Blink + Invisibility: 2 miss chances? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Blink + Invisibility: 2 miss chances? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rironin
01-12-07, 02:47 AM The 50% miss chance granted by blink is partially due to the fact that you're blinking in and out of sight and partially because you have a chance to go ethereal just as an opponent is attacking you; if an opponent can see invisible creatures his attacks go in the right place but you have a 20% chance to be ethereal. If an opponent can hit ethereal creatures he still has a hard time seeing precisely where you are and has a 20% miss chance due to concealment.

What if you cast invisibility and blink? You now have a full 50% miss chance due to being invisible. Should an opponent (who can neither see invisible creatures nor hit ethereal creatures) roll two miss chances? One at 50% for invisibility - if he makes the roll, it means his attack is going in the right place, but there's still a 20% miss chance for going ethereal? Or should they be combined? Doing the math with just blink, two 20% miss chances would amount to a 36% miss chance overall (80% chance to get past etherealness x 80% chance to get past semi-invisibility = 64% chance of successful hit), but the game designers bumped this up to 50%. With blink and invisibility, 50% chance to get past invisibility x 80% chance to get past etherealness = 40% chance of success, for a 60% miss chance. If one gave it the same 14% bump that blink seemed to get that would be 74%, but that's just total conjecture on the rationale behind the blink miss chance.

Since the miss chance for blinking is clearly due partly to the etherealness and partly to the intermittent invisibility, being fully invisible should make you even harder to hit. Is this a good way to adjudicate it? Thanks!
Novacat
01-12-07, 03:17 AM The ethereal effect from Blink is what actually protects you from harm. Your invisibility from it wouldn't interfere with your own offensive efforts, but you suffer the same 50% miss chance.

Invisibility is purely a visual-based defense.

Striking a creature protected by both would require 2 separate 50% miss chances. First, you have a 50% chance to actually strike the area the creature occupies (because you can't properly aim at a target you can't see). Then, there's a 50% chance that at any given time, the subject isn't really there, but on the ethereal plane.

However, since it works out to be a 75% miss chance altogether, you can just roll that once to save time.
WinDReiN
01-12-07, 07:49 AM What if a creature has impr. invis. and attacks a subject. Would then the subject know what space the attacker occupies or he still has 50% miss chance?
Nicholas the Paladin
01-12-07, 08:02 AM Im recently asked a question about Blink myself and part of the answer i got was that being ethereal means you're invisible. I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal.
angryman
01-12-07, 08:05 AM Im recently asked a question about Blink myself and part of the answer i got was that being ethereal means you're invisible. I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal.

However, being invisible doesn't make you ethereal. You're invisible because you're very temporarily on the ethereal plane (I think), ie, you're not even physically there. I'd still roll 2 50% miss chances. This is one reason my wizards don't bother with AC so much- a 75% miss chance is better than any AC that is reasonably attainable.
Black Mantha
01-12-07, 08:17 AM The ethereal effect from Blink is what actually protects you from harm. Your invisibility from it wouldn't interfere with your own offensive efforts, but you suffer the same 50% miss chance.
No you don't.
Likewise, your own attacks have a
20% miss chance, since you sometimes go
ethereal just as you are about to strike.
As to the original question, I'd go with a 70% miss chance.

Now, add blind-fight for extra complexity...
jaelis
01-12-07, 10:08 AM I think the easiest way to do actually play it is to ignore all the confusing flavor text in blink. The spell does clearly say that opponents get a miss chance when attacking you. I would just rule it as a totally separate thing from concealment.

So roll the miss chance for blink as normal. Then roll the miss chance for concealment.

