Why Does Concealment Afford the Same Miss Chance...
- Thread starter Azlan
- Start date
The better fighter still hits more often, on account of the 80% of attacks that don't run afoul of the miss chance. Compare:Azlan said:
Attacker with total attack bonus +2 vs. AC 19 and 20% miss chance: Chance of hit = 0.8*0.2 = 0.16 = 16%
Increase total attack bonus to +8: 0.8*0.5 = 40%.
I don't see the problem.
Gumby
First Post
Re: Re: Why Does Concealment Afford the Same Miss Chance...
Both you and orangefruitbat are incorrect. Concealment does not reduce your BAB by any percentage, it adds a second roll to resolve whether you hit the oppponent or not, which is completely independent of BAB and all its modifiers. This is what Azlan has an issue with - going up in levels in no way ameliorates this miss chance, other than that a more experienced character has had the opportunity to purchase feats and abilities to counter this concealment roll.Staffan said:
Re: Re: Re: Why Does Concealment Afford the Same Miss Chance...
Actually, they aren't saying the BAB goes down.
They ARE saying, a 20% miss chnce only AFFECTS 20% of those swigns which are hits in the first place.
Take an AC 20 target, with concealment good for a 20% miss chance.
Take two attackers; one has +4 to hit, the other has +9 to hit.
The +4 fellow -- call him Bob -- hits on a roll of 16-20, or, a 25% net chance to hit. Of those hits, one in five -- 20% -- will be converted to misses. So 4 of 5 "hits" will actually "connect".
To get those 5 "hits", Bob needs to swing 20 times.
Thus, Bob "connects" four times out of twenty swings, or, 20% of the time. 20% is 80% of 25%.
On the other hand, the +9 attacker -- call him Fred -- has to roll 11+; he hits half the time. Given the same twnety swings, we woudl expect Fred to hit ... ten times, right? Well, 20% of those hits, are converted to misses.
In other words, Fred "connects" 8 times, out of twenty swings.
Twice as often as Bob, still!
Bob, four connecting hits out of twenty tries.
Fred, eight connecting hits out of twenty tries.
8 = 4 x 2.
Sans concealment, Bob gets 5 hits, while Fred gets 10 hits.
10 = 5 x 2
So, experience IS helping Fred hit more often than Bob; Fred is hittign twice as often as Bob -- just as he should, concealment or no concealment!
Gumby said:
Actually, they aren't saying the BAB goes down.
They ARE saying, a 20% miss chnce only AFFECTS 20% of those swigns which are hits in the first place.
Take an AC 20 target, with concealment good for a 20% miss chance.
Take two attackers; one has +4 to hit, the other has +9 to hit.
The +4 fellow -- call him Bob -- hits on a roll of 16-20, or, a 25% net chance to hit. Of those hits, one in five -- 20% -- will be converted to misses. So 4 of 5 "hits" will actually "connect".
To get those 5 "hits", Bob needs to swing 20 times.
Thus, Bob "connects" four times out of twenty swings, or, 20% of the time. 20% is 80% of 25%.
On the other hand, the +9 attacker -- call him Fred -- has to roll 11+; he hits half the time. Given the same twnety swings, we woudl expect Fred to hit ... ten times, right? Well, 20% of those hits, are converted to misses.
In other words, Fred "connects" 8 times, out of twenty swings.
Twice as often as Bob, still!
Bob, four connecting hits out of twenty tries.
Fred, eight connecting hits out of twenty tries.
8 = 4 x 2.
Sans concealment, Bob gets 5 hits, while Fred gets 10 hits.
10 = 5 x 2
So, experience IS helping Fred hit more often than Bob; Fred is hittign twice as often as Bob -- just as he should, concealment or no concealment!
Maitre Du Donjon
First Post
Azlan said:
Yes you can.
Compare being invisible to standing behind a brick wall. In both cases, your attacker can't see you. But if you're invisible, he can still hit you (if he figures out where you are by other means), and you can always hit him. When you and your attacker are each on one side of a brick wall, well, you get the idea.
So, why are cover and conealment handled entirely differently? Why should cover give an AC bonus, while concealment gives a "miss chance"?
Because the "real-life" mechanic of it all is quite diffrent for both cases, i guess
Maitre D
Re: Re: Re: Why Does Concealment Afford the Same Miss Chance...
What Pax said. The miss chance is separate from the hit roll, but the better warrior will still hit more often on account of his higher skill. The separate roll for miss chance just means that the good warrior is as affected as the bad warrior - every Xth attack that would otherwise have been a hit is now a miss instead. It's just that the good warrior gets more hits in the first place.Gumby said:
True enough, Darklone.
I assumed a fluid, "runnign battle" situation, with only partial attacks.
But if we're doign a "stand and deliver" episode, Fred gets those 20 highest-BAB attacks in ... and 20 more for a few extra hits, too.
At +4 to hit with his secondary attacks, Fred would hit AC 20 on a roll of 17-20, or, one time in five -- which is 4 times out of the 20 rounds of my prior example.
20% of those, or 0.8 hits, would fail to connect due to concealment.
So, we can safely add 3 more connecting hits to Fred's total (4 without concealment).
Now, Bob is connecting 4 times,a nd Fred is connecting 11 times (with concealment).
Without concealment, Bob connects 5 times, and Fred connects 13 times.
Fred, always, will hit mroe often than Bob -- concealment or no.
Granted it IS true that, the more likely your opponent is to hit you, the more valuable you will find concealment. Once foes' AB start to surpass your AC, you need to pick up concealment, displacement, or whatever.
However, against a given level of concealment-plus-AC, the general trend of who hits more often, will hold steady across all levels of combatants.
I assumed a fluid, "runnign battle" situation, with only partial attacks.
But if we're doign a "stand and deliver" episode, Fred gets those 20 highest-BAB attacks in ... and 20 more for a few extra hits, too.
At +4 to hit with his secondary attacks, Fred would hit AC 20 on a roll of 17-20, or, one time in five -- which is 4 times out of the 20 rounds of my prior example.
20% of those, or 0.8 hits, would fail to connect due to concealment.
So, we can safely add 3 more connecting hits to Fred's total (4 without concealment).
Now, Bob is connecting 4 times,a nd Fred is connecting 11 times (with concealment).
Without concealment, Bob connects 5 times, and Fred connects 13 times.
Fred, always, will hit mroe often than Bob -- concealment or no.
Granted it IS true that, the more likely your opponent is to hit you, the more valuable you will find concealment. Once foes' AB start to surpass your AC, you need to pick up concealment, displacement, or whatever.
However, against a given level of concealment-plus-AC, the general trend of who hits more often, will hold steady across all levels of combatants.
the one beef i have with cover and concealment is that only concealment, any amount of concealment, affects whether you can sneak attack.
A fighter standing in brush which comes up to say his waste and gets "light foliage" concealment cannot be sneak attacked. If he steps three feet so that that bush is now a waist high stone wall, it becomes cover and now he gets an Ac bonus and can be sneak attacked.
A guy 5' away in fog cannot be sneak attacked... while the guy 30' away behind an arrow slit can.
All this barring the Gm deciding that cover DOES provide protection from sneak attacks as a house rule of course.
i would prefer that in 3.5 cover and concealment provided similar benefits in structure, with the difference being that cover, as a HARD defense, provided more blocking chance.
For example, make cover and concealment the same rule.
If the target is concealed (obscured by non-rigid interposing effect such as fog or foliage or darkness or invisible) then his AC goes up by the amount COVER now provides, to represent hitting the smaller exposed area. The Ac bonus also adds to hide checks.
If he is concealed by RIGID, blocking material, then he gains the automatic miss chance currently assigned to concealment (attack was deflected by cover) and the reflex save bonus (currently a part of cover.)
In either case, 100% interpose/conceal/cover means you do need to find the hex and a way to it and would impose the invisibility effects.
In either case, after a certain point, say when 50% cover/conceal is achieved, then sneak attacks become impossible.
this seems more accurately to reflect the differences between cover (which can block) and concealment (which merely obscures) to me.
A fighter standing in brush which comes up to say his waste and gets "light foliage" concealment cannot be sneak attacked. If he steps three feet so that that bush is now a waist high stone wall, it becomes cover and now he gets an Ac bonus and can be sneak attacked.
A guy 5' away in fog cannot be sneak attacked... while the guy 30' away behind an arrow slit can.
All this barring the Gm deciding that cover DOES provide protection from sneak attacks as a house rule of course.
i would prefer that in 3.5 cover and concealment provided similar benefits in structure, with the difference being that cover, as a HARD defense, provided more blocking chance.
For example, make cover and concealment the same rule.
If the target is concealed (obscured by non-rigid interposing effect such as fog or foliage or darkness or invisible) then his AC goes up by the amount COVER now provides, to represent hitting the smaller exposed area. The Ac bonus also adds to hide checks.
If he is concealed by RIGID, blocking material, then he gains the automatic miss chance currently assigned to concealment (attack was deflected by cover) and the reflex save bonus (currently a part of cover.)
In either case, 100% interpose/conceal/cover means you do need to find the hex and a way to it and would impose the invisibility effects.
In either case, after a certain point, say when 50% cover/conceal is achieved, then sneak attacks become impossible.
this seems more accurately to reflect the differences between cover (which can block) and concealment (which merely obscures) to me.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
