Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5092977" data-attributes="member: 75712">Hehehe... well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is wonky <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />One thing blink does is to cause the blinker to be seen/unseen; I liken it to a strobe light.&nbsp; Yes, you know where he is, but you can't anticipate well because his movements are broken up; it's effectively &quot;poor lighting&quot;.&nbsp; I think that's a valid concealment20%, and makes sense for the case of &quot;can't see invis but has a ghost touch weapon&quot;.The other thing blink does is cause the blinker to be here/not here as the blink hops in and out of the Ethereal.&nbsp; In the spell, this seems to be equated to a &quot;partially incorporeal&quot; effect, and hence the 20% miss chance if you can see invis but can't ghost-touch.&nbsp; And apparently these two types of miss chances somehow combine into a total miss chance of 50%.Now if the blinker is invisible, then the &quot;poor lighting&quot; effect of blink is overridden by the &quot;no lighting&quot; effect of invis, and thus he gets concealment50% for that.&nbsp; It just seems to me, though, that a blind attacker with a ghost-touch weapon should have a better shot of &quot;accidentally&quot; hitting than the blind attacker without a ghost-touch weapon.&nbsp;&nbsp; And so wouldn't the invisible blinker therefore have a better miss chance against the blind guy with a mundane sword than against the blind guy with a ghost-touch sword (eg 80% and 50%, respectively)?Oh well, I suppose the easy thing to do is to just say invisibility doesn't give any advantage to a creature already blinking.&nbsp; *grumble* But that doesn't make sense to me. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Anyway, thanks for the responses!BTW, on a related note:&nbsp;What's the miss chance on an invisible (miss 50%) incorporeal (miss 50%) creature??? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel&nbsp; &nbsp; :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Is it 75%, 80%, 100%?Surely this comes up now and then?&nbsp; Shadows in pitch dark conditions?&nbsp; Wraithes with greater invisibility?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Theo R Cwithin, post: 5092977, member: 75712"] Hehehe... well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is wonky ;) One thing blink does is to cause the blinker to be seen/unseen; I liken it to a strobe light. Yes, you know where he is, but you can't anticipate well because his movements are broken up; it's effectively "poor lighting". I think that's a valid concealment20%, and makes sense for the case of "can't see invis but has a ghost touch weapon". The other thing blink does is cause the blinker to be here/not here as the blink hops in and out of the Ethereal. In the spell, this seems to be equated to a "partially incorporeal" effect, and hence the 20% miss chance if you can see invis but can't ghost-touch. And apparently these two types of miss chances somehow combine into a total miss chance of 50%. Now if the blinker is invisible, then the "poor lighting" effect of blink is overridden by the "no lighting" effect of invis, and thus he gets concealment50% for that. It just seems to me, though, that a blind attacker with a ghost-touch weapon should have a better shot of "accidentally" hitting than the blind attacker without a ghost-touch weapon. And so wouldn't the invisible blinker therefore have a better miss chance against the blind guy with a mundane sword than against the blind guy with a ghost-touch sword (eg 80% and 50%, respectively)? Oh well, I suppose the easy thing to do is to just say invisibility doesn't give any advantage to a creature already blinking. *grumble* But that doesn't make sense to me. :erm: Anyway, thanks for the responses! BTW, on a related note: What's the miss chance on an invisible (miss 50%) incorporeal (miss 50%) creature??? :angel: Is it 75%, 80%, 100%? Surely this comes up now and then? Shadows in pitch dark conditions? Wraithes with greater invisibility? [/QUOTE]

Verification