I responded to your other message Buri.
|
Quite aware of what the books do/don't say on the topic. Wraithstrike was kind enough to find the developer post that clarified the same question that came up in May of 2011 (I wasn't the first to request clarification on this, and JJ's response answers it directly in a way that doesn't appear in any of the rule books).
Most of the next 38 posts didn't add anything new, and just made it harder to find what I asked for when I returned to the forum a couple hours later. If someone was insulted that I didn't find many of those posts helpful, don't be. PFS board posts didn't thoroughly address the question, and neither did the rule books.
Those who have responded made it clear that you are fine with the rule as is, though many used more emotional language. Regarding questions about what rules should be (not what they are) I had not previously seen such an overwhelmingly negative response. I've mostly been on the PFS boards following topics that get debated and sometimes overturned. The previous post I was following just had a rules change 2 weeks ago.
Cheapy, thanks for alerting that GM stars and such don't show up outside the PFS forum. I suppose I should have guessed that, though I am used to seeing a lot of posts there with no user info also.
Although you can always animate a dead horse if you want it to have a little more fight, I am done checking this thread for responses. I have what I need for the time being, so no need to pile on more for my benefit.
Well, there's always the chance this thread will be necro'd and that horse will be ready for a new beating.
If you're used to the PFS forums then, yes, things are a bit different here. There you have Paizo staff actively participating with everyone because they need to. Out here in the wilds that's not the case. You just have the occasional roaming dragon as you've seen and those of us brave enough to deal with the every day riff-raff, of which I count myself. :)
Damn, just saw he wasn't coming back. Now my words have fallen on deaf ears. :'(
Oh snap!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah this is what PFS people really need to keep straight. PFS rulings are not rules. They are houserules or something of the like. PFS is full of them but they are not real rules.
I also agree with everyone else who has stated that it is already in the rules. The "anytime" portion is very clear. It just seems that the OP may be trying to troll or trying to justify a denial of sneak attack in their game. If they want to rule in their own game using a house-rule that is up to them and their group, otherwise this subject has been covered pretty well and it is allowed as long as the prerequisites of the sneak attack are met then all attacks during that turn are subject to sneak attack damage.
why do you believe sneak attack should only be once per round?
1st edition had no such rule. only 2nd and 4th editions have it. and since pathfinder is based on the 3.X version of the game, it has no such limitation. many of the above posts state that, including people who have directed you to developer posts which quite obviously imply that sneak attack applies for every attack made which satisfies the conditions (in a flank or denied dex bonus).
just because i can easily access my pdf, here is the 1st edition backstab.
Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with
club, dagger, or sword. The damage done per hit is twice
normal for the weapon used per four experience levels of the
thief, i.e. double damage at levels 1-4, triple at 5-8, quadruple
at levels 9-12, and quintuple at levels 13-16. Note that striking
by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by
20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll).
Am I reading the posts right that I have over 50 responses and none of them yet by GM with any stars, an official of Paizo, or a venture officer?
I appreciate the comments (except the dead horse rant), but I'd like to know what's official so that I can judge by the rules for future OP events. In the game in question, it didn't matter anyway because the 2nd attack missed, but I want to have a definite answer for my player who will doubtless use two weapons again with an ally trying to help him flank.
The comments about D&D 3.0/3.5 don't answer the questions about PFRPG, which has some distinct differences and gets new things ruled via post and FAQ and new additional resources that become legal for OP. When I speak of the "spirit of the rule", I am coming from an ancient perspective and am talking about how the current PRFRP flanking sneak attack was designed to be similar (or different) in flavor from 1st ed D&D which I've played since the 1970s.
My question is 2 parts: "what is the rule" and "what should it be"? An answer that I am picking on rogues is pointless. Some of my best friends are rogues and I don't think any less of them because they can't stand in the front line and dish out the same damage as fighter-types. When did that ever become a requirement of that class? PFRPG already gives rogues and arcane types more hit points than D&D did, and I never really saw that as a necessity for a good fantasy RPG. In fact, I've had rogues help the party accomplish missions several times using skill checks and other actions that helped the party avoid some combats entirely. You can be a valuable character in the party in lots of ways besides melee if you understand the group objective, your role in the party, and how your skills and abilitiies can best be used.
