[SOLVED]True Strike at-will?

[AtlasSniperman]

So I'm starting up a 3.5e campaign, the specifics aren't necessary. I have an ability I want to give archers of an enemy army. The ability is only possessed by those archers guarding the main castle/headquarters of the enemy. I was considering given them an 'at-will' spell-like ability of 'True Strike', with the following conditions:
Casting time is a full-round
Caster level(for dispelling etc) is treated as 0

I understand having True Strike is a huge advantage, so what LA+/CR+ would you say this ability imparts?

The general concept, if you want/need to know is that they are part of a military focus'ed race(yes, hobgoblins but ignore racial predjudice) and the verbal components to activate the "True Strike" spell has been drilled into the archers to the level of muscle memory. It's cheaper to teach 20 guys how to cast true strike than it is to give them all +1 longbows.

[Jormengand]

An at-will item of CL-1 True Strike should cost about 1800 GP, and a use-activated version on your weapon should be about 2000. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm) That kind of thing is barely worth +1 CR.

[AtlasSniperman]

True Strike has a duration measured in rounds(in that it ceases to work after the next round is finished), the number you're actually looking for is 8,000gp

[Jormengand]

True Strike has a duration measured in rounds(in that it ceases to work after the next round is finished), the number you're actually looking for is 8,000gp

"If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4."

Use-activated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#useActivated) and continuous are two different things. The number I'm actually looking for is 2000 gp.

[Vaz]

The item recreates the effect of a +20 item to attack and should be priced as such.

[AtlasSniperman]

The item recreates the effect of a +20 item to attack and should be priced as such.

It also has no space limitation as it's an ability. So pricing the ability using magic item rules is a fallacy to begin with, but I agree that were it to be priced as an item it should be priced as an item that grants +20 to attack and has no space limitation(double price).

[Xervous]

So they have true strike at will, they're attacking every other round, giving up their standard action on the opposite rounds to cast true strike. This is hardly much of a bonus.

[JDL]

Why do they have to have it as a SLA? Just equip them each with a 50 charge wand of True Strike and give them 1 level in Wizard and martial proficiency feat with longbows or whatever other weapon they're using.

Round 1 they draw their wand as a move action and cast True Strike as a standard action.

Round 2 they drop their wand as a free action, draw their weapon as a move action and fire their bows as a standard action.

Round 3 they pick up their wand from the ground as a move action in their off hand and cast True Strike from it as a standard action.

Round 4 they drop their wand as a free action and fire as a full round action.

Rinse and repeat as necessary. No combat is going to last over 50 rounds in any reasonable scenario.

[Werephilosopher]

It's cheaper to teach 20 guys how to cast true strike than it is to give them all +1 longbows.

They won't harm anything with damage reduction, though.


So they have true strike at will, they're attacking every other round, giving up their standard action on the opposite rounds to cast true strike. This is hardly much of a bonus.

Ostensibly, they don't have to use their true strike all the time. If their regular attacks hit the enemy just fine without the +20 bonus, they could attack every round.

[Oberon Kenobi]

If you're using the item creation rules to gauge CR, I'm pretty sure True Strike is an example specifically called out somewhere as being the reason why the price guidelines should not be treated as hard-and-fast rules. The MiC has True Strike gauntlets which let you use the spell once a day priced at 3,500 gp, for comparison to that at-will 2000 gp price that got dropped above.

My two cents: Let's say that on average, your archers of an appropriate CR should have like a 50% chance of hitting the PCs. What you're doing instead is giving them a 0% chance one round, then a near-100% chance the next round, rinse and repeat. Probability-wise that's not going to mean much, but actual-look-at-the-game-wise, every time the archers fire your PCs' AC is going to be completely irrelevant. As a player, I wouldn't like that–especially at low levels, when hit points are precious and I haven't had much chance for my high AC to be something that I can point to as awesome yet.

What level are you considering springing this on your players at?

[AtlasSniperman]

They won't harm anything with damage reduction, though.
A point I actually had in mind, don't worry that is something I was hoping to keep.


Ostensibly, they don't have to use their true strike all the time. If their regular attacks hit the enemy just fine without the +20 bonus, they could attack every round.
Exactly! and the +20 would be more of a benefit attacking at longer ranges, at closer ranges it would be more likely for them to forego the spell.



