[3.5] Maximizing miss chances

[J-H]

How many ways are there to get miss chances, and how can we make them stack?

Ethereal: 50% miss chance for non-ghost touch weapons; weaker/earlier version: Blink
Epic Dodge (feat): Force an auto-miss once per round
Displacement: 50% miss chance; does not overlap with Ethereal; can be replaced by Swiftblade's Blurred Alacrity
Targeted non-attack roll spells: 50% miss chance from Swiftblade 8.

What else? I'm sure there's at least one more source out there.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Mirror image is not an actual miss chance, but it's functionally identical. The enemy has to choose an image to attack, and if it's not you, it whiffs (albeit destroying the image if it hits and deals "damage" at all). Its chance of hitting you randomly is based on the number of images you've got, which most likely means a far less chance of hitting you than 50%. Note that all the images can be in different spaces, so long as said spaces are adjacent to either you or another image, so you can huddle around the corner and send in a clone to draw in an enemy to someplace it'll be vulnerable to attack.

[Particle_Man]

If you like mirror image: The Warlock has flee the scene as an invocation. You teleport a short distance away and leave an image of you behind for one round that reacts to attacks as if you were concentrating on it.

[Anthrowhale]

Note that Rules Compendium says that a 50% miss chance is the maximum.

[Goaty14]

Epic Dodge (feat): Force an auto-miss once per round

How do people think this interacts with a deity's ability to always hit?

[J-H]

Mirror image is not an actual miss chance, but it's functionally identical. The enemy has to choose an image to attack, and if it's not you, it whiffs (albeit destroying the image if it hits and deals "damage" at all). Its chance of hitting you randomly is based on the number of images you've got, which most likely means a far less chance of hitting you than 50%. Note that all the images can be in different spaces, so long as said spaces are adjacent to either you or another image, so you can huddle around the corner and send in a clone to draw in an enemy to someplace it'll be vulnerable to attack.
Good one to add, thanks.

Note that Rules Compendium says that a 50% miss chance is the maximum.
None of these methods are more than 50%, but they are from different sources, so an attacker would have to roll miss chance multiple times. Just as if you were fighting a ghost (50% miss chance) in the dark (50% miss chance)


How do people think this interacts with a deity's ability to always hit?
Ask the DM. I would probably rule that a deity's ability to hit probably overrules physical dodging. A Void Incarnate (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20030418a) may still be able to hide. I've not poked around the deity rules at all.

[Anthrowhale]

None of these methods are more than 50%, but they are from different sources, so an attacker would have to roll miss chance multiple times. Just as if you were fighting a ghost (50% miss chance) in the dark (50% miss chance)

This is logical but it is not the rules.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Thing is, even if the miss chances don't stack, they both force a roll, as the sources of miss chance require it, regardless of whatever the rules say otherwise. If you're attacking a ghost under a displacement, you have to roll to see if your weapon actually connects with the space where the ghost actually is, which is a miss chance on its own. If your weapon actually passes through where the ghost is in 3D space, then you have to roll again to see if your weapon strikes through the incorporeality.

Some, such as invisibility and blindness, rely on the same mechanic -- in this case, striking the target without seeing it (even if blindness is more restrictive to the attacker overall) -- so they couldn't be used in tandem, but others...

They don't stack, as such, since you don't roll a 25% chance to see if you hit, but you still have to roll them separately, as they rely on completely different mechanics, just like you have to chew through DR and hardness and temp hp to reach an opponent's real hp.

[Particle_Man]

Oh, if Epic Dodge is here, how about Deflect Arrows? Force a ranged weapon attack to miss you, once per round.

Similarly, IIRC there is a tactical feat in Complete Warrior that, when you are flanked, has flanker #1 auto miss you with their first attack *and* hit flanker #2 instead.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Martial monk 2 to grab Infinite Deflection and Exceptional Deflection. Perfect defense against any ranged (or ranged touch) attack you're aware of.

