Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Artoomis]

I'm away from my PHB, but I don't recall ever noticing anything like that any time this has come up in the past.

-Hyp.

I'm away from my PHB, too. I think I recall something about what the flanked character is doing while being flanked, though - something about having to avoid to attackers, or some such thing. If his percieved only one attacker... you get where I'm going, I think.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Hypersmurf, I don't think we can talk about this intelligently. I am talking about description of what is happening in combat, and you are talking about the extremely literal end result in terms of the system. I.e., you stayed in your square, therefore you did not move around any.

 

[BSF]

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"?

That is exactly the question to answer. But, there is a component here that can get disruptive. What if the PC's think it is an innocent girl, but she is friendly to the BBEG? What if she is a high level rogue using magic?

I think I would tell my players that she is running past them and let them tell me if they are using their AOO. Then I would tell them that she is providing a flanking bonus. If the PC's _really_ don't view her as a threat, I would let take away the flanking bonus, but if it were really an ally to the BBEG, then I would probably give the "girl" the same benefits of invisibility for one attack.

Edit to fix quote blocks

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the PC's _really_ don't view her as a threat, I would let take away the flanking bonus, but if it were really an ally to the BBEG, then I would probably give the "girl" the same benefits of invisibility for one attack.

That's effectively what you get when you use the Sage's ruling.

Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, you can choose to turn your back on someone, granting them total concealment.

Since you can't see the girl, then by the Sage's ruling, the BBEG is no longer flanking.

The girl, however, is still flanking, since you can see her ally (the BBEG) just fine.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, you can choose to turn your back on someone, granting them total concealment.

If we're being technical, the 'turning one's back rules' need to have two points made:

1.) It is designed for the gaze attack section and is designed as a conditional response to a gaze attack. If you ignore logic in favor of strict adherence to the rules, this option is only available against a foe with a gaze attack.

2.) The language says it is possible to avoid seeing the creature by turning one's back, but it does not say that it will always be successful (much like it is possible to hit someone with a sword, but it does not mean it will always work when attempted.) If a creature with a gaze attack is 30' away across a ravine, it seems a far different situation than if the creature is only 5' away and can adjust to be next to you at any moment. The way this rule is phrased, it is a DM option on whether it can be used in any given situation. In a situation where you're locked in combat between two flanking creatures, I can see a DM not allowing the 'turn your back' option to work because the creatures would be shifting and sliding around, making it impossible to ignore them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1.) It is designed for the gaze attack section and is designed as a conditional response to a gaze attack. If you ignore logic in favor of strict adherence to the rules, this option is only available against a foe with a gaze attack.

I see an orc. I turn my back on him. If I can still see him, I know he isn't a disguised medusa. If I can't still see him, I know he has a gaze attack.

...?

2.) The language says it is possible to avoid seeing the creature by turning one's back, but it does not say that it will always be successful (much like it is possible to hit someone with a sword, but it does not mean it will always work when attempted.)

"An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent."

There doesn't seem to be any condition attached. If you turn your back, she gains total concealment.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think here we are witnessing the effects of a Sage who makes calls that are blatantly against the rules.

That is - people will come out in support of him, no matter how illogical such a position might be.

Fact: Before the sage invented this rule, a barbarian closing his eyes could only have a deleterious effect on his combat ability. After the change, closing his eyes becomes a beneficial combat tactic.

Fact: Before the sage invented this rule, invisible creatures provided a flanking bonus. After the invention of the rule, even an invisible creature shouting "hey, look at me, I'm invisible and behind you" cannot provide a flanking bonus.

Fact: The consequences of this rule as it is written are that a very minor problem, a problem which has been the cause of arguments as to whether it even IS a problem, has been 'solved'. At the same time at least TWO problems, problems which will come up all the time, and problems which everyone will agree are in fact problems, have been introduced. So the introduction of this rule is a net loss for the game system.

Fact: The sage shouldn't be making up brand new rules and presenting them as 'clarifications' anyway.

 

[BSF]

That's effectively what you get when you use the Sage's ruling.

True! As I said, this is disruptive to game play. It also begins to bring into question why you have to have an ally to flank. Suppose you are in combat with 3 seperate sides all trying to win. You have the PC's, a group of orcs and a group of hobgoblins. None of the groups is friendly toward each other.

If your fighter is fighting an orc who also has a hobgoblin on the other side trying to kill the orc, do you get a flanking bonus?

What happens if your PC's are fighting the orc when the hobgoblins come through a door behind you? Does the orc get a flanking bonus on the fighter if a hobgoblin steps up on the other side?

Why does it have to be an ally? Why couldn't two potentially hostile creatures on opposite sides gain a flanking bonus? (Because your fighter turned his back on one and couldn't see him, yeah, I know. )

Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, you can choose to turn your back on someone, granting them total concealment.

Since you can't see the girl, then by the Sage's ruling, the BBEG is no longer flanking.

The girl, however, is still flanking, since you can see her ally (the BBEG) just fine.

-Hyp.

Exactly, and most players are going to want to have no flanking bonus for the BBEG while "ignoring" the, presumably, innocent girl.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If your fighter is fighting an orc who also has a hobgoblin on the other side trying to kill the orc, do you get a flanking bonus?

I've asked a similar question before, only my example used a demon and a devil

But at this point, I also start asking what happens if you cast Bless and Bane Who's an ally? Who's an enemy?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Hypersmurf, I don't think we can talk about this intelligently. I am talking about description of what is happening in combat, and you are talking about the extremely literal end result in terms of the system. I.e., you stayed in your square, therefore you did not move around any.

You have to expect that when conversing with Hypersmurf. He comepletely ignores all things which a) do not aid his cause and b) are not unequivicolly stated in a rulebook. If you want to come to a logical conclusion about a rule, instead of some sort of crazy interpretation that works by the RAW but no sane DM would allow, don't talk to the smurf.

At the same time at least TWO problems, problems which will come up all the time, and problems which everyone will agree are in fact problems, have been introduced.

Do you really think that barbarians closing their eyes and invsible creatures shouting "look at me I'm over here invisible and dangerous" is really going to come up "all the time"? If so, you game with a very odd bunch, and I'd suggest finding a group with slightly more common sense and slightly less munchkinism.