Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 03-30-07, 04:41 PM	Pre-combat: Mage Armor. Round 1: I cast Shield. Round 2: I cast Gaseous Form. I try to fly underneath a crack in the door what happens? I suppose the same situation would occur to a vampire that casts shield and then goes gaseous. Does the Shield or Mage Armor prevent you from moving into cracks in the door, etc.? What if it is a ghost sorcerer? How does his non-corporealness interact with defensive force effects? Can he still sink into the floor or go through a wall?
Haro 03-30-07, 10:24 PM	IMO you've found another logic loophole in the ruleset. I would allow it, despite the force effects in play.
kjenks 03-30-07, 11:33 PM	Shield and Mage Armor won't hinder your movement while gaseous. All three spells work normally. SRD === The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. ===
smerwin29 03-31-07, 05:43 PM	Here's another combination: Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink + Blur + whatever else (you get the idea) In what order are miss chances and the like figured?
kjenks 03-31-07, 06:12 PM	Ask your DM. If you're the DM, make your best guess.
chesspiece 03-31-07, 07:58 PM	Here's another combination: Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink + Blur + whatever else (you get the idea) In what order are miss chances and the like figured? Displacement supercedes Blur and the ~Invisibility effect from Blink. So we have: Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink(ethereal only) 50% miss from Displacement (Blindfighting helps) then 20% miss from Blink (extra-planar so force effects negates) then roll for Mirror Image Order of Displacement + Blink doesn't matter. To simplify, they can combine to a 60% miss chance. Mirror Image occurs last because Displacement + Blink will cause the attacker to miss the image (expect table variation). An intelligent & experienced opponent will simply "close their eyes" and take the 50%&20% miss chance.
Japangirl 03-31-07, 09:45 PM	Blink is actually 50% miss also. The person who has a Blink spell on them has a 20% chance to miss the person they are trying to hit, as they might blink ethereal right as they try to land the blow or spell. So bad guy B tries to hit PC A with blinking: 50% miss chance. PC A with blinking tries to hit bad guy B: 20% miss chance.
chesspiece 04-01-07, 02:03 AM	Correct. I abbreviated a bit earlier. :) Blink's 50% miss protecting the Blink-er is made up of an invisibility / concealment component and an ethereal component. If only one component is effective (able to see invisible OR attack ethereal), then the non-Blink-er's miss chance drops to 20%. To make sure I'm not messing this up I checked my PHB. Blur, Displacement, and the invisibility component of Blink are all "concealment"-based miss chances. So those components should not stack. You can't get better concealment than total (50%), which is granted by Displacement. So in this example, since you're already benefitting from a 50% concealment-based miss chance thanks to Displacment, you don't benefit from the Blink concealment benefit. Leaving you with only an additional 20% (ethereal-based) miss chance from Blink. You should expect a similar ruling if you stack Greater Invisibility (total concealment) + Blink = 50% & 20% = 60% miss chance. But Mirror Image won't work if you're Invisible. - - - - - - - - - - Since I'm posting again, I should mention the most likely area for table variation. It is reasonable for a Judge to rule that illusionary concealment from Blur / Displacement does not protect Mirror Images. The grey area is whether you need to hit the Glamer of where the Figment appear to be, or where the Figment would be if it weren't Displaced. :eek: If you target an Illusion and it's re-projected 2 feet to the left - you still hit the Image. Right? Maybe? :confused: Of course, the Mirror Images should still benefit from Blinking - they're still becoming invisible & ethereal. Typically when the Images become invisible, they don't work. In this case, you should give them the full 50% for Blink since a miss due to invisibility equates to missing the Blink-er due to invisibility (the images didn't help - but the Blink-er was invisible anyways). So... Roll your target first (PC vs Images). PC gets 50%&20% miss chances (see above). The images get a 50% miss chance for the Blink spell. Now, if the attacker has some special abilities (blindfighting - which doesn't help against Blink, Detect Invisible, or able to attack ethereal), then things get much more complex. And I need sleep...