In the end, the answer will be what the designers and editors want the role of the rogue to be in this game system. If the current player base is demanding rogues that are more capable of delivering damage in melee, then I suppose the...
Core Rules are quite clear this.
From the PRD: "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter"
As you see it is any time you are flanking. As well anytime the target is denied dexterity like when flat footed.
It's possible the printed book may be differnt as the PRD is the update to errata as do later print runs of the book.
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the quick replies, but I am still requesting an official response.
By the way, that's not how we do things here, Peter. Our message board community has many people who really understand the rules, so when they are in agreement, you should trust their interpretation and not insist on an "official answer" from someone on the staff.
Wait at Ninten mentioning Golems: Are Golems still immune to Sneak Attacks & Criticals? Didn't that get changed?As far as I know there are three things that can't be snuck/crit:
- Swarms
- Elementals
- Oozes
You forgot Incorporeal Undead, they are immune also. Or maybe that is just Incorporeal in general.
You forgot Incorporeal Undead, they are immune also. Or maybe that is just Incorporeal in general.Wait at Ninten mentioning Golems: Are Golems still immune to Sneak Attacks & Criticals? Didn't that get changed?As far as I know there are three things that can't be snuck/crit:
- Swarms
- Elementals
- Oozes
Incorporeal creatures are immune, unless you are using a ghost touch weapon.
Swarms CAN be sneak attacked. They are just immune to weapon damage if they are smaller than tiny. if you look at the descriptions of oozes, elementals, and swarms, oozes and elementals specifically state they are immune to precision damage, such as sneak attack. swarm traits, however, do not state that. they are only immune to sneak attack through being immune to weapon damage, those swarms made of creatures not immune to sneak attacks can still be hit with precision damage. and i guess technically you do sneak attack that one wasp in a wasp swarm that you hit. you definitely kill him. but his 99,999 friends probably take offense to it.
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?
In case you're still reading this, I do have a house rule that you might appreciate.
The rule is: any combatant has the option of completely ignoring an enemy — just totally not defending himself against the enemy, not even looking in that enemy's direction. This is a tradeoff, because it has two effects:
1. The ignored enemy can't contribute to flanking (i.e. does not itself count as flanking, nor can grant flanking benefits to any of its allies).
2. The ignore enemy is considered to be invisible to the combatant. The combatant is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against the enemy in question, and the enemy receives a +2 bonus to attacks against the combatant (and this is the case even if the combatant has uncanny dodge or a similar ability).
So if I am flanked by a high-level rogue and his pet rat, I can simply ignore the rat and let it gnaw on my boot for all it's worth, focusing my defensive efforts "in one direction", so to speak, and thusly deny the rogue the opportunity to sneak attack me for a million damage a round. (Of course, I might achieve a similar effect by simply taking one of my attacks to squash the rat, but whatever.)
I'm not going to bore anyone with hit probabilities and damage averages, but there are also cases (weapon finesse, lower ACs, lower levels) where the rogue's chance to hit really isn't that much different from the fighter's. The question isn't about whether each class can do comparable damage - it's more about whether you can be repeatedly sneaky in one round just because there is someone standing across from you.
Sneak attack, despite the name, does not actually require being sneaky.
In case you're still reading this, I do have a house rule that you might appreciate.
The rule is: any combatant has the option of completely ignoring an enemy — just totally not defending himself against the enemy, not even looking in that enemy's direction. This is a tradeoff, because it has two effects:
1. The ignored enemy can't contribute to flanking (i.e. does not itself count as flanking, nor can grant flanking benefits to any of its allies).
2. The ignore enemy is considered to be invisible to the combatant. The combatant is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against the enemy in question, and the enemy receives a +2 bonus to attacks against the combatant (and this is the case even if the combatant has uncanny dodge or a similar ability).
.
We have a similar house rule, except that you can't ignore someone you are attacking. There are also other limits. But in our case, it just means the monster can ignore the mage with a dagger held the wrong way, but NOT the fighter flanking with the rogue.
Thanks for the quick replies, but I am still requesting an official response. I've seen these answers before, and they do not satisfy.
