Post/Author/DateTime	Post
antiduke 11-09-07, 01:41 PM	I am wondering if these two spells can both be used together? From SRD: --Blur-- The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance). A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does. Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell’s effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own). --Displacement-- The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. 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. True seeing reveals its true location. Now, I know that concealment bonuses don't stack. But, the way displacement reads does not sound like it is granting total concealment. Only that it is acting LIKE total concealment. Hence the words "as if" in the spell description. It also goes on to say how it isn't actually total concealment in that it doesn't keep enemies from targeting you. Thoughts? Anyone have a source they can give me?
icuall 11-09-07, 03:30 PM	My take is that the subject of the spell can have Blur and Displacement on them. The subjected will have the effects of Blur and be displaced two feet away. The miss chance limit remains at 50% because it is the max total concealment can provide which negates the 20% Blur provides.
antiduke 11-09-07, 04:11 PM	My take is that the subject of the spell can have Blur and Displacement on them. The subjected will have the effects of Blur and be displaced two feet away. The miss chance limit remains at 50% because it is the max total concealment can provide which negates the 20% Blur provides. Right.. but the question here is if displacement is granting total concealment or an effect that is acting similar, but not the same as, total concealment. It appears to me that if an enemy wanted to attack someone with both these spells active they would have to roll both a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance.
Seeker95 11-09-07, 05:01 PM	It appears to me that if an enemy wanted to attack someone with both these spells active they would have to roll both a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance.Only the 50%. The two do not add together. Nor do they act independently. Either you are hard to hit (20% miss chance) or you are really hard to hit (50% miss chance). A miss chance is a miss chance.
antiduke 11-09-07, 05:07 PM	Hmm.. any source to confirm this? By what you are saying a person with Displacement cast on them wouldn't benefit from having concealment. Again, from the SRD: "Concealment Miss Chance Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack." Again, I'm not disputing this, merely the fact that displacement isn't actually giving you total concealment, therefore it isn't a concealment condition. It just uses the term total concealment in the spell description to help describe what the spell is doing. Notice, for example, that the spell Blur specifically states that it grants the target concealment.. "This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance)." Displacement does not give the target total concealment.
ArcTan 11-09-07, 05:23 PM	Displacement gives you every part of total concealment except the part where he can't see you -- it lets someone see your *presence* in a square but not your precise *position*, which is randomized. It means that you can still be targeted by targeted spells and such. However, you are still, for the purposes of targeting in space, totally concealed. A person who can see your displaced image has no clearer idea where you are within that 5-foot square than he would if you were invisible but he could hear you talking. Making displacement stack with ordinary total or partial concealment is both overpowered (100% miss chance! Invulnerability!) and makes no sense. There's no way having a displaced image could possibly be of any benefit to you in total darkness. There's no way having your displaced image be partially concealed by fog could possibly be of any benefit to you (since the image *isn't where you are* anyway). Displacement and blur stacking makes no sense. A blurry image that isn't where you actually are doesn't confer any benefit over and above a clear, sharp image that isn't where you actually are. You aren't there anyway. People trying to hit you are swinging wildly through the general area where your image (blurry or clear) is. Being able to see the image clearly doesn't matter.
antiduke 11-09-07, 05:59 PM	Making displacement stack with ordinary total or partial concealment is both overpowered (100% miss chance! Invulnerability!) and makes no sense. It wouldn't be 100% miss chance. It would be whatever concealment you had from actual concealment plus the effect of displacement. If you had total concealment and displacement on you the attacker would have to make two successful 50% rolls to hit. That's two 4 plusses on a d6 in a row, hardly invulnerability. Displacement and blur stacking makes no sense. A blurry image that isn't where you actually are doesn't confer any benefit over and above a clear, sharp image that isn't where you actually are. You aren't there anyway. People trying to hit you are swinging wildly through the general area where your image (blurry or clear) is. Being able to see the image clearly doesn't matter. Displacement makes you look like you aren't where you actually are. Blur makes that look, for a lack of a better term, blurry. I don't see the problem in these logistically stacking. Again, the issue here is that displacement does NOT grant total concealment. That's all there is to it. If it did, the spell would read much the same way as blur.. If it said "The creature benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)" then yes I would totally agree. Unfortunately, it does not.
