blink + invisibility = miss chance?

[Theo R Cwithin]

Ah, that clears it up for me. Thanks all.

@irdeggman, especial thanks for posting the book text; I was working off the d20srd.org, and it seems to lack much of the specific info you quoted.

 

[GreyVulpine]

I had an argument about something just like this in another forum.

What happens when you stack blur, displacement, greater blink, greater mirror image?

And there's basically two 'official' ways to rule mirror images, whether they all appear in your square (FAQ), or they appear 5 feet from you and other images.

Then apply an enemy with true seeing or touchsense (XPH).

 

[irdeggman]

Ah, that clears it up for me. Thanks all.

@irdeggman, especial thanks for posting the book text; I was working off the d20srd.org, and it seems to lack much of the specific info you quoted.

No problem.

While the SRD is handy for quick and dirty things - it definitely lacks the detail needed to make a "rules" call in many, many cases.

 

[Runestar]

Being invisible grants a 50% miss chance.

How do you get more invisible than being invisible? IE: how do you justify having a miss chance greater than 50%?

 

[Vegepygmy]

IE: how do you justify having a miss chance greater than 50%?

It may be justified when you are not only invisible, but also not even there half the time.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It may be justified when you are not only invisible, but also not even there half the time.

I would agree with this. The logic behind "miss chances don't stack" makes sense for concealment-based miss chances. But I think the rule goes awry when you mix-and-match non-concealment miss chances (like the blink spell).

I'd check the miss chances separately.