Blur and hiding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Blur and hiding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gadven
11-18-07, 10:34 PM So blur conveys concealment and in order to use the hide skill you need cover or concealment. So does that mean that you could essentially hide anywhere if you are under the effect of a blur spell?

Perhaps not in plain sight like the class abilities of assassins and shadows dancers but if someone isn't observing you?
Gadven
11-19-07, 10:46 AM Wow is this a hard question? Based on the wording it seems like it should work but I'm also bad at missing simple stuff...haven't sat down and read my books cover to cover yet ;-)
Kn1ves
11-19-07, 11:51 AM No, Blur does not give one the ability to hide in plain sight. This is a case of common sense, if there's nowhere to hide then making yourself hazy and indistinct will not suddenly creat somewhere to hide.
Gadven
11-19-07, 12:06 PM No, Blur does not give one the ability to hide in plain sight. This is a case of common sense, if there's nowhere to hide then making yourself hazy and indistinct will not suddenly creat somewhere to hide.

But the rules say "need cover or concealment" and the spell says "grants the target concealment (20% chance to miss)".

What I'm really looking for is something less than invisibility that gives me the ability to hide without having to find a chair to hide behind. Sort of like the chameleon spell in the PC game Elder scrolls. I don't want to be totally invisible just a chance for people not to notice me because I'm hard to see.
sapient
11-19-07, 12:07 PM So blur conveys concealment and in order to use the hide skill you need cover or concealment. So does that mean that you could essentially hide anywhere if you are under the effect of a blur spell?

Perhaps not in plain sight like the class abilities of assassins and shadows dancers but if someone isn't observing you?

Well, not in any environment that you wouldn't already have a fair chance to hide in. Accordning to the description of the spell: "The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering."

That means it doesn't do anything to hide the person at all. It is only for establishing his or her EXACT location - as in order to hit them either with melee or ranged weapons - that the effect gives concealment. That's more of a game mechanical approximation then an interpretation of the spell effect.

Of course, if the conditions just happened to be ideal - say someone wearing a maroon cloak in a slightly dark cavern with maroon walls - it might grant an extra nice circumstance bonus for blending in especially well... :)
Gnarl
11-19-07, 12:23 PM Wow is this a hard question? Based on the wording it seems like it should work but I'm also bad at missing simple stuff...haven't sat down and read my books cover to cover yet ;-)

Yes it is a hard question.

Rulewise, you seem to be right but it doesn't sound right.
tyrecian
11-19-07, 07:47 PM From Blur description in SRD
This distortion grants the subject concealment

This is a total zero rule call, sounds like no rulings so far for it. I think that it depends on the effect of blur in the mind. For instance if you see it as just a minor distortion its hard to argue, but if it is a truly magnificent distortion, you could potentially hide within the Blur, thereby granting access to the Hide skill by allowing concealment i.e. You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check.

You "need", Blur grants. Of course you cannot hide in plain sight, even with blur, since you are being observed, but i think that a successful bluff check, as with moving and blur could be used to hide enough to get SA abilities. It does require a new paradigm of thought on "hide" though, since you are not hidden so much as obfuscating the exact actions of the PC. The enemy cannot tell what you are doing if blurred, and therefore you are hidden from their eyes knowing what you are doing... maybe... :)

I would allow it, but you would not be "unobserved" while hiding in this manner, unless you had cover from an outside source, or were to bluff and move into cover.
Bopple
11-19-07, 09:05 PM Yes, it works as RAW.
But it's mainly because they simplified the description of Blur too much.
They should have worded it like "The creature benefits from a 20% miss chance as if it had concealment."
Yeah, your image is blurred. But are you really 'concealed'? I don't think so.
1 ton ghost
11-20-07, 02:00 AM isn't this Invisibility's sphere of influence?
you are concealed so to speak w/ Blur but you may still be under observation.
so, this is only hypothesis btw, you'd need a Bluff check to "create a diversion to hide" as per normal. but, w/ mitigating Blur in play, i guess i'd rule a nice bonus to your Bluff check or a penalty to their opposing Sense Motive.

still, good question btw. go w/ RAI, RAW is gonna' break game balance here.
MnemonicSV
11-20-07, 03:43 AM If anything I'd say blur would give a person a circumstance penalty to hide checks:

"Hey Bob! Something's behind that chair! It looks like the blurred edges of a person, but wavering and shifting!"

