Seeking Sneak Attack clarification for 3.0...

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, last note, on hiding and sneak attacks: AFAIK, it is true that once revealed, a rogue is no longer "hidden", but usually when attacking from hiding or attacking when invisible, the rogue will have the element of suprise. So while the first attack may reveal the rogue's presence, unless the target was previously aware of the rogue's presence (say, they were already in combat), the rogue would still gain benefits from attacking a flat-footed target.

Even if the target wasn't previously aware of the rogue's presence, if the target has already acting in the combat, he isn't flat-footed.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Skip Williams has introduced an inofficial rule about flanking that you might find interesting:

A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You
Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks:

You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker.

If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity.

If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity.

You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.)

This allows you to address the flanking rogue problem (if it is really that much of a problem). Of course, simply ignoring the fighter to concentrate on the rogue has its disadvantages, but that's intentional.

 

[Storyteller01]

Again, while it looks 'scary', it's not.

And, while it is your game, I think it'd be better to try it the RAW way with the provision that you might change it to the once per round thing, than immediately nerf it without even having seen it.

It isn't scary; it makes no sense. Watch martial or military practice with multpie opponents. Even when they come at the sides, there is very little opprotunity to SA once, much less several times. Your taught to 'spin out' of such situations (which works with the facing rules).

And I have seen it. That's why I don't like it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ah, the Sense case, Real world versus Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Storyteller01]

Ah, the Sense case, Real world versus Dungeons and Dragons.

Yep... We all have something that bugs us...

 

[TheEvil]

I have said it before and I will likely say it again, there are other game systems out there for people who like more realism in their gaming.

That said, Storyteller is well known for having opinions on what is realistic and should be changed in D&D that are at odds with a solid majority of people on this board. I can't imagine this is the last time for that either.

Overall, I (once again) solidly disagree with ST on the houserule and opinion on realism, but I really don't think it will dramatically effect the utility of rogues in his game, based on how he has described it in the past. I also would expect his(?) players are pretty much used to his GM style by now and aren't likely to be particularly upset by this change.

Good Gaming!

 

[Tobold Hornblower]

Why do you hate your rogue players?

 

[Storyteller01]

I don't. Their use of Spring Attack and Haste (3.0) is rather annoying...


Come to think of it though, the martial and military training examples I mentioned earlier were just that; training to limit or negate this specific situation.

Sorry. Keep forgetting that not everyone goes through this.

In retrospect, I'll keep the multiple SA's, but work up a feat chain to help reduce flanking/Sneak Attacks, most likely starting with Alertness.

Thanks for your time and responses.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't. Their use of Spring Attack and Haste (3.0) is rather annoying...

Out of curiosity, what use of Spring Attack and Haste do you mean?

You know you can't combine the two to Spring in, Full Attack, and Spring out, right?

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Out of curiosity, what use of Spring Attack and Haste do you mean?

You know you can't combine the two to Spring in, Full Attack, and Spring out, right?

-Hyp.

No no, no full attack. They Spring in, attack with SA (standard action), Spring away, then use the second partial action for additional movement. Gives them 60 ft (for medium critters) of movement to play with while the opponent is tied up with the more combat intensive character. Lots of room to flank then run. The rogues AC was high enough to avoid most, if not all, the AoO's involved, and if the players are working well together, he avoids most of the spells.

We compared it to Beastboy creaming Adonis in their last fight scene.

I could be wrong in the interpretation, but that's how we played it.