Blink vs Sneak attack. Sage Answer error?

[Stephen_E]

I saw the Sage was answering a question as to whether you could sneak attack a blink target, and went to check the answe just to see if he had anything interesting to say on some of the variant situations that can occur.

Imagine my shock when he says "Yes" and gives his reason that Blink doesn't give concealment. Lets check the 2nd para of the Blink spell "If the attack is capable of striking etheral creatures the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment)."

Given that he's making "official" rulings one would hope that he'd read the spell 1st, and if somehow he thinks that this concealment doesn't actually count as concealment, he should mention it and say why it doesn't.

Stephen

[Neo]

You can still perform a sneak attack, just there is a 20% chance it will do nothing.

[SpiderBrigade]

Neo, the point is that the quoted line of the Blink description suggests that the spell grants concealment - and you can't sneak attack enemies if they have concealment. So the ruling doesn't make sense.

[Arbitrarity]

Hmmm.. does this mean if I have blink on, I can hide and sneak attack?

Hide in plain sight!

[Thomas]

The Sages never bother to check the rules, pretty much. The answers may be official, but in practice aren't worth a lot. Hopefully this one will get re-checked before it gets into the FAQ.


Hmmm.. does this mean if I have blink on, I can hide and sneak attack?

Hide in plain sight!

Yes. That's one of the default rogue tactics. Blink + sneak attack.

[Douglas]

If you can see invisible/ethereal creatures, then yes you can sneak attack someone with Blink. The 20% miss chance due to the target sometimes being ethereal is not concealment, it's caused by the target simply not being there when you hit. To sum up:
Can't see or hit ethereal: 50% miss chance, no sneak attack
Can hit but not see ethereal: 20% miss chance due to concealment, no sneak attack
Can see but not hit ethereal: 20% miss chance not due to concealment, can sneak attack
Can see and hit ethereal: no miss chance, can sneak attack.

[Zherog]

Was this in Sage Advice in Dragon recently, or the web thingy? I'm pretty sure the web thingy doesn't make it to the FAQ (though it wouldn't be the first time something wrong made it to the FAQ).

[cupkeyk]

Blink gives miss chance AND concealment from being virtually invisible. While you are under the effects of blink you have the miss chance because you are zipping in and out of the ethereal plane but people gain no concealment against you. Blink and Sneak Attack is sweet.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Was this in Sage Advice in Dragon recently, or the web thingy?
"Web thingy."

And he doesn't even acknowledge the concealment part of the spell, thinking it's just from popping back and forth. That's a real newbie mistake.

Slightly Off-topic: Anyone else find it funny that although blink actually moves you to a different plane, it didn't get moved into Conjuration (Teleportation) with other such spells, and instead stayed in Transmutation?

[Frojoe21]

The sage is not the end all of rules discussions and has been known to be wrong on several occasions. At one point, he stated that Warforged could take the Aberrant Dragonmark feat, even though they are not a dragonmarked race, as the prerequisite implies.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

There's a real simple answer...

True Strike FTW. Completely negates any concealment miss chance. No miss chance, sneak attack away! Use Ghost Touch weapons on Blinking critters to sneak attack them all you want.

[Douglas]

Ghost Touch doesn't help at all against Blink. Ethereal is not the same as incorporeal, and Ghost Touch only helps against incorporeal foes.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

At one point, he stated that Warforged could take the Aberrant Dragonmark feat, even though they are not a dragonmarked race, as the prerequisite implies.
Mind citing source on that? It doesn't appear to be one of the items that made it into the FAQ, nor is it on Sage Advice Online. And don't worry, I'll have whatever issue of Dragon this is in.

[Rigeld2]

Use Ghost Touch weapons on Blinking critters to sneak attack them all you want.
*head asplodes*
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#incorporeal (What Ghost Touch weapons hit)
!=

You “blink” back and forth between the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane.

Please tell all your friends so that this myth stops.

[NullAshton]

Yup, Ghost Touch only hits incorporealness...

You don't even need to use hide in plain sight to sneak attack. While blinking, each and every attack you strike as if an invisible creature.

[Scipio]

Blink allows you to sneak attack, because you strike as if you are invisible. It has nothing to do with a 20% miss chance. The 20% concealment does not allow you to sneak attack. You have to have total concealment (or be flanking) to sneak attack.

[NullAshton]

A simupost nearly 7 hours after my post... maybe I'm just invisible or something.

[Amiria]

Ghost Touch doesn't help at all against Blink. Ethereal is not the same as incorporeal, and Ghost Touch only helps against incorporeal foes.

So, and what's this ? (cited from the Blink (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blink.htm) spell in the SRD):

"An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down. As an incorporeal creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures."

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That is the source of the myth. Every other place in the rules is clear on the distinction between invisible and incorporeal. The blink spell is poorly written.

[Amiria]

I guess you mean the difference between ethereal and incorporeal ?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yeah.

Had to rush that post. Sorry about any confusion.

The description for blink is flat-out wrong when it says, "An ethereal creature is... incorporeal."

[Thomas]

Not so much wrong as inaccurate. Describing them as "incorporeal" is sort of right, but describing them as being Incorporeal in D&D rules terminology is incorrect. (It's a "lie-to-children," though; they're not incorporeal, they're ethereal, which is effectively similar but fundamentally different...)

[Fax Celestis]

...which is effectively similar but fundamentally different...

...like the difference between an executioner and a murderer. You still kill people, but the circumstances are moderately different.