you can never determine a general rule from a specific rule, I don't understand your position.
If your position is that you can never determine a general rule by analyzing a specific rule, then I think you are wrong from a logic standpoint.
What I'm saying is that you can not use specific rules outside their own context to override general rules. You can also not create new general rules from specific rules. The blindsense specific rule has it's use, it's just not applicable to Obscuring Mist, as writen.
Zedth wrote: Cavall wrote: Ok let me ask this then. Why "one heck of a perception check?" My mind was on the pinpointing invisible targets rules, which would not apply here. ...though, after looking at the Perception skill modifiers there are not sufficient modifiers for this situation unless you conflate the "spirit" of the term Invisible with being unable to be seen, in the context of a perception check.
RAW it would indeed not be that hard to pinpoint an unseen target that wasn't technically invisible. Yeah that's my thinking. I'm not giving a huge penalty to get an idea of where they are. But to me, they are still hidden. Knowing the enemy is in a foxhole doesn't give you a lined up shot, and you wouldn't stand in the middle of a field and try to figure it out. As an example, of course.
I think hidden is enough without adding extra modifiers to that. Personally.
Rub-Eta wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: If we accept that these are related then we naturally conclude;
can't see attacker = can't react to blow = Dex to AC denied
Here's the flaw in your logic. You, for some reason, draw the conclusion that the common denominator between darkness, invisibility and stealth is that you can't see the attacker. There are no rules supporting this, you're just guessing. The actual common denominator, as writen in the rules, is that the target is unaware of the attacking creature because of darkness, invisibilty and stealth. Or the fact that it's stated that it does deny DEX to AC. Obscuring Mist does not provide this, unless you attempt stealth through the total concealment it provides. You can't be fully comfortable having typed that out that your position is infallible, can you? I mean, you almost make people's points for them, when you read that.
For the record, I believe that darkness invisibilty and being hidden all have the common denominator of being unseen. But only because all of them say you can't be seen.
Would you say that the spell see invisibilty then is useless because it says you can see them bUT that doesnt say anywhere that you are now aware of them?
Because that is literally the stance you are taking. That see invisibilty doesn't say you're now aware of them, only that you can see them but that's somehow not a factor in being unseen.
Rub-Eta wrote: Here's the flaw in your logic. You, for some reason, draw the conclusion that the common denominator between darkness, invisibility and stealth is that you can't see the attacker. Yes. In all of those situations (and blindness) you cannot see the attacker. You also lose your Dex bonus to AC in all of those situations.
Quote: There are no rules supporting this, you're just guessing. The rule stating that you must be able to react to the attack covers it. The developers have confirmed this many times. I quoted Jason Buhlman doing so in my last post.
Quote: The actual common denominator, as writen in the rules, is that the target is unaware of the attacking creature because of darkness, invisibilty and stealth. No. That is clearly contradicted by the rules. The target may very well be aware of the attacking creature. Imprecise senses like blindsense may allow you to determine what square they are in, but you "still" lose your Dex bonus to AC in that case. However, if you cannot see them (or observe them with some other precise sense) then you do not know the attack is coming and cannot react to it.
Sorry, to be as clear as possible: You draw the conclusion that it's the factor of not being able to see the attacker is what denies DEX to AC. That is not supported by the rules and it's in fact disproven by Obscuring Mist and Total Concealment.
You need to roll stealth to gain that benefit.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rub-Eta wrote: Sorry, to be as clear as possible: You draw the conclusion that it's the factor of not being able to see the attacker is what denies DEX to AC. No, I read the rule which says you need to be able to react to the attack or you lose your Dex to AC.
Not being able to see the attacker is ONE possible reason that a character would be unable to react to an attack. Inability to move due to paralysis or some similar effect is another possibility.
Quote: That is not supported by the rules and it's in fact disproven by Obscuring Mist and Total Concealment.
You need to roll stealth to gain that benefit.
Demonstrably false. You do not need to roll stealth to deny a 'blind' (either from darkness or actual blindness) target their Dex to AC. Indeed, even if they are aware of your presence and have determined the exact square that you are in (e.g. via blindsense) they "still" lose their Dex to AC. Clearly stated rules.
