Attacking from total concealment [Archive] - Wizards Community

Attacking from total concealment [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rinagar
01-12-05, 12:57 AM The rules for total concealment talk about the defender being concealed, but if the attacker has total concealment, say he is inside Leomund's Tiny Hut, and thus able to see enemies who cannot see him, do targets of his ranged attacks (through the hut wall) lose their Dex bonus just as if he were invisible?

Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking?
Rock_Slice
01-12-05, 03:33 AM That is how I would rule it, yes. The attacker is for all intents and purposes invisible to anything outside the sphere.
Egres
01-12-05, 06:04 AM The rules for total concealment talk about the defender being concealed, but if the attacker has total concealment, say he is inside Leomund's Tiny Hut, and thus able to see enemies who cannot see him, do targets of his ranged attacks (through the hut wall) lose their Dex bonus just as if he were invisible?

Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking?
No.

Total Concealment doesn't make you Invisibile.
Arindor
01-12-05, 09:58 AM Egres why not? True total concealment does not make you invisible but it gives you the same effect. That is the target cannot see you. The miss chance is also the same.

I would rule in my games that total concealment would give you the same bonuses as invisibilty.
Egres
01-12-05, 10:11 AM Egres why not? True total concealment does not make you invisible but it gives you the same effect. That is the target cannot see you. The miss chance is also the same.

I would rule in my games that total concealment would give you the same bonuses as invisibilty.
No.

From the SRD:

CLOAK DANCE [GENERAL]
You are skilled at using optical tricks to make yourself seem to be where you are not.
Prerequisites: Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 2 ranks.
Benefit: You can take a move action to obscure your exact position. Until your next turn, you have concealment. Alternatively, you can take a full-round action to entirely obscure your exact position. Until your next action, you have total concealment.

By your reasoning a character with this feat could make himself invisible at will.

Better than Hide in Plain Sight.

You woudn't even need a shadow!
sylvanwolf
01-12-05, 10:11 AM i agree that total concealment should be treated as invisable. dosen't invisable mean not visable. so a hunting blind is just a mundane form of the invisablibity spell. they dont know you are there so they can't react thus no dex bonus.

anyway thats my opinion.
Hairfoot
01-12-05, 07:31 PM [QUOTE=Egres]By your reasoning a character with this feat could make himself invisible at will.

Better than Hide in Plain Sight./[QUOTE]

HiPS doesn't take an action to use, you just do it as part of movement, so it's better than Cloak Dance.

If someone is totally concealed, then they cannot be seen and are, by default, invisible. The downside is that most of the time a concealed character can't see his opponents, either. He can spring out of hiding and get one sneak attack, but then he's visible again.

Leomund's Tiny Hut is an exceptional circumstance which provides continuous total concealment with a full view of opponents, and anyone inside it would be eligible for sneak attacks.

Dang quote thing.
primemover003
01-12-05, 08:24 PM Total concealment and Invisibility are seperate defined terms. It's like squares and rectangles.

Being invisible means having total concealment. But Having total concealment doesn't mean being "invisible." Tiny hut isn't an invisibility sphere. It's a big opaque hemisphere. Opponents can see the hemisphere even if they can't see who's inside. It's just like sniping. The only time your opponent would lose their Dex to AC is in a surprise round and before their turn in the 1st round of combat.

IMC I rule that if you have total concealment you gain the +2 to hit, but your opponent does not lose their Dex to AC... Why I do this is pretty simple. With total concealment you're hidden, as the skill. Being invisible is better than being hidden (though you can hide using the spell). For the most part having total concealment just means the opponent doesn't have line of sight to you. So a monk couldn't use his deflect arrows ability against your ranged attacks for instance.
Xeviat-DM
01-12-05, 10:31 PM You need cover or concealment (see pages 150-152) in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

...

If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on your Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you're moving.

Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (for instance, if he is completely behind a high wall), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.

...

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darknessor invisible or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the norma 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

[quote=Player's Handbook 3.5, page 309]invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponets' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (Invisibility has no effect against blinded or otherwise nonsighted creatures.) An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.[quote]

It's interesting. These conditions are so similar, yet not defined as being the same. More interesting than that is that the Hide skill and the total concealment discriptor do not state that attacking from Hidden or from total concealment is considered attacking while invisible (which would grant a +2 to hit), nor do either discriptors state that targets attacked while Hidden or totally concealed loose their Dexterity bonus to AC.

