Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[jgsugden]

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.

I'm not sure about this one, Hyper. The rules are not too detailed on this issue, but my interpretation is that noncombatants do not threaten. If you're not 'actively engaged' in combat, you're not a combatant.

Perhaps we're just disagreeing on the definition of 'actively engaged in combat'. I don't think you have your PCs treated as flanked when an innocent girl with a dagger happens to end up on the opposite side of the PC from the BBEG while she is fleeing from the scene ...

Certainly, a spellcaster that is holding a weapon but intends to do nothing but cast spells during the next few rounds is threatening with his weapon, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone (beyond allies) that has a weapon out and is not flat-footed is threatening ...

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

I will do my best to use complete English. I know that it makes it difficult, sometimes, to read what I write.

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?

In terms of the system? Nope. We don't.

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'.

So he's not paying attention? Not looking for openings? Not keeping his defenses up? Not shifting around for advantage within his 5 ft square? He's just ignoring the whole combat?

My contention is that someone with a sword who takes no actions in system terms other than stand in place, is still doing all of the above as soon as his first initiative round comes up.

Even if he's invisible, although you could argue that the exact description of his actions when invisible would probably change to "waiting and angling for an opening"... although still shifting around to avoid bumping people, and still keeping up his defenses just in case.

"Actively engaged" has NO MEANING in a system context. So tell you what. Why don't you tell me what YOU mean when you say it, because maybe we do disagree there. Maybe you think "actively engaged" means swinging wildly at everything that moves - I could disagree with that, I think.

edited for bad quote markup

 

[Hypersmurf]

Perhaps we're just disagreeing on the definition of 'actively engaged in combat'. I don't think you have your PCs treated as flanked when an innocent girl with a dagger happens to end up on the opposite side of the PC from the BBEG while she is fleeing from the scene ...

Is she "a creature friendly to the BBEG"?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

I'll re-phrase. I have no trouble at all with the rules that you don't flank when invisible unless your opponent has a method that effectively negates the invisibility, represented by being able to keep his dex bonus to AC.

I know that's not perfect either, but it's easily workable. I also know that's not what the article stated, I view it as stating only the most general case.

 

[RigaMortus]

Perhaps we're just disagreeing on the definition of 'actively engaged in combat'. I don't think you have your PCs treated as flanked when an innocent girl with a dagger happens to end up on the opposite side of the PC from the BBEG while she is fleeing from the scene ...

I was going to say/ask the same thing...

Here's my question... Who determines when someone is "threatening"? Whose manner of perception is it? Is it the person doing the treatening, or the person being threatened?

If a Fighter wielding a longsword approaches, and gets within 5 feet on an orc, does he threaten the orc simply because (a) he has a melee weapon and (b) he is within 5' of the orc OR does he threaten the orc because the orc views him as a threat?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So he's not paying attention? Not looking for openings? Not keeping his defenses up? Not shifting around for advantage within his 5 ft square? He's just ignoring the whole combat?

He's paying attention, sure.

But why does he need to look for openings? He's not planning on attacking. If the guy stops to drink a potion, sure, he can hit him, but otherwise he has no intention of breaking his invisibility, so openings are irrelevant.

Why does he need to keep up his defenses? He's invisible. Nobody knows he's there.

Shifting around for advantage - what advantage? He's not fighting anyone. He's just hanging around invisible. And by the game definition of the term, he "threatens" any square within reach, since they're squares into which he could make a melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'll re-phrase. I have no trouble at all with the rules that you don't flank when invisible unless your opponent has a method that effectively negates the invisibility, represented by being able to keep his dex bonus to AC.

I know that's not perfect either, but it's easily workable. I also know that's not what the article stated, I view it as stating only the most general case.

Right. It's a third definition of flanking (one you share with Caliban).

There's the Rules as Written: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you directly opposite threatens the opponent.

There's the 3E FAQ/RotG definition: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you that the opponent can see directly opposite threatens the opponent.

And there's your definition: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you against whom the opponent is not denied his Dex bonus to AC directly opposite threatens the opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Right. It's a third definition of flanking (one you share with Caliban).

There's the Rules as Written: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you directly opposite threatens the opponent.

There's the 3E FAQ/RotG definition: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you that the opponent can see directly opposite threatens the opponent.

And there's your definition: You are flanking if you are making a melee attack and a creature friendly to you against whom the opponent is not denied his Dex bonus to AC directly opposite threatens the opponent.

-Hyp.

Right. The third one actually makes the most sense.

The first one is silly when you think about invisible, undetected allies who threaten.

The second is silly when you think about technically invisible allies who are detected with, say, tremorsense

The third seems most workable as far meeting the "common sense" test and a better fit with the rest of the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Right. The third one actually makes the most sense.

That's a matter of opinion

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

That's a matter of opinion

-Hyp.

Isn't darn near everything?