If you're using the item creation rules to gauge CR, I'm pretty sure True Strike is an example specifically called out somewhere as being the reason why the price guidelines should not be treated as hard-and-fast rules. The MiC has True Strike gauntlets which let you use the spell once a day priced at 3,500 gp, for comparison to that at-will 2000 gp price that got dropped above.

My two cents: Let's say that on average, your archers of an appropriate CR should have like a 50% chance of hitting the PCs. What you're doing instead is giving them a 0% chance one round, then a near-100% chance the next round, rinse and repeat. Probability-wise that's not going to mean much, but actual-look-at-the-game-wise, every time the archers fire your PCs' AC is going to be completely irrelevant. As a player, I wouldn't like that–especially at low levels, when hit points are precious and I haven't had much chance for my high AC to be something that I can point to as awesome yet.

What level are you considering springing this on your players at?

Thank you for reading!
The archers are purely intended as a defense to the walls of a castle, however if I have their CR I could then transport them into lesser combats more level appropriately. The Castle will be the end game and will be of static power; the players attack it when they feel adequately prepared and powerful, whatever they decide that means.

[JDL]

Just to weigh in on the question of a custom magic item, Skip Williams posted the following recommendations (not RAW but a good guideline):

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a


Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.

So giving them the ability to cast True Strike at-will would probably equal somewhere around 400,000 gp worth of gear, though since it's not continuous it's probably closer to half that price.

On the other hand a level 1 NPC gets 900 gp worth of gear. A 100 gp longbow and 750 gp wand of True Strike mean you can do this well within RAW per my above example. They could even start combat by casting Enlarge Person on themselves too since they get a few extra wizard spells per day.

[AtlasSniperman]

Just to weigh in on the question of a custom magic item, Skip Williams posted the following recommendations (not RAW but a good guideline):

[...SNIP...]

So giving them the ability to cast True Strike at-will would probably equal somewhere around 400,000 gp worth of gear, though since it's not continuous it's probably closer to half that price.

On the other hand a level 1 NPC gets 900 gp worth of gear. A 100 gp longbow and 750 gp wand of True Strike mean you can do this well within RAW per my above example. They could even start combat by casting Enlarge Person on themselves too since they get a few extra wizard spells per day.


The thing I don't like about wands is that; yes no combat will last near 50 rounds, but wands are expensive(even 750gp) when arming an army/castle defenses.
I also don't want them as wizards because it'd be out of line with their caste to be trained as first level wizards when they could be Fighters, Rangers or Warriors and have the ability to SLA the one spell they need. Hence asking for opinions on the LA/CR that ability would impart. I realize that it is trading a turn of attacks for a guaranteed attack, but with the defense of a castle that's not really an issue as there will be enough archers to offset the low fire rate. The main desire of knowing the CR is for if I want one of them to be incorporated into raiding parties, just having the option to make use of that ability should change their difficulty.

[JDL]

A wand of True Strike costs the same as three suits of banded mail. Sure, it gets used up faster, but that's war for you. Since you're saying only the guards at the enemy stronghold get this ability, it would make sense that they're being supplied better gear than your average mook in the field. It also makes sense that they're multiclassing if you're saying they spend time training to use this ability. They might be a level 2 Ranger with 1 level of Wizard splashed in to the mix. They'd only need an intelligence score of 11 or better to do so.

Essentially I'm applying Occam's Razor to your question. You want your troops to be able to cast True Strike? That's perfectly possible within RAW at the cost of multiclassing and using consumables. You want to create a homebrewed SLA that lets them do this? There's really no need to do so, but if you want to do this in your game, go for it, with the understanding that it's probably not well balanced to do so and unfairly disadvantages your players who have to play by the rules as written.

[Calimehter]

Well, there are feats that give limited SLAs of a few 0/1st levrl spells. With that in mind . . . maybe just homebrew a feat that allowed True Strike 1/day as an SLA??

[ExLibrisMortis]

If you don't want to shell out 750 gp for wands of true strike, try getting an artificer/cleric team to craft wands of DMM:Repeat true strike, and use cost-reducing feats. That gets you two castings of true strike (one on the round you use the wand, and one the next round) at the price of one, and the wands cost less than 750 gp to boot. Note: this is terribly unfair to any player who doesn't have the AC to deal with it. If you're having, say, second-level archers defend a castle against fifteenth-level bruisers, that's a different story, but you should probably look into marshals, white raven initiators and bards and so on, not true strike.

