Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 vladimir_nyvenski Dec 08, 2009 18:05:12	All, My DM and group have voted that the rules show that my newly purchased ring of blinking does not allow my thief to sneak attack.  Thier reasoning is because the ring of blinking provides concealment  because my attacks against a creature have a 20% miss chance and a thief's sneak attack does not work against a creature with concealment.    Because of the 20 % miss chance with the ring of blinking, my group says that that provides the creature with concealment. I believe that the 20% miss is from blinking in and out and that my thief's attack blinks into the ethereal plane, 20% of the time and actually misses the target when it would have hit. I may be wrong, but I am needing to show my group some type of DnD3.5 rule, definition, explaination, SRD listing, etc for them to even consider otherwise and now I have lost quite a bit of gold.  The ring does provide some other benefits, but the sneak attacks are what I was after. After spending an actual years playing time of gold for this ring, I have spent weeks searching the internet for a source.  Could anyone please assist or help explain for either side. TIA
#2 Stafir_Ortnev Dec 08, 2009 18:49:49	The source is in the spell blink, and the ring pretty much casts blink on you. From how I read it..blink gives you a 20% chance to miss..it does not give a creature concealment.  The spell, in no particular place, says it gives anyone you attack concealment, it does not say to treat them as if they have concealment.  Other spells (such as blur) explicitly state that a creature gains concealment. The blinking is because you are going between planes, infact from the reading that a friend of mine (who is also looking at the spell with mel...he's actually the expert and not me), it looks like it isn't just a case of it not screwing you..but it might even help you.  While blinking you hit as if you are invisible..giving you a +2 bonus..and they are denied their dex to AC...which means you actually have Combat Advantage..it GIVES you sneak attack..not denies it from how it reads. Unless your group decides to screw you and tell you that, hey, we decide it actually gives creatures concealment from you.
#3 darkspartan Dec 08, 2009 21:28:51	If you can't get a ruling in your favor in this case, see if the DM will give you something else of equivalent value. -Sarena
#4 slobo777a Dec 09, 2009 6:46:19	As written the rules favour you. However, it is very cheesy - effectively you have traded a 20% miss chance for getting + sneak attack dice damage on every hit, without requiring any tactics or action on your part except activating the ring. On the D20 SRD, there is no noted limitations on the ring - I'd of expected to see 10 total-rounds-per-day or similar restriction on use? If there are no restrictions on using the ring to Blink, then the item itself is a bit broken . . . it's not a combo I'd welcome into games I run without some limitation on use.
#5 modern_iconoclast Dec 09, 2009 8:00:01	If there are no restrictions on using the ring to Blink, then the item itself is a bit broken . . . it's not a combo I'd welcome into games I run without some limitation on use. And that's why my eyes start twitching when I see a 3.5 question on magic items or spells nowadays.... By the rules of 3.5, your tactic is perfectly valid, I've seen it many times before.
#6 Gurv Dec 09, 2009 8:57:32	The reason that a rogue can't sneak attack an opponent with concealment is because sneak attack damage requires precision. You can't strike with that kind of precision when you are blinking in and out of reality like a humanoid strobe light. Imagine what a person under the effect of a blink spell is dealing with. He must be blinking back and forth several times per second. Half the time he sees clearly, the rest of the time the world "appears muted and indistinct, its colors blurring into each other and its edges turning fuzzy". His balance is off because half the time he is weightless. Sound reaching the ethereal plane is muted as well, producing a strobe-like effect in whatever he hears. Thick fog and shadowy conditions are enough to provide concealment, yet you question whether the 20% miss chance blink inflicts qualifies?
