rings of blinking and rogues

[Murrdox]

Except that the spell description throw confusion on the matter.



So by the wording, a Ghost Touch weapon could get you a 20% miss chance, since it can strike incorporeal creatures... but a Ghost Touch weapon plus See Invisible would not get you a 0% miss chance, because it can't strike Ethereal creatures.

-Hyp.

Hmmm... you lost me on this one Hyper.

So if you can See Invisible, the miss chance for hitting a blinking character goes down to 20%. If you can strike etherial or incorporial creatures, it also goes down 20%, and if you can both SEE and STRIKE an etherial creature, your miss chance is zero... right?

I don't understand your last sentence there. "but a Ghost Touch weapon plus See Invisible would not get you a 0% miss chance, because it can't strike Ethereal creatures."

It seems to me what SHOULD be the case:

***

Defender attacking Blinking character:
50% miss chance normally
20% miss chance with EITHER See Invisibility (or similar effect) OR Ghost Touch weapon (or similar effect)
0% miss chance with BOTH of the above effects

Blinking character attacking defender:
20% miss chance to all attacks AND all the following
+2 to attack and target is denied dex bonus to AC UNLESS
- Target can See Invisible (or similar effect)

Blindsight (and Tremor-Sense, Scent and similar abilities) does not count as a See Invisible effect for the purposes of Blink.

The Blind-Fight feat does not count as a See Invisible effect for the purposes of Blink.

***

Am I wrong on all this? This is how I've gathered Blink is supposed to work from the SRD printing of the spell.

Here's an interesting scenario.... how do you resolve two blinking characters attacking each other?

 

[Skinwalker]

Here's an interesting scenario.... how do you resolve two blinking characters attacking each other?

Wow. I like the way you think. Hope this situation never comes up IMC.

 

[drnuncheon]

As I previously stated, this is simply one possible point of failure in the warrior's defense that would logically explain the game mechanic of him losing his Dex bonus. My example was not intended to be *the one and only* explanation, but simply an example of why visibility is not the only factor in this issue. Therein is my contention: *Visibility is not the only issue in countering Blink*

That's fine, but your evidence doesn't support your contention. As it stands, you say "the inability to parry causes loss of Dex bonus, but only when your opponent is blinking" - and that makes no sense at all.

At one point it was mentioned that unarmed defense is the same as armed defense. I said unarmed defense was different than armed defense, and creates vulnerabilities that translate into the game mechanic of AoO. An unarmed opponent is still able to parry, dodge, and move, and is therefore fully entitled to their Dex bonus.

I agree with everything except 'parry', and in a little bit I'll tell you why. But consider - if these tehcniques don't rely on contactng the opponent, then they are equally effective against blinking or non-blinking opponents.

You seem to be going off the assumption that an unarmed opponent cannot parry. Why not? Sure, you don't want to stick your hand out to block a sword but you can still step in and try to break its momentum by parrying the arm that is swinging it.
And parrying does have a game effect in that it is an assumed behavior of someone engaging in an active defense - actively defending yourself is what gives you a Dex bonus.

Does it? If it does, then why do incorporeal creatures (say, a wraith) make touch attacks? Think carefully: you can't parry an incorporeal touch, but you still get your full Dex bonus to AC - in fact, it's one of the few things you do get (along with deflection, dodge, and force-based armor bonuses).

In addition, there is no indication that you get a bonus to your AC vs. incorporeal creatures for having a ghost touch weapon. If parrying were a significant part of your AC, wouldn't this be an effect?

As further proof, consider creatures like fire elementals, who are capable of damaging the attacker when hit by natural weapons. There is no indication that unarmed combatants are more likely to take damage from them - which they certainly would if they were actively parrying the elemental's flaming arm with their own.

As it stands, parrying is just a special effect of AC, and has no game effect. If a blow is missed, it may have been parried or it may have been dodged. When fighting incorporeal opponents, it is always assumed to be the latter. It may not make the most logical sense in terms of realism, but it is one of the abstractions built into the game.

J

 

[Skinwalker]

Originally posted by drnuncheon
It may not make the most logical sense in terms of realism, but it is one of the abstractions built into the game.

Well met.

