How good is Blink?

[Story]

As a 4th level Wizard, I've been thinking about which spells to take at next level. Besides the staples like Haste, Fly, and Stinking Cloud, I've been considering Blink. It looks to me like it has decent utility for sneaking through walls, and providing an escape route, though the short duration is killer. But I've never seen it on any lists of good spells. Is there something I'm missing? Is it just not that good in practice?

[Juntao112]

Great on archers, especially on Rogue archers.

[Psyren]

As said, it's mostly for rogues as it enables sneak attack. Combine with Seeking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#seeking) for best results.

[Ravens_cry]

As said, it's mostly for rogues as it enables sneak attack. Combine with Seeking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#seeking) for best results.
Ooh, neat! Combine with an Invisible Spell Fog Cloud for even better results!

[ericgrau]

It provides utility and defense, both of which aren't that special. And as a squishy wizard do you really want to be alone on the other side of a wall or door, where there may or may not be enemies, while you take an unknown amount of time to figure out how to let your party in?

So that leaves defense, which displacement does just as well except it can target party members and it doesn't give you a 20% failure chance. Even then, I'd rather be attacking. For defense I instead prefer all day buffs like mage armor and false life. Defensive immediate action spells or abilities are sweet too. Combats are so short that losing even one early round greatly reduces your effectiveness.

A ring of blinking OTOH is a common rogue item for sneak attacking. It's also good for scouting because you can cross a wall and come back quickly all day long, rather than burning a spell slot every time you want to check a side passage.

[Ernir]

The really annoying thing about the Ring of Blinking is that it's an item that you could have active all day, in every combat... if you refresh it every 7 rounds. Which isn't very practical.

It's pretty good when you have a buff round, or when you just don't have any other way to get off some Sneak Attack, and for utility, but it's not some kind of godsend.

[AlanBruce]

For all its properties, Blink has a few drawbacks.

You can be hit reliably with force effects.

You can be hit reliably with abjurations. Dimensional anchor comes to mind, which would negate the effect for a good amount of time.

Pierce Magical Protection I believe can get through the miss chance.

True Seeing states that you can see into the Ethereal, but it does not cover very well if it negates the miss chance as well.

See Invisibility does the same as above, I believe.

Transdimensional Spell will ignore it completely, but force effects do the job just as well.

I-m sure there are more spells, feats or even PrC that can see through a blink. Ghostfaced Killer springs to mind.

[Leon]

If you can survive the Angels...

[Lapak]

If you can survive the Angels...
*snrk*

Actually, that spell would be an exercise in absolute frustration for the Weeping Angels. If we assume that they can move while you're Blinking, by definition they'd be able to touch you only when they cannot move and unable to touch you when they CAN move. How annoying would that be! :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

For all its properties, Blink has a few drawbacks.

I'm not sure you're using that term properly in this context. The things you mentioned are more like counters than drawbacks; in addition, forcing the enemy to counter your buff is a win for you because that's a round where they're not doing anything else. This is especially true for silver bullets like Dimensional Anchor, which deals no damage and otherwise has no effect on the outcome of the fight. That one even has an attack roll and SR to worry about, and can be dispelled if you really need it off.

[Darrin]

As said, it's mostly for rogues as it enables sneak attack. Combine with Seeking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#seeking) for best results.

Does the 20% miss chance for your own attacks count as "concealment", or are those separate effects?

[Psyren]

Does the 20% miss chance for your own attacks count as "concealment", or are those separate effects?

That's the beauty of it - Seeking doesn't care where the miss chance comes from. (It says "such as concealment.")

[ericgrau]

RAI the combo shouldn't work because you're on another friggin' plane. Even with RAW that's a bit of a logical contradiction because the spell does say you are on another plane 20% of the time. The combo basically grants seeking the ability to cross planar boundaries by converting the effect of crossing planar boundaries into a miss chance.

Blink does have the small advantage of becoming ethereal way earlier than normal. You can go through a wall or door and quickly back. You can give yourself essentially 10% failure (50%*20%) at casting spells against incorporeal foes instead of 50% failure. If such challenges are common I might prepare blink instead of displacement; otherwise I wouldn't. And the thing is, I don't even prepare displacement that often. I'd be more likely to use [empowered] magic missile against low level incorporeals because it's also reliable against other things, disintegrate walls when at high enough level that bypassing barriers actually matters, etc.

[Psyren]

RAW they are in contradiction and you might try to say that seeking trumps blink. RAI the combo shouldn't work; you're on another friggin' plane.


