<Done>

[Pika...]

Many thanks!

[Mongoose87]

Well, Blink is an illusion spell, and True Seeing lets you see through illusions...

[Pika...]

Well, Blink is an illusion spell, and True Seeing lets you see through illusions...

Really? That easy?!

Are you sure about that?

[Toliudar]

Which would be true, except that blink is a transmutation. I've never played with True Seeing negating blink.

[Wings of Peace]

Blink also functions by moving you rapidly between the ethereal and the material plane according to the description. True Seeing lets you see both the Material and the Ethereal plane.

[Tavar]

Blink is transmutation. There's really no way besides PMC to get through. PMC says that you ignore all miss chances due to spells. Blink is a spell. Therefore, PMC allows you to ignore Blink.

[Chrono22]

Blink is transmutation, not illusion. You're thinking of blur.

So, true seeing wouldn't negate the miss chance. Having the ability to both see and attack opponents on the material or ethereal would.

[Pika...]

I see.

I was looking for ways to do the later (attack enemies on the material plane) to negate the issue, since I could already see them I believe, but suprisingly I could not find anything anywhere.

I thought Ghost Touch property was the obvious option, but it says incorporeal.Does that include ethereal?

[Chrono22]

I don't think so. But a weapon made of force should suffice. Such as, a mindblade, spiritual weapon... there might be a magical enchantment for force weapons out there somewhere.

I once read an article that pertained to this.. that made for a pretty inspired trap.
Force effects overlap both the ethereal and material planes.. so, if there was a stone wall on the ethereal but not the material, it would prevent a mage armor-wearing spellcaster on the material from walking through.
To the spellcaster, it would seem as though he were being stopped by some invisible, undetectable force. He wouldn't be able to see a magical aura for it, or touch it.
I like to have stone walls on the ethereal overlap my pit traps.

[tyckspoon]

No, Ghost Touch doesn't work. Being Ethereal is being on an entirely different plane; being incorporeal is just having no tangible form. Force weapons and effects don't do what you want either- they cross from Material to Ethereal, but not back the other way.

[Douglas]

I don't think so. But a weapon made of force should suffice. Such as, a mindblade, spiritual weapon... there might be a magical enchantment for force weapons out there somewhere.

When it's your target that is blinking, that works. When you are blinking and your target is ethereal, it still works. When you are blinking and your target is material, it does not work. A force effect extends from the material plane to the ethereal but not the other way around.

Pierce Magical Concealment works by RAW, but RAI is rather shaky and your DM may not allow it. I am not aware of any other way to negate the miss chance from using a Ring of Blinking when attacking a non-ethereal target.

[Chrono22]

Since you spend about half your time on the Ethereal Plane, you can see and even attack ethereal creatures. You interact with ethereal creatures roughly the same way you interact with material ones.

It isn't explicitly stated by the rules, but the converse of this statement is that you spend about half your time on the material. Which means you should be able to use your force-weapon to attack the creature on the material, so long as you time your attacks and casting so that they occur while you are on the material.

In my games, this hardly comes up. But if it did I would make force effects/aburations totally transparent with regard to the material/ethereal, not one way. It's less complicated, and the one-way direction of magic has never been justified to my knowledge.

I guess you could use other magics to try to bar extraplanar travel, but that's kind of like swatting a fly with a hammer. Dispelling the ring might work.
Sundering it would also be effective.

[Douglas]

It isn't explicitly stated by the rules, but the converse of this statement is that you spend about half your time on the material. Which means you should be able to use your force-weapon to attack the creature on the material, so long as you time your attacks and casting so that they occur while you are on the material.

Yes, but the blinking is random and not under your control. The 20% miss chance represents the possibility that you tried to time it right and went ethereal partway through your swing.

I guess you could use other magics to try to bar extraplanar travel, but that's kind of like swatting a fly with a hammer. Dispelling the ring might work.
Sundering it would also be effective.

It's his own ring, deliberately activated by him to gain its benefits for himself. If he wanted to negate the spell entirely he could simply not activate it in the first place.

[Pika...]

Thanks folks. I think I will go with Pierce Magical Concealment route.

Not like there is an option.

[Sholos]

I don't think PMC lets you negate your own miss chance. At least, I certainly wouldn't allow it. Heck, I might not even allow it to cancel out the Blink protection, because it's not concealment (what the feat is obviously intended to defeat), it's simply not being there.

[sofawall]

Thanks folks. I think I will go with Pierce Magical Concealment route.

Not like there is an option.

That does not, does not, three times does not, work. It stops concealment, you are not missing due to concealment.

Force weapons don't work either.

[Tavar]

Actually, it stops you missing from any miss chances. Now, it is getting a bit late, but I believe that Blink does give a miss chance. Ergo, you ignore it.

Plus, why shouldn't you be able to pierce your own magic? Wouldn't it be even easier than piercing someone else's? Furthermore, the feat makes no mention of working only against other's effects: it's a global ability.

[The_Snark]

I see.

I was looking for ways to do the latter (attack enemies on the material plane) to negate the issue, since I could already see them I believe, but suprisingly I could not find anything anywhere.

There's a very good reason for this. If you had a weapon capable of striking the Material Plane while ethereal, you'd be able to kill most enemies with impunity. The only way to fight back against that would be to use force effects (or other attacks capable of hitting creatures on another plane), or to shift to the Ethereal Plane, and the vast majority of monsters and NPCs are not going to be capable of either. The game designers didn't want to put that sort of ability in the hands of a character.