I think that going by the letter of the rules can greatly destroy the game. There is a reason there is a DM to facilitate games, because the rules aren't stated to handle everything.

As a DM myself, when a creature is successfully Hidden, whether by virtue of the Hide skill (possibly aided by Invisibility) or by Total Concealment, I treat them as invisible.
zudbash
01-13-05, 10:48 AM It seems a little silly to say that if there are two rogues in a Tiny Hut and one has invisibility cast on him, that the invisible one can sneak attack with ranged weapons, but the "visible" one (who merely has total concealment) cannot.
tarkin
01-13-05, 11:02 AM I believe that you get the full benefits of Sneak Attack when you have total concealment.

However, this combo seems powerfull only because you are assuming the victims stand around.

I would think it to be a very rare circumstances where you would get more than one attack using Sneak Attack.

Remember that Ranged Sneak Attack only works upto 30ft away, and that the hut offers no other protection besides concealment.

Spell casters could Dispell Magic the area, as well as use area attacks, while fighter types would simply charge into the hut.

Still, it makes for a nice ambush.

Picture it. Players walking along the road, DM tells them they see a small hut. As soon as they get within 30ft, instant pincussion from the 12 rogues hiding inside.

Note to self: Do not get within 30 ft of any small hut.
Arindor
01-13-05, 11:48 AM Just to play devil's advocate here (Frankly I think total concealment should give the same bonus as invisibilty) but one reason total concealment might not allow you to sneak attack while invisibilty does is that when you shoot someone from total concealment your weapon is no longer concealed.

Ex. An orc knows an elf is hidden in the bushes ahead but can't see him. The elf has total concealment and the orc is not flatfooted. Suddenly an arrow flies out of the bushes at the orc, which he barely ducks (saw the arrow coming and kept his dex). Smiling to himself he advances only to find a sword in his gut as the second invisible elf appears before him.

In this case you could argue the orc keeps his dex because he can see the arrows leaving the concealment but then you would have to rule that an invislbe character using a missle weapon would also let their opponent keep their dex because the arrows become visible when the character lets them go.
Dracspero
01-13-05, 12:04 PM I don't know. If you don't see the arrow until AFTER it's left the bow you're not really going to have time to react. Invisible characters become visible as they make their attack, but still get the bonus for that attack.

I don't think the focus should be on total concealment equaling invisibilty. The question is, what is the effect of being attacked by an unseen opponent? I'd say the effect is that the opponent is caught flat-footed and so is denied their dex bonus (unless, of course, they have uncanny dodge). If the +2 to hit is specific to invisiblity (accounting, perhaps, for the ability to freely manuever yourself into the best position to strike), then the concealed character would not get it.
pres_man
01-13-05, 12:47 PM Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking?
invisibility = visually undetectable
Whenever you are visually undetectable you are invisible. You might be invisible due to total cover (hiding behind a wall for example), total concealment (tiny hut spell for example), magically obscured (invisibility, invisibility sphere, and great invisibility spells for example), etc.

If they can't see you, then you are invisible (to them at least) and get a +2 on your attack, they don't get their dex, and you might be able to sneak attack.
rinagar
01-13-05, 02:09 PM It seems a little silly to say that if there are two rogues in a Tiny Hut and one has invisibility cast on him, that the invisible one can sneak attack with ranged weapons, but the "visible" one (who merely has total concealment) cannot.
I believe there is a rule somewhere that you don't get invisibility bonuses if the person doesn't have line of site to you or is blind, etc., so this wouldn't happen. The Invisibility spell would be effectively negated by being inside a Tiny Hut.

To respond to some others here, though, if someone is invisible (probably with improved invis.) and fighting so that the opponent knows their general location but can't pinpoint, it looks like that would be roughly the equivalent of being inside the Hut. They may know you are there, but don't know exactly where the arrow will be coming from. So it seems like if the invisible person (but general location known) person gets to avoid Dex bonus that the person in the Hut should too...

I've had the Invis vs. Hidden/concealed argument on here before, but just thought that perhaps the exceptional situation created by the Tiny Hut (you can see them, but they can't see you), might be more clear cut.

I guess I was wrong.
Xeviat-DM
01-15-05, 11:15 PM When you are blinded, you treat all attackers as having invisibility unless you also have blindsight (which allows you to treat melee attackers as normal).
evangelion1010
01-16-05, 10:10 PM For the first attack, i'd treat someone as invisible - you weren't expecting it, you'd be flatfooted.

