Sneak attack + flanking = confusion

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Heh. I thought I understood the rules and created my own house rules to address perceived issues therein...


Now I've read RotG: part 3 and I've read the 4 pages of HS's review around here...


Now I'm rather utterly confused (ugh - the cows!!)

I've changed my stance on invisibility + sneak attack + full attack and actually agree with Skip on this...

I find a great deal of confusion centering around some seemingly simple concepts of flanking... Namely, threatened, aware of, and etc.

1) Flanking occurs when a target is threatened on opposite sides of his square - right?

Therein, we use the terms flanking, target, threatened, opposite, square.

We all know target (i think), and we all know opposite and square (again, i think we do)

Thus we have flanking and threatened.

Now we should all understand threatened squares - it's any square you can make a melee attack into, right?

Thus, if 'target' is in a square where he is threatened by a two sources on opposite sides of that square, then either source gets the flanking bonus, the target loses dex bonus (to those sources or to all attacks made vs target?), and those sources that gain the flanking bonus gain sneak attack damage.

Is that right??? Barring any special abilities, that is...

Now, all of that assumes that it doesn't matter whether that target KNOWS it's threatened or NOT, right? Two invisible rogues manuever into perfect position where target doesn't know they are there, and the situation applies perfectly, even if only to the first rogue to attack, right? Rog1 gets flank bonus to hit, his target is denied dex bonus, and he gets sneak attack damage (even if only on first attack) - right?

Now, if I'm right so far (which I don't know, i.e. is the reason I'm so confused), then the 'closing eyes' or 'turning back to' tricks just evaporate like so much air. This system doesn't care if you are aware of the attacker or NOT, the bonuses are granted.


So tell me why this seems so terribly complicated??? am I just missing something because I'm blind and being out-flanked?

 

[DarkMaster]

Thus, if 'target' is in a square where he is threatened by a two sources on opposite sides of that square, then either source gets the flanking bonus, the target loses dex bonus (to those sources or to all attacks made vs target?), and those sources that gain the flanking bonus gain sneak attack damage.

Is that right??? Barring any special abilities, that is...

Why would you gain flanking bonus if your opponent is not aware of your allies behind him. The enemy will fight as if you were one-one therefore no bonus for you, as for your allies he gain the advantages of being invisible because he is technically invisible in for your opponent.

Also since when flanking make you lose your dex bonus?

 

[mikebr99]

1) Flanking occurs when a target is threatened on opposite sides of his square - right?

Right.

Now we should all understand threatened squares - it's any square you can make a melee attack into, right?

Right.

Thus, if 'target' is in a square where he is threatened by a two sources on opposite sides of that square, then either source gets the flanking bonus, the target loses dex bonus (to those sources or to all attacks made vs target?), and those sources that gain the flanking bonus gain sneak attack damage.

Is that right??? Barring any special abilities, that is...

Every attacker who is flanking gets +2 to hit, the defender doesn't loose their DEX bonus, if any.

Now, all of that assumes that it doesn't matter whether that target KNOWS it's threatened or NOT, right? Two invisible rogues manuever into perfect position where target doesn't know they are there, and the situation applies perfectly, even if only to the first rogue to attack, right? Rog1 gets flank bonus to hit, his target is denied dex bonus, and he gets sneak attack damage (even if only on first attack) - right?...

I'll disagree with you and or Skip on this one... if the target doesn't know (ie. aware) he is about to be attacked, he isn't threatened by either, and isn't dividing his time between either in order to defend himself. Now, that said, both invisible Rogues would get a sneak attack off, due to invisibility.

YMMV


Mike

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, all of that assumes that it doesn't matter whether that target KNOWS it's threatened or NOT, right? Two invisible rogues manuever into perfect position where target doesn't know they are there, and the situation applies perfectly, even if only to the first rogue to attack, right?

This is true by the rules as written.

The Rules of the Game article introduces something not covered by the Core rules, though - the statement that "an ally your foe cannot see cannot provide you with a flanking bonus".

According to the RotG, your two invisible rogues are not flanking, because neither of them have an ally that the foe can see. They can of course still sneak attack, because even though they're not flanking, the fact that they're invisible denies the opponent his Dex bonus.

But let's give the opponent Blind Fight or Uncanny Dodge. Now he retains his Dex bonus against invisible attackers, so they can't sneak attack by vitrue of being invisible. But because neither of them have an ally the foe can see, RotG says they're not flanking either.

Rogue A attacks; the attack is not a sneak attack (since the defender is not denied his Dex bonus, and Rogue A has no visible ally), and Rogue A becomes visible.

Now Rogue B attacks. The opponent is not denied his Dex bonus (due to Uncanny Dodge); but Rogue B has a visible ally in the correct position who threatens the opponent (Rogue A, now visible). Therefore, Rogue B is flanking, and so he gets a sneak attack.

Now he's visible too, and they're flanking as normal.

But, if the opponent closes his eyes, then by the RotG, neither opponent has a visible ally, and they cannot flank; and because of Uncanny Dodge, the opponent retains his Dex bonus, and thus the fact that he's blind does not make him sneak attackable.

You're completely correct that, by the rules as laid out in the PHB, this doesn't work. It's an effect of the new rule made up in the RotG article.