This might not perfectly follow the blink spell text, but it is easy to apply. For instance: say your opponent can see invisible creatures, can't strike ethereal creatures, and you're in an obscurring mist spell effect. Then just roll 20% miss chance for blink, and then 20% miss chance for concealment. If you have the blindfight feat, you'd get to try the second roll again but not the first.
rironin
01-12-07, 10:36 AM Striking a creature protected by both would require 2 separate 50% miss chances.This can't really be true. The spell description for blink makes it pretty clear that the 50% miss chance it affords is due to both the fact that the creature is blinking in and out of the Material Plane and because it's difficult to see. There is only a 20% chance that you miss because of the invisibility aspect - a 20% chance you put your sword in the wrong place, so to speak - and another 20% chance that even if your sword is in the right place, the creature is on the Ethereal Plane when you strike. Giving two 50% miss chances means you'd be counting the full invisibility spell and the partial invisibility granted by blink twice. They shouldn't "stack".What if a creature has impr. invis. and attacks a subject. Would then the subject know what space the attacker occupies or he still has 50% miss chance?Generally, if a creature with improved invisibility attacks another creature with a non-reach melee weapon, the creature it attacks automatically knows what square the attack originated in, but since it cannot see the attacker it still suffers a 50% miss chance on its attacks.I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal.As another poster mentioned, if you're ethereal, you're invisible, but blink doesn't send you to the ethereal plane for the duration - you blink in and out. This makes it pretty easy for creatures to tell roughly where you are (what square you're in), but I'd imagine it makes tracking a creature's movements in combat very difficult - a creature starts to dodge right or left when it's ethereal and invisible, and then pops back onto the Material Plane moving in a direction the attacker hadn't anticipated. This sort of "intermittent invisibility" is what affords blinking creatures a 20% miss chance due to concealment even if the attacker can hit ethereal creatures. Full invisibility on top of this effect would improve things - there would obviously be a full 50% miss chance due to concealment, and in addition to that, there would be a chance that the blinking creature was ethereal when the attacker struck. My question rests on how we should calculate the resultant, combined miss chance.I would just rule it as a totally separate thing from concealment.But the spell description for blink specifically mentions that it provides a miss chance due to concealment, in the case of creatures that can hit ethereal creatures.
jaelis
01-12-07, 10:46 AM But the spell description for blink specifically mentions that it provides a miss chance due to concealment, in the case of creatures that can hit ethereal creatures.

Yes. You can pay attention to that and make your life difficult, or ignore it and make it easy.

For instance, if blink gives a 20% miss due to concealment, and a 20% miss due to etherealness, why shouldn't you roll them separately? That would be a 36% miss chance, not 50%. There's no way to make the numbers work out sensibly, so I recommend not trying.
DIESCUMDIE
01-12-07, 10:52 AM What about blur and blink? (Roll for both I assume)
Or blur and invisibility? (Roll only for invisibility I assume)
Invisibility and cover? (Roll for both I assume)
jaelis
01-12-07, 11:06 AM Invisibility and cover? (Roll for both I assume)

You don't roll for cover.
tarkin
01-12-07, 11:52 AM Blink provides a 20% miss chance due to concealment, a 20% miss chance due to etheraleness, and a 10% synergy miss chance due to the manner in which the spell joins the two, for a total of 50%

If you are using invisibility, then you lose the 20% miss chance for concealment and lose the 10% synergy, but gain a 50% concealment miss chance.

So you should roll 20% for etheralness, and then seperately roll a 50% miss chance for invisibility.
Net chance of being hit = 40%.

Now, as to what should stack.

Blur should not stack with blink, both start off with a 20% due to concealment and concealments don't stack.

Cover does not provide a miss chance, it is a straight bonus to AC, that always stacks.

Displacement is a like invisibility, see above.

Mirror Image is not a concealment, and as long as you are visible, it stacks with everything, seperate roll. But if you miss due to blinking, or miss due to blur, then it won't affect the image, no image is lost, so you roll blur, blink, etc. before you roll for a Mirror Image hit/loss. But images are just images, so displacing it will not protect an image. Roll Mirror Image check BEFORE rolling to see if Displacement prevents a strike.

