questions about "Seeking" weapon enhancement

[atom crash]

OK, so today I started playing a rogue2/ranger6 with a +1 composite longbow of seeking. I'm thinking that I have a sweet weapon ability here ("seeking") for the cost of a +1 enhancement, but I could be overestimating its utility. Just for my own edification -- I want to know if I have a saltine here or just a regular old cracker -- I'd like to clarify/verify a few points:

Seeking: 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.)

I'm assuming that this weapon negates the miss chance for things like blur and displacement as well as from mundane sources of concealment. If I aim at the correct square, does it also negate the miss chance of an invisible target? It appears that it does; I'd like to verify that.

I'm also assuming that I can sneak attack a target that has concealment, since my weapon negates that miss chance. Is this correct?

How does this weapon interact with a target under the effects of a mirror image spell? How does this weapon affect firing into a grapple?

Thanks.

 

[Jdvn1]

I don't think it works against invisibility, no.

Sneak Attack rules apply normally, so I think you can do it.

Mirror Image, I believe, does not provide concealment, so it doesn't help.

And the weapon quality isn't any more useful for firing into a grapple.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you target the correct square an invisible creature is in, you hit that creature. The miss chance (from total concealment) is negated.

If you fire into a grapple, you don't really have a miss chance. What you have is a "random target" chance. That being said, I'd house-rule it to include grappling.

This enhancement seems to allow sneak attacks.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Invisibility grants concealment, therefore, I would have to say that seeking would work against an invisible opponent (ie. no miss chance).

However, since seeking does not remove concealment, just the miss chance, then sneak attacks would not be possible with a seeking weapon. Sneak attacks are defined as attacks against vital spots, and the rogue must be able to see such spots to hit them (as per the PHB, page 50, last paragraph of the sneak attack ability description).

Sorry, but that is the way it seams to read to me. YMMV.

 

[Amal Shukup]

See, I'm reading the title of this thread and thinking that you're looking for QUESTIONS...

I'm assuming that this weapon negates the miss chance for things like blur and displacement

Yup and Yup. I was assuming that it would NOT work for Blink, but the Seeking description implies otherwise

...negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply

as well as from mundane sources of concealment.

If it would normally provide a Miss Chance, you ignore it.

If I aim at the correct square, does it also negate the miss chance of an invisible target?

Yup.

I'm also assuming that I can sneak attack a target that has concealment, since my weapon negates that miss chance. Is this correct?

I think not - the Seeking quality obviates the Miss chance - the target is perfectly 'visible' to the weapon - but not to the Rogue who needs to be able to see the vulnerable bits...

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

How does this weapon interact with a target under the effects of a mirror image spell? How does this weapon affect firing into a grapple?

Those don't provide a Miss Chance, merely the opportunity to hit something else instead, so I think not.

Still, a sweet enhancement.

A'Mal

 

[atom crash]

However, since seeking does not remove concealment, just the miss chance, then sneak attacks would not be possible with a seeking weapon.

Yeah, I can see that interpretation. Does "seeking" remove the concealment -- allowing sneak attacks -- or just the miss chance for concealment -- still disallowing sneak attacks. I was hoping for a more liberal interpretation, of course.

See, I'm reading the title of this thread and thinking that you're looking for QUESTIONS...

D'oh. Edited the thread title. But I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

[Jack Simth]

Well now, it doesn't say that the miss chance must come from concealment - it uses "such as" - a fairly clear delimeter of an example. Mirror Image doesn't call the problem a miss chance, and so wouldn't be affected by Seeking; Blink does call it a miss chance, and so would be negated by Seeking; the entry for invisibility under Special Abilities and conditions calls it a Miss Chance, and so Seeking should function there; Incorporeality calls it a chance to ignore damage from a material source, rather than a miss chance, so Seeking would not affect that chance of avoiding a hit.

Just my three cents worth (inflation, you know).

Edit: And several other people posted while I was working on this. Oh well. C'est la vie.

 

[two]

seeking working great vs mirror image

Most people play mirror image so that the images all circulate in the square of the person who cast it.

So, unless I'm on drugs, an archer targeting (for example) a mirror imaged mage could close his eyes as a free action, after determining which square the mage is in, and full attack with the bow of seeking.

The 50% miss chance because of being blind is nullified, and the mirror imaged mage is in trouble.

After your full attack, open your eyes up again.

At least, I think this works.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most people play mirror image so that the images all circulate in the square of the person who cast it.

At least, I think this works.

It works, if they're playing Mirror Image like that.

Of course, the spell itself as written doesn't necessarily require an image to be within six or seven squares of the caster... as long as there's a chain of images no more than five feet apart linking them. Your 'most people' rule doesn't allow for what the spell text clearly shows as a possibility... which happens to make the 'close your eyes' tactic less appealing.

-Hyp.

 

[atom crash]

So, unless I'm on drugs, an archer targeting (for example) a mirror imaged mage could close his eyes as a free action, after determining which square the mage is in, and full attack with the bow of seeking.

I don't think my DM would be happy with that ruling. I'm not sure I agree with it either. I run a game my DM plays in, and I'd hate for that interpretation to come back and bite me.

I'm not looking to exploit a loophole in the rules. I just want to rule correctly in using this weapon.

So it looks like mirror image and firing into a grapple are unaffected. I can hit a concealed, blinking, displaced, blurred or invisible target infallibly (granted I target the right square).

And unfortunately, it looks like I still can't sneak attack concealed targets.