rings of blinking and rogues

[Arcturus_Rugend]

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.

That's probably the way it SHOULD work, and any DM who's reasonable will probably house rule it that way, but it's not the way the rules are written. Where's 3.5 when you need it?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I just banned the Ring of Blinking. It isn't bad if a rogue/wizard or arcane trickster uses Blink (it's like Improved Invisibility, but with a miss chance), but giving it to a single-class rogue is a bad idea, IMO.

Then again, there is still Use Magic Device or take one level of wizard and use a Wand of Blink

 

[Skinwalker]

The rogue and warrior example was just *an* example, and was not meant to be the definitive case. My point was simply that you should think about the effects of being semi-incorporial as much as being invisible. *Either* could (could, not would) make all but the most unusual offense/defense routines crumble - Blink does both. A rogue's sneak attack allows him to capitalize on this vulnerability. That makes Blink/sneak attack a very deadly combination.

The point about non-contact techniques is interesting. However, I wasn't implying defense is simply parrying. I was identifying parrying as a possible point of failure in defending against a Blinking opponent, allowing the rogue to capitalize on the vulnerability. Combat really involves a lot of footwork, parrying, and dodging. If you eliminate any of these from the repetoire (in this case, parrying) and still try to work in an effective attack routine, it creates a vulnerability. In game terms this is logically reflected by the loss of Dex bonus.

This is just a personal jugment call (no rules basis), but I would say if you go to all out defense (Full Defense action), in this case retaining the Dex bonus seems logical.

As to a warrior's unarmed techniques being the same as their armed techniques - no. This is reflected by the fact they expose themselves to AoO when attacking unarmed.

As to magic items being the only defense against the Blinking sneak attack, I disagree. Turn the strength into a weakness by Bull Rushing the Blinker into a solid object. Eliminate the advantage by doing a Disarm or Sunder. Might take a couple tries, but the result would be worth it.

 

[Skinwalker]

I just banned the Ring of Blinking.

It does have a lot of potential for abuse. However, I prefer to modify items rather than outright banning. Seems to me it would be reasonable to change it to an item with a certain number of charges per day...say, somewhere around 3 to 5. That way it couldn't be more powerful than a wizard/rogue carrying a few Blink spells.

 

[Cheiromancer]

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?

 

[Destil]

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 could swear there was a +2 bonus to hit an 'unarmed' defender, but checking it's not on the chart on PH 132... am I just remembering something from 2E? Because I'm fairly sure all my group has always assumed you get a +2 to hit someone with no melee weapon (or with only their fists and no improved unarmed strike)...

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Cheiromancer: I hadn't heard that, but it seems that it's would be difficult to believe. I think the rogue is on the high end of the class power scale and that's without constant sneak attack. I'd be curious to hear one way or the other, though.

Destil: I remembered something similar, but I think it might be some old 2E cobwebs floating around in the attic (along with some antiquated grappling rules ). The only penalty I can find for fighting unarmed is the AoO your opponent gets if you don't have the Imp. UA Strike. But thanks for the moment of nostaligia. I thought I was the only one who still had 2E bits floating in and out, messing with my head.

 

[AuraSeer]

Note that a ghost touch weapon does not help against blink. That enhancement works only on incorporeal creatures. Someone who has blinked is ethereal. These are two completely different states.

 

[Skinwalker]

Note that a ghost touch weapon does not help against blink. That enhancement works only on incorporeal creatures. Someone who has blinked is ethereal. These are two completely different states.

Good point. I should have used the word "intangible" in my previous post.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Except that the spell description throw confusion on the matter.

The blink effect rapidly cycles the character in and out of the ethereal plane. Blinking has several effects:
Physical attacks suffer a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn't. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal or incorporeal creatures, the miss chance is only 20%. If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. If the attacker can both see and strike ethereal creatures, the attacker suffers no penalty. Likewise, the character's own attacks suffer a 20% miss chance.

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.