Only if they are able to observe you with a precise sense (e.g. vision or blindsight) do they get their Dex to AC against your attacks. Blindness, darkness, invisibility, stealth, Obscuring Mist, and all other forms of Total Concealment block vision (the only 'precise sense' of their surroundings that most characters have) and thus deny Dex to AC.
CBDunkerson wrote: Rub-Eta wrote: Sorry, to be as clear as possible: You draw the conclusion that it's the factor of not being able to see the attacker is what denies DEX to AC. No, I read the rule which says you need to be able to react to the attack or you lose your Dex to AC.
Not being able to see the attacker is ONE possible reason that a character would be unable to react to an attack. Inability to move due to paralysis or some similar effect is another possibility. There are cases where your inability to see is correlated with also not being able to apply DEX to AC (such as in areas of darkness and being blind), yes. That is very true. But concealment and Obscuring Mist still does not deny a target its' DEX to AC, even if they can't see the attacker. There is nothing stating that you need to be able to see the attacker to be able to react.
But that doesn't mean that there are cases where you're unable to see and also unable to react (such as in areas of darkness and being blind). If I ever gave the impression that I was thinking otherwise: I'm sorry, I was unclear.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quote: That is not supported by the rules and it's in fact disproven by Obscuring Mist and Total Concealment.
You need to roll stealth to gain that benefit.
Demonstrably false. You do not need to roll stealth to deny a 'blind' (either from darkness or actual blindness) target their Dex to AC.
I never said that you need to roll stealth in cases where your target is effectively blind (or other cases where you're target is denied DEX to AC). The blind condition and darkness does mention that you lose DEX to AC in themselves, you do not need to use stealth as well. Concealment and Obscuring Mist, however, does not provide you with the ability to deny your target its' DEX to AC, unless you use the concealment as a means to stealth.
CBDunkerson wrote: You do not need to roll stealth to deny a 'blind' (either from darkness or actual blindness) target their Dex to AC. Indeed, even if they are aware of your presence and have determined the exact square that you are in (e.g. via blindsense) they "still" lose their Dex to AC. Clearly stated rules. In this case, where you ARE denied your DEX to AC because of blindness (or other similar effects such as darkness), this is true. Blindsense does not override the fact that you lose DEX to AC, even if it's sight related.
But there are other cases, such as concealment, where you're also unable to see the attacker but still don't lose DEX to AC, with or without blindsense.
Again, I hope I've not given you the wrong idea of what I'm trying to say. If that's the case, I'm very sorry.
CBDunkerson wrote: Rub-Eta wrote: Sorry, to be as clear as possible: You draw the conclusion that it's the factor of not being able to see the attacker is what denies DEX to AC. No, I read the rule which says you need to be able to react to the attack or you lose your Dex to AC.
Not being able to see the attacker is ONE possible reason that a character would be unable to react to an attack. Inability to move due to paralysis or some similar effect is another possibility.
Indeed. Other possibility is the attacker uses a 'feint' to trick you and, lo and behold, you lose DEX to AC.
As most people realize, there is one fundamental and overarching principle that denies DEX to AC. Being unable to anticipate and respond to an attack.
This covers:
invisible attackers
hidden/unseen attackers
feinting attackers
blind targets
surprised targets
So sure, someone could postulate that losing DEX to AC is different and specific to each one of those situations without any relationship to each other. Or, they could listen to the devs.
_Ozy_ wrote: As most people realize, there is one fundamental and overarching principle that denies DEX to AC. Being unable to anticipate and respond to an attack.
This covers:
invisible attackers
hidden/unseen attackers
feinting attackers
blind targets
surprised targets
I agree with everything, except for the part of "unseen attackers". That is the only thing I can not find within the rules, which in turn means that Obscuring Mist and concealment do not deny DEX to AC themselves. There are no rules or expressions by the "devs" to support that being unseen denies your targets their DEX to AC. Invisibility, areas of darkness and blindness does so separately, apart from also being unseen. But again, Obscuring Mist and concealment does not.
Then perhaps you can point out in the rules where you can find the condition:
'hidden'
because as far as I can tell, that condition does not exist by RAW.
Jason's comment upthread supports my assertion. You can't react to a blow that you don't see coming.
