rings of blinking and rogues

[Arcturus_Rugend]

Well, that certainly does complicate things.

By the letter of the spell text, Hypersmurf is correct. Makes you wonder how many of the designers used "ethereal" and "incorporeal" interchangably while writing this spell or if this wording was intentional.

[edit: Why would having a weapon capable of striking an incorporeal creature help in this situation anyway? Definitely a design error.]

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

If that is true, then any unarmed person loses their Dex bonus, (and rogues everywhere are going to start getting Improved Disarm).

Of course, this is not the case, and there's nothing in the rules that even remotely suggests that it is.

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.

What has this got to do with an unarmed person's AC? Absolutely nothing. We're not talking about attacking, here, we're talking about defense, and there is no AC penalty for being unarmed.

Originally posted by Skinwalker 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. [/B]

Er.

If he's solid, he can't be bull rushed into a solid object.
If he's incorporeal, he can't be bull rushed at all.

J

 

[Hypersmurf]

If he's incorporeal, he can't be bull rushed at all.

Huh. I could have sworn the Bigby's Hand spells were [Force] effects.

But the stat blocks in the SRD don't have the descriptor.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But if you want to go by the official (3.0) rules, I'd stick with the way that things are written

Since when has that....

and say that neither blind fight nor uncanny dodge help,

implied this?

 

[Destil]

Huh. I could have sworn the Bigby's Hand spells were [Force] effects.

But the stat blocks in the SRD don't have the descriptor.

-Hyp.

Nor does the PH. Though I though so, as well.

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 remember a desinger or two (Sean and Monte, if memory serves) stating this on an informal basis once or twice on message boards, yes. However, I think the assumption was usualy, not quite always. And by that standard the ring is fine, it's only 80% sneak attacks, after all (as 20% aren't even attacks, at least not attacks that can affect someone on the prime material plane).

As far as the ghost-touch weapons: We simply house ruled that the things strike as force effects and havn't had to deal with the entire incorporial vs. etheral issue, IMC. As far as the wording goes, whoever was writing the spell assumed that anything that strikes incorporial strikes etheral as well, I think....

 

[Skinwalker]

If that is true, then any unarmed person loses their Dex bonus, (and rogues everywhere are going to start getting Improved Disarm).

I don't know where this came from. I never said an unarmed person loses their Dex bonus. I said they expose themselves to attacks of opportunity. An unarmed person can still use footwork, parrying, and dodging, which are criteria for an effective defense (represented by the Dex bonus).

The point of the Disarm is that a rogue cannot do effective sneak attacks without a weapon. If he's Blinking, he might have trouble recovering his weapon (e.g., going ethereal as he tries to pick it up). If he is solid enough to pick up his weapon, then he is solid enough to be hit by the attack of opportunity this provokes.

As to the Bull Rush tactic,

If he's solid, he can't be bull rushed into a solid object.
If he's incorporeal, he can't be bull rushed at all.

yeah, you effectively destroyed that line of thought. Congrats.

 

[drnuncheon]

I don't know where this came from. I never said an unarmed person loses their Dex bonus.

Oh no?

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.

Your contention was that the blinking rogue would get a sneak attack on the fighter because the fighter could not parry the rogue's weapon as effectively, and therefore he would lose his Dex bonus.

Fact is, there is no indication of that anywhere.

You are merely muddying the waters when you bring AoOs for unarmed attacks into it - but even then, the combatant keeps his Dex bonus.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the sneak attack bonus from blink is because your opponent can't see you half the time - just like you get one from being invisible. And, if you can see someone that is invisible, they get no sneak attach form their invisibility.

Parrying doesn't enter into it, because parrying has no game effect. Your AC is the same whether you are armed or unarmed.

J

 

[Piratecat]

I just banned the Ring of Blinking.

This isn't a mistake in the rules; it's deliberately planned this way. Way back when we were playtesting 3e, I caught this, and asked Skip Williams if it was intentional. He assured me that it absolutely was.

 

[Darklone]

Byebye logic.

 

[Skinwalker]

Your contention was that the blinking rogue would get a sneak attack on the fighter because the fighter could not parry the rogue's weapon as effectively, and therefore he would lose his Dex bonus.

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*

Fact is, there is no indication of that anywhere.

The rules state a person loses their Dex bonus against a Blinking opponent. I just offered an interpretation of why this might happen.

You are merely muddying the waters when you bring AoOs for unarmed attacks into it - but even then, the combatant keeps his Dex bonus.

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.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the sneak attack bonus from blink is because your opponent can't see you half the time - just like you get one from being invisible. And, if you can see someone that is invisible, they get no sneak attach form their invisibility.

Finally, the meat of the issue. In the case of invisibility, visibility (or otherwise being able to pinpoint your opponent's location) is certainly the issue. In the case of Blinking, I feel visibility is only part of the issue.

Parrying doesn't enter into it, because parrying has no game effect. Your AC is the same whether you are armed or unarmed.
J

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.