blinking questions

[THEBIGLOU]

Caliban,

It is not that I won't except an answer. I just want to know why someone thinks it is one way or the other. More people that I have spoken to agree with you because they put the word "invisibility" in the description. Despite the words around it.

I have listed my beliefs, because it doesn't follow the rules of invisibility. The spell doesn't really follow any rules of D&D.

BIGLOU

 

[Thanee]

Caliban is, of course, as usual, right.

Striking as invisible is negated by the same means, that negate invisibility. Because it works as invisibility with all advantages and disadvantages (when it comes to striking).

The Dex bonus to AC is negated, because the blinking character cannot be watched properly (altho I would highly question this for ranged attacks, personally, I don't see much of a difference there compared to a regular ranged attack, but that is just my opinion and contrary to the rules ). Anything, that negates this part, also lets you retain your Dex bonus to AC, obviously.

The logic is also absolutely clear, Blink even states, that it is partially negated by See Invisibility.

I have no idea how you can even consider anything else... some things are so obvious, they do not have to be spelled out explicitly in every sentence!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMHO, THEBIGLOU's critique of Caliban's answer is reasonable -- it is based on incomplete rules after all. However his own answer does not make any sense or have support in the RAW.

Guess who I will choose to believe.

 

[UltimaGabe]

The problem that everyone seems to be missing, of course, is that when you're under the effects of a Blink spell, you strike as invisible and all that, but your opponent still has a miss chance if you try to attack them (since sometimes you blink out right as you attack). And, if you all remember, you cannot Sneak Attack someone with a miss chance.

So Blink is worthless for Rogues.

 

[Droid101]

::Looks around:: D'oh... I thought this said "bikini questions."

[/hijack]

 

[THEBIGLOU]

Caliban is, of course, as usual, right.

Thanne, to me it is not about right or wrong, just why.

Striking as invisible is negated by the same means, that negate invisibility. Because it works as invisibility with all advantages and disadvantages (when it comes to striking).
The Dex bonus to AC is negated, because the blinking character cannot be watched properly (although I would highly question this for ranged attacks, personally, I don't see much of a difference there compared to a regular ranged attack, but that is just my opinion and contrary to the rules ). Anything, that negates this part, also lets you retain your Dex bonus to AC, obviously.

Thanne, This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. To me it doesn't follow the rules of invisibility 1. You do not have total concealment & 2. You are targetable (also a byproduct of total concealment). Can you at least agree to that ?

The logic is also absolutely clear, Blink even states, that it is partially negated by See Invisibility.
I have no idea how you can even consider anything else... some things are so obvious, they do not have to be spelled out explicitly in every sentence!

Well maybe we all are not that bright.... Blink states that the miss chance is reduced to 20% if the opponent has see invisibility or can strike Ethereal creatures. Do you believe that if the opponent only has a weapon that can strike ethereal that they should get their Dex back as well?

IMHO, THEBIGLOU's critique of Caliban's answer is reasonable -- it is based on incomplete rules after all. However his own answer does not make any sense or have support in the RAW.

Ridley, Thank you for seeing my point that this spell doesn't follow the rules. My own "rationalization" of my answer doesn't make sense. Applying logic to D&D very often produces that result. My reason for why it might work, is that it states you strike "as" an invisible attacker w/o saying this can be reduced in any way. It gives examples of when your opponents miss chance does change, but does not mention this benefit goes away. Maybe it is just an omission.

Guess who I will choose to believe.

I don't blame you. Caliban and Hypersmurf are the rules expert on this board. But as I said...it is not about right or wrong. How would you rules this in your campaign?

And, if you all remember, you cannot Sneak Attack someone with a miss chance.

UltimaGabe, I believe you are wrong here. You do not get to Sneak attack someone when they have concealment. Your opponent does not have concealment in this case. You just may be Ethereal when your weapon would have hit the opponent. This point though is not central to the argument, so assume that we are talking about Improved Blink for this discussion.

Thanks for everyone's feedback so far.

THEBIGLOU

 

[Hypersmurf]

UltimaGabe, I believe you are wrong here. You do not get to Sneak attack someone when they have concealment. Your opponent does not have concealment in this case. You just may be Ethereal when your weapon would have hit the opponent.

Right.

A Blinking Rogue can sneak attack just fine.

A Rogue who can See Invisible can sneak attack a Blinking opponent just fine as well, despite a 20% miss chance.

A Rogue who can't see invisible cannot sneak attack a Blinking opponent, since the miss chance in this case at least partially results from concealment.

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, I have always figured that Blinker's strike as invisible creatures as much because they can begin a stroke while ethereal, timed to pass through the opponent's defenses and become physical again just in time to deal damage but not quite soon enough to be stoppable. They're treated as invisible not so much because they can't be seen half the time (though normally that's true) but because it's very very difficult to mount an effective defense against them.

 

[Darklone]

EB: I interpreted it as both. Blink rulings are easiest if you separate the two effects. The effect that you describe stands for the 20% cases.

 

[THEBIGLOU]

Elder-Basilik,

Your explanation is what I was trying to say by way of explaining of possible outcome of my rule interpretation. You did a much better job of explaining it.

Darklone,

good point.... Half of the effect comes from concealment (not total) and half of the effect comes from being ethereal. It would seem that these do stack to some effect unlike multiple concealment effects.

BIGLOU