Firing Arrows from Obscuring Mist


Rules Questions

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

We tried that already. He doesn't believe it counts.


I believe it counts in certian situations, such as blind creatures and in areas of darkness. I really don't think it's up to one specific rule, such as blindsense, to generate an entierly new general rule that should be applied to cases outside the context of blindsense.


Rub-Eta wrote:
I believe it counts in certian situations, such as blind creatures and in areas of darkness.

So you are saying that if a drow drops darkness on himself and you can't see him* then you dont get dex to AC, but if the same drow is a caster and he cast one of the fog spells then you do get dex to AC despite both spells making it so that you can not see him?

*For the purpose of this paragraph we will assume you don't have access to dark vision.

edit to your edit: That was not generating a new rule. It was assuming as I explained that the player had certain knowledge.


wraithstrike wrote:

So you are saying that if a drow drops darkness on himself and you can't see him* then you dont get dex to AC, but if the same drow is a caster and he cast one of the fog spells then you do get dex to AC despite both spells making it so that you can not see him?

*For the purpose of this paragraph we will assume you don't have access to dark vision.

edit to your edit: That was not generating a new rule. It was assuming as I explained that the player had certain knowledge.

I would apply the same logic to darkness as with Obscuring Mist. If you are outside of the darkness, that is (it's only mentioned that you're effectively blind in areas darkness). The difference between Obscuring Mist and areas of darkness would be if you're inside of it (then you would be denied your DEX to AC).

I know that it's not technically "generating" a new rule. But as far as I know (and what has been provided in this thread), there's no possible way of having that knowledge (unless there is a general rule stating it).


Rub-Eta wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

So you are saying that if a drow drops darkness on himself and you can't see him* then you dont get dex to AC, but if the same drow is a caster and he cast one of the fog spells then you do get dex to AC despite both spells making it so that you can not see him?

*For the purpose of this paragraph we will assume you don't have access to dark vision.

edit to your edit: That was not generating a new rule. It was assuming as I explained that the player had certain knowledge.

I would apply the same logic to darkness as with Obscuring Mist. If you are outside of the darkness, that is (it's only mentioned that you're effectively blind in areas darkness). The difference between Obscuring Mist and areas of darkness would be if you're inside of it (then you would be denied your DEX to AC).

I know that it's not technically "generating" a new rule. But as far as I know (and what has been provided in this thread), there's no possible way of having that knowledge (unless there is a general rule stating it).

Well I have nothing to add since I am sure its one of those things that has to extrapolated from the rules unless it is in Ultimate Intrigue which I don't have a copy of. Before starting an FAQ I will just ask Mark, and report his answer here.

It might take a few days for him to reply, but it is faster than an FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
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).

Pages 187-188, the 'Perception & Stealth' section. The definition of "observing" is the last thing in that section, but you'd want to read the whole thing to get the details on precise vs imprecise senses and other nuances.

The whole section is a great leap forward on understanding the concepts behind the original CRB rules, but they didn't think to explicitly restate the mechanics. Still, if you line the UI definitions of terms and concepts up with the CRB mechanics there is a consistent fit.


I re-read that chapter again. I can't find anything stating that not "observing" the attacker denies DEX to AC.

What I can find is this:

Quote:


Unaware: 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

This states that you can not use abilties such as "startling appearance" if the preceiving ceature have been aware of you but currently can't observe you (there is no abiltiy called "startling presence", I'm assuming it's a typo and that they actually refer to the same abilty, "startling appearance" both times).

Startling Appearance wrote:
At 5th level, a vigilante learns to use the element of surprise to his advantage, startling foes that are unaware of his presence. Whenever a vigilante with this ability attempts an attack against a foe that is completely unaware of the vigilante’s presence (usually due to Stealth or invisibility), the foe is treated as flat-footed for the rest of the vigilante’s turn (uncanny dodge or a similar ability prevents this effect unless the vigilante is at least 4 levels higher than the foe with uncanny dodge). The foe also takes a –4 penalty on attacks made against the vigilante until the start of the vigilante’s next turn.

As indicated here, being "completely unaware" comes from stealth and invisiblity (situations where you are denied DEX to AC, it seems like). But as mentioned on page 188 (what I quoted first), perceivers who no longer can observe a creature they have been made aware of are not in the same state as "completely unaware" perceivers.

I can still be wrong, but that's all I could really gather.

@wraithstrike: I hope you can get an answer! I'd be really happy to know how the designers really intended this (especially if I'm wrong, so I can stop being wrong).


Rub-Eta wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Because total concealment (the thing earned by a successful stealth check) denies dex.
... Please come back when you've read the rules.

Don't be rude. How does a successful stealth check not deny Dex now.


Rub-Eta wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

So you are saying that if a drow drops darkness on himself and you can't see him* then you dont get dex to AC, but if the same drow is a caster and he cast one of the fog spells then you do get dex to AC despite both spells making it so that you can not see him?