Bill, in particular, the "anytime" argument would apply only to flat-footed opponents, not flanking after combat starts. The rules for "flanking" say you only get it when making a "melee attack", not a "full attack", and although that may sound like an odd distinction, it appears to be more in line with the initial spirit of sneak attacks (pre-PFRPG). You can't keep surpising an opponent all round.
I want to hear what the official PFRPG stance is on this, and if possible, why. The barrage attacks make sense. What I've seen in posts on multiple attack modes in close combat does not.
There is no room for miss-understanding here, because of this, your not going to get an official ruling.
Flanking and Greater Invisibility are the two main ways a rogue can get sneak attack off of every attack. If the rogue is brave enough to go into open combat like that, then reward them.
P.S. I stand corrected.
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?In case you're still reading this, I do have a house rule that you might appreciate.
The rule is: any combatant has the option of completely ignoring an enemy — just totally not defending himself against the enemy, not even looking in that enemy's direction. This is a tradeoff, because it has two effects:
1. The ignored enemy can't contribute to flanking (i.e. does not itself count as flanking, nor can grant flanking benefits to any of its allies).
2. The ignore enemy is considered to be invisible to the combatant. The combatant is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against the enemy in question, and the enemy receives a +2 bonus to attacks against the combatant (and this is the case even if the combatant has uncanny dodge or a similar ability).So if I am flanked by a high-level rogue and his pet rat, I can simply ignore the rat and let it gnaw on my boot for all it's worth, focusing my defensive efforts "in one direction", so to speak, and thusly deny the rogue the opportunity to sneak attack me for a million damage a round. (Of course, I might achieve a similar effect by simply taking one of my attacks to squash the rat, but whatever.)
I'm not going to bore anyone with hit probabilities and damage averages, but there are also cases (weapon finesse, lower ACs, lower levels) where the rogue's chance to hit really isn't that much different from the fighter's. The question isn't about whether each class can do comparable damage - it's more about whether you can be repeatedly sneaky in one round just...
there were rules similar to this in a 3.5 blog to have some way to ignore a flank. it involved the person getting ignored immediately getting an AoO, and the ruling that anyone who currently could not do an AoO (ie they had already made one this turn and had no way to get another) they did not flank until they could make AoOs again.
To be fair, this is moderately game breaking. The vast majority of opponents get most of their AC through armor, shields, and natural armor. Alot of enemies flatfooted AC isn't much lower than their regular AC. So its not really much of a loss to them, a +2 to hit to whoever you choose to ignore.In case you're still reading this, I do have a house rule that you might appreciate.
The rule is: any combatant has the option of completely ignoring an enemy — just totally not defending himself against the enemy, not even looking in that enemy's direction. This is a tradeoff, because it has two effects:
1. The ignored enemy can't contribute to flanking (i.e. does not itself count as flanking, nor can grant flanking benefits to any of its allies).
2. The ignore enemy is considered to be invisible to the combatant. The combatant is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against the enemy in question, and the enemy receives a +2 bonus to attacks against the combatant (and this is the case even if the combatant has uncanny dodge or a similar ability).
I don't think it's terribly game-breaking. If you're being flanked by a rogue and a fighter, then yes, ignoring the fighter isn't horribly disadvantageous AC-wise, and it saves you from a whole bunch of sneak attack damage from the rogue...
But:
1. Even several points of AC could add up to nontrivial extra expected damage for a fighter.
2. If the fighter is effectively invisible to you, then you can't take AoOs against him. He can now attempt to trip you or disarm you, for instance, even without the requisite Improved X feats, and not incur an AoO.
If, on the other hand, you're being flanked by a rogue and a mage with a dagger, then, again, ignoring the mage prevents you from taking AoOs against him; he can now stand there and spellcast without having to cast defensively. And while that's not a huge advantage (after all, if he can't flank you, the mage can just move off and cast out of melee), I think that's OK; let the rogue find some other way of getting in sneak attacks that doesn't involve something so cheesy as a dagger-wielding mage (who doesn't even have any intention of ever stabbing you with said dagger).