Jay_Ibero_911 04-02-07, 01:32 AM	Correct. I abbreviated a bit earlier. :) Blink's 50% miss protecting the Blink-er is made up of an invisibility / concealment component and an ethereal component. If only one component is effective (able to see invisible OR attack ethereal), then the non-Blink-er's miss chance drops to 20%. To make sure I'm not messing this up I checked my PHB. Blur, Displacement, and the invisibility component of Blink are all "concealment"-based miss chances. So those components should not stack. You can't get better concealment than total (50%), which is granted by Displacement. So in this example, since you're already benefitting from a 50% concealment-based miss chance thanks to Displacment, you don't benefit from the Blink concealment benefit. Leaving you with only an additional 20% (ethereal-based) miss chance from Blink. You should expect a similar ruling if you stack Greater Invisibility (total concealment) + Blink = 50% & 20% = 60% miss chance. But Mirror Image won't work if you're Invisible. - - - - - - - - - - Since I'm posting again, I should mention the most likely area for table variation. It is reasonable for a Judge to rule that illusionary concealment from Blur / Displacement does not protect Mirror Images. The grey area is whether you need to hit the Glamer of where the Figment appear to be, or where the Figment would be if it weren't Displaced. :eek: If you target an Illusion and it's re-projected 2 feet to the left - you still hit the Image. Right? Maybe? :confused: Of course, the Mirror Images should still benefit from Blinking - they're still becoming invisible & ethereal. Typically when the Images become invisible, they don't work. In this case, you should give them the full 50% for Blink since a miss due to invisibility equates to missing the Blink-er due to invisibility (the images didn't help - but the Blink-er was invisible anyways). So... Roll your target first (PC vs Images). PC gets 50%&20% miss chances (see above). The images get a 50% miss chance for the Blink spell. Now, if the attacker has some special abilities (blindfighting - which doesn't help against Blink, Detect Invisible, or able to attack ethereal), then things get much more complex. And I need sleep... But displacement is NOT a concealment effect. It does not prevent sneak attack. It's that there are apparently 2 of you, the true one, and the displaced copy. So the most reasonable order would probably be 50% blink chance first to see if you actually get you on the material plane and they actually see you, then 50% chance to see if they pick the right you from displacement, then if they pick the right you, the 20% miss chance from being blurry. If mirrior image was in the mix too, I'd say Blink Chance->Images->Displacement->Blur....See you and you are on the material plane, pick the real you out of the image, pick the real you out of your displacement, see through the blurry-ness of the real you...fairly logical progression...
berpo 04-02-07, 08:09 AM	The answer is easy, Simply close your Eyes. that way you will have a 50% miss chance to hit the guy in THAT square... Illusion like mirror image dont work if you cant see them it is explicitely written in the spell... and a dont care about the others effect like blurr and the like... SO I close my eye and I full power attack... (wish I have blind fight) Marc
Timlagor 04-02-07, 01:56 PM	At my table Displacement does indeed prevent Sneak Attack.
chesspiece 04-02-07, 03:00 PM	Mine too. But I suppose Judges making consistent rulings is more important than campaign-wide consistency. [Displacement from SRD] "The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally." I read this that displacement = concealment. Your true location is 'concealed'. A Judge could read it that "as if" means 'not equal to but has some similarities. So that's another source of table variation. But I strongly advise against pushing that interpretation as a Player. You've got a good chance of making your Judge mad and getting an even less favourable ruling on your spells. I find it hard to imagine being able to sneak attack (by targetting vital anatomy) when the anatomy you're aiming for is actually 2 feet to the left! Also, I'm betting you won't find many Judges that'll let you stack Displacement and Blur.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-02-07, 03:59 PM	Mine too. But I suppose Judges making consistent rulings is more important than campaign-wide consistency. [Displacement from SRD] "The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally." I read this that displacement = concealment. Your true location is 'concealed'. A Judge could read it that "as if" means 'not equal to but has some similarities. So that's another source of table variation. But I strongly advise against pushing that interpretation as a Player. You've got a good chance of making your Judge mad and getting an even less favourable ruling on your spells. I find it hard to imagine being able to sneak attack (by targetting vital anatomy) when the anatomy you're aiming for is actually 2 feet to the left! Also, I'm betting you won't find many Judges that'll let you stack Displacement and Blur. While it doesn't directly state it, the FAQ strongly implies that displacement is not concealment: The seeking property for ranged weapons says it negates “any miss chances that would otherwise apply” (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 225). Does this also negate the AC bonus from cover, since that creates a chance that your attack will miss? No. The phrase “miss chance” specifically refers to percentile rolls used to determine whether an otherwise successful attack actually misses. Concealment is the most common effect that creates a miss chance, but it would also apply to similar effects such as the displacement spell (Player’s Handbook, 223), but not to incorporealness. So according to the faq, displacement is not concealment, but merely a similar effect in that it creates a miss chance. Similar to a rogue firing into a grapple of 2 medium characters with a ranged attack, he'd have a 50% chance of hitting his target, but if he does hit, he'd get sneak attack damage...
ShinAkuma2 04-02-07, 04:50 PM	I don't see why Displacement should prevent Sneak Attack. With, say, Blur or Darkness, a rogue can't see you well enough to pick out a vital spot. With Displacement, your appearance is exactly the same, so nothing stops the rogue from aiming correctly. It's just the difference of the rogue aiming at your vitals, or the vitals of your displaced image (ie missing you entirely).