ArcTan 11-09-07, 07:20 PM	Displacement makes you look like you aren't where you actually are. Blur makes that look, for a lack of a better term, blurry. I don't see the problem in these logistically stacking. Why? I'm not even trying to hit the displaced image in the first place. If I did, I would miss 100% of the time (because the point is that the displaced image is randomly placed somewhere other than your current position). Sure, the image has blurry edges. Harder to hit. BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO HIT IT. Put it this way -- there is no way that having an image of you standing somewhere near you, *however* blurry, could possibly make you harder to hit than being completely and totally invisible. Nothing should be able to ratchet up past the 50% miss chance granted by actual invisibility. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The point about displacement not granting TC is that it allows some things TC doesn't, like targeted spellcasting. Its *miss chance*, however, should be treated in every way as exactly equivalent to the miss chance granted by TC, right along with it not stacking with other miss chances.
gotbrain 11-09-07, 07:30 PM	ArcTan is right. His example of being displaced (non concealment bonus) in total darkness (concealment bonus) is a good one. What difference does being displaced, blurred, foggy or whatever in darkness? You can't see any of those effects anyway so only the 50% miss chance due to darkness will apply. The same analogy holds true for any visually imparing effect. They overlap, not stack.
antiduke 11-10-07, 12:18 AM	I understand what you guys are saying. And it seems that the entire debate is whether or not "Displacement" grants you total concealment. For instance, if the words total concealment weren't in the spell's description at all, would you still argue the same way? My argument is that the spell doesn't say that it grants the target total concealment. It clearly says it gives the target a 50% miss chance AS IF (aka like, or similar to) total concealment. That is the only question. If the spell grants a concealment bonus they don't stack. If it doesn't grant a concealment bonus it should. And by stack, I don't mean 20% + 50% = 70% miss chance. Roll the 20 and 50 separately. Also, I did some searching and came up with several other threads in other forums on this same topic. Here are a couple I found that offer some opinions. http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-94515.html http://scrag.net/trying-not-to-be-hit/
ArcTan 11-10-07, 12:46 AM	The miss chance is the same granted by total concealment. For purpose of miss chances, it *is* total concealment. It only isn't total concealment in regards to other things total concealment does, such as preventing targeting of spells. Of course, that doesn't matter to me, really. Forget word-nitpicking rules-lawyering BS. It doesn't make *sense* for Displacement to stack with any other form of concealment. Displacement is already as concealed as concealed can get -- the real you is invisible and there's a random image of you standing a few feet away that does nothing but mark the general vicinity of where you're standing. For the purpose of concealment miss chances, which *already presume* that you're attacking the correct square, you can't get more concealed than that. Please, stop harping on the stupid rules-lawyering argument about wording and answer this: What, exactly, would be *happening* to trigger two consecutive miss chances with a blurry displaced image? Why is the image being blurry causing me to miss more often? Keep in mind I'm *not attacking the image* -- I *know* the image is displaced (it's facing the wrong way and everything) and I'm swinging wildly at the vague area the image is standing in. How is the image itself being blurry going to hurt my aim in any way?
gotbrain 11-10-07, 08:45 AM	I understand what you guys are saying. And it seems that the entire debate is whether or not "Displacement" grants you total concealment. For instance, if the words total concealment weren't in the spell's description at all, would you still argue the same way? My argument is that the spell doesn't say that it grants the target total concealment. It clearly says it gives the target a 50% miss chance AS IF (aka like, or similar to) total concealment. That is the only question. If the spell grants a concealment bonus they don't stack. If it doesn't grant a concealment bonus it should. And by stack, I don't mean 20% + 50% = 70% miss chance. Roll the 20 and 50 separately. Also, I did some searching and came up with several other threads in other forums on this same topic. Here are a couple I found that offer some opinions. http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-94515.html http://scrag.net/trying-not-to-be-hit/ Let me use a different example. Suppose your PC is shooting at an orc 100 ft away; no problem roll to hit as normal. Now add fog. He now has a miss chance (let's say 20%); Keep the fog and add complete darkness (50% miss chance). Do you think the fog is really going to cause a greater miss chance in total darkness? Of course not, in fact it doesn't matter if the fog is there or not. Shooting in darkness trumps it. The source doesn't matter. As ArcTan pointed out a blurred, displaced image is the same as a displaced image.
antiduke 11-10-07, 04:40 PM	Ok. How about this for an example: You are shooting at an orc 100 ft. away, no problem. Now add Displacement. He looks like he is two feet away from where he actually is (50% miss chance). Now add blur. That displaced image that you are shooting at is hard to see and thus, harder to hit. You now have a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance. Once again, Displacement doesn't function like total concealment. You can still see the subject. He just looks like he is at a slightly different location.