[Oberon Kenobi]

Honestly, I would just eyeball it as a CR+1, with the caveat to never pull it on a low-level party for reasons outlined above. An at-will SLA is basically on par with a Warlock invocation, and True Strike is a 1st level spell, so it's on par with Least Invocations (I'd put it about equal in utility to Fog Cloud, which actually is a least invocation, so that pans out I think). So call it approximately as useful as a level in warlock, and an associated class level boosts the CR by 1.

It's not a perfect analysis, but I think it's close enough. As an at-will SLA it is strong, yeah (and remains useful at all levels where AC actually matters), but as discussed it cuts their possible actions in half. And in raiding parties, it's presumably even less of a boon, since they can't rely on castle walls to defend them from people who want to run up and hit them with a sword.

[AtlasSniperman]

Thank you all for your input, I think I'll go with Oberon Kenobi's answer but I'll keep the arguments for magic items in mind.

[Invader]

Just to weigh in on the question of a custom magic item, Skip Williams posted the following recommendations (not RAW but a good guideline):

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a


Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.

So giving them the ability to cast True Strike at-will would probably equal somewhere around 400,000 gp worth of gear, though since it's not continuous it's probably closer to half that price.

On the other hand a level 1 NPC gets 900 gp worth of gear. A 100 gp longbow and 750 gp wand of True Strike mean you can do this well within RAW per my above example. They could even start combat by casting Enlarge Person on themselves too since they get a few extra wizard spells per day.

Which is laughably expensive.

[Urpriest]

I'd give them some other ability that buffs to-hit. There's no particular reason for it to be True Strike, and if "practice the components enough" can give you infinite daily uses of a spell then they'd be using it for plenty besides True Strike.

[Curmudgeon]

If you don't want to shell out 750 gp for wands of true strike, try getting an artificer/cleric team to craft wands of DMM:Repeat true strike, and use cost-reducing feats.
You're mixing up the spell level to the item creator and the spell level in the created item. You can create a wand of True Strike (level 1) with Repeat Spell (+3 levels), but its price is always going to be that of a 4th-level wand.

[elonin]

Playing pathfinder I played an arcane archer (ranger, wiz, AA) and found that even with the benefits of imbue arrow I got MUCH more from many shot and rapid shot (esp with deadly aim) and other feats. I did keep a few true strikes prepped but found few times when it came in handy.

[Sagetim]

True strike at will? It's not that dangerous. It lets that castle of archers have a chance to hit at extreme ranges (the +20 would get negated by the -2 per range increment at up to 10 range increments. So they have a normal chance to hit twice per round at the extreme range of their, supposedly composite, longbows. That's, what, 1100 feet?

A long range spell is 400 feet +40 feet per caster level. So a level 5 wizard chucking a fireball has to get to within 600 feet of the castle before he can throw a fireball at it. This puts him within 6 range increments of the castle (within 660 feet). At a -12 to hit, the truestrike spell would grant them a +8 to hit at that range. Let's assume that the wizard used invisibility to get close enough to drop a fireball, and has protection from arrows on (caster level 5). Let's assume that 10 archers fire, and with the added bonus to hit, they all manage to land an arrow on the wizard. Their damage is going to range between 1 to 8 each, so between 10 and 80 damage total. The protection from arrows would negate 50 damage, so most likely the wizard is going to survive that round, and in the next round he'll go invisible again and book it while the castle sends out some riders to try and run him down or track him. If he took any damage, he would have left some blood on the scene that could be tracked.

That's assuming the wizard hasn't loaded up on some other means of damage reduction. Remember...bows suck. And these are probably low level warriors using bows. 3.5 hates bows. I don't know how people forget that. Also, they specifically don't have magic bows, and probably don't have special arrows for punching through damage reduction. This is why protection from arrows works. There are quite a few ways to grab little bits of damage reduction, and even 5 DR would make you immune to most arrow hits (you would only take 1 to 3 damage on rolls of 6 to 8). And if they have 10 dr? Then only a crit is going to hurt them, all other attacks from these bows would do no damage. And even on a crit, the damage would cap out at 14.

