Blink automatically allows sneak attacks, what?

[Andre]

Just a thought...

Example 1:
Invisible rogue moves 5' and performs a full attack action on his target.
The first attack is considered a sneak attack, as the rogue is invisible.
The iterative attacks are not considered sneak attacks, as the rogue becomes visible after the first attack.
The fact that the rogue was invisible at the start of the full-attack action does not affect the iterative attacks.

Example 2:
Blinking rogues moves 5' and performs a full attack action on his target.
Rogue is invisible only when he is ethereal and his attack would miss at that point (20%)
Rogue is visible when he is not ethereal, but his attack is treated as a sneak attack BECAUSE THE ROGUE WAS INVISIBLE EARLIER.

Seems to be a bit of a contradiction, huh?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No. You don't blink once per round. You blink in and out, in and out, in and out, etc.

Thus, each and every attack has a 20% miss chance, not "once per round."

So, the rogue is rapidly changing between invisible and visible before, during, and after each of his attacks.

 

[Kast]

For the rogue, it's better than invisibility, but not as good as greater invisibility. As a ring it's pretty good, but it gets a 7000gp value-added tax over the same model that sports invisibility. It's not subject to most invisibility counters, but you can still attack and see the blinker (just not that well).

And of course, See Invisible will defeat it - a staple of higher level characters.

 

[sierzadon]

nononono

For the rogue, it's better than invisibility, but not as good as greater invisibility. As a ring it's pretty good, but it gets a 7000gp value-added tax over the same model that sports invisibility. It's not subject to most invisibility counters, but you can still attack and see the blinker (just not that well).

And of course, See Invisible will defeat it - a staple of higher level characters.

If you mean that "see invisible" defeats "blink" Re-read the blink spell description.

See invisible is not enough.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you mean that "see invisible" defeats "blink" Re-read the blink spell description.

See invisible is not enough.

Since the topic is mostly about Rogues, Blink, and Sneak Attacks, I think he might have meant that See Invisible might (DM dependent) override the "you strike as an invisible creature" portion of Blink and hence, a Rogue would lose his sneak attack bonus against the opponent who could See Invisible. He would still get the other benefits (and disadvantages) of the spell.

The other aspect of this is that presumably, if you can See Invisible and can tell when he is in the material plane and when he is in the ethereal plane, you could have a chance to totally negate the 20% miss chance (for being ethereal) as well. For example: "I ready my attack for when he comes back into the Material Plane.". Unlike the case where you cannot see him, a DM might allow you to do this because you can "keep your eye on him".

Some DMs might rule that since you know exactly where and when he comes back, you attack and he does not get his miss chance. Other DMs might rule that the 20% lowers to 5% or 10% because there is a slim chance he might blink back out again before the readied action (but, unlikely). Still, other DMs might rule that he still gets his 20% miss chance because he might blink back out before your readied action occurs and the readied action does not change the game mechanics. But, depending on how you rule this, See Invisibility might indeed negate (or partially negate) Blink with a Readied Action.

I do not think that the rules are totally clear on whether Blink trumps Readied or Readied trumps Blink. Game mechanics-wise, I presume that the Sage will state that Blink trumps Readied.

In fact, you may be able to Ready an Attack for when he comes back into the material plane without being able to See Invisible (i.e. he appears, I attack). How that works is also unclear and DM dependent as well.


The other cool thing about Blink is that although True Seeing can see in the Ethereal Plane and negate the invisibility portion of this, it does not negate the 20% miss chance for being ethereal half of the time.

Finally!!! A spell that True Seeing does not totally negate straight up.

 

[Kast]

If you mean that "see invisible" defeats "blink" Re-read the blink spell description.

See invisible is not enough.

I was talking about the sneak attack aspect. If you have See Invisible, the only penalty to attack the rogue is the 20% miss chance associated with yout target not actually being on the material plane at the time of damage dealing. The attacker can see the rogue as normal. A reasonable interpretation then is that the rogue can no longer strike that character as an invisible creature.

 

[Andre]

No. You don't blink once per round. You blink in and out, in and out, in and out, etc.

Thus, each and every attack has a 20% miss chance, not "once per round."

So, the rogue is rapidly changing between invisible and visible before, during, and after each of his attacks.

I understand that. My point is that an invisible rogue gets a sneak attack only while he's invisible. A blinking rogue isn't really invisible, as he's blinking in and out, but he's treated as if he's invisible all the time. In fact, the blinking rogue's attacks always miss when he's invisible (ethereal), but are always treated as sneak attacks when he's visible (not ethereal). I can see the writers' rationale, but it still feels a bit messed up to me - especially if someone reads the spell description to mean that the rogue still gets sneak attacks vs. opponents who can see him while ethereal.

A reasonable interpretation then is that the rogue can no longer strike that character as an invisible creature.