Are you? In actuality, you're flashing back and forth between them very rapidly. Not only is it RAW, it's pretty easy to justify - say the enchantment on the projectile allows it to leave your presence at the exact moment that you are on the Material, every single time you fire, without fail. It's not like you're sitting on the Ethereal and firing potshots into the Material - that obviously wouldn't work. It's merely a timing thing, and the enchantment simply makes your timing impeccable.

[Starbuck_II]

RAI the combo shouldn't work because you're on another friggin' plane. Even with RAW that's a bit of a logical contradiction.

Blink does have the small advantage of becoming ethereal way earlier than normal. You can go through a wall or door and quickly back. You can give yourself essentially 10% failure (50%*20%) at casting spells against incorporeal foes instead of 50% failure. If such challenges are common I might prepare blink instead of displacement; otherwise I wouldn't. And the thing is, I don't even prepare displacement that often. I'd be more likely to use [empowered] magic missile against low level incorporeals because it's also reliable against other things, disintegrate walls when at high enough level that bypassing barriers actually matters, etc.

Actually ethereal is better than incoporeal, incorporeals can't by RAW go through a wall (they can inside a wall though) since a wall has bigger space than them.


An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own.

[ericgrau]

Are you? In actuality, you're flashing back and forth between them very rapidly. Not only is it RAW, it's pretty easy to justify - say the enchantment on the projectile allows it to leave your presence at the exact moment that you are on the Material, every single time you fire, without fail. It's not like you're sitting on the Ethereal and firing potshots into the Material - that obviously wouldn't work. It's merely a timing thing, and the enchantment simply makes your timing impeccable.

The combo basically finds a way to plane shift via seeking... you can try to provide a fluff explanation for it but that's what's going on. If you can find ways to turn some other effects into miss chances, you could do some interesting things with seeking. Like if you could somehow get an ability to turn cover into a miss chance, seeking could go through walls.


Actually ethereal is better than incoporeal, incorporeals can't by RAW go through a wall (they can inside a wall though) since a wall has bigger space than them.

By the way that's worded an incorporeal can go through a wall as long as it is 5 feet thick or thinner, which is most walls. At 6 feet the incorporeal is in trouble, unless he's large size.

[toapat]

Ooh, neat! Combine with an Invisible Spell Fog Cloud for even better results!

But but, its a fog cloud, that people cant see through, thats invisible.

[Lapak]

But but, its a fog cloud, that people cant see through, thats invisible.The point of that combination, as I understand, is to foil people who can see through Invisibility. You create a spell that does nothing against someone who doesn't have See Invis or True Seeing up - including yourself - but successfully hides you from people who are running those effects. So you can stand ten feet away from a guy with See Invisibility and laugh as he stumbles around blind when everybody else can see.

[Psyren]

The combo basically finds a way to plane shift via seeking... you can try to provide a fluff explanation for it but that's what's going on.

No, it's not. YOU are plane shifting, back and forth rapidly, for the duration of the power. The Seeking enchantment is simply able to target, without error, those brief windows when you are material - possibly even slowing or speeding up the arrow on a quantum level to make sure it hits that window. (Note that it doesn't even matter whether the enchantment is on the bow or on the arrows themselves for this - the result is the same.)

Remember that when the projectile leaves you, it is not subject to the spell anymore as it is no longer in your possession. So if you are material when it leaves your square, the arrow will stay material until it hits your target.

Your other example doesn't apply; walls and other solid barriers count as cover (AC bonus), not concealment (miss chance.)

[ericgrau]

The thing is, if you find a way to convert anything else at all into a miss chance it would also apply. And explaining it is more patching on fluff than anything.

[Psyren]

The thing is, if you find a way to convert anything else at all into a miss chance it would also apply. And explaining it is more patching on fluff than anything.

Then find something so I can explain it. I already handled this one.

[ericgrau]

What's worse is that hitting incorporeal creatures in general is often described as a "miss chance". That's how the 50% chance to not hit incorporeal creatures with a magic weapons is described in the rules compendium for example; in fact it says that it will not stack with other miss chances such as concealment. In other places the same rule is described as a "50% chance to ignore any damage." The first lets seeking include ghost touch for the same price as ghost touch, while the second gives no additional benefit.

So going by that, the Rules Compendium upgraded seeking.

... Or you could say "The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply" only allows veering.

