Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[tauton_ikhnos]

Regarding invisible opponents: WotC's confusion stems from simple error - thinking of combat as blow-by-blow, despite cloud of probability they wrote into rules.

An invisible opponent is not just standing there. He is actively trying to get an attack in. That is why he threatens the space. The barbarian between invisible and visible opponents is fending off potential AoOs from other side.

I would rule that CLOSING YOUR EYES is free action which provokes AoO. I would also allow someone to take AoO from threatening side to negate flanking bonus from attacking side. In some cases, that would make sense.

 

[0-hr]

The rules-as-written

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

Skip

To flank an opponent, two allies must be on opposite sides of that opponent, and they both must threaten the opponent.

So Skip is blatantly, unarguably, wrong, yet he is the official spokesperson for WotC regarding the rules. There in lies the problem.

There are the rules that we all bought in the PHB, and there are the rules as they exist in Skip's head. Unfortunately, they are not the same set of rules. Erratta is required to change the former into the latter. The FAQ is not erratta. These Sneak Attack essays are not erratta. So we have two "official" sources giving us different rules and that is annoying to us who want to know how the game is meant to be played.

 

[Caliban]

Regarding invisible opponents: WotC's confusion stems from simple error - thinking of combat as blow-by-blow, despite cloud of probability they wrote into rules.

An invisible opponent is not just standing there. He is actively trying to get an attack in. That is why he threatens the space. The barbarian between invisible and visible opponents is fending off potential AoOs from other side.

I would rule that CLOSING YOUR EYES is free action which provokes AoO. I would also allow someone to take AoO from threatening side to negate flanking bonus from attacking side. In some cases, that would make sense.

I've always said that if you are aware of incoming attacks to the point where you retain your dex bonus, you aware of them enough to be flanked.

 

[Darklone]

There is a simple way to settle this - if it is wrong - write WoTC Web page author and inform them of it and, since this is the electronic age, they can quickly fix the error in the article. Has anyone tried doing this?

They usually won't admit it and the web page author has no rights to change that stuff.

 

[two]

well, because

Regarding invisible opponents: WotC's confusion stems from simple error - thinking of combat as blow-by-blow, despite cloud of probability they wrote into rules.

An invisible opponent is not just standing there. He is actively trying to get an attack in. That is why he threatens the space. The barbarian between invisible and visible opponents is fending off potential AoOs from other side.

Well, if the barbarian does not know the invisible opponent is behind him, how is he attempting to ward off an attack? Does your barbarian PC typically spend time during combat warding off invisible, possibly silent sword thrusts from all possible directions? If so, why is the barbarian not continually in a flanked state, since an invisible opponent could be behind him (threatening) but never attacking? (or heck, attacking later that round)?

If the invisible threatening rogue has a dagger in one hand and throws a dagger in his other hand from 5' away, how is this "actively trying to get an atack in?" It's a single attack, a thrown dagger, it's not a series of thrusts and parries.

The invisible opponent threatens the space whether the invisible opponent attacks or not (threatening does not require an attack).

It's simply not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, alas.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let me think...

A - If the attacker can not be seen, (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender loses its Dex bonus to AC and is therefore subject to Sneak Attacks. It's the same if it's because the attacker is invisible or the defender is blind, or is it not?

B - If the attacker is flanking (an ally of his is threatening the defender from the other side...), (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender is subject to Sneak Attacks. Since the defender doesn't lose Dex bonus to AC, this is a lesser numerical disadvantage for him.

Now, if the defender has Uncanny Dodge, he is not sneak-attackable in the situation A (and also doesn't lose Dex bonus, but attacker still has +2) but is still sneak-attackable in situation B, which become worse. If he has Improved Uncanny Dodge, he is also not sneak-attackable in situation B (and attacker doesn't get +2 for flanking). In the second case only, a Rogue of 4+ levels more bypasses the defender's "immunity" to sneak attacks.

Is that actually correct? Sorry to ask easy questions...

I actually think that the author's confusion with his own rules (sic!) come from his sentence about flanking:

The situation is something like dealing with an unseen foe, but isn't quite as severe.

Once you believe that being flanked is not simply a smaller amount of penalties but really a lesser version of being blind, the blinking Barbarian paradox kicks in...

 

[James McMurray]

Apart from the whip, when is it possible to make a melee attack and not threaten your foe? Isn't it possible that the person who revised the flanking section either forgot, or was unaware of, the change being made to the whip that would allow it to make a melee attack without threatening, and thus they assumed that "making a melee attack" and "threatening" were synonymous?

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Well, if the barbarian does not know the invisible opponent is behind him, how is he attempting to ward off an attack?

If he is not aware that there is an opponent there, and the opponent sticks him with a sword, is he still not aware? If the invisible person isn't trying to stick him, then the invisible person isn't threatening him. If the invisible person is sticking him, then the barbarian will be aware and can try to ward off the attack (though at usual penalties to AC for invisible opponent).

Does your barbarian PC typically spend time during combat warding off invisible, possibly silent sword thrusts from all possible directions?

Of course not.

If so, why is the barbarian not continually in a flanked state, since an invisible opponent could be behind him (threatening) but never attacking? (or heck, attacking later that round)?

I suppose a particularly paranoid and stupid barbarian could do so.

Perhaps that is why barbarians develop Improved Uncanny Dodge

If the invisible threatening rogue has a dagger in one hand and throws a dagger in his other hand from 5' away, how is this "actively trying to get an atack in?" It's a single attack, a thrown dagger, it's not a series of thrusts and parries.

If the barbarian drinks a potion, the rogue will get an AoO with the held dagger. If rogue was NOT actively trying to get an attack in, that would not happen. AoOs represent the extra attacks that slipped through large holes in defense.

The invisible opponent threatens the space whether the invisible opponent attacks or not (threatening does not require an attack).

Threatening does not require a successful attack. It does require paying attention to defenses and trying to stick someone through the holes.

It's simply not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, alas.

Sure it is. You are just doing same thing article did - assume that combat is blow-by-blow instead of cloud-of-probability. As cloud-of-probability, there are very few holes in system's logic.

 

[Altalazar]

They usually won't admit it and the web page author has no rights to change that stuff.

Well, make them admit it. Put it on their forum. Have lots of people second it. Anyone have Skip's email address? I'm SURE they do NOT have some standing rule that no web pages can ever be corrected.

 

[0-hr]

Apart from the whip, when is it possible to make a melee attack and not threaten your foe?

An unarmed attack?