_Ozy_ wrote: Then perhaps you can point out in the rules where you can find the condition:
'hidden'
because as far as I can tell, that condition does not exist by RAW.
Jason's comment upthread supports my assertion. You can't react to a blow that you don't see coming.
Point me to where he says that it has to do with sight.
Quote: 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. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best). EDIT: 'hidden' is your term, if you won't recognize it from the game's terms. I'm not going to dig up rules to support your words, do it yourself. I'm deeply confused as to why you'd use the term as part of an argument to later invalidate it and still think it's in your favour.
It's as simple as this. You claim that stealth makes you hidden, and lets you deny your opponent dex to AC.
This is not actually stated in the rules, except if you use the same extrapolation that is used to say you are also hidden by Obscuring Mist.
You can't claim one without the other, the rules don't allow it.
And no, 'hidden' is not my term, the rules specifically use that term in both greater and improved blind fight, as I've already pointed out:
Quote: If you successfully pinpoint an invisible or hidden attacker within 30 feet, that attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you with ranged attacks. The rules use the word hidden. Hidden is not a condition, nor is it specifically defined in RAW. Therefore we must define it using English. When you are in Obscuring Mist, you are hidden, just like when you successfully use stealth.
Quote: Point me to where he says that it has to do with sight. It doesn't necessarily have to do with sight. If an target only uses sound to locate its prey, like echolocation, an attacker in a silence effect would get the same advantage during an attack, because the target couldn't respond to the attack.
Anytime the targeting sense is confounded, the creature can't respond to an attack and loses dex to AC. 99% of the time, this sense is sight. But it doesn't have to be.
I have to ask again. If sight doesn't mean aware, (barring tremor sense and the like) then since see invisibilty allows you to see someone but doesn't specifically say makes you aware of them, are they still hidden?
Because that is still the logic that's being pushed. That not seeing something doesn't mean you're not unaware of its attacks because you're not led by the hand and told that. Which means the opposite is true. That see invisibilty has to tell us that you're now aware of the things you can see, which it doesn't.
A good, if rather pedantic point. ;)
See invisibility does not remove the invisible condition, it just lets you 'see' an invisible creature. Nor does see invisibility explicitly say that you get your DEX to AC back against invisible creatures. That's just assumed because you 'see' them.
Naturally, the fact that we even feel the need to bring up these sorts of points kind of tells us how far into the weeds this discussion has gone.
I'm so far into the weeds I needed my passport
Now, if we really want to drive the point home...
What happens if the target has see invisibility, and the attacker is invisible inside the Obscuring Mist? :D
_Ozy_ wrote: Now, if we really want to drive the point home...
What happens if the target has see invisibility, and the attacker is invisible inside the Obscuring Mist? :D
Well clearly RAW you'd see that person. After all, they are invisible but you can see invisibilty and the mist is apparently like goggles. They do nothing.
You would, of course be unaware of them. Not because of the mist but because they are invisible.
It all works out
I think some of the confusion here is that Dex to AC is lost when you can't react to the attack. The rule is about being unaware of the attack not unaware of the person.
You may know there is an invisible person in the room, you may know there is a sniper hidden somewhere, or that the rogue is sitting unarmed in front of you. You may know there is a person in the mist but if you can't see the attack coming until it's too late you are loosing Dex to AC, whether it's the rogue drawing the hidden weapon, the sniper shooting you from the bushes or the attacker in the mist.
Yes that's a good summary. Of course a sniper that just acted, moved and maintained stealth would be known to be around. You'd certainly be aware of him and his attacks. But you'd have no way to defend because you cant see them coming.
The mists are the same way, in my opinion. I can't see where the difference lies.
_Ozy_ wrote: You claim that stealth makes you hidden, and lets you deny your opponent dex to AC. This is not actually stated in the rules ... No, I've never claimed this. I'm using the word 'unaware'. Not hidden. As mentioned by the lead designer, being unaware of your attacker makes you unable to react to an attack (one of many ways to be denied your DEX to AC).
As writen in the rules, stealth can help you make your opponent "unaware" (yes, "unaware" is defined within the game). Concealment and Obscuring Mist do not make people/creatures unaware, but it does allow you to attempt stealth. I've already mentioned this, but you seem to have missed this.
