"Facing" in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Facing" in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Black_Quartz
04-28-08, 02:21 PM this may have been asked previously, but i could not find it in previous posts...

here is the situation. our party of medium sized humonoids is fighting a large red dragon. after killing all but two, the GM decides to try something different. so, the dragon decides to pick up one of the last two characters left. next in initiative is the rogue, who is about 60 ft behind the dragon's back. they are both facing the same direction, but the dragon's back is towards the rogue. so, when the rogue says he's going to shoot the dragon w/ a bow, the DM says there is a 50:50 chance of hitting the character being held by the dragon. he said since there is no "facing" or direction in 3.5, then the attack has just as much chace of hitting the dragon as hitting the party member. he previously used this argument for using a bite attack against party members coming up behind the dragon while it was engaged in combat w/ a fighter in front of it.
maybe i'm still thinking 2.0 rules, but what about backstabbing a foe? you can't backstab if there is free rotation and characters/monsters are never facing a specific direction. plus, in this situation, the shear size difference would dictate at least a 75:25 chance of hitting the dragon rather than the character. what about concealment? wouldn't the dragon conceal the person it's holding from attacks coming from behind it? i couldn't find anything in the PHB or DMG regarding this in combat. any help would be greatly appreciated.
GalaGalaxia
04-28-08, 02:37 PM It is assumed that everyone in combat is continously turning around avoiding being hit.

Now, that being said ... while your DM is certainly correct according to RAW, this is also a situation that leaves room for generous houseruling.

Is the dragon aware of your presence? If so, yes, it would be trying to protect itself. If not, there should be very little chance of hitting the grappled creature.

Can you hide (in plain sight)? If so, this would allow you to trick the dragon into thinking you're not there and would fall into "awareness" above.

If you have just walked up behind the dragon without any attempts at sneakiness ... or if the dragon separated your party earlier ... I would agree with your DM's ruling. Houseruling in PC favor requires some RPing and creativity on the PC's part. There are no awards for things that just seem illogical.

As an example, four archers could easily share the same 5 ft square IRL. But, not in D&D.
Jvance420
04-28-08, 02:43 PM You wouldn't have the 50/50 chance if you were making a melee attack on the dragon. It would even be flat footed due to being in a grapple, although I'm sure its not a very dexterious dragon lol. Your DM is correct on firing into a grapple though. There are feats to bypass this I think.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Plothos
04-28-08, 02:45 PM Yeah, no facing in 3.5, so no backstabbing. There's sneak attack, which works when flanking or when the opponent isn't properly aware of you (invisible, hidden, etc.), but unless you've done something to see that he isn't aware of you, he's neither unaware nor does he have his back to you, however his mini is placed on the board.

That said, the 50% rule is also strictly speaking accurate when the target is grappling with another, but I'd say it'd be very reasonable to assume this was written assuming the standard two medium creatures grappling with one another situation. When the target is far bigger than the guy he's grappling with, he should be easier to hit. But no official rule exists to cover this modification, as far as I know.
Vegepygmy
04-28-08, 02:52 PM That said, the 50% rule is also strictly speaking accurate when the target is grappling with another...No, it's not strictly accurate.

The rule (found in footnote 3, Table 8-6, page 151 of the Player's Handbook) is that you must roll randomly to determine which grappling combatant you strike. That is often assumed to mean there is a 50/50 chance of hitting either opponent, but it is not strictly correct, nor is it very sensible (as illustrated by the OP's scenario).

The chance of hitting a Medium creature grappling with a Large dragon should be much less than 50%, IMO. In my games, I make it 20% for Medium-on-Large and 10% for Medium-on-Huge. (That's just as random, you see.) And even those figures are probably a bit unfair to the Medium combatant.
Plothos
04-28-08, 03:07 PM Sure, that's random, agreed.

I'd just say that to my ear "roll randomly" without any indication at all as to how to determine the percentages suggests equal weights. As I said, and you agree, this is silly when opponents of different sizes are involved, so the sane DM will do something like you've done.

Given that no guidelines are provided and that it doesn't say to make up your own or to leave it to the DM (as it does in many other places in the book), I'd say there is an implication that the rule defaults to equal weights. But literally, yes, it's just vague and unguided.

