Cloak of Minor Displacement & friendly spellcasting

[prospero63]

Blur references Concealment, which I quoted above.

I'm not sure what blur has to do with anything.

CoD references the displacement spell. I quoted the spell above. The first sentence is a key element. No matter what the owner intends, the CoD (and spell) make the recipient of a friendly spell "appear about 2 feet away from its true location".

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not sure what blur has to do with anything.

Because the same principles that apply to trying to Cure a Displaced ally also apply to trying to Cure a Blurred ally.

CoD references the displacement spell. I quoted the spell above. The first sentence is a key element. No matter what the owner intends, the CoD (and spell) make the recipient of a friendly spell "appear about 2 feet away from its true location".

Right. And the result of appearing 2 feet from its true location is that it gains a 50% miss chance, as if it had total concealment. Which means any successful attack into the square it occupies has a 50% chance of missing.

It doesn't mean that something which isn't a successful attack into the square it occupies has a 50% chance of missing.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There's no facing! You can't even ask "Your left, or my left?" - nobody has a left!

-Hyp.

Then I guess we'd better use North and South, West and East if we can

There was a pretty cool linguistic/anthropological study that in cultures without a tangible concept of 'left' or 'right', they all had extremely good dead reckoning (and would arrange panels of stories from east to west, regardless of which way that made the stories go), so I'd imagine PCs could do likewise. Especially if the sun is up to help.

 

[prospero63]

Because the same principles that apply to trying to Cure a Displaced ally also apply to trying to Cure a Blurred ally.

Again, I fail to see what blur has to do with anything. It's never referenced once in the displacement spell or the cloak of displacement. IMO referencing blur is just needlessly muddying the waters.

Right. And the result of appearing 2 feet from its true location is that it gains a 50% miss chance, as if it had total concealment. Which means any successful attack into the square it occupies has a 50% chance of missing.

IMO you have made a leap from what the effect is (appearing about 2 feet away from its true location, which translates to a game mechanic miss chance for attacks) to the effect only applying to attacks.

It doesn't mean that something which isn't a successful attack into the square it occupies has a 50% chance of missing.

-Hyp.

No, but what is does mean is when you reach out to touch it in any manner, it's not there, it's "about 2 feet away from its true location". The recipient "trying to be touched" doesn't matter. No matter how much the try to lean into or accept the touch, to the observer they remain by all appearance to be "about 2 feet away from its true location".

 

[Hypersmurf]

Again, I fail to see what blur has to do with anything. It's never referenced once in the displacement spell or the cloak of displacement. IMO referencing blur is just needlessly muddying the waters.

What do you think should happen if I try to cast CLW on an ally who is under the effects of a Blur spell (20% miss chance)? Do you think it's any different to what should happen if I try to cast CLW on an ally who is under the effects of a Cloak of Minor Displacement (20% miss chance)?

IMO you have made a leap from what the effect is (appearing about 2 feet away from its true location, which translates to a game mechanic miss chance for attacks) to the effect only applying to attacks.

Okay, then. What do you think the game mechanics effect of "appearing about 2 feet away from its true location" should be for something which is not an attack, and on what do you base it?

-Hyp.

 

[prospero63]

What do you think should happen if I try to cast CLW on an ally who is under the effects of a Blur spell (20% miss chance)? Do you think it's any different to what should happen if I try to cast CLW on an ally who is under the effects of a Cloak of Minor Displacement (20% miss chance)?

Yes, I think it's different as I have quoted and cited text from the spell repeatedly.

Okay, then. What do you think the game mechanics effect of "appearing about 2 feet away from its true location" should be for something which is not an attack, and on what do you base it?

-Hyp.

I base it the same as the miss chance for an attack. Or the character can take the cloak off, or in my house rules, can suppress the effect of the cloak as a standard action (which has precedence as the means by which to (de)activate most magic items.

IMO ruling that since it's not an attack, therefore there's no negative impact removes game balance and shifts the game to a "high magic" type of game. It's in the same vein, again IMO, as not requiring spell components. Sure, it's more convenient, but it's unbalancing. Again, IMO.

Calling it a night. Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, I think it's different as I have quoted and cited text from the spell repeatedly.

But with Blur, "The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering." Surely if "appearing 2 feet from its true location" means that you apply a miss chance to something that is not an attack with Displacement, shouldn't a blurred, shifting and wavering outline mean that you apply a miss chance to something that is not an attack with Blur?

I base it the same as the miss chance for an attack.

So we have a rule that says "If it's an attack, there's a 50% miss chance", and you're generalising that to also say "If it's not an attack, there's a 50% miss chance"?

IMO ruling that since it's not an attack, therefore there's no negative impact removes game balance and shifts the game to a "high magic" type of game. It's in the same vein, again IMO, as not requiring spell components.

Well, no - not requiring spell components requires you to change a rule.

Not requiring a miss chance when there is no attack requires you to not change a rule.

They're not the same vein, they're exactly opposite veins.

-Hyp.

 

[prospero63]

But with Blur, "The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering." Surely if "appearing 2 feet from its true location" means that you apply a miss chance to something that is not an attack with Displacement, shouldn't a blurred, shifting and wavering outline mean that you apply a miss chance to something that is not an attack with Blur?

But Blur doesn't say the same thing. If it did, I'd be able to quote it directly. I can't. <>

So we have a rule that says "If it's an attack, there's a 50% miss chance", and you're generalising that to also say "If it's not an attack, there's a 50% miss chance"?

If that's how you want to portray it, sure. I'm applying the same miss chance across the board.

Well, no - not requiring spell components requires you to change a rule.

Not requiring a miss chance when there is no attack requires you to not change a rule.

They're not the same vein, they're exactly opposite veins.

-Hyp.

I'll agree to disagree with you. Cheers.

 

[Wolfwood2]

The fact that no attack roll is required when delivering a beneficial touch spell implies to me a certain degree of cooperation on the part of the touchee. That is to say, it's not the cleric thrusting his hand foward while the paladin completely ignores him. It's the paladin jumping back a bit (within his five foot square) and shoving his shoulder into the cleric's outstretched hand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But Blur doesn't say the same thing.

The same as what?

Blur says "shifting, wavering outline". Displacement says "two feet from proper location".

Why do you feel that being two feet from your proper location, which provides concealment, should affect non-attacks, while a shifting, wavering outline, which provides concealment, should not?

-Hyp.