Sneaking Rogue’s and AoO

[kreynolds]

The guard was lucky (or somewhat less lucky with good tactics) and happened to focus on the right square.

Luck isn't a factor. If you aren't aware of an action taking place, one that would normally trigger an AoO, then you can't react to it, because you don't know its happening, thus you shouldn't get an AoO. You had your chance to detect the action (spot and listen), but if you failed it, you don't know it even happened.

You say that the guard might have been "lucky", right? How do you know that the rogue wasn't "lucky" as well? Somehow I doubt that a sneaking rogue would walk through a threatened area with her eyes closed. She would be careful not to get hit by a "lucky" swing (whatever that means). Either way, luck isn't a factor. If it is, then you have to take into account the rogue's luck, at which point they cancel each other out, thus luck isn't a factor anyways.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Originally posted by kreynolds

Luck isn't a factor. If you aren't aware of an action taking place, one that would normally trigger an AoO, then you can't react to it, because you don't know its happening, thus you shouldn't get an AoO. You had your chance to detect the action (spot and listen), but if you failed it, you don't know it even happened.

Alright, we have differing perceptions of what an AoO is.

To my mind an AoO is simply the result of maintaining an effective defense. You are ALWAYS threatening those around you. When they let down their guard this vigilence pays off. You don't have to realize that they did it, you'll know it if you connect. If you don't you won't notice much at all.


You say that the guard might have been "lucky", right?


One of out three squares lucky. That's if he's smart.


How do you know that the rogue wasn't "lucky" as well?


He's got 50% of luck built into the system. More over none of this is really luck. It's choices on the part of each participant.


Somehow I doubt that a sneaking rogue would walk through a threatened area with her eyes closed. She would be careful not to get hit by a "lucky" swing (whatever that means).


Take 5 foot steps then. Taking 24 seconds to get past somebody with no penalty is not outrageous.


Either way, luck isn't a factor. If it is, then you have to take into account the rogue's luck, at which point they cancel each other out, thus luck isn't a factor anyways.

50%, 50%, 50%. You are right in that luck isn't the real issue, it's tactical choices. It is perhaps why I happen to like it.

If you've got something ruleswise please share it. I know my above views are heavily influenced by 2e.

I don't believe such rules text exists. Mostly I see 'common sense' agruments which really don't mean much in general.

 

[kreynolds]

If you've got something ruleswise please share it.

Excuse me? I never claimed it was in the rules. If you wish to make such demands, when I never even made such a claim in the first place, then provide your referrences.

I know my above views are heavily influenced by 2e.

I can understand that, but this isn't 2nd edition.

I don't believe such rules text exists.

I can't quote any rules that 100% support my view, but neither have you quoted any rules that 100% support your view either. Like I said, I never claimed the rules specifically state that I am right. I didn't even elude to such a thing.

Mostly I see 'common sense' agruments which really don't mean much in general.

First of all, there's no reason to be rude. Secondly, I see your own argument as a 'common sense' argument as well. There are different interpretations on this, and two of them make a lot of sense. I just favor one over the other.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Excuse me? I never claimed it was in the rules. If you wish to make such demands, when I never even made such a claim in the first place, then provide your referrences.

Woa, now. That statement wasn't me being snippy or anything of the sort. It was an honest request for anybody to share relevant information. It was clearly misunderstood.

I can understand that, but this isn't 2nd edition.

Which was an explaination of where my views originate. I can go too far in the 'combat is abstract' camp and it's why. I realize perfectly well that this isn't 2e.

I can't quote any rules that 100% support my view, but neither have you quoted any rules that 100% support your view either. Like I said, I never claimed the rules specifically state that I am right. I didn't even elude to such a thing.

You are stating that this situation is different from every other. I'm simply stating that we use the listed modifications in the rules and that's that. You are pushing for a special case scenario where none exists in the rules.

I can't point to rules that say you do get AoO's against invisibile foes. I also can't point to rules that say you get AoO's on Tuesday.

First of all, there's no reason to be rude. Secondly, I see your own argument as a 'common sense' argument as well. There are different interpretations on this, and two of them make a lot of sense. I just favor one over the other.

'Common sense' is for those who like it. It's a valid choice. I like to make informed choices. I want to know what the rules actually say before I decide to change them. It is my belief that the case I'm pushing for is what the rules say. I also find it happens to be in accord with my 'Common sense', others may not. Abstract models can sometimes give counter-intuitive results.

I'm not really sure where you thought I was intending to offend you. I wasn't. I don't know if I caught you on a bad day or something, however if you really want to point it out (PM or email please) I'll take a look at it and see.

 

[Shiva]

Re: Sneaking Rogue’s and AoO

Do you let a foe’s get AoO against a Rogue that successfully Sneaks past then but moves though there Threatened space?


