The "in combat" "out of combat" problem

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I started pointing out this problem in the Ready thread, but the
discussion quickly fragmented into a myriad tiny arguments about
various obscure rules, and the point was lost.

So I'm gonna try to make my point about why the Ready and Flatfooted
rules are flawed once more, with an example. Here goes:

*** *** ***

Having escaped from the torture chambers of the Dread Lord Apo'Strophe,
Rachel the Level 20 Rogue is skulking around in the forest around his
castle, evading the guards (level 3 Fighters armed with bows) and
trying to figure out a way to get her equipment and weapons back. She's
currently hiding in the bushes around a large (25' radius) clearing,
when one of two things happens.

--- Encounter A ---
Two guards arrive and stop in the middle of the clearing. They strain
their eyes and ears, trying to locate Rachel. Obviously, they fail.
Suddenly, Rachel charges from the bushes! Catching one of the guards
flatfooted, she slams her fist into his throat. The resulting 1d3+10d6
nonlethal damage knocks him unconscious.
Cowed by this display of martial prowess, the other guard surrenders.
Rachel interrogates him and gets important information about the
castle's security. Her quest continues...

--- Encounter B ---
Two guards arrive. They are hostile to each other; one of them has just
found out that the other seduced his sister, and the argument
escalated. They're now in a fight to the death. They stop in the middle
of the clearing, about 10' from each other, trying to kill one another
with arrows.
Suddenly (and unwisely), Rachel charges from the bushes! Catching
nobody flatfooted (they're in combat, after all), she hits one of the
guards for a whopping 1d3 damage. Both guards decide to yell for help
and fight back against this new threat. Rachel eventually gets the
upper hand, but the damage is done: the clearing is surrounded by more
guards. Rachel is taken back to the castle in chains.

*** *** ***

Now, I know this is an extreme example. Please don't tell me about what
Rachel could have done. The point is that the two guards in Encounter A
could do _nothing_ to stop her from Sneak Attacking them. That kind of
makes sense; she's 17 levels above them, after all.

The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
her sneak attacks.

Understand this example, and you'll understand my problem with the
Flatfooted rules, and with the rigid in combat <---> not in combat
separation of D&D rules in general.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
> were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
> deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
> her sneak attacks.

A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG. You may make
Rachel the *main* party (just because she's a PC) and consider the
guards unaware new combatants entering the fray like the orcs in the
example.

To complete the answer, here's some things to think about:

One fight is Guard 1 vs Guard 2.
The other fight is Guard 1 and Guard 2 vs Rachel.

The two fights are completely different, despite the fact that they
happen so close one after the other. All combatants need to get new
bearings, asess the new situation, and shift their footing. The new
conditions are a perfect warrant for a new initiative roll.

If Rachel is a typical Dex 26 rogue with Improved Initiative, she is
very likely to win initiative. If she attacks undetected from hiding,
she should even get a surprise round.

If the guards squabbled and then stopped five minutes ago, would they
be flat footed against her attack? Of course they would be.
The only difference is that they squabble and stop *three seconds*
before she attacks.

Silveraxe.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
> were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
> deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
> her sneak attacks.
>
> Understand this example, and you'll understand my problem with the
> Flatfooted rules, and with the rigid in combat <---> not in combat
> separation of D&D rules in general.

The other opinion, held by some people and MSB, is that the guards
rolled their initiative way back when they heard that Rachel escaped
and are, therefore, not flatfooted even in situation A.

If I recall correctly, his example was that gunslingers who know
they'll have a quickdraw duel at high noon would roll initiative when
they wake up and spend the whole morning in combat rounds, moving
around with single moves because they spend the rest of their actions
readying.

The thread was called Opening Doord and Flatfootedness, if you;re
interested.

Silveraxe.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> > guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
> > were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
> > deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
> > her sneak attacks.
>
> A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG. You may make
> Rachel the *main* party (just because she's a PC) and consider the
> guards unaware new combatants entering the fray like the orcs in the
> example.

I don't have access to the DMG here, unfortunately. Also, I play 3.5;
is this answer in there as well?

> To complete the answer, here's some things to think about:
>
> One fight is Guard 1 vs Guard 2.
> The other fight is Guard 1 and Guard 2 vs Rachel.
>
> The two fights are completely different, despite the fact that they
> happen so close one after the other. All combatants need to get new
> bearings, asess the new situation, and shift their footing. The new
> conditions are a perfect warrant for a new initiative roll.

