Rules debates in the game?

[Vysirez]

Hmm, well, at least you can't fit the same number of puppies into a bag, as thenumber of snails you could put into a bucket, and maintain the same overall weight/encumbrance. That, and puppies make noise (harder to sneak around with bagsful of the things), tend to make stinky messes (even harder to sneak around), and require a lot more food than snails do ...

Not to mention your killing PUPPIES. Gross snails is no big deal, but Puppies? We are talking major alignment shift here. Unless they are evil puppies. Course finding those could be difficult.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not to mention your killing PUPPIES. Gross snails is no big deal, but Puppies? We are talking major alignment shift here. Unless they are evil puppies. Course finding those could be difficult.

Just use puppy zombies. They're evil, and they don't need to breathe inside the bag.

No food required, no mess, no noise, no alignment problems... and you can fit dozen and dozens of puppy zombies in a bag of holding.

-Hyp.

 

[swrushing]

Actually, a mid-level Barbarian cannot be flanked to begin with.

As for the "closing your eyes" issue, I'd like to point out that you don't lose your Dexterity bonus from being flanked- it's a special condition in which Rogues can add their sneak attack damage. Flanking isn't an issue of whether or not you can use your Dex bonus, it's an issue of whether or not there's a person on either side of you. And, whether your eyes are open or not, someone on either side of you will still be there.

A mid level barb can be flanked by appropriate levelled rogues. However, in the interest of covering every base and making everry post as long as possible, replace "mid-level barbarian" with "barbarian who has gained uncanny dodge but not yet gained improced uncanny dodge..."

As for your clarification on dex bonus and flanking, all i can say is.. did you read my post? i said..."For example, a mid level barbarian does not lose xdex bonus against invisible attackers... but flanking still earns sneak damage... "

Notice, i did not say "but flanking costs you your dex bonus anyway"... i said "but flanking still earns sneak damage..."

is this clear now, or do we need to go over it another time?

 

[hong]

As long as you're not talking about kittens, it's fine by me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As long as you're not talking about kittens, it's fine by me.

Using kittens doesn't work.

They land on their feet, so you don't get any AoOs when they stand up from prone

But puppies are always falling over anyway. Especially if you use bassett hounds with really long floppy ears they can trip on.

-Hyp.

 

[juliaromero]

I don't really see the problem on the whole flanking issue. Of course, I'm approaching from a pratical point of view, which is probably a huge mistake here.

I wouldn't rule that you can't be flanked by invisible opponents, but I would rule that you can't be flanked by opponents you aren't aware of. This makes good sense to me, and I see no rule problems with it. If some high level character doesn't lose dex bonus to an invisible opponent then I would rule that they are aware of the oponents approximate location, at least subconsiously/instintctively, and thus can be flanked by that opponent. Why else would they keep their dex bonus against attacks from them. So I don't really see any problems.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I don't really see the problem on the whole flanking issue. Of course, I'm approaching from a pratical point of view, which is probably a huge mistake here.

I wouldn't rule that you can't be flanked by invisible opponents, but I would rule that you can't be flanked by opponents you aren't aware of. This makes good sense to me, and I see no rule problems with it. If some high level character doesn't lose dex bonus to an invisible opponent then I would rule that they are aware of the oponents approximate location, at least subconsiously/instintctively, and thus can be flanked by that opponent. Why else would they keep their dex bonus against attacks from them. So I don't really see any problems.

That makes a lot of sense. If the barbarian is paying enough attention to the invisible rogues to keep his Dex bonus, then you can quite well say that he is still dividing his attention to the point where he is considered flanked. And that therefore closing his eyes is no help at all.

The other ruling isn't totally silly, though. It would mean that in a few circumstances, the smart thing for the barbarian to do is to close his eyes and trust in his instincts. (Maybe part of the flanking involves visual feints and distractions, and by closing his eyes he won't fall for those.) It is odd but not un-cinematic, especially if you view Uncanny Dodge as a quasi-mystical sense warning the barbarian of danger.

 

[Pax]

Puppy zombies? Um, the puppies had to be kileld to MAKE zombies of 'em.

Use hellhound puppis instead. They're BORN evil! Or maybe Fiendish Puppies ... ?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If some high level character doesn't lose dex bonus to an invisible opponent then I would rule that they are aware of the oponents approximate location, at least subconsiously/instintctively...

Then why does he need to guess a square when he attacks the invisible guy?

If there's an opponent to the north, and an invisible opponent, and the character retains his Dex bonus, he's "aware" of the invisible guy whether the invisible guy is attacking from the south, southwest, or southeast... but he doesn't know where he is.

Why is he flanked if he's "aware of the approximate location" of someone who happens to be to the south, but not to the southeast?

Either it's dependent on position, or on awareness of position, or on awareness of threat. If it's on awareness of threat, position shouldn't matter... right?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Puppy zombies? Um, the puppies had to be kileld to MAKE zombies of 'em.

They were terminally ill. It was a mercy to put them down.

-Hyp.