Say a paranoid magic user has Blurring bracers of armor, Mirror Image, Blink, Invisibility, Wings of Cover, and Etherealness going. How to calculate the miss chances versus a normal attack, magic attack, force attack, and so forth?
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
3
Don't stack miss chances; instead use the highest miss chance that affects an incoming effect
The Rules Compendium says, "If a creature receives miss chances from multiple sources, such as from being incorporeal and having concealment, only the highest miss chance applies" (32).
Suspicious of the Rules Compendium?
The Rules Compendium—by here expanding yet not contradicting the core rules—, in this case serves its function as the Player's Handbook concerns itself with miss chances due exclusively to concealment (e.g. "Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack" (PH 152)).
answered Jul 20, 2016 at 19:42
-
\$\begingroup\$ The Compendium had a lot of novel interpretations. Do you recall if that's supported by the SRD? \$\endgroup\$– fectinCommented Jul 20, 2016 at 19:47
-
4\$\begingroup\$ @fectin The core rules concern themselves with miss chances exclusively due to concealment ("Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack" (PH 152)). The Rules Compendium expands but doesn't contradict those rules. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 20, 2016 at 19:56
-
\$\begingroup\$ The Player's Handbook (2000) says, "Do not add the miss chances together" (133), which is much easier but also out of context and pre-3.5 revision. Also, the PH quotation above is hilarious in some electronic versions of the PH (a product of OCR misinterpretation or mischief I know not) but the hilarity is absent in print versions. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 22, 2016 at 3:14