GreatSiron 04-02-07, 05:44 PM	Here's a real question: looking at a creature with all this (displacement, mirror image, blink, etc), wouldn't a monster with any intellegence just go after another target? :P
Hariman 04-02-07, 05:47 PM	Here's another combination: Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink + Blur + whatever else (you get the idea) In what order are miss chances and the like figured? A roll to see if you hit the correct target, then either a popped mirror image or a 50% miss chance to see if you hit. This is because, no matter what order they apply in, miss chances don't stack. You roll to see if you missed, and that's your result. I can't quote the rules on this (except for Blur/Displacement, I believe that Displacement trumps blur) but I'm pretty sure that if you have multiple miss chance granting effects on a character, they only get the best miss chance. I just can't remember where that was stated. Stacking miss chances is redundant at best, abusive at worst. Although Mirror Image + Miss Chance is entirely legal and very handy. If you don't waste 2 rounds to do it.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-02-07, 06:10 PM	Here's a real question: looking at a creature with all this (displacement, mirror image, blink, etc), wouldn't a monster with any intellegence just go after another target? :P Well, as previously mentioned, the easiest way to bypass most of the problems is by closing your eyes...then you just deal with 50% miss chance from total concealment.
Timlagor 04-03-07, 11:07 AM	1) Displacement You cannot see the viatls yo uare aiming at. There is no ambiguity about that. You have a 50% chance of hitting the target anyway because you are swinging you weapon into the square and they may be in the way of your swing but I simply can't see any justification for claiming you can aim for a specific point of someone you can't see. 2) Displacement + Blur I wouldn't allow them to stack for miss chance but wouldn't argue about it. You can still have both running and will be able to hide as normal for Blur (whatever 'normal' is at that table since I know that one is disputed too) 3) Targetting Sometimes the guy with all these things on them is just the one you have to kill for any number of reasons. 4) Displacement v Concealment The only point about Displacement not being concealment is that you can't use it to hide. (..well that's the only significant difference I can think of anyway)
katrick 04-03-07, 11:55 AM	pg 310 PHB miss chance:The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attackers uncertainty about the targets location. See concealment. Blink, Blur and Displacement all mention miss chance ergo they do not stack(one roll only) mirror image effectively does the same thing but doesn't mention miss chance. There are two problems here. In LG the images are assumed to be in the same 5' square(from memory a FAQ or DC) though the spell states they cluster each within 5' of at least one other figment or you.(ie many squares) so you cannot shut your eyes and just get the miss chance from concealment as you may not be in that square(and if the miss chance is a miss you'll never know)the images have an AC so they would get the miss chance for Blur, Blink etc. The other problem i see is easy to fix as miss chance specifically says a successful attack roll ergo you have to go through the mirror image first to make the attack successful then you roll the miss chance. Now add several clones, programmed images, a mislead, a wild shape (tiny) and an invis and the blighter gets away again while you busy yourself killing airspace! katrick
Jay_Ibero_911 04-03-07, 01:20 PM	pg 310 PHB miss chance:The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attackers uncertainty about the targets location. See concealment. Blink, Blur and Displacement all mention miss chance ergo they do not stack(one roll only) mirror image effectively does the same thing but doesn't mention miss chance. There are two problems here. In LG the images are assumed to be in the same 5' square(from memory a FAQ or DC) though the spell states they cluster each within 5' of at least one other figment or you.(ie many squares) so you cannot shut your eyes and just get the miss chance from concealment as you may not be in that square(and if the miss chance is a miss you'll never know)the images have an AC so they would get the miss chance for Blur, Blink etc. The other problem i see is easy to fix as miss chance specifically says a successful attack roll ergo you have to go through the mirror image first to make the attack successful then you roll the miss chance. Now add several clones, programmed images, a mislead, a wild shape (tiny) and an invis and the blighter gets away again while you busy yourself killing airspace! katrick From the FAQ: Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image. From the SRD: Mirror Image Illusion (Figment) Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal; see text Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Several illusory duplicates of you pop into being, making it difficult for enemies to know which target to attack. The figments stay near you and disappear when struck. Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you. You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on. Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball). While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded. An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.) So the images do all occupy your square, and if you close your eyes or otherwise are unable to see the images you just suffer the standard 50% miss chance against the real target. By extension, you can completely bypass Mirror Image, Displacement, and Blur by closing your eyes and using blindsight if you have it, such as from listening lorecall for instance...
