rings of blinking and rogues

[Hypersmurf]

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

Arcturus already fielded this one, but I'll lay it out again...

We're agreed that Incorporeal and Ethereal are two different conditions.

We're agreed that a Ghost Touch weapon can strike incorporeal creatures, but cannot strike Ethereal creatures.

Blink says "If the attack is capable of striking ethereal or incorporeal creatures, the miss chance is only 20%". Since a Ghost Touch weapon is capable of striking incorporeal creatures, it qualifies for this reduction.

It then says "If the creature can both see and strike ethereal creatures, he suffers no penalty". A Ghost Touch weapon cannot strike ethereal creatures, so it does not qualify for this reduction. The crucial clause "or incorporeal" is missing.

-Hyp.

 

[Skinwalker]

drnuncheon, I agree that the point is being missed. Since my own words are being so misunderstood, I'll quote those who said it better:

...the text of the blink spell which states that the "blinker is ethereal, not merely invisible."

Originally posted by Hypersmurf
The impression I get is that the "as an invisible attacker" is similar to the "trip attack" from the Knockdown feat. You use the mechanics of a trip - opposed Str vs Str or Dex - but you don't incur a counter-trip if you fail, and you can't use Improved Trip with it.

With Blink, the attack is made "as an invisible attacker", in that you get +2 to attack and deny Dex bonus... but because you're not invisible, conditions that would normally defeat those benefits against a true invisible attacker do not apply.

 

[Murrdox]

It then says "If the creature can both see and strike ethereal creatures, he suffers no penalty". A Ghost Touch weapon cannot strike ethereal creatures, so it does not qualify for this reduction. The crucial clause "or incorporeal" is missing.

-Hyp.

AHH, "I see", said the blind man with a ghost touch weapon to the blinking invisible wraith. "Now what the heck do I need to do to hit this thing again?"

definitely a typo.

 

[Hypersmurf]

definitely a typo.

Hasn't been errata'd... it's official 3E rules

-Hyp.

 

[drnuncheon]

drnuncheon, I agree that the point is being missed. Since my own words are being so misunderstood, I'll quote those who said it better:

Oh, make no mistake, I see exactly what you are trying to say: you think a blinking person should cause someone to lose their dex bonus to AC, even if they are visible through some means.

However, what I have not seen is anything that backs up this belief under scrutiny. Every argument or explanation that has been advanced has, once examined, proved to be inconsistent with some other portion of the rules.

Right now, as near as I can tell, your argument is based on Hypersmurf's "impression". Meaning no offense to Hyp, that's not really a valid basis for a rules discussion. I could just as easily say that the rules find it necessary to say "as an invisible attacker" because the attacker is not invisible at all times, and that the only reason the target loses his Dex bonus is because he can't see the attack coming. It all comes down to who can back it up.

J

 

[Murrdox]

I'm even confused by the "Spirit" of the rules on this one. Are ghost touch weapons supposed to be able to hit etherial creatures as well as incorporial? Or is inclucing incorporial in the description of Blink simply a mistake?

I'm tempted to say that Ghost Touch weapons are meant to be able to attack both incorporial AND etherial creatures. The descriptor for "Ghost Touch" says that manifesting ghosts can weild these weapons normally. They can only pick them up when they are "manifested" in which case they are still on the etherial plane, yet can affect both the material and etherial planes.

If Ghost Touch weapons CANNOT strike etherial creatures, then you're very limited as to ANYTHING that could successfully strike a blinking character. There aren't any other weapon enchantments that would help in this area. Except maybe a spell storing weapon which has a force effect spell in it maybe... but I dunno about that one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Right now, as near as I can tell, your argument is based on Hypersmurf's "impression". Meaning no offense to Hyp, that's not really a valid basis for a rules discussion.

No offence taken - I am by no means firmly entrenched in a fortified camp on this one As it happens, I've been mostly convinced that See Invisible should negate blinking Sneak Attacks by this thread

-Hyp.

 

[HeavyG]

I thought I had read that the Rogue classed was balanced on the assumption that they would *always* get the sneak attack bonus. If so, then a ring of blinking shouldn't be a big deal.

Can anyone confirm that?

I'm certain that I have heard about such an assumption.

However, IIRC, it was that the Rogue was balanced on the assumption that they would get one sneak attack per combat. Or possibly one full-round's worth of sneak attacks per combat.

I'm almost 100% sure that it wasn't that every attack should be a sneak attack.

 

[Destil]

If Ghost Touch weapons CANNOT strike etherial creatures, then you're very limited as to ANYTHING that could successfully strike a blinking character. There aren't any other weapon enchantments that would help in this area. Except maybe a spell storing weapon which has a force effect spell in it maybe... but I dunno about that one.

Don't think so. Since you'd need to hit first with the [non-force-effect] weapon in order to trigger the [force effect] magic missle, for instance... Mord's sword or Spiritual Weapon might be a possibility, though that's hardly here or there (since neither spell mentions the weapon's perceptive abilities as do the Bigby's Hands, and I'd have to agree with Arcturus_Rugend's earlier assesment of blink vs. invisibility purge. Bringing one of thoes into the discussion only complicates things).

 

[Skinwalker]

Oh, make no mistake, I see exactly what you are trying to say: you think...

Dude, chill. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it. Take a deep breath. Relax. Think calming thoughts - blue skies, frollicking bunnies, etc.

Here's an idea: Try to listen to my intent rather than twisting my words around and *telling* me what I'm saying. What you are *telling* me I'm saying is not the same as what I am saying.

I said what I came in here to say. I'll say it one last time since you missed it. Ignore ALL my previous posts and just read this line: Visibility is not the only factor in defeating a Blink spell. Point made. End of point. If you don't agree, that doesn't bother me. Several others posted to similar effect, so I know I'm not alone. Harangue them for a while if you like - I'm done responding to your flames.