Finally, if you're being flanked by two rogues, then you ignore one, and now only one of them gets to sneak attack you. I think that too is just fine.
But it's a rule that might not work for everyone. Hey, that's what house rules are for, right?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's terribly game-breaking. . . .
Really? A rogue is a pretty weak melee fighter, and you want to make them even worse?
If you want your combatant to be able to deny a rogue sneak attack there's already a feat for that - Flanking Foil. Fighters get a lot of feats, so asking them to at least pay the price of one feat for this ability doesn't seem too much to ask. And even then they have to succeed in hitting their opponent during their previous attack (not really unlikely for a typical melee combatant, admittedly, but still).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's terribly game-breaking. . . .Really? A rogue is a pretty weak melee fighter, and you want to make them even worse?
If you want your combatant to be able to deny a rogue sneak attack there's already a feat for that - Flanking Foil. Fighters get a lot of feats, so asking them to at least pay the price of one feat for this ability doesn't seem too much to ask. And even then they have to succeed in hitting their opponent during their previous attack (not really unlikely for a typical melee combatant, admittedly, but still).
I should have mentioned that this is a house rule I use in my 3.5 campaign (a campaign already filled with house rules). I figured it might be of use to the OP since he seemed like the sort of DM who might run a not-entirely-by-the-book game. (Which is fine. I do that myself. House rules are not evil.)
Look, here's what I'm not saying:
"In Pathfinder, rogues are OP, what with their sneak attacks and their full attacks! I will change nothing else about the system, only introduce this one solitary house rule which nerfs rogues. There, that's better. All is balanced now."
I'm not saying that. You will note that I was arguing quite strenuously for the correct interpretation of the sneak attack rules - the ones that let rogues sneak attack as many times per round as they like.
But in my campaign, with my specific set of PCs, my specific list of allowed materials, and my specific homebrew magic items, the rogue in the party (actually a rogue/ranger/assassin) has the highest single-target damage output of all the PCs. He gets to sneak attack, including sneak attacking on full attacks, quite often (though not all the time). When he does, the damage is often enough to take out the enemy in one round. Sometimes he achieves this by flanking with one of the party fighters (actually a fighter/blackguard and a fighter/hexblade/occult slayer/blackguard/disciple of Dispater). The monsters rarely even live long enough to attempt the "ignore the fighter" tactic! And other times the rogue simply casts greater invisibility on himself, thus obviating the need for flanking.
What this house rule prevents, basically, is "I use my wand of summon monster I to summon a rat; then I flank with the rat and sneak attack the enemy into oblivion". This massive, horrible nerf has not, contrary to expectations, resulted in a rogue who cries himself to sleep every night because he can't contribute in combat. The rogue in question still does more single-target damage than anyone else.
Am I advocating that this house rule be instituted as a change to the Pathfinder rules? God no. Am I saying that every DM should use this house rule in their games? Nope. That's why it's a house rule. In my campaign, I find it to be effective and non-game-breaking. I mentioned it here because I thought the OP might get some mileage out of it.
Finally, let me just say that I perfectly understand the attitude of "ugh, why are you nerfing things unnecessarily??". In this case, it just isn't that big a nerf, and I don't think it's game-breaking, for the reasons I listed in my previous post.
You forgot Incorporeal Undead, they are immune also. Or maybe that is just Incorporeal in general.Wait at Ninten mentioning Golems: Are Golems still immune to Sneak Attacks & Criticals? Didn't that get changed?As far as I know there are three things that can't be snuck/crit:
- Swarms
- Elementals
- Oozes
Incorporeal creatures are immune, unless you are using a ghost touch weapon.
Swarms CAN be sneak attacked. They are just immune to weapon damage if they are smaller than tiny. if you look at the descriptions of oozes, elementals, and swarms, oozes and elementals specifically state they are immune to precision damage, such as sneak attack. swarm traits, however, do not state that. they are only immune to sneak attack through being immune to weapon damage, those swarms made of creatures not immune to sneak attacks can still be hit with precision damage. and i guess technically you do sneak attack that one wasp in a wasp swarm that you hit. you definitely kill him. but his 99,999 friends probably take offense to it.
