True Strike and Invisibility question

[MythandLore]

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."

I totally agree with you.
It seems pretty basic to me.
True stike just says.

"Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attacks against a concealed target."

I think people just want to twist the spell into munchkin land.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I think people just want to twist the spell into munchkin land.

I completely agree.

Also, page 78 of the DMG, under Invisibility, makes it very clear that pinpointing the location is completely separate from the 50% miss chance.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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.

Out of curiosity, does symmetry apply here?

You are saying that if the 50% miss chance is negated then the need to guess a location is also negated. so if the need to guess a location is negated, is the 50% miss chance also negated?

If not, why does it go one way and not the other?

Are there both part of the "miss chance" , or are they two separate factors?

 

[KarinsDad]

However, on this topic. all I can say is: How can you target something that you don't know is there?

It’s divination magic IB. If there is nothing there, you won’t hit anything. If something is there, then your chances of hitting are greatly enhanced by the divination.

How can you target an invisible character when casting a Lightning Bolt spell? Either you will hit, or you will not.

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)?

The same as all HOW questions about how does the magic work.

How does True Strike allow you to hit a displaced character? How does the spell read into the future and know where the target truly is located? Displacement is a glamer just like Invisibility. Effectively, you are invisible in your true location and an image of you appears nearby.

The fact is that HOW the magic works is basically irrelevant.

The counter positions on this topic tend to revolve about how the magic works. How do you even know the invisible target is there? How do you target him if you if you either do not know where he is or even that he exists at all? Well, because you cast a divination spell. If there are multiple invisible targets, which one gets selected? Well, that is a DM call. If you state the invisible guy that was near the rock a moment ago, the DM might have you hit that one. Or, he might randomly roll. Or, choose some other criteria.

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.

It’s not a bizarre definition of the phrase “Miss Chance”. It is the text in the column of the table.

Same discussion as whether a Shield is Armor.

Well, it is listed in Table 7-5: Armor. That makes it armor to me.

Same as Table 8-1: Fundamental Actions in Combat. In the Attack of Opportunity Column, it sometimes states yes or maybe. If something negates AoOs, then it negates the yes portion and the maybe portion and the special rules concerning the maybe portion.

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 considered it non sequitur.

The phrase in the spell is “during your next attack” means during the entire attack, including the selection of the target.

When Fighting Defensively, you are at –4 for the entire attack action, not just the point in time that you actually attack. If you declare Fighting Defensively and an opponent had declared a Readied Action to Disarm anyone who tried to attack him and you try to attack him, guess what? When he attempts to Disarm you, your opposed attack roll is at –4 due to you Fighting Defensively. It is not just when you roll the dice for your attack. If he had Readied a Trip Attack instead, your touch AC would be increased by 2 since you are Fighting Defensively. The modifiers apply for the entire attack, not just during your declared attack dice roll.

The True Strike spell says “during the attack”. This means during the entire sequence of events that constitute an attack. Not just the attack roll, even though the attack roll is what benefits the most.

 

[KarinsDad]

Out of curiosity, does symmetry apply here?

You are saying that if the 50% miss chance is negated then the need to guess a location is also negated. so if the need to guess a location is negated, is the 50% miss chance also negated?

If not, why does it go one way and not the other?

It goes one way and not the other because the column is titled “Miss Chance”. It is not titled “Concealment Factors”.

I think people just want to twist the spell into munchkin land.[i\]

I completely agree.

I think this is an exaggeration. One spell which usually isn’t studied negating total concealment for one character for one attack is hardly munchkin land.

Also, page 78 of the DMG, under Invisibility, makes it very clear that pinpointing the location is completely separate from the 50% miss chance.

No doubt about it. They are separate mechanics. This is apparent even without the section in the DMG (although the DMG indicates what the DCs are for locating the target). However, they are used at the exact same time when attacking a totally concealed character.

Think about it.

If a character is 300 feet away from you, the “guess their location” chance is next to zero. So, the Miss Chance is approximately 100%-.

The Miss Chance includes the 50% and it includes the chance of guessing correctly.

If you guess incorrectly, you still miss, correct?

If you attempt a Listen check per the DMG, your chances of making it are 20+his move silent DC.

If you attempt a Spot check per the DMG, your chances are fairly dismal.

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.

But, if you negate the Miss Chance, then there is no chance of missing due to Miss Chance, which according to the column, includes the guessing of the location.

Missing due to rolling a one on the attack roll is NOT on that column and is not part of the Miss Chance. Hence, you could still miss by rolling a one.


Well, I think we beat this one to death. I think Miss Chance due to concealment includes all concealment factors and actually makes the spell worthwhile. Other people take the narrow view that Miss Chance only includes the percentage given in the table. I doubt we will ever convince each differently. C’est la guerre.

 

[Pielorinho]

KD, as I pointed out before you even pulled out that ruleslawyer cap, this is an ambiguous phrase.

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.

English is an imprecise language, and in a case like this, it's ambiguous whether the conjunction is joining together two aspects of the miss chance or is joining a miss chance with another feature of concealment.