ArcTan 11-10-07, 05:33 PM	Ok. How about this for an example: You are shooting at an orc 100 ft. away, no problem. Now add Displacement. He looks like he is two feet away from where he actually is (50% miss chance). The 50% miss chance is the same as that of invisibility. This is because the Orc is actually invisible. He looks like he is two feet away from where he actually is -- thus, you can *only* hit him if you "miss" his image. If you bull's-eye the image of where he's standing, you will *always* miss. Displacement doesn't make this as clear as it could, but if you read it it is nonetheless pretty clear that the idea is that you know the image is displaced, so you're flailing wildly at the area *around* the image hoping to get lucky ("attacking into the square"). It's the same as if someone was totally invisible but your sharp eyes notice his breathing rustling the grass (DC 30 Spot check) and so you know vaguely where to attack. Now add blur. That displaced image that you are shooting at is hard to see and thus, harder to hit. You now have a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance. ...Except I'm not *trying* to hit the displaced image. That would be stupid, because if I hit the displaced image, I'm guaranteed to miss the real target. Once again, Displacement doesn't function like total concealment. You can still see the subject. He just looks like he is at a slightly different location. A location *different* from his actual location and therefore useless for targeting. He has the same miss chance as invisibility BECAUSE HE'S INVISIBLE. The real Orc is completely, totally invisible, and I have to *guess* at his location based on the fact that he must be somewhere near the displaced image. The presence of the displaced image only means that I know his *general* location at any given time -- i.e. I can always attack into the correct square -- and things that can auto-track their targets, like magic missile and similar targeted spells can still be shot at him. Hitting the displaced image *itself* is a total waste of time. The spell assumes that everyone who sees the displaced image is trying not to hit it, but the real target (i.e. the spell assumes that the fact the image is displaced is obvious), or else you'd probably have a *higher* miss chance than if the target was merely invisible (i.e. it'd work more like mirror image).
Seeker95 11-10-07, 06:11 PM	You now have a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance.antiduke, I am assuming you are a player based on your continued insistence on trying to get the two miss chances to stack. I hope your DM sticks to his guns. If you are a DM, can I play in your game? I have lots of ways to make your experience with rules lawyers seem amateur. :devil:
antiduke 11-10-07, 09:56 PM	Actually yes, I am a player. And my DM was in agreement with me as soon as he read the two spell descriptions. I still decided to take it here to get other people's thoughts but noone has been able to tell me the CORE portion of the argument that would prove what we think is false... And that is that displacement grants total concealment. I'm not a rules lawyer and I'm not one of those types that tries to "cheat the system." I really just think that the spell description is a little vague and confuses the situation by comparing the effect of the spell to total concealment. (And I am not the only one who thinks this.. look at the other links I posted.) Anyway, I talked to my DM again today and he is sure that it works in the way I have described. And also, I don't think that it is "broken" as it takes 2 rounds to get that buff up anyway, and one of them is only round/level.
ArcTan 11-10-07, 10:33 PM	Actually yes, I am a player. And my DM was in agreement with me as soon as he read the two spell descriptions. I still decided to take it here to get other people's thoughts but noone has been able to tell me the CORE portion of the argument that would prove what we think is false... And that is that displacement grants total concealment. Obviously it doesn't, because you can cast targeted spells at a displaced person and have it work. It doesn't really matter. It's still a concealment-based miss chance.Anyway, I talked to my DM again today and he is sure that it works in the way I have described. And also, I don't think that it is "broken" as it takes 2 rounds to get that buff up anyway, and one of them is only round/level. The main reason I don't like it isn't the "broken"-ness, it's that it *doesn't make sense*. What we've done over and over again is describe in clear, non-rules-based terms what displacement *is*. And *why* it doesn't make sense that extra concealment on top of displacement would increase the miss chance. You haven't responded to that, or even, apparently, read it. That's what bothers me. Again, the point of displacement is that the character himself is totally concealed and invisible, and there's a floaty hologram of him hovering around letting you know he's somewhere nearby. There's no possible way in which making the floaty hologram itself blurry or hard to see could make the guy harder to hit, because you're not trying to hit the floaty hologram anyway (that would be dumb, it's *displaced* from where he is).
groveborn 11-10-07, 10:50 PM	If you blur a displacement, then the displaced image receives a 20% miss chance. You still have a 50% miss chance, not 50, then 20. If you want to make it harder for an enemy to hit your illusion, go ahead and waste a spell. If you want to increase your miss chance, stand behind a tree for total cover, which grants both total concealment, and... total cover, which is 100% miss chance. Concealment may never, ever, ever, ever provide more than 50% miss chance. Ever. Those are the rules. You can't have more than TOTAL concealment. You can't stack the same bonus. You just can't do it. You can blur your spell, but it just makes the spell harder to hit, not you.
