rings of blinking and rogues

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Hyp: I agree that ambiguity exists with the RAW in this case, but my "interpretation" chose to deal with the literal context of the material, not the intended meaning, which I think was what the opposing views incorporated. If you see a choice of literal meaning versus intended meaing as an "interpretaion," then I fully agree that my position would fall under the umbrella of "house rule" as I defined it. If you see the literal meaning of the rules as official and the intended but unstated meaning or the rules as "house rules," as I did in this case, then you see why I thought the literal meaning of the RAW would be considered official and others hould be "house."

I also didn't realize that the phrase "house rule" carried a major stigma here on the boards, so I "officially" apologize to anyone I may have offended in the process.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I also didn't realize that the phrase "house rule" carried a major stigma here on the boards, so I "officially" apologize to anyone I may have offended in the process.

The problem is that neither camp feels they're supporting the "intended meaning" over the "literal meaning" - both camps sincerely believe they are supporting the wording of the spell.

If someone says "That makes no sense, it should be like this," I have no qualms about pointing them elsewhere. But if they say "I don't think the conclusions you've drawn follow from the wording of the rules", then that's firmly in Rules Forum territory, not House Rules Forum.

They're not interpreting the spell as they are because they feel it needs fixing, but because it's what they believe the rules say.

-Hyp.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

The problem is that neither camp feels they're supporting the "intended meaning" over the "literal meaning" - both camps sincerely believe they are supporting the wording of the spell.

I agree, and since it's generally futile to attempt to impose lessons in parsing grammar on a recreational message board, I guess I'll try to stick to calling my literal readings "interpretations" to avoid future problems. A good debate is healthy, but people getting upset over the matter takes the fun out of the whole thing.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree, and since it's generally futile to attempt to impose lessons in parsing grammar on a recreational message board, I guess I'll try to stick to calling my literal readings "interpretations" to avoid future problems. A good debate is healthy, but people getting upset over the matter takes the fun out of the whole thing.

It is completely futile because the rules are not written by grammarians or lawyers and supposed to be upheld as tomes from God...

Hyp's point is vital. Your "literal" reading is no more valid an interpretation than someone elses "literal" reading in this case. There are ambiguities that cannot be settled by words and word order.

You might as well argue that there is only one way of interpreting "fruit flies like a banana"

Regards

 

[Murrdox]

Aye! Remember, this is why we have a "Rules" forum. As this forum has shown many many times, figuring out what a rule means oftentimes is not as simple as looking something up in one of the books, or the FAQ. Sometimes we need to figure it out.

Arcturus_Rugend, I think most people look at "House Rules" as "Made up Rules", for example, a rule my friend made when he was DMing that forbid a free 5' step to disengage from melee. In this situation, both characters have to make opposed RFX saves, and if the stepping character wins, he can take his 5' step backwards. This was basically a mechanic he made up to prevent wizards from backing away from fighters and casting a spell as easily.

The difference is just that this rule is completely made up. Our Blink discussion here is trying to figure out exactly how Blink is MEANT to work, since there is a glaring error in the spell that hasn't been errated, and the spell isn't that clearly defined on top of that.

 

[Darklone]

The difference is just that this rule is completely made up. Our Blink discussion here is trying to figure out exactly how Blink is MEANT to work, since there is a glaring error in the spell that hasn't been errated, and the spell isn't that clearly defined on top of that.

And as funny as it might seem, I do agree with Hong once.... that attacking as an invisible creature means being nerved by the same things as an invisible creature might suffer from. But to each their own "houserules" , Arcturus_Mengsk.

 

[guido1999]

I'm still undecided about the uncanny dodge thing. Invisiblity is an illusion [glamer] spell whereas Blink and Etherealness are Transmutations. I think it is a valid point that they could confer "different types" of invisibility.

Examples to back this point up:

Blindfight works against "normal" invisibility, but not "blink invisibility."

A creature with the Scent ability would be able to discern the location of a creature with "normal" invisibility, but not "blink" invisibility."

Just something to think about.

 

[Darklone]

A creature with the Scent ability would be able to discern the location of a creature with "normal" invisibility, but not "blink" invisibility."

Just something to think about.

Now that is just plain wrong. Your smell does not vanish for days where you were, why shouldn't it be able to detect someone who's only half of the time at one place?
I think this is easily covered by the standard miss chance if you attack the enemy. Let him roll the chance when he tries to pinpoint the location.

Edit: Sorry logical mistake. If he's on the material plane, you don't need Scent to see him %-)

Btw: If Blink confers another kind of invisibility, then why should See invisibility work against it? And as Hong wrote earlier... the Blink description only says that Blindfight does not help when you attack a blinking enemy, not when he attacks you.

 

[guido1999]

the Blink description only says that Blindfight does not help when you attack a blinking enemy, not when he attacks you.

That's a good point...something else for me to think about.

And about the scent comment...I was just pointing out that ethereal creatures or those on the ethereal plane do not give off scent on the material plane, that's all.

 

[Murrdox]

After examining Blink and Blind fight, I concur that there is a case for making Blind Fight somewhat effective against Blink.

It is specified in the spell that Blind Fight does not work when ATTACKING the blinking character. This makes sense, since the miss chance here is because of PHYSICAL etherialness, which Blind Fight does not negate.

However, Blind Fight negates attacks from invisible attackers, and when a blinking character attacks, he attacks as though he were invisible, an effect of VISUAL invisibility, not his etherial effect. In this case, I can see how Blind Fight, while it would not negate the miss chance when trying to hit a blinking target, WOULD in fact prevent the blinking character from getting his invisibility bonuses while attacking.

There is no distinction on this, but I could see the rules interpreted either way. I believe Uncanny Dodge falls into this same category. If you let Uncanny Dodge defend against a blinker, Blind Fight should work as well.

We can't know for sure on this, because to my knowledge, we don't know what kind of an effect Blind Fight or Uncanny Dodge are.

If Uncanny Dodge and Blind Fight represent an abstract ability to anticipate where enemies are, even when you can't see them, simply due to intuition and cunning, then they should both prevent a Blinking character from getting his invisibility bonuses.

However, if Uncanny Dodge and Blind Fight represent using OTHER senses besides the visual, such as sound and smell, then NEITHER should work, because when the character is invisible, he's no longer making sound or giving off a smell, and is effectively invisible to ALL senses.

To my knowledge, there isn't any clarification on these abilities and how they actually function.