The "in combat" "out of combat" problem

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
167 answers Last reply
More about combat combat problem
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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..
  9. 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
  10. 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 !
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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 !
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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 !
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    > news:1119204144.912775.64730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > > 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.
    >
    > The rogue assisting his friend isn't the same situation; presumably Paul
    > knows his friend is there and thus would not be shocked by his intervention.
    > New encounter mechanics don't work as well for that. However, since being
    > unaware of an opponent nerfs your dexterity bonus against that opponent, and
    > nerfing your dexterity bonus enables sneak attacks ... you *still* have a
    > mechanism for the rogue to intervene with deadly effect.

    Yes, I do. And that mechanism--the one you propose--happens to mirror
    my house rule (which I've posted in the Ready thread) very closely.

    My entire point with this thread was to show that the RAW for handling
    flatfootedness (and also Readying, but I'm not gonna dredge up another
    example to demonstrate that) is flawed... or at least incomplete, if
    you want to insist that that this mechanism works well to supplement
    the RAW.

    My house rule solves this problem, and in my opinion, is a far more
    realistic, elegant, and simple solution for determining flatfootedness.
    It also requires fewer DM judgement calls.

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

    <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*.

    -Michael
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    news:1119195616.901420.63460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Az for a)... Well, how does one hide during a charge? There's no cover
    > or concealment avalable.

    The hide mechanics include, for the sufficiently savvy, exploitation of
    misdirection ('hide in plain sight'; etc.) - mystic Ninjabatman mojo.
    However, while closing the distance to the target the rogue will have an
    extraordinarily hard time not being Spotted or heard due to the heroic
    penalties involved.

    -Michael
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:
    > "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.

    Okay. Bearing in mind that a) I don't have the 3.5 books, b) I don't
    have the 3e books in front of me, and c) I am using logic to solve this
    problem at the moment:

    Rachel is a new party, not merely a new combatant. As a new party
    joining combat, a new initiative roll is in order. If Rachel were
    merely joining on one side or the other between the two guards, then
    the rules I believe you're citing would be appropriate. Otherwise,
    logically, they aren't necessarily appropriate.

    Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > 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:

    <snip: fighting vs not fighting and 3rd parties>

    > 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.

    > 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.

    She could remain hidden to them while charging, it's a -20 to the
    roll, but she might still succeed. Alternatively, a few rounds of
    sneaking up through the grass could get her right next to the guards.

    Regardless, IMO, she gets a surprise round. They're almost
    certainly unaware of her, and it's the start of combat from her perspective.
    The two guards do their last round, then start a "new fight" with
    her surprise round (partial action only), then have her roll initiative
    for the next full round (you may or may not like the guards to be
    flatfooted from there, or to reroll init).

    > 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.

    For alot of things, you've got to put aside the letter of the rules
    and figure out what those rules are representing.
    eg I often ignore the flat-footed rules when both sides are aware
    and ready to fight, and use partial actions only on the first combat
    round regardles of surprise. I also drop out of combat rounds at the
    first opportunity (like for no interaction between the hostile parties
    for a round).

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in news:42b50595@clear.net.nz:

    > Regardless, IMO, she gets a surprise round. They're almost
    > certainly unaware of her, and it's the start of combat from her
    > perspective.
    >

    Reread the combat rules, such a situation is talked about.

    --
    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 !
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    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.

    --
    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 !
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

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

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    news:1119195616.901420.63460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    > 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.
    >

    Ooops, sorry, you have that right, about B, except the rogue can
    still sneak attack, ranged. As for hiding during a charge, read the
    rules.

    --
    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 !
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:iSgte.6168$hK3.3579@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > The hide mechanics include, for the sufficiently savvy,
    > exploitation of
    > misdirection ('hide in plain sight'; etc.) - mystic Ninjabatman
    > mojo. However, while closing the distance to the target the rogue
    > will have an extraordinarily hard time not being Spotted or heard
    > due to the heroic penalties involved.
    >

    What he said. On the other hand, the combatants might have
    penalties to their spot check to see if they see the rogue.

    --
    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 !
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in news:1119202281.022309.258510
    @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > 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?
    >

    No, not in this case.


    --
    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 !
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    news:1119193196.280105.236480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

    > 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.
    >

    Except that the sneak attack only applies on ONE attack per
    round. If a rogue uses a full attack on a target, only one gets the
    sneak attack bonus.

