Flank-enstein

[Draig]

Ok so other than undead creatures such as zombies, skeletons, oozes and such what are some methods that a dm can use to get around flanking and sneak attack damage? Basically I want to have a few encounters that the party rogue isn't always shouting "let's flank him!"

[Greenish]

Why? :smallconfused:

[Grendus]

So you want enemies the rogue can't flank? Constructs and plants are a perennial favorite. Having the enemies attack in formation works pretty well (I guess you could flank the corners?). Baatezu can teleport at will, making flanking almost impossible.

Of course, you've now turned the rogue in to an Expert. He won't appreciate that.

[true_shinken]

Rogue-player: "Let's flank it!"
DM: "Sorry, it's 'make the Rogue useless day'. He can't be flanked, he is a high level Barbarian."

[Garagos]

According to http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm# only Oozes and Elementals can't be flanked, unless maybe specific undead and plants say they can't be flanked. Either way, be prepared for your rogue to be useless and probably bored/frustrated with combat if he can't sneak attack.

[ffone]

Ok so other than undead creatures such as zombies, skeletons, oozes and such what are some methods that a dm can use to get around flanking and sneak attack damage? Basically I want to have a few encounters that the party rogue isn't always shouting "let's flank him!"

Why not? It's a logical tactic, DnD mechanics aside even. Spatial thinking is more fun than Final Fantasy JRPG'line up and thump'.

[Telonius]

Heavy Fortification armor (PHB) negates sneak attack damage. (He'll still get the +2 to attack, but won't benefit from the extra sneak attack dice).

A Greater Armor Enhancement Artificer infusion (Eberron campaign setting) can grant this.

The Elusive Target feat (CWar) can be helpful, if you've designated one of the flankers as your Dodge target. It won't negate the secondary attacks, but the first one won't hit you, and might hit his friend. With any luck, he'll kill the guy and no longer be flanking you.

[Zaranthan]

There are two ways to beat the "flank and spank" tactic: immunity to flanking, and immunity to sneak attack.

For flanking itself, Improved Uncanny Dodge has become a rather common class feature (barbarian comes to mind). There are also all sorts of monsters with various senses and special abilities that prevent them from being flanked. Formians have a telepathic hive mind, and can watch each others' backs. Oozes don't have faces, and are more than capable of smacking you in all directions. Elementals have the same "faceless" quality.

Sneak attack is foiled by anything that prevents critical hits: undead, constructs, plants, oozes (again), elementals (again!), armor with the fortification special quality. Swarm-type enemies also get away on both sides, and since their attacks ignore AC, they're great for nailing those acrobatic types.


Advice column: I'm not certain how this is going to make your encounter more interesting. The rogue is going to switch from "I flank him" to "I shoot him... for 4 damage..." because that's all rogues have GOT: trapfinding and sneak attack. If the rogue has been dominating all combat scenarios so far, then sure, a golem makes a nice change of pace.

If you want to make things more INTERESTING, look to your combat environments. Place uneven terrain to make flanking more difficult. Send enemies in sufficient numbers to cover each others' backs, you can't flank somebody standing shoulder-to-shoulder with six of his buddies. Plop a troll in a ten-foot-wide hallway.

...

Plop a troll in the middle of a ring of goblins, armed alternately with longspears and tower shields. Maul the bejeezus out of anybody who comes within range.


EDIT:

With any luck, he'll kill the guy and no longer be flanking you.

This. Do this.

[Curmudgeon]

Heavy Fortification armor (PHB) negates sneak attack damage.
Not against the prepared Rogue. If the Rogue has Lightbringer Penetrating Strike and (what else?) flanks that foe with 100% fortification they'll do sneak attack damage, just with ½ the normal dice. Craven bonus isn't from dice, so it's unaffected; the sneak attack total is only reduced by about 32%.

[ffone]

Not against the prepared Rogue. If the Rogue has Lightbringer Penetrating Strike and (what else?) flanks that foe with 100% fortification they'll do sneak attack damage, just with ½ the normal dice. Craven bonus isn't from dice, so it's unaffected; the sneak attack total is only reduced by about 32%.

Oh neat, where's that from?

The Dungeonscape version appeared not to classify it as an actual sneak attack, just have related triggering (flanking, half the die) so I figured Craven, Staggering Strike, etc. Wouldn't apply. So if there's a version where it does....