So let's stop and consider what the thread OP described. The Castle Guards can use True Strike by casting it as a full round action. We don't need to worry about how much such a thing would cost. That's not within the scope of the thread's question. It doesn't matter. It's handwaved as 'special training'. So, my point here is that true strike is powerful in the hands of people with potent weapons. Where hitting with the weapon can do devastating damage. I would give the Castle Guards a +1 to their CR. I would not give them a level adjustment, because I would not let players have that kind of training. As a further limitation, you could say that the training ruins the person for exceptional training (in other words, they can only take npc classes). If the players are dead set on taking out a castle, they're going to have to contend with all the troops in the castle in some way anyway, the castle guards having really good aim is going to pale in comparison to what the players can bring to bear with intelligent application of player's handbook spells. The Castle Guards aren't going to be any better at resisting diseases, poisons, or dead cows being launched over the castle walls from outside their bow range via trebuchet. Also, bows can't do crap for damage against objects, so if the players really want, they can get anything into position by building some wood walls and advancing with those in the way of incoming arrows, truestrike doesn't allow you to shoot around total cover.


Edit: There's more than attack bonuses going on in a siege. It's not that hard to negate a lot of the utility of a +20 to hit. At best the castle guards can shoot effectively at very long ranges to soften up incoming targets.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You're mixing up the spell level to the item creator and the spell level in the created item. You can create a wand of True Strike (level 1) with Repeat Spell (+3 levels), but its price is always going to be that of a 4th-level wand.
Where is that in the crafting rules? The DMG does not mention it, and neither does the Craft Wand feat. DMM:Repeat true strike is a first-level spell cast from a first-level slot, nothing else, and can be used as such in crafting magic items.

In any case, it's not the DMM specifically that is relevant to my point. Any metamagic reducers will do, including Arcane Thesis (true strike), stupid though that may be. If the DM wants the enemy to have CL 1 wands of repeating true strike, there are ways to get them RAW-legally.

[Bronk]

True strike as an at will SLA seems to me to not be the best idea.

First, as others have mentioned, it's the equivalent of being a fairly powerful and expensive magic item.

Second, it would cheat your PCs out of both experience (they're not really surviving an encounter with 20th level archers) or magic item loot.

Finally, it sets a precedent for your players that they can go do some training and get the ability for themselves, and it would be more powerful for them than for the NPCs. It might even show that they can get any reasonably fluffable ability as an SLA!

I'd just have normal troops, and if you want them to be more powerful, make them a higher level to reflect all that crazy training they did. If there's something they can't hit, give them access to a crate of True Strike potions that your players can loot later. Or actually have a wizard up there with that wand of true strike and a few castings of flame arrow, and a bard, and give them a stash of bane arrows, etcetera.

[Curmudgeon]

Where is that in the crafting rules? The DMG does not mention it, and neither does the Craft Wand feat. DMM:Repeat true strike is a first-level spell cast from a first-level slot, nothing else, and can be used as such in crafting magic items.
You're not correct about the Dungeon Master's Guide. From the CREATING MAGIC ITEMS section, starting on page 282:
Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal. For example, a caster could heighten a spell’s level to increase its effectiveness, or quicken a spell to allow it to be used as a free action, placing it within an item at the higher metamagic level. See Chapter 5: Feats in the Player’s Handbook for more on metamagic feats.
Note that Divine Metamagic is not a [Metamagic] feat. It reduces the spell slot for the spellcaster, but has no impact on the above rule regarding metamagic for magic item creation. The spell (True Strike, 1st level) is placed within the item (wand) at the higher metamagic level (+3 from Repeat Spell).

[P.F.]

For what it's worth, here's how I approach it:

A potion of true strike costs 50 gp and requires a standard action to use, and doesn't require Use Magic Device or a spell list which includes true strike. A wand is cheaper per activation (15 gp) but lacks these latter two qualities. A command word item of true strike also requires a standard action to activate, and costs 1800 gp. I don't believe that continuous is appropriate for spells which have a duration of "until discharged" and in any case the value of a continuous +20 to-hit has already been estimated at 400,000 gp or more, so we can safely disregard that particular flavor of cheese.

