Concealing Amorpha Powers from XPH

saucercrab · Feb 2, 2005

Would either of these stack with blur or displacement, granting two miss chances? The power/spell descriptions seem to indicate it; one pair of powers creates a jelly-like field, while the other pair causes your body to seem to shift positions.

Can different concealment effects stack, I guess it comes down to. (I'm away from the pertinent books right now.)

Hmm, I am just now reminded of the fields from Dune ("the slow blade penetrates the shield").

Patryn of Elvenshae · Feb 2, 2005

Concealment effects don't stack in the same way that stacking normally means.

Instead, if you have two sources of concealment (say, 20% from light brush and 20% for Blur), you roll both miss chances separately.

Reading what you've posted, it looks like they would both stack.

saucercrab · Feb 3, 2005

Yeah, I misspoke in that second block of text. In the first block of text is where I had mentioned the two miss chances.

KarinsDad · Feb 3, 2005

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Concealment effects don't stack in the same way that stacking normally means.

Instead, if you have two sources of concealment (say, 20% from light brush and 20% for Blur), you roll both miss chances separately.

Incorrect.

"Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack."

Stacking means that you apply the bonus or condition multiple times. Doing it with a separate roll is still applying it twice (although the percentage success would be different).

With the sentence above in the PHB, if they had wanted you to roll two rollls, they would have followed that sentence up with a sentence to roll twice, once for fog and once for the blur spell. They did not.

It is fairly clear that you get one concealment miss roll per attack, you roll the highest percentage, and the rest are ignored (i.e. do not stack).

So, in answer to the original poster's question, which ever effect has the highest percentage concealment miss chance is the one you roll. The rest you ignore.

saucercrab · Feb 3, 2005

Damn, that sucks. Oh well, moving on.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Feb 3, 2005

Huh. I wonder where I got that from, then.

NWN, maybe? :shrugs:

As KarinsDad said, no stacking, pick the best.

atom crash · Feb 3, 2005

"Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack."

In such a case, would it be fair to invoke the "unfavorable circumstance" penalty of -2 to the attack roll and then roll the 20% miss chance? Or would that give too much of a statistical advantage to the two forms of concealment, allowing them to stack in essence?

Varying Degrees of Concealment: Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.

The rules do allow for modifying the miss chance. You might also want to consider allowing fog + blur a 25% or 30% miss chance, rather than the standard 20%. Again, this would be allowing the two forms of concealment to stack in essence, despite the rules expressly disallowing them to stack.

Instead, if you have two sources of concealment (say, 20% from light brush and 20% for Blur), you roll both miss chances separately.

Wouldn't light brush be a form of cover? In that case, both cover and concealment would take effect.

MeiRen · Feb 3, 2005

I'm with atomcrash, I'd give a PC who took the trouble to cast both some bonus. If I recall, both spells have a duration lasting in minutes, a PC who takes the first two rounds to cast combat buffs deserves a healthy bonus.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Feb 3, 2005

atom crash said:
Wouldn't light brush be a form of cover? In that case, both cover and concealment would take effect.

Probably not.

I think of cover as something that can actually impede the progress of weapons - in military terminology, it's "hard cover."

Light brush - like, say, tall grass, or hanging ivy - is "soft cover." It makes your target harder to see, rather than harder to hit. It's like camo netting.

You could certainly rule either way, though.

atom crash · Feb 3, 2005

The rules treat "soft cover" as an adjustment to AC against ranged attacks rather than a miss chance like concealment, but I can definitely see your point.

Concealing Amorpha Powers from XPH

saucercrab

Explorer

Patryn of Elvenshae

First Post

saucercrab

Explorer

KarinsDad

Adventurer

saucercrab

Explorer

Patryn of Elvenshae

First Post

atom crash

First Post

MeiRen

First Post

Patryn of Elvenshae

First Post

atom crash

First Post

Similar Threads