True Strike and Invisibility question

[skunian]

Shilsen is correct. the true strike spell only negates the "Miss chance" effect of being concealed. It does not negate anything else, it does not make fog go away, it does not make the target visible. If you do not have any idea where the target is, then you can't shoot at it. Unless you know where the target is, it's jst not possible. But after making a listen or spot check to know that somebody is invisible near you then the spell takes effect, the target still retains any other bonus' due to being invisible, you are still denied your dex if he attacks you, but the "Miss Chance" is negated if you manage to get a shot off.

1) Orc shaman in room is invisible.
2) Wizard with an extended true strike already cast enters room.
3) Wizard gets to make a spot check to see if he notices something out of place.
4) If he succeeds he can take a shot at the invisible orc, negating the miss chance of being invisible (the orc still retains any other effects of being invisible)
4a) If the wizard failed his spot check, he has no idea there is an invisible orc in the room and can not shoot at it.

True Strike does not confer the ability to see invisible things (that's a 2nd level spell) what it does do is "Negate the Miss Chance % of being concealed"

 

[Henrix]

The difference?
If the enemy is concealed, and you do not know where he is, you have no target. You cannot target him with spells, nor attacks.
But true Strike helps you if you know roughly (the right 5' square) where he is.

I think that otherwise you're giving too much power to a first level spell, as it can be abused as a superb Detect Enemies*.
You could use it in lieu of spot, See Invisible, Detect Evil, etc. And with better results, as you get an attack as you use it, as well as pinpoint the location.


But if that's how you want it, sure.
I'd never leave home without it if you were my DM!


Improved Invisibility with Non-Detection, bah!

Is that a Mimic over there? Soon find out!


* An old RuneQuest spell from the early editions, that wreaked havoc on many plans...

 

[Henrix]

Zen archers can do funky stuff. So can blind samurai.

But not as first level characters!

 

[hong]

Shilsen is correct. the true strike spell only negates the "Miss chance" effect of being concealed. It does not negate anything else, it does not make fog go away, it does not make the target visible. If you do not have any idea where the target is, then you can't shoot at it. Unless you know where the target is, it's jst not possible. But after making a listen or spot check to know that somebody is invisible near you then the spell takes effect, the target still retains any other bonus' due to being invisible, you are still denied your dex if he attacks you, but the "Miss Chance" is negated if you manage to get a shot off.

And I maintain that the "5' square" requirement is an artifact of the way the rules handle concealment and invisibility. It stands to reason that if true strike confers sufficiently precise detail to negate the miss chance for total concealment, it would also provide enough broad information to make having to pinpoint a 5' square unnecessary.

True strike is not a targeted spell, that only works against a designated target. Nor is it an area spell. It works on the caster.

True Strike does not confer the ability to see invisible things (that's a 2nd level spell) what it does do is "Negate the Miss Chance % of being concealed"

Whether or not this is true, it's also irrelevant.

 

[hong]

But not as first level characters!

Pish tosh, and pfaugh, I say.

 

[hong]

The difference?
If the enemy is concealed, and you do not know where he is, you have no target. You cannot target him with spells, nor attacks.
But true Strike helps you if you know roughly (the right 5' square) where he is.

I have no idea what you're referring to here, since you didn't quote anything. I assume you're talking about the bit where I questioned what the difference was between not being concealed and negating the miss chance due to concealment. I'm quite aware of the difference _as stated in the rules_. I also think it's nothing more than an artifact of how the rules handle this situation. In-game, I fail to see how negating a miss chance can mean anything other than not being concealed.

I think that otherwise you're giving too much power to a first level spell, as it can be abused as a superb Detect Enemies*.
You could use it in lieu of spot, See Invisible, Detect Evil, etc. And with better results, as you get an attack as you use it, as well as pinpoint the location.

Huh?

Is that a Mimic over there? Soon find out!

Explain how true strike would help you in this situation.

* An old RuneQuest spell from the early editions, that wreaked havoc on many plans...

You'll be glad to know there's an invisibility to enemies spell in OA, then....

 

[Henrix]

What I am saying hong, is that evidently, in your interpretation of the spell, you do not know where, or whether, there's an enemy around.

You just cast True Strike, fire off an arrow, and *thud* there he was.
That could be abused in an infinite number of ways, and wuold be rather ridiculous, in particular for a first level spell.

And that is not how attacking unlocated invisible enemies work, as per the DMG, p. 78:
"If acharacter tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack."