But a command word item (and presumably a use-activated item of an instantaneous spell) has a further consideration: charges per day. That's right, the formula for charges per day is "divide by (5 divided by number of charges per day)," which means the default for a command word or non-continuous use-activated item is 5 charges per day (divide by 5/5 = divide by 1 = same price).

So. 250 gp = 5 potions of true strike; 1800 gp = 5 charges of true strike / day, assuming this item takes up an appropriate slot on the body (I favor the eyes slot for this one, although gloves or ring would also be appropriate). Of course if it doesn't, it might cost double.

For 3600 gp you could have 10 charges / day. For 7200, you could use it 20 times per day. Forty charges per day would cost 14,400 gp, and 50 charges per day would set you back 18,000 gp. An equivalent number of potions would cost 2500 per day, and the archers would have to use their 50-charge-per-day items to their limit for five days and more before such an item became more cost efficient than potions.

For unlimited use the formula for xp costs and expensive components is equal to 100 charges, so I think it's a fair ad-hoc to apply to our Lenses of Striking True, giving a 36,000 gp price tag to an at-will item of true strike activated with a standard action and no special skill or class abilities required.

This ends up costing the same as a pair of Gloves of Dex +6, or slightly more than a +4 Composite Longbow, which means, all told, this price is probably still a bit on the low side. On the other hand, if instead of taking a +20 every other round we use a +10 weapon (ignoring the cap on enhancement bonus), the cost is 200,000 gp, roughly equivalent to a 500-charges-per-day command-word item of a 1st level spell. Probably overkill, imho.

Would I allow this item in my game? Not on your life. :smalltongue:

[Necroticplague]

You're mixing up the spell level to the item creator and the spell level in the created item. You can create a wand of True Strike (level 1) with Repeat Spell (+3 levels), but its price is always going to be that of a 4th-level wand.

No, it wouldn't. Repeat True Strike is still a first level spell, merely cast from a third level slot. The only metamagics that change spell level are Santum Spell and Heighten spell. And the magic item rules only refer to spell level, not spell slot used to cast it.

[Curmudgeon]

No, it wouldn't. Repeat True Strike is still a first level spell, merely cast from a third level slot. The only metamagics that change spell level are Santum Spell and Heighten spell. And the magic item rules only refer to spell level, not spell slot used to cast it.
It's a 4th-level wand, though, and priced accordingly.
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells

With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

[Crake]

Just to weigh in on the question of a custom magic item, Skip Williams posted the following recommendations (not RAW but a good guideline):

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a


Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.

So giving them the ability to cast True Strike at-will would probably equal somewhere around 400,000 gp worth of gear, though since it's not continuous it's probably closer to half that price.

On the other hand a level 1 NPC gets 900 gp worth of gear. A 100 gp longbow and 750 gp wand of True Strike mean you can do this well within RAW per my above example. They could even start combat by casting Enlarge Person on themselves too since they get a few extra wizard spells per day.

That whole thing was for an item of CONTINUOUS true strike, so getting +20 to all your attacks without any activation time whatsoever. That is quite different from having to spend half your turns activating the true strike ability.

[Necroticplague]

It's a 4th-level wand, though, and priced accordingly.

Only if it's Heighten or Sanctum


With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell. The thing is, after applying most metamagic feats, its still the same level.

[Curmudgeon]

Only if it's Heighten or Sanctum

The thing is, after applying most metamagic feats, its still the same level.
The operating level and the pricing level are not the same.

Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell.

[Necroticplague]

The operating level and the pricing level are not the same.

What makes you say that? It's still a first level spell, and the rules about making items say 'the s[ell's level' not 'the level of the spell slot the spell is cast from'. Or, to reuse your own quote:

In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell.
So without some special exception,Quickened True Strike still operates as a first level spell, including for purposes of pushing it into a wand.

[Curmudgeon]

So without some special exception,Quickened True Strike still operates as a first level spell, including for purposes of pushing it into a wand.
Item creation via Craft Wand is an active process. However, there is no "operation (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/operation?s=t)" (casting) of the spell allowed in item creation.
The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand’s creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

operation
-noun

1. an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating.

2. the state of being operative (usually preceded by in or into): a rule no longer in operation.

3. the power to act; efficacy, influence, or force.