From then on, you'd take no more penalty to be hit than if you had your back to a person firing arrows at you. I'd say even less of one, because you know the arrows are going to come from that sphere.

Not losing your dex mod to ranged attacks from behind is unrealistic, but its one of those issues of realism vs convience.

To those that say "in combat, you're constantly turning around, you don't have your back turned to any one person" - first off, if you're fighting someone in melee, you better have your eyes on them constantly - which means your back is essentially turned.
Secondly, if you're attacked by 100 goblins with bows, surrounding you, none of them get a bonus when they attack - and you'd have to have your back turned to some of them.
Rock_Slice
01-18-05, 09:24 AM If you were being attacked by an archer in a Tiny Hut, it would be the same as if the archer was invisible, even after the first arrow.

My reasoning is simple: if someone fires an arrow at you while they're visible, you see them pulling the bowstring back, taking aim, and then letting go. You can tell approximately where the arrow is going before it's halfway there, so you have at least half a second to react. If they're invisible, you only see the arrow speeding towards you, so you have maybe a quarter of a second to spot the arrow, tell where it's headed, and get out of the way.

Whether the archer is invisible by the spell or obscured by the Tiny Hut doesn't change the info you have, or the time you have to react.

As to having your back turned, you never have your back turned to anything in D&D 3.5.

