Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks part 3

[Hypersmurf]

Eh? Isn't hypersmurf saying that you accuse him of having a vendetta against the sage?

... am I?

Gosh, I should be more careful...

-Hyp.

 

[Rallets Artois]

wow I really can't be bothered to read all of that.

Why are people even talking about closing their eyes in a fight. If you do that you get beaten up. You cannot "actively" ignore someone. You have to be aware of them. You cannot choose to ignore someone. its not the same as not taking notice of what someone says. You will remain aware of a person if if you choose not to react to their efforts. You would have to conciously choose to not react therefore you are acknowleging their existance.

Invisibility is not the same as ignoring someone you just dont see them.

Im actually opposed to the fact that you only get one sneak attack in when going from invisible to visible. look at it this way.

At the start of a round everyone is flat footed. the rogue goes 1st so will get all his attacks as a sneak attack as his foe has not reacted yet. ok we agree to that.

Now if he is invisable but goes after his foe his foe is not flatfooted for inititive reasons but because he cant see and cant react. 1st hit goes in as sneak the rogue is then visable. but still has an attack left which would be a normal attack. No why is it a person can react instantly now but couldnt before. in the 1st instance the foe is aware of the rogue but is slow off the mark. In the second the foe isnt aware but reacts with lightning speed.

but this is a personal peeve so please dont trouble yourself on this one.

 

[glass]

Ah, I see the problem. You don't fully understand the "threaten" rules. In this game, you threaten not by MAKING an attack, but by being able to make one (even if you don't).

An invisible opponent can "threaten" a square while playing softball, or throttling a meth-amped squirrel, or using a plunger to clear a very clogged toilet, or proving a sub-lemma related to Group Theory, or having one finger quite deeply embedded in a moist, warm, juicy cherry pie. As long as this invisible opponent can MAKE an attack (in theory) he threatens.

So, the invisible opponent can stand behind the barbarian and never attack and yet still threatens and still allows his pal to flank on the other side.

Similarly, Charley Nose-Pick can stand there with a greatsword, never once swing it, yet still help his pal flank.

Got it?

tauton_ikhnos has got it, you haven't. D&D combat is abstract. Just because you don't take and Attack Action doesn't mean you are not trying to attack. The rules assume that you are always trying to attack any foe who might come within reach: that is why you threaten an area. You don't have to take any opening that come your way (you can always wait for a better one), but you are looking and probing for them.

glass.

 

[two]

Can't have it both ways

tauton_ikhnos has got it, you haven't. D&D combat is abstract. Just because you don't take and Attack Action doesn't mean you are not trying to attack. The rules assume that you are always trying to attack any foe who might come within reach: that is why you threaten an area. You don't have to take any opening that come your way (you can always wait for a better one), but you are looking and probing for them.

glass.

The rules don't assume anything; you are assuming something. You are saying the rules state "you are always trying to attack any foe who might come within reach; that is why you threaten an area". Which is bunk.

You threaten an area you can make a melee attack into. Done. More than that is opinion.

You can threaten an area and do lots of stuff instead of attacking a foe, for example, loading up a heavy crossbow or taking a scroll out of a backpack and reading it. Unless you posit these can be done while at the same time dancing around poking at everyone you threaten (8 or more squares)? That's a lot of hopping. Hope the scroll ain't dropped.

This sort of thing is simply not in the rules.

A rogue that is "bluffing" being paralyzed (standing still, perhaps acting like he was "held personed") still threatens, despite not trying to attack foes that come into reach. Indeed, still threatens when absolutely still. Imagine an Eskimo over a seal hole. Does the eskimo "threaten" the hole? Yup. He is busy doing a "dance of death" with seals that come up? Probably not; it's much more effective to remain absolutely still and then BOOM strike.

A wizard with a dagger in one hand, casting a summon monster III (full round casting time) still threatens with the dagger, despite not attacking any ememies in range (and possibly losing the ongoing spell). The Wizard could CHOOSE to make an AOO and lose the spell, but is not required to do so.

Neither of these quite valid possibilities involve "looking and probing" for the enemy, in your words.

Listen, if D&D is abstract, as you say, (and it is) it needs to encompass all the possibilities supported by the rule; your conception of "threatening" as actively "probing, looking," whatever actually is quite limiting. D&D as stated supports a broader category of interpretations. The include "probing looking" etc. but also the PC that simply stand there waiting for an opening.

 

[Nail]

A wizard with a dagger in one hand, casting a summon monster III (full round casting time) still threatens with the dagger, despite not attacking any ememies in range (and possibly losing the ongoing spell).

Errr....what?