gotbrain 11-10-07, 11:05 PM	I'm sure I can't explain it better than ArcTan or Groveborn has already done. At this point you will have to respect the advice of four other players that understand how it works OR house rule it and do want you want.
antiduke 11-10-07, 11:55 PM	I do understand and have been reading everyone's comments. If I didn't care and just wanted to try and cheat rules or something I never would have posted here in the first place, since my DM was allowing it. So let me ask this question again in a different way. If the spell displacement read, "This spell gives you a 50% miss chance," and didn't mention the words total concealment at all, would you all feel the same way about the two spells working together? Because by the rules, there is no reason that I can find that they shouldn't work together. I do understand how, logically, a person could assume that they don't work together. But there are LOTS of things in DND that don't function "logically" so I find it difficult to base rules off of what we think is logical. So what do you think? If the spell was worded differently, still feel the same way?
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 12:22 AM	Since they both reference concealment stacking them isnt going to do much, unfortunately. At worst they could simply close their eyes and change all of the concealments into a single total concealment. While it is true that displacement says, 'as if the creature had total concealment' the concealment itself is the same type as normal concealment.. hence why blur isnt helping, only the largest concealment bonus wins through and displacement already maxes it out. Now, that isnt to say you cant stack other forms of miss chance. Entropic ward, for instance, provides a miss chance that would stack with either blur or displacement. Of course 'stack' here means 'rolled seperately with a hit working only if both checks are passed'.
antiduke 11-11-07, 12:51 AM	Since they both reference concealment stacking them isnt going to do much, unfortunately. At worst they could simply close their eyes and change all of the concealments into a single total concealment. See, this is exactly what I've been saying. Yes, displacement references total concealment, but it doesn't "grant" any form of concealment. Blur gives concealment. Displacement gives a 50% miss chance... which works LIKE total concealment. See the difference? Total concealment is being used as an example. While it is true that displacement says, 'as if the creature had total concealment' the concealment itself is the same type as normal concealment.. hence why blur isnt helping, only the largest concealment bonus wins through and displacement already maxes it out. Again, Displacement isn't granting a concealment bonus, but an effect that acts like a concealment bonus. Try taking the example portion out of the text for the spell. It would read like this: The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance. Displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location. If it was worded like that would the two be usable together? Now, that isnt to say you cant stack other forms of miss chance. Entropic ward, for instance, provides a miss chance that would stack with either blur or displacement. Of course 'stack' here means 'rolled seperately with a hit working only if both checks are passed'. Ah, now this is interesting. I don't know exactly how that spell reads but I have a good feeling that the majority of people that have responded to this thread would disagree with you, on the same grounds that they disagree with blur and displacement not being able to stack.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 01:10 AM	See, this is exactly what I've been saying. Yes, displacement references total concealment, but it doesn't "grant" any form of concealment. Whether that is true or not is unimportant though. Since the miss chance is as if total concealment except for a specific case then it interacts with other concealments in the normal fashion. If mage armor said something like, 'the target creature is treated as wearing a chain shirt except that the arcane spell failure is 0%' then I would not allow bracers of armor to stack with the effects of the spell either. The spell not only referencing concealment but also saying that it works in the same way except for one exception pretty much cinches the case. The spell works as if the creature had total concealment except for the exception, which means that it does not stack with other forms of concealment since concealment does not stack with itself. Whether or not it 'actually is' concealment is irrelevant here since we know that not stacking with other forms of concealment is not one of the exceptions to how this spell works as compared to normal total concealment. Ah, now this is interesting. I don't know exactly how that spell reads but I have a good feeling that the majority of people that have responded to this thread would disagree with you, on the same grounds that they disagree with blur and displacement not being able to stack. Blur and displacement both use the concealment rules while entropic warding does not. I dont think that anyone is saying that miss chances can never work at the same time, they are merely saying that you cannot stack bonuses that grant concealment (or something that works in the same way) because concealment only has a couple of grades and does not stack with itself. Since the spell says that it is just like total concealment except for one exception then you have to treat it just like it except for that exception. The lack of stacking applies.
