True Strike and Invisibility question

[Antikinesis]

"I cast True Strike and shoot my arrow at the evil warlord"

"Well, the evil warlord is actually 50 miles to the northeast in his bedroom taking a nap. You will have to go there to get the +20 on your attack roll and to overcome his 100% concealment because he's 50 miles away"

WAY too much info. I'd rule it more like this...

"What was your attack roll again? With the +20 modifier?" (Ignoring the attack roll... ) "As you concentrate on the insight provided by your divination, your intuition doesn't draw your aim to any particular location. You loose your arrow, and it lodges firmly into the wall."

TS assists your next attack. If you and your party members are paying attention to where your magical intuition tells you to attack, there's more benefit to be gained... but not from the spell, per se... but from observing the effects of the spell.

-AK

 

[Antikinesis]

Right, so how can it provide information to you about some other target?

It provides information about your next attack. That attack will very likely involve two combatants: yourself, and your target.

I think it is clear that the spell affect only you, making you more capable of hitting the target, using knowledge you already have to divine the best way to accomplish this.

I agree... but I contend that "making you more capable of hitting the target" includes assistance with the targeting of the attack.

Givign you information about the target of the attack would require that the spell actual also target the target.

If your next attack is against a visible target that's 100 feet away, then TS would offer no benefit? I disagree.

But this is circular logic. Foreseeing, by defintion, come before the event. The spell only come into play after the event starts.

Yeah, but by knowing the future, one can change the future, so the knowing couldn't have occurred, etc. Classis paradox. That's the problem with divination magic.

-AK

(Edit: Spelling, missing word or two. Nothing significant.)

 

[IceBear]

WAY too much info. I'd rule it more like this...

"What was your attack roll again? With the +20 modifier?" (Ignoring the attack roll... ) "As you concentrate on the insight provided by your divination, your intuition doesn't draw your aim to any particular location. You loose your arrow, and it lodges firmly into the wall."

TS assists your next attack. If you and your party members are paying attention to where your magical intuition tells you to attack, there's more benefit to be gained... but not from the spell, per se... but from observing the effects of the spell.

-AK

Exactly - too much info. But you know know the direction the evil warlord is in when you might not have known this before. As per the DNDFAQ, not even discern location can defeat mind blank, but you could use multiple castings of TS to locate someone now. There is nothing in the description of the spell that implies you could do this. We are taking the part where it states you ignore miss chance and extrapolating it to providing information on where the target is located. That's obviously too much info, but being able to target an invisible person that you haven't located via Spot or Listen is the same thing.

Again, I have to ask, since the spell assists your next attack how does it know what you're attacking if you have detected it yourself. If you enter a room with a rope hanging from the ceiling and an invisible wizard stands under the rope (and you have some inkling that there is an invisible wizard around, but not preceisely where) how does the spell know that you aren't aiming at the rope when you shoot the arrow?

If a character made an attack without True Strike I would ask him what he was attacking, and if he wasn't attacking anything I would ask what 5ft square was he swing through. It wouldn't be until then that I would ask for him to roll a d20. I don't ask for him to roll a d20 (which would be when the TS effect comes into play - "your next attack") and then tell me what he was swing at. Why would I do it differently if he has TS cast?

I really wish that this spell wasn't a divination spell. The whole fact that it's a divination spell is what allows even the idea that this might work. It's the same with the whole Does Mind Blank stop True Strike thread.

I also think that people are using the term "targetting" as providing the +20 on the hit where I see it as actually choosing the target.

IceBear

 

[Antikinesis]

Exactly - too much info. But you know know the direction the evil warlord is in when you might not have known this before.

Not exactly... I said that your intuition does NOT lead your aim to any particular direction. If you have no awareness of a target, or if your target isn't around any more, TS can't help with the attack.

As per the DNDFAQ, not even discern location can defeat mind blank, but you could use multiple castings of TS to locate someone now. There is nothing in the description of the spell that implies you could do this. We are taking the part where it states you ignore miss chance and extrapolating it to providing information on where the target is located. That's obviously too much info,

We're in agreement here. See above.

but being able to target an invisible person that you haven't located via Spot or Listen is the same thing.

Here, we disagree. I feel the insight from TS helps with targeting (provided a target is available, and caster has awareness of target.)

Again, I have to ask, since the spell assists your next attack how does it know what you're attacking if you have detected it yourself. If you enter a room with a rope hanging from the ceiling and an invisible wizard stands under the rope (and you have some inkling that there is an invisible wizard around, but not preceisely where) how does the spell know that you aren't aiming at the rope when you shoot the arrow?

The spell doesn't aim for you. It helps YOU aim at your chosen target. If your chosen target is acquirable and invisible, you get some insight about which direction to attack, since there isn't a miss chance to contend with.

