Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="THEBIGLOU" data-source="post: 1735823" data-attributes="member: 10472">Thanne, to me it is not about right or wrong, just why.&nbsp;Thanne, This is your opinion and you are entitled to it.&nbsp; To me it doesn't follow the rules of invisibility 1. You do not have total concealment &amp; 2. You are targetable (also a byproduct of total concealment).&nbsp; Can you at least agree to that ?&nbsp;Well maybe we all are not that bright....&nbsp; Blink states that the miss chance is reduced to 20% if the opponent has see invisibility or can strike Ethereal creatures.&nbsp; Do you believe that if the opponent only has a weapon that can strike ethereal that they should get their Dex back as well?&nbsp;Ridley, Thank you for seeing my point that this spell doesn't follow the rules.&nbsp; My own &quot;rationalization&quot; of my answer doesn't make sense.&nbsp; Applying logic to D&amp;D very often produces that result.&nbsp; My reason for why it might work, is that it states you strike &quot;as&quot; an invisible attacker w/o saying this can be reduced in any way.&nbsp; It gives examples of when your opponents miss chance does change, but does not mention this benefit goes away.&nbsp; Maybe it is just an omission.&nbsp;I don't blame you.&nbsp; Caliban and Hypersmurf are the rules expert on this board.&nbsp; But as I said...it is not about right or wrong.&nbsp; How would you rules this in your campaign?&nbsp;UltimaGabe,&nbsp; I believe you are wrong here.&nbsp; You do not get to Sneak attack someone when they have concealment.&nbsp; Your opponent does not have concealment in this case.&nbsp; You just may be Ethereal when your weapon would have hit the opponent.&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="THEBIGLOU, post: 1735823, member: 10472"] Thanne, to me it is not about right or wrong, just why. 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 ? 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? 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. 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? 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification