Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Hypersmurf]

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

Not at all.

He explicitly calls out Blindsight as being equivalent... which is the only one on that whole list of abilities that actually allows one to "see". None of the others beat concealment, for example. If you have Blindsight, an invisible creature does not have total concealment. If you have Scent, Tremorsense, Blindsense, Uncanny Dodge, etc, he still does, and you can't "see" him.

In context, I think that if your foe retains total concealment, then whatever you have isn't equivalent to "seeing" them.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Not at all.

He explicitly calls out Blindsight as being equivalent... which is the only one on that whole list of abilities that actually allows one to "see". None of the others beat concealment, for example. If you have Blindsight, an invisible creature does not have total concealment. If you have Scent, Tremorsense, Blindsense, Uncanny Dodge, etc, he still does, and you can't "see" him.

In context, I think that if your foe retains total concealment, then whatever you have isn't equivalent to "seeing" them.

-Hyp.

You make a good point. I e-mailed the Sage for clarification, we will see if anything comes of it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You make a good point.

[blink]

... what just happened?



-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Looks like a Heavy Crossbow rule to me.

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

"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".

You're missing my point. The gaze section of the monster manual says that you may wear a blindfold, turn your back, etc ... in a situation where a gaze attack is present and it will have these effects. A very precise reading of the rules says that having the option to turn your back on a foe is an option present in the presence of a gaze attack. It does not say that you can do this at any time. As I mentioned when I brought this up, this is not necessarily logical, but it is a precise reading of the rules.

As for your interpretation of "possible to achieve", I think you're trying to look in the 'wrong direction'. 'Possible' does not equate to 'can' in instances of permission. It is possible for me to drive on the wrong side of the road. That does not mean that I have permission to do so . It is possible for a PC to turn their back on a foe (with a gaze attack), but that does not mean that he is automatically always allowed to do so. Possible means there is a possibility that that action could be taken in the right circumstances. It does not mean that a PC is guaranteed the right to be able to do that action.

I see no reason why a DM can not say that there is too much bobbing and weaving going on in combat for a PC to be able to turn his back on a foe and grant that foe total concealment.

 

[DarkMaster]

Quick remarks. I am not a rule freak and usually adapt the rule to fits my needs, been playing since I am 10 (now 30) and always did that. The difference is that before there were no internet, were people could argue( I must admit that I liked it a lot, since it improves my games). To me the "see" rule doesn't make sense amd I will replace "see" by "aware of".
You can send them mail for clarification if you want, but even if they don't update the rule I will still use "aware of". I strongly believe that the rule should be corrected and doen't make sense in it's current state, but I don't need to convince the entire world of it

I feel like Hyper is making it a personal offense, remember rule 0 and enjoy the game.

I actually use rule 0.5 which is DM is always right, as long as all the players are fine with it.

 

[DarkMaster]

And what about, you are fighting an ogre and a gobelin. They are flanking you. At the light of the ruling you could decide to ignore the gobelin and to completly focus on the ogre, therefore denying them both of their flanking bonus and providing the gobelin with the advantage of being invisible. I came with this problem since the ruling indicates that flanking bonus seem to be caused by the awareness of the flanked and not by the flanker.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And what about, you are fighting an ogre and a gobelin. They are flanking you. At the light of the ruling you could decide to ignore the gobelin and to completly focus on the ogre, therefore denying them both of their flanking bonus and providing the gobelin with the advantage of being invisible. I came with this problem since the ruling indicates that flanking bonus seem to be caused by the awareness of the flanked and not by the flanker.

Actually, the goblin would receive the benefits of being invisible, and the benefits of flanking.

He is making a melee attack, and you can see his ally (the ogre).

The ogre does not receive the benefits of flanking - he is making a melee attack, but you cannot see his ally (the goblin).

But apart from that, you might notice that I described this effect of the ruling in the very first post of this thread...

-Hyp.

 

[DarkMaster]

Actually, the goblin would receive the benefits of being invisible, and the benefits of flanking.

He is making a melee attack, and you can see his ally (the ogre).

The ogre does not receive the benefits of flanking - he is making a melee attack, but you cannot see his ally (the goblin).

But apart from that, you might notice that I described this effect of the ruling in the very first post of this thread...

-Hyp.

Well from the visible rule:
The visible rule: "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."
as I and you said before this rule is stupid and would make more sense if "see" could be replaced by "aware". Therefore by ignoring the gobelin you would deny the flanking bonus from the gobelin and the ogre. It is a bit similar to closing your eyes with more logic.
A good fighter should not bother with a gobelin and focus a 100% on the big foe which could be represented with "ignoring" the gobelin.

From what I understand from skip is that the defender is taking action to handle both foe at the same time therefore his defense is not as effective. That seems to explain the origin of the flanking bonus and not the fact that his opponents are attacking on each side as it was before. This is a major change in interpretation that needs to be fully reviewed. That can penalised rogues since you could decide to focus your attention on him and ignore the other opponents(not always a wise descision but ...) therefore denying him of his SA.

I like to understand the rules not just apply them. It allow me to come up with situation like that, allowing more option to my PC and NPC.

 

[Artoomis]

In these discussion it really helps to keep in mind what you are discussing.

One discussion surrounds understanding the rules as written[/i]. A very important discussion and the precursor to asking:

How should the rules be applied? This involves designer intent, actual effect of the rules in play, etc.

Two very different discussions that often get all mish-mashed together. I think this discussion keeps mixing the two things together.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Two very differnent discussions that often get all mish-mashed together. I think discussion keeps mixing the two things together.

"Hey! You got designer intent on my rules!"

-Hyp.