Okay, consider a slightly different situation then, where it was
Paul the Paladin (an ally of Rachel's) arriving into the clearing,
fighting one of the guards.

Again, let's have Paul and the guard pepper each other with arrows
from 10' range (in case you're curious, the reason I'm using ranged
combat in the example is so that flanking doesn't pop up to obscure
the main issue).

Rachel would like to help out Paul by attacking the guard. Can this
still be considered a "completely different" fight?

If no, then the problem still stands. Rachel can't sneak attack the
guard for some reason, even though she could if Paul wasn't there.

If yes, then taking that thought to its logical conclusion, we end
up with pretty much exactly my house rule for flatfootedness: no
one is generally "flatfooted"; you may be flatfooted against some
opponents and not flatfooted against others, depending on whether
you were aware of them since the beginning of your turn or not.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Silveraxe wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> > > guards in Encounter B?
> >
> > A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG.
>
> I don't have access to the DMG here, unfortunately. Also, I play 3.5;
> is this answer in there as well?

It ought to be. The section is called "New combatants enter the fray."

> Okay, consider a slightly different situation then, where it was
> Paul the Paladin (an ally of Rachel's) arriving into the clearing,
> fighting one of the guards. [with ranged fire to eliminate flanking issues]
>
> Rachel would like to help out Paul by attacking the guard. Can this
> still be considered a "completely different" fight?

Heh, I was going to type a whole second part to my reply, involving
Rango the Ranger, Rachel's ally, to preempt just this question because
your example was not perfect. I thought that it might not be needed. I
was wrong :)

The answer is no, I would not call it a different fight, so the "common
sense" fluff answer would not apply.
However, from the examples on p.62-63 involving an invisible wizard vs
Invisibility Purge and a bunch of hapless orcs stumbling into an
ongoing fight, it can be inferred that new inititive rolls are in order
and that, based on those new initiative rolls, everybody can be flat
footed again because the situation has changed enough to briefly stun
and confuse everybody.

Your house rule is very good, but appears to be already covered in the
books.

Silveraxe.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in news:1119092549.366930.162680
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > So I'm gonna try to make my point about why the Ready and
> > Flatfooted rules are flawed once more, with an example. Here goes:
>
> If you couldn't convince anyone the first time, what makes you
> think you will this time?

Wow, entering a conversation just to note that you're not interested in
it. You must be a real hit at parties.

If you're not interested in the thread, then feel free to assume it's
not meant for you. If you are, then contribute something relevant.

Finally, for the record: I couldn't care less whether anyone is
convinced or not. I'm interested in learning something, if anyone has
anything new to teach me, and teaching something, if I have anything
new to teach others.

Participation is not mandatory.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > Silveraxe wrote:
> > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > > The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> > > > guards in Encounter B?
> > >
> > > A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG.
> >
> > I don't have access to the DMG here, unfortunately. Also, I play 3.5;
> > is this answer in there as well?
>
> It ought to be. The section is called "New combatants enter the fray."

Thanks! I'll check it out tonight.

> > Okay, consider a slightly different situation then, where it was
> > Paul the Paladin (an ally of Rachel's) arriving into the clearing,
> > fighting one of the guards. [with ranged fire to eliminate flanking issues]
> >
> > Rachel would like to help out Paul by attacking the guard. Can this
> > still be considered a "completely different" fight?
>
> Heh, I was going to type a whole second part to my reply, involving
> Rango the Ranger, Rachel's ally, to preempt just this question because
> your example was not perfect. I thought that it might not be needed. I
> was wrong :)

I considered Robert the Ranger, actually, but I didn't want two
characters with names starting with R. :)

> The answer is no, I would not call it a different fight, so the "common
> sense" fluff answer would not apply.
> However, from the examples on p.62-63 involving an invisible wizard vs
> Invisibility Purge and a bunch of hapless orcs stumbling into an
> ongoing fight, it can be inferred that new inititive rolls are in order
> and that, based on those new initiative rolls, everybody can be flat
> footed again because the situation has changed enough to briefly stun
> and confuse everybody.

I'll have to read the example to be able to comment intelligently on
this, but this also seems to be problematic.

Obviously, the answer that "The DM can mandate new initiative rolls
whenever it seems appropriate, and can dictate whether the PCs are in
combat or not, as he sees fit" _is_ a valid answer, and can even be
perfectly acceptable, depending on whether the players trust the DM,
and whether the DM is competent enough. But ideally, the system should
be robust enough to handle basic combat mechanics without having to
resort to DM fiat.

Besides, a robust system would make it easier to code D&D-based CRPGs.

