-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
True Strike and Invisibility question
- Thread starter Arcanus
- Start date
Something tells me not...
Cl1mh4224rd
First Post
for the love of god...
everyone arguing for true strike hitting invisible creatures keeps using, and ignoring, the word """"target"""".
"waahh... it negates concealment for your target, so it works against invisibility. waahh..."
there are certain things you need to accomplish before you can even """"target"""" an invisible creature.
everyone arguing for true strike hitting invisible creatures keeps using, and ignoring, the word """"target"""".
"waahh... it negates concealment for your target, so it works against invisibility. waahh..."
there are certain things you need to accomplish before you can even """"target"""" an invisible creature.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
If you are trying to use true strike this way in the first place - I would hope that you have "cause sufficent" to suspect the presence of an enemy.
In theory (if you could concentrate long enough and the foe was in the cone) detect magic could (indirectly) reveal the "presence" of an invisible creature.
Odds are - if you are casting true strike - it is because you SUSPECT the presence of a foe you can shoot. If the spell were treated as a touch spell, and considered part of an attack; I could see Caliban's point. Problem is - it isn't. As written - I agree with KD.
Of course, I house errataed the spell - to avoid this problem, so that you have to cast it and attack with the +20 bonus as a full-round action.
In theory (if you could concentrate long enough and the foe was in the cone) detect magic could (indirectly) reveal the "presence" of an invisible creature.
Odds are - if you are casting true strike - it is because you SUSPECT the presence of a foe you can shoot. If the spell were treated as a touch spell, and considered part of an attack; I could see Caliban's point. Problem is - it isn't. As written - I agree with KD.
Of course, I house errataed the spell - to avoid this problem, so that you have to cast it and attack with the +20 bonus as a full-round action.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Interestingly, I can't find anywhere in the rules that says how specific you must be when choosing a target. Generally, this isn't an issue: either you can point to the target you're choosing, or you can choose a 5' square to target.
In this case, it matters, however: folks are arguing that you don't have to choose the 5' square for true strike.
It's true that under the "miss chance" column on the concealment table, under "total concealment," the entry reads, "50% and must guess target's location." To me, this implies that the miss chance is 50%; in addition to the miss chance, the attacker must guess the target's location. To others, this implies that the miss chance is 50% and the miss chance is that the attacker must guess the target's location.
I think the second reading, while technically plausible, is not common-sensical. At best, it's one of two possible readings of an ambiguous passage.
I'll bet anyone here a batch of my famous caffeine cookies that any clarification from the sage on this ambiguity will be firmly on the side of true strike not pinpointing an invisible creature within 5'. (Skip, you can't enter).
Daniel
In this case, it matters, however: folks are arguing that you don't have to choose the 5' square for true strike.
It's true that under the "miss chance" column on the concealment table, under "total concealment," the entry reads, "50% and must guess target's location." To me, this implies that the miss chance is 50%; in addition to the miss chance, the attacker must guess the target's location. To others, this implies that the miss chance is 50% and the miss chance is that the attacker must guess the target's location.
I think the second reading, while technically plausible, is not common-sensical. At best, it's one of two possible readings of an ambiguous passage.
I'll bet anyone here a batch of my famous caffeine cookies that any clarification from the sage on this ambiguity will be firmly on the side of true strike not pinpointing an invisible creature within 5'. (Skip, you can't enter).
Daniel
Last edited:
Time for me to put on my Rules Lawyer hat.
Table 8-10:
Entries for Miss Chance:
10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and must guess target's location
Under the Miss Chance for Total Concealment, it states:
"50% and must guess target's location"
It does not state "50%'. The Miss Chance contains two elements, the percentage chance to miss and the location requirement.
Hence, EVERYTHING in that column is negated if the miss chance is negated because everything in that column IS the Miss Chance. It's not just the percentage, but also the rules governing that percentage.
Under Miss Chance the section, it does NOT state anything about "must guess target's location". It does, however, state:
"When multiple concealment conditions apply to a defender, use the one that would produce the highest miss chance."
If you had One-half concealment and Total Concealment, you do not just use the 50%. You use both it and the "must guess target's location" portion of the Miss Chance column.
So, if you use all aspects of the column in the table when applying Miss Chance, you must take away all aspects of the column in the table when taking away Miss Chance.
From a strickly Rules Lawyer perspective on this, I must conclude that anything in the Miss Chance column must be negated if Miss Chance is negated.
