Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tichrimo 01-29-08, 11:20 PM	Per Fog Cloud, A bank of fog billows out from the point you designate. The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target). The question: is that "5 feet of fog", or just "5 feet"? e.g. do A and B have the same 50% miss chance versus C? FFFF__ FAFC_B FFFF__ (Where F=Fog, _= air, and A, B, C are the players.)
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 01:36 AM	C to B (and the reverse) have concealment from each other. A to B (and the reverse) have total concealment from each other. So, in other words, yes, it is 5 feet of fog. :dragon: *****
Tedronai 01-30-08, 01:38 AM	5' of Fog is the only SANE interpretation of this, since anything else subjects the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to concealment so long as this 20' radius effect is in place.
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 01:48 AM	5' of Fog is the only SANE interpretation of this, since anything else subjects the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to concealment so long as this 20' radius effect is in place. Sounds like a perfect spell to be researched by a lich. Lich casts Epic Multiverse Fog. Meanwhile across the campaign worlds of D&D, everyone starts rolling miss chances. Yep, sounds like an awesome thing for a lich to have. :dragon: *****
mvincent 01-30-08, 03:53 PM	e.g. do A and B have the same 50% miss chance versus C? FFFF__ FAFC_B FFFF__ B doesn't have a 50% miss chance vs. C because there is not actually 5' of fog between them. However, B does still have a 20% miss chance when attacking C. Conversely, C has no miss chance when attacking B (because he can attack from the edge of his own square).
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 07:38 PM	Conversely, C has no miss chance when attacking B (because he can attack from the edge of his own square). If this is true, then B should be able to attack the edge of C's square with no penalty - and thus hit the "unconcealed" C. :dragon: *****
weasel0 01-30-08, 08:02 PM	'Cept B isn't trying to attack C's edge, B is attempting to attack into the square which contains fog. It's the same as someone hiding inside a bush still gets concealment vs someone attacking him but the one inside the bush has no penalty to hit the guy outside the bush. C moves up to the edge and has a clear attack, then slips back into the obscuring environment and maintains concealment(or a piece of fog rolls in the way just as the oppenent goes to attack, or a random branch gets in the way). That's why people who attack from cover(concealment is a type of cover) don't take penalties to attack(excepting full cover of course).
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 08:15 PM	C moves up to the edge and has a clear attack.... So, if I am B and C does as you say, I should be able to ready an attack to hit C while he is on "the edge," right? Thereby negating the concealment. Sounds like it is getting too complicated to me. "Ooooh, look at me! I'm on this edge of the square. Ha! now I'm over on this edge of the square. Nope nope nope, now I'm over here in my square." BAH, all this moving around in a square is getting to be hogwash - pardon my French Poodle. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 01-30-08, 08:24 PM	Also, It's the same as someone hiding inside a bush still gets concealment vs someone attacking him but the one inside the bush has no penalty to hit the guy outside the bush. It is not the same as a bush used for concealment, as fog is dependent on how much distance the targets are apart as to whether the concealment modifiers kick-in or not. Bushes don't work like that. The leaves, branches, and overall bush, is just as opaque from 1" away as it is from 10 feet away. So, Bushes do not equal fog. :dragon: *****
Tedronai 01-31-08, 03:04 AM	'Cept B isn't trying to attack C's edge, B is attempting to attack into the square which contains fog. It's the same as someone hiding inside a bush still gets concealment vs someone attacking him but the one inside the bush has no penalty to hit the guy outside the bush. C moves up to the edge and has a clear attack, then slips back into the obscuring environment and maintains concealment(or a piece of fog rolls in the way just as the oppenent goes to attack, or a random branch gets in the way). That's why people who attack from cover(concealment is a type of cover) don't take penalties to attack(excepting full cover of course). If C is at all moving during the round, which, unless specified otherwise (usually by virtue of paralyzation, or some other such effect), they are ASSUMED to be doing, then there are opportunities during that time for C to be attacked with no concealment. If C is NOT moving at all, then it is THEORETICALLY possible that their body is located at the very edge of the 5' space, but it is also assumed not to be. It is assumed that a creature occupies any point in their space (or rather all points and only one point simultaneously). Some of those points have less than 5' of fog between C and B. Therefore it is assumed that C can attack B, and that B can attack C, without concealment. See PHB explanations for Cover as related to Large or larger creatures for reference to this concept.
