OMG Total Concealment, what is it?

[SangoProduction]

I've decided to sacrifice some class levels for the Shadow Template, which gives total concealment in non-daylight lighting conditions. So, I've read the rules for total concealment, and it says that there is no line of sight. Does that mean it's a "you can never see me" type of condition? In most conditions where you'd get this normally, like being behind a wall of impenetrable smoke, or where there's truly 0 light, I could see this being a viable ruling, but for this ability, it seems a bit odd outside of those circumstances.
Total concealment seems similar in function to invisibility. Should I treat it as that? (This would give at least a modicum of chance to be spotted at least...by natural 20s, but still a chance). It doesn't say you ever lose the total concealment condition except when in daylight, so is it like a permanent improved invisibility that doesn't function in daylight? Or does it just mean "screw the hide skill, put 100% of skill points into move silently"?

EDIT: I mean, how would I treat the spot checks for this?

[SinsI]

It is not only "similar in function" to invisibility - Invisibility grants you Total Concealment.

[Red Fel]

I've decided to sacrifice some class levels for the Shadow Template, which gives total concealment in non-daylight lighting conditions. So, I've read the rules for total concealment, and it says that there is no line of sight. Does that mean it's a "you can never see me" type of condition? In most conditions where you'd get this normally, like being behind a wall of impenetrable smoke, or where there's truly 0 light, I could see this being a viable ruling, but for this ability, it seems a bit odd outside of those circumstances.
Total concealment seems similar in function to invisibility. Should I treat it as that? (This would give at least a modicum of chance to be spotted at least...by natural 20s, but still a chance). It doesn't say you ever lose the total concealment condition except when in daylight, so is it like a permanent improved invisibility that doesn't function in daylight? Or does it just mean "screw the hide skill, put 100% of skill points into move silently"?

Total concealment doesn't mean invisibility, although invisibility does mean total concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility). Total concealment doesn't mean you can't be seen; rather, it means that you are partially or totally obscured. Now, in many cases, a creature with total concealment is functionally invisible - for example, he is invisible, or behind a wall or fog. In the case of the Shadow Template, I wouldn't treat the creature as invisible, however. Rather, I would treat him as dimly visible, his silhouette so ill-defined as to trick the eye. You can see him (at least, if you make your Spot check); you know he's there, you just can't quite make out where specifically.

Now, with regard to the line of sight issue, let's go to the videotape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment).
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
In other words, a lack of line of sight, again, doesn't mean necessarily that the target is invisible. It means that you can't make him out well enough to attack him directly. You can't tell which shadows are him, and which shadows are his shadows, but you can make out generally the space that he occupies.

In fact, the Shadow Blend ability only refers to concealment. It does not convey any other ability. As such, it shouldn't be considered to grant anything but concealment. All that concealment does is grant you a 50% miss chance and prevent AoOs. That's certainly a lot, but that's all. Concealment, even total concealment, does not grant you invisibility; you'll need to work on your Hide skill for that.

[SangoProduction]

Total concealment doesn't mean invisibility, although invisibility does mean total concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility). Total concealment doesn't mean you can't be seen; rather, it means that you are partially or totally obscured. Now, in many cases, a creature with total concealment is functionally invisible - for example, he is invisible, or behind a wall or fog.
Actually, concealment means partially obscured, while total concealment is totally obscured. The difference between a veil of mist, and something you literally couldn't see through, like Fog Cloud spell.


In the case of the Shadow Template, I wouldn't treat the creature as invisible, however. Rather, I would treat him as dimly visible, his silhouette so ill-defined as to trick the eye. You can see him (at least, if you make your Spot check); you know he's there, you just can't quite make out where specifically.

I would as well (currently how I'm fluffing it), but how would I treat the spot check? Someone who has that feature would have a significantly easier hiding. I'll edit my OP to make the question more obvious, I'm sorry.