[Psyren]

What's worse is that hitting incorporeal creatures in general is often described as a "miss chance". That's how the 50% chance to not hit incorporeal creatures with a magic weapons is described in the rules compendium for example; in fact it says that it will not stack with other miss chances. In other places it's described as a "50% chance to ignore any damage." The first lets seeking include ghost touch for the same price as ghost touch, while the second gives no additional benefit.

So going by that, the Rules Compendium upgraded seeking.

That's not actually a miss chance, it's a 50% chance to be ignore the damage. ("Incorporeality - Harming", RC 64). Effectively similar, but the difference is still key.

I do know that it's erroneously compared to concealment elsewhere in the book, but the primary source for Incorporeal rules is under the Incorporeal entry on the page I cited.

[herrhauptmann]

For all its properties, Blink has a few drawbacks.
You can be hit reliably with force effects.
You can be hit reliably with abjurations. Dimensional anchor comes to mind, which would negate the effect for a good amount of time.
Pierce Magical Protection I believe can get through the miss chance.
True Seeing states that you can see into the Ethereal, but it does not cover very well if it negates the miss chance as well.
See Invisibility does the same as above, I believe.
Transdimensional Spell will ignore it completely, but force effects do the job just as well.
I-m sure there are more spells, feats or even PrC that can see through a blink. Ghostfaced Killer springs to mind.
Pierce magic concealment counters blink, not pierce magic protection. So you need mageslayer and blindfight to get it. Which leads us to the efficacy of mage killers that don't use magic outright.
PMP ignores and dispels AC boosters like shield, luminous armor, and barkskin. But not bracers of armor, amulet of natural armor, regular magic armor...
It might've been said, but True Seeing lets someone see you while you're ethereal. It doesn't do anything to let you hit soemone on the ethereal plane, or time your attacks to wait for them to appear on the material plane. And since you can see them, you're not flatfooted against an invisible person.

*snrk*
Actually, that spell would be an exercise in absolute frustration for the Weeping Angels. If we assume that they can move while you're Blinking, by definition they'd be able to touch you only when they cannot move and unable to touch you when they CAN move. How annoying would that be! :smalltongue:

If you can see them, they're stationary (ery?), even if you're Blinking. That's how their quantum thing worked. So they just have to get behind you and keep swiping/grabbing until they get you on the material plane.

[Lapak]

If you can see them, they're stationary (ery?), even if you're Blinking. That's how their quantum thing worked. So they just have to get behind you and keep swiping/grabbing until they get you on the material plane.:smalltongue: I was playing off the Doctor's warning "Don't Blink" just as Leon was, not suggesting it seriously.

[herrhauptmann]

:smalltongue: I was playing off the Doctor's warning "Don't Blink" just as Leon was, not suggesting it seriously.

I know. It was my first thought when I saw the title of the thread.
That episode was my real intro to the show (what happened in the 80s doesn't count), I spent a good while thinking about it while waiting to get my hands on more episodes.
Probably pretty frustrating for the angels to be sitting there and unable to move, even when the room is empty (on the material plane). Too bad for them, there's an ethereal person staring at them.

[ericgrau]

That's not actually a miss chance, it's a 50% chance to be ignore the damage. ("Incorporeality - Harming", RC 64). Effectively similar, but the difference is still key.

I do know that it's erroneously compared to concealment elsewhere in the book, but the primary source for Incorporeal rules is under the Incorporeal entry on the page I cited.
You could just as easily say that the "miss chance" in blink is an erroneous description. It probably is.

The RAW method of hitting the target is still veering regardless. If you try to add a new method every time you see a new source of miss chance unrelated to accuracy, then well that is completely made up. You can try to force it to work with varying degrees of success depending on the source, but it is an arbitrary addition regardless of how plausible or ludicrous (depending on the source) that fluff may be.

[Psyren]

You could just as easily say that the "miss chance" in blink is an erroneous description. It probably is.

You could, but that's irrelevant to RAW.



The RAW method of hitting the target is still veering regardless.

I'm not disputing that; "veering" doesn't contradict my explanation at all. My fluff justification for the RAW was this - the enchantment ensures the projectile hits the "material window" via quantum adjustments to the timing of its flight. As the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, any adjustments to the trajectory of the arrow (say, to make it a slight arc) will affect the timing of the strike. Thus "veering" fits right into my explanation.

You don't have to follow my narrative - you're free to come up with your own. That's the beauty of fluff. But the RAW is that Seeking arrows ignore the miss chance from Blink, so the flavor path taken to get there is ultimately irrelevant.