What do his 99,999 friends have to say about an arcane trickster sneak attacking with a Fireball? >:3
All three of my DMs have 99 problems, and a Rogue ain't one.
It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Which is probably the case. Ah well.
Why can your Rogue cast Greater Invisibility on himself?
Last I checked neither Rogue, Ranger, nor Assassin provided that.
I should have mentioned that this is a house rule I use in my 3.5 campaign
That is why.
Edit: For people who don't feel like looking this up: In 3.5, assassins could cast spells, and greater invisibility was on their spell list.
However, even if he wasn't an assassin, or if we shift the discussion back to PF — you can always UMD a wand. Rogues do get UMD.
I didn't know they could do that in 3.5 either.
|
All three of my DMs have 99 problems, and a Rogue ain't one.It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Which is probably the case. Ah well.
I did.
You are nerfing Flanking, the main source of sneak attack for most Rogues.
This means you are nerfing the Rogue.
The mere fact that your Rogue has some how crawled his way to top damage dealer is something that should be applauded, not punished.
You are also destroying the usefulness of lower level summons.
At higher levels, this is pretty much all they become good for.
You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
You are nerfing Flanking, the main source of sneak attack for most Rogues.
False in my campaign.
Even if it were true, I don't play my monsters as somehow instantly knowing which character has all the sneak attack damage dice, and deciding to ignore all the other melee threats, in advance of the rogue having landed a single hit. The rogue gets to flank, and get the resulting sneak attack damage, plenty. I would say the "ignore the other flanker" rule actually comes up in maybe one fight out of ten. At best.
The mere fact that your Rogue has some how crawled his way to top damage dealer is something that should be applauded, not punished.
No one is punishing anything, and I'm not sure why you're implying that the rogue being the top damage-dealer is some big surprise, given what I told you about my campaign and the system it's being played in.
You are also destroying the usefulness of lower level summons.
Oh noes!
At higher levels, this is pretty much all they become good for.
You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
Feeling like your low-level summons aren't useful - now there's a problem that doesn't exist.
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?In case you're still reading this, I do have a house rule that you might appreciate.
The rule is: any combatant has the option of completely ignoring an enemy — just totally not defending himself against the enemy, not even looking in that enemy's direction. This is a tradeoff, because it has two effects:
1. The ignored enemy can't contribute to flanking (i.e. does not itself count as flanking, nor can grant flanking benefits to any of its allies).
2. The ignore enemy is considered to be invisible to the combatant. The combatant is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against the enemy in question, and the enemy receives a +2 bonus to attacks against the combatant (and this is the case even if the combatant has uncanny dodge or a similar ability).So if I am flanked by a high-level rogue and his pet rat, I can simply ignore the rat and let it gnaw on my boot for all it's worth, focusing my defensive efforts "in one direction", so to speak, and thusly deny the rogue the opportunity to sneak attack me for a million damage a round. (Of course, I might achieve a similar effect by simply taking one of my attacks to squash the rat, but whatever.)
I'm not going to bore anyone with hit probabilities and damage averages, but there are also cases (weapon finesse, lower ACs, lower levels) where the rogue's chance to hit really isn't that much different from the fighter's. The question isn't about whether each class can do comparable damage - it's more about whether you can be repeatedly sneaky in one round just...
Losing your dex to the rogue and ignoring them would open you up to sneak attack not protect you against it because you are not trying to dodge their attacks.
Losing your dex to the rogue and ignoring them would open you up to sneak attack not protect you against it because you are not trying to dodge their attacks.
You misunderstand... the idea is that you ignore the other guy. Like so:
F X R
(Fighter, you, rogue)
You ignore the fighter. Now you're not flanked. You're not trying to dodge the fighter's attacks, but you certainly are dodging the rogue's attacks. Essentially, you're pretending that you're only fighting the rogue, and focusing entirely on him. The fighter gets to attack you with impunity (which is to say, you lose your Dex vs. the fighter, and he is effectively invisible to you, and gets a +2 to attacks on you).
Edit: Incidentally, another downside to taking this option is that you don't get to target the ignored enemy with targeted spells (again, just as if you were unable to see him due to him being invisible or you being blind). For spellcasters, gishes, or monsters with SLAs, this could be quite the disadvantage.
