Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Hypersmurf]

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.

So when someone is faced by a medusa, and takes the option listed under Gaze Attacks to close his eyes so she can't hit him with a Gaze Attack, does she get an AoO? It says nothing about it in the rules. Does he lose his Uncanny Dodge? It says nothing about that either.

Closing your eyes is specifically described as a valid tactic to grant a foe total concealment. You receive the penalties for being blind... which don't include provoking AoOs, and which definitely don't include losing Uncanny Dodge.

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.

From memory, it was something like that that the Sage suggested in the original chat where this was dreamed up. But by the time it made the FAQ (and now Rules of the Game), it had changed to "If you can see".

-Hyp.

 

[two]

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)

[...]

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.

Ah, I see the problem. You don't fully understand the "threaten" rules. In this game, you threaten not by MAKING an attack, but by being able to make one (even if you don't).

An invisible opponent can "threaten" a square while playing softball, or throttling a meth-amped squirrel, or using a plunger to clear a very clogged toilet, or proving a sub-lemma related to Group Theory, or having one finger quite deeply embedded in a moist, warm, juicy cherry pie. As long as this invisible opponent can MAKE an attack (in theory) he threatens.

So, the invisible opponent can stand behind the barbarian and never attack and yet still threatens and still allows his pal to flank on the other side.

Similarly, Charley Nose-Pick can stand there with a greatsword, never once swing it, yet still help his pal flank.

Got it?

I understand the recent FAQ has clarified, to some extent?, that invisible things do NOT allow flanking, but that's something that's still up in the air. Is FAQ core? etc. etc. yawn.

I'm not "punching holes in a system" by the way, I'm explaining how the system works as I understand the rules. It's a little absurd to set out to "punch holes" in D&D I mean, my god man. That really wouldn't take much effort, nor be much fun, now, would it?

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

So when someone is faced by a medusa, and takes the option listed under Gaze Attacks to close his eyes so she can't hit him with a Gaze Attack, does she get an AoO? It says nothing about it in the rules. Does he lose his Uncanny Dodge? It says nothing about that either.

Please read post in context. For your convenience, I will break it out for you:

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.

This section is correct RAW. It shows that blindness and total concealment do not cause AoOs. Notice that barbarian is fending off "potential AoOs" from invisible opponents as well. Notice that this agrees completely with your "correction" - closing your eyes would simply make all opponents invisible, and you would still take flanking penalties.

Do you understand that we are in complete agreement up to this point?

Then, section which you quoted out of context, where I state what I would do, against the spirit of the correct and true and holy rules:

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.

Notice that this is an alternative, and is in direct conflict to a direct interpretation of the rules in prior two paragraphs. I apologize if this was not evident to you, or if I gave you the impression that I am that stupid.

Ah, I see the problem. You don't fully understand the "threaten" rules. In this game, you threaten not by MAKING an attack, but by being able to make one (even if you don't).

Understand threaten rules just fine. You disagree with me on theory of why threaten rules work the way they do. I will examine this below:

So, the invisible opponent can stand behind the barbarian and never attack and yet still threatens and still allows his pal to flank on the other side.

By this philosophy, a 16th level fighter swings his sword exactly once every 1.5 seconds. Attacks per round only measures potential successful hits, not every possible attempt. Why is there no option to swing wildly? I can swing wildly every 0.5 seconds, which would give me 12 attacks in a single round, and at best, I am 2nd level Expert .

If you are not actively engaged in combat, you are flat-footed. While you are flat-footed, you can not take an AoO, and do not threaten. The game assumes you are actively engaged as soon as you get your initiative. It also assumes that you are looking for openings.

The invisible opponents gets a certain number of potentially successful hits per round, but that does not mean he is just "standing around" during the periods that it isn't his turn. That is just silly.

Similarly, Charley Nose-Pick can stand there with a greatsword, never once swing it, yet still help his pal flank.

He can never once make a potentially successful attack, but if you think he is not maneuvering his sword to threaten the barbarian, you have a very funny idea of what combat looks like.

Got it?

I think so. You?

 

[Hypersmurf]

As soon as I notice the new article in WotC's pages, I JUST came back to ENWorld to hear Hyp's wail...

Hey...! This is the 6th RotG article. I've been pretty happy with all of the previous five.

I don't complain about everything the Sage writes. I don't feel that "Because it's the Sage, it must be wrong". I find the whole "Skip the Sage" slogan a few of the WotC posters sport to be insulting and uncalled-for.

I just have issues when what he says isn't supported by the rules he's supposed to be clarifying.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you are not actively engaged in combat, you are flat-footed.

