Sneak attacks within an Obscuring Mist

[Daedrova]

Hypersmurf, restating your interpretation isn’t helping us at all. I see no rules that back up any of your statements.
This is a spell, and we are talking about the squares (area) it affects- not its “area of effect”. That was my mistype.
From the glossary in the PH:
Square: A square on the battle grid. A square … represents a 5-foot by 5-foot area. The terms “1 square” and “5 feet” are generally interchangeable.
Adjacent: In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square. Each square is adjacent to eight other squares on the board.

Why would the spell not say “adjacent creatures/squares” gain concealment?

One square is not 5 feet away from an adjacent square. There is no distance between those squares.
How much space is there between two adjacent characters on a battle board? Does a medium size creature take up a 5 ft square? Looking at rules for combat movement we know that they do. So what you need to answer here is this: if two adjacent squares have no distance between them, and a medium creature takes up a square, why would there now be 5 feet of distance between two adjacent mediums size creatures? Find something in the Core rules to support your answer.

It's clear that when the rules use the expression "a creature 5 feet away", they are referring to a creature in an adjacent square.

Show some examples.

If you're flat-footed when someone loses their invisibility, you don't 'automatically get your Dex'. …
If you're not flat-footed when someone exits an area providing concealment, thus losing their ability to hide, you do 'automatically get your Dex'. In both cases, when they cease to be totally concealed, you are no longer denied your Dex bonus.

Yes, you are simply restating what you already said. Show me some supporting evidence. From what I see in the PH under the Hide skill “You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check.” This does not say anything about automatic and immediate awareness by others when you are no longer concealed.

Secondly, you gave to no reason as to why a character unaware of an attacking character retains Dex bonus against him when time is artificially being measured in combat rounds.
Furthermore, you are making an assumption that that combat rounds have already started.
Under SURPRISE on pg 137 of the PH “When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you’re surprised.”
How has combat started when the Observer (or we could say victim) wasn’t even aware of the concealed/hidden attacker?
Why would the victim be aware of the attacker even if he was already in combat with someone else?

What does the real world have to do with D&D Combat mechanics?

They are based on the mechanics of the real world, and attempt to present easy to use rules for handling situations that mimic reality.

 

[sfedi]

The "two adjacent squares are 5 feet away" thing that Hyp mentions, is mentioned on the PHB 3.5 and in the DMG, in the part Movement and the Grid.

I can't see why are you arguing against this.
Is pretty obvious that two creatures standing in adjacent squares are 5 foot away from each other. How would a splash weapon work if it hit one of them? Wouldn't the splash affect one of them, or both "because there are 0 feet between them"?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think of it this way: if at the beginning of combat you lose your dex bonus and the opponent steps out from a corner (5') and makes an attack against you, why does he get S.A. dmg? Because you can't react, right?

Strictly, at the beginning of combat, you are flat-footed until your first action.

While you are flat-footed, you are denied your Dex bonus to AC.

If you are denied your Dex bonus to AC, you can be sneak attacked.

Well what about him being surprised is causing him not to be able to react? If you cite flatfootedness you get trapped in circular reasoning. The reason he is flatfooted is because he lost his dex bonus. They just happen to have a special name for it at the beginning of combat.

Absolutely not. You are flat-footed because you have not yet acted in combat. 'Flat-footed' is not 'a special name' for being denied one's Dex bonus to AC. Flat-footed is a condition; one of the effects of that condition is losing one's Dex bonus to AC.

If this maneuver was performed at the start of a combat or in the middle makes no difference. In both cases, the opponent will lose their dex bonus. Why, because the opponent was unaware of the attack before it happened.

By the rules, it makes every difference. If the maneuver is performed before the opponent has acted in the combat, he is flat-footed. If it is performed after he has acted in combat, he is not flat-footed.

One square is not 5 feet away from an adjacent square.

But a creature is one square away from a creature in an adjacent square. And 'one square' and 'five feet' are interchangeable terms.