[Greenish]

Oh neat, where's that from?Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

[Edit]: Upon rereading that one, I'm not quite as convinced as Curmudgeon that Craven et al works with it, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Curmudgeon]

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

[Edit]: Upon rereading that one, I'm not quite as convinced as Curmudgeon that Craven et al works with it, but maybe I'm missing something.
I think "you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage" has to be interpreted as dealing sneak attack damage, as opposed to the Dungeonscape version's "you still deal extra damage equal to half your normal sneak attack dice". Sneak attack dice only deal sneak attack damage, but an amount equal to something else specifies only a number without a type.

[Diarmuid]

If adding in constructs, plants, undead, oozes, etc wont fit in with your plan, dont forget that any amount of concealment will also make sneak attacking impossible.

Depending on the level of the group, that could be something as simple as "shadow illumination" from a darkened room, up through displacement if necessary.

[Curmudgeon]

dont forget that any amount of concealment will also make sneak attacking impossible.

Depending on the level of the group, that could be something as simple as "shadow illumination" from a darkened room, up through displacement if necessary.
Let's see:

Telling Blow triggers sneak attack/skirmish damage on any critical hit, without regard to distance, moving (for skirmish), or concealment.
Nonmagical shadowy illumination doesn't provide concealment to a Rogue with darkvision.
Magical shadowy illumination doesn't impair a Rogue under an Ebon Eyes spell.
Displacement doesn't actually provide any concealment; rather, it's "unlike actual total concealment", and merely provides the same miss chance.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Let's see:

Telling Blow triggers sneak attack/skirmish damage on any critical hit, without regard to distance, moving (for skirmish), or concealment.
Nonmagical shadowy illumination doesn't provide concealment to a Rogue with darkvision.
Magical shadowy illumination doesn't impair a Rogue under an Ebon Eyes spell.
Displacement doesn't actually provide any concealment; rather, it's "unlike actual total concealment", and merely provides the same miss chance.


Telling Blow will still not apply sneak attack damage to something with Concealment, unless it explicitly states that it does so. Concealment negates Sneak Attack.

Miss Chance = no sneak attack. So Displacement works to negate sneak attack, thus why a Lesser Cloak of Displacement is the bane to rogues anywhere without Pierce Magical Concealment.

Really, for every way to negate sneak attacks, there's a way to make it work again. it just makes an arms race.

For Undead, there's Wand of Gravestrike
For Plants, there's Wand of Vinestrike
For Constructs, there's Wand of Golemstrike.

[ffone]

Disagree on both.

1. Telling Blow 'adds sneak attack damage', bypassing range and concealment foils. Note that your argument could equally well say "a sneak attack requires a Dex-denied or flatfooted foe, and Telling Blow says nothing about that"....at which point the feat has zero effect and is a stillborn feat. A construct plant etc. is still protected vs Telling Blow since it's immune to the damage added.

2. A miss chance is not synonymous with concealment. Displacement is only the former.

[Curmudgeon]

Telling Blow will still not apply sneak attack damage to something with Concealment, unless it explicitly states that it does so. Concealment negates Sneak Attack.
That's only the normal case.

Benefit: When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit. There are no qualifiers here. You follow this specific rule, and deal your sneak attack damage as specified. The reason most feats exist is to give you a capability not available in the ordinary rules, after all. This feat also doesn't specify that you need to flank your opponent, or have them denied their DEX bonus to AC; as I said: no qualifiers (except for making the critical hit, naturally).

Miss Chance = no sneak attack.
That's not what the rules say. Only the miss chance from concealment foils sneak attack (though if some other miss chance makes you not hit, obviously you won't be dealing any sneak attack damage).
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Disagree on both.

1. Telling Blow 'adds sneak attack damage', bypassing range and concealment foils. Note that your argument could equally well say "a sneak attack requires a Dex-denied or flatfooted foe, and Telling Blow says nothing about that"....at which point the feat has zero effect and is a stillborn feat. A construct plant etc. is still protected vs Telling Blow since it's immune to the damage added.

2. A miss chance is not synonymous with concealment. Displacement is only the former.

Displacement is synonymous with concealment, with the sole exception that, even though it is total concealment, it allows people to target you.

