|
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
Are you trying to attack the shadow of the guy, or are you trying to figure out where to shoot via the guy's shadow?
If the former: Yes, you would still get the bonus. The shadow is a target, you get a bonus to hit it.
If the latter: Yes, you would, but this strategy would have to be allowed by the DM, because there are no rules for pinpointing your opponent's location with a shadow. And you might still get a penalty to hit.
|
|
yes i am trying to pinpoint my target by the shadow, and when i read the true strike spell it is defined
-you actually get a for-sight into your next attack and you can see just where the person will be during your attack that is the justification for the +20
so with all that i am arguing that i can see where exactly my opponent is gunna be at that exact moment. i dont mine a slight (-) modifier but my dm wants to just shut down the entire action by just saying that my true strike doesnt work.
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
Within 40' (no penalty).
Concealment from tent (negated by true strike).True Strike (gives +20 to hit).
Seems clear.
True Strike:
True Strike
Divination
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text
You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Focus
A small wooden replica of an archery target.
Note: Concealment is completly negated by true strike.
|
|
yes i am trying to pinpoint my target by the shadow, and when i read the true strike spell it is defined
-you actually get a for-sight into your next attack and you can see just where the person will be during your attack that is the justification for the +20so with all that i am arguing that i can see where exactly my opponent is gunna be at that exact moment. i dont mine a slight (-) modifier but my dm wants to just shut down the entire action by just saying that my true strike doesnt work.
Shadows are not that reliable. As I said in the other thread where you asked this, you'd get your normal attack roll. Miss, and you miss. Hit, and there's a chance, due to distortion, movement, flickering light, etc. that you miss; I'd set the % chance at the actual distance between you and the target, 1% per foot.
i definitly agree with the flicker of light and the major chance of just out right missing to shoot at it regularly.. But do you agree if i get my truesight? and if so that would negate miss chance.
It would count as an invisible opponent.
AC of target counts as flatfooted unless he knows your there.
You have a -4 to hit as you know where your opponent is (in general) but can not seem them.
You have a +20 to hit from true strike.
Any miss chance caused by concealment is negated by the true strike spell. (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).)
Total modifiers = +16 to attack above normal agaisnt the opponents flatfooted AC.
Edit: From SRD on true strike. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
I concur. You'd certainly get the benefits of the true strike spell, if you cast it.
|
I am NOT a crunch gamer so I've NO IDEA the official whatever.
But, I strongly recommend getting Kobold Quarterly #2 and reading the Skip Williams "Sage Advice-like" article on concealment and shooting arrows.
I don't know if it will help DMs with this specific ruling issue but it is spectacularly insightful into the theory behind Concealment rules. And extremely reasonable.
-W. E. Ray
I would treat it as an invisible target with a 50% miss chance if shooting at the guy based on his shadow (total concealment vs. concealment). But you get the +20 attack bonus.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You do not get the bonus to hit the person making the shadow.
You have line-of-sight and line-of-effect only to hitting the shadow, not the person. If you want to shoot the shadow then your spell gives you an intuitive fore-knowledge of how the candles will flicker and where the shadow will be next round.
The spell does not aid you in hitting the person casting the shadow as you have no line-of-sight to them.
...
It was a nice try, but doesn't work. The shadow is the target of your attack for the purposes of the spell, whereas the unseen person casting the shadow is not a viable target of your attack per the spell description and so you gain no bonus against him.
Hi, Rezdave. I'm afraid I must disagree.
According to the spell-as-written, the Range is "Personal" and the Target is "You". The caster doesn't need line-of-sight, or line-of-effect to the target of the swing. The target of the spell is the caster (and, by extention, the attack) not the person being attacked.
At least, that's the way I'd run it.
I'd definitely give you the +20 to hit the shadow. HOWEVER...
Since your "real" target is the creature casting the shadow, I'd also invoke the rule for 100% cover since you can't really see it. In other words, the creature would get a bonus to its AC and you'd have a miss chance.
The reason for this is simple: A shadow is almost never the same size as its caster, which creates a chance that you'll miss. Also, it is not necessarily true that the creature casting the shadow is in your line of fire. The only way this would be possible is if the creature you're trying to shoot is standing directly between you and the light source creating the shadow. It is reasonable to assume the creature might be a little off to the side, so you're not guaranteed to hit it.
Good luck on that shot, though.
I'd definitely give you the +20 to hit the shadow. HOWEVER...
