Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arcturus_Rugend" data-source="post: 837667" data-attributes="member: 11104">Hong: You asked "Since when have the 3.0 rules implied that neither blindfight nor uncanny dodge help?"  I thought I indicated this clearly before, but I'll give it another shot. Uncanny dodge states you retain your AC bonus vs. an INVISIBLE attacker, not a blinking one. As has been shown in a variety of post throughout this thread, and in the PHB spell description, the two conditions are not equivalent. Therefore uncanny dodge will not help in this case.  As for blind fight, you can interpret the way the spell is written as to mean that Blind Fight is only not helpful concerning the miss chance, which may or may not be the way that you have grammatically parsed the sentence. I didn't go so far as to do that because I simply went to the description of Blind Fight and it, too, says that it helps vs. INVISIBLE opponents, not blinking ones. Since the spell does not mention what blind fight CAN do, only what it CANNOT do, to assume that it is effective in this case is erroneous and house-rule territory (as logical of a house rule as it might be). Thus, as the 3.0 rules stand, Blind Fight and Uncanny Dodge do not help versus a blinking opponent.Concerning the ghost touch weapon issue: it should be noted that a ghost touch weapon SHOULD NOT help versus a blinking opponent, as the blinker is becoming ethereal randomly, not incorporeal. It does, in part, however, because the spell text complicates this issue by indicating that if the attack is capable of striking ethereal OR INCORPOREAL creatures, then the miss chance is reduced to 20%. The word incorporeal should not really apply in this case, as the blinker is never incorporeal by virtue of the spell (though they may become so by other means). Hypersmurf was pointing out that the second part of the description that further reduces the miss chance only makes reference to being able to affect ethereal targets, which makes more sense concerning the nature of the spell. I believe the reference to incorporeality was an error on the part of the design team or editors, though it is technically official as it stands.</blockquote>

Verification