Sneak attacking - I'm a tad confused

[Hypersmurf]

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?

Balancing won't work - in 3.5 it makes you flat-footed, and Formians don't get flat-footed unless it's all of them.

Climbing, running, stunned, blind, paralyzed, invisible attacker, feint...

There are plenty of ways to deny someone dex apart from flat-footed...

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

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.

Why is it nonsensical? Improved uncanny dodge also negates the ability to flank someone, and noone's ever complained about it. This is just another variation on that theme.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why is it nonsensical? Improved uncanny dodge also negates the ability to flank someone, and noone's ever complained about it. This is just another variation on that theme.

Because you are only flanking while making a melee attack.

Situation: we have two formians and four dwarves.

Dwarves A and B are standing directly opposite each other surrounding Formian X; Dwarves C and D surround Formian Y.

In this position, A and B are flanking X if one is making a melee attack and the other threatens Y. So when it is not A or B's turn, and therefore neither is making a melee attack, X is not flanked.

And so when it is C's turn, and he attacks Y, he satisfies all the normal conditions for flanking... except because nobody is making a melee attack against X, X is not flanked, and therefore via Hive Mind, Y is not flanked either.

Somebody apparently thought "two people threaten X, X is flanked", but that's not how flanking works. And therefore Hive Mind is nonsensical.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Somebody apparently thought "two people threaten X, X is flanked", but that's not how flanking works.

Given that hive mind has been written that way for the last 3 1/2 years, I think it's pretty clear that's how flanking is meant to work, regardless of what tortured syntax they use in the PHB. Certainly most people I know just assume that threatening is sufficient to flank.

And therefore Hive Mind is nonsensical.

Good heavens, it's Frank!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Certainly most people I know just assume that threatening is sufficient to flank.

That would mean you couldn't flank with an (untrained) unarmed strike or a 3.5 whip. And yet, by the rules, your melee attacks gain flanking bonuses as long as your ally threatens. But when he attacks, he doesn't gain a flanking bonus, because his ally - you - doesn't threaten.

The flanking rules are clear, but Hive Mind tries to use different rules that don't exist...

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

It does not have to be logical, it's a Hive mind

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

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.

.

Actually, I believe you are quite wrong...

I'll have to drift completely off-topic here, but in short the advent of the crossbow completely killed off the night.

Prior to that, the art of fencing was rapidly making grounds against the armored fighter, which is what we are talking about in a DND reference.

Knights in heavy armor were heavy cavalry, not infantry. The reason being no one could hike 20 miles in 120 lb armor, carrying a 20 lb sword. They were the shock troops - typically used to shatter enemy formations. The Men-at-Arms on the ground, usually dressed in leather and/or chain-mail, depending on the wealth of their liege, would then close in in formation, often backed by archers (or british longbowmen)

An armored knight on foot facing even as few as three determined peasants was mincemeat - though most flatly denied it. Quite simply, the broadsword of a knight was fearsome, but left them viciously open to multi-attacks. Their slow movements and 'broad' style of fighting left them particularly vulnerable to lightly armored, rapier/epee wielding opponents.

There are some accounts of duels between armored knights of the previous generation and the younger dandies... the dandies almost invariably won and often mocked their slower moving counterparts

Crossbows put the heavy knight into a coffin, and gunpowder sealed their fate, but the dandies were the ones to start the process.

 

[MerakSpielman]

On the hive mind / flanking conversation...

HS is right (as usual). The rule for Hive mind doesn't follow the rules for flanking. Flanking is a bonus applied to an attacker's roll under a specific circumstance. "Flanked" is not a condition a creature can possess. Look at the list of conditions in the DMG. Stunned. Dazed. Confused. Prone. Nowhere do you see "Flanked." Flanking, as a rule, is something that affects only the attackers, their bonuses, and whether they can activate their sneak attack ability. It is not a condition that affects the defender, except indirectly as they end up suffering more damage.

It would be different if the rule was "A creature that is flanked sufferes a -2 circumstance penalty to their AC." But it doesn't say that.

Sum up: Nowhere in the rules does it say a creature can be "flanked." However, a creature can be "flanking."

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'll have to drift completely off-topic here, but in short the advent of the crossbow completely killed off the night.

snip!

Crossbows put the heavy knight into a coffin, and gunpowder sealed their fate, but the dandies were the ones to start the process.

Armored knights were far too expensive to equip and maintain too. They couldn't carry their own supplies, required well-trained and expensive horses, the cost of a well-fitted suit of plate, etc... Well trained pikemen could decimate heavy cavalry, and were much cheaper. Just give 'em really long spears, a leather helmet and boots, and you're done! Knights were only really useful against the untrained conscripted serfs that often served as infantry back then.

 

[Sabaron]

Actually, I believe you are quite wrong...

Crossbows put the heavy knight into a coffin, and gunpowder sealed their fate, but the dandies were the ones to start the process.

Do you have any sources for this? I've never heard of an instance where a lightly armored "dandy" got into a fight with a heavily armored knight and won. Not to say that it's never happened, but I'd appreciate a source. Also, I think you might be over-estimating the encumbrance level plate armor inflicts on its wearers.