4. the exertion of force, power, or influence; agency: the operation of alcohol on the mind.

[P.F.]

A wand of quickened true strike (or twinned or daisy-chained or any-other-meta-magic-ed) "operates" as a first level spell when the wand is activated, but not when it is created.

[Segev]

Some extreme cheese here (and I know you've found a solution, OP, but felt like contributing this observation anyway), but a Personal range spell can be cast as Touch range on your familiar. Reach Spell makes a Touch range spell into a ranged touch attack. Chain Spell can be applied to such things.

Reach Chain True Strike only has your Familiar as a valid primary target, but the Chain effect would let you get a number of additional soldiers equal to your caster level.

Reach is +2 spell levels. Chain is +3. That's a 6th level spell slot. Minimum caster level 11. That's 11 non-Familiar targets for the spell.

If your castle's high mage is at least 11th level, he can craft staves of this spell and distribute them to his apprentices. A few low-level wizards and sorcerers scattered around at 1 per 11 archers would be able to do this once per round.

Each staff is 49,500 gp, with 50 charges each, but that's 49,500 gp per 11 archers, and would let them each fire every round. So per archer, that's only 4500 gp. And it gives the low-level casters who lack many spell slots something to do to help support the castle's defense. (It still has to be wizards, sorcerers, or somebody else who has a familiar; it cannot target anything but the wielder's familiar as the primary target.)

[dascarletm]

Reach Chain True Strike only has your Familiar as a valid primary target, but the Chain effect would let you get a number of additional soldiers equal to your caster level.


Question:

If this logic is useable in game, does that mean we can do this to effect any target with any spell, even if it specifies otherwise?

Example: a spell with "Target: creature touched" could be used on an object.

or

a spell with "Target: undead creature touched" could be used on living targets.

[Segev]

Question:

If this logic is useable in game, does that mean we can do this to effect any target with any spell, even if it specifies otherwise?

Example: a spell with "Target: creature touched" could be used on an object.

or

a spell with "Target: undead creature touched" could be used on living targets.

I don't think so. The target still has to be valid for the spell. A spell that cannot target objects still cannot target objects.

This trick is questionable, I admit, because it's exploiting a very specific alteration to targeting and it doesn't specify a target aside from "personal."

That said, I think the only exploit you really can get out of it is that you can target things other than yourself with Personal range spells. It doesn't let you target non-undead with "undead creature" target spells. It only alters "touch" to "ranged touch."

[P.F.]

This trick is questionable, I admit, because it's exploiting a very specific alteration to targeting and it doesn't specify a target aside from "personal."

That said, I think the only exploit you really can get out of it is that you can target things other than yourself with Personal range spells. It doesn't let you target non-undead with "undead creature" target spells. It only alters "touch" to "ranged touch."

I don't think you can, because the spell does specify a target.


Target: You

So it works on other targets which are also "you," such as your familiar.

[bean illus]

Kudos to Curmudgeon. ... Truly.

For what it's worth, here's how I approach it:

A potion of true strike costs 50 gp and requires a standard action to use, and doesn't require Use Magic Device or a spell list which includes true strike. A wand is cheaper per activation (15 gp) but lacks these latter two qualities. A command word item of true strike also requires a standard action to activate, and costs 1800 gp. I don't believe that continuous is appropriate for spells which have a duration of "until discharged" and in any case the value of a continuous +20 to-hit has already been estimated at 400,000 gp or more, so we can safely disregard that particular flavor of cheese.

But a command word item (and presumably a use-activated item of an instantaneous spell) has a further consideration: charges per day. That's right, the formula for charges per day is "divide by (5 divided by number of charges per day)," which means the default for a command word or non-continuous use-activated item is 5 charges per day (divide by 5/5 = divide by 1 = same price).

So. 250 gp = 5 potions of true strike; 1800 gp = 5 charges of true strike / day, assuming this item takes up an appropriate slot on the body (I favor the eyes slot for this one, although gloves or ring would also be appropriate). Of course if it doesn't, it might cost double.

For 3600 gp you could have 10 charges / day. For 7200, you could use it 20 times per day. Forty charges per day would cost 14,400 gp, and 50 charges per day would set you back 18,000 gp. An equivalent number of potions would cost 2500 per day, and the archers would have to use their 50-charge-per-day items to their limit for five days and more before such an item became more cost efficient than potions.