There is precedent, though, for the phrase "decided randomly" to imply equal weights. If someone claimed a lottery prize was to be decided randomly, they would be held to have been dishonest if it turned out one person was 1000x as likely as everyone else to win, even if it was in truth a random drawing. In other words, the literal reading is not always the correct one.
Dheran
04-28-08, 05:21 PM My S.O.P. for this is to weight all creatures by the number of squares they occupy. For mounted creatures, I first determine if any of the mount's squares would be hit, then roll again with squares-occupied weighting to see if the rider would be hit instead of the mount.
Auspex7
04-28-08, 06:38 PM how big is the character being held by the dragon? it seems to me the dragon's claw prroooobbbaaabbbllllyyyy covers him up pretty good, which means the chance to actually hit the held character is... just about nonexistent.

this thread would be even cooler if it were "Facepalming in combat".

hrm... we could combine the two ideas.

lets say the dragon *drops* the held character, making the issue null and void, anyway... with his now free hand, he facepalms the rogue!
ciaran
04-28-08, 06:46 PM Its a large red dragon, as in he takes up four squares?

One solution that since he takes up four squares to your one that the PC has a 20% chance of being hit and he has 80%, like Vegepygmy said.

The other way to look at it is that you take up one cube and he takes up eight cubes. 12% chance the PC gets hit.
groveborn
04-28-08, 07:08 PM The grapling rules really don't cover everything. You could theoretically aim at any point on the dragon not hit people it's holding. Soft cover and all that jazz. You're 20 feet away from the front end of the beast, in addition to the 60 feet away from the beast to begin with. 80 feet is a long way from a target. If you didn't intend on shooting 80 feet, then there's no reason the front end should be even considered, unless the dragon is spending actions to "move" the grappled people.
Auspex7
04-28-08, 07:10 PM Its a large red dragon, as in he takes up four squares?

One solution that since he takes up four squares to your one that the PC has a 20% chance of being hit and he has 80%, like Vegepygmy said.

The other way to look at it is that you take up one cube and he takes up eight cubes. 12% chance the PC gets hit.

i was about to give you a nod and admit that i had read 'large' as a general adjective as opposed to a particular size notation, but... then i noticed something...

this large red dragon is apparently fighting against 'a rouge'. in light of this, i have to believe that neither the dragon, nor the held player is actually in danger of being struck, because make-up is not something you wield as a weapon. it's something you apply.

/highfive
groveborn
04-28-08, 08:59 PM i was about to give you a nod and admit that i had read 'large' as a general adjective as opposed to a particular size notation, but... then i noticed something...

this large red dragon is apparently fighting against 'a rouge'. in light of this, i have to believe that neither the dragon, nor the held player is actually in danger of being struck, because make-up is not something you wield as a weapon. it's something you apply.

/highfive

It took me a moment to make that connection. Rouge vs. Rogue.
mplindustries
04-29-08, 12:08 AM So, everyone is all kinds of upset about actually suggesting a medium creature grappling with a dragon could have any chance, nevermind an equal chance, to get hit by a ranged attack...

Wouldn't the dragon try and move the guy he was grappling into the way of the shot? I know I certainly would.
GalaGalaxia
04-29-08, 01:32 AM Or, to look at it a different way ...
If you roll randomly and happen to hit the grappled character, no need to look at it like it was your arrow that struck. No, that arrow missed. But the jerking motion is what dealt damage.
Vegepygmy
04-29-08, 01:40 AM So, everyone is all kinds of upset about actually suggesting a medium creature grappling with a dragon could have any chance, nevermind an equal chance, to get hit by a ranged attack...An equal chance, yes. Any chance, no.

Wouldn't the dragon try and move the guy he was grappling into the way of the shot? I know I certainly would.IMO, that would require a level of grappling superiority equal to the -20 penalty taken by creatures with Improved Grab who wish to retain their Dex bonus to AC against creatures outside the grapple.

In other words, if you can do that, you aren't really grappling with the smaller creature; you're just PWNING it.
mplindustries
04-29-08, 03:21 AM An equal chance, yes. Any chance, no.

IMO, that would require a level of grappling superiority equal to the -20 penalty taken by creatures with Improved Grab who wish to retain their Dex bonus to AC against creatures outside the grapple.

In other words, if you can do that, you aren't really grappling with the smaller creature; you're just PWNING it.
Oh, no, I wasn't trying to talk about mechanics or anything.

I just saw people having problems visualizing rules, so I was trying to suggest a believable way to portray it.

To me, rules should always be completely stripped of flavor. They should exist only for a purely mechanical purpose, and you should describe things however you feel like, without feeling limited by the rules. Not everyone agrees with/internalizes this, so I thought I'd offer an option.

So, I guess, I could have just said this:

I don't think describing the scene the way I suggested should cause a -20 to the Dragon's grapple check, because in truth, as far as the system is concerned, all that happend was that the grappled character took 1d8+X piercing damage.