Originally posted by drnuncheon
As it stands, you say "the inability to parry causes loss of Dex bonus, but only when your opponent is blinking" - and that makes no sense at all.

Change the words you are putting in my mouth to:
One reason a blinking opponent might be able to force a loss of Dex bonus is because the defender occasionally mistakenly expects a parry to block an attack (that slips through due to the attack momentarily becoming ethereal) that he would have otherwise tried to dodge.
Overly wordy, I admit, but by no means an absolute or catch-all. Just an attempt to explain one possible reason why someone might lose their Dex bonus in that particular situation and why visibility is not the only issue in combating a Blinking opponent.

Looking at other posts that have appeared during our discussion, however, I am seeing that the visibility/tangibility issue has been addressed by the reduction in miss % being cited seperately based on visibility and tangibility...addressed from an offensive rather than defensive standpoint. That seems like a sufficient abstraction to me.

 

[drnuncheon]

One reason a blinking opponent might be able to force a loss of Dex bonus is because the defender occasionally mistakenly expects a parry to block an attack (that slips through due to the attack momentarily becoming ethereal) that he would have otherwise tried to dodge.

Sure. Maybe once. As a surprise. The first time the fighter sees someone under the effects of a blink spell. After that, he isn't going to expect his parries to work, and he'll use the same tactics he'd use against, say, a wraith (which does not cause him to use his Dex bonus to AC).

Overly wordy, I admit, but by no means an absolute or catch-all. Just an attempt to explain one possible reason why someone might lose their Dex bonus in that particular situation and why visibility is not the only issue in combating a Blinking opponent.

...except that it is, because otherwise you'd have the same trouble defending yourself against visible, incorporeal foes.

Do wraiths, shadows and ghosts cause people to lose their Dex bonus to AC simply by virtue of their incorporealness?

J

 

[Skinwalker]

Do wraiths, shadows and ghosts cause people to lose their Dex bonus to AC simply by virtue of their incorporealness?
J

Those creatures are intangible all the time. They attack and defend while incorporeal. It is a constant, reliable state in which they exist.
Blink, on the other hand, has the person rapidly shifting back and forth between planes. They can only strike and be struck (barring other magical influence or wierd situations like the question about two Blinkers attacking each other) when in the prime material. That is a wierd situation to adjucate, even by fantasy standards.

 

[Skinwalker]

Sure. Maybe once. As a surprise. The first time the fighter sees someone under the effects of a blink spell. After that, he isn't going to expect his parries to work, and he'll use the same tactics he'd use against, say, a wraith (which does not cause him to use his Dex bonus to AC).
J

It only has to work once. It was a single example of how one particular attack during the hypothetical situation could become a sneak attack even if the warrior had visibility of his opponent. It wasn't illustrating how every attack during the encounter would happen.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Hong: You asked "Since when have the 3.0 rules implied that neither blindfight nor uncanny dodge help?" I thought I indicated this clearly before, but I'll give it another shot.

Uncanny dodge states you retain your AC bonus vs. an INVISIBLE attacker, not a blinking one. As has been shown in a variety of post throughout this thread, and in the PHB spell description, the two conditions are not equivalent. Therefore uncanny dodge will not help in this case. As for blind fight, you can interpret the way the spell is written as to mean that Blind Fight is only not helpful concerning the miss chance, which may or may not be the way that you have grammatically parsed the sentence. I didn't go so far as to do that because I simply went to the description of Blind Fight and it, too, says that it helps vs. INVISIBLE opponents, not blinking ones. Since the spell does not mention what blind fight CAN do, only what it CANNOT do, to assume that it is effective in this case is erroneous and house-rule territory (as logical of a house rule as it might be). Thus, as the 3.0 rules stand, Blind Fight and Uncanny Dodge do not help versus a blinking opponent.

Concerning the ghost touch weapon issue: it should be noted that a ghost touch weapon SHOULD NOT help versus a blinking opponent, as the blinker is becoming ethereal randomly, not incorporeal. It does, in part, however, because the spell text complicates this issue by indicating that if the attack is capable of striking ethereal OR INCORPOREAL creatures, then the miss chance is reduced to 20%. The word incorporeal should not really apply in this case, as the blinker is never incorporeal by virtue of the spell (though they may become so by other means). Hypersmurf was pointing out that the second part of the description that further reduces the miss chance only makes reference to being able to affect ethereal targets, which makes more sense concerning the nature of the spell. I believe the reference to incorporeality was an error on the part of the design team or editors, though it is technically official as it stands.

