D&D 3E/3.5 3.5: Seeking and Incorporeal Creatures

[Isiolith]

Seeking, as defined:

"...negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

The way I read this is that as long as the attacker knows what square his target's in, he -never- has to roll a miss chance. Correct? If so, does this apply to the 50% miss chance when dealing with incorporeal creatures?

Thanks.

 

[Dandu]

That 50% miss chance is not due to concealment.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

"Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

Concealment is just one example of a miss chance, it's not the complete list of the only things Seeking overcomes. Seeking says it ignores any miss chance. Incorporeality yields a miss chance for magic weapons. Therefore, Seeking weapons ignore it.

 

[Dandu]

I have found out that incoporeals do not actually have a miss chance so much as a chance to ignore damage.

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

So if you had an effect that triggered on a hit, even if the attack did no damage (most such things only apply if an attack does damage I know, but this is hypothetical), would it trigger if someone with a magic weapon hit the incorp creature's AC but failed the 50% roll? Genuinely interested in how that would work, and the answer to that would answer the OP's question (if it's a "failure to do damage roll" seeking doesn't help; if you rule that it completely negates the hit then it's clearly a "miss chance" even though it wasn't specifically named that).

EDIT: I have an example! The Stormguard Warrior feat has a tactic to make melee touch attacks for no damage, and for each hit, you get to deal +5 damage on all your attacks against that foe the next turn. So...would the incorp's 50% protection apply to that?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

But I agree that seeking doesn't bypass the % chance to ignore damage quality of incorporeal. That's what ghost touch is all about.

 

[Dandu]

So if you had an effect that triggered on a hit, even if the attack did no damage (most such things only apply if an attack does damage I know, but this is hypothetical), would it trigger if someone with a magic weapon hit the incorp creature's AC but failed the 50% roll?

Sure, why not?

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

Well, it certainly produces a chance to miss...

 

[TanisFrey]

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

But I agree that seeking doesn't bypass the % chance to ignore damage quality of incorporeal. That's what ghost touch is all about.

Yes and no. There is a chance to miss but it does not interfere with a rogue's ability to sneak attack like concealment can.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

In the same way a higher AC increases your chance of being missed... Seriously though, you get the difference, right? In the case of concealment and incorp., it's a percentile roll, on top of the roll to "hit," that doesn't make the two functionally the same as any old thing that makes you harder to hit. It doesn't necessarily mean they're equivalent, either of course.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In the case of mirror image and miss chances, I meant to question whether the "any miss chances that would otherwise apply" clause in the seeking enhancement (per the OP) might be ruled to allow a weapon to ignore the effect of the mirror image spell, not about mirror image and sneak attacks.