It doesn't care about how or why, so I can say anything I want. I could say, "The dragon pushed your buddy in the way," as I mentioned before, or I could say, "The arrow deflects off a scale on the dragon's wrist and hits your ally," or I could say countless other things.
Or, to look at it a different way ...
If you roll randomly and happen to hit the grappled character, no need to look at it like it was your arrow that struck. No, that arrow missed. But the jerking motion is what dealt damage.Yeah, this guy pretty much did what I was intending to get across.
groveborn
04-29-08, 11:30 AM Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon!
Shadowhowler
04-29-08, 11:53 AM Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon!

Thats pretty funny... ;)

Another poster suggested a size based percentage on who you hit when shooting into a grapple. I could SWARE I saw that very thing somewhere in a D&D book.., I just can't recall which one. I know I saw something along the lines of a 50/50 split for grapplers of the same size, and then it varried from there based on size differance. I belive at a certain size differance the chance to hit the wrong guy (if he was the smaller one) dissapered completely.

I just checked my Rules Compendium... and it's not in there... so I'm gonna check something eles, since it's really bugging me now. I KNOW I've seen this. :thinks:
Vegepygmy
04-29-08, 03:41 PM To me, rules should always be completely stripped of flavor. They should exist only for a purely mechanical purpose, and you should describe things however you feel like, without feeling limited by the rules. Not everyone agrees with/internalizes this, so I thought I'd offer an option.Thank you for clarifying. I personally prefer a more "simulationist" game design, and am therefore bothered by rules that exist for a purely mechanical purpose. But now I understand and respect your position.
Black_Quartz
04-30-08, 12:44 PM thanks for the input, guys (or gals, which ever may apply). i'll bring up some of the suggestions w/ the DM this weekend. the probability to hit based on relative size make sense to me and i could construct a decent argument for it in the game. and i can see why facing isn't used in combat now...almost continuous movement.

