Two questions about feinting in Combat

[buchw001]

Well...

Seeing as my question originally got this little debate rolling, and I have been listening and learning based on all of the posts in this thread, here is my two copper pieces (or should I say what my research has discovered in the FAQ)

Suppose a character makes a trip attempt against a foe who is flat-footed. Now, the foe loses her Dexterity modifier against the melee touch attack that the attacker makes as part of the trip attack, but does she also lose her Strength modifier when resolving the trip attempt (assuming that the melee touch attack succeeds)? Normally, one can resist a trip attempt with either a Strength or Dexterity check. Is using Dexterity an option if you’re caught flat-footed? Similar questions arise when trying to grapple, bull rush, and disarm flat-footed opponents.

Being flat-footed negates your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, but it does not affect your ability to make opposed rolls. Your ability to react to danger is somewhat compromised when flat-footed, but only slightly. For example, you become subject to sneak attacks, but you make saving throws (even Reflex saving throws) normally. If you’re caught flat-footed and an opponent attempts to trip you, you lose your Dexterity bonus (assuming you have one) to Armor Class against the initial touch attack, but you make the ensuing opposed roll normally. You still can use either Dexterity or Strength for your opposed roll. (The attacker always uses Strength.) The same is true for grappling: You lose your Dexterity bonus against the grab, but you make a normal opposed roll against the hold. Bull rushing and disarming don’t require initial attack rolls against the targets, so it isn.t any easier to carry out these actions against flat-footed opponents than it is against more active foes.

So, this seems to further support Hyp.

Anyone else find more info on this?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, this seems to further support Hyp.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence - I will point out that the quote isn't really relevant to the point of contention between myself and Celtavian... namely can (or, perhaps, "should") a person denied Dex bonus but not flat-footed make an AoO?

So the FAQ quote, I'm afraid, neither supports nor detracts from either side...

-Hyp.

 

[buchw001]

Actually I was using the FAQ quote to support your statement that being denied DEX bonus and being flat-footed are clearly not the same.

I believe your emphasis was "they bloody aren't (the same)"

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually I was using the FAQ quote to support your statement that being denied DEX bonus and being flat-footed are clearly not the same.

Oh

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that from a rules standpoint, they're different.

People are just saying they shouldn't be... or something.

Which I've always thought is exactly the sort of discussion that belongs here, but Celtavian disagrees.

-Hyp.

 

[satori01]

[


I have no qualms about allowing someone with Combat Reflexes to make an AoO against an invisible opponent they didn't know was there.

-

Which seems incredible to me, where does the person strike?
Do you have him or her chose a 5' square at random and roll an attack?
Now by all means if the character w/ combat reflexes has identified the location of the character via spot or listen, he or she obviously should get the AOO,(w/ all the appropriate penalties).
It just seems nonsensical to me to rule that an invisible character, that has made all the appropriate "stealth" checks, would be ruled as letting their guard down,(which as we all know is a large component of AOO), by moving through a square threatened by an individual that is unaware of their exsistence.
Combat Reflexes essentially becomes an invisiblity mine sweeper... hmm de hmm de hmm WHACK!!! oh my an invisible foe get him.

(This is by no means an ad hominum attack, I just find it one of those weird rules implications that make me go ... whaaat?)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which seems incredible to me, where does the person strike?
Do you have him or her chose a 5' square at random and roll an attack?

If he elects to take the AoO? Yup. And roll his 50% miss chance as normal.

Call it Spider-Senses, if you like

Of course, if he doesn't have a melee weapon out, he doesn't threaten an area (assuming you accept the Sage's ruling on that one), so it only applies if he's holding a weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[satori01]

How do you contend with the minesweeper aspect?
The location genie is out of the bottle, do you just rule that only the character with combat reflexes can make the attack and then immedietly forgets the location of the invisible character?
seems a bit strained to me in the "realistic model" department.

Player 1"Bob why did you swing your spiked chain?"
Player 2" I dont know felt a disturbance in the force"
P1" I strike where Bob stuck at?"
Dm you dont know where that is, only bob and his spider sense knew, but know not even bob knows, but the shadow Knows muhaaamuhaa

I call dibs on the Storm Giant combat reflex guru in Hyps next campaign

 

[Hypersmurf]

The location genie is out of the bottle, do you just rule that only the character with combat reflexes can make the attack and then immedietly forgets the location of the invisible character?

If he hits? Of course not. There's obviously something there, 'cos it's bleeding.

If he misses, all he knows is that an AoO was provoked. He doesn't know who, or where, or why; he doesn't know if he missed because he attacked the wrong square, or because of the concealment, or because of a bad attack roll.

It also means that if there are both allied and enemy creatures invisible in combat, any creature moving through a threatened square provokes an AoO. The player needs to decide, without knowing whether it's an enemy or ally, whether he wants to take that AoO. The risk is hitting your friend.

Of course, this works better in PbEM format, when it doesn't follow immediately from the adjacent player declaring "I sneak invisibly up to the ogre and..."

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Hypersmurf,

Without getting any further into it, I did not like the way you addressed nimisgod. The poster did not make an unreasonable leap of logic as you made it seem.

The comment and analogy used to respond to nimisgod seemed to me to imply that he was somehow being completely illogical and stupid. I had to disagree and state my reasons why.

Which I've always thought is exactly the sort of discussion that belongs here, but Celtavian disagrees.

Yes, I do believe someone should be able to give their opinion on an optional application of a rule if the reasoning is sound. It is up to the poster to decide what application he wishes to use.

IMO, the house rules forum is for discussion of what I call "Pure House Rules". Things like hero points, new spells, new magic systems etc.

Ever notice that people discuss Haste and Harm in the rules forum, not the house rules forum. Why? All changes to those two spells are House rules, but they get discussed in the rules forum because they are core rules that people have changed that cause problems in campaigns.

I would think the rules forum is for discussion of the core rules not just from a pure mechanical perspective, but also from a situational and theoretical perspective. The poster asking any question has the choice of using an exact rules interpretation or maybe using some of the ideas given by others. Offering different interpretations does not in anyway hurt a discussion of the rules, and I would even venture to say that it more often than not enhances rule discussions.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

If he misses, all he knows is that an AoO was provoked. He doesn't know who, or where, or why; he doesn't know if he missed because he attacked the wrong square, or because of the concealment, or because of a bad attack roll.

It also means that if there are both allied and enemy creatures invisible in combat, any creature moving through a threatened square provokes an AoO. The player needs to decide, without knowing whether it's an enemy or ally, whether he wants to take that AoO. The risk is hitting your friend.

How does the attacker know the person's defenses are down if they can't see them? How do you provoke an AOO given that the game designers are using the the premiss that an AOO is a lowering of an enemies defenses?

That is what I would like you and the game designers to explain.
I'd love to hear the justification not just from your perspective, but also from the game designers.