ArcTan 11-11-07, 01:13 AM	Again, Displacement isn't granting a concealment bonus, but an effect that acts like a concealment bonus. Try taking the example portion out of the text for the spell. It would read like this: The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance. Displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location. If it was worded like that would the two be usable together? No, because the underlying logic is the same. There is still no logical reason that having a displaced image could possibly make you harder to hit in total darkness, or when you're actually invisible (and therefore a displaced image of you is also invisible). If it were worded that way, and, say, the FAQ ruled that you were correct, I would still say that that was dumb and that any *sensible* interpretation of *what was actually happening* would make them not stack. Displacement mentions concealment because it *is* a form of concealment. It has total concealment's miss chance but not the other parts of total concealment. Why this is is *logically explained* -- you actually are invisible, but there's still an image of you that serves as a "marker" for determining what 5-foot-square you're standing in that lets targeted spells hit you. Flavor does matter, you know. Ah, now this is interesting. I don't know exactly how that spell reads but I have a good feeling that the majority of people that have responded to this thread would disagree with you, on the same grounds that they disagree with blur and displacement not being able to stack. Entropic shield never mentions concealment at all, because it isn't any form of concealment. It physically deflects projectiles from hitting you. Displacement does no such thing. Do you understand that I'm not basing this *merely* on words like "concealment", but on what those words *actually mean*?
ArcTan 11-11-07, 01:15 AM	If you must chop logic, look at it this way: Displacement grants a 50% miss chance as though it had total concealment. If it had total concealment, this miss chance would not stack with any other form of concealment. Therefore, this miss chance doesn't stack. If it did, then the phrase "as if it had total concealment" would mean NOTHING, and there would be no reason to put it there. Is that clear enough for you?
Vegepygmy 11-11-07, 01:25 AM	Ok. How about this for an example: You are shooting at an orc 100 ft. away, no problem. Now add Displacement. He looks like he is two feet away from where he actually is (50% miss chance). Now add blur. That displaced image that you are shooting at is hard to see and thus, harder to hit. You now have a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance.As ArcTan has already said, you're not shooting at the image, so it doesn't matter how blurry it is. Add this to your example: Just before you shoot, you close your eyes. You now have only a single 50% miss chance...so if you have only a 50% miss chance when you can't see anything at all, why on Earth would it matter if the image is blurred or not? And no, my answer wouldn't change if the spell were worded differently as you have proposed.
antiduke 11-11-07, 01:30 AM	If mage armor said something like, 'the target creature is treated as wearing a chain shirt except that the arcane spell failure is 0%' then I would not allow bracers of armor to stack with the effects of the spell either. A bit off topic here, but bracers of armor and mage armor dont actually stack. Mage armor gives an armor bonus, as do bracers. Blur and displacement both use the concealment rules while entropic warding does not. I dont think that anyone is saying that miss chances can never work at the same time, they are merely saying that you cannot stack bonuses that grant concealment (or something that works in the same way) because concealment only has a couple of grades and does not stack with itself. Since the spell says that it is just like total concealment except for one exception then you have to treat it just like it except for that exception. The lack of stacking applies. Hm.. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. The spell blur specifically states that it grants concealment. If displacement granted total concealment they could have said "Displacement grants the target total concealment, however it does not prevent creatures from targeting the subject normally." Instead it says it grants it 50% miss chance, AS IF they had total concealment. They could have just as easily said "Displacement grants the target a 50% miss chance, as if having invisibilty. However, unlike actual invisibility, the target does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls etc. etc." And yes, that is the argument that people are making. That it doesn't matter if it is a concealment effect or not. They are saying (as I understand it) that hitting you when you are blurry and displaced is no harder than hitting you when you are displaced.. which I guess I can agree with but it goes back to the logic that I mentioned before and the fact that by the rules I don't think both effects are concealment bonuses.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 01:33 AM	And no, my answer wouldn't change if the spell were worded differently as you have proposed. I think that my answer would change. I would likely say something along the lines of, 'they should have referenced concealment but didnt so technically they stack but looking at the flavor text it is clear that they shouldnt since each reflects an effect on vision rather than something else'. It would be very dependent on the wording though and since it is 50%, effectively making your invisible, and mentioning that you can still be targetted as an exception I might just say that they are referencing the concealment rules by proxy and to treat it as total concealment with one exception ;)