oh, and i fixed my spelling of rogue...:)
Plothos
04-30-08, 02:33 PM Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon!Cute, but doesn't work that way, of course. You don't roll against your intended target's AC and hit, but then decide who. Rather, you decide to fire, then decide who the arrow "really" wound up attacking, and then you beat THAT AC in order to hit.
groveborn
04-30-08, 07:28 PM I know. I figured it'd be fun anyway.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Black_Quartz 04-28-08, 02:21 PM	this may have been asked previously, but i could not find it in previous posts... here is the situation. our party of medium sized humonoids is fighting a large red dragon. after killing all but two, the GM decides to try something different. so, the dragon decides to pick up one of the last two characters left. next in initiative is the rogue, who is about 60 ft behind the dragon's back. they are both facing the same direction, but the dragon's back is towards the rogue. so, when the rogue says he's going to shoot the dragon w/ a bow, the DM says there is a 50:50 chance of hitting the character being held by the dragon. he said since there is no "facing" or direction in 3.5, then the attack has just as much chace of hitting the dragon as hitting the party member. he previously used this argument for using a bite attack against party members coming up behind the dragon while it was engaged in combat w/ a fighter in front of it. maybe i'm still thinking 2.0 rules, but what about backstabbing a foe? you can't backstab if there is free rotation and characters/monsters are never facing a specific direction. plus, in this situation, the shear size difference would dictate at least a 75:25 chance of hitting the dragon rather than the character. what about concealment? wouldn't the dragon conceal the person it's holding from attacks coming from behind it? i couldn't find anything in the PHB or DMG regarding this in combat. any help would be greatly appreciated.
GalaGalaxia 04-28-08, 02:37 PM	It is assumed that everyone in combat is continously turning around avoiding being hit. Now, that being said ... while your DM is certainly correct according to RAW, this is also a situation that leaves room for generous houseruling. Is the dragon aware of your presence? If so, yes, it would be trying to protect itself. If not, there should be very little chance of hitting the grappled creature. Can you hide (in plain sight)? If so, this would allow you to trick the dragon into thinking you're not there and would fall into "awareness" above. If you have just walked up behind the dragon without any attempts at sneakiness ... or if the dragon separated your party earlier ... I would agree with your DM's ruling. Houseruling in PC favor requires some RPing and creativity on the PC's part. There are no awards for things that just seem illogical. As an example, four archers could easily share the same 5 ft square IRL. But, not in D&D.
Jvance420 04-28-08, 02:43 PM	You wouldn't have the 50/50 chance if you were making a melee attack on the dragon. It would even be flat footed due to being in a grapple, although I'm sure its not a very dexterious dragon lol. Your DM is correct on firing into a grapple though. There are feats to bypass this I think. I reserve the right to be wrong.
Plothos 04-28-08, 02:45 PM	Yeah, no facing in 3.5, so no backstabbing. There's sneak attack, which works when flanking or when the opponent isn't properly aware of you (invisible, hidden, etc.), but unless you've done something to see that he isn't aware of you, he's neither unaware nor does he have his back to you, however his mini is placed on the board. That said, the 50% rule is also strictly speaking accurate when the target is grappling with another, but I'd say it'd be very reasonable to assume this was written assuming the standard two medium creatures grappling with one another situation. When the target is far bigger than the guy he's grappling with, he should be easier to hit. But no official rule exists to cover this modification, as far as I know.
Vegepygmy 04-28-08, 02:52 PM	That said, the 50% rule is also strictly speaking accurate when the target is grappling with another...No, it's not strictly accurate. The rule (found in footnote 3, Table 8-6, page 151 of the Player's Handbook) is that you must roll randomly to determine which grappling combatant you strike. That is often assumed to mean there is a 50/50 chance of hitting either opponent, but it is not strictly correct, nor is it very sensible (as illustrated by the OP's scenario). The chance of hitting a Medium creature grappling with a Large dragon should be much less than 50%, IMO. In my games, I make it 20% for Medium-on-Large and 10% for Medium-on-Huge. (That's just as random, you see.) And even those figures are probably a bit unfair to the Medium combatant.
Plothos 04-28-08, 03:07 PM	Sure, that's random, agreed. I'd just say that to my ear "roll randomly" without any indication at all as to how to determine the percentages suggests equal weights. As I said, and you agree, this is silly when opponents of different sizes are involved, so the sane DM will do something like you've done. Given that no guidelines are provided and that it doesn't say to make up your own or to leave it to the DM (as it does in many other places in the book), I'd say there is an implication that the rule defaults to equal weights. But literally, yes, it's just vague and unguided. There is precedent, though, for the phrase "decided randomly" to imply equal weights. If someone claimed a lottery prize was to be decided randomly, they would be held to have been dishonest if it turned out one person was 1000x as likely as everyone else to win, even if it was in truth a random drawing. In other words, the literal reading is not always the correct one.
Dheran 04-28-08, 05:21 PM	My S.O.P. for this is to weight all creatures by the number of squares they occupy. For mounted creatures, I first determine if any of the mount's squares would be hit, then roll again with squares-occupied weighting to see if the rider would be hit instead of the mount.
Auspex7 04-28-08, 06:38 PM	how big is the character being held by the dragon? it seems to me the dragon's claw prroooobbbaaabbbllllyyyy covers him up pretty good, which means the chance to actually hit the held character is... just about nonexistent. this thread would be even cooler if it were "Facepalming in combat". hrm... we could combine the two ideas. lets say the dragon drops the held character, making the issue null and void, anyway... with his now free hand, he facepalms the rogue!
ciaran 04-28-08, 06:46 PM	Its a large red dragon, as in he takes up four squares? One solution that since he takes up four squares to your one that the PC has a 20% chance of being hit and he has 80%, like Vegepygmy said. The other way to look at it is that you take up one cube and he takes up eight cubes. 12% chance the PC gets hit.
