Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Hypersmurf]

as I and you said before this rule is stupid and would make more sense if "see" could be replaced by "aware".

I didn't say that. I don't think the rule is necessarily stupid; I just think it's unsupported.

And the problem with "aware" is that you need to define it. Is it a/ "knowledge of the opponent's position"? Is it b/ "retention of Dex bonus"? Is it c/ "awareness that there is an invisible opponent"?

The problem with b and c is that we're saying that Flanking relies on perception, and yet in neither of these cases is it required that the creature knows where the opponent is. So if all you know is "two people are attacking me", and one of them is invisible, they will always be considered flanking, no matter what their relative positions. Because position isn't important; perception is.

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.

Right. See "Turning the back" under Gaze Attacks.

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.

Except that he still requires the opponents to be on either side... he just also requires that the defender can see the one who isn't attacking him.

(Whether or not he can see the one who is attacking him is irrelevant.)

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

[blink]
... what just happened?

That's one of the funnier things I've read all day.

 

[DarkMaster]

I didn't say that. I don't think the rule is necessarily stupid; I just think it's unsupported.

And the problem with "aware" is that you need to define it. Is it a/ "knowledge of the opponent's position"? Is it b/ "retention of Dex bonus"? Is it c/ "awareness that there is an invisible opponent"?

The problem with b and c is that we're saying that Flanking relies on perception, and yet in neither of these cases is it required that the creature knows where the opponent is. So if all you know is "two people are attacking me", and one of them is invisible, they will always be considered flanking, no matter what their relative positions. Because position isn't important; perception is.

Sorry stupid is a bit extreme, but I agree the rule was not well prepared. I like the idea of adding the perception part to the equation.

Aware is the knowledge that somebody is flanking you. If your character has no way of detecting the presence of that opponent he is not aware of it. Well in the case that you know two people are attacking you you are aware of the second opponent even if he is not attacking you. Then flanking would be logical since you are taking defensive measure against that unknown opponent therefore reducing your capability against the other foe. Also don't forget that you need both the perception and the position aspect to gain the flanking effect. When two opponent are facing you, you are aware of them both but they don't get the flanking bonus.

Right. See "Turning the back" under Gaze Attacks.


Except that he still requires the opponents to be on either side... he just also requires that the defender can see the one who isn't attacking him.

(Whether or not he can see the one who is attacking him is irrelevant.)

-Hyp.

No if he is not aware of the invisible opponent the one attacking do not get the bonus until he can see the other guy.

Also turning the back was not an option when you were flanked, now it is. The new ruling allow the defender to decide if he is flanked or not, before he had no choices. Simply threatening an area was enough to provide the flanking bonus, theoritically the invisible creature could hover around without ever attacking and keep on providing the flanking bonus to the other creature, now it is impossible(that is a good thing).

I don't agree with your last sentence, what about two invisible creature flanking the wizard, the first one attacking will not get the bonus (would still get the one for being invisible) the second one would. before both would get it.

Now what are the repercution of giving that power to the defender, guess we will have to do our own experimentation at our tables.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No if he is not aware of the invisible opponent the one attacking do not get the bonus until he can see the other guy.

According to the Rules of the Game article:

Bob is stuck between Warok the ewok, and Ranok the invisible ewok.

When Warok attacks, we run through a checklist.
a/ Is Warok making a melee attack? Yes.
b/ Is there a friendly creature directly opposite him? Yes.
c/ Does the friendly creature threaten Bob? Yes.
d/ Can Bob see the friendly creature? No. Ranok is invisible, and cannot provide a flanking bonus to an ally.

Warok is not flanking.

When Ranok attacks, we run through the same checklist.
a/ Is Ranok making a melee attack? Yes.
b/ Is there a friendly creature directly opposite him? Yes.
c/ Does the friendly creature threaten Bob? Yes.
d/ Can Bob see the friendly creature? Yes. Warok is not invisible, and thus he can provide a flanking bonus to an ally.

Ranok is flanking.

That's according to RotG.

According to the PHB, which does not list d/ as a condition for flanking, both Warok and Ranok are flanking Bob when they attack.

I don't agree with your last sentence, what about two invisible creature flanking the wizard, the first one attacking will not get the bonus (would still get the one for being invisible) the second one would. before both would get it.

The second one would, assuming that the first one was visible after attacking, yes. That's a consequence of the RotG article.

As you say, according to the rules in the PHB, both are flanking.

-Hyp.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

Damn it. Hong, teach me how to be unpredictable.

... no, bad example. Hong's being unpredictable right now, if I know what I mean, and I think I do.

Hong? You thought I was Hong?

Man, if I were Hong, I'd be annoyed right now. No wait, I'd be amused. Apparently Hong is so unpredictable that he can do absolutely nothing & still manage to get HS worried.

But this does sort of make my point. On all the Rules of the Game instalments so far, I've posted a new thread that basically says "Looks good - no major problems."

If people read today's article and immediately assumed I'd be gnashing my teeth, it's because those people noticed for themselves that I'd have reason
to.

-Hyp.

Right. You had established a precedent that you would review the Sage's RotG posts, so a thread of some sort was expected. But when I noticed that the Sage had repeated his (unsupported by rules text) assertion that an invisible (or otherwise unseen) opponent cannot provide a flanking bonus for his ally, I was certain that you would take exception.

Don't worry. Nobody thinks that you have a vendetta against the Sage - at least nobody important.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hong? You thought I was Hong?

No, not at all. I just figured he'd be a good person for me to learn from.

Then changed my mind. (That's the kind of crazy, unpredictable guy I am!)

Don't worry. Nobody thinks that you have a vendetta against the Sage - at least nobody important.

Nah, I'll leave that to jgsugden

Or the "Skip the Sage" crowd over on the WotC boards.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Hong? You thought I was Hong?

Man, if I were Hong, I'd be annoyed right now. No wait, I'd be amused. Apparently Hong is so unpredictable that he can do absolutely nothing & still manage to get HS worried.

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/usenet_monk.htm

Troll without thought: At 10th level, a Usenet monk gains the ability to troll newsgroups without conscious effort, or sometimes without even intending to. This, needless to say, can be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[jgsugden]

Nah, I'll leave that to jgsugden

Or the "Skip the Sage" crowd over on the WotC boards.

-Hyp.

Slander!

I will remind you, sir, that I defended the Sage against your accusation regarding part 2 of this series ...

OTOH, I do think the Sage should do a lot more research before he makes a ruling ...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Slander!

'slibel, innit?

I will remind you, sir, that I defended the Sage against your accusation regarding part 2 of this series ...

Did you?

I'd have to look it up. I can't remember what I said about him

Edit - Feh! Some defence!

I share Hyper's diappointement at the failure ...

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

So instead of saying that the rules as written in the rulebook are correct, and the sage made a mistake, you're saying that a PC can't turn his back on someone. And you were saying that I was being a munchkin (with the definition being "someone who would try something in the game which was obviously illogical for their own benefit").

Slander!

Eh? Isn't hypersmurf saying that you accuse him of having a vendetta against the sage?

I will remind you, sir, that I defended the Sage against your accusation regarding part 2 of this series ...

And how does this change the validity of his statement?