antiduke 11-11-07, 01:40 AM	Add this to your example: Just before you shoot, you close your eyes. You now have only a single 50% miss chance...so if you have only a 50% miss chance when you can't see anything at all, why on Earth would it matter if the image is blurred or not? Ah, now this example actually does make alot of sense. That seems crazy to me though that you only have a 50% miss chance when shooting at someone with your eyes closed?? I guess I am slowly but surely giving in here, but can you guys at least admit that the wording of the displacement spell could be misinterpreted, as evidently I have done? If they wanted the spell to function like total concealment, they could have made that much more clear, as I did above.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 01:41 AM	A bit off topic here, but bracers of armor and mage armor dont actually stack. Mage armor gives an armor bonus, as do bracers. Certainly, that helps with the point. If I am remember correctly the vow of poverty grants a sacred bonus to AC that does not stack with armor bonuses. In a way that is similar to what is happening with displacement and concealment, it may not be called the same thing but it is using the same rules by default. Hm.. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. The spell blur specifically states that it grants concealment. And displacement says it works as if the creature had total concealment save for one exception. If one has total concealment already, say from total darkness, and has blur cast on them what happens? The answer to the questions here have the same percentage answer, even if the results might 'look' different. A regular chain shirt and mage armor both give a +4 armor bonus to AC even though they 'look' different and have a few different rules attached. They could have just as easily said "Displacement grants the target a 50% miss chance, as if having invisibilty. However, unlike actual invisibility, the target does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls etc. etc." There are many ways that they could have worded the spell to give the same net result. I am not sure that using invisibility is exactly the same though. Much like I am not sure if See Invisibility will actually penetrate a displaced creatures protection, the actual spells in the phb might have some clarification here but I am currently only able to access the SRD. And yes, that is the argument that people are making. That it doesn't matter if it is a concealment effect or not. They are saying (as I understand it) that hitting you when you are blurry and displaced is no harder than hitting you when you are displaced.. Well sure, there is nothing above total displacement in the rules. It is the upper limit on how hard simply not being able to really see a creature can effect an attack, assuming you know which space that creature is in at least. which I guess I can agree with but it goes back to the logic that I mentioned before and the fact that by the rules I don't think both effects are concealment bonuses. It doesnt matter if both actually 'are' concealment bonuses, all that matters is that they act 'like' concealment bonuses in the areas of interest. Here the areas of interest overlap, and as such we know what to do, only the largest value applies.
Vegepygmy 11-11-07, 01:41 AM	I would likely say something along the lines of, 'they should have referenced concealment but didnt so technically they stack but looking at the flavor text it is clear that they shouldnt since each reflects an effect on vision rather than something else'.Technically, nothing in the rules prevents dead characters from taking actions. This is why I find technical arguments about D&D rules unpersuasive. I would just skip to the part of your analysis where you conclude that the flavor text makes it clear that both effects are visual concealment and thus shouldn't stack.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 01:45 AM	That seems crazy to me though that you only have a 50% miss chance when shooting at someone with your eyes closed?? Sure, if you know which square they are in and ignore the fact that they might dodge your shot ;) One can think of AC as a sliding scale miss chance as well, since it effectively is. The miss chance from AC stacks with the miss chance from concealment which stacks with the miss chance from entropic warding.. each applies when they can. In order to know what can and cannot be applied and when the game gives us keywords to look off of and explinations.. here displacement references total concealment to be used for rules questions, that way we know what to do!
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 01:49 AM	Technically, nothing in the rules prevents dead characters from taking actions. Which is good, otherwise petitioners would have an even harder time than they already do! Of course the mortal baggage isnt going to be doing much without someone telling it what to do. A table can take actions just as much as a dead body can, but generally without outside help they dont. I would just skip to the part of your analysis where you conclude that the flavor text makes it clear that both effects are visual concealment and thus shouldn't stack. Except that flavor text doesnt necessarily mesh well with rules text. When the two are in conflict then I will go with the RAW unless there is a reason to do otherwise, but I will still put forward what the RAW says.. occasionally adding in my own houserule to show that while the RAW may say one thing I feel it should be different ;)
antiduke 11-11-07, 01:51 AM	Technically, nothing in the rules prevents dead characters from taking actions. This is why I find technical arguments about D&D rules unpersuasive. "A dead character’s soul immediately departs the body, and getting it back into the body is a major hassle. Unless you have access to powerful divine magic, you can’t do much to a dead character except go through his pockets for loose gold pieces." So does this mean a character that has clothes with no pockets automatically gains pockets with gold in them when he dies?!?! Just playin'. :P
ArcTan 11-11-07, 02:17 AM	Hm.. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. The spell blur specifically states that it grants concealment. If displacement granted total concealment they could have said "Displacement grants the target total concealment, however it does not prevent creatures from targeting the subject normally." Instead it says it grants it 50% miss chance, AS IF they had total concealment. They could have just as easily said "Displacement grants the target a 50% miss chance, as if having invisibilty. However, unlike actual invisibility, the target does not get a +2 bonus on attack rolls etc. etc." And yes, that is the argument that people are making. That it doesn't matter if it is a concealment effect or not. They are saying (as I understand it) that hitting you when you are blurry and displaced is no harder than hitting you when you are displaced.. which I guess I can agree with but it goes back to the logic that I mentioned before and the fact that by the rules I don't think both effects are concealment bonuses. Okay, look. If displacement isn't a concealment effect, how do YOU think it works? It pretty obviously, to my reading, works by "concealing" your actual location by sending the visual image of you to somewhere other than where you're standing. It is, in that respect, a concealment effect -- it is a slightly less effective means of making you invisible. How do *you* think it works? Does the image stand there and pluck arrows out of the air or something?