Izax19 01-31-08, 03:17 AM	I have a dragonfire adept in my campaign who has used and will be using a fog effect in basically every battle. This thread has helped me a lot to actually figure out just what his fog does. After reading the power a little, I'm going to go by how many squares of fog are actually in between the squares that characters occupy. So B and C would not have concealment from each other, and A and C would have concealment from each other (with the 20% miss chance). I think that would be the best way to rule. Otherwise you have different relationships for B attacking C vs. C attacking B (which doesn't feel right at all, they have the same amount of fog going either way) or you have concealment against the world at large (which is just crazy). This shall certainly stop the entire party from simply hiding out in the fog cloud that SOMEHOW happens to appear every encounter. ;) What does everyone think? EDIT: Although, going back and reading it RAW, it does seem to say that anybody within 5 ft (anyone attacking with a normal melee weapon) has concealment, and that anybody farther away is effectively invisible. That seems pretty crazy, to offer concealment no matter what, but that is what the spell is designed to do, apparently. It would be pretty to allow normal (medium-size non-reach 5ft weapons) melee to work fine while completely negating ranged attacks of any great distance. I guess the spell does offer cover everywhere.
mvincent 01-31-08, 01:38 PM	If C is at all moving during the round, which, unless specified otherwise (usually by virtue of paralyzation, or some other such effect), they are ASSUMED to be doing, then there are opportunities during that time for C to be attacked with no concealment. From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment): "Concealment To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. 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. When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks."
weasel0 01-31-08, 05:52 PM	Thank you mvincent.
Tichrimo 01-31-08, 09:24 PM	:cookie: for mvincent! Thankyouthankyouthankyou. I'll take that back to our gaming table.
Izax19 01-31-08, 09:46 PM	So does this mean that someone standing on the edge of the fog has concealment against 5-ft melee attacks (since "his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment") but not against ranged attacks (because no line from the attacker's corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment). This seems counter-intuitive.
PenderGrass 02-01-08, 01:29 AM	From the rules: "Concealment To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. 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. When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks." This is all far more complicated than: 1. Less than 5 feet of fog grants nothing 2. 5 feet of fog grants concealment 3. More than 5 feet of fog grants total concealment No wonder I dropped squares and grids. :dragon: *****
mvincent 02-01-08, 12:22 PM	So does this mean that someone standing on the edge of the fog has concealment against 5-ft melee attacks (since "his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment") but not against ranged attacksNo. The ranged attacker will be firing through a border that provides concealment.
Izax19 02-01-08, 03:12 PM	Okay, thanks. I was misreading it to say that you chose a corner of the opponent's square to draw your line to, but you have to check all of them.
PenderGrass 02-01-08, 03:12 PM	No. The ranged attacker will be firing through a border that provides concealment. Yet, fog doesn't provide concealment unless there is 5 feet or more of it. :dragon: *****
weasel0 02-02-08, 01:52 AM	...within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). <snip> IE- Up to 5'. (not including none) Also, when I read "to any corner" I see it as saying check all four corners of both sqaures and if any one of the lines drawn goes through something that grants concealment or crosses a border(such as a thicket) of a square that grants concealment, the target is granted concealment. If no line can be drawn that will grant concealment, no penalties are given.
PenderGrass 02-04-08, 03:42 AM	So, we are back to B and C having concealment from one another? Since no matter which way you draw the line it is passing through at least a "border" of a concealment-granting square? Again, it just seems easier to dump the squares and look at the actual playing area. To me, at least. :dragon: *****
weasel0 02-04-08, 01:18 PM	within...whoever is within. B is not within so he gets no concealment to hide in. C is within 5' of fog so he gets concealment. It's always easier to look out from concealment than look into it.
PenderGrass 02-04-08, 01:25 PM	within...whoever is within. B is not within so he gets no concealment to hide in. C is within 5' of fog so he gets concealment. It's always easier to look out from concealment than look into it. That is contrary to the rule quoted: "To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. 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." Emphasis is mine. The line going to and from B and C passes through the same border of a square that provides concealment. :dragon: *****
weasel0 02-04-08, 01:29 PM	"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. 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." Emphasis mine. Any corner B picks to attack C from will pass through fog. C gains concealment. 2 out of 4 corners C attacks from don't pass through any fog. B gains no concealment from these attacks.(C could attack giving B concealment using the back 2 corners... but that would be silly.)
