Heyo! So, I'm having a little trouble in my search of how multiple such factors interact, and determining which encounters would favor a sneak-attacking rogue (Given NO additional talents or feats). If anyone could provide some insight on the following questions, it'd be much appreciated:
1) Does being Aware of an opponent imply the need to recognize them as an actual (potentially armed/ill-intending) opponent, or merely perceive their existence? (An example would be passing through a crowd; Would a rogue that has successfully disguised themselves as a mundane, non-specific crowd member, get a Surprise round? )
2) If the above implies the need to recognize an opponent as an opponent, does that need further entail recognition that they're combat-ready? (Or, is it simply an initiative roll at that point?)
Naturally, some talents (such as Underhanded) would benefit greatly from the need to recognize an opponent as a potential combatant. I'm sure that has its own thread somewhere. Meanwhile, it seems that if neither of the above are answered positively, then it all boils down to who acts first on Initiative. Which brings up question three:
3) If 1) is answered "no", then is there any other non-feat, non-talent specific factor that benefits the Initiator of a combat over that of the target? (In other words, does it always boil down to a simple initiative roll every time? )
And finally, there's the question regarding a new combatant entering a pre-existing combat scenario:
4) If original combatants (A&B) are unaware of the joining combatant (C) right up until the moment "C" takes their action, are A&B flat-footed or otherwise especially vulnerable towards C's advances?
Clarifying such matters would go a long way towards having a rogue or other combatant (such as an ever-armed Monk) make educated choices on when to begin combat. Thank you in advance for any input!
|
Heyo! So, I'm having a little trouble in my search of how multiple such factors interact, and determining which encounters would favor a sneak-attacking rogue (Given NO additional talents or feats). If anyone could provide some insight on the following questions, it'd be much appreciated:
1) Does being Aware of an opponent imply the need to recognize them as an actual (potentially armed/ill-intending) opponent, or merely perceive their existence? (An example would be passing through a crowd; Would a rogue that has successfully disguised themselves as a mundane, non-specific crowd member, get a Surprise round? )
2) If the above implies the need to recognize an opponent as an opponent, does that need further entail recognition that they're combat-ready? (Or, is it simply an initiative roll at that point?)
Naturally, some talents (such as Underhanded) would benefit greatly from the need to recognize an opponent as a potential combatant. I'm sure that has its own thread somewhere. Meanwhile, it seems that if neither of the above are answered positively, then it all boils down to who acts first on Initiative. Which brings up question three:
3) If 1) is answered "no", then is there any other non-feat, non-talent specific factor that benefits the Initiator of a combat over that of the target? (In other words, does it always boil down to a simple initiative roll every time? )
And finally, there's the question regarding a new combatant entering a pre-existing combat scenario:
4) If original combatants (A&B) are unaware of the joining combatant (C) right up until the moment "C" takes their action, are A&B flat-footed or otherwise especially vulnerable towards C's advances?
Clarifying such matters would go a long way towards having a rogue or other combatant (such as an ever-armed Monk) make educated choices on when to begin combat. Thank you in advance for any input!
1) By successfully disguised I'm assuming you mean no one recognized them through their guise and your party isn't aware they're a potential threat. So yes, that rogue gets to act during the surprise round.
2) This is one is more subjective, but it should be that if anyone made their perception check to notice this guy wasn't what he seemed then they, too, would get to act during the surprise round. A not so lenient GM may just say "you notice this guy isn't what he seems" right when he has the guy attack you.
3) It's not a no. But a higher initiative will help. There's also a teamwork feat (Lookout) where if one person with the feat gets to act in the surprise round then an ally with the feat can also act in the surprise round.
4) Yes, if A&B don't know C is a threat for whatever reason, they are flat-footed as they have not yet acted. This also applies if someone is successfully stealthed or invisible later in combat. If C is stealthed/invisible and combat is already well underway, A&B are not aware of C and would be flatfooted if C attacks A/B.
Thank you for the prompt response! Though, if I may inquire; Are there any particular rules/references/pre-existing threads that may be used to back up those responses? I did only do a mild search for myself, but most related posts seemed to be related to particular feats or talents... and I didn't wish to rely on intuition alone.