chesspiece 04-03-07, 04:55 PM	Since we've started referencing the FAQ... The mirror image spell description says the images have an Armor Class of 10 + size modifier + Dexterity modifier. [snip AC-related portions of the question] What about concealment? Will fog or foliage produce a miss chance for a foe that aims an attack at an image? What about magical concealment, such as a blur or displacement spell? [snip AC-related answers] If the user has concealment from her surroundings, the images have the same concealment. The images also look just like the caster, and they share purely visual effects such as the blur or displacement spell. If the mirror image user is also using either of these effects, an attack aimed at an image has the same miss chance an attack aimed at the caster has. What if the mirror image user employs a blink spell? If the user employs a blink spell, the images blink right along with the user, and any attack aimed at an image has the same miss chance (50%) it has if aimed at the caster. So the FAQ tells us 3 things: 1) Displacement is a "similar effect" to concealment (see Jay's post #13) 2) Displacement / Blur are examples of "magical concealment (see bolded section above) 3) Displacement, Blur, and Blink all protect Mirror Images the same way they protect the character. That should eliminate most of the table variation. The only parts that Judges still need to rule on are: - in what ways are Blur & Displacement like / different from Concealment (with respect to Hiding, Sneak Attack, and the potential to stack with true forms of concealment); note 1) and 2) above - whether concealment-like effects (including Displacement) can improve a miss chance above 50% At my table: Blur, Displacement, the Concealment-based portion of Blink, and other sources of Concealment won't stack to give you >50% miss chance. I'd use my discretion to allow characters to improve above 20% miss chances (stacking foliage, smoke / fog, shadowy light, and Blur could bring you up to 50%). With the exception of Mirror Image (the spell has its own mechanics to trick the attacker into targetting an illusion), you should not be able to use visual effects to make yourself harder to hit than someone with total concealment / invisibility. If you want better than 50%, you'll need to go to another plane (Blink would allow for another roll with a 20% miss chance) or acquire the 50% chance to ignore damage possessed by Incorporeals. (Note: Please don't call the benefit of the Incorporeal Subtype a miss chance!) Cheers, Stephen Martin
Samwise 04-03-07, 05:59 PM	PHB, page 152, 2nd column, Concealment Miss Chance section, last sentence: "Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell), do not stack." I'd say that's pretty clear. Same page, same column, general rules: "In addition, some magical effects (such as the blur and displacement spells) provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists." Not as clear given that concealment is regularly used as both a type of terrain modifier and an effect, but still looks rather conclusive that you can't use those spells to hide.
Timlagor 04-04-07, 11:45 AM	, but still looks rather conclusive that you can't use those spells to hide. Huh? That looks like a complete non-sequitur to me.
chesspiece 04-04-07, 01:31 PM	So we've established that Blur, Displacement, the concealment portion of Blink, Invisibility, Darkness, foliage, etc. won't stack for miss chances. PHB, page 152, 2nd column, "In addition, some magical effects (such as the blur and displacement spells) provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists." Not as clear given that concealment is regularly used as both a type of terrain modifier and an effect, but still looks rather conclusive that you can't use those spells to hide. Regarding concealment-based benefits (able to hide in a well-lit open area, immune to sneak attacks) of Displacement and Blur... Displacement is unclear in its spell text. It is inferred in various places in the PHB & FAQ that Displacement = Concealment but other locations say it is like Concealment. The text above makes it clear that it is Concealment with respect to attacks. That should be enough rules support to prevent sneak attacks but does not necessarily allow hiding. Blur is explicit in its spell text. It states that it grants concealment. IMHO: - Displacement should give immunity to sneak attack. The PHB says it is concealment with respect to attacks. The vital areas that the attacker is targetting are actually 2 feet away from where they appear to be. In effect, the target is invisible (50% miss chance) but their square is identified by a nearby image. - Displacement should not permit Hiding. Your image is clearly visible near your actual location. - Blur should give immunity to sneak attack. The spell states that it grants concealment. - Blur should permit Hiding since the spell grants concealment. I think this is absurd and I wouldn't use it as a Player or question a Judge ruling against it. I would ask Players not to use this, but would permit it if they insisted. The strongest argument against this that I've read is that the Spotter still sees the source of concealment but not what is Hiding behind it. In this case, they still see a blurry humanoid image and can react accordingly. Players should expect table variation.
Samwise 04-04-07, 01:56 PM	Regarding concealment-based benefits (able to hide in a well-lit open area, immune to sneak attacks) of Displacement and Blur... . . . Blur is explicit in its spell text. It states that it grants concealment. The problem is, "concealment" is regularly used with the two meanings I noted: 1. a terrain effect that you can hide in 2. any effect that grants a miss chance So when blur says it grants concealment, which one is meant? Obviously, this could go either way, and should get a FAQ entry. Addition: "In regards to attacks" seems to me to include all aspects of attacks, including sneak attack. Blur and displacement should both negate sneak attack. Hiding is not a direct combat activity, and neither should allow for it.
Timlagor 04-04-07, 08:15 PM	I think you're creating an artificial distinction there Sam. Concealment may have different sources but I see nothing to indicate a difference in effect. In the case of Blur I can't see any real distinction between Blur and smoke. NB Spotting is as much about noticing something as about being able to see it: ergo you can't hide while being observed. IMO the people who won't let you hide when Blurred simply have a grossly misguided mental image of what someone under the effect of Blur looks like. If a trained swordsman has a 20% chance of not hitting you at all when you just stand there (making no attempt to hide or dodge) under this effect then you are rather more than just a bit fuzzy round the edges!
