rings of blinking and rogues

[hong]

I'm curious as to what, precisely, your argument is.

Is it that hard to understand "attacks as an invisible creature"?

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Is it that hard to understand "attacks as an invisible creature"?

As is clearly pointed out MULTIPLE times, the phrase "as an invisible creature" is not the equivalent of the subject being invisible much the same way that a hypothetical spell description that reads "... attacks as a fighter of equal character level" would not make the subject of the spell a into a fighter for all intents and purposes. I respect your right to impose house rules as you see fit and I even agree with the overall concept of your argument. The rules, as written, do not.

 

[hong]

As is clearly pointed out MULTIPLE times, the phrase "as an invisible creature" is not the equivalent of the subject being invisible much the same way that a hypothetical spell description that reads "... attacks as a fighter of equal character level" would not make the subject of the spell a into a fighter for all intents and purposes.

Who cares about all intents and purposes? For the purposes of _combat_, divine power grants the caster the relevant characteristics of a fighter, and so gains fighter BAB and iterative attacks. Similarly, for the purposes of _combat_, blink treats the attacker as invisible. Therefore, since you are treated as invisible, you gain all the benefits _and drawbacks_ of invisibility. One of those drawbacks is that people with uncanny dodge and see invis can still avoid you.

Furthermore, since a character who can see invisible creatures gains a benefit in terms of miss chances over one who doesn't, clearly the invisible state is something relevant to the state of a blinking character. Thus uncanny dodge, by working against invisible opponents, is brought into play.

I respect your right to impose house rules as you see fit and I even agree with the overall concept of your argument.

So stop arguing and shut up.

The rules, as written, do not.

They don't? Since when?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What does it usually signify when Hong stops signing his messages?

-Hyp.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

So stop arguing and shut up.

There's no need to be rude, especially when I was validating your thought process.

If you think that your interpretation is correct, so be it. I've made my argument and you choose to disagree with the statement that myself and others have made saying that invisibility and blinking are not the same in this instance. You have obviously let this discussion get emotional, so I'm going to cease and desist so you can cool off. Best of luck and happy gaming.

 

[Murrdox]

I agreewith the first part of your statement. Uncanny Dodge does help you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. The fact that it functions versus invisibility is clearly stated in the feat. The fact that it works against an ability SIMILAR to invisibility is NOT stated in the feat. I'm not sure where you get the information that Uncanny Dodge relies solely on visibility, either. And I'm also unsure where in the rules it tells you that you may divide an ability or spell effect into components such as "Effect #1" and "Effect #2" unless the spell specifically states that you can consider them separate effects. You are clearly extrapolating your own rationales as to why and how the feats and spell functions when the rules, as they are written, say nothing of the sort.

Correct. I'm getting this from the fact that being able to See Invisibility negates part of the spell's effect, and being able to attack incorporeal creatures negates another part of the spell's effect. Since one or the other or both of these effects can be negated, it MEANS that the spell has two distinct effects. Otherwise it would be an "all-or none" situation.

I can appreciate the creative thinking and I even acknowledge that your ideas are coherent and logical. But they are in no way official, because they do not follow the rules as written. I'm not even saying that I would not use your house rule as I think that it is a plausible explanation, but it IS, despite all logic, a house rule.

I dunno. You might get away with saying my Uncanny Dodge argument doesn't work because Uncanny Dodge doesn't specifically mention that it is a visual skill.

However, denying the attacker his bonus to "Attack as an Invisible creature" seems fairly obvious if you can See Invisibility. The portion of the spell that allows the character to "Attack as though Invisible" is being negated. The spell doesn't need to spell it out for me in black and white by specificically stating it. The spell doesn't do this for the same reason the text of Invisibility doesn't attempt to list every spell, effect, condition, and magic item that allows you to defeat the spell.

When you cast Invisibility on yourself, can you see yourself? The spell doesn't specifically SAY so... but you can figure out that the spell is MEANT to be that way... partly because one would think that not being able to see your own actions would net you penalties of some sort, and also because of the text for another spell, Invisibility Sphere. So I suppose that means that when I say that characters who cast Invisibility on themselves can also see themselves, I'm house-ruling it. If you want to look at it that way, then I suppose that's as good as anything... I just look at it more as understanding the meaning of the rules, which in many cases are not spelled out in black and white for us. This is D&D afterall. I'm sure everyone can come up with a rule that the writers didn't think of EVERY scenario for. Take the "dive" action for example. It specifies that any flying creature can use the "dive" action, but that only a claw attack may be used. What about a character in flight who has no claws? He can still make a dive attack, but he can't actually make the attack because he doesn't have claws? What about something like a Lantern Archon, which has no limbs period?

I mean, if you want to call all this a house rule, then there ya go... there's my house rule of how Blink works. However, I think aside from the confusion about the missing "incorporeal" term in the spell text, all the information and modifiers for it are taken straight out of the rules. Some of it just needs to be taken from places other than the Blink spell itself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I suppose that means that when I say that characters who cast Invisibility on themselves can also see themselves, I'm house-ruling it.

I'll chime in here to say that I feel Arcturus is being a little free with the "House-Rule!" brush.

I personally feel that Invisible creatures can't see themselves, with the exception of Invisibility Sphere. But I admit there is room for argument. I accept Murrdox's version as an alternate interpretation - if I were to call it a house rule, it would be because I'd deliberately chosen to be insulting. And I would be offended if someone told me that my own interpretation was a house rule.

See the recent Blade Barrier debate for an example.

I think there's insufficient evidence to dismiss either interpretation in the Blink debate as a house rule. When someone says "I can see how it works, but it makes no sense, and it should be like this instead", that's a house rule. When they say "According to the rules as written, I believe it to be in this way", it's an interpretation. In some cases, those interpretations are dead wrong. In others, it's ambiguous.

Remember the Haste-and-5'-Step wars? Calling either point of view a house rule was a good way to get yelled at.

-Hyp.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Murrdox: I'll be the first one to try and say that "house rules" that are extrapolated from the intent of the rules as written are great assets to any game. I just make it a point to call any solution to a problem that ISN'T black and white in the rules a "house rule" so that people don't take interpretations as official.

In regards to looking for information sources to clarify things outside of the spell description, I looked at the the feat (Blind Fight) and ability (Uncanny Dodge) in question and just noted what wasn't there. I'm totally with you on the limitations of writers in addressing every scenario. I just call what they don't address a "house rule" for simplicity's sake, because the matter isn't black and white like most topics. And for the record, your "house rule" for blink is the one I'd use, too.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Hyp: No offense intended, sir. See my above post to Murrdox.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I just make it a point to call any solution to a problem that ISN'T black and white in the rules a "house rule" so that people don't take interpretations as official.

By that definition, your own interpretation is a "house rule" as well.

Any debate that goes on for three pages suggests that there's ambiguity in the RAW.

Interpreting an ambiguous passage in the RAW does not automatically generate a house rule.

-Hyp.