If I understand #4 correctly, then no - they would not be flat-footed. If combatant C joined the battle after the first round of combat, then A&B would have already acted and lost the flat-footed condition.
|
|
LINK - Initiative under combat explains flat-footed-ness.
Being unable to respond is a side-effect of invisibility/stealth and isn't clearly stated in the book (but is heavily inferred in a few places) but has been clarified by devs that this is how it's intended to work.
Technically everyone rolls their initiative at once (even before the surprise round even if they don't get to act in it). But if no PCs get to act before a surprise round, there's really no reason to have them roll their initiative before "the trap is sprung".
|
|
If I understand #4 correctly, then no - they would not be flat-footed. If combatant C joined the battle after the first round of combat, then A&B would have already acted and lost the flat-footed condition.
Which is exactly what stealth/invisibility do. If the A&B are not aware of C it doesn't matter if they have acted or not and would be considered flat-footed against C. Though if they were fighting with D&E&F the whole they would not be flat-footed against those--just against C.
However, if C simply walks up and joins in the combat mid-fray (that is without being hidden in some way), then A&B are not flat-footed as A&B would have been aware of C.
Alright. Everything there seems to make sense. Unfortunately, the bit that really seems to need some supporting evidence are the first two questions.
So far, the only real evidence I have that awareness *may* imply recognition of threat, as well as presence, is the bit stating:
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.
The possibility for other checks required, might hint at the need of a Sense Motive, or even a Knowledge check to know whether a creature is capable or likely of posing a threat.
Any other evidence is welcome. Otherwise, thank you again, this suffices for me personally.
|
|
Alright. Everything there seems to make sense. Unfortunately, the bit that really seems to need some supporting evidence are the first two questions.
So far, the only real evidence I have that awareness *may* imply recognition of threat, as well as presence, is the bit stating:
Determining awareness may call for Perception checks or other checks.The possibility for other checks required, might hint at the need of a Sense Motive, or even a Knowledge check to know whether a creature is capable or likely of posing a threat.
Any other evidence is welcome. Otherwise, thank you again, this suffices for me personally.
It depends on the situation and is up to the GM.
You rolled perception and spotted someone in a disguise walking towards you. Then you fail a sense motive check and they attack you while you don't get to act in a surprise round. That doesn't sit well with players since they already knew something was up from a good perception roll.
If you're sitting at a dinner table at a party and you roll a sense motive and realize something is off with a "guest" at your table just before he attacks--that would be a proper use of sense motive to determine if you can act in a surprise round.
There isn't going to be a cut and dry answer in the rules for these situations because the rules are just building blocks and it's up to the GM to determine how to put them together to figure out scenarios like this.
There isn't going to be a cut and dry answer in the rules for these situations because the rules are just building blocks and it's up to the GM to determine how to put them together to figure out scenarios like this.
Aye, and I agree. However, the point of the inquiry was not to ask just how subjective it could be; I posted it here to know there was possibility for it to be subjective at all, or whether pure perception vs. stealth was the end of it (Since that seems to be the most apparent case, in the RAW).
Those three solitary words, 'or other checks', were all I had to go on, and I wanted to see what the immediate response of the community was.
|
|
There isn't going to be a cut and dry answer in the rules for these situations because the rules are just building blocks and it's up to the GM to determine how to put them together to figure out scenarios like this.Aye, and I agree. However, the point of the inquiry was not to ask just how subjective it could be; I posted it here to know there was possibility for it to be subjective at all, or whether pure perception vs. stealth was the end of it (Since that seems to be the most apparent case, in the RAW).
Those three solitary words, 'or other checks', were all I had to go on, and I wanted to see what the immediate response of the community was.
While I can't speak for everyone on the forum, one check has been enough at every table I've sat at. I've never had a GM say "make a perception check...you see someone stealthed over there...make a sense motive check...well, you don't sense anything...roll initiative, none of you sensed he was hostile so only he gets to act during the surprise round." (replace stealth with disguise as needed).
Heck, there's a specific scenario that allows the party to each make checks at four separate points during the day before being ambushed that night. And if you made any of those checks then you get to act in that surprise round.