True Strike and Invisibility question

[IceBear]

I view this quite simply.

What is the miss chance for invisibiliy? 50%, right? IF you guess the right square, right?

So using true strike will void out the 50% miss chance, but certainly not help you guess which square is correct. If you can guess the correct square, True Strike helps you. If you can't, it does not help you.

Simple, eh?

Well, I agree with you and I do think it's that simple.

Unfortunately, people read the concealment chart to state that 100% concealment means 50% miss chance and you must guess the target's location as ONE thing. Thus, they read TS as eliminating the 50% miss chance and the fact that you have to guess the target's location.

IceBear

 

[novyet]

I view this quite simply.

What is the miss chance for invisibiliy? 50%, right? IF you guess the right square, right?

So using true strike will void out the 50% miss chance, but certainly not help you guess which square is correct. If you can guess the correct square, True Strike helps you. If you can't, it does not help you.

Simple, eh?

That's the way every group I've been with has handled it. Why read more into it than is actually there?

 

[IceBear]

That's the way every group I've been with has handled it. Why read more into it than is actually there?

Hmmmm - you haven't been on here long

That's what 50% of these threads are about - someone reading more into something than there is.

IceBear

 

[KarinsDad]

That's what 50% of these threads are about - someone reading more into something than there is.

Or even someone reading differently what is there than what the status quo insists is there.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

let me just say that "must guess target's location" is not a quantitative value. i don't know if that means anything to anyone, but i don't believe it qualifies as a miss chance.

 

[kreynolds]

"Like the sands of an hourglass, these are the Days of Our Lives"

That show never seems to end either, kinda like this thread.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

" miss chance : The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location.

miss chance roll : a d% roll to determine the success of an attack roll to which a miss chance applies." pg. 279 PHB

"Invisibility description in the DMG: "the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (50% miss chance )" pg 78 DMG.

"If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there..." pg 78 DMG.

"...you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attacks against a concealed target." pg. 267 PHB True Strike description.
.
.
.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a miss chance is a chance to miss .

True strike negates "the possibility that a successful attack roll misses the target anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location."

This means the attacker must already have a target. Why? In order to make a successful attack roll. Under the definition of miss chance, it already assumes you have a target, if albeit, an "uncertain one."

No target, no attack roll, can't roll for miss chance.

True strike does not negate concealment, even if for only one attack. If it did, the above description would have said, "...you are not affected by the concealment of the target."

 

[novyet]

Hmmmm - you haven't been on here long

That's what 50% of these threads are about - someone reading more into something than there is.

IceBear

Heh, actually I've been around for quite a while, I just don't post much, but yeah there does seem to be a lot of that going around.

 

[IceBear]

Or even someone reading differently what is there than what the status quo insists is there.

That's true too - nothing wrong with free thinking (didnt' mean to imply that there was). Just because I made the tongue in cheek comment about people reading too much into the rules doesn't mean that I don't think people shouldn't question the rules - honest. I had just finished a debate with one of the Maguses who was try to say that since page 6 of the PHB defines the term "you" as being "your character" then the passage in the book where it states that you can't normally choose to take a partial action does apply to his players only to their characters, so his players could choose to take two partial actions per round. After that, well, I kinda lost it on people reading a little too much into stuff.

It's just that I've been there too. I was with you 100% on the Mindblank vs True Strike issue (and I still think you're technically right by the spell descriptions), but I guess that lately I've been in the frame of mind that if an interpretation opens up a can of worms then I'll stick with the simpliest, "at face value" interreptation (which was why I ended up going with the Sage and not Monte on the Mind Blank ruling - even though by the letter of the spells I think Monte was right).

IceBear

 

[Maudlin]

Oh c'mon, I don't see how the designers could have bent over further backwards to phrase it as saying it is just the percentage miss chance that is ignored, all rationalisations aside. Read the spell again. If it negated concealment, why not just say so?

Absurdity #1:
DM: You're in a pea-soup fog, walking through thick underbrush on a moonless night when you find a note on the forest floor. You read the note: "There is a 20th level rogue hidden somewhere 200 ft from where you're standing."
You: "I take my Arrow of True Strike and shoot the rogue."

Absurdity #2:
Said rogue faintly hears someone making his way through said underbrush and -using a scroll of True Strike- blindly fires an arrow at them, incidentally puncturing that mystery person's spleen and doing sneak attack damage. After all, the target's concealment is negated, since he could 'divine' where that person's vulnerable spots would be, right?

I'm surprised nobody has argued that "miss chance is negated" means you automatically hit concealed targets, yet Hey, just close your eyes and you can't miss! The spell says so!