That being said, if you know that arrows are coming from the sphere, you can just position yourself so that you have complete cover from the sphere. Of course, then you won't see the rogue coming out to slit your throat, so you lose either way.
Kuraito
01-18-05, 09:37 AM Allow me to lay this to rest. The term alot of you are locking for is Line of Sight, which basically means that the target can see and target you. For instance, a creature with displacment cast on it has 50% miss chance (total concealment) but opponents still have Line of Sight against him. If you can attack through the hut, but the hut blocks Line of Sight from the outside, then yes, you are invisible to them and can sneak attack. Concelament means nothing to invisibility, the question is whether they have Line of sight to you or not. Those who doubt me, i point towards 3.5 shadow creature template from Manual of the Planes. They have Total Concealment in shadowy areas, but they are NOT inivisible. Enemys still have Line of Sight against them, just like Displacment. I to was confused about the rules for total concealment and i wrote Wizards Custermor Service and they helped me out. I suggest you check it out.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rinagar 01-12-05, 12:57 AM	The rules for total concealment talk about the defender being concealed, but if the attacker has total concealment, say he is inside Leomund's Tiny Hut, and thus able to see enemies who cannot see him, do targets of his ranged attacks (through the hut wall) lose their Dex bonus just as if he were invisible? Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking?
Rock_Slice 01-12-05, 03:33 AM	That is how I would rule it, yes. The attacker is for all intents and purposes invisible to anything outside the sphere.
Egres 01-12-05, 06:04 AM	The rules for total concealment talk about the defender being concealed, but if the attacker has total concealment, say he is inside Leomund's Tiny Hut, and thus able to see enemies who cannot see him, do targets of his ranged attacks (through the hut wall) lose their Dex bonus just as if he were invisible? Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking? No. Total Concealment doesn't make you Invisibile.
Arindor 01-12-05, 09:58 AM	Egres why not? True total concealment does not make you invisible but it gives you the same effect. That is the target cannot see you. The miss chance is also the same. I would rule in my games that total concealment would give you the same bonuses as invisibilty.
Egres 01-12-05, 10:11 AM	Egres why not? True total concealment does not make you invisible but it gives you the same effect. That is the target cannot see you. The miss chance is also the same. I would rule in my games that total concealment would give you the same bonuses as invisibilty. No. From the SRD: CLOAK DANCE [GENERAL] You are skilled at using optical tricks to make yourself seem to be where you are not. Prerequisites: Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 2 ranks. Benefit: You can take a move action to obscure your exact position. Until your next turn, you have concealment. Alternatively, you can take a full-round action to entirely obscure your exact position. Until your next action, you have total concealment. By your reasoning a character with this feat could make himself invisible at will. Better than Hide in Plain Sight. You woudn't even need a shadow!
sylvanwolf 01-12-05, 10:11 AM	i agree that total concealment should be treated as invisable. dosen't invisable mean not visable. so a hunting blind is just a mundane form of the invisablibity spell. they dont know you are there so they can't react thus no dex bonus. anyway thats my opinion.
Hairfoot 01-12-05, 07:31 PM	[QUOTE=Egres]By your reasoning a character with this feat could make himself invisible at will. Better than Hide in Plain Sight./[QUOTE] HiPS doesn't take an action to use, you just do it as part of movement, so it's better than Cloak Dance. If someone is totally concealed, then they cannot be seen and are, by default, invisible. The downside is that most of the time a concealed character can't see his opponents, either. He can spring out of hiding and get one sneak attack, but then he's visible again. Leomund's Tiny Hut is an exceptional circumstance which provides continuous total concealment with a full view of opponents, and anyone inside it would be eligible for sneak attacks. Dang quote thing.
primemover003 01-12-05, 08:24 PM	Total concealment and Invisibility are seperate defined terms. It's like squares and rectangles. Being invisible means having total concealment. But Having total concealment doesn't mean being "invisible." Tiny hut isn't an invisibility sphere. It's a big opaque hemisphere. Opponents can see the hemisphere even if they can't see who's inside. It's just like sniping. The only time your opponent would lose their Dex to AC is in a surprise round and before their turn in the 1st round of combat. IMC I rule that if you have total concealment you gain the +2 to hit, but your opponent does not lose their Dex to AC... Why I do this is pretty simple. With total concealment you're hidden, as the skill. Being invisible is better than being hidden (though you can hide using the spell). For the most part having total concealment just means the opponent doesn't have line of sight to you. So a monk couldn't use his deflect arrows ability against your ranged attacks for instance.
Xeviat-DM 01-12-05, 10:31 PM	You need cover or concealment (see pages 150-152) in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway. ... If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on your Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you're moving. Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (for instance, if he is completely behind a high wall), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover. ... Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darknessor invisible or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the norma 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment). [quote=Player's Handbook 3.5, page 309]invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponets' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (Invisibility has no effect against blinded or otherwise nonsighted creatures.) An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.[quote] It's interesting. These conditions are so similar, yet not defined as being the same. More interesting than that is that the Hide skill and the total concealment discriptor do not state that attacking from Hidden or from total concealment is considered attacking while invisible (which would grant a +2 to hit), nor do either discriptors state that targets attacked while Hidden or totally concealed loose their Dexterity bonus to AC. I think that going by the letter of the rules can greatly destroy the game. There is a reason there is a DM to facilitate games, because the rules aren't stated to handle everything. As a DM myself, when a creature is successfully Hidden, whether by virtue of the Hide skill (possibly aided by Invisibility) or by Total Concealment, I treat them as invisible.
zudbash 01-13-05, 10:48 AM	It seems a little silly to say that if there are two rogues in a Tiny Hut and one has invisibility cast on him, that the invisible one can sneak attack with ranged weapons, but the "visible" one (who merely has total concealment) cannot.