Evasive Reflexes + Karmic Strike to step out of reach of any melee attack you're aware of that's made within your reach. Note that Karmic Strike allows you to take an AoO any time you're attacked, and that AoOs take place before the action that provoked them. Evasive Reflexes, of course, allows you to take a 5' step in lieu of an AoO. Add Combat Reflexes to do so several times per round, and Improved Combat Reflexes to do so every time. Martial monk to grab ICS early. The press the advantage stance, from ToB, gives you two 5' steps per round. The training dummy of the master ups these to two 10' steps per round (which you can then sell at full price to some other monk who wants to use it). Anyone know of ways to increase the distance moved during a 5' step?

[aviary]

If you're willing to expand the definition of "miss chances", consider the starmantle cloak from BoED with a ring of evasion. You can make a trivial Reflex save to avoid any damage at all.

[Doctor Awkward]

Thing is, even if the miss chances don't stack, they both force a roll, as the sources of miss chance require it, regardless of whatever the rules say otherwise. If you're attacking a ghost under a displacement, you have to roll to see if your weapon actually connects with the space where the ghost actually is, which is a miss chance on its own. If your weapon actually passes through where the ghost is in 3D space, then you have to roll again to see if your weapon strikes through the incorporeality.

Some, such as invisibility and blindness, rely on the same mechanic -- in this case, striking the target without seeing it (even if blindness is more restrictive to the attacker overall) -- so they couldn't be used in tandem, but others...

They don't stack, as such, since you don't roll a 25% chance to see if you hit, but you still have to roll them separately, as they rely on completely different mechanics, just like you have to chew through DR and hardness and temp hp to reach an opponent's real hp.

Except that's quite literally the opposite of what the Rules Compendium says:


Multiple concealment conditions don’t stack. If a creature
receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from
being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest
miss chance applies.

It says the exact same thing again on page 64.

It even uses your specific example--incorporeal with concealment-- in stating this.

Also that bit about blind and invisibility using the same "mechanics" is definitely just paraphrasing the description of the Blind condition, which states, "All opponents are considered to have total concealment against the blinded creature. A blinded creature pinpoints targets and deals damage to them as if those targets were invisible."

[ExLibrisMortis]

Anyone know of ways to increase the distance moved during a 5' step?
Elocater 7
Press the Advantage
sparring dummy of the master
Evasive Reflexes
Karmic Strike
Tumble (Oriental Adventures expanded use)
Opportunistic Tactician (Dragon #340)

I think Elocater + Press the Advantage gives you two sets of two five-foot steps during your turn, each covering 10' of movement with the sparring dummy, although other stacking rules are possible. Evasive Reflexes/Opportunistic Tactician + Karmic Strike lets you take an extra five-foot step--still covering 10' of movement--every time you get an AoO. The sparring dummy and the OA rules don't stack by RAW (both set a five-foot step to 10'), but they could be ruled to stack, for 15' five-foot steps.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Except that's quite literally the opposite of what the Rules Compendium says:

It says the exact same thing again on page 64.

It even uses your specific example--incorporeal with concealment-- in stating this.

Also that bit about blind and invisibility using the same "mechanics" is definitely just paraphrasing the description of the Blind condition, which states, "All opponents are considered to have total concealment against the blinded creature. A blinded creature pinpoints targets and deals damage to them as if those targets were invisible."Except the Rules Compendium is explicitly and demonstrably wrong. Incorporeality is not a concealment condition. It's the fact that the creature doesn't even exist in a physical manner. I can understand multiple sources of concealment not working together, but if you have to roll to see if you're even hitting the area the creature is in and you happen to make that roll, you still have to roll to see if you can affect it due to incorporeality. Just like a blinking target requiring you to make a second roll to see if you hit it, because it's not even on the same plane as you half the time.

Those are entirely different things. There's no way to avoid making two rolls -- unless you're rolling to see if you're hitting the right space fails and you simply whiff altogether, so the second one is unnecessary.

[Crichton]

Except the Rules Compendium is explicitly and demonstrably wrong. Incorporeality is not a concealment condition. It's the fact that the creature doesn't even exist in a physical manner. I can understand multiple sources of concealment not working together, but if you have to roll to see if you're even hitting the area the creature is in and you happen to make that roll, you still have to roll to see if you can affect it due to incorporeality. Just like a blinking target requiring you to make a second roll to see if you hit it, because it's not even on the same plane as you half the time.