The fact that it's in a table isn't really helpful, either: the ambiguity is still there, and there's a very good reason for the second effect of total concealment to be included in the miss chance column. No other type of concealment has a secondary effect.

Imagine a table of poisons that has an "ability damage" column. Imagine that most poisons have effects like "1d6 STR" or "1 CON" in this column, but one poison has an effect that reads, "1d10 CON and victim is paralyzed." Would you argue that paralysis is an ability damage? or that in addition to the ability damage, the victim is also paralyzed?

Granted, the table could be more precise, at the expense of economy and ease of use. The "miss chance" column could be labeled "concealment effects," and each level of concealment could say "xx% miss chance." That would remove the ambiguity while making the table more difficult to read.

When I bet on how the Sage will interpret it, I'm betting on how he'll interpret an ambiguity. Do you deny that the ambiguity is there -- that it's unclear what "and" is conjoining?

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, I think we beat this one to death. I think Miss Chance due to concealment includes all concealment factors and actually makes the spell worthwhile.

Just want to point this out. The spell is TOTALLY worthwhile even if it doesn't pinpoint invisible enemies. It's fantastic for multiclass fighter/sorcerers, who can powerattack for tons of buttkicking damage. It rocks for wizards or sorcerers who rely on aimed spells -- especially rays or the like. Rogue/wizards especially can benefit from it, since they can sneak attack with those aimed spells. Archer/mages can prevent enemies from fleeing pretty effectively. Assassins can deliver poisoned bolts at 500 feet (I got to use this in my game once to make the players REALLY hate the main enemy -- fun fun fun!)

I've seen it used a fair amount in the games I run and the games I play in. It's a great spell.

Daniel

 

[Arksorn]

True Strike Rocks (but not that much)

So let me get this straight...for those of you who think true strike lets you target someone you cannot see.

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.

Obviously true strike does not tell you this information. It only negates the miss chance once you have targeted one (hard to do if they are 1,000 ft. away).

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?

 

[BigAl]

I think that if the designers of the spell had intended it to target invisible opponents flawlessly, they would have mentioned something in the spell description (and they probably would have considered making it second level as well)

I understand some DMs wanting to beef up the spell a bit, but the spell can be quite useful as written.

- Al

 

[KarinsDad]

I've seen it used a fair amount in the games I run and the games I play in. It's a great spell.

It is an ok spell for certain multi-classing combinations, specifically ones who multi-class as a Sorcerer.

However, it is not really great.

If you are not multi-classed, the damage you typically do as an arcane spell caster is rather limited. Even as a prestige class, this is typically the case unless you are high level.

It also has a major weakness (using the does not totally negate total concealment interpretation) that spells like Obscuring Mist can basically negate it. Since most enemy spell casters usually have a fairly good Spell Craft, this is easy to do (and it is easy to have spell casters inform allies that an opponent just cast True Strike). Even a Wall of Fire can stop it (if you interpret it this way), let alone other types of walls, fogs, or Stinking Clouds.

Even a simple maneuver of hiding behind a wall or large rock for a round negates the spell (for that target).

It can also be wholly or partially negated via other spells, with or without this interpretation, such as Dispel Magic or Mirror Image or Web or Entangle.

It's 2 round duration gives many opponents a chance to do something about it. That something can be as simple as Improved Disarm the caster and then picking up his weapon (if initially within 5 feet of him). Opps, you were not successful due to his +20, but then again, he used up his True Strike to counter the disarm. Needless to say, that was his next attack. Hehehe.

Or Sunder his weapon. Even if not successful, it results in an opposed attack roll.

So, although the +20 sounds incredibly powerful, it really is only one nearly guaranteed hit, that is if your opponents do not react to it. Well, you can often get a hit by just rolling the dice as well. In fact, within those two rounds of casting True Strike, you will often get 1+ more attacks in anyway which greatly increases your chances of hitting than you will get with the True Strike. In other words, while casting True Strike, you are not doing anything else productive.

And, there are other first level spells that are typically more powerful. For example, Magic Missile which averages 3.5 to 17.5 points of guaranteed damage with few defenses. Or Shield which is +7 to AC (vs. most opponents) for 10 rounds per level as opposed to +20 to hit for one attack. Or Mage Armor which is +4 to AC for hours.


And, if you try to use it at too long of range, part of its bonus to hit is absorbed by the range modifiers.

If you try to use it with Power Attack, part of its bonus to hit is absorbed by the increase to damage.


So, yes, it’s an ok spell. It often results in some damage if no opponents react to it. But, it really is not great.

Btw, do not get me wrong. It does have its advantages as well. It is not negated by Spell Resistance or Globes of Invulnerability or Anti-Magic Shields (these latter two if you use a range weapon outside the area of effect). It has an extremely high chance to critical if you roll in the threat range for your weapon (i.e. just like all other bonuses to hit, it applies to both your to hit roll and your critical roll if you threaten). And, in combination with Haste, it loses a lot of its weaknesses.

But, there are many defenses to it, especially since it typically takes two rounds to use unlike spells like Inflict Light Wounds which can often be used in one turn.