Impeccable Aiming.

[Dark Kerman]

A question.
What would you think is a fair spell level for a (3.5) spell that has the effect of True Strike, for ten rounds, on another individual in the group.
Eg.
Benny the Wizard casts Impeccable Attack on Barry the Barbarian, allowing him to get a 20+ bonus on all attack rolls for ten rounds.

[monkman]

It would be quite high, I Would put it at around lv 7 or 8 spell. A normal encounter isnt really that long, about 5-10 rounds and with that spell,all your attacks wouldnt miss unless you got a 1.

[Dark Kerman]

True, I guess it also makes a difference whether it is touch or range, if it range, then perhaps level 8 might be better?

[ericgrau]

Considering that even high level alternatives only do it for a single attack which could only be cast once a round, it seems a bit much. I mean now you're talking around 50 attacks. A +20 luck bonus to all attack rolls seems more like something you'd only see in an epic spell.

A gish or someone wielding a staff could pull off two attacks with an 8th level spell plus a 5th level spell. So I'd say two attacks per round for several rounds is worth about a 9th or 10th level spell. Maybe +3 levels to have it apply to all attacks. Now you need some kind of limitation to bring it back down to 9th level. For example if it lasts caster level rounds but only applies to the first attack of each round that might fit for an 8th or 9th level spell.

You might want to make it negate cover and concealment too for fluff reasons. Heck even give the target improved precise shot for the duration. By that level any archer that it would matter for probably has it anyway, so it would not really change the spell's level to add these things.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If they were limited to one attack a round[say they had to use a move action to draw upon the power of impeccable aiming]. It be a more reasonable spell.

[Dark Kerman]

Your critique has been noted :) I will replace it with the first attack of each round, which should maintain the level to a decent amount. Thank you. :D

[Jota]

I don't think this sort of spell actually needs to be that high of a level to be balanced. A persisted wraithstrike has something of a similar effect as an eighth level spell, but the duration is exponentially longer. Now there are bound to be situations where a touch attack is superior to +20 on an attack roll (probably at higher levels given the prevalence of natural armor) a vice versa, so I don't really want to debate the merits of one as opposed to the other, but I think it could be fifth level spell or sixth level spell.

Admittedly wraithstrike is limited to both a range of personal and to melee attacks, whereas true strike is not, but I still think sixth is probably as high as I'd place it.

[FishAreWet]

Or give it Duration: Concentration and allow it to be a 1st or 2nd level spell.

[Dark Kerman]

Perhaps a minimum time of say, 5 rounds, and then have concentration if it is needed further? Meaning that the mage could do nothing else but hold the spell?

[ericgrau]

I don't think this sort of spell actually needs to be that high of a level to be balanced. A persisted wraithstrike has something of a similar effect as an eighth level spell, but the duration is exponentially longer. Now there are bound to be situations where a touch attack is superior to +20 on an attack roll (probably at higher levels given the prevalence of natural armor) a vice versa, so I don't really want to debate the merits of one as opposed to the other, but I think it could be fifth level spell or sixth level spell.

Admittedly wraithstrike is limited to both a range of personal and to melee attacks, whereas true strike is not, but I still think sixth is probably as high as I'd place it.

Both persist and wraithstrike are bad comparisons, as they are known to be cheesy or at the very least high power. Though it's true that if your gaming group is used to sifting through books for very good spells then you might want to drop the spell level on your own spells a level or two.