Of course it's not at all consistant within the confines of the rules: eatheral sight is mostly fine until 60'. Miss chances does not negate sneak attack, concealment does. Then again, it's your game. Though I'll argue that a blinking rogue is generaly fine, if you want.Plane Sailing said:A straight reading by the letter of the rules would allow the rogue a sneak attack; the above house-rule is IMO a reasonable way of preventing an otherwise pretty overpowering situation (all sneak attack, all the time!)Cheers [/B]
Given that the reasoning is that you strike "as an invisible creature" I think that makes the most sense. That also means that the blindfighting feat, the first step of Uncanny Dodge and True Seeing (but not blindsight, since even blindsighted creatures can't see into the eatheral).Darklone said:See invisibility is easily enough to counter these sneak attacks, isn't it?
See invisibility is easily enough to counter these sneak attacks, isn't it?
The presence of such a description on an item in a WOTC book is a pretty strong argument that the rogue has no trouble sneak attacking while blinking.
Arcturus_Rugend said:See invisibility obviously works against sneak attacks from opponents who are invisible (unless the target is some other way denied their DEX bonus). The blink spell and the ring of blinking are a separate case, as the subject who is blinking isn't merely out of sight, they're rapidly shifting between the Material and Ethereal Planes. The spell provides information on what does and does not help against a blinking opponent. Blind fight does not help, and see invisibility is only partially effective unless you are also capable of striking ethereal / incorporal creatures.