This houserule, in a many houseruled, custom campaign, is likely working for you.
If it didn't, I am sure you would housserule something else to make it work.
That's fine.
Implementing such a houserule in any other campaign, could prove disastrous.
I agree! House rule at your own discretion and risk. I certainly don't advocate for this rule to be widely adopted. I was only suggesting it to the OP as a possibility to consider.
Losing your dex to the rogue and ignoring them would open you up to sneak attack not protect you against it because you are not trying to dodge their attacks.You misunderstand... the idea is that you ignore the other guy. Like so:
F X R
(Fighter, you, rogue)
You ignore the fighter. Now you're not flanked. You're not trying to dodge the fighter's attacks, but you certainly are dodging the rogue's attacks. Essentially, you're pretending that you're only fighting the rogue, and focusing entirely on him. The fighter gets to attack you with impunity (which is to say, you lose your Dex vs. the fighter, and he is effectively invisible to you, and gets a +2 to attacks on you).
Edit: Incidentally, another downside to taking this option is that you don't get to target the ignored enemy with targeted spells (again, just as if you were unable to see him due to him being invisible or you being blind). For spellcasters, gishes, or monsters with SLAs, this could be quite the disadvantage.
So if you're completely ignoring the fighter, every time you do something, they get an attack of opportunity? The reason you don't get AoOs is because you're paying enough attention so they can't exploit an opening. You provoke an AoO every time you stop doing this because your attention is divided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That houserule has a lot of problems from my POV:
1) It's really hard to actually ignore someone that you know is swinging a big greatsword your way. You might hear it, see the the movement out of the corner of your eyes, etc, and you'd flinch. That's pretty much an involuntary reaction. And if you managed to really ignore all that, you would certainly be at least a little bit distracted when said big greatsword sticks out through your chest.
And those little flinches and distractions are what rogues exploit for their sneak attacks.
2) This houserule seems simply and only there to nerf and screw over rogues. Why?
Glad you asked. Because they're the only ones that really benefit from flanking. Spellcasters and archers don't get flanking in the first place, so doesn't matter at all if you focus on them. Other melee fighters get a +2. Sure a +2 is nice, but nothing game breaking.
Ask yourself this: How many times have you used this ability to focus solely on your rogue and screw up his sneak attack, and how often have you focused on someone other than a rogue?
I'm almost certain it will be a ratio of "almost always against the rogue". Why?
Because losing your Dex bonus and your ability to AoO to everyone else and give them a +2 (though to be fair it should be a +4 as the guy you focus on still PROVIDES flank) to attack, seems hardly a good tradeoff to simply deny a single person that +2.
So really when do you use it against anyone but a rogue?
3) Lots of large or huge enemies have very low dex scores, sometimes in the one digits range. Which means when they lose their Dex bonus, they lose nothing. So the +2 from being invisible is the same they'd get from flanking anyway, so hardly a difference there either.
They end up slightly harder to hit, while completely denying a class their trademark ability. All the time. Over and over.
Do you implement stuff that keeps wizards from casting spells too, without them having a way to change that? Or fighters losing their bonus feats?
To be honest, a more honest way to show "Don't play a rogue because I hate them and I will make your life hell" is to say just that and not make up houserules like those.
Sure a Ninja could circumvent that by level 11 by taking the Invisible Blade trick, but none of the other rogues can.
And I'd not be surprised if you then make up a houserule that allows people to "sense" invisible people, by ignoring everyone else. Otherwise that OP rogue could actually get a sneak attack in...
So if you're completely ignoring the fighter, every time you do something, they get an attack of opportunity? The reason you don't get AoOs is because you're paying enough attention so they can't exploit an opening. You provoke an AoO every time you stop doing this because your attention is divided.Losing your dex to the rogue and ignoring them would open you up to sneak attack not protect you against it because you are not trying to dodge their attacks.You misunderstand... the idea is that you ignore the other guy. Like so:
F X R
(Fighter, you, rogue)
You ignore the fighter. Now you're not flanked. You're not trying to dodge the fighter's attacks, but you certainly are dodging the rogue's attacks. Essentially, you're pretending that you're only fighting the rogue, and focusing entirely on him. The fighter gets to attack you with impunity (which is to say, you lose your Dex vs. the fighter, and he is effectively invisible to you, and gets a +2 to attacks on you).