Show some examples.

I already did. The expression "a creature 10 feet away" is used to describe a creature in a square with one (1) empty square between them and you. This is supported by diagrams demonstrating Reach.

We're not measuring from the east edge of our square to the west edge of their square (since that would be five feet away - the width of the intervening square). We're measuring from centre to centre. That's the only way the text and the diagram can agree.

We can't say that "a creature 10 feet away" is a creature in a square with a single empty square in between for Reach weapons, and "a creature 5 feet away" is a creature in a square with a single empty square in between for Obscuring Mist. The two different numbers can't describe the same situation.

And since Reach weapons have supporting diagrams, we know that "a creature 10 feet away" is the correct description for that situation.

Thus, "a creature five feet away" must be a creature one square closer than we could hit with our longspear - in other words, a creature in an adjacent square.

Why would the victim be aware of the attacker even if he was already in combat with someone else?

Since he's in combat with someone, "combat has started", and thus surprise does not apply. He is not flat-footed.

If combat has not started, then yes, absolutely, he is surprised. And flat-footed. But if it has, he isn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Elrik_DarkFury]

Since he's in combat with someone, "combat has started", and thus surprise does not apply. He is not flat-footed.

If combat has not started, then yes, absolutely, he is surprised. And flat-footed. But if it has, he isn't.

-Hyp.

He is indeed not flat-footed, but once he is not aware of you, you get to play first without having to roll for initiative and he is also denied of his dex bonus to armor class (he is not aware of you).
The previous (according to dm's guide pg.24) are to simulate the advantage of the player aware of the combat.

Also a few lines lower in the same page ,-paragraph about newcomers not aware, we can see that the newcomer in a already exsisting battle can get flatfooted under certain cirquamstances.

This (i assume) means that the combat between the newcomers and the combatants practically starts when newcomers enter the fray.
That means that the people already fighting can be surprised too and thus loose their dex in armor class if the newcomer cared to hide and move silently.

This means practically that you can jump of the shadows and stab the enemy at the back while he(unaware of your presense) attacks a member of your party.

**forgot to mention that i humbly think that this interpretation is far more reallistic**
_________________
The Wizard

 

[Daedrova]

Well, Elrik_DarkFury effectively sums up the argument concerning when surprise applies and sneak attack can be taken.

Regarding OM square semantics:
You made a good point Hypersmurf. I can agree that the purpose of the spell may be as you describe here, and that was probably the designers intent/meaning. The problem is with the language used in the spell description. Two creatures in adjacent squares aren’t actually 5 feet away, as they are not simply center points within the squares (and as mentioned earlier, they are supposed to take up the square, so we are still running into a incongruity in the rules interpreting this way).
What you describe concerns mainly movement. I do agree though, there should be agreement with terms used between spells, movement, etc., and assuming those terms are intended to be used in the same way within this spell’s wording (despite its literal inconsistency), the spell should work as you say.

 

[Aaron2]

Should he get a sneak attack against someone who has total cover against him?

How does he intend on actually delivering this attack?

He peaks around the edge of the column (thus having improved cover with its +10 bonus to Hide).


Aaron

 

[Aaron2]

I would say yes, if he was able to make the attack with surprise. To be more clear, lets take your example. Combatant A is the one hiding. Combatant A has spiderclimbing. So he runs behind the column and then moves up it silently. Then while B moves around and doesn't find A, A drops on top of him with the intention of braeking his neck.

I agree mostly with you. A character has to do -something- to warrent a sneak attack. Just Hiding isn't always enough. Hiding does not automatically make you opponent "unaware" of you! I might let a character rush out of a OM (or darkness etc) and get a sneak attack. Once. I wouldn't let him go back into the OM, Hide again, and do it all over.

I went through the SRD looking for all instances where a character is denied his Dex mod. Here's all I could find:

Being Blinded, Cowering, being Flat-Footed, Grappling (except versus the person you are grappling with), being Helpless, opponent Invisible, being Paralyzed (or any other condition causing helplessness), being Stunned, lifting more than your maximum load, running, sqeezing through a space less than half your width, subject to a feint, while Balancing, and while Climbing.

