Sneak attacking - I'm a tad confused

[dcollins]

I'll go ahead and give the citations in the 3.0 rules and let you find those locations in 3.5 or the SRD or whatever you're using:

"...any time the rogue's target would be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC... or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage." (ch. 3, "Rogue: Sneak Attack", 3.0 PHB p. 47)

"Attacker invisible: Melee +2t... t: The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC" (ch. 8, "Combat Modifiers: Table 8-8", 3.0 PHB p. 132)

"Even if your Dexterity bonus drops to 0, you are not considered to have lost your Dexterity bonus. For example, a rogue can't sneak attack you just because you're wearing half-plate." (ch. 7, "Armor: Maximum Dex Bonus", 3.0 PHB p. 104)

"...a rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the defender, so that the defender is directly between you." (ch. 8, Movement and Position: Flanking", 3.0 PHB p. 130)

 

[MichaelH]

As a small thread hijack, how many of you considered an enemy who is flanked to be eligible for SA, EVEN IF the rogue is not the one doing the flanking

F
ER
F

Friend, Evil guy, rogue

I think that has been discussed before, "Is he considered flanked if you're not flanking him" but I want to ask it again. Personally, I say it's fine, realistically/tactically speaking.

Eltern

Again, PH page 50: when the rogue flanks her target.

In your scheme above, the rogue does not flank his target and so he does not get a sneak attack unless some other condition denies E his Dexterity bonus to AC.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

I'll go ahead and give the citations in the 3.0 rules and let you find those locations in 3.5 or the SRD or whatever you're using:

"...any time the rogue's target would be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC... or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage." (ch. 3, "Rogue: Sneak Attack", 3.0 PHB p. 47)

"Attacker invisible: Melee +2t... t: The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC" (ch. 8, "Combat Modifiers: Table 8-8", 3.0 PHB p. 132)

"Even if your Decterity bonus drops to 0, you are not considered to have lost your Dexterity bonus. For example, a rogue can't sneak attack you just because you're wearing half-plate." (ch. 7: "Armor: Maximum Dex Bonus", 3.0 PHB p. 104)

Thanks! I'll just email this straight to my GM with no explaining comments

 

[Spatzimaus]

As a small thread hijack, how many of you considered an enemy who is flanked to be eligible for SA, EVEN IF the rogue is not the one doing the flanking

"Flanked" is not a condition, it's a consequence; flanking is something that the attacker does, not something that's inherent to the defender. The Combat rules explictly state (from the 3.5 SRD):
"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."

It's pretty clear. YOU get a bonus if a friendly character is on the opposite side, and only if you use a melee attack. If there's no friendly character on the opposite side, you don't get the flanking bonus, even if two of your friends are opposite each other (which'd give both of them the +2 bonus).

In fact, the word "flanked" doesn't actually appear in the Combat section at all; it's all "flanking the defender" and so on. The only place the word "flanked" is used is in the definition of Improved Uncanny Dodge, where its context is in the "no one can flank you" manner.

Of course, there's still been the discussion of how this deals with Reach weapons, or creatures with large footprints.

 

[Nail]

Just for giggles, I've SRD-ed this "problem" (although the real problem lies with the too-quick skim of the rules):

Sneak Attack:...(snip)... The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. ...(snip)...

 

[Unseelie]

"Flanked" is not a condition, it's a consequence; flanking is something that the attacker does, not something that's inherent to the defender. The Combat rules explictly state (from the 3.5 SRD):
"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."

It's pretty clear. YOU get a bonus if a friendly character is on the opposite side, and only if you use a melee attack. If there's no friendly character on the opposite side, you don't get the flanking bonus, even if two of your friends are opposite each other (which'd give both of them the +2 bonus).

In fact, the word "flanked" doesn't actually appear in the Combat section at all; it's all "flanking the defender" and so on. The only place the word "flanked" is used is in the definition of Improved Uncanny Dodge, where its context is in the "no one can flank you" manner.

Of course, there's still been the discussion of how this deals with Reach weapons, or creatures with large footprints.

Thank you, you explained that far better than I did...

Of course, with this definition, it's impossible to ever get a flanking bonus on Formians if there are more than one present.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Flanked" is not a condition, it's a consequence; flanking is something that the attacker does, not something that's inherent to the defender.

Completely correct, which makes the following nonsensical:

Hive Mind (Ex): All formians within 50 miles of their queen are in constant communication. If one is aware of a particular danger, they all are. If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are.

Of course, there's still been the discussion of how this deals with Reach weapons, or creatures with large footprints.

That's fairly well-covered in Song and Silence, isn't it?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, with this definition, it's impossible to ever get a flanking bonus on Formians if there are more than one present.

Snap

-Hyp.

 

[Coredump]

On the armor question - it's just one that just occurred to me. Seems like a weak arguement but there is something to be said about armor denying one's dex bonus being a penalty when trying to actively dodge or ward off lightweight attacks... Who would you rather fight (in RL) with a rapier? The plate mail, long sword wielding knight, or the leather clad ranger? Isn't that combo what finally moved the knights from the 'practical' combatant and introduced the dueling dandies?

No question, the knight is more of a danger. I would easily pick the ranger as my opponent. Especially if the knight gets a shield also....

The reason heavy armour went away was NOT because of dexterity, that was not a 'new' thing. The advent of gunpowder is what killed the usefulness of heavy armor.

.

 

[Darklone]

Completely correct, which makes the following nonsensical:

Hive Mind (Ex): All formians within 50 miles of their queen are in constant communication. If one is aware of a particular danger, they all are. If one in a group is not flatfooted, none of them are. No formian in a group is considered flanked unless all of them are.

-Hyp.

So the only way to sneak attack a Formian is by use of the Blink spell? Except for surprise rounds.

If one of them has to balance? Or is stunned?