Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Scion]

I still want to know if you can Fork a Timewalk, and if so, do you get an extra turn? WotC still has yet to answer that question...

You dont actually play that game do you? Has there 'ever' been a time when there wasnt an answer to this? Fork copies sorceries, timewalk is an sorcery, multiple extra turns give you extra turns in a very specific order.


As for the thread though, very odd. I guess this particular issue is just too complex for their simple system so there have to be lots of various conflicting rules to make it better. People like 2e right?

 

[jgsugden]

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.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the rules are found within the description of the gaze ability and are listed as an option for an action in response to a gaze situation. By a *STRICT* reading of the rules, it is only available when a gaze attack is present, no matter how illogical that is.

"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.

Ahhhh .. we're looking at different sources. Considering this is a monster ability, we need to go to the Monster Manual as the primary source. Pg 309: (Under Gaze: Wearing a Blindfold: The opponent cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back ...))

Obviously, this rule is not automatic. Would you allow a PC to escape a medusa's gaze by turning his back ... in a house of mirrors?

 

[Hypersmurf]

That has nothing to do with the fact that the rules are found within the description of the gaze ability and are listed as an option for an action in response to a gaze situation. By a *STRICT* reading of the rules, it is only available when a gaze attack is present, no matter how illogical that is.

Looks like a Heavy Crossbow rule to me.

Found in a particular place, but applicable beyond the specific.

If I turn my back on a creature with a gaze attack, I can't see it. Since this is the only case in the Core Rules (as opposed to the Core Rules plus RotGisms) where turning one's back is an action someone might elect to take to some advantage, it's not surprising that this is where it's found.

But there's nothing inherent to gaze attacks that would make someone invisible if you turn your back on them. It's the turning of the back that provides concealment; the gaze attack is just the likely reason one would do it.

One the RotGism is introduced, and there is another place where granting an opponent total concealment becomes advantageous, the mechanic for doing so is already defined... and found under "Gaze Attack" for the reason described above.

Obviously, this rule is not automatic.

"Possible to achieve" doesn't equate to "not automatic" in the absence of a mechanic for failure, though.

It's another way of saying "you can".

Would you allow a PC to escape a medusa's gaze by turning his back ... in a house of mirrors?

Sure. He'd also have the option of "tracking her in a reflective surface" for a 50% chance of avoiding the gaze.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Not fact. I don't agree that it becomes a beneficial combat tactic. If he doesn't lose his Dex, he can still be flanked (because he is aware of where the attack is coming from).

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.

*shrug* I'm not sure I agree with the Sage on how this aspect of it would work.

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.

That's your opinion on the consequences of the rule, not a fact. Especially since not everyone agrees that they are in fact problems.

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

That's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not fact. I don't agree that it becomes a beneficial combat tactic. If he doesn't lose his Dex, he can still be flanked (because he is aware of where the attack is coming from).

But he's not, necessarily, aware.

If he retains his Dex through Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight, he gains no knowledge of where the attack originated unless he's actually hit (which has nothing to do with retaining Dex bonus - that applies to everyone). If the attack misses, even though he retains his Dex bonus, he still needs to pick a square to attack just like anyone else.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But he's not, necessarily, aware.

Absolutely he is. Otherwise he couldn't try to avoid it. He's just not aware of their exact position.

If he retains his Dex through Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight, he gains no knowledge of where the attack originated unless he's actually hit (which has nothing to do with retaining Dex bonus - that applies to everyone). If the attack misses, even though he retains his Dex bonus, he still needs to pick a square to attack just like anyone else.

-Hyp.

He knew where the attack came from enough to dodge it. Therefore he is able to sense his attackers position to a certain degree, enough that he can take it into account when trying to avoid attacks (and thus keep his Dex bonus to AC). Thus he can be flanked.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thus he can be flanked.

Not according to RotG.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Not according to RotG.

-Hyp.

Where does it say this? Explicitly?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where does it say this? Explicitly?

"You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked."

If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. Not "If your foe loses his Dex bonus against you". Not "If your opponent doesn't know what square you're in".

If he can't see you (with normal vision or Blindsight), you don't provide a flanking bonus.

Scent, Blindsense, Tremorsense, Listen or Spot checks, Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight, or guessing don't let the opponent see you. They might let him retain his Dex bonus, or pinpoint your square, but according to the RotG article, unless he can see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

"You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked."

If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. Not "If your foe loses his Dex bonus against you". Not "If your opponent doesn't know what square you're in".

If he can't see you (with normal vision or Blindsight), you don't provide a flanking bonus.

Scent, Blindsense, Tremorsense, Listen or Spot checks, Uncanny Dodge or Blind Fight, or guessing don't let the opponent see you. They might let him retain his Dex bonus, or pinpoint your square, but according to the RotG article, unless he can see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.

I think you are being far to literal.

In this context, I think that being able to sense your foe is equivalent to "seeing" them.