Cavall wrote: I have to ask again. If sight doesn't mean aware, (barring tremor sense and the like) then since see invisibilty allows you to see someone but doesn't specifically say makes you aware of them, are they still hidden?
Because that is still the logic that's being pushed. That not seeing something doesn't mean you're not unaware of its attacks because you're not led by the hand and told that. Which means the opposite is true. That see invisibilty has to tell us that you're now aware of the things you can see, which it doesn't.
An invisible creature who's only hidden from you by invisibility is in plain sight for someone who's under the effect of See Invisible "as if they were normally visible". They are not invisible to that person. It's being invsible that denies your target DEX to AC (not the spell, not the special ability or "being unseen"). With See Invisible you are no longer considered to be invisible. It's that simple.
See Invisible is an even more specific rule that trumps the other specific rule.
_Ozy_ wrote: Naturally, the fact that we even feel the need to bring up these sorts of points kind of tells us how far into the weeds this discussion has gone. I can use that argument as well.
_Ozy_ wrote: What happens if the target has see invisibility, and the attacker is invisible inside the Obscuring Mist? :D ... I'm sorry. All this time, and I actually thought you where serious. Thank you for wasting my time.
On the off-chance that you actually are serious: See Invisible does not see through regular concealment. It only affects invisibility.
EDIT: Also: the first line is "You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision". Someone who's inside Obscuring Mist is not within your range of vision, as they are concealed by the mist.
The Sword wrote: You may know there is a person in the mist but if you can't see the attack coming until it's too late you are loosing Dex to AC, whether it's the rogue drawing the hidden weapon, the sniper shooting you from the bushes or the attacker in the mist. There is nothing stating when "too late" is, within the rules. Which in turn means, there is no "too late" in the context of concealment and Obscuring Mist, as they don't deny DEX to AC. You are able to react to the attack.
Now, for the sake of argument (just to clear something up): How about Displacment? You gain effects similar to Total Concealment (it actually is total concealment, with the exception that people can target the creature under the Displacment effect as normal). Are they "unable to react" (unaware) of an attack from this creature as well and would be denied their DEX to AC? Just like how you seem to argue that any total concealment does.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: It's as simple as this. You claim that stealth makes you hidden, and lets you deny your opponent dex to AC.
Honestly I didn't read past this line, but the rules do state this in a round about manner though.
Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.
It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.
Quote: Check: 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. So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.
Quote:
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
.....
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack. If you can not react you lose dex to AC.
Once again in the combat chapter.
Quote:
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. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
With all of that aside and for anyone read if you are in the mist, and someone can not see you then they lose dex to AC against you.
Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?
PS: Common sense says we are assuming things like blindsight, blind fight, or other special abilities are not in play. Don't be that guy.
wraithstrike wrote:
Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?
Worse, someone is making the claim that you retain Dex to AC when you can't use your eyes to see the enemy.
wraithstrike wrote: Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.
It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.
Quote: Check: 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. So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.
I'm 100% behind this, with the anecdote that you need to roll stealth (or do something else) when in concealment/Obscuring Mist to not get noticed. It does not happen automatically.
Scythia wrote: Worse, someone is making the claim that you retain Dex to AC when you can't use your eyes to see the enemy. No, I'm making the argument that you retain your DEX to AC if you're aware of the opponent, even if you can't see him (in the context of Obscuring Mist and concealment, not in the context of blindness and darkness).
Rub Eta, why is relevent if the person is noticed, stealthy or not?
It is reacting to the attack that is important not the person.
Knowing the enemy is around is not the same as knowing the attack is coming. Your perception/stealth roll doesn't make any difference to whether the attack can be reacted to.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Scythia wrote: Worse, someone is making the claim that you retain Dex to AC when you can't use your eyes to see the enemy. No, I'm making the argument that you retain your DEX to AC if you're aware of the opponent, even if you can't see him (in the context of Obscuring Mist and concealment, not in the context of blindness and darkness).
Exactly, in your own words.
The Sword wrote: Rub Eta, why is relevent if the person is noticed, stealthy or not?
It is reacting to the attack that is important not the person.
