Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Cover and Sneak Attack
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gaiden" data-source="post: 1260659" data-attributes="member: 103"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gaiden, post: 1260659, 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Cover and Sneak Attack
Top