> Your house rule is very good, but appears to be already covered in the
> books.

I'll get back to you on this when I've done my research.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> > > Silveraxe wrote:
> > > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > > > The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> > > > > guards in Encounter B?
> > > >
> > > > A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG.

As I said, the answer is only partial because flatfootedness is not
mentioned specifically but ony in passing. However, since initiative
only matters in determining flatfootedness, I'd say there's no point in
shuffling initiative without making everybody flatfooted again.

Another option is to consider a sneaking and undetected character to be
invisible until she makes an attack or otherwise reveals herself (this
is how CRPGs handle it.)

Rachel in your example would still get a sneak attack, not because the
opponents were flatfooted, but because she attacked from hiding.

Silveraxe
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 18 Jun 2005 04:02:29 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

>The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
>guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
>were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
>deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
>her sneak attacks.

Why are they protected? You can't be sneaked by someone you are
fighting but they don't even know she's there..
 

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,039
0
19,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1119092549.366930.162680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
> were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
> deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
> her sneak attacks.
<snip>

This might be moot if you're trying to get to the question of who's
flatfooted vs. whom, rather than getting to the tactics.. However, she can
still sneak attack them in this situation, even if not flatfooted. She can
also flank or feint in order to get the sneak. :)

David


--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in news:1119092549.366930.162680
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> So I'm gonna try to make my point about why the Ready and
> Flatfooted rules are flawed once more, with an example. Here goes:
>
>

If you couldn't convince anyone the first time, what makes you
think you will this time?

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

A rogue gets a sneak attack whenever an opponent would not get their
dex bonus to their ac. An opponent doesn't get their dex bonus to their
ac whenever they are unaware of an opponent. If a rogue successfully
hides and then is close enough to perform a sneak attack then they get
it. I think a lot of people read too many rules and forget about the
basic ones.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119104006.478995.290050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The other opinion, held by some people and MSB, is that the guards
> rolled their initiative way back when they heard that Rachel escaped
> and are, therefore, not flatfooted even in situation A.

When Rachel escaped? Please. You need to improve your memory.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119109191.933836.239180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Another option is to consider a sneaking and undetected character to be
> invisible until she makes an attack or otherwise reveals herself (this
> is how CRPGs handle it.)

This is not an option.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
>"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1119109191.933836.239180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Another option is to consider a sneaking and undetected character to be
>> invisible until she makes an attack or otherwise reveals herself (this
>> is how CRPGs handle it.)
>
> This is not an option.

Not by the RAW, but it's certainly a valid house rule option.
Besides, isn't there a feat or three that allow this to begin with?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
news:1119106416.239657.289450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Wow, entering a conversation just to note that you're not
> interested in it. You must be a real hit at parties.
>
>

I apologize, I missread what you wrote.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> > > > Silveraxe wrote:
> > > > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > > > > The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> > > > > > guards in Encounter B?
> > > > >
> > > > > A partial answer is on pages 62 and 63 of the 3E DMG.
>
> As I said, the answer is only partial because flatfootedness is not
> mentioned specifically but ony in passing. However, since initiative
> only matters in determining flatfootedness, I'd say there's no point in
> shuffling initiative without making everybody flatfooted again.

Okay, I read the examples. As far as I could tell (I only had about
5-10 minutes to read them, so I may have missed something), initiative
is never "shuffled" (except in the optional rule where initiative is
rerolled every turn, but I presume no one was advocating _that_):
characters already engaged in a fight keep their own initiatives, no
matter what.

Thus, it seems obvious that characters already involved in the fight
(Paul and the guard, in my example) will _not_ become flatfooted. The
only person that could possibly be flatfooted would be any new arrival,
if they came upon the combatants unaware.

This is reinforced by what happens in the example: the party is
fighting a naga, when two (aware) nagas, and an (unaware) group of orcs
arrives. The example says that the aware nagas automatically win init
for the round they arrived in, while the group of orcs would have to
roll init (and would be flatfooted until their init comes up). Nothing
is ever said about the party or the original naga becoming flatfooted.

Thus--unless I've missed something--this isn't the answer we were
looking for.

> Another option is to consider a sneaking and undetected character to be
> invisible until she makes an attack or otherwise reveals herself (this
> is how CRPGs handle it.)

Sure, because CRPGs can't handle cover properly... :)

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
> news:1119106416.239657.289450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Wow, entering a conversation just to note that you're not
> > interested in it. You must be a real hit at parties.
>
> I apologize, I missread what you wrote.