groveborn 04-28-08, 07:08 PM	The grapling rules really don't cover everything. You could theoretically aim at any point on the dragon not hit people it's holding. Soft cover and all that jazz. You're 20 feet away from the front end of the beast, in addition to the 60 feet away from the beast to begin with. 80 feet is a long way from a target. If you didn't intend on shooting 80 feet, then there's no reason the front end should be even considered, unless the dragon is spending actions to "move" the grappled people.
Auspex7 04-28-08, 07:10 PM	Its a large red dragon, as in he takes up four squares? One solution that since he takes up four squares to your one that the PC has a 20% chance of being hit and he has 80%, like Vegepygmy said. The other way to look at it is that you take up one cube and he takes up eight cubes. 12% chance the PC gets hit. i was about to give you a nod and admit that i had read 'large' as a general adjective as opposed to a particular size notation, but... then i noticed something... this large red dragon is apparently fighting against 'a rouge'. in light of this, i have to believe that neither the dragon, nor the held player is actually in danger of being struck, because make-up is not something you wield as a weapon. it's something you apply. /highfive
groveborn 04-28-08, 08:59 PM	i was about to give you a nod and admit that i had read 'large' as a general adjective as opposed to a particular size notation, but... then i noticed something... this large red dragon is apparently fighting against 'a rouge'. in light of this, i have to believe that neither the dragon, nor the held player is actually in danger of being struck, because make-up is not something you wield as a weapon. it's something you apply. /highfive It took me a moment to make that connection. Rouge vs. Rogue.
mplindustries 04-29-08, 12:08 AM	So, everyone is all kinds of upset about actually suggesting a medium creature grappling with a dragon could have any chance, nevermind an equal chance, to get hit by a ranged attack... Wouldn't the dragon try and move the guy he was grappling into the way of the shot? I know I certainly would.
GalaGalaxia 04-29-08, 01:32 AM	Or, to look at it a different way ... If you roll randomly and happen to hit the grappled character, no need to look at it like it was your arrow that struck. No, that arrow missed. But the jerking motion is what dealt damage.
Vegepygmy 04-29-08, 01:40 AM	So, everyone is all kinds of upset about actually suggesting a medium creature grappling with a dragon could have any chance, nevermind an equal chance, to get hit by a ranged attack...An equal chance, yes. Any chance, no. Wouldn't the dragon try and move the guy he was grappling into the way of the shot? I know I certainly would.IMO, that would require a level of grappling superiority equal to the -20 penalty taken by creatures with Improved Grab who wish to retain their Dex bonus to AC against creatures outside the grapple. In other words, if you can do that, you aren't really grappling with the smaller creature; you're just PWNING it.
mplindustries 04-29-08, 03:21 AM	An equal chance, yes. Any chance, no. IMO, that would require a level of grappling superiority equal to the -20 penalty taken by creatures with Improved Grab who wish to retain their Dex bonus to AC against creatures outside the grapple. In other words, if you can do that, you aren't really grappling with the smaller creature; you're just PWNING it. Oh, no, I wasn't trying to talk about mechanics or anything. I just saw people having problems visualizing rules, so I was trying to suggest a believable way to portray it. To me, rules should always be completely stripped of flavor. They should exist only for a purely mechanical purpose, and you should describe things however you feel like, without feeling limited by the rules. Not everyone agrees with/internalizes this, so I thought I'd offer an option. So, I guess, I could have just said this: I don't think describing the scene the way I suggested should cause a -20 to the Dragon's grapple check, because in truth, as far as the system is concerned, all that happend was that the grappled character took 1d8+X piercing damage. It doesn't care about how or why, so I can say anything I want. I could say, "The dragon pushed your buddy in the way," as I mentioned before, or I could say, "The arrow deflects off a scale on the dragon's wrist and hits your ally," or I could say countless other things. Or, to look at it a different way ... If you roll randomly and happen to hit the grappled character, no need to look at it like it was your arrow that struck. No, that arrow missed. But the jerking motion is what dealt damage.Yeah, this guy pretty much did what I was intending to get across.
groveborn 04-29-08, 11:30 AM	Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon!
Shadowhowler 04-29-08, 11:53 AM	Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon! Thats pretty funny... ;) Another poster suggested a size based percentage on who you hit when shooting into a grapple. I could SWARE I saw that very thing somewhere in a D&D book.., I just can't recall which one. I know I saw something along the lines of a 50/50 split for grapplers of the same size, and then it varried from there based on size differance. I belive at a certain size differance the chance to hit the wrong guy (if he was the smaller one) dissapered completely. I just checked my Rules Compendium... and it's not in there... so I'm gonna check something eles, since it's really bugging me now. I KNOW I've seen this. :thinks:
Vegepygmy 04-29-08, 03:41 PM	To me, rules should always be completely stripped of flavor. They should exist only for a purely mechanical purpose, and you should describe things however you feel like, without feeling limited by the rules. Not everyone agrees with/internalizes this, so I thought I'd offer an option.Thank you for clarifying. I personally prefer a more "simulationist" game design, and am therefore bothered by rules that exist for a purely mechanical purpose. But now I understand and respect your position.
Black_Quartz 04-30-08, 12:44 PM	thanks for the input, guys (or gals, which ever may apply). i'll bring up some of the suggestions w/ the DM this weekend. the probability to hit based on relative size make sense to me and i could construct a decent argument for it in the game. and i can see why facing isn't used in combat now...almost continuous movement. oh, and i fixed my spelling of rogue...:)
Plothos 04-30-08, 02:33 PM	Here's a fun one, aim at your buddy, who may have a lower AC, and you'll be that much more likely to hit the dragon!Cute, but doesn't work that way, of course. You don't roll against your intended target's AC and hit, but then decide who. Rather, you decide to fire, then decide who the arrow "really" wound up attacking, and then you beat THAT AC in order to hit.
groveborn 04-30-08, 07:28 PM	I know. I figured it'd be fun anyway.