Sneak attacks within an Obscuring Mist

[sfedi]

Some minor clarifications:

You need total concealment to avoid AoOs. Normal concealment won't cut it.

We are assuming that while in concealment, you succesfully hid, thus, granting you total concealment.

I disagree. I see no reason to presume this

MerakSpielman refers to the presumption of having concealment closer than 5 feet.

I presume this because of the description of the spell, which I partially quote below:

The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment...

This would imply that OM does not obscure all sight/darkvision closer than 5 feet.

 

[sfedi]

I'm not sure everyone agree on this, but the spell description seems clear:

While in an OM:

• You have no concealment if on the same square of the observer (less than 5 feet away)
• You have concealment on adjacent squares (5 feet away)
• You have total concealment 2 squares away or further (10 feet away or more)

 

[Nail]

We are assuming that while in concealment, you succesfully hid, thus, granting you total concealment.

Being hidden is NOT the same as having Total Concealment.

 

[Daedrova]

I'm not sure everyone agree on this, but the spell description seems clear:

While in an OM:

• You have no concealment if on the same square of the observer (less than 5 feet away)
• You have concealment on adjacent squares (5 feet away)
• You have total concealment 2 squares away or further (10 feet away or more)

This seems incorrect to me. You completely occupy your 5 ft square. The adjacent squares (next to you) are not 5 ft away, you are touching them. Those squares are 5 ft, so when the spell says "beyond 5 feet" it is stating that adjacent squares provide no concealment to you (being the observer), and the squares outside those provide concealment.
See the model below as each letter representing a 5 ft square.
o= observer/you
c= concealment square
a= adjacent (no concealment)

c c c c c
c a a a c
c a o a c
c a a a c
c c c c c

Squares outside of this would have total concealment of course.
If adjacent squares were intended to be concealed with OM (despite the ambiguity of the spell wording) then, as addressed earlier, there would be no way to sneak attack (providing the two are medium size creatures).
I can see how it could be interpreted two different ways (mine being shown above). Outside the system I ask “is the intention of the spell to not allow characters to see beyond their nose” (as the other interpretation would imply) “or are two characters who are dueling still supposed to be able to see each other well enough to fight normally?”
Just how obscuring is this mist?

The focal question I would raise here is concerning the observer being flat-footed, regardless of which squares grant concealment. If you are unaware of the attack, you cannot defend against it, and thus would be denied your Dex bonus (granting an attacker sneak attack damage). So the question is, would the Observer in this situation become aware of the attacker when it is not the Observer's turn? If so, why? Would this be automatic because the attacker left concealment? Should there be a Spot check to notice the attacker in the brief moment between him leaving concealment and making the attack?

 

[Daedrova]

Being hidden is NOT the same as having Total Concealment.

This is not intended as a slam in any way, I just had to mention it because it made me chuckle. Which word is supposed to be stressed in the above sentence:
underlined
CAPS, or
Italics

Try saying the sentence aloud and stressing all three words for good laugh.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This seems incorrect to me. You completely occupy your 5 ft square. The adjacent squares (next to you) are not 5 ft away, you are touching them.

Would you say, then, that a creature with 0ft reach can attack a creature in an adjacent square? That a creature with 5ft reach can reach across an intervening square to attack a non-adjacent creature?

Outside the system I ask “is the intention of the spell to not allow characters to see beyond their nose” (as the other interpretation would imply) “or are two characters who are dueling still supposed to be able to see each other well enough to fight normally?”
Just how obscuring is this mist?

You can dimly make out silhouetted creatures in the next square - so no, duelling characters don't 'fight normally', they fight with concealment, and a 50% miss chance.

You can't make out non-adjacent creatures at all.

So the question is, would the Observer in this situation become aware of the attacker when it is not the Observer's turn?

Yes.

If so, why?

Because he is no longer concealed.

Would this be automatic because the attacker left concealment?

Yes.

Should there be a Spot check to notice the attacker in the brief moment between him leaving concealment and making the attack?

No. Analogy: an invisible creature standing beside me and Bob takes the full attack action, and attacks Bob with his bite, then attacks me with his claws.

When he attacks Bob, he is invisible; +2 on his attack roll, and Bob is denied his Dex bonus. But the attack ends his invisibility, so when he attacks me, he is not invisible; thus he gains no bonus, and I retain my Dex bonus.

If someone is hiding in the mist, then moves out of the mist before attacking, they no longer have the benefit of the concealment the mist provides, and can be seen.

-Hyp.

 

[sfedi]

Ok, in case the OM is interpreted like Daedrova did, my case is moot.
It has no sense since the attacker must leave the condition that allows him to hide (i.e. concealment).

I'm interpreting OM like Hypersmurf stated.

 

[Gaiden]

I disagree. I see no reason to presume this.

I think it is fair to say that if you are grappling with an opponent that is not somehow otherwise concealed in a fashion (like with blur and what not) that you would eliminate the concealment from obscuring mist. Regardless, this is the way I would rule.

You need total concealment to avoid AoOs. Normal concealment won't cut it.

Sorry, still hooked on 3.0 rules.

Ok. I'm not following. If your target is flat-footed, why bother with the OM at all? Just walk up and sneak attack him.

Sighting distance - its all about when the encounter begins. If you are in an open field, they can spot you from far away. In an obscuring mist, you start at melee range.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm interpreting OM like Hypersmurf stated.

In which case when you're five feet away, you can't sneak attack because he has Concealment... and if you move to a position where he doesn't, then neither do you.

-Hyp.

 

[Daedrova]

Would you say, then, that a creature with 0ft reach can attack a creature in an adjacent square? That a creature with 5ft reach can reach across an intervening square to attack a non-adjacent creature?...

Spell areas of effect and weapon reach are defined differently and do not make a valid argument here.
For a weapon to “reach” its target it must extend into the square where the target is located. A normal medium size weapon, can reach up to 5 ft. That takes it to the far edge of an adjacent square, not past it, which it would have to do to hit that next farthest square. Since reach is only defined in 5 ft increments in d20, we can keep this simple. We know that touching the edge of a square does nothing for reach. If a creature has 0 ft reach it can only attack the square it is in because it attacks do not extend into adjacent squares. 0 ft = only attacking my square, 5 ft = attacking adjacent squares, 10 ft = attacking 2 squares away.

You have failed to give supporting information or argument to the rest of your answers.
I appreciate the example, but there were a few problems with it.

Even if OM provided concealment to/for adjacent squares it would be a 20% miss chance. And just stating That OM does provide concealment in no way tells us why that is, or where that is stated.

Before combat begins, Spot checks are rolled to determine if you are aware of the presence of an enemy. If you fail the check you are flat-footed and do not have your Dex bonus to AC (I wont say “loose” because you didn’t really have it immediately prior tot this). Even if an attacker disables your party member who just stood adjacent to you on that first surprise round, you still are still flat-footed. You even remain flat-footed until your initiative count comes up the next round, giving this attacker the possibility of taking additional full action/attack while you are Still flat-footed.

So, why is this different? Invisibility ending is a specific condition of the spell that says you are no longer concealed after you attack. I know what you were attempting to argue, but brining in other variable doesn’t help to clarify, explain, or show reason for an answer. What we need to know is that a character had concealment, but lost it before an attack.
In both situations you were unaware of the attacker- so why is it that you automatically get your Dex in one situation, and not in the other?