Now, with regard to the line of sight issue, let's go to the videotape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment).
In other words, a lack of line of sight, again, doesn't mean necessarily that the target is invisible. It means that you can't make him out well enough to attack him directly. You can't tell which shadows are him, and which shadows are his shadows, but you can make out generally the space that he occupies.
Having line of effect means if you fired a ray of fire, it could affect the area. That's the difference between an impenetrable fog, and a true wall - a wall blocks the effect, but you can't see through either. Note where it says "the square you think he occupies". Therefore, you must take a guess, or find a way to locate them before you could even take that 50% miss chance (or you could just cast an AoE if you think SOMETHING is there, but you'd need something to indicate that something is there).

[SangoProduction]

It is not only "similar in function" to invisibility - Invisibility grants you Total Concealment.

Thanks, I didn't actually know that.

[Red Fel]

I would as well (currently how I'm fluffing it), but how would I treat the spot check? Someone who has that feature would have a significantly easier hiding. I'll edit my OP to make the question more obvious, I'm sorry.

Well, I'd make it the same as normal. It's hiding in less-than-sunlight conditions, so the usual visual penalties (if any) apply. Other than that, the viewer knows it's there. He can see it, sort of. He can see a thing in the shadows. He can't tell specifically where it is, but he knows it's there, he sees movement and a shape.

The Spot check, apart from light-imposed penalties (if any), would be as normal. Only the miss chance would change. Unless you plan to use house rules, the Spot check functions as normal.

I've looked over the Shadow Creature template in MotP (and its update) to confirm this. It's a bit absurd that they gain Shadow Blend, and a bonus to Move Silently, but not a bonus to Hide. And yet there it is. (Consider investing in Shadow Silk armor, from ToM, for that added boost, and for flavor.)

[Bronk]

Total concealment seems similar in function to invisibility. Should I treat it as that?

EDIT: I mean, how would I treat the spot checks for this?

Target disappears into the shadows, gains total concealment...

I treat it just like invisibility that can be broken by direct sunlight or the daylight spell, but nothing else... it doesn't even say that darkvision lets you see the target. It also doesn't end when you attack... it's pretty powerful.

[Necroticplague]

Actually, you can't see the Shadow creature in the dark, so they don't need Hide unless they're in daylight. Humorously enough, the rules that state this are under the Hide skill itself.


You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
Special
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Hide checks.

A 13th-level ranger can attempt a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t grant cover or concealment. A 17th-level ranger can do this even while being observed.

So yes, Shadow Blend does basically function as 'greater-than-greater invisibility, while in the dark only'. Also explains the lack of bonus to hide: they don't need it!

[Red Fel]

So yes, Shadow Blend does basically function as 'greater-than-greater invisibility, while in the dark only'. Also explains the lack of bonus to hide: they don't need it!

I sit corrected.

It seems that the rules on total concealment presume invisibility. They have their causation backwards, however. To explain, the rules on concealment state that, if you have line of effect but not line of sight to the target, the target has total concealment. The Hide rules seem to assume that, therefore, if a target has concealment, you lack line of sight to him. That's a bit convoluted, but they appear to treat them with some equivalency.

If you assume that the equivalency is in place - which the Hide language seems to, by saying that "nobody can see you anyway" - then, yes, it's effectively a form of nonmagical invisibility. No Spot check needed, because you can't be seen. Done.

I'll go on the record as saying that I don't like this interpretation, but it seems to be a valid one.

[Necroticplague]

If you assume that the equivalency is in place - which the Hide language seems to, by saying that "nobody can see you anyway" - then, yes, it's effectively a form of nonmagical invisibility. No Spot check needed, because you can't be seen. Done.

Actually, it is magical, because Shadow Blend is an (SU) ability. And it's better than invisibility, because invisibility allows Spot checks (at +20 if moving, or +40 if standing still), while this doesn't.

[SangoProduction]

I thought so. Would you guys think it'd still be worth the +2 to ECL if the Total Concealment was redone to Hide in Plain Sight under the same conditions, and granting a + to hide checks = to the + to move silently checks?

[Jowgen]

Combine with a darklight lantern (ToM) for constant greater than greater invisibility.