Edit: Incidentally, another downside to taking this option is that you don't get to target the ignored enemy with targeted spells (again, just as if you were unable to see him due to him being invisible or you being blind). For spellcasters, gishes, or monsters with SLAs, this could be quite the disadvantage.
Do you provoke an AoO every time you do something if, unbeknownst to you, there's an invisible opponent standing next to you?
The answer to that is the same as the answer to your question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The base generalization for AoOs is the same. It has to do with your personal defense instead of the presence or absence of someone else. The assumption is that you're generally "on the watch" but there are some actions that divert your attention which lowers this innate defense. If you're intentionally ignoring an entire side of you then yes I would say that invisible enemy gets AoOs on you.
Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
I can't think of anything more reckless than ignoring the fighter chomping away at your back side.
That houserule has a lot of problems from my POV:
1) It's really hard to actually ignore someone that you know is swinging a big greatsword your way. You might hear it, see the the movement out of the corner of your eyes, etc, and you'd flinch. That's pretty much an involuntary reaction. And if you managed to really ignore all that, you would certainly be at least a little bit distracted when said big greatsword sticks out through your chest.
And those little flinches and distractions are what rogues exploit for their sneak attacks.
If that were the case, then you wouldn't need to flank an opponent to sneak attack them — the presence of an ally anywhere in melee would suffice. But that's not the case. (Although I believe there's a feat somewhere that lets you do essentially that — but it's not inherent in the flanking rules.) Clearly, the reason you get that flanking bonus, and the sneak attack opportunity, is the fact that you have to divide your attention between two opponents on opposite sides of you.
2) This houserule seems simply and only there to nerf and screw over rogues. Why?
Glad you asked. Because they're the only ones that really benefit from flanking. Spellcasters and archers don't get flanking in the first place, so doesn't matter at all if you focus on them. Other melee fighters get a +2. Sure a +2 is nice, but nothing game breaking.
Ask yourself this: How many times have you used this ability to focus solely on your rogue and screw up his sneak attack, and how often have you focused on someone other than a rogue?
I'm almost certain it will be a ratio of "almost always against the rogue". Why?
Because losing your Dex bonus and your ability to AoO to everyone else and give them a +2 (though to be fair it should be a +4 as the guy you focus on still PROVIDES flank) to attack, seems hardly a good tradeoff to simply deny a single person that +2.
So really when do you use it against anyone but a rogue?
You know, people keep saying all of this, and it's all fine and well. But fortunately for me, I don't have to worry about "rogues" or even "a rogue" in some abstract sense. There is one specific rogue in the party (also a blackguard who has a couple of dice of sneak attack). I can therefore, armed with this knowledge, construct my house rules in such a way that they work for the party composition in my game.
So I don't have to go through any sort of complex reasoning to deduce that this house rule will, in fact, primarily affect rogues. I know that already, because I did, in fact, design the house rule with the rogue (not "a rogue" or "rogues", but this specific rogue) in mind. And since I know this, I can ask myself: will this yield a balanced/playable/enjoyable game, for the rogue and also for everyone else?
Clearly, I think it will (and does).
3) Lots of large or huge enemies have very low dex scores, sometimes in the one digits range. Which means when they lose their Dex bonus, they lose nothing. So the +2 from being invisible is the same they'd get from flanking anyway, so hardly a difference there either.
They end up slightly harder to hit, while completely denying a class their trademark ability. All the time. Over and over.
Read my comments on how much this house rule actually comes up, and how I play my monsters (which is how I suggest playing the monsters for any DM who implements a house rule like this, and, in fact, how I think a DM should play monsters in general). "All the time" and "Over and over" are ridiculous exaggerations; I have no idea where you got any of that.
As for enemies mostly having low Dex scores and such — you're assuming a certain distribution of enemies that isn't accurate for my campaign (or, I suspect, many other campaigns). Not every high-level enemy is a dragon with Dex 10. Many are humanoids with class levels, who might have above-average base Dex and Dex-boosting items. Many are outsiders, who tend to have all-around excellent ability scores (the balor, for instance, has a +7 Dex bonus). The big, dumb, low-Dex monsters will likely not be smart enough to use this tactic in any case.
