frankthedm
First Post
BTW, would the miss chance of Darkness stack with the miss chance of Displacment?
Tell me about concealment and spells
Festivus
First Post
That might fall under that "Varying degrees of concealment" clause in the rules...
I wouldn't say they totally stack but perhaps are given a synergy bonus of an additional 10% miss chance. I dunno, I am making assumptions on stuff for my own games because we expect it will come up in tonights session.
I wouldn't say they totally stack but perhaps are given a synergy bonus of an additional 10% miss chance. I dunno, I am making assumptions on stuff for my own games because we expect it will come up in tonights session.
Festivus
First Post
Just a quick note, I corrected one entry on the Visibility table pdf I created. I thought about it some more and feel that if you have displacement up, you would not be subject to attacks of opportunity.
I am still welcoming comments / corrections on this chart... I *think* it's correct.
I am still welcoming comments / corrections on this chart... I *think* it's correct.
Boondoggle
First Post
Your chart is an okay start, but needs refining.
Invisibility doesn't quite work like that. A character who can't see an invisible creature can still guess as to which square it's in and attack. Spot & listen checks can greatly aid in determining the square.
Displacement doesn't prevent AoOs. It doesn't actually grant total concealment (..."as if it had..."), just a 50% miss chance.
Hiding works just like the creature was invisible; you can still guess it's location and attack a square. Total cover blocks line of sight & effect completely (except for tower shields). Cover grants a bonus on reflex saves and all the other benefits of soft cover.
Mirror images you have working incorrectly. When you attack a creature under the effect of mirror image, the DM rolls to determine which image you attack. Illusionary images have a much lower AC than the actual creature and a successful attack against one destroys it. Area effects just affect the actual creature and the illusionary images match the apearance of the creature.
Greater concealing Amorpha works just like invisibility. Concealing amorpha works just like blur.
Partial concealment is just called concealment in 3.5.
Total concealment is the same as invisibility.
Invisibility doesn't quite work like that. A character who can't see an invisible creature can still guess as to which square it's in and attack. Spot & listen checks can greatly aid in determining the square.
Displacement doesn't prevent AoOs. It doesn't actually grant total concealment (..."as if it had..."), just a 50% miss chance.
Hiding works just like the creature was invisible; you can still guess it's location and attack a square. Total cover blocks line of sight & effect completely (except for tower shields). Cover grants a bonus on reflex saves and all the other benefits of soft cover.
Mirror images you have working incorrectly. When you attack a creature under the effect of mirror image, the DM rolls to determine which image you attack. Illusionary images have a much lower AC than the actual creature and a successful attack against one destroys it. Area effects just affect the actual creature and the illusionary images match the apearance of the creature.
Greater concealing Amorpha works just like invisibility. Concealing amorpha works just like blur.
Partial concealment is just called concealment in 3.5.
Total concealment is the same as invisibility.
Festivus
First Post
Thank you for your input, as you can see it's very confusing which is why I wanted to make the chart.
I disagree about total concealment = invisibility. Invisibility = you are not visible at all... total concealment = you are obscured by something. The rules are even different... you cannot attack an invisible creature without making an effort to locate them first, where total concealment you can attack with a 50% miss chance. What is the miss chance for attacking an invisible creature without first attempting to spot them?
The file is at work so I will have to fix it monday.
I disagree about total concealment = invisibility. Invisibility = you are not visible at all... total concealment = you are obscured by something. The rules are even different... you cannot attack an invisible creature without making an effort to locate them first, where total concealment you can attack with a 50% miss chance. What is the miss chance for attacking an invisible creature without first attempting to spot them?
The file is at work so I will have to fix it monday.
Noumenon
First Post
Nobody ever answered that last question in this old thread. I want to know if 20% concealment works against targeted spells like Charm Person (not rays).
Noumenon
First Post
Sure the SRD section on concealment doesn't mention spells, but it doesn't mention them for total concealment either and we know that matters.
frankthedm
First Post
No.
