Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dwarmaj" data-source="post: 1394966" data-attributes="member: 1493">He's what happened...I'm running some PCs through a series of "arena" type combats 4PCs vs 4 NPCs. They do a couple of one on ones, a 2on2, and a free for all. I'm DMing the NPCs (which the ranger (Drow ranger9/wizard1/peerless archer3) is. The PCs and NPCs know each others strengths and weaknesses and have battled each other seveal times before (we had 5th and 10th level matches before this 15th level match). In a previous match the cleric turned ethereal and came back in 10 rounds later fully buffed and killed his opponant in a single round (a fully buffed melee cleric is pretty tough).In this battle:Round 1Ranger rapid shoots the cleric for over 1/2 his hits. (the ranger is trying to take him out before he buffs up)The ranger's friend (bard shadowdancer) casts silence and moves next to the cleric. This forces the cleric to move and either heal (and get pelted again next round) or move and go ethereal. The ranger and bard knew this was going to happen as soon as initiative was determined and they both beat out the cleric.The cleric moved, casted quickened Obscuring Mist, then Ethereal Jaunt.Round 2The ranger, knowing that his opponant couldn't have moved, is either in the same square fully healed or in the same square ethereal. Either way, force arrows were in order (better to hit and do a bit less damage than to miss entirely). He casted a quickened true strike (rod of quicken, lesser) and manyshot/powershot the cleric.The player playing the cleric brought up the question as to whether or not the ranger should be able to target a square that he can't see. I thought that the ranger should be able to target the last position of the cleric (even through the mist) since he saw the cleric go there and couldn't find anything in the rules that says that you can't target any square in range. If the ranger didn't have seeking or true strike (didn't need to have both) then he would have had a 50% miss chance because of concealment.</blockquote>

Verification