Do you implement stuff that keeps wizards from casting spells too, without them having a way to change that? Or fighters losing their bonus feats?
One of my other house rules is that every time a wizard casts a spell, I punch the wizard's player in the face. Just BAM, as hard as I can.
Of course, since I run the campaign online, I end up having to do a lot of traveling in the course of this rule's implementation, but hey, such is the price of balance. (Although it got particularly taxing when the guy who plays the wizard moved to Europe. Boy, did that ever drive up my gaming budget.)
To be honest, a more honest way to show "Don't play a rogue because I hate them and I will make your life hell" is to say just that and not make up houserules like those.
Sure a Ninja could circumvent that by level 11 by taking the Invisible Blade trick, but none of the other rogues can.
And I'd not be surprised if you then make up a houserule that allows people to "sense" invisible people, by ignoring everyone else. Otherwise that OP rogue could actually get a sneak attack in...
I don't know how you get from "the rogue is (by far) the highest single-target damage dealer in the party" and "this is a 3.5 game, where the rogue (who is also an assassin) can cast spells to e.g. make himself invisible" to "the rogue's life is hell". Really now, hyperbole is fine for effect, but this is taking it too far.
As for "otherwise the OP rogue could actually get a sneak attack in", again: read my comments on how often this house rule actually comes up, and how often the rogue gets to sneak attack, and in what circumstances.
The base generalization for AoOs is the same. It has to do with your personal defense instead of the presence or absence of someone else. The assumption is that you're generally "on the watch" but there are some actions that divert your attention which lowers this innate defense. If you're intentionally ignoring an entire side of you then yes I would say that invisible enemy gets AoOs on you.
I can't think of anything more reckless than ignoring the fighter chomping away at your back side.Attacks of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
That's an over-reaching interpretation of a general statement in the rules text. Again: this "ignore the fighter" rule simply duplicates the effect of the fighter being invisible to you. Take the rules covering that situation, and apply here. Simple. Complicating things with AoOs is unnecessary.
It's not complicating things. It's a natural reaction according to the entire body of the rules. Just because you choose to ignore them in that case doesn't make them any less part of that.
Any time you take an action and you're not defending yourself against an aggressor that should be an AoO. This is the rule of thumb for attacks of opportunity as I've highlighted. If you don't like that then tough. It's no less the rules.
If you houserule like this not only are making things harder on the rogue you're also completely cutting out another core piece of the rules that largely dissuades "don't be stupid" as apparently attacks of opportunity don't work normally in your game either.
It's not complicating things. It's a natural reaction according to the entire body of the rules. Just because you choose to ignore them in that case doesn't make them any less part of that.
Any time you take an action and you're not defending yourself against an aggressor that should be an AoO. This is the rule of thumb for attacks of opportunity as I've highlighted.
Why do you have to rely on a "rule of thumb" when there are explicit rules that dictate when you do or do not provoke AoOs...?
Because when you muck with the system as you've done with your house rule you completely break a base assumption of the table that provides the information you're trying to go off of. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, basically, without consequence.
Because when you muck with the system as you've done with your house rule you completely break a base assumption of the table that provides the information you're trying to go off of. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, basically, without consequence.
What information? "Go off of" for what?
Look, your "base assumption" suggests, as I've said, that if there's an invisible enemy next to you, and you're not aware of their presence, then you provoke an AoO "every time you do anything".
True or false? Answer please.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm confused. If his players are aware of the house rule, discussed it with him, agreed to it, and provided input on how it operates, how exactly is it a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I like to sit in judgment of how others are playing the game incorrectly, resulting in toxic levels of badwrongfun that could ruin the game for generations to come, but I have a hard time getting my dander up over a poster who says in multiple ways, in multiple posts, that the house rule works for his players at his table and isn't intended for general consumption or adoption. I don't think the rule is aimed at the peanut gallery here, and I'm not sure why anyone cares what it's affects are or how it breaks base assumptions at the table.