And there's nothing in the True Strike description that says it will help you pinpoint an enemy.

 

[hong]

What I am saying hong, is that evidently, in your interpretation of the spell, you do not know where, or whether, there's an enemy around.

You just cast True Strike, fire off an arrow, and *thud* there he was.
That could be abused in an infinite number of ways, and wuold be rather ridiculous, in particular for a first level spell.

Since this is a balance issue, I'll address it from the balance point of view. Recall that the only thing that the "choose a 5' square" rule really affects is invisible opponents (you can have other instances of total concealment, but invisibility is the main bear).

I think it's a given that invisibility is one of the most powerful 2nd level spells around. I think it's also a given that more encounters have been short-circuited by invisible opponents than just about any other tactic out there, except perhaps detect evil or divination. From this point of view, anything that reduces the power of invisibility is a Good Thing, as far as game balance is concerned.

Also, I don't see how it's such a big deal that 1st level casters can use true strike. A 1st level wizard can cast TS once per day, or twice with the Int bonus. A 1st level sorc can cast it 3 or 4 times per day. In both cases, that's _all_ their spells used up for the day, just to detect invisible opponents. I'm not aware of any DM who habitually sends a 1st level party against invisible creatures up to 3-4 times per day.

And that is not how attacking unlocated invisible enemies work, as per the DMG, p. 78:
"If acharacter tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack."

And there's nothing in the True Strike description that says it will help you pinpoint an enemy.

It's a divination spell that negates concealment. It says nothing about having to choose a particular 5' square in which to negate concealment, nor does it require choosing a specific target. In this case, I think a broad reading of the intent of the spell is fair enough.

 

[KarinsDad]

Archer, skunian and Cl1mh4224rd covered it to an extent, but to directly answer your question, "negating concealment miss chances" means that if you happen to aim in the right place and then score a hit (quite likely, due to the +20 bonus) on the invisible opponent, then you don't roll the 50% miss chance. But you do have to score a hit (as the PHB description of concelment states, the miss chance only comes into play when you roll well enough to hit), and if you're aiming somewhere that the target is not, you automatically can't. Simple.

This is magic we are talking about guys, not physics.

It's a DIVINATION spell.

It divines something.

It does not divine miss chances, that is a side effect of the spell.

What it does divine is the EXACT location of the target, precise enough that you get +20 to your attack roll.

It also ignores concealment.

Completely.

Not partially due to a mechanic of miss chances, but completely. The indication in the spell of negating miss chances is merely telling the players of the game which mechanic is negated.

Concealment = miss chance due to concealment.

If you have no miss chance due to concealment, you have no concealment.

If you have no concealment, you have no miss chance due to concealment.

How can you have one without the other?

The miss chance is merely the mechanic on how to handle concealment.

They are one and the same as far as the game is concerned.

So, if your opponent is in Fog and you cast True Strike, you KNOW due to the divination nature of the spell where he is for that split second that you fire a weapon.

If your opponent is Invisible and you cast True Strike, you KNOW due to the divination nature of the spell where he is for that split second that you fire a weapon.

Think of that scene in Star Trek VI where they target the Invisible Bird of Prey with a Photon Torpedo. That is what we are discussing.

Well I'd have to say he is basing his conclusion off of common sense.

Hmmm.

Not convinced.

Yes, there is a “50% and must guess target’s location” specification in the Total Concealment section, but really.

How can you negate one without negating the other?

How can you negate his concealment miss chance without negating his concealment?

That is what you guys are claiming.

That doesn’t seem to make common sense[\i].

If I know within 25 square feet of where you are, I get a huge +20 to hit, but if I’m off by a few feet, I miss you completely every time.

Doesn’t sound like magic to me.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

IMO, True Strike only helps with the actual attack. Knowing where the target is remains your responsibility.

If you fire an arrow to the north, True Strike will not help you hit a target that is actually to the south.

KarinsDad, I don't buy your logic. You can shoot at things all day that are not invisible and you know EXACTLY where they are, but you don't get a +20 bonus. Obviously True Strike does something more.

You must actually attack something. Until you attack it, it is not a target. Only once you have actually attacked it, do the benefits of True Strike come into play.

If you shoot at an invisible target and guess the wrong place to shoot, you don't need to roll, you just miss. Even if you do roll and get a 20, you still miss. True Strike making the roll better does not change that.

Plus, it is simply obvious from Table 8-10 and the True Strike description. Total Concealment provides 2 separate advantages to the would-be target. True Strike specifcally refers to one and not the other.