Knowing the enemy is around is not the same as knowing the attack is coming.
You're just assuming that you can't react. This is not supported by the rules. Unlike being blind or in areas of darkness, Obscuring Mist and concealment does not deny DEX to AC automatically, neither does it render you unable to react to the attack. Please not that there's also a huge difference between being blind and inside Obscuring Mist (not only rules wise).
EDIT:
@Scythia: The context that I make the argument in is very important. Nothing in concealment and Obscuring Mist states that you're unable to react to an attack. There's also no general rule that you need to SEE the attacker to be able to react to the attack.
I'm not saying that blind targets don't lose their DEX to AC (which your representation of my argument implies that they don't lose DEX to AC). You can't judge seperat words in a sentence outside of their context to grasp the full meaning of the entire sentence in context.
Rub-Eta wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.
It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.
Quote: Check: 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. So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.
I'm 100% behind this, with the anecdote that you need to roll stealth (or do something else) when in concealment/Obscuring Mist to not get noticed. It does not happen automatically.
Scythia wrote: Worse, someone is making the claim that you retain Dex to AC when you can't use your eyes to see the enemy. No, I'm making the argument that you retain your DEX to AC if you're aware of the opponent, even if you can't see him (in the context of Obscuring Mist and concealment, not in the context of blindness and darkness). Is there a difference between "can't see" and "can't locate with sight"?
If so what is the difference?
edit: With regard to "Obscuring Mist vs blindness and darkness" what is the difference?<---Nevermind I see what you mean.
edit 2: My next post is more important
Rub-Eta I see the point you are making.
My question is this. In your opinion do you think the game is intended to work that way or are you just saying "there is no rule that directly states you need to see an opponent in order to avoid losing dex to AC"?
Blindness and dakness makes you unable to see anything at all (not only the attacker can not be seen). Obscuring Mist does not do this at the same level.
Blindness and darkness seperatly denies you your DEX to AC, Obscuring Mist only provides concealment. Concealment, in turn, does not deny DEX to AC either.
I'll edit for your second post in a bit.
EDIT: Yes, I believe it should work that way. Ponder this:
-You stand outside of the mist (maybe even 60ft away), the given Oracle in the OP fires an arrow at you from inside the mist. You are fully aware of the Oracle, you saw when he cast Obscuring Mist, he's making no attempts to hide that fact that he's still in there (no stealth, you are aware of him/have noticed him). How does it make any sense that you can't "dodge" the arrow (apply DEX to AC)? It is also not supported by the rules.
-Even if you're in the mist yourself, you will be able to see the arrow (somewhat) when it's 5ft away from you (and you're still fully aware of the Oracle). This is the exact same situation as the one above, only that you now somewhat see 5ft instead of 60ft. But as writen, there's no difference. I'm perfectly fine with someone house-ruling otherwise. But then they should be aware that they're making a house-rule. The counter-arguments (that are not based on rules) I've faced so far would also deny DEX to AC in the first example (which in turn would make less sense than to retain DEX to AC in this second example).
-On the other side, if you are NOT aware of the Oracle (by any means), the arrow shooting out from the mist will take you by surprise (either you're flat-footed or just unaware).
It isn't concealment that means the attack denies Dex, it is the fact that you can't see where the ranged attack is coming from.
Rub-Eta wrote: Blindness and dakness makes you unable to see anything at all (not only the attacker can not be seen). Obscuring Mist does not do this at the same level.
Blindness and darkness seperatly denies you your DEX to AC, Obscuring Mist only provides concealment. Concealment, in turn, does not deny DEX to AC either.
I'll edit for your second post in a bit.
The concealment is not why I think obscuring cloud denies dex, but I will get back to this later. I don't want to try to cover too many subtopics at once.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Did you know that Paizo considered rewriting the Stealth skill altogether, because of the inconsistent problems it caused? Perhaps this blog post on the matter will provide some insight into what the RAI is, and how the RAW should be interpreted.
After all, if this is what they were shooting for, then perhaps it's what they intended in the current rules (even though the change never took).
Rub-Eta wrote: Blindness and dakness makes you unable to see anything at all (not only the attacker can not be seen). Obscuring Mist does not do this at the same level.