Since your "real" target is the creature casting the shadow, I'd also invoke the rule for 100% cover since you can't really see it. In other words, the creature would get a bonus to its AC and you'd have a miss chance.
The reason for this is simple: A shadow is almost never the same size as its caster, which creates a chance that you'll miss. Also, it is not necessarily true that the creature casting the shadow is in your line of fire. The only way this would be possible is if the creature you're trying to shoot is standing directly between you and the light source creating the shadow. It is reasonable to assume the creature might be a little off to the side, so you're not guaranteed to hit it.
Good luck on that shot, though.
I would have to agree with your reasoning, and add another reason for modified function of the spell.
The way true strike is worded, "You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future," indicates to me that, during the next round, the character would conceivably need to be in a situation allowing him or her to identify the location of the target.
In other words, since your character would not be able to tell where the target is in the next turn (because you would still only see a shadow on a tent), you cannot benefit from such a glimpse of the future. I would rule that the spell would function, and be expended, but provide only the limited benefit that was mentioned upon its casting. Depending on the situation, however, I might consider replacing the miss chance with a Wisdom or Intelligence ability check, or applicable skill check, indicating the PC's attempt to discern the target's true location by it's shadow; I just have no idea what I would set the DC to in such a situation.
And has been mentioned, you need to remember: even though you have line-of-sight with the shadow, you may not have a valid shot at the source of that shadow.
EDIT: When all is said and done, I'd love to hear how the situation played out.
|
|
It would seem to me that there are 2 ways of looking at this:
1) The target has total concealment. You can attack into his square and true strike allows you to ignore the miss chance. However, you don't really know what square he's in. You're using a shadow to determine the location of the shadow's owner. I'd rule that since you know where the shadow is, you can pick which square you want to attack. I'd let either the player choose or allow him to resolve it with a roll (probably a Wisdom check). Pick the right square and you'd probably hit since you get a +16 to the attack. Pick the wrong square and you miss, true strike or not.
2) The target has total cover. This is the hardball DM way to go. If the target has total cover (albeit a tent would be flimsy cover), you can't attack period. True strike doesn't help you in this case.
Best of luck convincing your DM that a bunch of random people on Paizo's message board said he should let you do this. >:)
-Skeld
|
|
I would have to repeat what many are saying here. Your bonus to attack goes for the shadow. While the rules specificly say that True Strike allows you to ignore Concealment, I think the spirit of the rules intends this for invisible targets, not those who are essentially behind a wall.
And yes, the canvas of a tent is a wall in this case. A very thin, frail wall, but a wall none the less.
Basicly put, if there's nothing blocking your LoS and/or LoE, True Strike would help. However, should there be some obstruction to either one, True Strike would not help.
By the way, if you do wish to argue the rules as written and not the spirit of the rules, then shooting an enemy through a tent wouldn't work. According to the rules in their purest form, that arrow would deal its damage to the canvas, and then just stop, as there are no rules for penetration of any material.
It would seem to me that there are 2 ways of looking at this:
1) The target has total concealment. You can attack into his square and true strike allows you to ignore the miss chance. However, you don't really know what square he's in. You're using a shadow to determine the location of the shadow's owner. I'd rule that since you know where the shadow is, you can pick which square you want to attack. I'd let either the player choose or allow him to resolve it with a roll (probably a Wisdom check). Pick the right square and you'd probably hit since you get a +16 to the attack. Pick the wrong square and you miss, true strike or not.
2) The target has total cover. This is the hardball DM way to go. If the target has total cover (albeit a tent would be flimsy cover), you can't attack period. True strike doesn't help you in this case.
Best of luck convincing your DM that a bunch of random people on Paizo's message board said he should let you do this. >:)
-Skeld
I think Skeld hit it almost solidly on the head here. The spell works, but like he said you have to PICK YOUR SQUARE to shoot into. The tent provides SOFT COVER and TOTAL CONCEALMENT (Total Cover might be granted by a stone wall, but not by a canvas tent flap IMO), so your target (assuming you pick the right square to shoot into) gets a +4 bonus to his AC from cover but the True Strike spell negates the miss chance from concealment.
This leaves you with:
+16 to hit and NO 50/50 miss chance (IF you pick the square that the tareget is in)
Hope this helps!
Good use of the spell too by the way!
-Roth
|
I would say it al depends on how big the tent is...
