Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1400122" data-attributes="member: 1465">Let me think...A - If the attacker can not be seen, (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender loses its Dex bonus to AC and is therefore subject to Sneak Attacks. It's the same if it's because the attacker is invisible or the defender is blind, or is it not?B - If the attacker is flanking (an ally of his is threatening the defender from the other side...), (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender is subject to Sneak Attacks. Since the defender doesn't lose Dex bonus to AC, this is a lesser numerical disadvantage for him.Now, if the defender has Uncanny Dodge, he is not sneak-attackable in the situation A (and also doesn't lose Dex bonus, but attacker still has +2) but is still sneak-attackable in situation B, which become worse. If he has Improved Uncanny Dodge, he is also not sneak-attackable in situation B (and attacker doesn't get +2 for flanking). In the second case only, a Rogue of 4+ levels more bypasses the defender's &quot;immunity&quot; to sneak attacks.Is that actually correct? Sorry to ask easy questions...I actually think that the author's confusion with his own rules (sic!) come from his sentence about flanking: Once you believe that being flanked is not simply a smaller amount of penalties but really a lesser version of being blind, the blinking Barbarian paradox kicks in...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :o"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 1400122, member: 1465"] Let me think... A - If the attacker can not be seen, (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender loses its Dex bonus to AC and is therefore subject to Sneak Attacks. It's the same if it's because the attacker is invisible or the defender is blind, or is it not? B - If the attacker is flanking (an ally of his is threatening the defender from the other side...), (1) he gains a +2 to attacks and (2) the defender is subject to Sneak Attacks. Since the defender doesn't lose Dex bonus to AC, this is a lesser [I]numerical[/I] disadvantage for him. Now, if the defender has Uncanny Dodge, he is not sneak-attackable in the situation A (and also doesn't lose Dex bonus, but attacker still has +2) but is still sneak-attackable in situation B, which become worse. If he has Improved Uncanny Dodge, he is also not sneak-attackable in situation B (and attacker doesn't get +2 for flanking). In the second case only, a Rogue of 4+ levels more bypasses the defender's "immunity" to sneak attacks. Is that actually correct? Sorry to ask easy questions... I actually think that the author's confusion with his own rules (sic!) come from his sentence about flanking: Once you believe that being flanked is not simply a smaller amount of penalties but really a [I]lesser version[/I] of being blind, the blinking Barbarian paradox kicks in... :o [/QUOTE]

Verification