Huh. I guess that's possible...so a cleric casting SM III defensively while next to an opponent could provide a flanking bonus to an ally, as long as the cleric has a weapon in one hand.

Huh.

 

[Darklone]

Errr....what?

Huh. I guess that's possible...so a cleric casting SM III defensively while next to an opponent could provide a flanking bonus to an ally, as long as the cleric has a weapon in one hand.

Huh.

Guess why my cleric has a polearm and combat reflexes.

 

[glass]

You can threaten an area and do lots of stuff instead of attacking a foe, for example, loading up a heavy crossbow or taking a scroll out of a backpack and reading it. Unless you posit these can be done while at the same time dancing around poking at everyone you threaten (8 or more squares)? That's a lot of hopping. Hope the scroll ain't dropped.

Neither of these people threaten anybody.

A rogue that is "bluffing" being paralyzed (standing still, perhaps acting like he was "held personed") still threatens, despite not trying to attack foes that come into reach. Indeed, still threatens when absolutely still. Imagine an Eskimo over a seal hole. Does the eskimo "threaten" the hole? Yup. He is busy doing a "dance of death" with seals that come up? Probably not; it's much more effective to remain absolutely still and then BOOM strike.

The RAW probably do not cover the rogue. I'd probably play it as a feint attempt against multiple targets. As for the Eskimo, combat hasn't started yet, so he doesn't threaten anybody.

A wizard with a dagger in one hand, casting a summon monster III (full round casting time) still threatens with the dagger, despite not attacking any ememies in range (and possibly losing the ongoing spell). The Wizard could CHOOSE to make an AOO and lose the spell, but is not required to do so.

Are you sure about that? I can't swear you're wrong on this point, but it doesn't sound right to me.

Listen, if D&D is abstract, as you say, (and it is) it needs to encompass all the possibilities supported by the rule; your conception of "threatening" as actively "probing, looking," whatever actually is quite limiting. D&D as stated supports a broader category of interpretations. The include "probing looking" etc. but also the PC that simply stand there waiting for an opening.

If simply standing the looking for an opening was enough, why don't character with ranged weapons threaten an area?


glass.

 

[glass]

Guess why my cleric has a polearm and combat reflexes.

You can't use a polearm in one hand, can you?

glass.

 

[two]

Why not?

Neither of these people threaten anybody.



The RAW probably do not cover the rogue. I'd probably play it as a feint attempt against multiple targets. As for the Eskimo, combat hasn't started yet, so he doesn't threaten anybody.



Are you sure about that? I can't swear you're wrong on this point, but it doesn't sound right to me.



If simply standing the looking for an opening was enough, why don't character with ranged weapons threaten an area?


glass.

If you have a spiked gauntlet, or are a monk, or have improved unarmed strike (i.e. any of many ways to be a melee threat) and you load a heavy crossbow -- or retreive a scroll from a backback and read it -- you still "threaten" an area, because you are CAPABLE of making a melee attack into it. The fact that you did something else during your action is immaterial.

If the Wizard has a dagger out and CAN make an attack, but choses not to, he threatens, thus can help flank or make an AOO.

Why don't characters with ranged weapons threaten? It's not in the rules. It's probably way overpowered if they could - a longbow would "threaten" the entire battlefield with its range. It would be insane.

And the Eskimo in the example had -- obviously -- combat reflexes. The seal moved up to take a breath (into the Eskimo's threatened area) and, although flatfooted, the Eskimo strikes at the seal when the seal attempts to leave the threatered area.

Remeber you CAN take AOO's while flatfooted with Combat Reflexes. This ALONE indicates that "Threatening" can be passive; I mean, if a Cleric gets iniative and tries to run by a fighter with Combat Reflexes, the fighter can hit him with an AOO -- even if the fighter was not aware of the Cleric's presense until the moment he runs by. Meaning -- you "threaten" squares even when you are not poking, slashing, looking for openings. Otherwise, how could you get an instantaneous AOO vs. something while flatfooted (before you have made an action)?

Unless you spend your entire life slashing and poking at 5' squares just in case -- that is.

 

[Ranes]

A wizard with a dagger in one hand, casting a summon monster III (full round casting time) still threatens with the dagger, despite not attacking any ememies in range (and possibly losing the ongoing spell). The Wizard could CHOOSE to make an AOO and lose the spell, but is not required to do so.

I think not, unless your wizard has Eschew Materials (or your game has it) and Still Spell. Otherwise, he's holding a tiny bag and a small candle in one hand and he needs the other hand free to satisfy the spell's somatic element.

Edit: Eschew Materials is irrelevant; my bad. The physical components provide a focus.