#7 slobo777a Dec 09, 2009 9:09:47	The reason that a rogue can't sneak attack an opponent with concealment is because sneak attack damage requires precision. You can't strike with that kind of precision when you are blinking in and out of reality like a humanoid strobe light. Imagine what a person under the effect of a blink spell is dealing with. He must be blinking back and forth several times per second. Half the time he sees clearly, the rest of the time the world "appears muted and indistinct, its colors blurring into each other and its edges turning fuzzy". His balance is off because half the time he is weightless. Sound reaching the ethereal plane is muted as well, producing a strobe-like effect in whatever he hears. Thick fog and shadowy conditions are enough to provide concealment, yet you question whether the 20% miss chance blink inflicts qualifies? The description in the blink spell is very clear: You strike as an invisible creature (with a +2 bonus on attack rolls), denying your target any Dexterity bonus to AC.  . . . if there was any other restriction to your attacks due to the blink effect, I'd expect it to be noted in that line. Striking "as an invisible creature" would grant sneak attack dice in most interpretations of the rules. Also, in no part of the spell description is the 20% miss chance related to an effective concealment (it is not actual concealment because you can see the target at all times, even whilst you are ethereal). It's valid for a DM running a 3.5 game to rule that this does apply and does count against Sneak attacks. Heaven knows there are plenty of other combos and circumstances that need this DM intervention. However, it is subjective interpretation, no doubt ruled in both versions depending on the game - I err on the side of agreeing with the OP about rules interpretation, but would probably house-rule on the combo of Ring of Blinking with Sneak Attack.
#8 Gurv Dec 09, 2009 11:46:33	The description in the blink spell is very clear: You strike as an invisible creature (with a +2 bonus on attack rolls), denying your target any Dexterity bonus to AC.  . . . if there was any other restriction to your attacks due to the blink effect, I'd expect it to be noted in that line. Striking "as an invisible creature" would grant sneak attack dice in most interpretations of the rules. Also, in no part of the spell description is the 20% miss chance related to an effective concealment (it is not actual concealment because you can see the target at all times, even whilst you are ethereal). It's valid for a DM running a 3.5 game to rule that this does apply and does count against Sneak attacks. Heaven knows there are plenty of other combos and circumstances that need this DM intervention. However, it is subjective interpretation, no doubt ruled in both versions depending on the game - I err on the side of agreeing with the OP about rules interpretation, but would probably house-rule on the combo of Ring of Blinking with Sneak Attack. Absolutely. The rules support the rogue's ability to sneak attack. In fact, I had a conjurer/spellthief who made use of blink pretty often. Then again, that game was DM'ed by our circle's min/maxer, who came up with more abusive combos as a hobby. However. I am supporting the DM's choice, and ruling, to treat the 20% miss chance as concealment. There is plenty to suggest that someone under the effect of a blink spell might not have a clear perception of a foe. Sometimes you don't need a game effect spelled out to justify an in-game effect. The DM is justified in granting concealment.
#9 evil_weevil Dec 09, 2009 12:13:04	It's true the rules are in your favor on this, but I wouldn't really fight it if s/he still rules against you. A ring of blinking is still incredibly powerful with out at will sneak attacking. If the game is more power gaming driven then you might have an arguement for it, other than that I wouldn't fight it.
#10 vladimir_nyvenski Dec 09, 2009 12:48:42	Everyone's insight and experience has been helpful and brought up several more thoughts on both sides of the argument.  I will take everyone's advice into consideration as I work a few new angles with my DM.   Thanks V_N
#11 thorn-wychkin Dec 12, 2009 17:59:28	let us hear how this plays out
#12 darkspartan Dec 12, 2009 22:36:51	A more-or-less sneak attack doesn't seem like a real good result. Maybe a sneak attack that way per encounter? -Sarena
#13 chaosturtle Dec 14, 2009 22:59:14	It is supposed to give sneaks, but if your dm doesn't want to I could understand why...maybe find some middle ground where you just don't spam it and have very limited charges on it?
#14 picklingjeff Dec 15, 2009 2:06:51	From my understanding of your group's idea of the spell they believe that you can't strike precisely when blinking between planes. When your character is in the ethereal plane he can still see perfectly well, therefore there is no effect on your character's vision. The effect the monster sees is totally different. You go invisible for a minute and move, making your attack unpredictable and hard to avoid. This has always been a popular 3.5ed tactic to always be sneak attacking. I suggest you save up and get the displacer ring (50% miss chance) for extra bonus survivability. The support has already been shown for your argument in terms of the written rules, this is just my attempt at supporting it fluff-wise. If your GM doesn't like it, he should give you your money back. Anything less then its not worth the cost of the ring.