-Hyp.

 

[Otterscrubber]

The Rules of the Game article introduces something not covered by the Core rules, though - the statement that "an ally your foe cannot see cannot provide you with a flanking bonus".

But, if the opponent closes his eyes, then by the RotG, neither opponent has a visible ally, and they cannot flank; and because of Uncanny Dodge, the opponent retains his Dex bonus, and thus the fact that he's blind does not make him sneak attackable.


-Hyp.

Perhaps the statement should be modified to "an ally your foe is not aware of cannot provide you with a flanking bonus".

This would eliminate the "close your eyes and make the flank go away" problem. Of course this assumes that blind fighting conveys some sort of awareness that he is being threatened which seems fair considering it allows you to keep your DEX bonus to AC. You're obviously aware that something bad is about to happen and you move out of the way.

 

[DarkMaster]

Perhaps the statement should be modified to "an ally your foe is not aware of cannot provide you with a flanking bonus".

This would eliminate the "close your eyes and make the flank go away" problem. Of course this assumes that blind fighting conveys some sort of awareness that he is being threatened which seems fair considering it allows you to keep your DEX bonus to AC. You're obviously aware that something bad is about to happen and you move out of the way.

As I say in another similar thread. This rules is 180o from the past rule. The flanking bonus is granted by the fact that the defender is not able to defend adequatly against two split opponent as before it was caused by the position of the opponents. Now you shift the control of the bonus from the attacker to the defender which could easily lead to the defender ignoring intentionally one of the foe. I give an example of a fighter against an ogre and a gobelin. In the old rule if they were flanking you the defender had no choice he was flanked and both opponent were getting the bonus end of story.

Following the new logic could lead to the fighter saying I don't care about the gobelin I focus 100% on the ogre. He then deny them the flanking bonus. but the gobelin would probably be considered invisible for the mechanics of hiting the fighter.

I know the new rule doesn't state that but the change of logic that it implies will lead a lot of people to this line of thinking.

Skip makes the assumption that you will try to defend against both opponents, why should I be forced to defend against these two opponents when one threathen to kill me and the other even invisible will have a hard time going through my armor.

They should think very carefully before coming out with radical changes like that. I believe they should propose the idea on board like this and see what the gamers have to say about their changes and then try to get somekind of concensus before publishing fixes. The see, no see rule for flanking is completly broken in my opinion, the alternative we just discuss is acceptable but should be carefully thinked about.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is also another thing that makes me doubt:

Skip insists in treating "being flanked" as a lesser form of being unable to see the attackers, as the penalties of being flanked came from limited visibility of the foes only, and not for example from having to parry/dodge/defend two opposite sides of your square. It's because of this reasoning that he rules an unseen foe cannot flank.

Uncanny Dodge (which is the lesser version of Improved Uncanny Dodge if you want) lets you avoid sneak attacks from being unable to see, but not sneak attacks from being partially unable to see when you are flanked.

IMHO the two things quite contraddict each other... or at least the problem is because when you have the lesser version of UD you have an advantage (no sneak attacks) from putting yourself in a normally worse position (blind).

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

So the whole problem of the RotG change revolves around a) the use of the term 'see' and b) that term used in indicating that 'unseen' opponents cannot flank...

Personally, I think it's just a semantic arguement at heart - Skip unwittingly used the term 'see' as an offhand thought without further clarification.

Want to completely cancel flanking per RotG? Cast darkness or greater darkness as a human, and suddenly you can't be flanked - you can't see the enemy... But now I'm discussing the issue that I realize I fully comprehend now.

I comprehend the problem and the various stances, and realize that I rather completely disagree with the cavalier use of the term 'see'. I recognize the thought and spirit, but gamers are born-lawyers and will read a line 1000 times to see if they can perceive a loop-hole. Using off-hand terms (such as 'see') leads directly into these predicaments.

What I'm sure he meant was 'be aware of' or 'be knowingly threatened by', i.e. you have to know something is threatening you from that square. It makes much more sense that way.


Oh, and also note that by the RotG, if you have Imp/Greater Invis - you can't actually flank - the target a) can't see you and b) doesn't know which square you're in. Let alone the whole host of new combat options such a use of 'see' allows (some of which have been mentioned). Heh - it certainly makes a blind fighter/barb quite viable though.

 

[Keith]

“When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.”

I always find it odd that so much confusion arises from this simple little game mechanic. It seems the insistence on making this bonus reflect some sort of realistic situation is part of the problem. I tend not to think of it that way, as there is nothing in the definition that suggests that to me- it is just a general bonus for a situation that is generally advantageous. In cases such as two invisible people flanking a target and attacking, it is obvious that the perception that flanking mimics distracting a foe from two sides is not applicable. Seeing or being aware of flanking foes is not a prerequisite at all, so it surprises me that that is so often the topic of discussion.

I agree that that article veers off in an odd direction, and it is disturbing, given how simple and functional the flanking rule as written is.

Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Want to completely cancel flanking per RotG? Cast darkness or greater darkness as a human, and suddenly you can't be flanked - you can't see the enemy...

Of course you can, he just has concealment.

Those spells radiate shadowy illumination now, remember?

-Hyp.