Blink, Ghost Touch weapons and Sneak attack

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blink, Ghost Tou

Then why do you believe they went to all the trouble of typing out "or incorporeal"? If they believed Ethereal and Incorporeal were identical, it's redundant. If they believe them to be different, but both applicable to all instances of Blink, they should have used the same phrasing for the second condition.

Since they deliberately noted that both were applicable in one instance, and did not do so in the second, it seems obvious to me that both are applicable to the one, and only Ethereal to the other.

Please explain how that makes any kind of sense? Seriously.

They didn't "go to the trouble" of typing it out, it's probably a cut an paste error (the same text is used in the Mordenkainen's Sword spell and a few other places). Or the spell was changed to remove incorporeal, and they removed it from the second sentence and missed it on the first one. A simple editing mistake.

Either the word "incorporeal" shouldn't be in the first sentence(my belief), or it should be in the second sentence. As it is, it's implied in the second sentence, due to the context. That is what you are ignoring.

Either way, it's a mistake.

Blink makes no mention of weapons. It says "physical attacks". Mordenkainen's Sword is a swordlike plane of force that hits people.

It's applicable, and I see no need to "try again".

-Hyp.

That is true, I apologize for being short. I accept that they meant the bit about being able to strike ethereal creatures. I wasn't really arguing about that anyway, just that it seemed strange that they would mention it when I couldn't think of any weapons that actually affect ethereal creatures.

It doesn't change the fact that the Blink spell is inconsistent with it's references to Ethereal and Incorporeal states.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blink, Ghost

That is true, I apologize for being short.

No problem - I'm only 5'7" myself

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

For further proof that the spell is mixing up "Ethereal" and "Incorporeal", check the first few lines of the "Note" at the end of the spell:

Note: An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down (albeit at half normal speed). As an incorporeal creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures...

This is what I was referring to earlier, but I was at work and didn't have access to my books. That statement is not included in the SRD.

I seriously think that early in the 3e design process, the Ethereal state included being Incorporeal as part of it, then later they were seperated into two distinct states, and the spell was never brought up to date.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is what I was referring to earlier, but I was at work and didn't have access to my books. That statement is not included in the SRD.

I must admit, I'm SRDing from work as well.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

I seriously think that early in the 3e design process, the Ethereal state included being Incorporeal as part of it, then later they were seperated into two distinct states, and the spell was never brought up to date.

I agree with Hyps literal reading of the spell and with Calibans interpretation of the rather obvious error. Let's hope they'll remove some similar incosistencies by defining things like incorporeal and ethereal and others better in 3.5... or 4th edition ... or 5th...

 

[Iku Rex]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Blink, Ghost Touch weapons and Sneak attack

I think the writer of the spell got Incorporeal and Ethereal confused, and it's simply never been corrected.

It was corrected in the second printing of the PH. (Or so I'm told.)
The errata does not include all changes.