Personally, I believe the only good way to run this ability is to give the target concealment in its square (i.e. can still be pinpointed/is a big blob of black), but they can attempt to be fully invisible via a hide-check.

If you so want to run it the other way, I recommend fluffing it as a chameleon type effect, where instead of camouflaging into the environment, you camouflage into the ambient non-daylight. Invisibility lets light pass through you, with this you actually become part of the light/shadow.

[Red Fel]

I thought so. Would you guys think it'd still be worth the +2 to ECL if the Total Concealment was redone to Hide in Plain Sight under the same conditions, and granting a + to hide checks = to the + to move silently checks?

If you're switching Shadow Blend to Hide in Plain Sight, why aren't you using ToM's Dark Creature template? That's only +1 LA.

[SangoProduction]

If you're switching Shadow Blend to Hide in Plain Sight, why aren't you using ToM's Dark Creature template? That's only +1 LA.

I didn't actually know about it. Thanks.

[Phaederkiel]

let me expand the question a little:

can I shoot at a creature with total concealment? Sure, I could attack the field they are in, and with a bow this might be well working.

But what about ranged touch spells? What about spells without an attack throw? Can I just cast, lets say "unluck" into a field I hope there is an enemy in?
Should there not be some kind of heavy negative modifier on the spell?

I mean, obviously spells like glittterdust and magic missile are exactly for this kind of situation. And attack-throw-spells can use the calculateable misschance. What about spells which have a single target, perhaps needing line of sight?

(was there not a spell called wings of cover which is 10 kinds of broken because it interrupts line of sight?)

[ksbsnowowl]

let me expand the question a little:

can I shoot at a creature with total concealment? Sure, I could attack the field they are in, and with a bow this might be well working.

But what about ranged touch spells? What about spells without an attack throw? Can I just cast, lets say "unluck" into a field I hope there is an enemy in?
Should there not be some kind of heavy negative modifier on the spell?

I mean, obviously spells like glittterdust and magic missile are exactly for this kind of situation. And attack-throw-spells can use the calculateable misschance. What about spells which have a single target, perhaps needing line of sight?

(was there not a spell called wings of cover which is 10 kinds of broken because it interrupts line of sight?)RAW, if you cannot detect which square the totally concealed foe is in, then you can attack, treating it much like hunting for an invisible creature (pick a square 'randomly' and if it is the right square, it has a 50% miss chance). Remember that if an invisible/concealed foe attacks you in melee without reach, then you know what square the attack came from (but they might attack then move...)

The above is for attack rolls (spells that require an attack roll do work, so long as they don't have a Target line). For spells that have a "Target:" line in the spell header, you can only target a foe you can see or are touching. If you cannot see the foe (and aren't touching them), whether that inability to see is due to them being invisible or under total concealment, or you being blind, doesn't matter; if you can't see them, you can't hit them with Magic Missile, Charm Person, etc.

Area spells like Glitterdust work just fine against foes with total concealment.

[SangoProduction]

let me expand the question a little:

can I shoot at a creature with total concealment? Sure, I could attack the field they are in, and with a bow this might be well working.

Well, first off, you can shoot the square, but you'd need a way to know (or randomly guess) that they are in the square, else you're wasting your action on a 0% chance of hitting (because it's not the right square). But, if you've got a good "guess" then it would work 50% of the time (since, unless it's a gelatinous cube, or other unusual monster, the monster doesn't actually occupy the entire square).


But what about ranged touch spells? What about spells without an attack throw? Can I just cast, lets say "unluck" into a field I hope there is an enemy in?
Should there not be some kind of heavy negative modifier on the spell?

Ranged touch attacks are the same as normal attacks, but without armor bonus. See above. I don't know the spell you are referring to, but if it requires a target, and you don't have a target, then you can't cast it. (Dominate person requires a person to be targeted, for example.) Rays can work because they are targeted at something, but they are an...emanation. They project from a point, to hit another point, which may or may not be the actual target.


I mean, obviously spells like glittterdust and magic missile are exactly for this kind of situation. And attack-throw-spells can use the calculateable misschance. What about spells which have a single target, perhaps needing line of sight?
Glitterdust is an AoE. You have the target: the ground. It happens to hit any creatures in an area around the target. Everything, even invisible targets, get their regular saves. Like tossing a grenade into a room - you don't need to know who or what is actually there, or even that there's anything there, just that you threw it, and good luck everyone else.

Magic missile however, requires you to have the creature targeted. Maybe if you knew who was hidden there, in the general area they are in, and had a picture and name of that person, and perhaps some other details, I'd let you target them without actually seeing them (If I was DM). But, if you can't find the target, then you can't target it. "Go strike that invisible thing that may be over there...or over there...or over there." *Magic Missiles slaps you and tells you to give it an actual target.*

[Phaederkiel]

I always thought that "I cast it at the darkness" was the whole selling point of magic missile?
ah, i found it:


The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment.

total concealment does the trick. Perhaps the "I cast it at the darkness" was in a previous edition.

Then total concealment is a stupidly good ability to get.

[satorian]

"I cast magic missile at the darkness" was a joke from an earlier edition about how players react violently to anything and everything. It wasn't actually something a magic missile could do. It could, however, attack objects in earlier editions, which was very helpful.

[Sith_Happens]

Perhaps the "I cast it at the darkness" was in a previous edition.

It's just an Internet joke, actually.

[satorian]

IRL joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Alewives) first, actually. Artists deserve credit :).

[nyjastul69]

I've decided to sacrifice some class levels for the Shadow Template, which gives total concealment in non-daylight lighting conditions. So, I've read the rules for total concealment, and it says that there is no line of sight. Does that mean it's a "you can never see me" type of condition? In most conditions where you'd get this normally, like being behind a wall of impenetrable smoke, or where there's truly 0 light, I could see this being a viable ruling, but for this ability, it seems a bit odd outside of those circumstances.
Total concealment seems similar in function to invisibility. Should I treat it as that? (This would give at least a modicum of chance to be spotted at least...by natural 20s, but still a chance).It doesn't say you ever lose the total concealment condition except when in daylight, so is it like a permanent improved invisibility that doesn't function in daylight? Or does it just mean "screw the hide skill, put 100% of skill points into move silently"?

EDIT: I mean, how would I treat the spot checks for this?

A natural 20 on a skill check is not an automatic success. A nat 20 is only an auto success on an attack roll or saving throw.

[Bronk]

IRL joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Alewives) first, actually. Artists deserve credit :).

Good Stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kgx2b1sIRs

[jiriku]

I will second Red's recommendation of the Dark template. It is simple to implement and adjudicate, and is well-priced for a +1 LA.

Shadow blend is significantly better than improved invisibility. Creatures are not entitled to use Spot to detect you: there is nothing visible of you to see. Spells that specifically detect invisible creatures do not detect you. However, you would be automatically detected by tremorsense, blindsense, blindsight, scent, touchsight, lifesense, or mindsight. The shadow blend ability is especially potent if combined with Darkstalker and a buffed Hide skill, which make you near-impossible to detect by the first four senses on that list. It is also possible to interpret the mind blank spell as offering immunity to mindsight, so a necropolitan shadow rogue with buffed Hide and mind blank is essentially only seen at night via the touchsight power, the daylight spell, or by spamming AoEs like glitterdust, sparkles, heartfire, or faerie fire. Don't even get me started on what happens when this guy finds a way to go incorporeal.

Shadow blend is not a good ability for player characters. There are far, far too many sorts of challenges that can be bypassed or trivialized by a character like the one described above and, just as bad, such a character would have to leave the less-stealthy members of the party behind, resulting in one player cruising through challenges while the other players sat around and did nothing. That's not a recipe for fun at most tables. I would only consider allowing the shadow template in very high-power games in which I'm prepared to spend considerable prep time designing encounters that would contain this ability and allow the party to adventure normally.

I will mention, though, that shadow blend can be used by the DM to create some terrifying assassins. Most PC parties will tie themselves in knots when confronted with this.