4E Concealment

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sorry if this has already been covered, but I have no idea what concealment might do in 4E. Is is just percentage miss chance? Is there a defense bonus? Attack bonus, perhaps? I ask because I ran a 4E game from what I have the other night, and I just had to pull a mechanic out of thin air so play didn't stop. Much appriciated!
From the DDM rules:

Conceal X: When an enemy makes a targeted attack against a creature with Conceal and gets a result that would be a hit (but not a critical), the attacker must roll 1d20. If the result of the second roll equals or exceeds X, the attack hits; otherwise, it automatically misses. If several effects grant Conceal to a creature, only the highest rating applies.

A creature with Conceal is still hit automatically by critical hits.


That might not work exactly as the RPG rules, though.
Well, in SWSE, concealment is a +2 to defense and total concealment is a +5 IIRC. Could be like that.
Well, in SWSE, concealment is a +2 to defense and total concealment is a +5 IIRC. Could be like that.

CRITICAL HIT!
CRITICAL HIT!

And no roll to confirm!
I personally hope they stick to the DDM version. That's basically 3.5 conceal without the d100 (whcih is a clunky pointless dice anyway).
Well, we already know that cover is a -2 to hit, making cover identical to SWSE's concealment mechanic (-2 to hit, -5 to hit for total concealment).

My personal hope: Concealment is also a -2 to hit, which stacks with cover. Meaning: attacking a target hiding behind a wall in a smoke-filled room is a -4 to hit. Simple and easy. I don't like the D&D minis concealment rules.
When playing the Warlock in Scalegloom Hall I had a power that gave me concealment if I moved 3 squares away from where I started.

I asked the GM what the effect was (to try and judge if it was worth constantly weaving around) and was told (when he looked it up) that I was gaining a +2 to all my defenses.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Well, we already know that cover is a -2 to hit, making cover identical to SWSE's concealment mechanic (-2 to hit, -5 to hit for total concealment).

Well displacement requires you to reroll the attack roll. And Mirror image is a +2 to AC per image. So it's rather difficult at this point to see what concealment is going to do. I hope it's more like DDM though where it's a d20 conceal roll.
When playing the Warlock in Scalegloom Hall I had a power that gave me concealment if I moved 3 squares away from where I started.

I asked the GM what the effect was (to try and judge if it was worth constantly weaving around) and was told (when he looked it up) that I was gaining a +2 to all my defenses.

Simple. Easy.

I don't like it. ;)

3.x miss chance gave you the feeling that, if blinded, even the most accurate strike could be wasted due to bad luck. What's wrong with this? I really prefere the new d20 miss chance than an augment to my defenses.
It also (like SR) robbed players of a sense of achievement. It was a terrible, terrible rule. Adding to AC or granting a penalty to hit is better. rolling 2 d20's and using the lower roll is a bit more like the old school, but still just as cheap.
It also (like SR) robbed players of a sense of achievement. It was a terrible, terrible rule. Adding to AC or granting a penalty to hit is better. rolling 2 d20's and using the lower roll is a bit more like the old school, but still just as cheap.

I think I remember some power description that was about "forcing the enemy to roll 2d20s and take the lowest roll"...
It also (like SR) robbed players of a sense of achievement. It was a terrible, terrible rule. Adding to AC or granting a penalty to hit is better. rolling 2 d20's and using the lower roll is a bit more like the old school, but still just as cheap.

Well, the thing I hate about AC is that invisibility used to be something nice if you had weak armor. But under a modifier rule, it's just another AC buff, which basically means that you can be invisible and still very vulnerable to attack if your AC is low. Thei nice thing about 3.5 invis was that it was a uniform benefit. Regardless of your AC it made it 50% less likely you'd get hit.
Well, the thing I hate about AC is that invisibility used to be something nice if you had weak armor. But under a modifier rule, it's just another AC buff, which basically means that you can be invisible and still very vulnerable to attack if your AC is low. Thei nice thing about 3.5 invis was that it was a uniform benefit. Regardless of your AC it made it 50% less likely you'd get hit.

Well, I think the main points about your concern are: AC scales with level in 4e. So if you have "low AC", you're probably talking about +3 ish (+1-2 from Dex, +1-2 from cloth armor), plus 10 + 1/2 your lvl. Where a fighter will have something close to +9.