Blindness and darkness seperatly denies you your DEX to AC, Obscuring Mist only provides concealment. Concealment, in turn, does not deny DEX to AC either.
I'll edit for your second post in a bit.
EDIT: Yes, I believe it should work that way. Ponder this:
-You stand outside of the mist (maybe even 60ft away), the given Oracle in the OP fires an arrow at you from inside the mist. You are fully aware of the Oracle, you saw when he cast Obscuring Mist, he's making no attempts to hide that fact that he's still in there (no stealth, you are aware of him/have noticed him). How does it make any sense that you can't "dodge" the arrow (apply DEX to AC)?
-Even if you're in the mist yourself, you will be able to see the arrow (somewhat) when it's 5ft away from you (and you're still fully aware of the Oracle). This is the exact same situation as the one above, only that you now somewhat see 5ft instead of 60ft. But as writen, there's no difference. I'm perfectly fine with someone house-ruling otherwise. But then they should be aware that they're making a house-rule.
-On the other side, if you are NOT aware of the Oracle (by any means), the arrow shooting out from the mist will take you by surprise (either you're flat-footed or just unaware).
Ponder this:
So if someone whom you can not see is in the area of obscuring mist you get to retain your dex to AC.
But if someone whom you can not see is in the area of obscuring mist and they make a stealth check you lose your dex to AC even though visually nothing has changed because in both cases you still can't see them?
In both cases you can not see the person so you don't know where they are. Even if they move without a stealth check you can't be sure where they are.
-------------------------------------
As for the logic of seeing the arrow when it was 5 feet away if that was how the game worked then invisibility would not work, assuming you saw someone cast that spell, and neither would sniping since you know the person is still in the area somewhere, just like you know that caster is still in the obscuring mist.
Actually, the invisible shooter is worse than your example with obscuring mist. When something leaves an invisible creatures possession it becomes visible so if your 5 foot distance is the basis of your logic then if the invisible creature is more than 5 feet away then you see his arrow from a greater distance than 5 feet away, and you have more time to react than if you were in the obscuring mist. In Pathfinder you basically have 360 degree vision so the fact that the invisible person moved and the caster is somewhere in the cloud is not a factor.
As for obscuring mist the spell says "cannot use sight to locate the target". That is why you lose dex to AC, not because of concealment. It just so happens that people you can't see gain concealment.
Ravingdork wrote: Did you know that Paizo considered rewriting the Stealth skill altogether, because of the inconsistent problems it caused? Perhaps this blog post on the matter will provide some insight into what the RAI is, and how the RAW should be interpreted.
After all, if this is what they were shooting for, then perhaps it's what they intended in the current rules (even though the change never took).
I thought about linking to that but I didnt remember any questions being asked that specifically called out "sight".
Here's an example to consider:
Someone calls you to tell you that you're sighted in on their paintball rifle. You're clearly aware that they are around, but you can't see them. Maybe they're in that fog bank, maybe they're not. You can't see them. You have no idea when or if they will attack.
You can't see them, so you can't anticipate the attack. How can you dodge without some supernatural dodging ability (like uncanny dodge)?
And that's where we come to weird rules interactions. Yes, sniping and being invisible denies DEX to AC, as mentioned in the rules. But not attacking from Obscuring Mist (as it's not mentioned).
A big difference, "logic-wise", though, is that you are fully aware of the mist (the area where the attack comes from) while you're not aware of the invisible creature's whereabouts (or the sniping character). I can't explain it more than this. If you want a 100% coherent system, you need to take your own stance on what you want to change (but that's not what I'm donig right now, since I'm answering a rules question).
But how does "cannot use sight to locate the target" deny DEX to AC?
@Scythia: What if you know that they're inside the fog bank? Because, as I've said numerous times, if you don't know that they're in the Obscuring Mist (via stealth), you are denied DEX to AC.
Rub-Eta wrote: A big difference, "logic-wise", though, is that you are fully aware of the mist (the area where the attack comes from) while you're not aware of the invisible creature's whereabouts (or the sniping character). Except this isn't even true. You can be perfectly aware of 'where' the invisible creature is, because he's right next to you attacking, you have blind sense, you have scent, etc...
