|
And the questions below.
In a 5 ft wide a 5 ft high hallway :
Y
O
O
X
-
P
Where X and Y are the bad guys, P the player and - is the of the obscuring mist (P is standing in the obscuring mist, just at the border), O are empty 5 ft squares.
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
And the questions below.
In a 5 ft wide a 5 ft high hallway :
Y
O
O
X
-
PWhere X and Y are the bad guys, P the player and - is the of the obscuring mist (P is standing in the obscuring mist, just at the border), O are empty 5 ft squares.
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
I think you've got something wrong. If - is the origin of Obscuring Mist, P is very much inside the mist. Obscuring Mist is a cloud which spreads in a 20 ft. radius. Everyone in your example is enveloped in the mist and benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance) from everyone else.
Lets try a new example here.
The red-white dot is the origin of Obscuring Mist. This is were a caster stood and cast the spell. It radiated out 20 ft. from this origin (Obscuring Mist radiates out from the caster, i.e. a square, unlike most area spells which radiates out from a designated square intersection).
The creature marked A wants to attack everyone else in the room.
A can attack B, but being 5 ft. away and in the mist, B gains concealment (20% miss chance).
A can't attack C, because C is more than 5 ft. away in the mist and thus benefits from total concealment. A can still direct an attack at the square C stands in. Such an attack would have a 50% miss chance.
I'm not sure what would happen if A would try to attack D. The spell is written with the assumption that either attacker or attacked is within the mist, attacking through it isn't really covered as far as I can see. Though I'd rule that a single square full of mist gives concealment, so A can attack D but suffers a 20% miss chance.
The same reasoning goes for an attack from A against E, but since several squares of mist blocks A's sight, E would benefit from total concealment.
|
|
I think you misunderstood my scenario.
- is the border of the obscuring mist. I'm not bothering to draw the origin of the obscuring mist, except it's behind P.
If you want, I can redraw:
Y
O
O
X
-
P
O
O
O
M
Where X and Y are the bad guys, P the player and - is the border of the obscuring mist (P is standing in the obscuring mist, just at the border), M the origin of the mist(cast by another party member), O are empty 5 ft squares.
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
Ah, sorry. There was indeed a miss in communications, there!
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
I'd say neither X nor Y gains any concealment against attacks from P. P can see out of the mist just fine.
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
P is inside the mist, but not more than 5 ft. So P has concealment (20% miss chance) against attacks from both X and Y.
|
|
Ah I was running it that Y gets 50% concealment as he is more then 10 feet away from P and cannot see P at all.
Then I was finding shooting into the mist a pain.
What if the situation was changed:
Y
O
X
-
O
P
O
M
Where X and Y are the bad guys, P the player and - is the border of the obscuring mist (P is standing in the obscuring mist), M the origin of the mist(cast by another party member), O are empty 5 ft squares.
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X(with a reach weapon)?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P(with a reach weapon)?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
Ah I was running it that Y gets 50% concealment as he is more then 10 feet away from P and cannot see P at all.
Then I was finding shooting into the mist a pain.
What if the situation was changed:
Y
O
X
-
O
P
O
MWhere X and Y are the bad guys, P the player and - is the border of the obscuring mist (P is standing in the obscuring mist), M the origin of the mist(cast by another party member), O are empty 5 ft squares.
1)What is the concealment P faces attacking X(with a reach weapon)?
2)What is the concealment P faces attacking Y?
3)What is the concealment X faces attacking P(with a reach weapon)?
4)What is the concealment Y faces attacking P?
Hm. If I'm to continue my stance that you can »bob your head out« of the mist, then it would run like this.
P can attack both X and Y (that's question 1 & 2), but they both gain concealment (20% miss chance). Whether P uses melee weapons or ranged weapons is irrelevant (though you probably knew that).
However, X and Y (question 3 & 4) can't attack P (other than by designating a square to attack and suffering 50% even if they pick the right one) since P is more than 5 ft. inside the mist.
This asymmetry isn't entirely satisfying ...
The concealment rules are what you need to use here.
(Obscuring Mist radiates out from the caster, i.e. a square, unlike most area spells which radiates out from a designated square intersection).
Are you certain? I thought that it used the normal rules for aiming a spell, in which case you pick one of the four grid intersections around the caster and count from there? That is how I've been playing it, which is why I ask.
Back to the original questions.
1) P has no miss chance against X. P is at the edge of the mist and can pick a corner where they can draw a line to all four corners of X's square without going through an area of concealment.
2) P has no miss chance against Y. They would have to deal with cover though because of X. Same reason as above.
3) X has a 20% miss chance against P. It doesn't matter which corner they pick, they will go through 5' of mist in order to get to the 'back corners' of P.
4) Y has a 20% miss chance against P and has to deal with soft cover because X is in the way.
(Obscuring Mist radiates out from the caster, i.e. a square, unlike most area spells which radiates out from a designated square intersection).Are you certain? I thought that it used the normal rules for aiming a spell, in which case you pick one of the four grid intersections around the caster and count from there? That is how I've been playing it, which is why I ask.
When it comes to Pathfinder, I'm never sure.
I interpret Obscuring Mists »cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you, 20 ft. high« in the very literal sense. You are always in a square. You're not at a grid intersection.
But the magic rules say »Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection.«
So it's highly likely that I'm wrong.