Also, one of the things (that were often "conveniently forgotten" in 3.5) is that you first need to find the square where an invisible enemy is. If the 4e invisibility rules still account for that, you get more than the +5 bonus to defenses.
Well, the thing I hate about AC is that invisibility used to be something nice if you had weak armor. But under a modifier rule, it's just another AC buff, which basically means that you can be invisible and still very vulnerable to attack if your AC is low. Thei nice thing about 3.5 invis was that it was a uniform benefit. Regardless of your AC it made it 50% less likely you'd get hit.

We haven't seen how invisibility works yet. It is unclear whether it grants total concealment, or if the subject can not be targeted by non-area effects.

Total Concealment =!= Magical Invisibility.
When playing the Warlock in Scalegloom Hall I had a power that gave me concealment if I moved 3 squares away from where I started.

I asked the GM what the effect was (to try and judge if it was worth constantly weaving around) and was told (when he looked it up) that I was gaining a +2 to all my defenses.

I played the Warlock in Escape from Sembia, and this is how our game went as well. Moving my defenses from 15s to 17s definitely felt worthwhile.
We haven't seen how invisibility works yet. It is unclear whether it grants total concealment, or if the subject can not be targeted by non-area effects.

Total Concealment =!= Magical Invisibility.

Yeah if it's more like blur, I would think a +2 AC might make sense.

And I can see where you're coming from about it taking away the effect of a roll, which is definitely something I've experienced. Though to me, invisibility just feels like a cheapened effect if it's just a +2 to AC. I mean I guess it might be worthwhile depending on the numbers, but I like there to be some different mechanics out there rather than just having everything modify AC.
Yeah if it's more like blur, I would think a +2 AC might make sense.

And I can see where you're coming from about it taking away the effect of a roll, which is definitely something I've experienced. Though to me, invisibility just feels like a cheapened effect if it's just a +2 to AC. I mean I guess it might be worthwhile depending on the numbers, but I like there to be some different mechanics out there rather than just having everything modify AC.

Well, invisibility is total concealment, so it would be a +5 to defenses. Other than that, I still think it deserves something extra.
I agree that invisibility is not only total concealment and has other benefits, but lets go with the speculated +5 defenses to see what it means.

First, if it really does impact all defenses, it is in some ways better than current invisibility as it makes you more resistant to will or fortitude attacks as well (harder to charm the person if you can't see where they are...)

Second, lets assume that for regular attacks the opponent has an attack bonus that is eleven less than your defense. In this case there is a 50% chance that an attack roll hits (say they get +7 and you have an 18 defense). In this base scenario a +5 to defense thus has exactly the same effect as the old 50% miss chance.

For most ranges of armor and attack bonus the shift is exactly 25% less likely to hit. For less armored targets (say a 14 defense) this does mean the spell is a bit less effective than previously, although see above for other benefits. For very heavily armored targets (say a +7 attack vs. 25 defense) the bonus actually diminishes as well, because unlike 3.5 where you can miss a crit on concealment, that 20 is always a hit and a crit.

Mostly though, I love the idea of not needing another roll, and having a straightforward ruling on concealment. Right now it is one of those little corner case rules that I see confusing infrequent players (What is the difference between cover and concealment again? Do I want to roll low or high on this d10? Why should I roll to confirm my crit yet?) I'd be glad to see it go.
I think that +5 to all defenses works for concealment, with +10 if you also have a silencing effect. As charm person would need cues from the body as help, and fortitude saves would usually be for more glancing blows(stuff like ambient heat ignores concealment).
If you've read through the compilation of 'Monsters and More 4th Edit', in the expanded quick start rules this was listed:

• Invisible: Other creatures do not have line of sight on this creature. It cannot be targeted by ranged attacks. This creature gains conceal 11 against attackers that cannot see it and +2 attack against defenders that that cannot see it. An enemy cannot make opportunity attacks against an invisible creature.

This sounds to me like something different from getting a +2 bonus to your defenses. Maybe it is a reverse saving throw you need to make to see if you actually hit. Or maybe we'll just be left clueless until the books come out.

On a related note, Combat Advantage does say you need to be able to see the target to have it. Sounds like concealment powers (whatever they do) are a great way to break someone's advantage on you.
the Conceal 11 is a DDM mechanic. Change that toa +5 to defenses, and it's about what I was guessing for invisibility. So area effects can hit you, but you can't be individually targeted.

I like it.
Sign In to post comments