Questions

SpikeyFreak

First Post
Okay, I was getting cover and concealment mixed up.

Yeah, I would allow a ring of x-ray vision work to negate concealment.

And I would allow a spell that does it too. It wouldn't be low level though, since it would negate a lot of stuff of decent level.

--Retracting Spikey
 

log in or register to remove this ad


SableWyvern

Adventurer
Concealment vs Cover

Ah, guys...

If you can see through concealment, then its not concealment.

Unless d20 is using a distinction between concealment and cover that I have not encountered in any game system ever before, the whole point of having rules for both is that:

Concealment obstructs vision, but does not hinder the actual passage of a weapon through it,

While,

Cover may or may not obstruct vision, but does stop or hamper a weapon by being hard or durable.


I haven't actually looked closely at the given definitions, but the way the basic rules for cover and concealment compare supports this.

EDIT: Me sees that this has already been pointed out.
 
Last edited:

Mal Malenkirk

First Post
There are relatively low level spell that can cancel most sources of concealment.

Invisibility (100% concealment, 50% miss chance) is countered most easily by invisibility purge. Smoke can be cleared by various weather spell (gust of wind comes to mind). Fog requires more drastic weather spells but can also be cleared. Blur and other similar form of concealments come from spell and as such can simply be dispelled.

Of course, what your player wants is some sort of goggles that allows him to see through concealments, which is often easier than negating the effects.

The cheapest and most easily available method would simply be using a see invisibility spell.

Goggles granting the wearer see invisibility at will would cost 12,000 GP according to the guidelines of the DMG. It would allow him to see anything invisible up to 130 feet and it has the fringe benefit of allowing you to see ghosts and other etheral beings. These goggles could also grant darkvision for an extra 8,000 GP.

Sure, it doesn't see through fog or smoke. But let's face it, invisibility is the most common and dangerous form of concealment.

Another option is to defeat concealments through blindsight. If you accept Magic of Faerun, there is a 3rd level spell that does just that.

For 30,000 GP (again using the DMG guidelines) your PC could be the proud owner of a pair of goggle that grants him a 30 feet blindsight (through sensibility to vibration) which defeats pretty much all the kind of concealment that I can think of.
 

Mal Malenkirk

First Post
Caliber said:
1) What kind of action does Bard Song take exactly? I

It depends on which song.

Inspire courage is a Supernatural ability.

Using a supernatural ability, unless it is noted otherwise, is a standard action that do not provoke AoO.

Same thing for Countersong, inspire greatness, and inspire competence.

Suggestion and Fascinate, however are spelllike abilities. So they are standard actions that can provoke AoO.
 
Last edited:

Caliber

Explorer
Thanks for all the replies.

Me and my player settled on a Ring of True Seeing. I said it would allow him to ignore Concealment from magical illusionary effects (Blur, etc ...) but not from things like Mist.

I have another question now (and I plan on editing into the first post as well)

An off-hand attack gets .5 your Str bonus. Does this affect the attack bonus for that weapon?

Essentially is a 1st level Fighter using 2 shortswords w/ 14 Str, Ambidexterity, and Two-Weapon Fighting swinging at:

+1/+1 or +1/+0 ?
 

Grayswandir

Just a lurker
Yes, that's exactly how true seeing works. You probably already knew that, but the way you phrased your post ("I said that ...") implied that you were making a house rule. So I'm mentioning it just in case.

Off-hand attacks get half your Strength bonus to damage. The bonus to attack is still the same. So the Fighter in your example would attack at +1/+1. Two-handed weapons, in case you were wondering, work exactly the same way. Your fighter (1st level, Str 14) would still only have +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Str) to hit with a Greatsword but would inflict 2d6+3 damage (1.5 times Strength bonus).
 

Caliber

Explorer
Didn't know about the 2H weapons. I guess it doesn't matter seeing as we don't have any 2H wielders in the party. Thanks anyway though. :D

Oh re: True Seeing, yeah I knew. Just phrased it weird. Sorry. :)
 


Remove ads

Top