2 simple questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

2 simple questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dick Dastardly
05-15-05, 08:26 PM i have some quiries about some rules, i dont kno wether this is the right place for this post, but it seemd the best at the time, because im a player and i have a problem.

well we're a relatively new group to DnD and are still sorting out rules on certain aspects of the game, in our latest session 2 debates sprung forth,
1) skeletons have immunity to piercing damage and damage reduction on slashing weapons, does this mean that pircing weapons cannot inflict any damage on the skeleton?
2) if there is a combat and its between, say, a fighter and a druid, and a rogue is hiding in the shadows behind a wall to the back of the druid who doesent know there is a rogue with the fighter, can the rogue get a sneak attack with a bow? does the druid loose dexterity bonus?

any help would be much appreciated. thank you
stealth_monkey
05-15-05, 08:40 PM 1) A skeleton is not immune to piercing damage. A skeleton has a damage reduction of 5/bludgeoning, which means unless you have a bludgeoning weapon (something like a mace or hammer or club) 5 points of damage are deducted from the attack
2) Yes and Yes. As long the rogue is within 30 feet (the maximum sneak attack range), the druid is flanked. This means that the druid is denied a dexterity bonus and the rogue can sneak attack him
Colmarr
05-15-05, 08:48 PM Skeletons do not have immunity to piercing damage in v3.5.

I seem to recall that they may have in earlier editions of the game.

Otherwise, I agree with stealth_monkey's reply.
The Captain
05-16-05, 12:25 AM As stated by monkey, yes the rogue can sneak attack as long as he is withing 30 feet (keep in mind his is firing into melee and suffers a -4 to his attack). The druid would not gain his Dex to AC against the rogue, but would keep it against the fighter because he's not aware of the rogues presence (they would still have to be in position so that the druid is directly in-between the fighter and rogue). Once he's aware of the rogues presence (like an arrow in the kidney to alert him to it) he would be considered flanked by the two characters (at least in my game) and loses his Dex to AC against both. If the druid than moves to a position (assuming he's not dead after the sneak attack) where he is not directly in-between the fighter and the rogue (fighter at 12 o'clock, rogue at 5 o'clock), he is no longer flanked.

The skeleton you mention is from the 3.0 rules while the skeleton monkey is talking about is from 3.5.
Mike W
05-16-05, 01:25 AM First Question: A skeleton with immunity to piercing weapons takes no damage from piercing damage, nor enhancement bonuses on piercing weapons (I.E. a +1 rapier would still do zero damage). However, a +1 flaming rapier would do 1d6 fire damage on a hit.

Most skeletons in 3.5 are not immune to piercing damage, they simply have dr 5/bludgeoning (IIRC). But that is just FYI, run the skeletons as you see fit :)

Second Question: In this situation, since the Rogue is catching the Druid by suprise (a hidden opponent is an invisible opponent), then the Rogue will get Sneak Attack damage. Once. He can try to hide again, with a -20 penalty, as either a standard or move action (check the 'hide' skill in the PHB for clarification on the action type, IDHTBIFOM.) As long as the Druid doesn't know that the Rogue is there, the Druid is considered flat-footed.

In response to The Captain and stealth_monkey:
You can't flank with a ranged weapon. There are exceptions to this, but so few that it isn't worth worrying about.
Note: You can flank with a REACH weapon. But not a RANGED weapon. Big difference. Ranged weapons don't even threaten. In fact, you provoke an attack of oppertunity using a ranged weapon in melee combat. That is almost, but not quite exactly, the complete opposite of threatening.

You cannot flank someone if you do not threaten them, in the literal, D20 RAW sense of the phrase. Regardless of how "threatened" the target "feels" by having a bow pointed at them, bows (and other ranged weapons) do not literally threaten squares, from a mechanical point of view :)
stealth_monkey
05-16-05, 05:35 AM Oops, Mike W does in fact have it right. you can't flank with a ranged weapon, so only the rogue's first attack would be a sneak attack (unless he hid later). The misconception was that i forgot that the way I usually rule it was a house rule, in my games you can flank with ranged weapons, however the RAW states that you can't

sorry for the confusion
Nom
05-16-05, 10:35 AM A better way of answering question 2 is to say that the druid is denied Dex to AC against the rogue, which means that the rogue can sneak attack if he is within 30 ft. Being vulnerable to sneak attack is a consequence of being denied Dex to AC against the hidden attacker.
Draco Strang
05-16-05, 10:43 AM Oops, Mike W does in fact have it right. you can't flank with a ranged weapon, so only the rogue's first attack would be a sneak attack (unless he hid later).
Correct.

