Ring of Blinking + Seeking Weapon question

[gooddragon1]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's a decently strong argument against it, IMO, but as far as RAW goes seeking says it bypasses any miss chance.

A seeking arrow or an arrow fired from a seeking bow or any thrown weapon with the seeking property will hit a blinking target as long as your attack roll hits his ac.

[Cog]

I'd say it doesn't work. Seeking specifies that you have to aim at the right square for it to work. Blink specifies that the miss chance is due to going Ethereal, and therefore being extraplanar. You're thus aiming at a square on the Ethereal, not the Material, and so you aren't aiming at the right square.

[Rijan_Sai]

I'd say it doesn't work. Seeking specifies that you have to aim at the right square for it to work. Blink specifies that the miss chance is due to going Ethereal, and therefore being extraplanar. You're thus aiming at a square on the Ethereal, not the Material, and so you aren't aiming at the right square.

I (more or less) agree. I don't agree that you can't aim at the right square, as 80% of the time the blinking target is material. The other 20% of the time, however, the "miss chance" is really a(n) "utterly-and-completely-not-there" chance. Like Cog (and Blink)said, you turn Ethereal in that instant.

Blur, Darkness, even Blindness (on the part of the attacker) or Invisibility (for the defender) would be proper "miss chances" that Seeking would overcome (in the case of Blindness/Invisibility, you would still have to aim at the correct square.)

[gooddragon1]

This was more a contest of who could rules lawyer better between me and someone else.

I'm fairly certain I'll beat his faerie fire+obscuring mist rules lawyering.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I (more or less) agree. I don't agree that you can't aim at the right square, as 80% of the time the blinking target is material. The other 20% of the time, however, the "miss chance" is really a(n) "utterly-and-completely-not-there" chance. Like Cog (and Blink)said, you turn Ethereal in that instant.

Blur, Darkness, even Blindness (on the part of the attacker) or Invisibility (for the defender) would be proper "miss chances" that Seeking would overcome (in the case of Blindness/Invisibility, you would still have to aim at the correct square.)

Doesn't matter. Seeking says it negates -any- miss chance; not any miss chance due to concealment, but any miss chance at all.

That's a solid argument for why it shouldn't negate blink (and barring a force bow it wouldn't in my game) but the RAW is clear; a seeking weapon bypasses blink.

[Valdor]

Doesn't matter. Seeking says it negates -any- miss chance; not any miss chance due to concealment, but any miss chance at all.

That's a solid argument for why it shouldn't negate blink (and barring a force bow it wouldn't in my game) but the RAW is clear; a seeking weapon bypasses blink.

I have to agree with Kelb. The rules are very clear about the miss chance being negated. I honestly see it as the magic of the seeking ability speeds up or slightly slows down the ammunition/thrown weapon in order to hit the blinking target at the right time. Though that is just fluff. RAW says it works. I know that is how I would follow it in my games.

[Keld Denar]

Would Seeking negate an incorporial undead's weapon immunity? It is a chance to fail simply because the undead is immune to even magical (non-ghost touch) weapons 50% of the time.

Its the case of 2 absolutes meeting. Seeking says "all", while blink says "all unable to affect ethereal creatures". Both are applicable. Which takes preference? I don't think that there is a right answer.

[TuggyNE]

Would Seeking negate an incorporial undead's weapon immunity? It is a chance to fail simply because the undead is immune to even magical (non-ghost touch) weapons 50% of the time.

The phrasing is different ("chance to avoid damage" instead of "miss chance"), so no it doesn't replace ghost touch.

[Arcanist]

There's a decently strong argument against it, IMO, but as far as RAW goes seeking says it bypasses any miss chance.

A seeking arrow or an arrow fired from a seeking bow or any thrown weapon with the seeking property will hit a blinking target as long as your attack roll hits his ac.

I honestly don't see the strong argument against it. The Arrow flies so fast that it penetrates the planar boarders and hits the creature in the Ethereal Plane.

I like this. Fluff conflicts with RAW on this one (and it actually means something! :smallbiggrin:)

[Barstro]

The Arrow flies so fast that it penetrates the planar boarders and hits the creature in the Ethereal Plane.

Almost a perfect argument.

How about; The arrow IS partially ethereal (that's how it gets past concealment) and is likewise part of the ethereal plane.

[Cog]

Its the case of 2 absolutes meeting. Seeking says "all", while blink says "all unable to affect ethereal creatures". Both are applicable. Which takes preference? I don't think that there is a right answer.
As I pointed out upthread, Seeking doesn't just say 'all'. It says:
Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)

So there is an exception for Seeking: if the miss chance is due to shooting into the wrong square, you don't get the benefit. If you're Blinking, there's a 20% chance that you're shooting into an empty square on the Ethereal plane (unless your enemy is Blinking as well, there's a different creature there, or so forth).

[Arcanist]

Almost a perfect argument.

How about; The arrow IS partially ethereal (that's how it gets past concealment) and is likewise part of the ethereal plane.

I regret not using Blue text for that :smalltongue:

[Rijan_Sai]

As I pointed out upthread, Seeking doesn't just say 'all'. It says:


Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)

So there is an exception for Seeking: if the miss chance is due to shooting into the wrong square, you don't get the benefit. If you're Blinking, there's a 20% chance that you're shooting into an empty square on the Ethereal plane (unless your enemy is Blinking as well, there's a different creature there, or so forth).

I was going to chang my agreement with you on this point, but then I realized that, while we've quite covered "Seeking," we've been neglecting "Blink."


You “blink” back and forth between the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane. You look as though you’re winking in and out of reality very quickly and at random.

Blinking has several effects, as follows.

Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-Fight feat doesn’t help opponents, since you’re ethereal and not merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment).

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.) Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.

There's more to it, but that's the relevent part, emphasis added. On it's own, Seeking does not state that it can hit Ethereal targets, (though it does negate miss chance, the point of this discussion...) Reading the two together, I would read it that, for overcoming MC, the seeking projectile can "see" invisible/ethereal targets, but not strike them on the Ethereal Plane, coming out to the stated 20% "ethereal chance". It would take another effect (such as Ghost Touch) to be able to hit an ethereal target.

[JBento]

You're reading it the other way around. If you can STRIKE ethereal creatures, you have a 20% miss chance. Therefore, if you want seeking to bypass part of blink because it can SEE Ethereal creatures, the miss chance is 30%.

EDIT: Nvm, my eyes skipped a line there Xp

[Rijan_Sai]

Actually, it is 20%. That part was copy-pasted from the SRD entry.

Blink = 50% miss chance.

If you can strike ethereal targets (Ghost Touch) = 20% concealment miss chance.

If you can see invisible (Seeking) = 20% Ethereal chance.

If you can see and strike ethereal (Seeking + Ghost Touch) = 0% miss chance.

Edit: RE: JBento's edit: Don't worry, happens to the best of us! (Of which, I am almost certainly NOT :smallbiggrin:)

EDIT 2: Ghost Touch doesn't target Ethereal targets, either...