I mean honestly, how well can you conform behind the shape of an object if your outline is constantly wavering and shifting. I certainly cannot rationalize how you could hide within it. It has to do with what the source of the concealment is.

Similarly, there's the "silhouette" argument:
Say, you are squaring off against an opponent in the dark, and the opponent stands between you and a single bright source of light (in an otherwise empty, darkened area). To you, he is merely a silhouette, and he would likely gain the effects of concealment. However, could he hide within or behind that concealment? Obviously not... he's the source of it!

The same applies to blur IMO. Hiding yourself within your own glamer, is like hiding yourself within your own shadow: It's not possible.
Bleyn
11-20-07, 05:57 PM We allow it in our games. I never suspected it would even be an issue. The spell says it grants concealment.

webster definition of blur:
1: a smear or stain that obscures
2: something vaguely or indistinctly perceived; especially : something moving or occurring too quickly to be clearly perceived

It seems reasonable to me that someone could hide under these conditions. Note that unlike invisibility, it gives no bonus to hide so it probably won't help someone hide unless they have a decent hide skill. You also can't use it to hide while being observed (without a bluff check.)
tyrecian
11-20-07, 07:23 PM yes Bleyn, i agree with you, to clarify "within", i think of blur as having a very visually noticable effect, like the agents (man, i am gonna get flamed) in the Matrix when they are dodging bullets. It is like a visual echo that if made super busy would appear to be just a blob, so that a hand striking out from it might be lost in the appearance of the whole. Essentially allowing for a SA, or even "hiding" so that someone wouldnt know what you were.