    --
    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 !
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > news:1119193196.280105.236480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    >
    > Except that the sneak attack only applies on ONE attack per
    > round. If a rogue uses a full attack on a target, only one gets the
    > sneak attack bonus.

    There is no such general rule. If the Rogue has Greater Invisibility
    up, or is flanking her opponent, she can indeed get a full attack's
    worth of sneak attacks in.

    Quote from Rules of the Game:

    "Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can
    make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For
    example, if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an
    encounter, your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak
    attack. The same is true if you flank your foe."

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

    "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronbourque@aol.com> wrote in
    news:1119224826.284433.261350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Rachel is a new party, not merely a new combatant. As a new party
    > joining combat, a new initiative roll is in order.

    No, not at all. Rachel gets an iniative roll, but otherwise the
    combat continues.

    --
    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 !
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > news:1119195616.901420.63460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >
    >
    > Ooops, sorry, you have that right, about B, except the rogue can
    > still sneak attack, ranged.

    She _could_, if she had any ranged weapons. My example had her lose all
    her equipment.

    > As for hiding during a charge, read the rules.

    I have. You can hide during a charge (with -20), but _only_ if you have
    concealment or cover. The rules say nothing about the concealment/cover
    requirement not applying during a charge (or running, or attacking).

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

    Marc L. wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > news:1119263281.702598.94880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > She _could_, if she had any ranged weapons. My example had her
    > > lose all her equipment.
    >
    > So, basically, you set up a suituation where you can't sneak
    > attack and complain that the rules don't let you sneak attack.

    I don't think you understood the examples.

    In Example #1 (with the two guards _not_ fighting), Rachel could sneak
    attack them just fine.

    In my revised second example (the one with Paul the Paladin) she
    couldn't, despite the fact that she's doing the exact same thing, and
    common sense would dictate that she should be able to.

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

    Symbol wrote:
    > "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns967B5B041DA58mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > > news:1119263281.702598.94880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    > >
    > > > She _could_, if she had any ranged weapons. My example had her
    > > > lose all her equipment.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > So, basically, you set up a suituation where you can't sneak
    > > attack and complain that the rules don't let you sneak attack. What's
    > > next, are you going to complain that you can't do yogo in the middle
    > > of a highway lane?
    >
    > He is removing issues surplus to the *particular* rules factor he wishes
    > highlight. At worst you could argue its contrived but coming up with other
    > ways for the Rogue to sneak attack is *MISSING THE POINT*.

    Yes! Thank you!

    Of course it's contrived. It's meant to make a specific point. Since
    many people here seem to delight in ignoring the scope of an example
    and coming up with completely irrelevant counters, I took some pains to
    ensure that such dodges would be difficult or impossible for these
    examples.

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

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    > news:1119263160.135162.37170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > > Since the Hide skill allows you to be *unseen*... and Move Silently
    > lets
    > > > you move *unheard* ... then someone who has not spotted or heard you
    > when
    > > > you closed to engage them would be unaware of you, would not get their
    > Dex
    > > > bonus, and could be sneak attacked. It's just that easy.
    > >
    > > I don't think so. According to the RAW, the key is whether your
    > > opponent can see you _at the moment you make your attack_. Otherwise,
    > > the rule saying that you only get one sneak attack when breaking
    > > Invisibility with a full-attack would make no sense.
    >
    > If someone uses Hide and Move Silently to cross the battlefield
    > peacefully, NO-ONE SEES THEM. If someone uses Hide and Move Silently to
    > cross the battlefield to stand adjacent to someone ... then they still DO
    > NOT SEE THEM.

    This is only true if they have concealment or cover. For instance, if
    the battlefield has waist-high grass.

    Hide does not work without concealment or cover. This is explained very
    clearly under the skill description for Hide.

    "You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check."

    > If you DO NOT SEE someone, you may as well be blind to them
    > (which cancels dex) or they may as well be invisible to you (which cancels
    > dex). That's what successful Hide and stealth skills *do*. How. *NOT*. To.
    > Be. *SEEN*.
    > He *is* effectively invisible until he REVEALS HIS PRESENCE.

    Or leaves concealment/cover.

    I honestly do not see what you're not understanding. To Hide, to even
    _attempt_ a Hide check, you need concealment or cover. In my example,
    there is no concealment or cover near Rachel's opponents. Therefore, if
    she moves next to them (whether by Charging or by sneaking), she will
    be unable to Hide, and will be seen.