Not so. If your first turn in the initiative cycle has not come up, you are flat-footed.

Once that happens, you're no longer flat-footed for the duration of combat.

The invisible opponents gets a certain number of potentially successful hits per round, but that does not mean he is just "standing around" during the periods that it isn't his turn.

Except that if he's invisible through an invisibility spell, as soon as he attacks, the spell ends.

Threatening doesn't require that you attack; you threaten any area into which you could make a melee attack, even when it isn't your turn. You can threaten an area while invisible - taking an AoO if you choose, should the opportunity present itself - but unless you make an attack, you stay invisible. If you're swinging your sword at someone, though, your invisibility ends.

So, if two rounds later, the invisible person standing behind you with a sword (who threatens you, since you're within 5 feet and he's not flat-footed) is still invisible, he obviously hasn't swung it at you in those two rounds.

-Hyp.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Not so. If your first turn in the initiative cycle has not come up, you are flat-footed.

You are also not actively engaged, and do not threaten. If you are unconscious, asleep, paralyzed or not actively engaged in other ways, you ALSO do not threaten. Actively engaged is descriptive and conveys what I mean - it is not a system term. Please do not respond to it as if it is.

We are in agreement, but you seem to have issue with the words I use to describe the theory (as opposed to the system-mechanical results).

Once that happens, you're no longer flat-footed for the duration of combat.

Unless you are knocked unconscious or similar. I believe you are treated as flat-footed at that point as well (particularly in terms of AC).

Except that if he's invisible through an invisibility spell, as soon as he attacks, the spell ends.

This is an interesting point, and one which bears mentioning. However, if simply swinging the sword broke the invisibility, then you'd have to be pretty darned careful with how you moved your arms while not in combat, yes?

Remember: cloud of probability. Until the probability seems like it might result in a successful attack, invisibility is all cool with it .

Threatening doesn't require that you attack...

Nor did I say it did. Especially not since you are talking "attack" in a system sense, and I am talking "attack" in a theory sense.

D&D combat is not blow-by-blow. Theory describes what is really happening; the system only describes the RESULTS.

Hypersmurf, you and I don't even disagree about the system! Am I communicating that badly?

If you're swinging your sword at someone, though, your invisibility ends.

Untrue. If you swing your sword in someone's direction, but deliberately pull back to prevent actual contact, and there is no chance of accidentally hitting and no attack roll made, the system does not give any RAW indication that invisibility would end.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't have anything to add to this thread that would not be completely redundant with all my prior criticism of the Sage. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect better ...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless you are knocked unconscious or similar. I believe you are treated as flat-footed at that point as well (particularly in terms of AC).

No, you'e helpless, not flat-footed.

Hypersmurf, you and I don't even disagree about the system! Am I communicating that badly?

We disagree in that you're suggesting someone who chooses not to take any offensive action (poking his sword in the general direction of the opponent) does not threaten - right?

I'm saying that if, in the middle of combat, someone with a sword is standing there, not "actively engaged", but just holding his sword, he still threatens the squares within 5'.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't have any real problems with the way this was presented.

First - invisibility. If your opponent is unaware of your exact location (the normal case, what with 5-foot steps and all), then they really cannot effectively defend against you - as noted by the loss of dexterity bonus. If they are not effectively defending against you, then they are not really flanking. I see this as a gray area that is one not covered very well by the rules. The rules should definitely address this head on, but don't. I have no problem at all with the rule being you do not flank when invisible.

As for the other point, with the exception of (unimproved) unarmed attacks and the whip it is correct to state that you must be threatened on two sides to be flanked. It's not quite the complete, most accurate statement of the rule, but it's a good working definition with only two exceptions I know about (unless you include invisibility, and that three exceptions).

 

[Hypersmurf]

If your opponent is unaware of your exact location (the normal case, what with 5-foot steps and all), then they really cannot effectively defend against you - as noted by the loss of dexterity bonus. If they are not effectively defending against you, then they are not really flanking.

Except there are cases when they don't lose Dex bonus, without knowing where you are... or where they can know where you are, without retaining their Dex bonus.

Both Uncanny Dodge and Blindfight allow you to retain your Dex bonus, but they don't let you pinpoint the square an attacker is in.

Scent, Blindsense, Listen or Spot checks, having just been stabbed, etc are all ways you can know exactly what square an invisible attacker is in, while still being denied Dex.

With Blindsense (not Blindsight, note) and Uncanny Dodge, you can know exactly where someone is, and retain your Dex bonus against them, but according to the Sage, since you can't see them, they still can't provide an ally with a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.