Why Does Concealment Afford the Same Miss Chance...

[Azlan]

Why does concealment afford the same miss chance to a defender, no matter how experienced and/or powerful his attacker?

For example, there is a flat 20% miss chance for a defender with a Blur spell, no matter if his attacker is a 1st level fighter with a normal weapon, or a 20th level fighter specialized with a +5 weapon. Sure, if a 21 or higher on the percentile dice is rolled, the latter fighter has a vastly greater attack bonus than the former fighter has. Even so, both fighters are initially at the mercy of the percentile dice, i.e. both have at least a 20% chance of missing the defender outright.

BTW: Previous editions of D&D simply gave bonuses to the defender's AC for spells like Blur, while concealment from darkness, foliage, fog, or whatever incurred a "to hit" penalty on the attacker. Only with 3rd Edition do we have "miss chance".

 

[DanMcS]

Because no matter how skilled you are, you can't hit it if you don't know where it is.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Think of it this way

A Blur spell reduces your chance to hit by 20% rather gives a flat 20% miss chance. After all to hit you have:
(attacker's base % to hit) x .8

So the more skilled attacker still hits more often then the less skilled attacker. And the more skilled defender (and by that I mean has a higher AC) still gets hit less often than the less skilled defender.

 

[Azlan]

Because no matter how skilled you are, you can't hit it if you don't know where it is.

With a Blur spell (or similar concealment), you know where the target is, you just can't see it as clearly. Even with an Invisibility spell (which affords a 50% miss chance), the attacker has to know (or at least be able to guess) where the target is.

Besides, shouldn't the latter fighter (in the example I gave) be able to better compensate for such a situation? Yet both he and the former fighter have a flat 20% of missing the tagret outright.

 

[Caliban]

With a Blur spell (or similar concealment), you know where the target is, you just can't see it as clearly. Even with an Invisibility spell (which affords a 50% miss chance), the attacker has to know (or at least be able to guess) where the target is.

Besides, shouldn't the latter fighter (in the example I gave) be able to better compensate for such a situation? Yet both he and the former fighter have a flat 20% of missing the tagret outright.

You don't know exactly where the target is. You may know the 5' square they are in, but if you attempt to strike a spot 3 inches to the left, you still miss them.

Higher level fighters are better at overcoming Cover, because they have a higher attack bonus. With concealment, you may be able to hit the spot you are aiming at, but you picked the wrong spot to attack.


Also, there are some prestige classes (Deepwood Sniper) that reduce your miss chance from concealment, and there is a feat that does it in 3.5.

 

[Azlan]

Oh, and while we're on the subject...

Assuming you're going strictly by-the-book (and not questioning the design philosphy thereof): Can a defender have both concealment and cover? Like, can a defender have the benefits of both a Blur spell (giving his attackers a 20% "miss chance") and one-half cover from leaning around a corner (giving him a +4 AC bonus)?

Doesn't a defender who has cover have an equal amount of concealment, anyway? After all, cover most certainly does provide "concealment", i.e. it "blocks from view" parts of the defender's body, as well as blocking damage from those parts, should the attack unintentially hit the cover instead of the defender.

So, why are cover and conealment handled entirely differently? Why should cover give an AC bonus, while concealment gives a "miss chance"?

 

[Azlan]

You don't know exactly where the target is. You may know the 5' square they are in, but if you attempt to strike a spot 3 inches to the left, you still miss them.

So, then, the underlying logic is: a veteran - superheroic, even - 20th level fighter is no better at guessing the precise location of a blurred defender than is a newbie 1st level fighter.

Also, there are some prestige classes (Deepwood Sniper) that reduce your miss chance from concealment, and there is a feat that does it in 3.5.

What I'm inquiring about here is strictly 3rd Edition D&D according to the original three core rulebooks.

 

[Plane Sailing]

People can take blindfight to reduce the miss chance.

 

[Belares]

What I'm inquiring about here is strictly 3rd Edition D&D according to the original three core rulebooks.

So Masters of the wild is not 3E now? Define corebooks? Was the first book to be printed core or the Players handbook core as it was the first book to be put out? Is 3.5 not core when it comes out?

What I am getting at is the other books ARE part of the whole process. That is if YOU allow them I guess.

Also with the above statement: Use Trueseeing if you want to be exact. Even take the feat Blindfight too.

Deepwood sniper is awesome i cant wait to level mine farther.

You can have concealment and cover.

 

[Azlan]

Define core books?

Simple enough. It says so right on the cover: "Core Rulebook".