Displacement vs. Sneak Attack

I think I can help you out with that page number Darklone, since I remembered to bring my PHB to work tonight...

On pages 47-48 it says "The rouge cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with with concealment (see Table 8-10: Concealment, page 133) or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

This is not saying that creatures with concealment cannot ever be the victims of a sneak attack, because I believe that there is either an epic level feat, or a class skill of the epic level version of OotBI that will let you do it. I wish I could think of the feat/class skill name, but since I only have a finite mental capacity thanks to straining my brain on my midterms this week I overtaxed myself just remembering my PHB tonight and left my character sheet on my desk at home.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


"as if"

as if he had full concealment.

But he doesn't. It's just "as if".

So: Rogues target people normally; only they hurt more if they hit. If the rogue hits, they hit for full points and full sneak attack.

Or: "As if ... had total concealment" means all conditions of concealment apply including not being able to sneak attack a concealed player. Can't sneak attack.

Take your pick. I'd say the displaced sucker is open to sneak attack. If the rogue picks the right apparition to attack, then he smacks the guy for +Xd6. If he picks the wrong apparition, then he is swiping air.

originally posted by Baron Von Starblade:
Finally for the nay sayers think of this: Blur offers only 20% concealment and it negates Sneak Attack, why shouldn't Displacement (a higher level spell) not do the same thing.

Because Blur is a better spell in this respect? Blur states it in the description, Displacement does not (unless I am talking out of Uranus). Is it not legal for one spell to be more effective than another or something?
 



Remove ads

Top