Sneak attack + flanking = confusion

[Coredump]

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.

Well, I think Amal said it better than I did, but I will try again.

When you are standing there, or in combat; you are trying to *not* get hit. You are trying to be aware of any threat around you. If someone sneaks up on you, and they are invisible, they have a tremendous advantage. But there are still ways you can be aware of them, even if it isn't totally a conscious thought. Perhaps you smelled something odd, perhaps you heard something, or felt the wind from the attack, or part of a grunt from a swing, or maybe you felt the pressure of the blade before it broke through your armor, or maybe just a 6th sense regarding another presence near you meaning harm...whatever...you are trying to be aware of it, and will avoid getting hit and taking damage as best you can. Even if it only means trying to slide out of the way once the attack happens and turning to fight them.

But if you *know* someone is there, and you *deliberatley ignore* them. You are saying that you know they are going to attack you, and that it doesn't matter. You are going to let them 'do their worst' and not do anything to try and stop them. Yep, you hear the grunt, and sense the attack, but you don't move.....

That makes it worse.

Normally, the damage roll determines how well you managed to avoid injury; well if you are not trying to avoid injury.... they get full damage.

.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, I think Amal said it better than I did...

Right, but both of you are effectively describing things in terms of a house rule, which means that it doesn't have any bearing on what the rules say, y'know?

There are two collections of rules that might be considered "official"; there's the RAW, and there's the RAW plus RotG changes.

Under the RAW, there's no mechanic for "ignoring" someone who's flanking you. If they're in the right place, they're flanking.

Under RotG, you don't need to totally ignore someone to deny them the chance to grant their ally a flanking bonus; you just need to be unable to see them. You're not "daring them to do their worst"; you're reacting in exactly the same way you would if they were invisible. Hearing something, feeling the wind, feeling the pressure on your armor, using your sixth sense... all of these are fine, and you can react to them, and his partenr still isn't flanking... as long as you can't see him.

Either you're using one of those sets of rules (in which case it either doesn't work at all, or it works without your becoming helpless), or you're throwing those rules out and using your own, in which case just say "In my campaign", and people will stop arguing with you

-Hyp.

 

[Uller]

Under the RAW, there's no mechanic for "ignoring" someone who's flanking you. If they're in the right place, they're flanking.
-Hyp.

Does anyone really disagree with this (other than Skip)? I think when we have rules discussions, there are essentially two discussions: 1) Inconsistencies/oddities within the rules. 2) reasonable ways of dealing with them in the game.

I'm guessing a lot of people are trying to look at the rules and how they are applied and trying to figure out what Skip was thinking. Obviously there is no mention in the PHB, DMG or any errata that invisible creatures don't threaten. So you have to take what Skip says as a suggestion for dealing with this specific situation.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

I'm halfway tempted to do away with flanking or use the facing rules from ua to just get rid of the logical conundrums

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.

I was curious about this too. But most of the problems you mentioned are addressed in the UA Facing rules.

- Rounds are six seconds long. I have to face one way the whole time? Why?

The UA rules allow a character to change his facing freely while moving, once per square entered. If the character doesn't move (or only takes a 5 foot step) he is limited to one facing change as a free action at any point during his turn.

- Whatya mean I don't threaten the square behind me?

You still threaten all of the squares into which you can make a melee attack. But attacks into the flanks squares are made at -5 & attacks into the rear squares at -10.

- I have 4 attacks this round, I can't chop everybody around me?

Yes, but some of those attacks will be at minuses as noted above. Characters with Cleave or Great Cleave can make the extra attacks granted by these feats into their flank areas at no penalty. And characters with the Whirlwind Attack feat can attack into their flank & rear penalties at no penalty.

- What if my weapon points this way, but I'm looking over here?

Not addressed for characters, but monsters with special attacks & abilities that would allow them to attack into their flank & rear areas without penalty (ex. the otyugh's tentacles or the manticore's tail spikes) are noted.

- Which way is the gelatinous cube facing, exactly?

The rules note that some creatures have no real facing because they can "move, attack, & perceive foes equally well in every direction." Faceless creatures can thus move or attack into any adjacent square without penalty & don't grant flank or rear attack bonuses to their opponents.

- I have to wait until my turn before I can turn to face the guy with the axe?

Yup, unless you have readied an action to change your facing. And you can't ready an action to respond to a visual trigger in your rear area, although you can do so to respond to a non-visual trigger like a sound (or a blow from an axe. ) And if the guy with the axe performs an action that triggers an AoO while in your flank or rear areas, your AoO will take the appropriate (-5 or -10) penalty. But characters with the Combat Reflexes feat take no penalties for AoOs into their flank areas.

So on first glance the UA Facing rules seem pretty coherent. Has anyone playtested them or thought of any logical conundrums that would arise from their use? No facing was a big adjustment in 3E, but I am quite comfortable with it now. Still issues like the "Blinking Barbarian" & the like have me wondering if perhaps a return to Facing ala UA would improve the game. Does anyone really know yet?

 

[Amal Shukup]

There are two collections of rules that might be considered "official"; there's the RAW, and there's the RAW plus RotG changes.

Under the RAW, there's no mechanic for "ignoring" someone who's flanking you. If they're in the right place, they're flanking.

IMC I use and support the RAW. My arguments here were intended to counter the argument that ignoring or not being able to see an opponent prevented a flanking bonus. Exposing a player to 'Coup de Grace' attacks was one (to my mind, amusing) way to neutralize this 'loophole'...

The easiest (and thus likely the best) way is to ignore the RotG changes and simply use the rules as they are. I appreciate Hyp's timely reminder that the sillyness under discussion was an artifact not of the RAW but of the RotG article alone.

The only 'oddity' that crops is the invisible do-nothing guy who provides a flanking bonus without revealing his presence

I think my only material divergence from the Hyp is that I do not find the above to be odd - hence the side discussion concerning the distracting qualities of proximate invisibles. This was by way of supporting/justifying the 'position = flanking' argument as opposed to the 'state of mind = flanking' argument. As 'position = flanking' is the 'RAW o' the Land', there's no need to actually get into house rule territory.


A'Mal

 

[Bauglir]

Personally I think I will stick with the RAW version - it seems to have more internal consistency for me.

just say "In my campaign", and people will stop arguing with you

That there's sig material

With your permission, Mr Smurf?

 

[Hypersmurf]

That there's sig material

With your permission, Mr Smurf?

Prefix it with an ellipsis, and then sure, feel free...


... just say "In my campaign", and people will stop arguing with you -Hyp.

-Hyp.

 

[Bauglir]

Much obliged