I agree with the points of many. You cannot target the person they have concealment. On the otherhand if the tent is 10 feet wide and you see the five foot square next to the door and it may be easy to surmise where he is and take the shot. You would still have minuses...
Now if the tent is 30 foot square then it is a whole different thing. How would have a clue where he is from is shadow not knowing how far he is from the candle, etc. (many of the reasons given above)
yes i am trying to pinpoint my target by the shadow, and when i read the true strike spell it is defined
-you actually get a for-sight into your next attack and you can see just where the person will be during your attack that is the justification for the +20so with all that i am arguing that i can see where exactly my opponent is gunna be at that exact moment. i dont mine a slight (-) modifier but my dm wants to just shut down the entire action by just saying that my true strike doesnt work.
Shadows represent (imo) a blurry image of where your targets is going to be. Blur gives a 20% coverage bonus. So I'd go with a 20% miss ,and beating that percentage your true strike bonus will be in full effect.
Ok seeing as this was apparently the first thread about this I'm going to copy and paste what I had posted on another thread for you.
/Trundles over with a red kids wagon full of ironwood, starts tossing it on the fire. Flips it over so I have a soap box to get on.
Looking at what you just posted ArchLich, as a strict reading of the pertinent rules:
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
Soft Cover
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.
Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
The wall of the tent does fulfill all the criteria, and someone even said earlier that the wall of the tent would foil line of effect for a magic missle. Just as a window actually blocks line of effect, but doesn't block line of sight, there is a difference. Regardless of the physics of it (as most of the people are arguing - and I would actually tend to agree in that respect) the question is actually of game mechanics. The rule for "Cover" is saying if ANY line is blocked there is cover, I would also hazard to say it is implied that there is at least one line that goes from the corner of the square of the target to the corner of the square of the target that DOES NOT have cover. The reason I say this, there would be no need for a "Total Cover" section stating if you don't have line of effect. This is the case with an archer firing through the tent "wall" at a target, the line is stopping at the wall. None of the lines from the archers square to the targets square are NOT hitting the wall, correct? (Not a theoretical question, I haven't seen the post that started all this, I'm going through this with the idea there isn't some flap or door to the tent involved between the target and attacker.)
Also the mention of "soft cover" by the rules is concerning creatures, just because we may view the material as insignificant, doesn't change the fact that the rules do not differentiate between a wall of stone or a wall of canvas, soft cover seems to be the realm of critters not objects. It doesn't make a tent wall soft cover (unless the DM states so or I guess it could be an animated object too, then it would be true - this is subjective on your part while stating your case, not an actual rule). As the rules have been stated and/or quoted, is the attack valid? In order to see if it is, we then have to see if it has line of effect (And that then becomes the real question). On an aside, could you have a tower shield of canvas? Yes. Would it work as a tower shield (as ridiculous as it sounds)? Yes. It would be a heck of alot easier to sunder as well but until it was destroyed it would provide its full effect.
Now whether or not that makes sense to any given DM for their game... Up to them, no good arguing a game that you aren't playing in. Not to mention there is the "It works/doesn't work because it's my world" the DM can always fall back on (I would hope they didn't, but if you are being annoying/disruptive enough, it might). If the DM wants to make it more realistic/heroic and house rule/make up some stipulations for the character to make the shot, cool. Be happy they are letting you do it, because reading the SRD/rules that have been posted here shows it isn't possible. A character can complain, but as long as the DM is consistant I wouldn't be too irritated with it, take it and move on to enjoying the game. Going beyond the rules written as to the intent or "what should happen", go to the wiz boards for character optimization for that arguement. It's been done. Over. And Over. And again. If you get my drift.
So, in closing, no line of effect from any of the corners is total concealment. Total concealment means no attack regardless of material, shadows, opacity, accuity of eye sight (or lack thereof), wind direction, position and/or alignment of moons, suns, or stars or personal opinion in a game you aren't playing in. It isn't "the rules don't say otherwise so it is going to work". I'm not going to say it isn't reasonable some of the stuff might happen, it just doesn't happen in the context of the rules of the game as per the SRD where you're pulling these rules from. There might be feats or magic items that allowed this behavior in game, but not in the SRD. I think the item property I am thinking about was in Comp. Warrior where a projectile weapon blew through its target to hit the target behind it with a modified AC until it missed. But that is another tangent and not really relevent to the post at hand (but a way you could get it to work!).
/Sits down on my soap box to watch the funny colored flames.