For unlimited use the formula for xp costs and expensive components is equal to 100 charges, so I think it's a fair ad-hoc to apply to our Lenses of Striking True, giving a 36,000 gp price tag to an at-will item of true strike activated with a standard action and no special skill or class abilities required.

This ends up costing the same as a pair of Gloves of Dex +6, or slightly more than a +4 Composite Longbow, which means, all told, this price is probably still a bit on the low side. On the other hand, if instead of taking a +20 every other round we use a +10 weapon (ignoring the cap on enhancement bonus), the cost is 200,000 gp, roughly equivalent to a 500-charges-per-day command-word item of a 1st level spell. Probably overkill, imho.

ould I allow this item in my game? Not on your life. :smalltongue:
Nice work. But extra attention to the last sentence.

That whole thing was for an item of CONTINUOUS true strike, so getting +20 to all your attacks without any activation time whatsoever. That is quite different from having to spend half your
turns activating the true strike ability.

In this case i think it's clear that rotating personnel would develop continuous fire.

I personally think it's a really bad idea (OP). Precedent that studying a bit could give a layman a spell as an at will SLA is counter to the premise of 1st level casters getting one spell a day. And it sounds hard to rationalize why only these folks and only this spell.

[bean illus]

I'm sure this can be abused any number of ways. ANY upgrades in weapon or AMMO, support from casters, advancement in level etc.

Endless possibilities, I'm sure.

I like the 3 potions per man idea.. Keep it simple..

[SinsI]

So I'm starting up a 3.5e campaign, the specifics aren't necessary. I have an ability I want to give archers of an enemy army. The ability is only possessed by those archers guarding the main castle/headquarters of the enemy. I was considering given them an 'at-will' spell-like ability of 'True Strike', with the following conditions:
Casting time is a full-round
Caster level(for dispelling etc) is treated as 0

I understand having True Strike is a huge advantage, so what LA+/CR+ would you say this ability imparts?

The general concept, if you want/need to know is that they are part of a military focus'ed race(yes, hobgoblins but ignore racial predjudice) and the verbal components to activate the "True Strike" spell has been drilled into the archers to the level of muscle memory. It's cheaper to teach 20 guys how to cast true strike than it is to give them all +1 longbows.

Effectively? I'd say somewhere around CR12.
You have enemies that are shooting at you from outside your reach (so their HP don't really matter) with a BAB +20. A good optimized NPC can do the same at around level 14. -1CR for shooting every other round (since two of those are like 1 that can shoot every round), and additional -1CR for not having iterative attacks.

[Crake]

In this case i think it's clear that rotating personnel would develop continuous fire.

If multiple people are wasting their actions that they could be spending to actually contribute, then I don't really see an issue, in the scale of the action economy, they're still wasting half their actions.


Some extreme cheese here (and I know you've found a solution, OP, but felt like contributing this observation anyway), but a Personal range spell can be cast as Touch range on your familiar. Reach Spell makes a Touch range spell into a ranged touch attack. Chain Spell can be applied to such things.

Reach Chain True Strike only has your Familiar as a valid primary target, but the Chain effect would let you get a number of additional soldiers equal to your caster level.

Reach is +2 spell levels. Chain is +3. That's a 6th level spell slot. Minimum caster level 11. That's 11 non-Familiar targets for the spell.

If your castle's high mage is at least 11th level, he can craft staves of this spell and distribute them to his apprentices. A few low-level wizards and sorcerers scattered around at 1 per 11 archers would be able to do this once per round.

Each staff is 49,500 gp, with 50 charges each, but that's 49,500 gp per 11 archers, and would let them each fire every round. So per archer, that's only 4500 gp. And it gives the low-level casters who lack many spell slots something to do to help support the castle's defense. (It still has to be wizards, sorcerers, or somebody else who has a familiar; it cannot target anything but the wielder's familiar as the primary target.)

One problem with your idea, true strike is personal, so you cant apply reach spell to it, thus making it unable to qualify for chain spell. And if you're going to say that you can cast it on your familiar as a touch spell, reach spell says it can be applied to any spell that is normally a touch spell, so a circumstantial change via your familiar still does not allow it to qualify.