"Hidden" characters and being "aware of you" are not mentioned.

Plus there were a few more general things mentioned; when your opponent is "unseen", when you "can't react to a blow", and when you are "unable to defend yourself effectively from an attack." These last three conditions give plenty of wiggle room for DM to declare sneak attacks in situations where the rules may not specifically call for one.


Aaron

 

[Aaron2]

Also a few lines lower in the same page ,-paragraph about newcomers not aware, we can see that the newcomer in a already exsisting battle can get flatfooted under certain cirquamstances.

This (i assume) means that the combat between the newcomers and the combatants practically starts when newcomers enter the fray.
That means that the people already fighting can be surprised too and thus loose their dex in armor class if the newcomer cared to hide and move silently.

This means practically that you can jump of the shadows and stab the enemy at the back while he(unaware of your presense) attacks a member of your party.

I seems to me that you are using the terms "aware" and "unaware" backwards. They are always used to describe whether or not the acting character is aware of combat. I am "aware" if I know combat is going on and I am "unaware" if I don't. You do not keep track of which characters are aware of which enemies. Character that are aware stay aware until the end of combat, regardless of new combatants or people hiding.

Look on page 24 of the DMG. "If any of the newcomers are aware of one or both sides in a battle, they take their actions before anyone else." So, a newcomer is not flat-footed even if he only sees his own allies. Even if all the enemy characters are hidden or out of sight, the newcomer is not flat-footed!


Aaron

 

[Gaiden]

Absolutely not. You are flat-footed because you have not yet acted in combat. 'Flat-footed' is not 'a special name' for being denied one's Dex bonus to AC. Flat-footed is a condition; one of the effects of that condition is losing one's Dex bonus to AC.

I think you are getting caught up in the convention of the rules. The designation of combat rounds is arbitrary because it is based on a convention. Think of it this way. You could just as easily run an entire game in combat rounds (except for the absolutely arduous amount of time it would take) in which case there would never be another surprise round again. The combat scheme is made for convenience and flatfooted while being a condition is a simplification for the start of combat. It amounts to nothing more than being unable to react as you would if you were completely aware of your opponent.

Surprise while a defined term in D&D that deals with the start of combat can also be used descriptively. If there is a combat between X and Y and I am Z and neither X nor Y know about me yet, I can surprise them (whether or not you want to follow the rules and put me at Iniative 20+mod or not is irrelevant). I would still be "surprising" X and Y. More importantly I would be surprising them in the same fashion as one could have suprised the other before X and Y engaged in combat. Sure, the rules don't say that X and Y are flatfooted anymore, but come up with a logical reason why there is any difference between when X and Y engaged combat and when Z engages X and Y and they just happen to be in combat with eachother.

By the way, let's end this discussion of 5' away nonsense. The concealment from obscuring mist starts at the squares adjacent to you. If you have any question as to that ruling, consider the exact working of the RAW as unintentionally misleading or ambiguous and that the actual rule is as above. There is no debate about this.

 

[Daedrova]

By the way, let's end this discussion of 5' away nonsense. The concealment from obscuring mist starts at the squares adjacent to you. If you have any question as to that ruling, consider the exact working of the RAW as unintentionally misleading or ambiguous and that the actual rule is as above. There is no debate about this.

We should end the discussion now?
I am sorry, was the content indecent? Did it break one of the EN World message board rules? No? Oh, wait, your not a moderator. Just one who believes himself possessive of enough authority to end any debate that he doesn’t deem worthy of his sight.

Did you not see that we had already reached this point in the discussion? My last post stated that clearly enough. The intent of the spell is to provide concealment to adjacent creatures, but can be interpreted otherwise because of its wording. But don’t condescend someone and dismiss valid argument they may have had by calling the entirety of it “non-sense.” That is aggravating.