You still don't get Dex to AC because you can't see and anticipate the attack. Awareness of the location of the attacker has nothing to do with it.
Quote: I can't explain it more than this. If you want a 100% coherent system, you need to take your own stance on what you want to change (but that's not what I'm donig right now, since I'm answering a rules question). Except our interpretation of the rules: you must be able be aware of an attack to get your Dex to AC is 100% coherent and supported by Jason's post.
What does it mean to be aware of an attack? You have to be able to see it coming.
Quote:
But how does "cannot use sight to locate the target" deny DEX to AC?
@Scythia: What if you know that they're inside the fog bank? Because, as I've said numerous times, if you don't know that they're in the Obscuring Mist (via stealth), you are denied DEX to AC.
So, if if there are two Obscuring Mists, and the person in one teleports to the other, can he now attack while denying Dex to AC? Is this supported in the rules somewhere?
Rub-Eta wrote: And that's where we come to weird rules interactions. Yes, sniping and being invisible denies DEX to AC, as mentioned in the rules. But not attacking from Obscuring Mist (as it's not mentioned).
A big difference, "logic-wise", though, is that you are fully aware of the mist (the area where the attack comes from) while you're not aware of the invisible creature's whereabouts (or the sniping character). I can't explain it more than this. If you want a 100% coherent system, you need to take your own stance on what you want to change (but that's not what I'm donig right now, since I'm answering a rules question).
But how does "cannot use sight to locate the target" deny DEX to AC?
@Scythia: What if you know that they're inside the fog bank? Because, as I've said numerous times, if you don't know that they're in the Obscuring Mist (via stealth), you are denied DEX to AC.
If I go and find a post from someone on the PDT that says "no sight" equals "no dex to AC", would you accept that as intent or does this actually need an FAQ to convince you?
wraithstrike wrote: If I go and find a post from someone on the PDT that says "no sight" equals "no dex to AC", would you accept that as intent or does this actually need an FAQ to convince you? I think the simplest 'sub rule' (of the general 'must be able to react rule') for this would be that 'you cannot react / lose your Dex to AC if you are not "observing" the attacker as defined in Ultimate Intrigue'.
This is consistent with all the actually stated rules and covers all the issues with other senses, 'awareness of location', magic like blur and displacement, et cetera.
wraithstrike wrote: If I go and find a post from someone on the PDT that says "no sight" equals "no dex to AC", would you accept that as intent or does this actually need an FAQ to convince you? I've been asking for something like that since the first page of this thread. It would definitely convince me.
Quote: Ponder this:
-You stand outside of the mist (maybe even 60ft away), the given Oracle in the OP fires an arrow at you from inside the mist. You are fully aware of the Oracle, you saw when he cast Obscuring Mist, he's making no attempts to hide that fact that he's still in there (no stealth, you are aware of him/have noticed him). How does it make any sense that you can't "dodge" the arrow (apply DEX to AC)? It is also not supported by the game
How does this not apply to the spell darkness too? And yet by what we know it does. Because total concealment (the thing earned by a successful stealth check) denies dex. How in any way are the 3 different if they are all doing the same thing. Darkness doesn't confer any sort of "denies dex" quote but we know being in darkness does do that. How is it not the same thing.
Let's try it another way. Since the mists grant total concealment, would you allow for an automatic stealth check every round?
CBDunkerson wrote: I think the simplest 'sub rule' (of the general 'must be able to react rule') for this would be that 'you cannot react / lose your Dex to AC if you are not "observing" the attacker as defined in Ultimate Intrigue'. Could you please provide page number? I've been search through my PDF of Ultimate Intruige for "observing", "attacker", "Armor Class" (and a few other key-words) and I can not find this (could be because of my s!!~ty PDF reader).
Cavall wrote: Because total concealment (the thing earned by a successful stealth check) denies dex. ... Please come back when you've read the rules.
Still waiting, teleport to another mist. Denies dex?
I feel so silly not remembering this after all of the times I had to explain blindsense vs blindsight to people.
Quote: Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see. This rule assumes the player already understands he would lose dex if he can't see the opponent, so it reinforces that blindsense does not trump that with regard to keeping his dex bonus to AC.
|
