True Strike and Invisibility question

[KarinsDad]

Re: True Strike Rocks (but not that much)

This is just one arguement. I could take it to ridiculus extreems...you are outside, there are 25 birds and one evil wizard within bow range, which does it target?

What is ridiculous is that you think that coming up with a ridiculous example illustrates a valid counter argument.

If a spell caster WANTS to waste his True Strike attempting to shoot into the dark, why should a DM disallow it?

Oops. You hit a bird.

The spell is not flawless, even if you do not interpret it my way. So, given my interpretation, most players will not even attempt that. If they do, they still might not get the result they want. Oh well. That does not make my interpretation any less valid.

However, at least with my interpretation, one spell has some utility versus total concealment. Very few if any other spells in the game have that in the majority of cases.

And with my interpretation, the spell has more utility for more mundane elements of the game which a lot of people just do not want to waste time over. For example, a rabbit just ran into those bushes. I cannot see it, but I know it is there. I am starving, but my True Strike spell will give me an excellent chance at getting dinner after all.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

It is a dark night. You take out your composite longbow and cast true strike. There is a small dog 1,000 ft. away. In the opposite direction, also 1,000 ft. away is a 20th level wizard. Neither is invisible but it is dark so you cannot see them.

Are you saying that true strike tells you they are there, were they are, and which each is, or do you just know there are two targets and you have to randomly pick one.

Random selection.

However - there is only one target that responds to the spell - when dealing with that which is not seen there is only one target that responds this way... This is where you send the arrow.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But, it really is not great.

...and it doesn't have to be.

 

[IceBear]

...and it doesn't have to be.

Especially since it's only a 1st level spell.

KD, even Magus seems to hold the condition that you have to be aware of your target.

Just saying it's magic doesn't hold it for me. The spell is a divination spell in that it makes sure that your next attack is nearly perfect (+20 to hit and ignore the miss chance). That doesn't mean it also finds the optimum target for you as well. If a fighter was in melee combat with two orcs in the fog, would it target the one with the lowest hitpoints so he could drop it that round and then cleave the other? Of course not, it would work against the one he's targetting, just like it would work if he were shooting an arrow at an invisible wizard - he'd have to target the wizard first.

Sure the dog and wizard example is pretty extreme, but if you were pointing somewhere between the wizard and dog, you would have the spell turn you towards one of them and THEN you attack with the +20? You get the benefits of the spell ON your next attack, not before.

Again, you feel that this change wouldn't make the spell too much more powerful while we feel it opens it to abuse. All I have to say is that it's a pretty good spell as written, and it's only a 1st level spell, it doesn't have to be better.

IceBear

 

[shilsen]

Just one more question for those who think that True Strike should allow you to target invisible creatures. How would you rule in the following situation? A spellcaster knows that there is an invisible creature in the area, and casts True Strike. So he detects the invisible creature. When his turn comes up next round, instead of using a weapon or spell that benefits from the +20 bonus, he casts a Flaming Sphere on the invisible creature. Shouldn't be a problem, since he has detected its precise location, due to the True Strike. Is that how you see it?

 

[Shiva]

In either case, the chances of missing are huge. That might be why the “guess their location” is part of the Miss Chance column. Missing is not just your percentage chance, it is also your chance, regardless of mechanics you use (Scent, Spot, Listen, Guess) to pinpoint the target.

Might be, but I doubt it. If the authors meant for guess to be incorporate in all concealment percentages, it's more likely this would have been indicated in the main discussion.
It's included in the table next to the "Total" entry, in an awkward position, so I think it applies only to that entry.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

A list of irrelevant comparisons does not change anything. It is far more reasonable (not to mention obvious) that needing to select a target area is not a "chance", but the chance miss table is a logical place for reminding the player of that fact.

How far away from you can a spell with a range of personal detect a target?

And no matter how broadly you incorrectly define "during the attack", you have not explained how you can even start to attack someone you don't know the location of. There must be some instant in time at which the attack, by any definition, starts. Prior to this point, TS has no effect. Therefore, you can not know the location until during the attack. An obvious logical dead-end.

Not that logic or obvious facts seem relevant to this debate.

 

[Antikinesis]

It is far more reasonable (not to mention obvious) that needing to select a target area is not a "chance", but the chance miss table is a logical place for reminding the player of that fact.

It's also obvious (I thought you said not to mention "obvious". Sorry. Old joke. From an old joker. ) the chance involved in choosing a square to attack is listed in the column "Miss Chance".

How far away from you can a spell with a range of personal detect a target?

The range is YOU. The target of the spell is NOT the target of the attack.

And no matter how broadly you incorrectly define "during the attack", you have not explained how you can even start to attack someone you don't know the location of.

I guess I'm choosing to "broadly incorrectly define" the attack as including the targeting portion of the attack.

There must be some instant in time at which the attack, by any definition, starts. Prior to this point, TS has no effect. Therefore, you can not know the location until during the attack. An obvious logical dead-end.

I agree... and I also propose that targeting is part of the attack. TS gives you insight into your next attack. I have conceded that you need to know a target exists in order for there to be an attack from which to divine the insight. But if you have awareness of a target, then foreseeing the correct placement of your attack isn't so far-fetched (as fantasy RPG logic goes, anyhow).

Not that logic or obvious facts seem relevant to this debate.

I guess we're fortunate to have a contributor who already knows all the facts and is such a superior master of logic to interpret ambiguous rules for us. Lighten up, Dude! It's a game.

-AK

 

[IceBear]

As you said, you would require that you have to have awareness of the target. I don't have so much of an issue with allowing this. It's the stance that you don't even need to have awareness of the target that I have an issue with.

That's how this thread started off, and that's what I'm arguing against. If everyone has modified their stance to you must have awareness of the target then I don't care anymore (although what "awareness" means is something else )

However, it does then get arbitrary on when true strike works.

1) You see a wizard turn invisible in the far corner of the room and fire there. Yup, true strike works.

2) A wizard runs into another room. You chase him into the next room and he turns invisible and then casts a quickened teleport to appear in the room behind you that you just left. As far as your concerned, your target is the wizard but he's no longer where you are aiming. Should I rule that True Strike informs you that he is now behind you as you prepare to fire at where he was? What if the wizard teleported to his secret lair in the Abyss? Should I tell you where he went?

The reason why I would require you to target a creature or square first, before applying the benefits of the spell, is to avoid having to deal with answering these new questions that this ruling would allow. I like to keep things simple, so I try not to make rulings that will open up cans of worms like this - what's the limit on the information that True Strike grants.

Again, if you're going to allow True Strike to grant so much information, then I'd have to go with Monte and allow Mind Blank to block it as it becomes the ideal divination spell.

"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"

Yes, I know that this is a ridiculous ruling, but I do think that it's consistent if you ruling that True Strike works without requiring a target that you can designates it position.

IceBear

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The range is YOU. The target of the spell is NOT the target of the attack.

Right, so how can it provide information to you about some other 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. Givign you information about the target of the attack would require that the spell actual also target the target.

I agree... and I also propose that targeting is part of the attack. TS gives you insight into your next attack. I have conceded that you need to know a target exists in order for there to be an attack from which to divine the insight. But if you have awareness of a target, then foreseeing the correct placement of your attack isn't so far-fetched (as fantasy RPG logic goes, anyhow).

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

Also, far-fetched for fantasy is one thing, far-fetched for a 1st level D&D 3E spell is another and far fetched for a reading of the wording of TS is yet another. I find this idea completely acceptable for the first idea, debateable, but no big deal for the second and completely out for the third.