AoE and Concealment

[FitzTheRuke]

So when your Wizard casts a Scorching Burst at a group of Kobold minions who are trying to make use of the shadows at the edge of the Light Cantrip, how does it work?

Example: (Correct me if I'm wrong):

A Light Cantrip is Area Burst 4. All squares adjacent to a Lighted square are Dim Light (which gives Concealment.) So lets's say (I'm not good at ascii maps so bear with me) you've got your wizard (W) casting Scorching Burst (S, target square) in Light (L corners, target square) against Kobolds (K).

__________
____K_____
__D_SK_D__
___L_K_L___
__________
_____L_____
____w______
___L___L____
__D_____D__

Okay, I don't know if anyone will get this but Skamos is targeting a Dim Light square between three Kobolds. One in Darkness, one in Dim, and One in the Light (all of them adjacent to the target square.

So... He's got Line of Effect to all, but only Line of sight to two, one of whom has concealment. He rolls three attacks. Does the player roll:

(Kobold Minion Ref 13, assuming Concealment is +2 defenses, +5 for total concealment)

+5 vs Ref 13 (the one in the light)
+5 vs Ref 15 (the one with concealment)
+5 vs Ref 18 (the one in total darkness)

Or +5 vs Ref 15 for all of them because he's targeting a Dimly lit square?

Fitz

 

[Sojorn]

First example is my hipshot response.

The defense is applied to the kobolds on an individual basis and is universal unless the concealment bonus gives you a list of attacks it does not apply against (like area), or the stipulations of area effects say that they ignore or alter the use of certain bonuses to defense (like concealment).

So what do we know about area attacks and concealment bonuses currently? If there is no specific language in either mentioning the other, each kobold keeps its own concealment bonus to defense. Looking over the light rules we have now it seems neither effect mentions the other. Area attacks simply have multiple attack rolls and concealment is a personal bonus to defenses.

 

[Stalker0]

I say the kobold gets teh concealment.

This is how I treat it. In 4e, when a mage throws a fireball, he's not just conjuring the energy and tossing it. He's actually directing the flame at each target. This is why invisible and concealed creatures get bonuses to their defenses.

 

[hong]

I say vs 13/15/18, ie the Ref defenses of the individual kobs.

 

[PeelSeel2]

I would treat them all the same, no bonus for concealment due to darkness. It is an area of effect and takes up area regardless of darkness or near darkness.

 

[Vaeron]

I would treat them all the same, no bonus for concealment due to darkness. It is an area of effect and takes up area regardless of darkness or near darkness.

But it still requires to-hit rolls... Meaning there's a decent chance even completely visible kobolds might be missed. So it makes since that kobolds who can't be seen would enjoy a defense bonus. I haven't looked at the young black dragon stats recently, but it does mention that if it is in darkness there is no line of sight to it.

 

[Deverash]

But it still requires to-hit rolls... Meaning there's a decent chance even completely visible kobolds might be missed. So it makes since that kobolds who can't be seen would enjoy a defense bonus. I haven't looked at the young black dragon stats recently, but it does mention that if it is in darkness there is no line of sight to it.

I haven't looked at the Scorching Burst power recently, but I don't think you can choose /not/ to target any of them, or your buddy the Fighter standing between them keeping them from getting to you. That pretty strongly implies to me that concealment shouldn't apply to their defenses. If instead if was "any number of targets in an Area Burst 4" then I'd think the concealment would matter.

To put it another way - If you're going to be making a roll against something you don't even know if there, just because it happens to be in the AoE, how well you can see it shouldn't matter. If it does, I know I'm going to be making a case to let me not throw a ball of fire at Fred the Fighter and Roger the Rogue.

 

[Vaeron]

To put it another way - If you're going to be making a roll against something you don't even know if there, just because it happens to be in the AoE, how well you can see it shouldn't matter. If it does, I know I'm going to be making a case to let me not throw a ball of fire at Fred the Fighter and Roger the Rogue.

I don't think you can choose which targets to roll against in an AOE, there are just modifiers to how well you can hit them. Like, if Fred the fighter was behind a pillar you might not be able to hit him. And certain powers say targets adjacent "enemies", which would seem to rule out friendly fire for those particular powers. But, like it or not, there are concealment rules... +2 to defense for partial concealment, and +5 defense for full concealment (aka invisibility). If you can't see a target, they are functionally invisible to you.

 

[Mort_Q]

Wasn't there a power in one of the many previews that allowed a caster to omit one square from an area effect? Or am I misremembering?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Wasn't there a power in one of the many previews that allowed a caster to omit one square from an area effect? Or am I misremembering?

Sure. It's for higher-level Wizards who like to cast "Death Doughnuts" so they can miss their friends. Doesn't really apply here though, not even as a counterargument.

I'd think that in this example, they'd either get their individual concealment (none, +2, and +5) or they'd all get the +2 concealment from the fact that the Wizard is targeting a SQUARE that he can't see properly (it's in Dim Light).

Fitz