Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gaiden" data-source="post: 1886697" data-attributes="member: 103">I must humbly prostrate myself to your wisdom, but still (humbly) disagree.&nbsp; If you want to take the RAW precisely, I could be lawyerish and simply argue that the whole grapple procedure attack is initiated from 5' away.&nbsp; Sure, you move into the square and then make the touch attack, but the movement into the square is still part of the grapple.&nbsp; Because the whole attack begins at 5' away as does any other melee attack and as with any other melee attack, you become visible and don't benefit from such concealment when your weapon enters the opponent's square to actually connect, the two cases are treated identically (in terms of hiding rules).I think what this really comes down to is ideology.&nbsp; I tend to take a:&nbsp; the RAW provide a guide that I will follow as closely as possible and are intended to outline real world (or fantasy-real world) mechanics.&nbsp; So in this case, rather than simply stating no, I try and come up with something that follows the rules as closely as possible (without violating any of them) and meshes what's already there while satisfying my mental image of what's going on.We disagree with our very tenets because I don't think the whole concealment is required for the attack in the first place but was trying to convince you within your perspective.&nbsp; I don't think the concealment is necessary because once you are hidden and the opponent is unaware of you, your first attack is made with surprise in my book regardless of whether you leave that concealment or not.&nbsp; I think of it this way:&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Because you can't react, right?&nbsp; Well what about him being surprised is causing him not to be able to react?&nbsp; If you cite flatfootedness you get trapped in circular reasoning.&nbsp; The reason he is flatfooted is because he lost his dex bonus.&nbsp; They just happen to have a special name for it at the beginning of combat.&nbsp; What is descriptively different from the beginning of the combat as I have described and the middle of combat with a combatant stepping out of an obscuring mist?&nbsp; I can cater the scenario to my favor:&nbsp; let's assume that before combat started both combatants were &quot;aware&quot; that there was another combatant out there but neither knew precisely where the other was.&nbsp; So the notion of being prepared for the attack is irrelevant.&nbsp; I say there is no difference.&nbsp; If this maneuver was performed at the start of a combat or in the middle makes no difference.&nbsp; In both cases, the opponent will lose their dex bonus.&nbsp; Why, because the opponent was unaware of the attack before it happened.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gaiden, post: 1886697, member: 103"] I must humbly prostrate myself to your wisdom, but still (humbly) disagree. If you want to take the RAW precisely, I could be lawyerish and simply argue that the whole grapple procedure attack is initiated from 5' away. Sure, you move into the square and then make the touch attack, but the movement into the square is still part of the grapple. Because the whole attack begins at 5' away as does any other melee attack and as with any other melee attack, you become visible and don't benefit from such concealment when your weapon enters the opponent's square to actually connect, the two cases are treated identically (in terms of hiding rules). I think what this really comes down to is ideology. I tend to take a: the RAW provide a guide that I will follow as closely as possible and are intended to outline real world (or fantasy-real world) mechanics. So in this case, rather than simply stating no, I try and come up with something that follows the rules as closely as possible (without violating any of them) and meshes what's already there while satisfying my mental image of what's going on. We disagree with our very tenets because I don't think the whole concealment is required for the attack in the first place but was trying to convince you within your perspective. I don't think the concealment is necessary because once you are hidden and the opponent is unaware of you, your first attack is made with surprise in my book regardless of whether you leave that concealment or not. 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? 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. What is descriptively different from the beginning of the combat as I have described and the middle of combat with a combatant stepping out of an obscuring mist? I can cater the scenario to my favor: let's assume that before combat started both combatants were "aware" that there was another combatant out there but neither knew precisely where the other was. So the notion of being prepared for the attack is irrelevant. I say there is no difference. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification