Noob DM/Player - does displacement stack?

[ddude987]

Hello all,
So I have been trying to do a lot of research on the subject of if displacement stacks and so far I have seen here and there that it does and doesn't. Ignoring the rules compendium (as it is wrong, or at least seems wrong on sever occasions) I am wondering if Displacement stacks with concealment mischances by RAW. By RAW the spell reads that it emulates a displacer beasts effect which in the MM does not state the miss chance as typed. Furthermore it reads that the spell acts as if the user had total concealment. I suppose the biggest argument is does as if qualify the miss chance as typed? Thanks in advance, the argument keeps coming up in groups I'm in so you're all a big help!

Edit: By stack I mean do they both apply. Miss chance is always rolled for each instance (Let me know if I'm wrong there)

[Illarion]

I would rule that it does not stack and here's why:

1. in the RAW where is says "Emulating the natural ability of the displacer beast" it is say that for effect not ruling that the target is being granted the ability of the displacer beast. think of it like explaining the effect and not the mechanics.

2. the spell is granting the miss chance percentage of total concealment. I find it hard to follow having more than "total". it would be like having double total concealment, which doesn't make any sense. you can't have more than 100% of a finite value.

that would be my ruling on it, until i hear a better argument. *gavel slam*

[TuggyNE]

2. the spell is granting the miss chance percentage of total concealment. I find it hard to follow having more than "total". it would be like having double total concealment, which doesn't make any sense. you can't have more than 100% of a finite value.

That's not entirely unreasonable, except that (greater) mirror image can grant a much higher miss chance all by itself.

However, IIRC Rules Compendium explicitly made concealment-based miss chances not stack. Whether that was sensible is another matter, of course.

[ArcturusV]

It depends on how the rule is written. But it would PROBABLY stack depending on the case. In the end, comes down to DM Logic too. If you have concealment from something vision blocking, smoke, etc. AND you basically have a second "Copy" lurking around, here's how I'd run it:

First d100 to determine if you hit the Copy or the Real one. Second d100 to determine if you hit what you're going for (Copy or Real) at all due to concealment.

[Illarion]

It depends on how the rule is written. But it would PROBABLY stack depending on the case. In the end, comes down to DM Logic too. If you have concealment from something vision blocking, smoke, etc. AND you basically have a second "Copy" lurking around, here's how I'd run it:

First d100 to determine if you hit the Copy or the Real one. Second d100 to determine if you hit what you're going for (Copy or Real) at all due to concealment.

and there's that better argument.

[andromax]

I don't think that a miss chance due to total concealment should ever be greater than 50% nor do I think that there is any raw way to justify it.

Even if you wanted to argue that it DID stack, all the attacker would need to do is simply close it's eyes and attack the square and it would only need to roll 50% miss chance.

To the OP, quite simply no it doesn't stack with concealment for the same reason that being invisible doesn't stack with concealment. It grants total concealment, it's not even a debate as to whether it stacks.

It would be different if the displacement occupied a different square like mirror image, but it doesn't.

[ddude987]

It depends on how the rule is written. But it would PROBABLY stack depending on the case. In the end, comes down to DM Logic too. If you have concealment from something vision blocking, smoke, etc. AND you basically have a second "Copy" lurking around, here's how I'd run it:

First d100 to determine if you hit the Copy or the Real one. Second d100 to determine if you hit what you're going for (Copy or Real) at all due to concealment.

So you can have a miss chance for each and they are rolled separately? That's what I was thinking how it worked. Does anyone else second this?

[ddude987]

I don't think that a miss chance due to total concealment should ever be greater than 50% nor do I think that there is any raw way to justify it.

Even if you wanted to argue that it DID stack, all the attacker would need to do is simply close it's eyes and attack the square and it would only need to roll 50% miss chance.

To the OP, quite simply no it doesn't stack with concealment for the same reason that being invisible doesn't stack with concealment. It grants total concealment, it's not even a debate as to whether it stacks.

It would be different if the displacement occupied a different square like mirror image, but it doesn't.

Maybe we've been doing mirror image but it says they are all within 5' of the user so my group has been making the images all in the users square. Are they supposed to occupy adjacent squares?

[KillianHawkeye]

Mirror Image is actually not anything like concealment. They are entirely separate mechanics-wise. And yes, you've been doing Mirror Image wrong.


Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.

Basically, each image needs to be adjacent to you or another image. So, you could line them all up behind you, or scatter them about, etc., and change their layout every time you move and reshuffle them.

If you kept them all in the same square as you, they wouldn't be any better than displacement.

[ddude987]

Mirror Image is actually not anything like concealment. They are entirely separate mechanics-wise. And yes, you've been doing Mirror Image wrong.



Basically, each image needs to be adjacent to you or another image. So, you could line them all up behind you, or scatter them about, etc., and change their layout every time you move and reshuffle them.

Oh thanks!