Sneak attack + flanking = confusion

[reiella]

Facing just creates more conundrums (I think). I'm speaking in the general sense, as I'm not familiar with the UA rules at this point.

- Rounds are six seconds long. I have to face one way the whole time? Why?
- Whatya mean I don't threaten the square behind me?
- I have 4 attacks this round, I can't chop everybody around me?
- What if my weapon points this way, but I'm looking over here?
- Which way is the gelatinous cube facing, exactly?
- I have to wait until my turn before I can turn to face the guy with the axe?

I actually think the flanking rules made sense - right up until the RoTG thing...

A'Mal

True on most of those, and I frankly don't want to deal with facing in general to be honest . [Note most faceless critters aren't critable anyway] A war-game type would most likly be more necessary for facing to work.

And I think flanking rules make sense as well, I just have difficulty seeing how they're justified anymore. RAW implies that they work in a concept/method similiar to AoO in that it's the attacker taking advantage and able to get a 'better shot' because of a flanking (which the defender may or may not be aware of) exists opposite of him. While to me, it seems that an attacker taking advantage of anticipating your ally's movements feels more like an AoO situation.

Hmm interesting thought I just had.

What exactly would happen when someone tried to move through the same square as a non-ally who was invisible (say in combat). They would pretty much just 'bump' off him, right?

Hmm, that concept works much better for me in order to explain (to myself ) how a flanking bonus may occur with someone using a non-reach weapon who is unseen/unnoticed by the defender. Of course, it doesn't explain the reach threats all too well.

 

[Bauglir]

What I was suggesting earlier was that a CDG should be allowed if a defender chooses to completely ignore an attacker (to the degree that their efforts no longer contributed to a flanking bonus). I see 'completely ignoring' as equivalent to 'rendering oneself helpless'.

That situation is functionally identical to the character being totally unaware of their attacker. Should every rogue that manages to successfully sneak up on someone without getting spotted be allowed a CDG? After all, that person is 'totally ignoring' the rogue at the time..

 

[The Souljourner]

That situation is functionally identical to the character being totally unaware of their attacker. Should every rogue that manages to successfully sneak up on someone without getting spotted be allowed a CDG? After all, that person is 'totally ignoring' the rogue at the time..

Yeah, there's a HUGE difference between helpless and unaware. Helpless means the rogue can walk right up next to you, lean on your shoulder, probe around your neck with his fingers to find just the right artery, and then plunge his dagger right in. That's helpless. Unaware just means you're not actively defending yourself from attacks that might come from that direction, so you're suprised when they happen (and thus don't get dex). The rogue still has to stop a couple feet away and swing, or you'll realize he's there.

As to the whole invisible flanker "rule"... while I agree somewhat that it kinda sorta makes a little sense... it doesn't work in the rules and I wouldn't allow it in my game. Flanking is flanking. It's a magical +2 that just appears out of nowhere. Don't rationalize it, don't try to make it realistic, because D&D just can't handle being that realistic.

-The Souljourner

 

[Amal Shukup]

That situation is functionally identical to the character being totally unaware of their attacker. Should every rogue that manages to successfully sneak up on someone without getting spotted be allowed a CDG? After all, that person is 'totally ignoring' the rogue at the time..

There is one difference, in my opinion. And its somewhat an artifact of round-based combat.

A character attacked by someone who snuck up on him becomes aware of the attack at some pint in the round and will make their best effort to dodge and avoid from that point on.

In other words, they feel the attack (or the wind from it - whatever) and try to avoid the worst of the incoming damage. Even simply flinching once the blade has started to enter is part of this defensive action.

A charcter who "COMPLETELY IGNORES" an attacker (in order to use a metagamed loophole in the Flanking Rules) is FAR FAR more vulnerable IMHO - they're deliberately suppressing all of these defensive reflexes. THAT's why I equate them to 'Helpless' rather than 'unaware'. Like voluntarily failing a saving throw

I think it hypothetical - I don't think one CAN suppress one's defensive reactions to that degree: It's a sort of thought experiment debunking the proposition that a defender can avoid being Flanked by ignoring one attacker.

A'Mal

 

[Amal Shukup]

As to the whole invisible flanker "rule"... while I agree somewhat that it kinda sorta makes a little sense... it doesn't work in the rules and I wouldn't allow it in my game. Flanking is flanking. It's a magical +2 that just appears out of nowhere. Don't rationalize it, don't try to make it realistic, because D&D just can't handle being that realistic.

I think it stands up very well (within the limits of it being a game, ofcourse). Much more so than people give it credit for.

I, er, 'rationalized' this point before: if an invisible creature is right next to you swinging an axe - you would be sufficiently distracted by it to be subject to a flanking bonus. You would not have enough perception to obviate the obvious advantages the invisible attacker has (blocking that axe would be difficult, for instance), but you would be distracted - hence flanked.

In my experience - having actually been thoroughly trashed in complete darkness by multiple opponents - one is QUITE aware of non-visible folk laying a beating on you. Or even just standing there. You don't know which (of, sadly, several) vulnerable bits to cover, perhaps, but you know/suspect that the blow is coming...