ArcTan 11-11-07, 02:20 AM	Ah, now this example actually does make alot of sense. That seems crazy to me though that you only have a 50% miss chance when shooting at someone with your eyes closed?? Yes, if you're attacking the general area where he's standing (i.e. attacking into the correct square). This is explicitly given as an option to you when fighting someone with a gaze attack. Do you understand what "total concealment" means? Total concealment is just a rules way of saying "Can't see him at all". Closing your eyes, invisibility, total darkness -- these are all forms of total concealment. Displacement is just another example (I'm invisible, but there's an image of me standing near me to let you know where I generally am).
runestar 11-11-07, 02:46 AM	I guess I am slowly but surely giving in here, but can you guys at least admit that the wording of the displacement spell could be misinterpreted, as evidently I have done? If they wanted the spell to function like total concealment, they could have made that much more clear, as I did above. I am not sure how other people might have misinterpreted it, but to me at least, it seemed fairly clear-cut. The part about displacement simulating total concealment is exactly to drive home the fact that they do not want it stacking with other sources of concealment such as blur. Thus, they made it count as concealment for all intents and purposes of determining whether it stacks with other similar effects or not. I am not sure if they could have worded it any better. Obviously, if you simply gave it a flat 50% miss chance, then you run into the problems raised by ArcTan, such as it stacking with blur for 60-75% miss chance (depending on how you calculate it), which does not make sense (since I concur that the bonuses should not exceed those granted by invisibility, as you cannot get any more invisible than being invisible).
ArcTan 11-11-07, 02:51 AM	I am not sure how other people might have misinterpreted it, but to me at least, it seemed fairly clear-cut. The part about displacement simulating total concealment is exactly to drive home the fact that they do not want it stacking with other sources of concealment such as blur. Thus, they made it count as concealment for all intents and purposes of determining whether it stacks with other similar effects or not. ...wha? Displacement is unlike actual total concealment FOR THE REASONS IT STATES: However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. I.e. I can see what square you're in and attack into it, I can cast targeted spells on you. But: The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. The MISS CHANCE component of total concealment -- which is ONLY ONE COMPONENT of total concealment (since total concealment itself means they can't see you at all, and therefore can't know what square you're in without special checks and can't target spells on you) -- is the same. As in counting as a concealment bonus, as in not stacking. I am not sure if they could have worded it any better. Obviously, if you simply gave it a flat 50% miss chance, then you run into the problems raised by ArcTan, such as it stacking with blur for 60-75% miss chance (depending on how you calculate it), which does not make sense (since I concur that the bonuses should not exceed those granted by invisibility, as you cannot get any more invisible than being invisible). Concealment never stacks with itself. Other things can stack with concealment (like the miss chance from entropic shield or from incorporealness). An invisible Allip can be harder to hit than a visible Allip, because first you have to actually hit the Allip, and then you have to roll to see if your magic weapon affects the Allip or passes through it harmlessly. That's an example of a "stacking" miss chance (it doesn't actually stack up, you just roll one after another). However, displacement is a purely visual effect and therefore counts as a concealment effect in the sense that there's no logical way in which it stacks with any other concealment effect. Knowing exactly where to shoot to hit a displaced target is already pure guesswork. Fog and darkness and invisibility can take away the one advantage displacement still gives you -- that you know *generally* where he's standing -- but they can't make it any harder to actually hit him once you know the area in which to shoot. Because shooting a displaced enemy always means firing at a random patch of empty air.
runestar 11-11-07, 03:27 AM	How is that different from what I interpreted?:confused:
Seeker95 11-11-07, 02:40 PM	That seems crazy to me though that you only have a 50% miss chance when shooting at someone with your eyes closed??Remember, a miss chance only applies after you have already rolled to see if you can hit in the first place. The "50% miss chance" is not the same as a 50% chance to hit. It is the odds of hitting a target you managed to already succeed in hitting. It is an *additional* 50% chance of missing a target you would otherwise hit, completely independent of the odds of actually hitting the target.