They would still "see" you, but they wouldnt think of you as "you", rather you would take on abstract principles.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gadven 11-18-07, 10:34 PM	So blur conveys concealment and in order to use the hide skill you need cover or concealment. So does that mean that you could essentially hide anywhere if you are under the effect of a blur spell? Perhaps not in plain sight like the class abilities of assassins and shadows dancers but if someone isn't observing you?
Gadven 11-19-07, 10:46 AM	Wow is this a hard question? Based on the wording it seems like it should work but I'm also bad at missing simple stuff...haven't sat down and read my books cover to cover yet ;-)
Kn1ves 11-19-07, 11:51 AM	No, Blur does not give one the ability to hide in plain sight. This is a case of common sense, if there's nowhere to hide then making yourself hazy and indistinct will not suddenly creat somewhere to hide.
Gadven 11-19-07, 12:06 PM	No, Blur does not give one the ability to hide in plain sight. This is a case of common sense, if there's nowhere to hide then making yourself hazy and indistinct will not suddenly creat somewhere to hide. But the rules say "need cover or concealment" and the spell says "grants the target concealment (20% chance to miss)". What I'm really looking for is something less than invisibility that gives me the ability to hide without having to find a chair to hide behind. Sort of like the chameleon spell in the PC game Elder scrolls. I don't want to be totally invisible just a chance for people not to notice me because I'm hard to see.
sapient 11-19-07, 12:07 PM	So blur conveys concealment and in order to use the hide skill you need cover or concealment. So does that mean that you could essentially hide anywhere if you are under the effect of a blur spell? Perhaps not in plain sight like the class abilities of assassins and shadows dancers but if someone isn't observing you? Well, not in any environment that you wouldn't already have a fair chance to hide in. Accordning to the description of the spell: "The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering." That means it doesn't do anything to hide the person at all. It is only for establishing his or her EXACT location - as in order to hit them either with melee or ranged weapons - that the effect gives concealment. That's more of a game mechanical approximation then an interpretation of the spell effect. Of course, if the conditions just happened to be ideal - say someone wearing a maroon cloak in a slightly dark cavern with maroon walls - it might grant an extra nice circumstance bonus for blending in especially well... :)
Gnarl 11-19-07, 12:23 PM	Wow is this a hard question? Based on the wording it seems like it should work but I'm also bad at missing simple stuff...haven't sat down and read my books cover to cover yet ;-) Yes it is a hard question. Rulewise, you seem to be right but it doesn't sound right.
tyrecian 11-19-07, 07:47 PM	From Blur description in SRD This distortion grants the subject concealment This is a total zero rule call, sounds like no rulings so far for it. I think that it depends on the effect of blur in the mind. For instance if you see it as just a minor distortion its hard to argue, but if it is a truly magnificent distortion, you could potentially hide within the Blur, thereby granting access to the Hide skill by allowing concealment i.e. You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. You "need", Blur grants. Of course you cannot hide in plain sight, even with blur, since you are being observed, but i think that a successful bluff check, as with moving and blur could be used to hide enough to get SA abilities. It does require a new paradigm of thought on "hide" though, since you are not hidden so much as obfuscating the exact actions of the PC. The enemy cannot tell what you are doing if blurred, and therefore you are hidden from their eyes knowing what you are doing... maybe... :) I would allow it, but you would not be "unobserved" while hiding in this manner, unless you had cover from an outside source, or were to bluff and move into cover.
Bopple 11-19-07, 09:05 PM	Yes, it works as RAW. But it's mainly because they simplified the description of Blur too much. They should have worded it like "The creature benefits from a 20% miss chance as if it had concealment." Yeah, your image is blurred. But are you really 'concealed'? I don't think so.
1 ton ghost 11-20-07, 02:00 AM	isn't this Invisibility's sphere of influence? you are concealed so to speak w/ Blur but you may still be under observation. so, this is only hypothesis btw, you'd need a Bluff check to "create a diversion to hide" as per normal. but, w/ mitigating Blur in play, i guess i'd rule a nice bonus to your Bluff check or a penalty to their opposing Sense Motive. still, good question btw. go w/ RAI, RAW is gonna' break game balance here.
MnemonicSV 11-20-07, 03:43 AM	If anything I'd say blur would give a person a circumstance penalty to hide checks: "Hey Bob! Something's behind that chair! It looks like the blurred edges of a person, but wavering and shifting!" I mean honestly, how well can you conform behind the shape of an object if your outline is constantly wavering and shifting. I certainly cannot rationalize how you could hide within it. It has to do with what the source of the concealment is. Similarly, there's the "silhouette" argument: Say, you are squaring off against an opponent in the dark, and the opponent stands between you and a single bright source of light (in an otherwise empty, darkened area). To you, he is merely a silhouette, and he would likely gain the effects of concealment. However, could he hide within or behind that concealment? Obviously not... he's the source of it! The same applies to blur IMO. Hiding yourself within your own glamer, is like hiding yourself within your own shadow: It's not possible.
Bleyn 11-20-07, 05:57 PM	We allow it in our games. I never suspected it would even be an issue. The spell says it grants concealment. webster definition of blur: 1: a smear or stain that obscures 2: something vaguely or indistinctly perceived; especially : something moving or occurring too quickly to be clearly perceived It seems reasonable to me that someone could hide under these conditions. Note that unlike invisibility, it gives no bonus to hide so it probably won't help someone hide unless they have a decent hide skill. You also can't use it to hide while being observed (without a bluff check.)
tyrecian 11-20-07, 07:23 PM	yes Bleyn, i agree with you, to clarify "within", i think of blur as having a very visually noticable effect, like the agents (man, i am gonna get flamed) in the Matrix when they are dodging bullets. It is like a visual echo that if made super busy would appear to be just a blob, so that a hand striking out from it might be lost in the appearance of the whole. Essentially allowing for a SA, or even "hiding" so that someone wouldnt know what you were. They would still "see" you, but they wouldnt think of you as "you", rather you would take on abstract principles.