Blinking attack versus those that see invisible???

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't know about that. You can reliably move up to 4', 11" while ethereal (you only have a 50% chance of becoming corporeal while moving through a solid object per 5 feet travelled). I think it's reasonable to conclude from that that you can reliably time your five feet of movement while you're on the material plane.

Your speed is reduced to half while you're Ethereal, though. So when you're blinking, some of the time, a 5' step is prohibited.

The 20% mechanic would seem to fit, the more I think about it. You're attempting to take an action that only works if you're not Ethereal at the time. Just like attacking or casting a spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know about that. You can reliably move up to 4', 11" while ethereal (you only have a 50% chance of becoming corporeal while moving through a solid object per 5 feet travelled). I think it's reasonable to conclude from that that you can reliably time your five feet of movement while you're on the material plane.

Except that as you note, 5' is the cutoff where uncertainty kicks in. If you were able to take a 5' step while ethereal, doing so would incur the 50% chance of blinking into a solid object. You demonstrably cannot reliably move 5' on a particular plane.

You can't even cast a Quickened spell (free action) without the 20% Oops chance.

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

Considering you still have a 20% miss chance even with see invis, I'd say you still attack as a invis creature. I mean part of the time your not there, so you are invisible if you will.

 

[Thanee]

Considering you still have a 20% miss chance even with see invis, I'd say you still attack as a invis creature. I mean part of the time your not there, so you are invisible if you will.

Erm, that's because the attacks will go through your body. Your opponent can see you 100% of the time, so why should he not be able to dodge?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

On the other hand, if ethereal movement is halved, the 5' on the ethereal plane would translate to ten feet on the material plane. So there's definitely no problem with taking a five foot step while material.

Except that as you note, 5' is the cutoff where uncertainty kicks in. If you were able to take a 5' step while ethereal, doing so would incur the 50% chance of blinking into a solid object. You demonstrably cannot reliably move 5' on a particular plane.

You can't even cast a Quickened spell (free action) without the 20% Oops chance.

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Quite possibly because he's not sure when he needs to dodge you. There's a lot of different things one would be able to try if half the time your foe would be unable to block you because your blade passes through his block, materializes, and then cuts into his flesh. . . .

Erm, that's because the attacks will go through your body. Your opponent can see you 100% of the time, so why should he not be able to dodge?

Bye
Thanee

 

[AGGEMAM]

On the other hand, if ethereal movement is halved, the 5' on the ethereal plane would translate to ten feet on the material plane. So there's definitely no problem with taking a five foot step while material.

So many things wrong with that sentence I don't know where to begin.

You cannot take a 5 foot step while ethereal, so you cannot begin the move if you're not on the material plane when attempting it.

 

[Darklone]

About the "losing the dodge bonus"... the Blink spell description states that you attack as an invisible creature.... so everything that helps against invisible creatures helps against blinking creatures in regard to losing your Dex/dodge bonus to AC...

Here we go again

 

[Thanee]

Quite possibly because he's not sure when he needs to dodge you. There's a lot of different things one would be able to try if half the time your foe would be unable to block you because your blade passes through his block, materializes, and then cuts into his flesh. . . .

Sure, if D&D was that complex to allow such feats, but it's not...

The mechanics are quite simple, you strike as invisible, See Invisibility specifically negates that. Nothing more to it.

I was just offering an explanation why it is like this, there is no question that it is, it just is.

Bye
Thanee