Say a Guard is watching a Gate and sees the Rogue near by but loses the Rogue in the darkness. He stands guard at the gate trying to find the Rogue but fails to Spot/Listen the Rogue and the Rouge sneaks by having to go though two of the Guard’s Threatened spaces and dose so with a 15 foot move.

Do you let the Guard get a AoO on the Rogue for moving within his Threatened Space?


To me the Guard failed his spot/listen and so has no idea that the Rogue has made it past him and so does not get a AoO against the Rogue.

What do you think?

I agree - he does not get an AoO.
Some argue that he still provokes an AoO even if not detected, some argue not. Even if he does provoke an AoO he doesn't know where his opponent is, in order to lash out. And I don't believe he can just guess - to do so means he chooses which square to attack, and if that was allowed it should be allowed in any AoO situation. Which means a provocation could result in any opponent in range being the target of the AoO.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Sneaking Rogue’s and AoO

Which means a provocation could result in any opponent in range being the target of the AoO.

Sure, why not? The worldview that allows AoOs against invisible opponents assumes that there are all sorts of attacks going on that simply don't warrant rolls, because they're meeting prepared defences, parries, etc.

If you make an AoO against the wrong opponent, it simply doesn't work.

Where's the problem?

-Hyp.

 

[melkoriii]

Funny how the same ppl from the other thread come here except one or two.

There are no rules for AoO and Invisible attackers. It was a over sight by WotC (Like soooooo many others)

So you have to look at the intent of other rules invalving invisable attackers. One is that You do not get your Dex against a invisable foe.
Looking at Flatfooted stats that you are dexless and can not make AoO.

By being dexless sugests that you can not react to them and so can be Sneak Attacked.

Commen sence follows that you can not react agresivly against something you are unaware of and even knowing something is there but can not see or hear it is still unaware.


It is stated that to even be aware of a Invisiable creature one must make a Listen check.


There are lots of things sugesting you dont get AoO against Invisable/hidden foes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Looking at Flatfooted stats that you are dexless and can not make AoO.

Aargh!

It is stated that to even be aware of a Invisiable creature one must make a Listen check.

Aargh!

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

Woa, now. That statement wasn't me being snippy or anything of the sort. It was an honest request for anybody to share relevant information. It was clearly misunderstood.

It's possible that I misinterpreted the tone of your post.

Which was an explaination of where my views originate.

Right, which is why I said "I can understand that".

I realize perfectly well that this isn't 2e.

I realize that. I was saying that I understand where you're coming from, but I was also saying that 2nd edition logic doesn't really apply.

You are stating that this situation is different from every other.

More or less.

I'm simply stating that we use the listed modifications in the rules and that's that.

Right, and I disagree with you.

You are pushing for a special case scenario where none exists in the rules.

No. I'm pushing for a scenario that isn't explicitly and directly covered in the rules, a scenario that is only covered with extrapolation of said rules, as opposed to being able to point to a line of text and saying "There" like usual. There's a difference.

I can't point to rules that say you do get AoO's against invisibile foes.

Neither can I, thus the problem, thus the discussion, thus differing opinions.

I also can't point to rules that say you get AoO's on Tuesday.

That's because there's no such thing as "Tuesday" in 3rd Edition.

'Common sense' is for those who like it. It's a valid choice.

I agree. I just don't agree with your 'common sense'. I like mine, and others', better.

I like to make informed choices.

So do I, and as far as I'm concerned, I have.

I want to know what the rules actually say before I decide to change them.

But that's just it. From what I can tell, I'm not changing them.

It is my belief that the case I'm pushing for is what the rules say.

Same goes for me and my own argument, thus a discussion, thus a disagreement. It's no big deal if we disagree.

I also find it happens to be in accord with my 'Common sense', others may not.

Others do, others do not. This thing is nearly split right down the middle. It's a mess.

Abstract models can sometimes give counter-intuitive results.

Except that in this case, I don't think either of the results (yours or mine) are counter-intuitive. I just think one is more sensible and logical than the other.

I'm not really sure where you thought I was intending to offend you.

The tone of your post.

I wasn't.

That's cool. I get ya'.

I don't know if I caught you on a bad day or something...

Not at all. Yesterday was a great day. I got off work early for the new years and got to run my D20 Modern game.

...however if you really want to point it out (PM or email please) I'll take a look at it and see.

That's not necessary. I believe you when you say you weren't trying to be offensive. It's all good.

 

[LokiDR]

I would think, from strict rules standpoint, a foe who travels through a threatened space triggers an AoO. If the combatant can not see the opponent, the combatant suffers a 50% miss chance. No mention of picking squares, just those rules apply.

I wouldn't use that interpretation, unless the combatant's player said "I am swinging wildly trying to hit the rogue I saw before." Otherwise, I would treat this a like being flat footed vs. that oppent: no dex, and no AoOs.

Honestly, I don't think it is covered very well in the rules.