The RAW effects of True Strike against various miss chances

[DeAnno]

I'm curious what people think about how True Strike interacts with Total Concealment and the Blink spell. I was originally going to go to the RAW thread but the issue is rather convoluted and has multiple aspects that I want to inspect.

1) Does True Strike allow you to ignore miss chance due to Total Concealment? The True Strike spell specifically calls out "concealed targets", here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueStrike.htm):


Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

However, the rules of concealment itself here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment) make "targeting" creatures with total concealment technically impossible:


You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.

You're "trying" to strike a concealed target by targeting the square, but is this enough for True Strike to work? My inclination would be yes, but I am far from an unbiased observer.

2) The Blink spell has some colorful language describing how miss chances are affected by various states here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blink.htm) (emphasis mine):


Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn’t help opponents, since you’re ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

The text implies there are two effects going on: etherealness applies a 20% miss chance, and concealment applies a 20% miss chance, and in this special instance if both are active they stack for a 50% miss chance. However it does so in a roundabout fashion, and only specifically calls out the ability to see Invisible creatures in the active tense. Is True Strike bringing Blink's miss chance to 20% in the informed houserule zone, or is it RAW? Would a True Striked Force effect have RAW zero miss chance? The latter might be an easier argument, do to the language about concealment being specifically in that section.

Anyways, I hope to clear up some of these subtleties regarding my favorite spell, so I can present a neutral viewpoint in my upcoming Blasting Handbook.

[Douglas]

1) Yes, True Strike negates all miss chances due to concealment no matter the degree or source of concealment. It won't help if you're attacking the wrong square, but if you get the square right you only have to beat AC.

2a) Technically by RAW, the reduction to 20% miss chance is specifically for seeing invisible and has nothing to do with concealment. True Strike counting for that reduction would be a very reasonable house rule, however.

2b) True Strike with a force effect would unambiguously by RAW have no miss chance - the remaining miss chance after accounting for it being a force effect is labeled as concealment and therefore negated by True Strike.

[KillingAScarab]

The text implies there are two effects going on: etherealness applies a 20% miss chance, and concealment applies a 20% miss chance, and in this special instance if both are active they stack for a 50% miss chance.As I see it, the 50% miss chance is not the result of some strange arithmetic where 20% + 20% = 50%. It's more like there are three possible miss chances you can have when you attack the subject of a blink spell (and a fourth possibility where you have no miss chance from the spell), and the circumstances determine which you will face. If I could, I would draw a flow-chart, here.

The 50% chance is because the subject of a blink spell only exists on the material plane for 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time, the subject is on the ethereal plane and mundane attacks cannot affect them while they are there. According to the etherealness entry under special abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm) only force effects, gaze effects and abjurations may do so.

Once you have an attack which is capable of reaching from the material to the ethereal plane, you still can't see where the subject of the blink spell is when they're ethereal, only where they are when they're on the material plane. That is the reason why the blink spell's subject has concealment and you have a 20% miss chance (when you are without something like true strike, or see invisibility/true seeing which let you look at ethereal creatures).

The other 20% mentioned comes from being unable to predict when a blink will occur, even though you have a way to see when the subject is in the material and ethereal planes. It's only an issue for you as the attacker when you have attacks which cannot affect the ethereal plane. The subject has the same problem, but they have it with all of their attacks (because nothing originating from the ethereal plane affects the material plane). So, an attacker with see invisibility and normal weapons trying to hit a blinking opponent is not unlike a game of whack-a-mole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whack_a_mole). You have a much narrower range of positions where the target can be and you can tell when the target is exposed, but you don't know how long it will be exposed, nor when it will pop out again after it hides below the board.

[DeAnno]

That's a pretty good explanation, I've never heard of blink described in quite that way. It also jives with the RAWiest ruling that force effect + True Strike = 0 miss chance and normal attack + True Strike = 50% miss chance.

I'm relieved that the power of True Strike to destroy miss chance seems to be surviving a RAW inspection, since anything that cuts down on the power of excessive miss chance spam is probably good for the health of the high-OP game (in as much as it could be said to be "healthy".) I'll probably present that as the suggested ruling.

[Onikani]

Also keep in mind that (excluding things like Quicken spell) True Strike counts as a standard action, which means you are effectively skipping this turn to (almost) ensure a hit next turn.

What that really means is you only hit 50% of the time anyway, that's not much better than taking random shots, except it has the added bonus of you blowing a spell every other turn as well.
This is a serious loss in action (and spell use) economy!



In the event of a quickened true strike you are a wizard spending (probably) a 5th level spell and a feat for +20 to hit in the same round.
I'm pretty sure i can find a better 5th level wizzy spell...

Yes you can pile on some other feats to make a spontaneous caster use quicken, and you can add even more feats to reduce it to a +2/+3 adjustment, and while they are great for other applications, that seems like a lot of work for just True strike...

[DeAnno]

While that might be true for a Wizard, the power of the Sorcerer action economy fueled by Arcane Spellsurge, Arcane Fusion and Greater Arcane Fusion makes True Strike extremely practical. True Strike as either the lesser end of a Fusion, or even a swift action 1st level spell, is very cost effective in terms of spell slots and acceptably fast in terms of actions.

[Onikani]

I fully agree. :)

But since the OP didn't mention levels i didn't assume the party was already at 10th level (Arcane Fusion is a 5th level sorc spell after all). :smallcool:

EDIT - yes i realize this is for your handbook, and assuming the handbook covers different efficiencies at different levels, my points are still valid until 10th level.

[KillingAScarab]

Yes you can pile on some other feats to make a spontaneous caster use quicken, and you can add even more feats to reduce it to a +2/+3 adjustment, and while they are great for other applications, that seems like a lot of work for just True strike...I only ever became interested in true strike after reading these two articles: Arcane Tank 3 (http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book015.html) and Arcane Tank 4 (http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book016.html). The latter apparently included a submission to a contest on this site. Not going to say this is the best use of the spell, but it is something more than just feats.

[Keld Denar]

A funny thing. Incorp miss chance is NOT due to concealment, but due to arbitrary "damage immunity". If you have a magic weapon, a ghost has a 50% chance of being flat out immune to your weapon at any give moment. Since its not concealment based, True Strike would not affect it.

Its wierd. It looks like concealment, it acts like concealment, but its not actually concealment.