Those are entirely different things. There's no way to avoid making two rolls -- unless you're rolling to see if you're hitting the right space fails and you simply whiff altogether, so the second one is unnecessary.

I'd tend to rule this issue the way you do, but I'm pretty sure the concealment he was referring to was from the displacement in your example, not from the incorporeality. In which case, I can't see how the RC is wrong.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd tend to rule this issue the way you do, but I'm pretty sure the concealment he was referring to was from the displacement in your example, not from the incorporeality. In which case, I can't see how the RC is wrong.You're not stacking two forms of concealment. One is concealment, which throws off your aim. The second is trying to damage something that isn't even there if you do hit it.

They're entirely different factors; they simply use miss chance as a way of quantifying the basic way they function. Technically speaking, the 50% "miss chance" applied to incorporeality isn't actually a "miss chance" at all. It's a percentage chance to see if you can actually damage what you've hit.

It's like trying to hit an incorporeal spellcaster under the effects of mirror image if you roll a die to randomly figure out which one you're hitting. The first roll is to figure out if you hit an image or the spellcaster, which has nothing to do with the fact that you have to roll again if you actually hit to see if you deal damage.

[Crichton]

You're not stacking two forms of concealment. One is concealment, which throws off your aim. The second is trying to damage something that isn't even there if you do hit it.

They're entirely different factors; they simply use miss chance as a way of quantifying the basic way they function. Technically speaking, the 50% "miss chance" applied to incorporeality isn't actually a "miss chance" at all. It's a percentage chance to see if you can actually damage what you've hit.

It's like trying to hit an incorporeal spellcaster under the effects of mirror image if you roll a die to randomly figure out which one you're hitting. The first roll is to figure out if you hit an image or the spellcaster, which has nothing to do with the fact that you have to roll again if you actually hit to see if you deal damage.

It's not stacking two forms of concealment, or two forms of incorporeality. Your example of a ghost with displacement is one of each!

I agree with your logic, 100%, but in light of the previously posted Rules Compendium quote, which specifically calls out incorporeality and concealment not stacking, it's hard to argue that an incorporeal creature (ghost from your example) and a creature with concealment (displacement from your example), would get both miss chances. It's like your example is exactly what the Rules Compendium lists as not working... Other things, like mirror image, perhaps would have a better chance of a ruling in favor of both working.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As posted above, "Multiple concealment conditions don’t stack. If a creature receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest miss chance applies."

It's not multiple concealment conditions. It's one concealment condition and one incorporeal condition, so they do stack, due to affecting the target in entirely different and separate ways. Unless, somehow, hitting an entirely different 5' space over here means I can hit the ghost over there if I roll the incorporeality miss chance? Because that's exactly what's happening in the other example. You're rolling to hit the right point in 3D space, and then rolling for incorporeality after that. Aiming for a totally different 5' space shouldn't change that.

In short, there's a reason why I won't use the Rules Compendium. The writers are even stupider than normal.

[Crichton]

As posted above, "Multiple concealment conditions don’t stack. If a creature receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest miss chance applies."

It's not multiple concealment conditions. It's one concealment condition and one incorporeal condition, so they do stack, due to affecting the target in entirely different and separate ways. Unless, somehow, hitting an entirely different 5' space over here means I can hit the ghost over there if I roll the incorporeality miss chance? Because that's exactly what's happening in the other example. You're rolling to hit the right point in 3D space, and then rolling for incorporeality after that. Aiming for a totally different 5' space shouldn't change that.

In short, there's a reason why I won't use the Rules Compendium. The writers are even stupider than normal.

Ok, so you're saying the first sentence of your quote supercedes the second sentence, where it states that incorporeal and concealment don't stack? I agree that the RC is silly, and I tend not to include it, and I really do like your logic, but if the RC is taken as a rules source, which it seems it is in this thread, then incorporeal and concealment don't stack, because it says they don't, regardless of the logic involved or the first sentence about multiple sources of concealment. It doesn't say that the second sentence is an example or an extension of the first sentence. It just states both sentences as rules.