From the SRD:
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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 it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
So, to recap:
If you officially have flank your opponent, then any and all attacks you make that round count as sneak attacks. If you've a ranged weapon, you've the ability to SA IFF (if and only if...it's a geometry term) you either suprise your opponent (being hidden/invisible), if they're denied their dex bonus (immobilized, helpless, etc) or you possess the relevant feat (forget where it is).
The Captain
05-18-05, 12:30 AM Good catch Mike W. I would house rule that ranged weapons can still flank however, because the target is aware of a threat directly behind them and (in most cases) would have their attention devieded between the two threats (from opposite directions).
Mike W
05-18-05, 12:56 AM Good catch Mike W. I would house rule that ranged weapons can still flank however, because the target is aware of a threat directly behind them and (in most cases) would have their attention devieded between the two threats (from opposite directions).

Thanks :)
The reason that this (flanking from range) is not a core rule is based, I believe, on the difficulty of precisely aiming an arrow in such a way as to hit the vital spot of someone who is actively engaged in combat. One someone is aware that they are a potential target, they are going to be doing some serious secondary motion, zigging and zagging (remember, they've got five-foot squares to work with, perfectly possible to move eratically in a "straight line" with those).

With regards to the "attention divided" thing, I would say that it isn't a good enough criteria. A nocked arrow is a passive threat, not an active one. A rapier slipping towards your ribcage is a very active threat, especially if there is another one, or a morning star, or something even worse, coming at you from the other side :eek: . It would be easy enough to move in such a way as to concentrate on the threat at hand, and still not give the archer a clear sneak attack shot.