Entropic Shield is not a concealment, nor an ehteralness, it stacks as a seperate roll. It does not protect images, so roll it after you check for Mirror Images.
Black Mantha
01-12-07, 12:11 PM Tarkin, even if that's not official, I think I'll use that.
jaelis
01-12-07, 12:49 PM OK Tarkin, say you're blinking, in a fog cloud, and your opponent can see invisible. Are you at 40%, 50%, or 20% rolled twice?
rironin
01-12-07, 01:11 PM Is there a rule that concealment doesn't stack? I understand that the boilerplate rule would say that two bonuses due to the same source don't, but I'd like official confirmation that this applies to all miss chances, if it exists. Concealment is a more conceptual issue than straight up bonus. Blur and blink for instance should logically stack in some way shape or form (no one's claiming D&D has to follow logic here, but...), since the image of the character is not only now blinking in and out, but when it is visible it's completely blurry and hard to define. Why shouldn't that make it harder to hit than only one of the two spells?
jaelis
01-12-07, 01:23 PM Blink aside, concealment is a condition, not a bonus. You either have it or you don't. (Or you either have total concealment or you don't.) There's nothing to stack.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rironin 01-12-07, 02:47 AM	The 50% miss chance granted by blink is partially due to the fact that you're blinking in and out of sight and partially because you have a chance to go ethereal just as an opponent is attacking you; if an opponent can see invisible creatures his attacks go in the right place but you have a 20% chance to be ethereal. If an opponent can hit ethereal creatures he still has a hard time seeing precisely where you are and has a 20% miss chance due to concealment. What if you cast invisibility and blink? You now have a full 50% miss chance due to being invisible. Should an opponent (who can neither see invisible creatures nor hit ethereal creatures) roll two miss chances? One at 50% for invisibility - if he makes the roll, it means his attack is going in the right place, but there's still a 20% miss chance for going ethereal? Or should they be combined? Doing the math with just blink, two 20% miss chances would amount to a 36% miss chance overall (80% chance to get past etherealness x 80% chance to get past semi-invisibility = 64% chance of successful hit), but the game designers bumped this up to 50%. With blink and invisibility, 50% chance to get past invisibility x 80% chance to get past etherealness = 40% chance of success, for a 60% miss chance. If one gave it the same 14% bump that blink seemed to get that would be 74%, but that's just total conjecture on the rationale behind the blink miss chance. Since the miss chance for blinking is clearly due partly to the etherealness and partly to the intermittent invisibility, being fully invisible should make you even harder to hit. Is this a good way to adjudicate it? Thanks!
Novacat 01-12-07, 03:17 AM	The ethereal effect from Blink is what actually protects you from harm. Your invisibility from it wouldn't interfere with your own offensive efforts, but you suffer the same 50% miss chance. Invisibility is purely a visual-based defense. Striking a creature protected by both would require 2 separate 50% miss chances. First, you have a 50% chance to actually strike the area the creature occupies (because you can't properly aim at a target you can't see). Then, there's a 50% chance that at any given time, the subject isn't really there, but on the ethereal plane. However, since it works out to be a 75% miss chance altogether, you can just roll that once to save time.
WinDReiN 01-12-07, 07:49 AM	What if a creature has impr. invis. and attacks a subject. Would then the subject know what space the attacker occupies or he still has 50% miss chance?
Nicholas the Paladin 01-12-07, 08:02 AM	Im recently asked a question about Blink myself and part of the answer i got was that being ethereal means you're invisible. I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal.
angryman 01-12-07, 08:05 AM	Im recently asked a question about Blink myself and part of the answer i got was that being ethereal means you're invisible. I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal. However, being invisible doesn't make you ethereal. You're invisible because you're very temporarily on the ethereal plane (I think), ie, you're not even physically there. I'd still roll 2 50% miss chances. This is one reason my wizards don't bother with AC so much- a 75% miss chance is better than any AC that is reasonably attainable.
Black Mantha 01-12-07, 08:17 AM	The ethereal effect from Blink is what actually protects you from harm. Your invisibility from it wouldn't interfere with your own offensive efforts, but you suffer the same 50% miss chance. No you don't. Likewise, your own attacks have a 20% miss chance, since you sometimes go ethereal just as you are about to strike. As to the original question, I'd go with a 70% miss chance. Now, add blind-fight for extra complexity...
jaelis 01-12-07, 10:08 AM	I think the easiest way to do actually play it is to ignore all the confusing flavor text in blink. The spell does clearly say that opponents get a miss chance when attacking you. I would just rule it as a totally separate thing from concealment. So roll the miss chance for blink as normal. Then roll the miss chance for concealment. This might not perfectly follow the blink spell text, but it is easy to apply. For instance: say your opponent can see invisible creatures, can't strike ethereal creatures, and you're in an obscurring mist spell effect. Then just roll 20% miss chance for blink, and then 20% miss chance for concealment. If you have the blindfight feat, you'd get to try the second roll again but not the first.
