Exploring the Extraordinary Creatures of the Magic Veer

Creatures of magic veer are fantastical beings that exist in the realm of magic. They are often depicted as mythical creatures with extraordinary powers and abilities. These creatures are the stuff of legends and folklore, capturing the imagination and awe of people. One of the most famous creatures of magic veer is the dragon. Dragons are often described as large, serpent-like creatures with wings, scales, and the ability to breathe fire. They symbolize power, wisdom, and strength.

Now, just to be clear – the Fomorians aren’t exactly dangerous Celtic mythological creatures, they’re more terrifying in appearance.

It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. The Stormguard Warrior feat has a tactic to make melee touch attacks for no damage, and for each hit, you get to deal 5 damage on all your attacks against that foe the next turn.

They symbolize power, wisdom, and strength. In many stories, dragons are guardians of treasure and represent a challenge for adventurers to overcome. Another creature of magic veer is the unicorn.

D&D 3E/3.5 3.5: Seeking and Incorporeal Creatures

". negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

The way I read this is that as long as the attacker knows what square his target's in, he -never- has to roll a miss chance. Correct? If so, does this apply to the 50% miss chance when dealing with incorporeal creatures?

Dandu

First Post

StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer

"Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)"

Concealment is just one example of a miss chance, it's not the complete list of the only things Seeking overcomes. Seeking says it ignores any miss chance. Incorporeality yields a miss chance for magic weapons. Therefore, Seeking weapons ignore it.

Dandu

First Post

I have found out that incoporeals do not actually have a miss chance so much as a chance to ignore damage.

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).

StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer

So if you had an effect that triggered on a hit, even if the attack did no damage (most such things only apply if an attack does damage I know, but this is hypothetical), would it trigger if someone with a magic weapon hit the incorp creature's AC but failed the 50% roll? Genuinely interested in how that would work, and the answer to that would answer the OP's question (if it's a "failure to do damage roll" seeking doesn't help; if you rule that it completely negates the hit then it's clearly a "miss chance" even though it wasn't specifically named that).

EDIT: I have an example! The Stormguard Warrior feat has a tactic to make melee touch attacks for no damage, and for each hit, you get to deal +5 damage on all your attacks against that foe the next turn. So. would the incorp's 50% protection apply to that?

AdmundfortGeographer

Getting lost in fantasy maps

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

But I agree that seeking doesn't bypass the % chance to ignore damage quality of incorporeal. That's what ghost touch is all about.

Dandu

First Post

So if you had an effect that triggered on a hit, even if the attack did no damage (most such things only apply if an attack does damage I know, but this is hypothetical), would it trigger if someone with a magic weapon hit the incorp creature's AC but failed the 50% roll?

TanisFrey

First Post

Is the mirror image spell a "miss chance"?

But I agree that seeking doesn't bypass the % chance to ignore damage quality of incorporeal. That's what ghost touch is all about.

Yes and no. There is a chance to miss but it does not interfere with a rogue's ability to sneak attack like concealment can.

StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer

In the same way a higher AC increases your chance of being missed. Seriously though, you get the difference, right? In the case of concealment and incorp., it's a percentile roll, on top of the roll to "hit," that doesn't make the two functionally the same as any old thing that makes you harder to hit. It doesn't necessarily mean they're equivalent, either of course.

AdmundfortGeographer

Getting lost in fantasy maps

In the case of mirror image and miss chances, I meant to question whether the "any miss chances that would otherwise apply" clause in the seeking enhancement (per the OP) might be ruled to allow a weapon to ignore the effect of the mirror image spell, not about mirror image and sneak attacks.

Vegepygmy

First Post

EDIT: I have an example! The Stormguard Warrior feat has a tactic to make melee touch attacks for no damage, and for each hit, you get to deal +5 damage on all your attacks against that foe the next turn. So. would the incorp's 50% protection apply to that?

Is that a spell or magic weapon?

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities . It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons , it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile , or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).

I agree with Dandu. It isn't technically a "miss chance," though it is often (incorrectly) referred to as such.

(And no, obviously mirror image doesn't result in a "miss chance.")

Ah, the Dearg Due. She stands in the shadows of the better-known Abhartach, but she’s none the less terrifying, in our opinion.

Unicorns are often depicted as horse-like creatures with a single horn on their forehead. They are seen as symbols of purity, grace, and enchantment. In mythology, unicorns are said to possess magical healing abilities and can only be captured by a virgin. Fairies are also a common creature of magic veer. These tiny, ethereal beings are often portrayed as having wings and an affinity for nature. Fairies are associated with magic and mischief, granting wishes to those who are deserving and punishing those who are not. They are often portrayed as whimsical and mischievous creatures, flitting around in the forests and meadows. Mermaids and sirens are other creatures of magic veer. These half-human, half-fish beings are believed to live in the depths of the ocean. Mermaids are often depicted as beautiful and enchanting creatures, while sirens are known for their seductive voices that lure sailors to their doom. Goblins, elves, and dwarves are also creatures of magic veer commonly found in folklore. These creatures are often associated with the fantasy genre and are depicted as beings with supernatural powers and abilities. Goblins are known for their trickery and mischief, while elves are portrayed as graceful and wise. Dwarves, on the other hand, are often depicted as skilled craftsmen and miners. Creatures of magic veer play a significant role in mythology, literature, and popular culture. They captivate our imagination and represent a world of wonder and possibility. Whether it's a dragon guarding its hoard, a unicorn prancing through a mystical forest, or a mischievous fairy granting wishes, these creatures continue to inspire and fascinate us..

Reviews for "Journey into the Unknown: The Diverse Creatures of the Magic Veer"

1. Sarah - 2 stars - I really wanted to enjoy "Creatures of Magic Veer" as I am a fan of fantasy novels, but I found it incredibly boring. The pacing was slow and the plot felt disjointed. The characters lacked depth and I couldn't connect with any of them. The world-building also left much to be desired, as I had so many questions that were never answered. Overall, it was a disappointing read and I wouldn't recommend it.

2. Mark - 1 star - "Creatures of Magic Veer" was a complete mess. The writing was sloppy with numerous grammatical errors and awkward sentence structure. The story itself was hard to follow, with a convoluted plot that seemed to go nowhere. The dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it difficult to engage with the characters. I struggled to finish this book and was left unsatisfied. I cannot comprehend how anyone would enjoy it.

3. Emily - 2 stars - I had high hopes for "Creatures of Magic Veer" based on the promising premise, but unfortunately, it fell flat for me. The writing style was dull and lacked any sort of descriptive prose. The narrative was predictable and lacked originality. The romance subplot felt forced and added nothing to the story. Additionally, the ending felt rushed and left many loose ends. Overall, I was left underwhelmed by this book and wouldn't recommend it to others.

4. David - 2 stars - As a fan of fantasy literature, I was excited to delve into "Creatures of Magic Veer", but it fell short of my expectations. The world-building was weak, with little explanation of the magical system or the various creatures introduced. The characters were one-dimensional and clichéd, and I couldn't bring myself to care about their fates. The pacing was inconsistent, with long stretches of nothing happening followed by rushed and confusing action sequences. Overall, it was a forgettable read that failed to leave any impression on me.

5. Samantha - 3 stars - While "Creatures of Magic Veer" had its moments, it didn't fully captivate me. The writing was decent, but the plot was lacking in originality and felt like a rehash of other fantasy novels I've read. The characters were somewhat interesting, but their development was shallow and left me wanting more. The pacing was slow, making it difficult for me to stay engaged. It wasn't a terrible book, but it didn't stand out either.

Magical Beings of the Veer: A Fascinating Journey into Fantasy