Samwise 04-04-07, 09:16 PM	Am I? Concealment has two effects: 1. It allows you to hide. 2. It presents a miss chance. That is stated clearly in the rules, I don't have to create anything. The issue is whether the distinction between sources is fully intended to limit the effects.
Timlagor 04-06-07, 10:20 AM	I mean you are creating an artificial distinction between 'concealment from environment' and 'concealment from spell'.
smerwin29 04-06-07, 10:50 AM	I mean you are creating an artificial distinction between 'concealment from environment' and 'concealment from spell'. I understand what you are saying here. I just don't think the distinction is artificial. The problem is the line in the Hide skill passage that says, "If people are observing you, even casually, you can't hide." It could certainly be argued that a spell like blur, while granting concealment, does not prevent observation--especially when the text of the blur spell talks about the outline of the subject being blurred. If you can see their outline, you can see them. If you move, your outline can still be seen. I can certainly see both sides of the debate having ground to support their rulings. By the strict letter of the rules, you can hide even while standing in the middle of an open area by using the blur spell. But I don't know that the spirit of the rules were meant to make that connection.
Timlagor 04-06-07, 11:03 AM	Indeed it doesn't prevent observation: because concealment doesn't prevent observation! You have to hide while unobserved and while you remain hidden you are not observed. You can remain hidden if you have concealment. While I can see why people might not want to let blur allow someone to hide I don't think they have any support in the rules.
Samwise 04-06-07, 12:17 PM	I mean you are creating an artificial distinction between 'concealment from environment' and 'concealment from spell'. Am I? Or is how the rules are phrased?
smerwin29 04-06-07, 01:04 PM	Indeed it doesn't prevent observation: because concealment doesn't prevent observation! You have to hide while unobserved and while you remain hidden you are not observed. You can remain hidden if you have concealment. While I can see why people might not want to let blur allow someone to hide I don't think they have any support in the rules. I'm trying to understand your point, but I think I am missing something. Are you making a distinction here between hiding and remaining hidden? So that you could not drink a potion of blur while being observed and then hide, but you could hide while behind cover, then drink a potion of blur to be able to move into an open space (no natural cover or concealment from non-magical forces) toward an opponent and remain hidden? Shawn
Timlagor 04-06-07, 02:26 PM	Correct ..sort of. You can hide is you have cover/concealment and are no observed. If you are hidden you are not observed. If you are not hidden and other people can see you then you cannot hide: neither (non-complete) concealment nor (non-total) cover will stop you being observed and so gaining them is not sufficient to allow you to hide. There is one other option: You can make the bluff-check to distract observers which will then give you a temporary 'not observed' status. If you are observed: - You cannot drink a potion of Blur and then hide - you cannot go behind cover and hide - you can get total cover, hide, then move into normal cover staying hidden - you can get total cover/concealment, drink a potion of blur, hide, and then move out of cover while remaining hidden (or stay hidden while they come to you around the source of your total concealment). [I'd bring "not well modelled" down on anyone trying to hide behind a Wall of Force or other transparent total cover] Not being observed is an extra requirement in addition to needing cover/concealment from those you are attempting to hide from. Samwise: yes you are. I have seen nothing in the rules to distinguish between sources of concealment. It should have been eminently clear from my post that I don't think that is "how the rules are phrased": why did you think I wrote what I did?
smerwin29 04-06-07, 03:25 PM	So let me see if this works for you. Here's the situation. A PC is hiding in the forest, waiting to ambush some foes. The foes are not around, so PC can hide at will. The foes approach but stop 50 feet away from the PC. So the PC decides to move toward the foes, through the forest underbrush that provides concealment. He can do that, correct, because he started out as hiding and remains in concealment? Now take that same situation. Instead of moving toward the foes while hiding within the concealment of the undergrowth, the PC decides to drink a potion of blur and hide while moving toward the foes right up the path that has a clear line of sight. Is that possible?
Samwise 04-06-07, 03:42 PM	Samwise: yes you are. I have seen nothing in the rules to distinguish between sources of concealment. It should have been eminently clear from my post that I don't think that is "how the rules are phrased": why did you think I wrote what I did? And it should be equally eminently clear from my post that I do not think I am creating anything. Why do you think I wrote what I did originally? And now you are distinguishing between initial hiding and continued hiding. That is a rather significant factor, and you should consider it in the context of any statements regarding the spells.