    > > > Now quit your bitching.
    > >
    > > You've failed to address my other points.
    >
    > Bullshit. Get this through your obstinate little head. YOUR POINTS ARE
    > ADDRESSED, PERFECTLY, BY THE EXTANT RULES.

    You have so far failed to show this, I'm afraid.

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

    Alex Johnson wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    > I have a similar problem with in/out of combat and Ready an Action.
    > Think of this situation. It may be a DM problem or a problem with the
    > rules as written. Tordek and Lidda enter an evil fane. There is an
    > altar and a huge statue behind it. Having done this many times before,
    > both know that as soon as either of them touch the altar, the statue
    > will animate and attack them. (Also, attacking the statue before it
    > animates does nothing.) Tordek announces he will stand with his weapon
    > cocked, ready to swing at the statue as soon as it starts to show signs
    > of animating. Lidda triggers the trap and....
    >
    > The DM calls for an initiative roll. What about the readied action?
    > Well, we weren't in combat or counting round by round, so Tordek can't
    > use a combat option. The initiative roll takes precedence.
    >
    > Is this a problem in the rules or a problem with a too strict DM?

    Well, in my opinion it's a problem with the rules. in MSB's opinion,
    it's a problem with a too strict DM. Pick your poison. :)

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

    Marc L. wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > news:1119275798.723304.305490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > >> > She _could_, if she had any ranged weapons. My example had her
    > >> > lose all her equipment.
    > >>
    > >> So, basically, you set up a suituation where you can't
    > >> sneak
    > >> attack and complain that the rules don't let you sneak attack.
    > >
    > > I don't think you understood the examples.
    >
    > Yes, I did understand, you just refuse to accept the answer.

    Well, I'm impressed by your self-confidence, if nothing else. After
    having been shown that you misunderstood basic things about my
    examples, and _then_ misunderstood the rules, you're still confident
    that there's nothing _more_ you possibly could have misunderstood.

    > Michael has answered you many times, now, enough.

    Michael's answers are incorrect. Perhaps he impresses you with his
    crazy screaming, or his unshakeable egotism; I don't presume to
    understand.

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

    Symbol wrote:
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    > news:1119275961.303688.321230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > >
    > >
    > > Symbol wrote:
    > > > "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:Xns967B5B041DA58mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
    > > > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > > > > news:1119263281.702598.94880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    > > > >
    > > > > > She _could_, if she had any ranged weapons. My example had her
    > > > > > lose all her equipment.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > So, basically, you set up a suituation where you can't sneak
    > > > > attack and complain that the rules don't let you sneak attack.
    > What's
    > > > > next, are you going to complain that you can't do yogo in the middle
    > > > > of a highway lane?
    > > >
    > > > He is removing issues surplus to the *particular* rules factor he
    > wishes
    > > > highlight. At worst you could argue its contrived but coming up with
    > other
    > > > ways for the Rogue to sneak attack is *MISSING THE POINT*.
    > >
    > > Yes! Thank you!
    > >
    > > Of course it's contrived. It's meant to make a specific point. Since
    > > many people here seem to delight in ignoring the scope of an example
    > > and coming up with completely irrelevant counters, I took some pains to
    > > ensure that such dodges would be difficult or impossible for these
    > > examples.
    >
    > FWIW I'm not too fond of the binary state of "flatfootedness" (but I don't
    > really see how this applies to "in combat" and "not in combat" necessarily
    > for readying purposes and the like).

    My general problem is with the "in combat" and "not in combat" thing.
    The house rule I made was primarily to fix _that_. In the process, it
    fixed what I saw as two of the worst problems, the Ready thing and the
    Flatfooted thing.

    I made this thread mostly to show its advantages regarding the
    Flatfooted thing. I _could_ make another one to talk about the Ready
    issue as well, but I don't really feel like it much :)

    > The rules, IIRC, quite openly admit
    > that this is for simplicity and to keep things moving without over working
    > the DM and you can actually rationalize it. In literature its quite common
    > to describe combatants entering "battle mode"; heightened senses due to
    > warrior instinct, the feeling that time or your opponents are slowing
    > down, the removal of hesitation into black and white act or don't act
    > situations. Bernard Cornwell is a master of making this kind of thing seem
    > plausible and any of these combat stance changes could clue the dualling
    > pair into the fact that an unseen Rogue has just burst out from her hiding
    > place and charged with enough time to gather their wits.

    I agree that a good DM can make suboptimal rules work. The thing is, I
    really do feel that my house rule is also _simpler_, and makes things
    _easier_ for the DM, not harder.