That's how I would rule it too.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand that. My point is that an invisible rogue gets a sneak attack only while he's invisible. A blinking rogue isn't really invisible, as he's blinking in and out, but he's treated as if he's invisible all the time. In fact, the blinking rogue's attacks always miss when he's invisible (ethereal), but are always treated as sneak attacks when he's visible (not ethereal). I can see the writers' rationale, but it still feels a bit messed up to me - especially if someone reads the spell description to mean that the rogue still gets sneak attacks vs. opponents who can see him while ethereal.

Well, the first problem here is that you are attempting to rationalize how a spell works. If you approach it with the mindset of "it works that way because it works that way", there is no discrepancy.

If you need a rationale here, a simple one is that the Rogue "suddenly appears, sneak attacks, and disappears". He is not getting the invisible bonus (and hence the sneak attack) because he cannot be seen, he is getting the invisible bonus because he cannot be seen until he simultaneously strikes. Kind of like normal Invisibility where he becomes visible when he strikes, but by then it is too late. In the case of normal Invisibility, you might know where the Rogue is, but he still gets his sneak attack. No different here. You know that he is blinking somewhere around here, but he becomes visible and attacks, just as if he had been normally invisible instead.

But the point is that people sometimes try to wrap their minds about "how the rules work with regard to common sense" and you cannot do that. There are a lot of nonsensical rules that work merely within their own framework. For example, not having a facing and hence, you cannot be attacked from behind. Or, having a shield bonus against all attacks, regardless of their direction. Or threatening all of the squares 10 feet away with a Longspear simultaneously (with a real spear, you would threaten the area where you are thrusting the spear, not 10 feet behind you). These are all nonsensical (i.e. against common sense) rules, but they work as long as you suspend your disbelief. You have to do the same here.

You just have to say "That's the way the spell works" and leave it at that.

This is not any different than Mirror Image having exactly NO ways to perceive that it is fake. You cannot say "I attack the one that smoke is coming off, or I attack the one bleeding in a pool of blood, or I attack the one whining like a little girl after I just smacked him with my Greatsword, or I attack the one standing in the water and actually making waves.". It doesn't really make sense that an intelligent character couldn't ever see through the illusion in some way, shape, or form, but that is how the spell is written, so that is how it works.

 

[HeavyG]

The first magical item a rogue should seek out is a ring of blinking.

Sure, he'll miss 20% of the time, but all his successful attacks will be sneaks, and since the target has no dex, all his attacks hit easier.

Speaking as a guy playing a rogue with a ring of blinking, it's useful, but not game breaking. First of all, by the time you can get enough cash to get it, your party wizard can usually cast Greater Invisibility, which is way more useful against most opponents.

Also, the Ring of Blinking is only caster level 5. It takes a standard action to activate and only lasts 5 rounds. Thus, for one action, it gives you 5 rounds of pretty awesome defense and 4 rounds of offense (it stops right before your 5th round of attacks).

It also cuts your move, which sucks when combined with situations where you have to tumble. Fortunately, my halfling got boots of striding and springing.

Lastly, as we are now adventuring in Acheron (playing the Adventure Path modules), which will last half of the remaining campaign I'm told, the ring won't work at all since the Outer Planes are not connected with the Ethereal plane.

Right now, I'm thinking I should have invested in a pair of swords of wounding instead. But I'm sure that I'll start loving the ring again as soon as we're back on the Prime.

If you need a rationale here, a simple one is that the Rogue "suddenly appears, sneak attacks, and disappears". He is not getting the invisible bonus (and hence the sneak attack) because he cannot be seen, he is getting the invisible bonus because he cannot be seen until he simultaneously strikes. Kind of like normal Invisibility where he becomes visible when he strikes, but by then it is too late. In the case of normal Invisibility, you might know where the Rogue is, but he still gets his sneak attack. No different here. You know that he is blinking somewhere around here, but he becomes visible and attacks, just as if he had been normally invisible instead.

That rationale really doesn't work, since someone with a See Invisible spell will see you 100% of the time.

I really think it's a mistake in how the spell is written. It never even occured to me or my DM that someone who can see in the Ethereal will be sneak attacked all the time by a Blinking rogue. The spell and the ring don't really need it. :\

 

[KarinsDad]

That rationale really doesn't work, since someone with a See Invisible spell will see you 100% of the time.

It does for the case when See Invisibility is not up (which was what I was replying to).

I really think it's a mistake in how the spell is written. It never even occured to me or my DM that someone who can see in the Ethereal will be sneak attacked all the time by a Blinking rogue. The spell and the ring don't really need it. :\

Of course. The designers cannot think of everything. Sooner or later, someone will ask Andy about it and he will add the exception to the 3.5 FAQ. In the meantime, talk to your DM about rule zeroing it.