Concealment

[Legacy_tmanfoo]

               Thanks for the feedback folks.  I didn't even think of the wiki either.  I can't imagine someone not doing this sort of thing before making a PW.  Maybe I'm overdoing things.  Whatever the case, ty I'll certainly have fun with it '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

... sad (The Krit's) policy...

The_Krit isn't a sad policy, but a lifetime project on his own and to be deeply respected for that, and not only. 

( I didn't know what to say really, only I wanted to say something about him, and I'm fully aware this was not a flaming at all from ShaDoOoW. )

Just because the guy belongs to my NWN pantheon, among a few others who helped me so nicely in my NWN youth.

Beside? Concealment is beyond me as a NWN player. Almost like Harm.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Shia Luck wrote...

Pstemarie wrote...

"Concealment Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a sucessful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. ...

I imagine the bolded part is why your post unintentionally implies that AC comes before concelament. It never gets to a case of "if the attacker hits..." , concealment is resolved before AC is considered. '>

have fun '>

Not sure where the "...unitentionally implies" comes into play. I'm pretty sure Wizards of the Coast's D&D design team, when they wrote the PHB, intentionally meant for concealment to be resolved AFTER AC is considered. That's a direct quote from the text on page 152 of the PHB - check it yourself.

What's really at issue here is how Bioware in effect misinterpreted concealment. According to Bioware's interpretation of concealment, it is resolved before AC is considered. However, this implementation method is wrong according to the D&D PHB. However, I can understand why Bioware implemented it in this manner - its a lot quicker (and more efficient) to just roll concelament first. If the attack is going to miss anyway, why bother rolling it at all.

In fact the Bioware method even makes more sense for pen-n-paper, especially when you consider the section in the PHB that talks about total concealment which states that you "...cannot attack a character with total concealment." This statement would seem to imply that concealment is checked before the attack roll occurs and is no doubt what Bioware used as the foundation for their interpretation.

@Shadow - I still maintain wikis are a bad place to get information. However, I will concede that the Krit has done a better job than most in ensuring the accuracy of his particualar wiki. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

Pstemarie wrote...

Not sure where the "...unitentionally implies" comes into play.

My apologies if I offended. The idea it was unintenional is in the previous quote. I will colour highlight so you can see my thinking. 

Shia Luck wrote...

Pstemarie wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Pstemarie wrote...

Concealment works like this...

1. You spot a potential target and choose to engage it.
2. You make an attack roll.
3. If the attack hits the defender checks concealment. If the concealment check is successful, the attack is avoided.

Nope, not true, since there is nothing about it on wiki, I just tested this (opponent with 70
ac, me with 20 ab):

It does not matter if the attack hits or not, the concealment is rolled in each attack so it has nothing to do
with AC, like I said.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

Right, it has nothing to do with AC - nor did I ever imply it did. The brief outline I listed is taken from the PHB on page 152. To quote the source:

"Concealment
Miss Chance: Concealment gives the subject of a sucessful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. ...

I imagine the bolded part is why your post unintentionally implies that  AC comes before concelament. It never gets to a case of "if the attacker hits..." , concealment is resolved before AC is considered. '>

               
               

               

                     Modifié par Shia Luck, 22 septembre 2010 - 05:44 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_tmanfoo]

               Can we still get the old PHBs?  Someone 'borrowed' mine years ago & I've had no use for the thing.  Honestly, I haven't even looked.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               While there may be a computational benefit to calculating concealment before the rest of the AC-based to-hit rolls, I am not sure where it makes any difference mathematically on the ultimate chance of an individual attempted attack doing damage. In other words, if one drops 50% (or whatever the concealment is) of the attacks before rolling vs AC you should get the same overall number of hits as if one rolled AC and then dropped 50% of the hits.



Now, there may be some difference in overall combat because of things like Epic Dodge. That is, if concealment were calculated before EDodge, then that round's EDodge won't be used up. But, if concealment is calculated after EDodge, then the EDodge may get used on an attack that was going to miss because of concealment anyway. Some similar effect on combat (where the order of dealing with concealment) may come into play for any factor that may cause a miss but which can only happen a limited number of times per round, particularly if that number is less than the number of attacks. In addition to EDodge, things like parry, Deflect Arrows, etc. come to mind. In essence, calculating concealment first (since it doesn't get "used up") would seem to make these other means of attack avoidance more valuable.



I would be curious what this equation ultimately turns out to be. Of course, there may not be a closed-form representation for it.