 

[drnuncheon]

Those creatures are intangible all the time. They attack and defend while incorporeal. It is a constant, reliable state in which they exist.

...but you miss the point.

If my defenses are good enough to give me my full Dex bonus vs. someone who is incorporeal all of the time, then they are good enough to give me my Dex bonus vs. someone who is incorporeal only some of the time.

Dex bonus is not parrying, it's moving out of the way. That's why you lose dodge bonus when you lose your Dex bonus. If you can dodge someone who is always incorporeal, what makes you think that you wouldn't be able to dodge someone who was sometimes incorporeal? Is there some mystical trick to defeating someone's dodging that you can only do if you're swapping between the ethereal and the solid?

Throughout all of this, I haven't seen anything that suggests that the loss of dex bonus is due to something other than the invisibility. The one situation I can see it working in - a fighter who can see invisible but does not realize how blink works, for a single strike - is so specific that it is almost certainly not to be used as the basis for any general ruling.

Blink makes you invisible half the time. Invisible people make sneak attacks. Honestly, I think that's all there is to it.

J

 

[Murrdox]

Uncanny dodge states you retain your AC bonus vs. an INVISIBLE attacker, not a blinking one.

While there are some differences between Blink and Invisibility, there are some similarities. When attempting to defeat Blink, you must take into consideration that Blink has TWO main factors to it.

1) You are not visible roughly 50% of the time. This is Blink's purely visual effect, and it is why the attacker attacks as though he is invisible, and part of the reason why opponents have a miss chance against him. Defeat this rule and opponent's miss chance drops from 50% to 20%. Defeat this rule and the attacker loses the benefit of attacking while invisible. Defeat both and miss chance drops to 0%.

2) You are etherial roughly 50% of the time. This is Blink's purely physical effect, and it is why a blinking attacker misses his opponent 20% of the time. It is also why certain spells have reduced effects or no effect on him. It is also part of the reason why opponents have a miss chance against him. Defeat this rule and opponent's miss chace drops from 50% to 20%. Defeat both an miss chance drops to 0%.

Now, keep in mind these two effects are very different. If you defeat ONE of these effects of Blink, you defeat PART of the spell.

Uncanny Dodge, for example, helps you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. It relies only on visibility, no matter what kind. It defeats Blink Effect #1. Since Blink Effect #1 is what allows an attacker to attack as though he was invisible, he no longer gets that benefit while attacking. However, all the effects for Blink Effect #2 still apply.

Blind Fight does NOT defeat #1, because Blind Fight only defeats normal invisibility, not total sensory invisibility, which is what Blink #1 grants. Blind Fight is thus both a physical ability and a visual ability. Namely you cannot hear, smell, or feel this invisibility, which is what Blind Fight relies on.

As has been shown in a variety of post throughout this thread, and in the PHB spell description, the two conditions are not equivalent. Therefore uncanny dodge will not help in this case. As for blind fight, you can interpret the way the spell is written as to mean that Blind Fight is only not helpful concerning the miss chance, which may or may not be the way that you have grammatically parsed the sentence. I didn't go so far as to do that because I simply went to the description of Blind Fight and it, too, says that it helps vs. INVISIBLE opponents, not blinking ones. Since the spell does not mention what blind fight CAN do, only what it CANNOT do, to assume that it is effective in this case is erroneous and house-rule territory (as logical of a house rule as it might be). Thus, as the 3.0 rules stand, Blind Fight and Uncanny Dodge do not help versus a blinking opponent.

As shown, Uncanny Dodge does help against part of the Blink effect. Blind Fight does not.

Concerning the ghost touch weapon issue: it should be noted that a ghost touch weapon SHOULD NOT help versus a blinking opponent

I agree with this... I don't understand why the spell allows a weapon that can strike incorporeal creatures to also affect etherial ones, when these two states are fairly distinct from each other... but that's the rule on it. Perhaps they should add that on to the "Ghost Touch" ability on weapons.