A'Mal

P.S. If someone WERE to try making the mechanic more 'realistic', I would wish they had real experience in actual fighting. It's like with so-called 'weapon speed factors': I always suggested that folk who thought a dagger should attack 1st vs a great sword (multiple times was the usual argument) should try it. I want to hold the great sword...

 

[Coredump]

I agree with Amal, there is a difference from someone not knowing the rogue is there, but will defend themselves as soon as they can, as opposed to the person that says, "I don't care who is there, I know there is a threat there, and I do everything I can to NOT react in anyway to whatever it is doing."
At a *bare minimum* I would allow an auto hit, with auto full damage, including an auto critical. If they get multiple attacks, all attacks benefit.
I may go as far as allowing a 'virtual' sneak attack bonus, and even perhaps a CDG.
Even Bob the Mook can kill Conan if Conan turns his back and lets him.

 

[Coredump]

My position - which I'm not suggesting is canon - is that if two folks flank another - they both get flanking bonusses whether they can be seen or not. They may get additional bonusses if they also have concealment.

As far as I'm concerned, that is canon - it's Core Rules as Written, and it's what I use.

As opposed to the RotG rule, which... well, isn't Core Rules as Written

-Hyp.

Okay, I understand the difference in the RAW and the RoTG. And I fully agree that Skip should not be changing the rules through an 'interpretation' (If you want to change them, say you are changing them.) But I have a problem with the RAW, as they don't seem to make sense either. If I don't know someone is threatening me, how does that distract me? How does that give anyone else an advantage?

Here ya go Hyp, a direct challenge for you.
Disregarding the RAW, or the RoTG, or the problems that either may create or solve. If WoTC called you up and wanted you to 'fix' the flanking situation, what would you do? (I realize we are getting into HR territory, but we are already there.) Plus, I get the feeling that part of the problem is that hyp is arguing what the rules state, and that rules should have precedence, and others are trying to convince him of what is 'better'.

.

 

[DarkMaster]

I agree with Amal, there is a difference from someone not knowing the rogue is there, but will defend themselves as soon as they can, as opposed to the person that says, "I don't care who is there, I know there is a threat there, and I do everything I can to NOT react in anyway to whatever it is doing."
At a *bare minimum* I would allow an auto hit, with auto full damage, including an auto critical. If they get multiple attacks, all attacks benefit.
I may go as far as allowing a 'virtual' sneak attack bonus, and even perhaps a CDG.
Even Bob the Mook can kill Conan if Conan turns his back and lets him.

Then why do the invisible creature don't get all that ? I don't see any difference between ignoring and not knowing, so both should get the same bonus which is clearly defined in invisibility.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(I realize we are getting into HR territory, but we are already there.)

I'm not.

I'm happy with the RAW. The only 'oddity' that crops is the invisible do-nothing guy who provides a flanking bonus without revealing his presence, and I'm happy to borrow a quote from Lucy Lawless to explain that one:

"A Wizard did it."

-Hyp.

 

[Uller]

I've been reading all these threads and here is my take...this isn't what I think is "official"...it is how I run it and I think it doesn't lead to any invisible blind kobald nonsense....

We'll use the example given at the beginning of the thread: Rogue A (Fafard and Rogue B (Grey Mouser) are invisible and have positioned themselves on opposite sides of a constable who they want to kill. Each gets multiple attacks (being who they are, I'd think they'd each get two per round...GM would probably be using two-weapons so he'd get three total). The constable is unaware of where they are but he knows they are in the vicinity and has been fighting so he is _not_ flat-footed.

Fafard gets a 13 on his init and GM gets 21. So on GM's turn his player says "I do a full attack." The question is, does he get to count Fafard for flanking. IMO, that depends on whether or not Fafard wants the constable to become aware that he is threatening him. This would count (in 3.0 terms) as a not-an-action...If Fafard wants to grant GM a flanking bonus (so he can continue to get sneak attacks even after he becomes visible) then Fafard must make the constable aware of his presence during GM's turn.

The point to remember is that the D&D combat model is not a blow-by-blow system. It is an abstract. In reality, Fafard and GM are acting simultaneously. This is not to say that Fafard is actively attacking the constable. Maybe on his turn he is going to ready to attack anyone who comes down the alley, leaving GM to do the dirty work. Maybe he will not even take an AoO on the constable if he gets the opportunity. But he does just enough to let the constable know that attacks could come from another direction. Maybe he makes a noise, maybe he bumps against him, whatever. The point is, now the constable knows he is there and feels threatened. This has the benefit of giving GM +2 for flanking and lets him make sneak attacks on ALL his attacks. At the same time it means the constable can attack Fafard or make sneak attacks against him should Fafard decide to move and attack someone else...So IMG, if you want the benefits of threatening someone, you must also take the costs. If you want to stand next to someone and have them be completely unaware of you, then you can't possibly threaten them enough to make them feel like they must defend against your (potential) attacks.

Seems fair to me. This is why we have DMs...the rules can't possibly cover every situation and the more they try to cover the exceptional situations, the worse off we'll be.