rironin 01-12-07, 10:36 AM	Striking a creature protected by both would require 2 separate 50% miss chances.This can't really be true. The spell description for blink makes it pretty clear that the 50% miss chance it affords is due to both the fact that the creature is blinking in and out of the Material Plane and because it's difficult to see. There is only a 20% chance that you miss because of the invisibility aspect - a 20% chance you put your sword in the wrong place, so to speak - and another 20% chance that even if your sword is in the right place, the creature is on the Ethereal Plane when you strike. Giving two 50% miss chances means you'd be counting the full invisibility spell and the partial invisibility granted by blink twice. They shouldn't "stack".What if a creature has impr. invis. and attacks a subject. Would then the subject know what space the attacker occupies or he still has 50% miss chance?Generally, if a creature with improved invisibility attacks another creature with a non-reach melee weapon, the creature it attacks automatically knows what square the attack originated in, but since it cannot see the attacker it still suffers a 50% miss chance on its attacks.I think that being invisible does nothing for a creature that already is (partly) ethereal.As another poster mentioned, if you're ethereal, you're invisible, but blink doesn't send you to the ethereal plane for the duration - you blink in and out. This makes it pretty easy for creatures to tell roughly where you are (what square you're in), but I'd imagine it makes tracking a creature's movements in combat very difficult - a creature starts to dodge right or left when it's ethereal and invisible, and then pops back onto the Material Plane moving in a direction the attacker hadn't anticipated. This sort of "intermittent invisibility" is what affords blinking creatures a 20% miss chance due to concealment even if the attacker can hit ethereal creatures. Full invisibility on top of this effect would improve things - there would obviously be a full 50% miss chance due to concealment, and in addition to that, there would be a chance that the blinking creature was ethereal when the attacker struck. My question rests on how we should calculate the resultant, combined miss chance.I would just rule it as a totally separate thing from concealment.But the spell description for blink specifically mentions that it provides a miss chance due to concealment, in the case of creatures that can hit ethereal creatures.
jaelis 01-12-07, 10:46 AM	But the spell description for blink specifically mentions that it provides a miss chance due to concealment, in the case of creatures that can hit ethereal creatures. Yes. You can pay attention to that and make your life difficult, or ignore it and make it easy. For instance, if blink gives a 20% miss due to concealment, and a 20% miss due to etherealness, why shouldn't you roll them separately? That would be a 36% miss chance, not 50%. There's no way to make the numbers work out sensibly, so I recommend not trying.
DIESCUMDIE 01-12-07, 10:52 AM	What about blur and blink? (Roll for both I assume) Or blur and invisibility? (Roll only for invisibility I assume) Invisibility and cover? (Roll for both I assume)
jaelis 01-12-07, 11:06 AM	Invisibility and cover? (Roll for both I assume) You don't roll for cover.
tarkin 01-12-07, 11:52 AM	Blink provides a 20% miss chance due to concealment, a 20% miss chance due to etheraleness, and a 10% synergy miss chance due to the manner in which the spell joins the two, for a total of 50% If you are using invisibility, then you lose the 20% miss chance for concealment and lose the 10% synergy, but gain a 50% concealment miss chance. So you should roll 20% for etheralness, and then seperately roll a 50% miss chance for invisibility. Net chance of being hit = 40%. Now, as to what should stack. Blur should not stack with blink, both start off with a 20% due to concealment and concealments don't stack. Cover does not provide a miss chance, it is a straight bonus to AC, that always stacks. Displacement is a like invisibility, see above. Mirror Image is not a concealment, and as long as you are visible, it stacks with everything, seperate roll. But if you miss due to blinking, or miss due to blur, then it won't affect the image, no image is lost, so you roll blur, blink, etc. before you roll for a Mirror Image hit/loss. But images are just images, so displacing it will not protect an image. Roll Mirror Image check BEFORE rolling to see if Displacement prevents a strike. Entropic Shield is not a concealment, nor an ehteralness, it stacks as a seperate roll. It does not protect images, so roll it after you check for Mirror Images.
Black Mantha 01-12-07, 12:11 PM	Tarkin, even if that's not official, I think I'll use that.
jaelis 01-12-07, 12:49 PM	OK Tarkin, say you're blinking, in a fog cloud, and your opponent can see invisible. Are you at 40%, 50%, or 20% rolled twice?
rironin 01-12-07, 01:11 PM	Is there a rule that concealment doesn't stack? I understand that the boilerplate rule would say that two bonuses due to the same source don't, but I'd like official confirmation that this applies to all miss chances, if it exists. Concealment is a more conceptual issue than straight up bonus. Blur and blink for instance should logically stack in some way shape or form (no one's claiming D&D has to follow logic here, but...), since the image of the character is not only now blinking in and out, but when it is visible it's completely blurry and hard to define. Why shouldn't that make it harder to hit than only one of the two spells?
jaelis 01-12-07, 01:23 PM	Blink aside, concealment is a condition, not a bonus. You either have it or you don't. (Or you either have total concealment or you don't.) There's nothing to stack.