[Darrin]

The reason I asked is not because of the Seeking enchantment (which seems to work here) but because you cannot sneak attack if your target is obscured by any kind of concealment.



Concealment encompasses all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but where something interferes with an attacker’s accuracy. Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Typically, concealment is provided by fog, smoke, a shadowy area, darkness, tall grass, foliage, or magical effects that make it difficult to pinpoint a target’s location.


Also:



In addition, some magical effects (such as the blur and displacement spells) provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.


While the Blinking spell does mention concealment, it doesn't specify if that's why your own attacks may miss:



Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike.


In nearly all cases, concealment results from not being able to clearly see or clearly detect (via some other sense) the location of the target. In the case of blinking, there is no visual or sensory impediment to detecting the target, there's just a "dumb luck" 20% chance you're on the wrong plane of existence when the attack hits.

What I'm asking is this: is the 20% miss chance of "not being there" the same effect as concealment, or is it a separate/different effect entirely?

[tyckspoon]

What I'm asking is this: is the 20% miss chance of "not being there" the same effect as concealment, or is it a separate/different effect entirely?

It's the same 20% miss chance attackers have against you when they can see Ethereal creatures, which removes the concealment aspect of it (that you are effectively invisible to material creatures while Ethereal.) It's not concealment; you can aim perfectly well while Blinking, there's just a chance your target won't physically be in the space you are intending to strike when you make your attack.

[Darrin]

It's the same 20% miss chance attackers have against you when they can see Ethereal creatures, which removes the concealment aspect of it (that you are effectively invisible to material creatures while Ethereal.) It's not concealment; you can aim perfectly well while Blinking, there's just a chance your target won't physically be in the space you are intending to strike when you make your attack.

So... if I have this straight... I *can* sneak attack while blinking (because the 20% miss chance is *not* concealment), but 20% of my sneak attacks will miss, unless I use something like Seeking or Pierce Magical Concealment to negate the miss chance?

[Psyren]

So... if I have this straight... I *can* sneak attack while blinking (because the 20% miss chance is *not* concealment), but 20% of my sneak attacks will miss, unless I use something like Seeking or Pierce Magical Concealment to negate the miss chance?

20% of your attacks in general, whether you get sneak damage or not. Otherwise correct.

[Ravens_cry]

Negating the concealment be RAW, and not a terribly bad one, but some DM might feel otherwise, so be sure to put on your DM wrangling boots when you do this.

[Eldariel]

Negating the concealment be RAW, and not a terribly bad one, but some DM might feel otherwise, so be sure to put on your DM wrangling boots when you do this.

It's not the end of the world either way; 20% is only a roll of 1-4 on a d20, so the kind where you'd expect fail (tho of course, extra fail chances are always annoying). I always bite the bullet as a core Rogue.

[Juntao112]

No, it's not. YOU are plane shifting, back and forth rapidly, for the duration of the power. The Seeking enchantment is simply able to target, without error, those brief windows when you are material - possibly even slowing or speeding up the arrow on a quantum level to make sure it hits that window. (Note that it doesn't even matter whether the enchantment is on the bow or on the arrows themselves for this - the result is the same.)

Remember that when the projectile leaves you, it is not subject to the spell anymore as it is no longer in your possession. So if you are material when it leaves your square, the arrow will stay material until it hits your target.

Your other example doesn't apply; walls and other solid barriers count as cover (AC bonus), not concealment (miss chance.)

My hero!

Ten character limit

[monkey3]

People are discussing the mechanics of blink (which is all fairness is the OP question). I have a another beef with the spell. To me it is one of those "selfish" spells. If a mob has a choice between attacking you at 50% miss chance, and your party member, he should chose the other.

In effect (since you are not playing solo), Blink gives you a 20% miss chance (mitigation methods ignored, since not everyone uses them), and it gives the mobs a huge incentive to attack some else. It is like casting Sanctuary in the middle of a fight.

Frankly I would be mad as the Sorcerer, if the rogue next to me cast Blink, thus moving all his mobs onto me.

[Darrin]

Frankly I would be mad as the Sorcerer, if the rogue next to me cast Blink, thus moving all his mobs onto me.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to think of it as "reverse aggro", to encourage the mobs to focus on the tanks/meatbags/damage sponges.

[Psyren]

People are discussing the mechanics of blink (which is all fairness is the OP question). I have a another beef with the spell. To me it is one of those "selfish" spells. If a mob has a choice between attacking you at 50% miss chance, and your party member, he should chose the other.