[Doctor Awkward]

In short, there's a reason why I won't use the Rules Compendium. The writers are even stupider than normal.


I agree that the RC is silly, and I tend not to include it,

Granted this thread might not be the appropriate place for this line of inquiry, but I have never understood this forum's tendency to treat the Rules Compendium as silly, while treating the Main 3.5 FAQ-- which actually contains demonstrable incongruities, contradictions and admitted house-rules-- as gospel.

Can either of you, or anyone else, point me to one specific entry in the Rules Compendium that does not appear in a previous supplement or errata, which are the things that the Rules Compendium explains it contains of it in the introduction?

[ExLibrisMortis]

[...] this forum's tendency to treat [...] the Main 3.5 FAQ [...] as gospel.
Wait what? We don't do that. The FAQ has even less status than the Rules Compendium; it's just some guy's opinion. Errata are official, FAQ is not.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wait what? We don't do that. The FAQ has even less status than the Rules Compendium; it's just some guy's opinion. Errata are official, FAQ is not.

Fair enough.
It's probably just my outlying experience then. I've been in numerous discussions where someone at some point stated, "Well the FAQ says..." as part of their RAW defense.

[Nifft]

Granted this thread might not be the appropriate place for this line of inquiry, but I have never understood this forum's tendency to treat the Rules Compendium as silly, while treating the Main 3.5 FAQ-- which actually contains demonstrable incongruities, contradictions and admitted house-rules-- as gospel.

Can either of you, or anyone else, point me to one specific entry in the Rules Compendium that does not appear in a previous supplement or errata, which are the things that the Rules Compendium explains it contains of it in the introduction? The FAQ is one of the least authoritative sources. It's on par with random internet posts.


Wait what? We don't do that. The FAQ has even less status than the Rules Compendium; it's just some guy's opinion. Errata are official, FAQ is not. Yeah, this.


Fair enough.
It's probably just my outlying experience then. I've been in numerous discussions where someone at some point stated, "Well the FAQ says..." as part of their RAW defense. That was either an ignorant poster, or more likely it was a bad-faith appeal to a very poor authority just to shut you down.

Some posters are here for sport, and not to help.

[Menzath]

Well if you do use the rules compendium, from what I have read either way is that it only states that the miss chance from being incorporeal, or invisible doesn't stack with the miss chance from concealment. Even under the concealment section all it says is that miss chance from multiple concealment effects(of witch they count invisiblity and incorporeality) do not stack.
And only those sources.

So miss chance from a non concealing spell or magic items therefore do stack. Clear cut to me.

[Ramza00]

If you do Spelldancer (A Feat Tax, but it allows you to persist spells easily) or Incantatrix's Metamagic Spell Effect then "Instant Diversion" from Races of the Dragon gives you image like clones for a swift action, wizard / sorc 1st level spell, that lasts 1 round. (But we are persisting this personal spell to increase the duration to 24 hours.) How many clones you get is based off your caster level and it maxes out at 5.

[J-H]

Swiftblade gives a miss chance for individually-targeted spells that do not have attack rolls. That would include single-target Dispels, Finger of Death, Implosion, and more.

[Deophaun]

This is logical but it is not the rules.
That depends a lot on how incorporeality works. If it's 50% because you cannot pick out the vulnerable bits from the invulnerable ones, then it makes no sense to have concealment add any more to it, as it functionally already has concealment for that purpose.

[liquidformat]

So I am a bit confused, would mirrior image still stack with ethereal or displacement according to that ruling? It seems like it should, you have to first be swinging at the correct 'you' then overcome the miss chance of the second ability...

[ExLibrisMortis]

So I am a bit confused, would mirrior image still stack with ethereal or displacement according to that ruling? It seems like it should, you have to first be swinging at the correct 'you' then overcome the miss chance of the second ability...
Mirror image doesn't rely on a d% miss chance roll, it actually puts multiple pseudo-creatures in spaces on the battlefield. It's an entirely different thing that doesn't interact with real miss chance (concealment), meaning it stacks.