rings of blinking and rogues

[Destil]

OK, forgot entirely that blindfight is specified as not working (both in the feat and the spell, shesh...). My mistake.

Thinking about it more, here's how I would interperate the "Blinking, not invisible" thing:

A blinking creature spends one half of their time in the etheral plane. While there there are no non-visual signs of the creature on prime.

While invisible you still dispace air through movement, make sound simply by moving through air, give off heat et cetera.

So, the reason blindfight and uncanny dodge wouldn't work is that you're unable to pick up on the nonvisual clues of melee you use with blindfight to defend yourself.

Though I still mantain that since see invisibility lets you see etheral creatures, it should prevent the attacker from striking as invisible.

Anyone know if Invisibility Purge lets you see etheral creatures? The spell mentions creatures with no visible form like invisible stalkers, but nothing about creatures with no form on prime...

 

[Darklone]

Well I can't make you CARE about the way the rules are written, only show you that they are written that way.

That's where I am with Hong. IMHO they aren't written that way. I'll check the PHB today when I get home since the SRD wording is ... bad. But as I read it, the BlindFight feat does not help while attacking someone who blinks, not defensewise.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Though I still mantain that since see invisibility lets you see etheral creatures, it should prevent the attacker from striking as invisible.

That makes sense and isn't really addressed. They say what the offensive benefits of see invisibility are, but not the defensive ones. Since it isn't specifically mentioned, I suppose that officially the blinking person still strikes "as invisible" though this is probably the best case of the rules ignoring common sense that I've seen so far.

Anyone know if Invisibility Purge lets you see etheral creatures? The spell mentions creatures with no visible form like invisible stalkers, but nothing about creatures with no form on prime...

I'd say that invisibility purge would not let you see ethereal creatures because in the section of the DMG that talks about etherealness, it lists see invisibility and true seeing as spells that reveal ethereal creatures. Also, both of these spells are divination spells and grant the subject access to information whereas invisibility purge is an evocation spell that causes an effect on the material plane, and evocations that are not force effects do not extend into the Ethereal Plane.

 

[Darklone]

Why so complicated? Simply assuming that ethereal creatures are invisible would solve your logical dilemma.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Why so complicated? Simply assuming that ethereal creatures are invisible would solve your logical dilemma.

It's a problem in this case because, though it might seem logical that ethereal creatures or objects would be revealed much in the same way as with true seeing and see invisibility, the real problem lies in letting an evocation spell affect an ethereal target. That would mean that you could fireball and lightning bolt every ghost you came across. You're right about the logical part, of course, and invisibility purge might make more sense as an abjuration spell, a type that does extend into the Ethereal Plane.

 

[Skinwalker]

One important feature of etherial vs invisible is being overlooked. Etherial creatures are also incorporeal. Even if you can see them, their attacks are capable of passing right through normal defenses (e.g., a ghost using a touch attack with Corrupting Touch).

In the case of the Blinking rogue, imagine a warrior bringing his sword up to block a rogue's strike just as the rogue Blinks into the Etherial. The warrior has braced himself to deflect a blow that is simply not there, overbalancing for a split second. In this time (with a successful to hit roll and roll of the miss %), the rogue Blinks back into the prime material just in time to land his strike for a successful sneak attack.

Even if the warrior were fully able to see the rogue in the Etherial, it would not prevent him from occasionally messing up his defensive techniques (using the above example; how do you block a weapons that isn't always there?) and allowing the occasional "sucker punch" from the rogue.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Good point, Ghostwalker.

So if the Fighter can see invisible and has a ghost touch weapon, the blinking rogue combo wouldn't work.

That's a sufficiently unusual situation not to be explicitly mentioned in the rules, and seems to be a reasonable ruling on the question.

At least, I'm happy with it.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

So if the Fighter can see invisible and has a ghost touch weapon, the blinking rogue combo wouldn't work.

That's a sufficiently unusual situation not to be explicitly mentioned in the rules, and seems to be a reasonable ruling on the question.

The rules for the spell actually do mention this in a way (as someone who can see invisible creatures and strike at them can attack the blinking character normally) in terms of offense, but not defense. Using this combination to allow a defense against blinking is in no way official, but it makes some sense. The main problem I have with the solution is that it requires a magical item property completely unrelated to dexterity in order to allow you to retain a DEX AC bonus. Ghost touch is more important when you're hitting the blinking subject, not him hitting you. And, technically speaking, the rogue is never hitting you while he's actually ethereal (that's when his miss chance from turning ethereal would kick in unless HE has a ghost touch weapon) so that punches some holes in this argument's logic.

 

[drnuncheon]

In the case of the Blinking rogue, imagine a warrior bringing his sword up to block a rogue's strike just as the rogue Blinks into the Etherial. The warrior has braced himself to deflect a blow that is simply not there, overbalancing for a split second. In this time (with a successful to hit roll and roll of the miss %), the rogue Blinks back into the prime material just in time to land his strike for a successful sneak attack.

Even if the warrior were fully able to see the rogue in the Etherial, it would not prevent him from occasionally messing up his defensive techniques (using the above example; how do you block a weapons that isn't always there?) and allowing the occasional "sucker punch" from the rogue.

One problem with this explanation:

The warrior's AC is the same whether he is weilding a weapon or not (barring certain feats like Twin Sword Style). Thus, his defensive techniques cannot be based solely on parrying - otherwise his AC would decrease wheneve rhe didn't have a weapon in hand.

I might allow a single 'surprise' bonus the first time (giving the warrior a chance to recognize that the opponent is blinking), but after that the warrior is going to know that he has to use non-contact defensive techniques - the same ones he'd use to keep his AC up even if he were disarmed.

J

 

[Victim]

Well, a blinking combatant could side step around an opponent or suddenly lunge while momentarily ethereal. Fighting a blinking enemy is like fighting blind 1/2 the time. Of course, I assume that each blink is kind of lengthy, like a second or two. With a high frequency blink, you'd probably blink back into attacks before the enemy finished swinging.

See Invisible lets the caster see ethereal (and astral) creatures as well as invisible ones. Someone with the spell running can easily keep track of the blinker's movements and fight normally.