Obscuring Mist?

[dergon darkhelm]

Hi all -

Was wondering about the spell "Obscuring Mist" (Cleric 1)

I noted that water genasi in NWN2 have listed a "shrouding fog" ability that by description sounds nearly identical to the mist.

Would it possible to use that effect to put Obscuring mist in as a lvl 1 cleric spell?


((ps -this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am now playing a stealth based multi-class rog/cleric ))

[NESchampion]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/obscuringMist.htm

Not just Cleric 1, also Drd 1 and Sorc/Wiz 1.

[Zelknolf]

This is a fairly simple spell which I have previously implemented in NWN1 games, which provided concealment enough to hide, forced people to actively maintain targeting to keep hitting stuff within the AoE, and prevented sneak attacks, per this clause in the PHB:

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Which leads me to believe that we should really be looking at ways to make up for the roguey shortcomings before implementing protection against their primary means of attack, and I'd really rather not see spells put in with partial functionality. Most of the use of huge concealment-generating spells like obscuring mist is in the protection against sneak attacks and the ability to hide in them.

[t-ice]

In terms of what can be done with (usual) nwn2 mechanics, Darkness pretty much does the same trick already.

The Water Genasi ability seems to me to be self-concealment only, effectively a 5 round Displacement spell?

[Adanu]

The Water Genasi ability is a targetted AOE with 20% concealment for all friend, at least. I tested foe via setting another PC to hostile and checking if they got the benefit too, and with a troll. Both times the enemy got concealment.

[Galadorn]

...I tested foe via setting another PC to hostile and checking if they got the benefit too, ...

Da was me!
I kicked yer ani.

[t-ice]

How about sneak attacks? You shouldn't be able to SA someone with (any percentage?) concealment.

[Adanu]

I have not had the opportunity to test sneak attacks. if a DM wants to try it with me, I'm all for it.

[Zelknolf]

I have never seen a default spell in the Aurora engine provide immunity to sneak attacks. My post was saying "This can be done, but I'd like to do it well, and doing it well would be subject to an order of operations -- namely, we need to do something about uncanny dodge first."

Spells that alter the battlefield physically (grease, entangle, obscuring mist) should indeed apply to friend and foe alike. So that's not a bug; that's a feature.

[t-ice]

If I read this right, you can cast darkness and SA in it (because you are hidden, and SA is not blocked). And thus rogue/clerics with access to Darkness already have an edge over what they "should" compared to SRD. We certainly don't need to increase this by another similar spell at even lower level.

[NESchampion]

If I read this right, you can cast darkness and SA in it (because you are hidden, and SA is not blocked). And thus rogue/clerics with access to Darkness already have an edge over what they "should" compared to SRD. We certainly don't need to increase this by another similar spell at even lower level.

You're reading it wrong; a target in Darkness has concealment unless you have an ability to see through magical darkness, and thus Sneak Attack should not work. The same should also hold true for Obscuring Mist if it is added.

[dergon darkhelm]

Lot's of interesting thoughts here.

fwiw I was only posting from a defensive/withdraw persepctive. Cast the spell to give the efffect of mist coming in off the bay and clouding the view of the City Guards etc.......

Hadn't thought about using it to attack.

[Zelknolf]

Do people like... not read previous posts? The only actual scripter in this thread already said that obscuring mist should give sneak attack immunity and cited the part of the player's handbook that confirms as much.

[t-ice]

Yes, of course all concealment effects should give SA imunity.

As I read this:

I have never seen a default spell in the Aurora engine provide immunity to sneak attacks.

It means as they currently are on-engine Darkness and the Water Genasi Fog makes everyone in their area vulnerable to SAs, as the attackers are hidden, and defenders concealment doesn't give them protection.

So, it means adding an Obscuring Mist spell or effect only makes sense once the SA problem is fixed. Adding in a half-arse version only serves to de-balance by giving more powers to rogue/spellcasters they shouldn't by SRD have. So, seconding what Zelk said already.

[mogonk]

This thread is confusing.

So, we're saying that existing effects that grant concealment do NOT prevent SA. Implementing OM in a manner that restricts SA would be inconsistent with existing effects. Implementing OM in a manner that does not restrict SA would effectively enhance rogues. We want to enhance rogues...but we don't want to enhance them THAT way. We want to buff them by fixing UD, while simultaneously nerfing them by fixing concealment/SA interaction, and eventually introducing a new spell (OM) that makes concealment even easier to obtain.

Is that about the size of it?