    Now, I'll be the first to admit that this may be an illusion:
    obviously, I understand my own system thoroughly, so it's very simple
    for me. The discussions we're having here are showing tha--at least for
    most of the people here--these concepts aren't really that simple or
    obvious.

    > On the other hand it doesn't seem like much work to me to introduce a
    > house rule to change this. New participants entering the combat go to the
    > top of the initiative pile so you don't need to add a surprise round and
    > you could simply track everyone's flatfooted state with regard to all of
    > their enemies but flatfootedness from surprise should be considered
    > different to flatfootedness from invisibility (so unless an invisible
    > opponent *also* has surprise they still only get one attack).

    Yeah, that's very close to my house rule.

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

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    news:1119255758.954291.290080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Marc L. wrote:
    > > Except that the sneak attack only applies on ONE attack per
    > > round. If a rogue uses a full attack on a target, only one gets the
    > > sneak attack bonus.
    >
    > There is no such general rule...[rules smite]

    Marc seriously needs to stop with the being ignorant in public.

    -Michael
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > 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
    >

    I have a similar problem with in/out of combat and Ready an Action.
    Think of this situation. It may be a DM problem or a problem with the
    rules as written. Tordek and Lidda enter an evil fane. There is an
    altar and a huge statue behind it. Having done this many times before,
    both know that as soon as either of them touch the altar, the statue
    will animate and attack them. (Also, attacking the statue before it
    animates does nothing.) Tordek announces he will stand with his weapon
    cocked, ready to swing at the statue as soon as it starts to show signs
    of animating. Lidda triggers the trap and....

    The DM calls for an initiative roll. What about the readied action?
    Well, we weren't in combat or counting round by round, so Tordek can't
    use a combat option. The initiative roll takes precedence.

    Is this a problem in the rules or a problem with a too strict DM?

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

    Alex Johnson wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    > I have a similar problem with in/out of combat and Ready an Action.
    > Think of this situation. It may be a DM problem or a problem with the
    > rules as written. Tordek and Lidda enter an evil fane. There is an
    > altar and a huge statue behind it. Having done this many times before,
    > both know that as soon as either of them touch the altar, the statue
    > will animate and attack them. (Also, attacking the statue before it
    > animates does nothing.) Tordek announces he will stand with his weapon
    > cocked, ready to swing at the statue as soon as it starts to show signs
    > of animating. Lidda triggers the trap and....
    >
    > The DM calls for an initiative roll. What about the readied action?
    > Well, we weren't in combat or counting round by round, so Tordek can't
    > use a combat option. The initiative roll takes precedence.
    >
    > Is this a problem in the rules or a problem with a too strict DM?

    .. . .

    > Having done this many times before, both know that as soon as either of
    > them touch the altar, the statue will animate and attack them. (Also,
    > attacking the statue before it animates does nothing.) Tordek announces
    > he will stand with his weapon cocked, ready to swing at the statue as
    > soon as it starts to show signs of animating. Lidda triggers the trap
    > and....

    As soon as they decide to do something, they are tracking rounds in
    combat time. They are not "in combat" and thus may boff the reaction
    time needed for Tordek to take his readied action. If he wins
    initiative vs the statue, he can ready an action. If he loses
    initiative vs the statue, then maybe he blinked at an inopportune
    moment, or nervous sweat stung his eyes just as the statue started
    moving.

    The combat round is *abstract* not a second-by-second (or even
    6-second-by-6-second) literal accounting of what's going on.

    Understand *that*, and nearly every problem anyone has with the combat
    system disappears.

    Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Marc L. wrote:
    > "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronbourque@aol.com> wrote in
    > news:1119224826.284433.261350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > Rachel is a new party, not merely a new combatant. As a new party
    > > joining combat, a new initiative roll is in order.
    >
    > No, not at all. Rachel gets an iniative roll, but otherwise the
    > combat continues.

    That doesn't make sense. Rachel is not reinforceing one or another
    side, she's attacking both; also, the two guards, who were locked into
    lethal combat with each other are suddenly fighting on the same side.
    She's a new party, and the two previous opposing parties become one
    party. It's a new combat, thus a new initiative roll is needed.

    Now regarding the idiocy of lazhlo's second version of this example,
    with Paul the Paladin, Rachel could get a sneak attack if she and Paul
    flank one or the other guard. Or, she could just not be attacking with
    enough precision to sneak attack (in either example). Wah wah. Get over
    it.

    Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games