I understand where you're coming from, though. If you want to house-rule it that way, I would suggest looking at the power boost it will give to Rogues. Is that too much, in light of their abilities, or are they underpowered to begin with? I think Rogues are fine as written, with nice scaleable abilities and lots of cool noncombatitive uses. If you think they need an extra combat edge (which might be a fair assessment, given their somewhat paltry HD/BAB/Weapon proficiency allotments), then this would be a good rule.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dick Dastardly 05-15-05, 08:26 PM	i have some quiries about some rules, i dont kno wether this is the right place for this post, but it seemd the best at the time, because im a player and i have a problem. well we're a relatively new group to DnD and are still sorting out rules on certain aspects of the game, in our latest session 2 debates sprung forth, 1) skeletons have immunity to piercing damage and damage reduction on slashing weapons, does this mean that pircing weapons cannot inflict any damage on the skeleton? 2) if there is a combat and its between, say, a fighter and a druid, and a rogue is hiding in the shadows behind a wall to the back of the druid who doesent know there is a rogue with the fighter, can the rogue get a sneak attack with a bow? does the druid loose dexterity bonus? any help would be much appreciated. thank you
stealth_monkey 05-15-05, 08:40 PM	1) A skeleton is not immune to piercing damage. A skeleton has a damage reduction of 5/bludgeoning, which means unless you have a bludgeoning weapon (something like a mace or hammer or club) 5 points of damage are deducted from the attack 2) Yes and Yes. As long the rogue is within 30 feet (the maximum sneak attack range), the druid is flanked. This means that the druid is denied a dexterity bonus and the rogue can sneak attack him
Colmarr 05-15-05, 08:48 PM	Skeletons do not have immunity to piercing damage in v3.5. I seem to recall that they may have in earlier editions of the game. Otherwise, I agree with stealth_monkey's reply.
The Captain 05-16-05, 12:25 AM	As stated by monkey, yes the rogue can sneak attack as long as he is withing 30 feet (keep in mind his is firing into melee and suffers a -4 to his attack). The druid would not gain his Dex to AC against the rogue, but would keep it against the fighter because he's not aware of the rogues presence (they would still have to be in position so that the druid is directly in-between the fighter and rogue). Once he's aware of the rogues presence (like an arrow in the kidney to alert him to it) he would be considered flanked by the two characters (at least in my game) and loses his Dex to AC against both. If the druid than moves to a position (assuming he's not dead after the sneak attack) where he is not directly in-between the fighter and the rogue (fighter at 12 o'clock, rogue at 5 o'clock), he is no longer flanked. The skeleton you mention is from the 3.0 rules while the skeleton monkey is talking about is from 3.5.
Mike W 05-16-05, 01:25 AM	First Question: A skeleton with immunity to piercing weapons takes no damage from piercing damage, nor enhancement bonuses on piercing weapons (I.E. a +1 rapier would still do zero damage). However, a +1 flaming rapier would do 1d6 fire damage on a hit. Most skeletons in 3.5 are not immune to piercing damage, they simply have dr 5/bludgeoning (IIRC). But that is just FYI, run the skeletons as you see fit :) Second Question: In this situation, since the Rogue is catching the Druid by suprise (a hidden opponent is an invisible opponent), then the Rogue will get Sneak Attack damage. Once. He can try to hide again, with a -20 penalty, as either a standard or move action (check the 'hide' skill in the PHB for clarification on the action type, IDHTBIFOM.) As long as the Druid doesn't know that the Rogue is there, the Druid is considered flat-footed. In response to The Captain and stealth_monkey: You can't flank with a ranged weapon. There are exceptions to this, but so few that it isn't worth worrying about. Note: You can flank with a REACH weapon. But not a RANGED weapon. Big difference. Ranged weapons don't even threaten. In fact, you provoke an attack of oppertunity using a ranged weapon in melee combat. That is almost, but not quite exactly, the complete opposite of threatening. You cannot flank someone if you do not threaten them, in the literal, D20 RAW sense of the phrase. Regardless of how "threatened" the target "feels" by having a bow pointed at them, bows (and other ranged weapons) do not literally threaten squares, from a mechanical point of view :)
stealth_monkey 05-16-05, 05:35 AM	Oops, Mike W does in fact have it right. you can't flank with a ranged weapon, so only the rogue's first attack would be a sneak attack (unless he hid later). The misconception was that i forgot that the way I usually rule it was a house rule, in my games you can flank with ranged weapons, however the RAW states that you can't sorry for the confusion
Nom 05-16-05, 10:35 AM	A better way of answering question 2 is to say that the druid is denied Dex to AC against the rogue, which means that the rogue can sneak attack if he is within 30 ft. Being vulnerable to sneak attack is a consequence of being denied Dex to AC against the hidden attacker.
Draco Strang 05-16-05, 10:43 AM	Oops, Mike W does in fact have it right. you can't flank with a ranged weapon, so only the rogue's first attack would be a sneak attack (unless he hid later). Correct. From the SRD: The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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 it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. So, to recap: If you officially have flank your opponent, then any and all attacks you make that round count as sneak attacks. If you've a ranged weapon, you've the ability to SA IFF (if and only if...it's a geometry term) you either suprise your opponent (being hidden/invisible), if they're denied their dex bonus (immobilized, helpless, etc) or you possess the relevant feat (forget where it is).
The Captain 05-18-05, 12:30 AM	Good catch Mike W. I would house rule that ranged weapons can still flank however, because the target is aware of a threat directly behind them and (in most cases) would have their attention devieded between the two threats (from opposite directions).
Mike W 05-18-05, 12:56 AM	Good catch Mike W. I would house rule that ranged weapons can still flank however, because the target is aware of a threat directly behind them and (in most cases) would have their attention devieded between the two threats (from opposite directions). Thanks :) The reason that this (flanking from range) is not a core rule is based, I believe, on the difficulty of precisely aiming an arrow in such a way as to hit the vital spot of someone who is actively engaged in combat. One someone is aware that they are a potential target, they are going to be doing some serious secondary motion, zigging and zagging (remember, they've got five-foot squares to work with, perfectly possible to move eratically in a "straight line" with those). With regards to the "attention divided" thing, I would say that it isn't a good enough criteria. A nocked arrow is a passive threat, not an active one. A rapier slipping towards your ribcage is a very active threat, especially if there is another one, or a morning star, or something even worse, coming at you from the other side :eek: . It would be easy enough to move in such a way as to concentrate on the threat at hand, and still not give the archer a clear sneak attack shot. I understand where you're coming from, though. If you want to house-rule it that way, I would suggest looking at the power boost it will give to Rogues. Is that too much, in light of their abilities, or are they underpowered to begin with? I think Rogues are fine as written, with nice scaleable abilities and lots of cool noncombatitive uses. If you think they need an extra combat edge (which might be a fair assessment, given their somewhat paltry HD/BAB/Weapon proficiency allotments), then this would be a good rule.