True Strike and Invisibility question

[KarinsDad]

You still have to declare a target for your attack.

How would that work?
You walk into a seemingly unoccupied room, cast True Strike, and say "I will shoot the invisible guy I think is in this room" and fire at random?

What?

You walk into a room. You cast True Strike. You attack the invisible guy. It might be your ally. The spell might fizzle if there is nobody in there. The GM might roll randomly if there are 5 invisible guys in there.

You walk into a room. You do not cast True Strike. You attack the corner of the room, hoping to hit an invisible guy there. If one is there, you might hit him.

You walk into a room. You cast Augury about shooting into the corner. Does the Augury automatically not take into account the invisible guy standing there because it cannot perceive him?

Why would Invisibility foil one type of non-sight related divination and not another? Yes, some people think True Strike relies on sight, but it doesn't. It's insight, not sight. Otherwise, it would not automatically work (95% of the time if you do not roll a one on the to hit) against Displacement.

This is magic we are talking about. Magic allows characters to fly and teleport across the world and go to other planes of existence.

You walk into a room. You cast Detect Evil. Does the Detect Evil automatically not work because it cannot perceive the invisible guy standing there?

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that a divination spell can give you insight on where to attack on the next round? You get the urge to fire over by that rock for example.

Also, you can declare an attack against anyone at any time in the game, even if they are not there.

“I fire my arrow up into that tree, hoping to hit any bandits that might be lurking there over the road.”

Are you prevented from doing this just because you do not KNOW that someone is there?

Ditto for True Strike. If you cast it, it will work to the best of its ability. If there are several targets that may be applicable, the GM has the option to either disallow it, or decide for the spell, either randomly or based on some criteria.

But, that does not mean that you cannot make the attempt and that the spell will not try to assist in guiding your aim. If there is only one target available or you have a good idea about your target (i.e. the spell caster that just went invisible), I would imagine that most GMs that interpret True Strike as I do would just let the spell do its work.

 

[Pielorinho]

I could easily imagine that true strike requires you to know approximately where your opponent is. The spell gives you "temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack." The way I read that, it doesn't help you acquire a target: it simply helps you anticipate the target's movements a little bit, so that you can aim for the vitals.

If you have no idea where your opponent is, then you don't have enough information to even make your next attack, and the spell fails.

Since this interpretation is in keeping with the spell's writeup, and since the alternative (spell helps you acquire a target in addition to hitting a target) isn't in keeping with the spell's writeup, I'll use my version.

I can understand the argument that KD and Hong are using. I consider it a house rule, but a fairly minor one.

Daniel

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The way I read that, it doesn't help you acquire a target: it simply helps you anticipate the target's movements a little bit, so that you can aim for the vitals.

i can't agree with the vitals part, but i do agree with your first statement. nowhere in the description of true strike does it suggest you can hit a target you don't even know is there. if you don't have something to shoot at, then, well... you don't have a target, and can't make use of true strike.

some people are just reading too much into spell. it's divination, yes. it's also a 1st level spell. all divination spells are not of the same power. just because it's divination does not grant you the "all seeing eye" or internal awareness of everything around you. there are different levels of power here.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Well, the target of True Strike is you[\].

You are given insight. You are given an edge. You ignore miss chances and get +20 to hit.

You also get to decide who you want to get the +20 versus. Just like all combat, you can decide whom you wish to attack.

Any character can attack the invisible guy at any time. The difference is that most characters will not know where he is, so they will be guessing. True Strike is magic that takes the guess work away for the caster.

You are ignoring the point.

True Strike only benefits your attack, your attack must have a target. If you don't have a target to attack, you can not benefit from the spell.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

You walk into a room. You cast True Strike. You attack the invisible guy. It might be your ally. The spell might fizzle if there is nobody in there. The GM might roll randomly if there are 5 invisible guys in there.

You walk into a room. You do not cast True Strike. You attack the corner of the room, hoping to hit an invisible guy there. If one is there, you might hit him.

You walk into a room. You cast Augury about shooting into the corner. Does the Augury automatically not take into account the invisible guy standing there because it cannot perceive him?

"You attack the invisible guy." How? If you shoot the wrong direction, does the arrow become a heat seeking missle? If you cast True Strike and the guess the correct square, you get all the benefits. If you guess the wrong square, you miss. period.

Augury does one thing and Ture Strike does another.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that a divination spell can give you insight on where to attack on the next round? You get the urge to fire over by that rock for example.

That is easy to comprehend. What is very difficult to comprehend is where any words in the specific spell True Strike indicate that it gives this ability.

 

[hong]

True Strike only benefits your attack, your attack must have a target. If you don't have a target to attack, you can not benefit from the spell.

Note that nothing prevents you choosing a target after casting the spell (indeed, that might be considered to be the point). As said before, TS is not a targeted spell (or if it is, the target is you). It also isn't an area spell, where choosing a specific 5' square is necessary to gain the benefit.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Note that nothing prevents you choosing a target after casting the spell (indeed, that might be considered to be the point). As said before, TS is not a targeted spell (or if it is, the target is you). It also isn't an area spell, where choosing a specific 5' square is necessary to gain the benefit.

Agreed

 

[Pielorinho]

Note that nothing prevents you choosing a target after casting the spell (indeed, that might be considered to be the point). As said before, TS is not a targeted spell (or if it is, the target is you). It also isn't an area spell, where choosing a specific 5' square is necessary to gain the benefit.

Certainly true strike isn't a targeted spell. However, an attack requires a target, and the spell doesn't help you choose a target: its only benefits kick in once you roll to hit your chosen target.

This is, at least, how the spell is written, and I've described a way to envision the spell that matches this description. Other ways of ruling the spell make it slightly, but not overbearingly, more powerful.

Daniel

 

[Jeremy]

Who ever would have thought the little 1st level spell would be at the center of such heated debates.

"I'm not sure about this Cover bonus stuff on the Shield spell, Tweet..."

"Trust me Monte. It's all good."

<Skip>"Hopefully the first level spells are simple enough that there won't be the need for too many Sage advice clarifications on them."

Damn True Strike!!



Oh, BTW IMHO it says it negates concealment, invisibility is 100% concealment that is 100% negated. I don't know why it works, but it says what it does, so I'd have to guess it does what it says.

((Edit: See Invisibility, 2nd level spell that allows you to "see" for 10 minutes per level. True Strike, 1st level spell that allows a very good chance to hit a target that you suspect is there for one round without getting to know any details about him--i.e. friend/foe. I have no problem with the relative power of those two. Especially since, unless someone is metagaming, the person who cast true strike probably has reason to believe someone is in the room, hence summons his ancestors to guide his arrow, closes his eyes, intuitively turns in the right direction due to his ancestors magic, and lets fly. Zen.))

 

[Psyduck]

I wish I came to this board sooner today

Here is my two cents, and they may be worth quite a bit here.

According to the rules strictly here, turn to the page in the PHB where it lists concealment. (I don't have PHB with me). There is a chart that says the concealment types, and miss chances next to them. Notice the last entry. Under the column labeled "Miss Chance", the entry reads "50% (must guess targets location)". If the spell negates this "miss chance", then it negates the second column's entry, which is "50% (must guess target location". Of course, I may be wrong because I am doing this from memory, but this is the best way to determine how true strike affects invisibility.