In effect (since you are not playing solo), Blink gives you a 20% miss chance (mitigation methods ignored, since not everyone uses them), and it gives the mobs a huge incentive to attack some else. It is like casting Sanctuary in the middle of a fight.

Frankly I would be mad as the Sorcerer, if the rogue next to me cast Blink, thus moving all his mobs onto me.

You're not thinking this through all the way. First of all, it's a spell, so typically the casters would be using it to push the mobs off onto someone else (typically the fighter.) Even when the rogue is the one using it, only ranged rogues really benefit (because melee ones can't use Seeking) so again you have a situation where a class that doesn't want to be in melee will use this and either become harder to engage in melee or avoided altogether. And thirdly, even if the rogue uses it, nothing is stopping the caster from using it too - which would again funnel mobs to the fighter (or result in a lot of wasted attacks by the enemy.) Either way, the party wins.

[W3bDragon]

Referring back to the Seeking argument for a moment. If a player brought this combo to me, my question would be:

Since Blink says your 20% miss chance is because you sometimes go ethereal just before you fire, and Seeking says you need to aim at the correct square, it seems to me that when you fire while ethereal, you are most definitely not aiming at the correct square, thus you would miss.

Further, the text says that the weapon "veers" towards the target. As in, it doesn't kick in until you fire. So the argument that it would delay or speed up the firing to negate the miss chance wouldn't float with me.

I wouldn't be against letting this work, but I'd need the above to be explained before I'd approve it.

[Starbuck_II]

Referring back to the Seeking argument for a moment. If a player brought this combo to me, my question would be:

Since Blink says your 20% miss chance is because you sometimes go ethereal just before you fire, and Seeking says you need to aim at the correct square, it seems to me that when you fire while ethereal, you are most definitely not aiming at the correct square, thus you would miss.

Further, the text says that the weapon "veers" towards the target. As in, it doesn't kick in until you fire. So the argument that it would delay or speed up the firing to negate the miss chance wouldn't float with me.

I wouldn't be against letting this work, but I'd need the above to be explained before I'd approve it.

So Pierce magical concealment feat is okay, but magic enhancement seeking is not?

[ericgrau]

You're not thinking this through all the way. First of all, it's a spell, so typically the casters would be using it to push the mobs off onto someone else (typically the fighter.) Even when the rogue is the one using it, only ranged rogues really benefit (because melee ones can't use Seeking) so again you have a situation where a class that doesn't want to be in melee will use this and either become harder to engage in melee or avoided altogether. And thirdly, even if the rogue uses it, nothing is stopping the caster from using it too - which would again funnel mobs to the fighter (or result in a lot of wasted attacks by the enemy.) Either way, the party wins.

It's true that it's a net benefit, compared to doing nothing anyway. But in practice I find that the job isn't done there; the fighter is in trouble. In fact if you have time for only one defensive spell it's usually better to tag the fighter with a displacement rather than the caster. Why? Because melee fighters already seem to die more often than everyone else, without any help. Even moving to the back line is difficult enough for foes in a system where every round is precious and where you need a wide path to avoid attacks of opportunity. The time for a caster to pop a major defense on himself is when the party just got ambushed on the rear or side. It's good to be ready for when that happens, but it's uncommon enough that it would be 4th or 5th priority on my spell selection. And, again, I would just take displacement so I can figure out later whether I want to tag the melee or myself. Or better yet I'd get a more general purpose defense like a morning buff that doesn't eat my turn, or a barrier that keeps many foes away from the whole party, or etc.

[W3bDragon]

So Pierce magical concealment feat is okay, but magic enhancement seeking is not?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Pierce Magical Concealment has very different wording than Seeking. It also specifically calls out the spell Ghostform as one of the spells it pierces. I'm not sure how incorporeality compares to etherealness, but I guess I won't split hairs and say that if it pierces one, it'll pierce the other. I imagine if I find it stated somewhere that incorporeal creatures are still on the same plane, I might revise my ruling.

I know it sounds a bit pedantic scrutinizing the letter of RAW, but I feel in this instance, it actually follows RAI if scrutinized properly.

[Psyren]

I imagine if I find it stated somewhere that incorporeal creatures are still on the same plane, I might revise my ruling.

They are: Rules Compendium:


Etherealness

Certain creatures can or do exist on the Ethereal Plane. While on the Ethereal Plane, a creature is called ethereal. Unlike incorporeal creatures, ethereal creatures aren’t present on the Material Plane.