*For the purpose of this paragraph we will assume you don't have access to dark vision.

edit to your edit: That was not generating a new rule. It was assuming as I explained that the player had certain knowledge.

I would apply the same logic to darkness as with Obscuring Mist. If you are outside of the darkness, that is (it's only mentioned that you're effectively blind in areas darkness). The difference between Obscuring Mist and areas of darkness would be if you're inside of it (then you would be denied your DEX to AC).

I know that it's not technically "generating" a new rule. But as far as I know (and what has been provided in this thread), there's no possible way of having that knowledge (unless there is a general rule stating it).

So you're saying a rogue hiding in the darkness snipes someone reading by candlelight and it doesn't work because there's a candle?

I don't believe that to be true.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Let's consider the different situations where we know Dex to AC is denied that involve some sort of visual element;

Invisibility
Darkness
Blindness
Stealth

One explanation is that all of these fall under the 'must be able to react' rule because, logically, you cannot react to an attack you cannot see coming. This would then indicate that Obscuring Mist and other forms of Total Concealment also deny Dex to AC.

The other explanation is, so far as I can tell, that each of these instances of losing Dex to AC are unique and have no underlying connection;

Darkness - It is argued that this causes loss of Dex to AC because the target cannot see their environment... which wouldn't apply to Invisibility or Stealth. It would also mean that a target in a lighted area would retain Dex to AC against attacks from a Darkness area... unless the attacker were also Invisible. Which is just nonsensical since the target can't see them either way.

Stealth - It is argued that this causes loss of Dex to AC because the target is unaware of the attacker's location... which would not apply to Invisibility, Blindness, and Darkness in many cases... including cases like locating the target via Blindsense, but "still" being denied Dex to AC.

Et cetera. Since there is no underlying consistent logic for these views it becomes impossible to determine how similar cases would work. The view that Obscuring Mist and other Total Concealment do NOT deny Dex to AC is then just a 'randomly' chosen assumption with no actual support in the rules.


I'm a bit confused.

If you're outside of the fog, on the edge, have a Reach Weapon and someone is 10 feet inside it, having total concealment from you.

People say you get your DEX to AC, but if you're aware of the opponent, and can see all of his attacks coming, why are you then unable to take Attacks of Opportunity?

The only place where I found that you are denied AoO is when you're flat-footed.

From a logic point it doesn't make sense that you're unable to take profit from an opening of the enemy, but you can dodge her blows.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Letric wrote:

If you're outside of the fog, on the edge, have a Reach Weapon and someone is 10 feet inside it, having total concealment from you.

People say you get your DEX to AC, but if you're aware of the opponent, and can see all of his attacks coming, why are you then unable to take Attacks of Opportunity?

The only place where I found that you are denied AoO is when you're flat-footed.

"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."

Quote:
From a logic point it doesn't make sense that you're unable to take profit from an opening of the enemy, but you can dodge her blows.

The rule quoted above explicitly says that you can't get AoO. The rule on needing to be able to react to the attack implicitly indicates that you do not get Dex to AC. As you say, contrary positions don't make logical sense.


Letric wrote:

I'm a bit confused.

If you're outside of the fog, on the edge, have a Reach Weapon and someone is 10 feet inside it, having total concealment from you.

People say you get your DEX to AC, but if you're aware of the opponent, and can see all of his attacks coming, why are you then unable to take Attacks of Opportunity?

The only place where I found that you are denied AoO is when you're flat-footed.

From a logic point it doesn't make sense that you're unable to take profit from an opening of the enemy, but you can dodge her blows.

From what I understand in your example the person with the reach weapon is on the outside of the fog, and the person on the inside has concealment.

If that is the case:
1.The person with the reach weapon would lose dex to AC, if attacked by the person inside the fog.
and
2.He(the person with the reach weapon) can not make attacks of opportunity. It is against the rules.

combat chapter wrote:
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

edit: ninja'd <shakes fist angrily at ninja>


Here is an update. Mark says the person inside the fog makes you lose Dex to AC.

Mark(dev) says you have to directly observe them. Click this link


Cool, thanks for that Wraithstrike.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is an update. Mark says the person inside the fog makes you lose Dex to AC.

Mark(dev) says you have to directly observe them. Click this link

Yep. As predicted, only the state of "observing" the attacker (per Ultimate Intrigue) is sufficient to allow Dex to AC against their attacks.


The Sword wrote:
Cool, thanks for that Wraithstrike.

You're welcome. I figured this was something most people would just accept a dev's word on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
The Sword wrote:
Cool, thanks for that Wraithstrike.

You're welcome. I figured this was something most people would just accept a dev's word on.

Thanks for the vigilance in finding an answer to my question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is an update. Mark says the person inside the fog makes you lose Dex to AC.