Timlagor 04-06-07, 09:43 PM	I understand that you think that but saying "Am I?" does not support your case. It is however a question that I chose to answer. I am making no such distinction. * You cannot hide while being observed * If you are successfully hiding then you are not observed -there are plenty of other situations that also have you unobserved. Do you disagree with either of the above?
Timlagor 04-06-07, 09:43 PM	So let me see if this works for you. Here's the situation. A PC is hiding in the forest, waiting to ambush some foes. The foes are not around, so PC can hide at will. The foes approach but stop 50 feet away from the PC. So the PC decides to move toward the foes, through the forest underbrush that provides concealment. He can do that, correct, because he started out as hiding and remains in concealment? correct. Now take that same situation. Instead of moving toward the foes while hiding within the concealment of the undergrowth, the PC decides to drink a potion of blur and hide while moving toward the foes right up the path that has a clear line of sight. Is that possible? Yes. He still has concealment and so can continue to hide.
Samwise 04-06-07, 10:01 PM	I understand that you think that but saying "Am I?" does not support your case. And your saying "I say you are" does not prove yours. I am making no such distinction. Yes you are. You have two separate circumstances in play: 1. When you can start hiding. 2. When you can remain hidden. If I say "You can not hide when under the effect of a blur spell, I can be referring to: 1. You can not begin to hide while under the effect of a blur spell unless you are also unobserved. 2. You can remain hidden while under the effects of a blur spell unless you also have some other form of cover or concealment. Which one has been intended in every post in this thread? Specifically, which did you intend when you wrote this: 4) Displacement v Concealment The only point about Displacement not being concealment is that you can't use it to hide. (..well that's the only significant difference I can think of anyway) So you can't use it to hide but you can hide? Or you can hide with blur but not displacement? I may be phrasing it differently, but the same distinctions appear in your posts. Oh, and you can be unobserved because of concealment. Total concealment is based on having line of effect but not line of sight to the target. How do you interpret not having line of sight as other than not being observed? If that is true, then there is a difference between terrain based concealment and the spell based concealment of a displacement spell.
chesspiece 04-07-07, 10:41 AM	I'd like to draw an example from sources including the Muppets, Bugs Bunny, and The Tick. If a PC can pick up and carry a bush large enough to hide behind, it won't necessarily prevent guards from knowing they are there. If they made the hide check while crossing an open courtyard, I might allow the miss chance to increase (50% thanks to hidden vs 20% from just the bush - available even if the PC failed the hide check). But the guards would know that a creature was hiding / moving behind the bush. So they would: recognize there is a potentially hostile creature, shoot at the correct square, or approach & investigate further. That's how I picture Blur / Hide in the open.
Timlagor 04-07-07, 01:09 PM	And your saying "I say you are" does not prove yours. You are claiming there is a distinction. You have supplied nothing to support that claim. On this point my argument is trivial: "they are both called concealment" Yes you are. You have two separate circumstances in play: 1. When you can start hiding. 2. When you can remain hidden. Well if you want to seperate them you can but I treat them the same. 1) You can start hiding if a) You have cover/concealment b) You are not under observation 2) If you are already hidden then a) You must have cover/concealment to remain hidden b) You are not under observation by virtue of your hidden status. ... you must satisfy the conditions of (1) but you automatically fulfill (b). If I say "You can not hide when under the effect of a blur spell, I can be referring to: 1. You can not begin to hide while under the effect of a blur spell unless you are also unobserved. 2. You can remain hidden while under the effects of a blur spell unless you also have some other form of cover or concealment. Did you mean to have a "not" in 2? (it makes no sense as written) Or you can hide with blur but not displacement? This one. I may be phrasing it differently, but the same distinctions appear in your posts. Oh, and you can be unobserved because of concealment. Total concealment is based on having line of effect but not line of sight to the target. How do you interpret not having line of sight as other than not being observed? If that is true, then there is a difference between terrain based concealment and the spell based concealment of a displacement spell. Displacement does not grant total conceament. It acts like total concealment. It's not the fact that it's a spell that stops you hiding but the fact that it doesn't actually give you concealment at all! It has no implact on your ability to meat the concealment requirement of hiding because it does not grant concealment. In all other ways it behaves like total conceament. Blur does grant you concealment (and can therefore be used to hide) but does not automatically make you unobserved (in which case you would have no need to hide). Concealment does not make you unobserved by default: you must hide to be unobserved with concealment Total Concealment does make you unobserved by default.
Timlagor 04-07-07, 01:13 PM	The moving Bush The problem with this analogy is that in the case of blur there is nothing being hidden behind. Since there is nothing being hidden behind there is also nothing to give away the character's position: * either they spot the blurred figure - in which case he's no longer hidden from them * or they don't - in which case they have no way to pinpoint him.
