I have been thinking on an issue that seems to be popping up more and more the more I research it. We have run accross this issue a few times at the gaming table, however, I would like to talk more about the issue when it comes down to spells. I think that some of my questions on this matter have been answered here: Reddit Thread
However, Does True Strike allow for the miss chance to happen from spells such as Fog Cloud, Blur, Displacement, or other simmalar spell/effects?
True Strike never says certain concealment from certain sources get to avoid it so that means True Strike will matter unless otherwise stated.
Basically, a thing does what it says it does unless specifically countered by another thing. By "specifically" I mean true strike would have to have called out as not working.
PS: Most forms of concealment will be from a magical(spell, SLA, or SU) source so if magic defeated true strike it would be spelled out.
Quote: Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target Yes, True Strike negates concealment miss chances due to a spell effect, such as Blur.
D'oh! Ninja'd
I don't think displacement is a concealment effect. The description says it is like total concealment, but goes on to suggest it is not like actual total concealment.
Quote: True Strike never says certain concealment from certain sources get to avoid it so that means True Strike will matter unless otherwise stated. You are right. True strike never states that.
Quote: Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target True Strike does state the above as per the spell. However, spells like blur and fog cloud give you the effect of being concealed without actually being concealed. It is an effect that is generated by the spell.
Think about it this way:
Bob and Joe are standing in a field. Joe has Gloves of True Strike. Bob casts Fog Cloud. Joe then attacks and rolls his miss chance.
Is Bob concealed? No. He is just granted the effect of concealment by a spell. He is not actually concealed. So the miss chance still applies.
That's a pedantic reading. He is concealed by the mist. True strike would work with even non-magical fog, it's written in a very general way.
It wouldn't technically work against mirror image, but nothing does because of poor writing.
The big question I have is how well it would work against blink.
well I know that it doesnt work against Invisibily and Dispalcement.
However, I am still not concealed but I would still get the 20% miss chance as to not knowing exactly where I would be when the attack is made because the spells effect grants me the effect of being concealed even though I am not being physically concealed.
I dont think that that is a pendantic reading since the 20% miss chance represents the difficulty of knowing where I am at at the time of the attack.
I don't see how a spell like Displacement or Invisibility grant concealment. Similarly, Mirror Image and Blink don't either.
With Mirror Image nothing is covered up, there are just multiple copies of the caster and it is hard to tell which one is real. With Blink, the caster is not actually concealed, just in another plane briefly.
This is hard to adjudicate, because the spell description uses the term 'concealment' in one place, but True Strike does not reach into the Ethereal plane.
Faced with Displacement or Mirror Image or whatever, couldn't someone who has cast True Strike simply close their eyes, thus granting their target concealment--which True Strike negates--and so bypass the purely visual defense of the spell?
("But with the blast shield down, I can't even see! How am I supposed to fight?" "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.")
Mirror image just grants a miss chance. Not concealment. So true strike doesn't negate it. Same with displacement.
Blink normally just gives a miss chance from ethereal blinking, so true strike normally doesn't negate it. If you can target ethereal creatures, however, blink merely provides concealment, and therefore can be negated by true strike.
Invisibility definitely provides concealment. That's the only reason it gives a miss chance at all.
Invisibility (CRB Glossary) wrote: Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)... If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). And if that's not enough for you:
Concealment (CRB Combat) wrote: Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. Just look at the spell and see what it says. If it grants concealment, you can ignore it with true strike. If it grants miss chance some other way, you can't. There are no secret requirements for whether or not certain concealment can be bypassed.
Emmit Svenson wrote: Faced with Displacement or Mirror Image or whatever, couldn't someone who has cast True Strike simply close their eyes, thus granting their target concealment--which True Strike negates--and so bypass the purely visual defense of the spell?
("But with the blast shield down, I can't even see! How am I supposed to fight?" "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.")
That definitely works with mirror image; it's actually in the spell description.
It wouldn't work with blink, because the target is physically not there half of the time.
It's unclear whether that would work with displacement, but as a GM I would definitely allow it.
FalconPunch367 wrote:
True Strike does state the above as per the spell. However, spells like blur and fog cloud give you the effect of being concealed without actually being concealed. It is an effect that is generated by the spell.
That's not just wrong, that's lazy wrong. Read the spell descriptions again. Blur and Fog Cloud explicitly state that they grant concealment.
FalconPunch367 wrote: well I know that it doesnt work against Invisibily and Dispalcement. How do you "know" that? Because most people would disagree with you.
Quote: However, I am still not concealed but I would still get the 20% miss chance as to not knowing exactly where I would be when the attack is made because the spells effect grants me the effect of being concealed even though I am not being physically concealed.
I dont think that that is a pendantic reading since the 20% miss chance represents the difficulty of knowing where I am at at the time of the attack.
You seem to bge under the impression that "physically concealed" is an important distinction. Why is that?
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