groveborn 11-11-07, 03:22 PM	How is that different from what I interpreted?:confused: It's not, he just misread what you typed. Certainly, that helps with the point. If I am remember correctly the vow of poverty grants a sacred bonus to AC that does not stack with armor bonuses. In a way that is similar to what is happening with displacement and concealment, it may not be called the same thing but it is using the same rules by default. I'm not familiar with Vow of Poverty, but Sacred bonuses to AC should stack with other forms of AC. Different bonuses usually stack.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 03:39 PM	I'm not familiar with Vow of Poverty, but Sacred bonuses to AC should stack with other forms of AC. Different bonuses usually stack. I just checked and I was close.. it grants an 'exalted' bonus to AC and states that the bonus does not stack with an armor bonus.
antiduke 11-11-07, 05:56 PM	Ok, new question for you guys, similar topic. Blink and Blur.. Can they be used together? I assume that you would benefit from both. Example: Enemy swings at you and hits your ac. Roll 50% miss chance to determine if you are material or ethereal. That succeeds. Now roll a 20% miss chance because of blur (concealment). Surely this is correct since blink mentions absolutely nothing about total concealment, plus the two conditions aren't acting in the same way.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 06:06 PM	Blink specifically mentions concealment as part of its effect. Since concealment does not stack with itself then blur will not be useful unless the creature can see invisible creatures and not also not be able to see through the blur. Now, if a creature could see invisible but not see the through the blur or strike etheral creatures it looks like two 20% miss chances are rolled instead of the 50% which is kindof funny ;)
Vegepygmy 11-11-07, 07:29 PM	Ok, new question for you guys, similar topic. Blink and Blur.. Can they be used together? I assume that you would benefit from both.As Scion has said, blur blink tells us: "If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment)." I don't know how that can be made any clearer for you.
antiduke 11-11-07, 07:48 PM	As Scion has said, blur tells us: "If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment)." You meant to put that for blink but ya, I just missed that line evidently. Thanks for the quick response. So is it an unwritten rule that there is no way to get more than 50% miss chance (or two miss chances rolled seperately) other than total cover? That is what it is looking like and that seems like a pretty straightforward solution.
Seeker95 11-11-07, 08:08 PM	So is it an unwritten rule that there is no way to get more than 50% miss chance other than total cover?By definition, there is no unwritten rule that says what the rules are. But its obverse is true. There is no currently written rule that compounds or stacks miss chances. Your chance of missing a target (independent of your chance of hitting a given AC) is equal to the highest miss chance source in effect.
Scion of Coldshard 11-11-07, 08:12 PM	A creature with blur and entropic warding on could get to roll both. AC is pretty much a 'miss chance' as well.
ArcTan 11-11-07, 08:43 PM	By definition, there is no unwritten rule that says what the rules are. But its obverse is true. There is no currently written rule that compounds or stacks miss chances. Your chance of missing a target (independent of your chance of hitting a given AC) is equal to the highest miss chance source in effect. Well, no, the rule simply says concealment only provides a single miss chance and therefore only the highest concealment miss chance applies. There are non-concealment miss chances (that I wouldn't really call "miss chances" -- for an incorporeal creature it's more of a "you-hit-and-your-weapon-passes-through-with-no-effect" chance) that the RAW seem to indicate you roll separately, irrespective of concealment miss chance.
Seeker95 11-11-07, 10:22 PM	There are non-concealment miss chances (that I wouldn't really call "miss chances" -- for an incorporeal creature it's more of a "you-hit-and-your-weapon-passes-through-with-no-effect" chance) that the RAW seem to indicate you roll separately, irrespective of concealment miss chance.Not only would you not call it a miss chance; neither do the rules. Incorporeal does not provide a "miss chance". The incorporeal has a 50% chance to ignore a the effects of a hit from a corporeal creature.
ArcTan 11-11-07, 10:33 PM	Okay, but entropic shield clearly *is* a miss chance, but seems like it shouldn't count as a form of concealment (in this case it words it as "similar to the effects of concealment" rather than "as if it had concealment").
redraven 11-12-07, 08:26 PM	If you want to stack miss chances, combo any of those spells with Mirror Image. According to the FAQ, Blur, Displacement, or Blink all stack with Mirror Image (e.g. making the images more difficult to hit as well). Grab a Sorcerer/Wizard, then cast Greater Blink and Greater Mirror Image, maybe add Fly or UMD an Entropic Ward wand and go to town.