Samwise 04-07-07, 08:50 PM	You are claiming there is a distinction. You have supplied nothing to support that claim. Yes I did. I quoted the applicable text from the PHB. Well if you want to seperate them you can but I treat them the same. 1) You can start hiding if a) You have cover/concealment b) You are not under observation 2) If you are already hidden then a) You must have cover/concealment to remain hidden b) You are not under observation by virtue of your hidden status. ... you must satisfy the conditions of (1) but you automatically fulfill (b). Except those aren't the same. One requires you not to be observed, the other prevents you from being observed. Those are two different things. Did you mean to have a "not" in 2? (it makes no sense as written) Yes I did. This one. Yes, that became obvious after several posts, but was not in your original post. Hence a good deal of the confusion. Displacement does not grant total conceament. It acts like total concealment. It's not the fact that it's a spell that stops you hiding but the fact that it doesn't actually give you concealment at all! It has no implact on your ability to meat the concealment requirement of hiding because it does not grant concealment. In all other ways it behaves like total conceament. Blur does grant you concealment (and can therefore be used to hide) but does not automatically make you unobserved (in which case you would have no need to hide). And thus the confusion of intent in the rules. What exactly is "like" concealment? If it doesn't grant concealment, then how can you justify it blocking sneak attack? Your reasoning is you can't see the target clearly, but if we go by flavor text, you actually can see the target clearly, there is just a chance it is to the side of where you think it is. Concealment does not make you unobserved by default: you must hide to be unobserved with concealment Total Concealment does make you unobserved by default. Yes, that seems to be the rule.
chesspiece 04-07-07, 10:44 PM	The problem with this analogy is that in the case of blur there is nothing being hidden behind. Since there is nothing being hidden behind there is also nothing to give away the character's position: * either they spot the blurred figure - in which case he's no longer hidden from them * or they don't - in which case they have no way to pinpoint him. You are hiding behind an Illusion - Glamer which the spell refers to as "this distortion". It looks a lot like you normally do, but it's blurry / distorted. This distortion gives away your position. It is a visual clue for you in your square. If the distortion didn't give away your position, then pinpointing the correct square wouldn't be automatic when attacking a Blurred character - even if they weren't attempting to Hide. I look at it like this. The guard is always able to see sources of concealment*. So if you're hiding in smoke / foliage / darkness / fog, the guard is able to see the smoke, etc. In this case, you're behind an image (Illusion - Glamer) of you looking blurry. My preferred interpretation of Blur is that you are 'carrying around' an illusionary humanoid-shaped source of concealment (that you can hide behind). If there was a spell that created a fog cloud (20% miss chance) in your square(s) that moved around with you, how should it be ruled? You have concealment in fog. Obviously you can attempt to hide in fog. But if a guard saw a 5'x5'x5' fog cloud go skimming across the courtyard towards the Throne Room, he should be expected to raise an alarm and stop the interloper. You can hide in the fog cloud, but you can't easily hide the fog. I picture Blur as being similar to a magical fog cloud in your square(s). * I'm referring to regular concealment here. Total concealment (such as Invisibility) may work differently than concealment. Some sources of total concealment make you unseen rather than hiding you behind something else.
Timlagor 04-10-07, 12:12 PM	Yes I did. I quoted the applicable text from the PHB. Well then I simply don't agree with your inference from the text. 'you have concealment even if no terrain is granting you concealment'jsut means the spell grants concealment and implies that terrain is the more normal source for concealment. It most certainly doesn't support the claim that there is a qualitative difference between spell concealment and terrain-based concealment. Except those aren't the same. One requires you not to be observed, the other prevents you from being observed. Those are two different things. In both cases you need to not be observed. If you are *already* hiding successfully then that covers the need not to be observed. If you want to distinguish between 'starting to hide' and 'continuing to hide' that's fine but the requirements remain the same. a) You must have concealment/cover b) you must be unobserved And thus the confusion of intent in the rules. What exactly is "like" concealment? If it doesn't grant concealment, then how can you justify it blocking sneak attack? Your reasoning is you can't see the target clearly, but if we go by flavor text, you actually can see the target clearly, there is just a chance it is to the side of where you think it is. You will always be ~2' to the side of where you appear to be so the Rogue will never be able to hit what he aims for -he may get lucky and connect anyway because he's attacking into the right square but he can't possibly choose what body part he will hit. Displacement (imo) is like total concealment in every way except that your position is given away (pinpointed) by the image. They can't say it is total concealment because that would allow you to hide/be invisible which clearly doesn't work.
Timlagor 04-10-07, 12:17 PM	Chesspiece: you're not making much sense. Blur affects your appearance. It does not in any way create anything for you to hide behind. The source of concealment is the spell which is not a visible thing. There is also no support for the claim that "the guard can always see the source of concealment". Fog: the guard could indeed see the fog but might not spot the rogue inside/behind it. However with blur there is no fog. * Ruling that blur allows hiding (if unobserved) is an entirely consistent position. * Ruling that blur never provides sufficient conealment for hiding is self-consistent but unsupported by the rules. * Ruling that you can hide but will still be pinpointed just makes no sense to me.
