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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Murrdox" data-source="post: 839149" data-attributes="member: 10131">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 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.</blockquote>

Verification