PenderGrass 02-04-08, 03:18 PM	2 out of 4 corners C attacks from don't pass through any fog. B gains no concealment from these attacks.(C could attack giving B concealment using the back 2 corners... but that would be silly.) C's square is inside the square that grants concealment - there is no possible way that a line can leave the square without passing through the border of the square C is in. :dragon: *****
weasel0 02-04-08, 04:01 PM	C's square is the last square that grants concealment. The rule is chose a corner then draw your line. You don't draw the line from the middle of the square. It's from a corner. If you take either of the front two corners that C is in and draw a line to any corner of B's square, it passes through no border or square that would grant B concealment. This line may start from a square that grants concealment. This line may start from a border that grants concealment. This line does not, however, pass through a square or border that grants concealment. The attack will pass through a border of a square that grants concealment, but the rules for determining concealment don't work off of the attack. It's fine if you don't like it(I'll grant you it isn't true to real life... but neither does casting this as magic either). It's fine that you've dropped grids from your games. Please don't argue the rules from that view point.
PenderGrass 02-04-08, 08:39 PM	It's fine if you don't like it(I'll grant you it isn't true to real life... but neither does casting this as magic either). It's fine that you've dropped grids from your games. Please don't argue the rules from that view point. I wasn't - I don't use squares - so I am just curious mostly. I guess where I was confusing it is that you are saying the corners you are pointing at are not within the square C is in. When someone says "C is in this square" - to me, that means there is a border around that square and C is in that square. Therefore, since he is in that square, so too would be all of his corners. But, I guess, when someone says they are in a square, they actually mean they aren't in the square, per se, and that their space extends ever-so-slightly outside the square they are "in." Whatever. Not the first time the English language doesn't actually match D&D-speak. Just look at "sneak attack." :dragon: *****
Exposed_Wires 02-04-08, 09:44 PM	It makes sense that C has concealment from B because it's harder to place his center mass. Some of you are looking at this concealment thing too hard. It's just fog. You can see him well enough to fight him. You can probably describe what he's wearing. But because the fog is moving around him, you would have to try harder to see which way hes dodging around, giving you a slight disadvantage. 20% miss chance makes perfect sense to me.
Nom 02-04-08, 10:42 PM	There are none so blind as those who will not see. Pun intended.
PenderGrass 02-05-08, 01:17 AM	It makes sense that C has concealment from B because it's harder to place his center mass. Some of you are looking at this concealment thing too hard. It's just fog. The point is that it is just fog. You need a certain amount of fog to gain concealment. If C can move up, within his 5 foot square, close enough that he is not suffering a concealment penalty - then I say B should be able to move that much back to maintain the concealment penalty. Fog isn't like typical concealment (like a bush that someone brought into the debate), you need so much of it to get concealment. If B is under penalty for firing at C, then C should suffer the same penalty. If C were peering out of a hedge, then sure, he could gain concealment without revealing his position. But again, fog is not a bush. I see how your RAW examples seem to allow for this, but I would examine such a decision to use RAW very closely here. After all, a DM that just follows RAW because it says so, isn't much of a DM in my opinion. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 02-05-08, 06:16 PM	If C can move up, within his 5 foot square, close enough that he is not suffering a concealment penalty - then I say B should be able to move that much back to maintain the concealment penalty. Except that B moving back doesn't maintain the so-called concealment penalty. When attacking, C simply chooses to attack from the edge of the fog (either corner), meaning there's no concealment between B and C. When C defends, he simply remains well within the fog.
PenderGrass 02-06-08, 02:18 AM	Except that B moving back doesn't maintain the so-called concealment penalty. When attacking, C simply chooses to attack from the edge of the fog (either corner), meaning there's no concealment between B and C. When C defends, he simply remains well within the fog. Then my original question still stands, B should be able to ready an attack to fire on C when he moves forward - but RAW doesn't support that, either - so do you still maintain RAW is the best course in this situation? :dragon: *****
weasel0 02-06-08, 02:46 PM	I do as any other course of action either renders this kind of effect useless or overcomplicated.