tarkin 01-13-05, 11:02 AM	I believe that you get the full benefits of Sneak Attack when you have total concealment. However, this combo seems powerfull only because you are assuming the victims stand around. I would think it to be a very rare circumstances where you would get more than one attack using Sneak Attack. Remember that Ranged Sneak Attack only works upto 30ft away, and that the hut offers no other protection besides concealment. Spell casters could Dispell Magic the area, as well as use area attacks, while fighter types would simply charge into the hut. Still, it makes for a nice ambush. Picture it. Players walking along the road, DM tells them they see a small hut. As soon as they get within 30ft, instant pincussion from the 12 rogues hiding inside. Note to self: Do not get within 30 ft of any small hut.
Arindor 01-13-05, 11:48 AM	Just to play devil's advocate here (Frankly I think total concealment should give the same bonus as invisibilty) but one reason total concealment might not allow you to sneak attack while invisibilty does is that when you shoot someone from total concealment your weapon is no longer concealed. Ex. An orc knows an elf is hidden in the bushes ahead but can't see him. The elf has total concealment and the orc is not flatfooted. Suddenly an arrow flies out of the bushes at the orc, which he barely ducks (saw the arrow coming and kept his dex). Smiling to himself he advances only to find a sword in his gut as the second invisible elf appears before him. In this case you could argue the orc keeps his dex because he can see the arrows leaving the concealment but then you would have to rule that an invislbe character using a missle weapon would also let their opponent keep their dex because the arrows become visible when the character lets them go.
Dracspero 01-13-05, 12:04 PM	I don't know. If you don't see the arrow until AFTER it's left the bow you're not really going to have time to react. Invisible characters become visible as they make their attack, but still get the bonus for that attack. I don't think the focus should be on total concealment equaling invisibilty. The question is, what is the effect of being attacked by an unseen opponent? I'd say the effect is that the opponent is caught flat-footed and so is denied their dex bonus (unless, of course, they have uncanny dodge). If the +2 to hit is specific to invisiblity (accounting, perhaps, for the ability to freely manuever yourself into the best position to strike), then the concealed character would not get it.
pres_man 01-13-05, 12:47 PM	Basically, does total concealment equal invisibility in terms of attacking? invisibility = visually undetectable Whenever you are visually undetectable you are invisible. You might be invisible due to total cover (hiding behind a wall for example), total concealment (tiny hut spell for example), magically obscured (invisibility, invisibility sphere, and great invisibility spells for example), etc. If they can't see you, then you are invisible (to them at least) and get a +2 on your attack, they don't get their dex, and you might be able to sneak attack.
rinagar 01-13-05, 02:09 PM	It seems a little silly to say that if there are two rogues in a Tiny Hut and one has invisibility cast on him, that the invisible one can sneak attack with ranged weapons, but the "visible" one (who merely has total concealment) cannot. I believe there is a rule somewhere that you don't get invisibility bonuses if the person doesn't have line of site to you or is blind, etc., so this wouldn't happen. The Invisibility spell would be effectively negated by being inside a Tiny Hut. To respond to some others here, though, if someone is invisible (probably with improved invis.) and fighting so that the opponent knows their general location but can't pinpoint, it looks like that would be roughly the equivalent of being inside the Hut. They may know you are there, but don't know exactly where the arrow will be coming from. So it seems like if the invisible person (but general location known) person gets to avoid Dex bonus that the person in the Hut should too... I've had the Invis vs. Hidden/concealed argument on here before, but just thought that perhaps the exceptional situation created by the Tiny Hut (you can see them, but they can't see you), might be more clear cut. I guess I was wrong.
Xeviat-DM 01-15-05, 11:15 PM	When you are blinded, you treat all attackers as having invisibility unless you also have blindsight (which allows you to treat melee attackers as normal).
evangelion1010 01-16-05, 10:10 PM	For the first attack, i'd treat someone as invisible - you weren't expecting it, you'd be flatfooted. From then on, you'd take no more penalty to be hit than if you had your back to a person firing arrows at you. I'd say even less of one, because you know the arrows are going to come from that sphere. Not losing your dex mod to ranged attacks from behind is unrealistic, but its one of those issues of realism vs convience. To those that say "in combat, you're constantly turning around, you don't have your back turned to any one person" - first off, if you're fighting someone in melee, you better have your eyes on them constantly - which means your back is essentially turned. Secondly, if you're attacked by 100 goblins with bows, surrounding you, none of them get a bonus when they attack - and you'd have to have your back turned to some of them.
Rock_Slice 01-18-05, 09:24 AM	If you were being attacked by an archer in a Tiny Hut, it would be the same as if the archer was invisible, even after the first arrow. My reasoning is simple: if someone fires an arrow at you while they're visible, you see them pulling the bowstring back, taking aim, and then letting go. You can tell approximately where the arrow is going before it's halfway there, so you have at least half a second to react. If they're invisible, you only see the arrow speeding towards you, so you have maybe a quarter of a second to spot the arrow, tell where it's headed, and get out of the way. Whether the archer is invisible by the spell or obscured by the Tiny Hut doesn't change the info you have, or the time you have to react. As to having your back turned, you never have your back turned to anything in D&D 3.5. That being said, if you know that arrows are coming from the sphere, you can just position yourself so that you have complete cover from the sphere. Of course, then you won't see the rogue coming out to slit your throat, so you lose either way.
Kuraito 01-18-05, 09:37 AM	Allow me to lay this to rest. The term alot of you are locking for is Line of Sight, which basically means that the target can see and target you. For instance, a creature with displacment cast on it has 50% miss chance (total concealment) but opponents still have Line of Sight against him. If you can attack through the hut, but the hut blocks Line of Sight from the outside, then yes, you are invisible to them and can sneak attack. Concelament means nothing to invisibility, the question is whether they have Line of sight to you or not. Those who doubt me, i point towards 3.5 shadow creature template from Manual of the Planes. They have Total Concealment in shadowy areas, but they are NOT inivisible. Enemys still have Line of Sight against them, just like Displacment. I to was confused about the rules for total concealment and i wrote Wizards Custermor Service and they helped me out. I suggest you check it out.