Mark(dev) says you have to directly observe them. Click this link

I'm still not conviced... Just kidding. Thank you for your time. Now I feel like playing a Reach Oracle or Shaman (or any other class that can get the ability to see through Obscuring Mist at early levels).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My Cloud Gazer Sylph Ranger loves allies with Obscuring Mist.

Scarab Sages

Flame dancer bard is just brutal. It can give the ability to see through smoke to the entire party.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
My Cloud Gazer Sylph Ranger loves allies with Obscuring Mist.

Do you find that the extension from 5' of clear vision to 15' of clear vision is sufficient?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Since it hasn't come up yet, I don't know. I build her to be a normal ranger and the Cloud Gazer is just a nice perk whenever it happens.

My Firesight Sorcerer and Gaze of Flame Oracle have had luck using Wall of Fire and the like to screen their location and deny Dex to their attacks however.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Since it hasn't come up yet, I don't know. I build her to be a normal ranger and the Cloud Gazer is just a nice perk whenever it happens.

My Firesight Sorcerer and Gaze of Flame Oracle have had luck using Wall of Fire and the like to screen their location and deny Dex to their attacks however.

Ok. It's a feat that I've thought about taking, but I wasn't sure if the limitation vs. spell-created fogs would be an issue.

The Concordance

My Half Orc Flame Oracle/Unchained Rogue sure loves to hang out in fog and smoke. Smokestick in hand, use Spark or consume it as a power component for Obscuring Mist.

Shadow Lodge

It worked really well in the Gloomspires!


If you're on the edge of the mist, and the enemy is more than 5 feet away:

a- can you see without any sort of magical aid?
b- can the enemy see you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is an update. Mark says the person inside the fog makes you lose Dex to AC.

Mark(dev) says you have to directly observe them. Click this link

Does it mean that having total concealment from your target lets you deny his Dex to AC?

(I do not own a copy of the Ultimate Intrigue, so I have no access to the Perception/Stealth clarification)

Spoiler:
I suppose so, because to be observing, you need a line of sight to the subject you want to observe and the very definition of total concealment is "if you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you".

The Concordance

Letric wrote:

If you're on the edge of the mist, and the enemy is more than 5 feet away:

a- can you see without any sort of magical aid?
b- can the enemy see you?

A) Your line of sight for ranged attacks starts in a corner of your square and leads to all four corners of the enemy's square. Assuming the corner you chose is on the edge of the mist, none of these pass through areas of concealment. You see them; you suffer no miss chance.

B) Their line of sight lines pass to all four corners of your square, which means some of the lines pass through areas that provide concealment. They can see you; you have 20% concealment to their attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Djelai wrote:
Does it mean that having total concealment from your target lets you deny his Dex to AC?

Yes, in most cases.

To get Dex to AC you need to be able to 'see' them more clearly than just pinpointing the square that they are in. That usually requires direct visual observation, but can also be accomplished with blindsight and a few other "precise" senses.

So, a character attacking from total concealment would cause the target to lose Dex to AC... unless the target had lifesense or some other "precise" sense that would not be blocked by the concealment.

The Exchange

Imbicatus wrote:
Flame dancer bard is just brutal. It can give the ability to see through smoke to the entire party.

While really great - it does get a bit tricky.

They have to be within 30' of you - but it doesn't define it real well. would that be within 30' at the start of your turn? at the end? or at the start/end of their turn? and how does Lingering Performance effect it? These are some of the things I have found I have to go over with the judge at the start of each PFS game...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ember Flameheart wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Flame dancer bard is just brutal. It can give the ability to see through smoke to the entire party.

While really great - it does get a bit tricky.

They have to be within 30' of you - but it doesn't define it real well. would that be within 30' at the start of your turn? at the end? or at the start/end of their turn?

Wouldn't the range be relevant at ALL times?

That is, if the Flame dancer is performing at the start of the round then all allies within 30' can see through smoke... so any enemies moving past would provoke AoOs. If the bard then moved out of range on their turn the allies would no longer be able to see and make AoOs on enemies moving past. If the one of the allies then moved back within 30' on their turn then they'd be able to see again and an enemy they attacked would lose Dex to AC. Et cetera.

Quote:
and how does Lingering Performance effect it?

Effect continues for 3 rounds after you stop playing... but they still need to be within 30' of you to gain the benefit during those rounds.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Djelai wrote:
Does it mean that having total concealment from your target lets you deny his Dex to AC?
Yes, in most cases [...], a character attacking from total concealment would cause the target to lose Dex to AC... unless the target had lifesense or some other "precise" sense that would not be blocked by the concealment.

Yes, of course. I should have specified: barred any special ability that negates effects of concealment or otherwise lets you retain your Dex bonus to AC.

Thanks.

151 to 183 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Firing Arrows from Obscuring Mist All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.