I await the flood of replies as to why this is not so.
Table 8-10:
Entries for Miss Chance:
10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and must guess target's location
Under the Miss Chance for Total Concealment, it states:
"50% and must guess target's location"
It does not state "50%'. The Miss Chance contains two elements, the percentage chance to miss and the location requirement.
Hence, EVERYTHING in that column is negated if the miss chance is negated because everything in that column IS the Miss Chance. It's not just the percentage, but also the rules governing that percentage.
Under Miss Chance the section, it does NOT state anything about "must guess target's location". It does, however, state:
"When multiple concealment conditions apply to a defender, use the one that would produce the highest miss chance."
If you had One-half concealment and Total Concealment, you do not just use the 50%. You use both it and the "must guess target's location" portion of the Miss Chance column.
So, if you use all aspects of the column in the table when applying Miss Chance, you must take away all aspects of the column in the table when taking away Miss Chance.
From a strickly Rules Lawyer perspective on this, I must conclude that anything in the Miss Chance column must be negated if Miss Chance is negated.
I await the flood of replies as to why this is not so.
Magus_Jerel
First Post
Only one concealment modifier may apply to a defender, and true strike negates that concealment modifier...
KD - before they start to shout you down - I agree with you.
Pielorinho said:
That's not a bet.
Of course the Sage will rule that way.
But, then again, that is why I am correct on this. The Sage is ruling opposite to me.
PS. It is not the rules lawyer definition though that makes me rule this way. It is the utility of the spell. It's extremely hard to make use of True Strike anyway with the possible exception of with Power Attack which few arcance spell casters have.
It's doubly worse that there are very few ways to magically negate total concealment in the game at all due to, for example, Obscuring Mist (shy of dispel type magic).
This just slightly increases the utility of True Strike which I think is a good thing. YMMV.
IceBear
Explorer
I can't argue with the literal reading of the table. I'm not sure that's how it was intended to be, but that's how it literally reads.
However, on this topic. all I can say is: How can you target something that you don't know is there?
Let's say you enter a room where there are two invisible wizards and you have no idea that they are there. If you cast True Strike on yourself, you get a +20 insight bonus on your next attack. If you fire an arrow into the room, you would have it that you suddenly gain the knowledge of where one of these two wizards are located so you could shoot the arrow at them. If you didn't even know the wizards were there, how does the spell read into the future and tell you which one you wanted to attack (rather than, say, the lock on the door)?
In my mind, you have to have a target in mind before the spell will work. Thus, I might allow you to enter a room where you *knew* an invisble wizard was and allow the spell to work if you fired an arrow in at least the right general direction, but even then can you ever be 100% sure that there is an invisible person nearby without a Spot or Listen check?
IceBear
However, on this topic. all I can say is: How can you target something that you don't know is there?
Let's say you enter a room where there are two invisible wizards and you have no idea that they are there. If you cast True Strike on yourself, you get a +20 insight bonus on your next attack. If you fire an arrow into the room, you would have it that you suddenly gain the knowledge of where one of these two wizards are located so you could shoot the arrow at them. If you didn't even know the wizards were there, how does the spell read into the future and tell you which one you wanted to attack (rather than, say, the lock on the door)?
In my mind, you have to have a target in mind before the spell will work. Thus, I might allow you to enter a room where you *knew* an invisble wizard was and allow the spell to work if you fired an arrow in at least the right general direction, but even then can you ever be 100% sure that there is an invisible person nearby without a Spot or Listen check?
IceBear
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
If you want to rule that just because they put that language in a convenient place the concept somehow meets some bizarre definition of the word “chance”, more power to you.
I’ll note for the record that no one has responded to the issue of timing regarding the effect occurring DURING the attack. But no surprise there.
I’ll note for the record that no one has responded to the issue of timing regarding the effect occurring DURING the attack. But no surprise there.
KarinsDad said:From a strickly Rules Lawyer perspective on this, I must conclude that anything in the Miss Chance column must be negated if Miss Chance is negated.
I await the flood of replies as to why this is not so.
I disagree. From a "strictly Rules Lawyer" perspective, the phrase "and must guess opponents location" is not a percentage miss chance. You have a 50% miss chance and you must guess the target's location.
See the "and" in the middle there? That denotes that what follows is in addition to the miss chance. True strike only negates the miss chance (in additio to the +20 to hit, I mean). It does not "negate the miss chance and the need to guess the opponents position."
Last edited:
Similar Threads
