Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gaiden" data-source="post: 1260659" data-attributes="member: 103">I disagree.  For one, I can't see how 100% concealability is different than invisibility other than in semantic terms.  Second, flatfooted vs. losing your dex bonus is a completely incorrect analogy (to my mind anyway).  The reason for this is that they are two different situations each carrying with them separate modifiers.  For example, when you are flatfooted you may not make AoO.  However, when you lose your dex bonus you still can.  Also, you are flatfooted at the beginning of a combat only - it is an artifact of the rules to help with winning initiative and surprise rounds.  Losing your dex bonus can apply at any time.  Third, your comment on blindness just serves my point.  If you are blind, there is no difference in any way shape or form from your attacker being invisibile.  In fact, I would argue that even in a 1v1 combat, being blind is far worse than having an invisible attacker in terms of combat modifiers for the blind guy - after all, its not just the attacker he can't see.  The fact that 3.5 "clarifies" the issue by pointing out that opponents have 100% concealment just goes to show that 100% concealment = invisibility and invisibility = 100% concealment from a logistics perspective.Perhaps the best way to explain this is to define what about being invisible gives you those bonuses.  It is expressly because you have 100% concealment that you get the benefits to hit, etc. while invisibile.  Because there are other ways to achieve 100% concealment, the language distinction was necessary.</blockquote>

Verification