[lsfreak]

Actually, it stops you missing from any miss chances. Now, it is getting a bit late, but I believe that Blink does give a miss chance. Ergo, you ignore it.

Actually, that depends on how you read it. RAW says

Your fierce contempt for magic allows you to disregard the miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities such as darkness, blur, invisibility, obscuring mist, ghostform

rather than

Your fierce contempt for magic allows you to disregard the miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities, such as darkness, blur, invisibility, obscuring mist, ghostform

It does not let you negate all miss chance, but only that derived from spells similar to those listed. It is therefore a DM call as to whether or not blink is similar enough to be overcome; I would say not, since the miss chance is coming from something very different than the example spells.

[GreyVulpine]

The Rules of the Game from Wizard's site has a little excerpt that applies to this (it mainly applies to sneak attacks).

A blink spell provides the user with some degree of concealment -- and foils sneak attacks -- when the attacker cannot see ethereal opponents. (Both the see invisibility and true seeing spells reveal ethereal opponents).

An attacker that can see, but not affect, ethereal opponents still has a miss chance (20%) against a target using blink because the foe might be ethereal when the attack strikes; however, this does not arise from concealment and does not foil sneak attacks (though a miss is still a miss).

When an attacker is using blink itself, it has a 20% miss chance (because it sometimes finds itself ethereal when its attack strikes home). This miss chance also does not interfere with the attacker's sneak attacks. In fact, a blinking attacker strikes as an invisible creature, and its foes are denied Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and that makes sneak attacks possible. If the blinking attacker's target can see ethereal opponents, that foe retains Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and cannot be sneak attacked unless flat-footed or flanked. Because a blinking attacker's "invisibility" is actually etherealness, blindsight does not allow a foe to retain its Dexterity bonus against the attacker, and blindsight does not reduce the miss chance for attacks against the blinking combatant.

[ocdscale]

Actually, that depends on how you read it. RAW says

Your fierce contempt for magic allows you to disregard the miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities such as darkness, blur, invisibility, obscuring mist, ghostform

rather than

Your fierce contempt for magic allows you to disregard the miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities, such as darkness, blur, invisibility, obscuring mist, ghostform

It does not let you negate all miss chance, but only that derived from spells similar to those listed. It is therefore a DM call as to whether or not blink is similar enough to be overcome; I would say not, since the miss chance is coming from something very different than the example spells.

That is a very strange way to read it, to assume that "such as" is meant to require a comparison to the items enumerated as opposed to providing examples for the primary category.

"You are permitted to enter all government buildings or government building-like structures on this block such as the police station, the fire station, the library, and the public park."

Are you permitted to enter a private library under this rule? What about city hall? What result do you get if you use your "similar to the examples listed" test?

Edit: "Such as" can clarify an ambiguous category, for example:
"You have permission to enter into buildings built with Baroque architecture such as..." Someone who is unfamiliar with the Baroque architecture might use the examples as a source for comparison. A useful heuristic that could have a high degree of accuracy, but not an entirely accurate one.

Another example:
"You may enter the doors with an odd (as opposed to even) door number such as Door 3, Door 7, Door 11, Door 23"
Is Door 9 permitted? Is Door 2? If you were enforcing this rule, would you say that as written, it is ambiguous as to whether it grants permission to enter Door 9?

[Gametime]

It's a fairly ridiculous interpretation of the sentence structure to conclude that the feat's benefit only applies to spells similar to the ones enumerated based on the flavor of the miss chance.

However, it's even more ridiculous to think that your disdain for magic allows you to completely bypass planar barriers, so I would fully support any DM who ruled the miss chance of Blink was not negated by Pierce Magical Concealment.

[Pika...]

The Rules of the Game from Wizard's site has a little excerpt that applies to this (it mainly applies to sneak attacks).

Can you please link to that?

[Jothki]

I don't think so. But a weapon made of force should suffice. Such as, a mindblade, spiritual weapon... there might be a magical enchantment for force weapons out there somewhere.

I once read an article that pertained to this.. that made for a pretty inspired trap.
Force effects overlap both the ethereal and material planes.. so, if there was a stone wall on the ethereal but not the material, it would prevent a mage armor-wearing spellcaster on the material from walking through.
To the spellcaster, it would seem as though he were being stopped by some invisible, undetectable force. He wouldn't be able to see a magical aura for it, or touch it.
I like to have stone walls on the ethereal overlap my pit traps.

Does this mean that a Soulknife could wander around on the ethereal plane and stab people on the material with impunity?

I guess Wizards could do the same thing too, but they'll eventually run out of magic missiles while the Soulknife would never run out of stabbings.

[Magnor Criol]

Can you please link to that?

All About Sneak Attacks, pt. 2. It's about halfway through the article.

[GreyVulpine]

Can you please link to that?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a

[taltamir]

Blink also functions by moving you rapidly between the ethereal and the material plane according to the description. True Seeing lets you see both the Material and the Ethereal plane.

yes it does, and unless you used the metamagic that makes a spell exist in both the material and etherial plane, then you are still gonna have a 20% chance of missing due to your target being ethereal at the moment of "impact".
You don't miss because you can't see the target, you miss because the target is in another dimension 20% of the time.

[Myrmex]

However, it's even more ridiculous to think that your disdain for magic allows you to completely bypass planar barriers, so I would fully support any DM who ruled the miss chance of Blink was not negated by Pierce Magical Concealment.

Yeah, if you have a DM with a boner for casters as big as his man-boobs.

[Pika...]

All About Sneak Attacks, pt. 2. It's about halfway through the article.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a

Thanks.