Wow, _that_ was pretty unprecedented. Thank you, apology accepted. :)

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2005 04:02:29 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> >The question, then, is this: how come she couldn't sneak attack the
> >guards in Encounter B? They weren't even really looking for her; they
> >were fighting each other. Nonetheless, since they were in full-fledged,
> >deadly combat (initiative and all), they were somehow protected from
> >her sneak attacks.
>
> Why are they protected? You can't be sneaked by someone you are
> fighting but they don't even know she's there..

This would be true if she were sniping at them from the bushes (and
you'll find perfectly good rules for Sniping under the Hide skill). But
she charged them, and so she's not concealed at the time of her attack.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ephemeralparadox@yahoo.com wrote:
> A rogue gets a sneak attack whenever an opponent would not get their
> dex bonus to their ac. An opponent doesn't get their dex bonus to their
> ac whenever they are unaware of an opponent. If a rogue successfully
> hides and then is close enough to perform a sneak attack then they get
> it. I think a lot of people read too many rules and forget about the
> basic ones.

Um... if a Rogue charges from hiding, then the opponent _is_ aware of
her by the time she gets to him, and she shouldn't get the sneak attack
(unless her opponent is flatfooted).

By your logic, a Rogue with Invisibility up should get a full attack's
worth of Sneak Attacks on a foe, even though the Invisibility drops
after the first attack.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in news:42b50595@clear.net.nz:
>
> >> Now, I know this is an extreme example. Please don't tell me
> >> about what Rachel could have done. The point is that the two
> >> guards in Encounter A could do _nothing_ to stop her from Sneak
> >> Attacking them. That kind of makes sense; she's 17 levels above
> >> them, after all.
> >
> > She'd kick their asses in both encounters, but yes, it's
> > logical to
> > keep the sneak attack availble in the second.
>
> Only if she a) manages a hide check, or b) attacks the first one
> while flanking him with the second one.

I deliberately set up the example to make b) impossible: the combatants
are fighting with bows from 10' away.

Az for a)... Well, how does one hide during a charge? There's no cover
or concealment avalable.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> As for a)... Well, how does one hide during a charge? There's no cover
> or concealment avalable.

Just to pre-empt anyone from giving the "pat" answer: I realize that
you can hide during a charge with the -20 penalty, but ONLY IF there is
cover or concealment available. In the example given, there is no
available cover or concealment between Rachel and her opponents (it's a
clearing).

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
> news:1119189799.876074.189360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Marc L. wrote:
> > > > Wow, entering a conversation just to note that you're not
> > > > interested in it. You must be a real hit at parties.
> > >
> > > I apologize, I missread what you wrote.
> >
> > Wow, _that_ was pretty unprecedented.
>
> Bullshit. You *really* need to get smarter. *Now*.

Uh-huh. So how's that cite coming along?

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2005 04:02:29 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
>
> >Two guards arrive. They are hostile to each other; one of them has just
> >found out that the other seduced his sister, and the argument
> >escalated. They're now in a fight to the death. They stop in the middle
> >of the clearing, about 10' from each other, trying to kill one another
> >with arrows.
> >Suddenly (and unwisely), Rachel charges from the bushes! Catching
> >nobody flatfooted (they're in combat, after all), she hits one of the
> >guards for a whopping 1d3 damage. Both guards decide to yell for help
> >and fight back against this new threat. Rachel eventually gets the
> >upper hand, but the damage is done: the clearing is surrounded by more
> >guards. Rachel is taken back to the castle in chains.
> >
>
> Aren't you working a little hard to make a phony dilemma? Rachel's
> attack on the guards is a new fight.

See my second example (with Paul the Paladin), then.

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronbourque@aol.com> wrote in
news:1119155462.410817.234320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>> Two guards arrive. They are hostile to each other; one of them
>> has just found out that the other seduced his sister, and the
>> argument escalated. They're now in a fight to the death. They
>> stop in the middle of the clearing, about 10' from each other,
>> trying to kill one another with arrows.
>> Suddenly (and unwisely), Rachel charges from the bushes! Catching
>> nobody flatfooted (they're in combat, after all),
>
> But not with her, you mook, she's a new party, blah-de-blah, new
> initiative is rolled, etc.
>
>

I suggest you reread the combat rules, they talk about such a
situation. Only the new combatant rolls initiative, the others ARE in
combat and don't need to reroll iniative, nor are they flatfooted.

--
Marc

Rommie : We are not the droids you are looking for
Doyle : What was that ?
Rommie : I don't know, but it didn't work !