If a character made an attack without True Strike I would ask him what he was attacking, and if he wasn't attacking anything I would ask what 5ft square was he swing through. It wouldn't be until then that I would ask for him to roll a d20. I don't ask for him to roll a d20 (which would be when the TS effect comes into play - "your next attack") and then tell me what he was swing at. Why would I do it differently if he has TS cast?

Because he's using a magic spell to assist his attack.

-AK

 

[IceBear]

The spell doesn't aim for you. It helps YOU aim at your chosen target. If your chosen target is acquirable and invisible, you get some insight about which direction to attack, since there isn't a miss chance to contend with.

-AK

Correct. You have to have choosen a target, the spell doesn't choose the target for you. So, if there if you think there is an invisible creature in the room, but you have insufficient information to choose that target, then the spell doesn't help, correct? If you are unsure as to where the invisible wizard is how can you choose to target him? If you don't even know what he looks like or what his name is, how to you tell the spell what you're planning on targetting?

I wouldn't have an issue if someone wanted to design a higher level spell that could accomplish what you are suggesting here, I just don't think that the 1st level spell True Strike does that.

Because he's using a magic spell to assist his attack.
-AK

So, the normal process of choosing your target and then attacking it is changed with this spell? It doesn't say that in the spell description. If you play that way then I'd roll my attack roll and based on my result I'd choose to target the lowest AC target if I rolled badly, or the higher AC target if a rolled good. That's not right.



IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

It provides information about your next attack. That attack will very likely involve two combatants: yourself, and your target.

But now you are letting the spell target your target, which it does not do.

I agree... but I contend that "making you more capable of hitting the target" includes assistance with the targeting of the attack.

fine, but you must start that effort on your own, then the spell helps you get it right. Until you first start it, the spell clearly does not help.

If your next attack is against a visible target that's 100 feet away, then TS would offer no benefit? I disagree.

When did I say anything like that????

Once you start the attack, the spell makes you better at hitting your target, whether it is visible or not. But if you don't know where the target is, you can't start an attack against it (without guessing a location).

Yeah, but by knowing the future, one can change the future, so the knowing couldn't have occurred, etc. Classis paradox. That's the problem with divination magic.

That is not this situation at all. It is not any classic paradox. You are acting now based on information you don't yet have. Even if you allow paradox, you can not change your behavior now based on a divination that will not gain until later on.

 

[Antikinesis]

Correct. You have to have choosen a target, the spell doesn't choose the target for you. So, if there if you think there is an invisible creature in the room, but you have insufficient information to choose that target, then the spell doesn't help, correct? If you are unsure as to where the invisible wizard is how can you choose to target him? If you don't even know what he looks like or what his name is, how to you tell the spell what you're planning on targetting?

Now you're quibbling over the definition of "aware". I refuse to be pulled into that one. My answer is "DM's discretion." I'd allow a player to cast TS and choose the target, "The invisible @#$%& that just put a crossbow bolt in my gut!", but that's just my own discretion.

So, the normal process of choosing your target and then attacking it is changed with this spell? It doesn't say that in the spell description. If you play that way then I'd roll my attack roll and based on my result I'd choose to target the lowest AC target if I rolled badly, or the higher AC target if a rolled good. That's not right.

Now you're being silly. Of course a player has to choose a target. Again, if he's using magic to help discern where to attack, and he describes a reasonable target (even an invisible reasonable target, and I refuse to define "reasonable"), he just might get some insight about which direction to point his bow, due to the lack of "miss chance" for concealment.

-AK

 

[IceBear]

Now you're being silly. Of course a player has to choose a target. Again, if he's using magic to help discern where to attack, and he describes a reasonable target (even an invisible reasonable target, and I refuse to define "reasonable"), he just might get some insight about which direction to point his bow, due to the lack of "miss chance" for concealment.

-AK

Maybe I'm being a little silly, but I am just trying to go to extremes to show where a rules lawyer could go with this ruling. The spell description, to me, states that it gives you an insight bonus on your next attack, and as Unicorn has been saying, you have to choose your target before you attack. At the instant that you choose your target, the spell kicks in giving you the insight into the optimumal way to attack him. But you have to choose your target first.

Again, I don't have so much of an issue with the way YOU would rule this, but rather the way that KD initially arguing that the spell would allow you to target something that you are completely unaware of (Actually, I'm not sure that KD was actively advocating this, but in his responses to some sample scenarioes he seemed to imply he would allow it).

In my case, if someone walked into a room and took a crossbow bolt from an improved invisible wizard, I'd allow them to shoot back at that wizard with TS with the +20 and ignoring miss chance. If that wizard, however, shot him and then moved 180 degrees behind where the PC was shooting at I would not. With my DM's discretion, the player is targeting where the crossbow attack came from not the invisible wizard because he doesn't even have enough information to determine that it was an invisible wizard and not an invisible fighter, an arrow trap, etc.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

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?

 

[Henrix]

Simple, eh?

It certainly seems as simple, and relatively clear cut, to me