Samwise 04-10-07, 12:55 PM	Well then I simply don't agree with your inference from the text. Obviously. In both cases you need to not be observed. If you are *already* hiding successfully then that covers the need not to be observed. If you want to distinguish between 'starting to hide' and 'continuing to hide' that's fine but the requirements remain the same. a) You must have concealment/cover b) you must be unobserved If you leave concealment, you can't be hiding. You can not walk down the dungeon corridor and be hiding out in the open, even if no one is observing you at the time. You will always be ~2' to the side of where you appear to be so the Rogue will never be able to hit what he aims for -he may get lucky and connect anyway because he's attacking into the right square but he can't possibly choose what body part he will hit. Of course he can. Just because he is choosing it on an image doesn't mean he isn't choosing. Now you are reading something into a description that simply isn't there.
Timlagor 04-10-07, 07:36 PM	You need to satisfy both requirements. a) and b) are not alternatives and I never suggested they were (sorry if that wasn't as obvious as I thought it was) He can choose all he likes: he can't target your throat if he thinks it's 2' from where it is.
Samwise 04-11-07, 03:27 AM	He can choose all he likes: he can't target your throat if he thinks it's 2' from where it is. Sure he can. Displacement does not make your image indistinct in any way, shape, or form. It just creates an alternate "over yonder" that you may wind up targeting instead. By your reasoning above, you shouldn't be able to sneak attack someone with mirror image up. Displacer beasts are not immune to sneak attack, and the displacement spell says nothing about granting such immunity. If you want to limit the reading of concealment in regards to blur so much, it becomes quite inconsistent to want to add immunity to sneak attack to displacement.
Timlagor 04-11-07, 11:33 AM	You seem to think the a Displaced creaature has two images visible: this is not the case: "The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location" There is only one copy of the creature visible and it isn't where the actual creature is. Perhaps that clears up your confusion... (if you were right it would also be the case that only the first attack of any round would have the miss chance)
Samwise 04-11-07, 12:24 PM	You seem to think the a Displaced creaature has two images visible: this is not the case: "The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location" There is only one copy of the creature visible and it isn't where the actual creature is. Perhaps that clears up your confusion... No, it just means that the text is not consistent. It also states: "However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally." If you can target it normally, you can sneak attack it, especially as nothing in the text of the spells says you can't, and sneak attack says nothing about a miss chance negating a sneak attack, only concealment doing so. Nor does that necessarily mean there is only one creature. You may very well simply be seeing a phantom image. If there were only one creature, it would have to be functionally invisible, and it would reasonably qualify as having total concealment. So you've added material to the spell. And note, again extending that reasoning, you should never be able to sneak attack someone with mirror image, as you can never really target them specifically. (if you were right it would also be the case that only the first attack of any round would have the miss chance)[/QUOTE] Huh? What is that based on?
Timlagor 04-12-07, 01:01 AM	If you had two visible images and one of them was correct then you would know which was which after the first attack. "your image" -singular With mirror image you *can* see the person and therefore you can attempt to SnAt them ..and succeed if you get the right one. With Displacement there is no right one. "target the creature normally" refers primarily to spells (though it also means people can aim attacks at them.. they just have a 50% chance of missing and can't get SnAt damage because the target isn't quite where they think it is). You are indeed functionally invisible (hence the 50% miss chance and "like total concealment) ..except that you have this unfortunate image hanging around right next to you giving away your position and letting people target you.
Samwise 04-12-07, 01:13 AM	And yet the spell still doesn't say it grants immunity to sneak attack. "Like" concealment but not, it does not let you ignore sneak attacks.
Japangirl 04-12-07, 01:32 AM	Displacement gives miss chance as if total concealment, but the wording is just awkward. Concealment prevents sneak attack, miss chance does not (thus why blinking still allows sneak attack, it gives a 20% miss chance but not concealment). Faerie fire, which specifically negates concealment, lists displacement as having a concealment effect. By straight RAW, displacement prevents sneak attack. Can we be done now?
JamesMaissen 04-12-07, 02:16 AM	No, it just means that the text is not consistent. It also states: "However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally." If you can target it normally, you can sneak attack it You can target a person with concealment normally, you cannot target a person with full concealment. To me it seems evident to mean that you can magic missle a person affected by displacement. -James
Timlagor 04-12-07, 03:49 AM	miss chance does not (thus why blinking still allows sneak attack, it gives a 20% miss chance but not concealment). Someone who is blinking can sneak attack someone else. Someone who is not blinking cannot sneak attack someone who is unless they have 'see invisibility'. I think that's what you meant but I don't want anyone to get confused ;)