Telling Blow does not explicitly state anything which would contradict the statement which Curmudgeon just quoted. In other words, Telling Blow makes critical hits another way to activate sneak attack, other than denied dex bonus or flanked. Concealment still negates it.

[AslanCross]

Shneeky is right; Blur and Displacement do give concealment, although they allow the creature to be targeted.

Anyway, there are several creatures with all-around vision, and are thus immune to flanking. In core there's Beholders and I think Gibbering Mouthers.

OP, I don't know why you'd want to keep punishing a rogue this way, but it's your game.

[Siosilvar]

Displacement is synonymous with concealment, with the sole exception that, even though it is total concealment, it allows people to target you.

Going to have to agree with this one. "50% miss chance as though it had total concealment" is pretty conclusive, even though "displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally[, unlike actual total concealment.]"

Plus there's the fluff issue. If you appear about two feet away from where you really are, the rogue is aiming for vitals that are actually two feet away, so he isn't going to hit them.

[holywhippet]

You could trick the rogue - have the undead covered with illusions so they look mortal. But make the rogue roll his SA damage seperately and ignore it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Besides, why bother with worrying so badly about flanking when it's far easier to deny an opponent their dex bonus to AC?

[Draig]

To all of you that gave me real answers I thank you, I have more questions about that but will have to ask later when I'm off. To anyone who questioned this please carefully read the first post, I did not say "I want to take away his usefulness" I asked how to avoid flanking and sneak attacks sometime BECAUSE I want each character to shine at different points also, if u believe that a rogues only usefulness is sneak attack then clearly hack and slash is your default playstyle and you should be playing an mmorgp and not dnd. A rogue's usefulness is not just limited to battle and that is what I'd like to get across to my players not just "how can I do the most damage in combat" My campaigns are a story, with challenges as well as combat, its like skipping the dialogue in a final fantasy game, yeah your killing monsters and enemies yet you have no idea why.

[Divide by Zero]

if u believe that a rogues only usefulness is sneak attack then clearly hack and slash is your default playstyle and you should be playing an mmorgp and not dnd.

Insulting the other posters really isn't a good way to get good responses...

Anyway, each class should be viable both in and out of combat. That's one of the reasons that fighters are so bad, because it's difficult to make them useful in noncombat situations. If a character is useless in combat, then every time the party encounters something, they get to spend the next X minutes twiddling their thumbs. If you feel that the rogues aren't doing enough out-of-combat work, then you should be emphasizing that, not punishing them for being good at doing damage.

[holywhippet]

Another method of stopping flanking is the old fashioned conga line of death. Have the monsters coming at the party down a corridor - wide enough for one or two abreast. The front line monsters will engage in melee while the rear line uses ranged weapons or spells. Even if the rogue gets behind the other monsters (using tumble or magic) they still won't be flanking.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'd personally make flanking itself a difficult task--preferably by means of combat tactics that make flanking difficult (such as a wall of shields). I pepper my encounters with people who always work in pairs or teams, and therefore work to protect each other's backs--which means avoiding flanks, and punishing flankers with flanking of their own. I don't necessarily want it to be impossible for a Rogue to flank, but I dont want them to rely on it as their only means of gaining Sneak Attack damage. In fact, for every encounter that there is an enemy or group that punishes flanking, there's one that rewards actually sneaking up on and incapacitating single enemies--and it's not like Improved Feint can't act as a fallback in the worst case.

[Curmudgeon]

Shneeky is right; Blur and Displacement do give concealment, although they allow the creature to be targeted.
It's helpful to understand the terms used in the game.

total concealment

Attacks against a target with total concealment have a 50% miss chance. Total concealment blocks line of sight.
line of sight

Two creatures can see each other if they have line of sight to each other. To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your space and the target's space. If any such line is clear (not blocked), then you have line of sight to the creature (and it has line of sight to you). The line is clear if it doesn't intersect or even touch squares that block line of sight. If you can't see the target (for instance, if you're blind or the target is invisible), you can't have line of sight to it even if you could draw an unblocked line between your space and the target's.
The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. Displacement uses "as if" to denote an analogy is being used for the miss chance. The spell can't provide total concealment if it doesn't block line of sight. Since the subject appears somewhere, it's obviously still in line of sight. There's no concealment of any kind; just a miss chance.

[ubergeek63]

Another method of stopping flanking is the old fashioned conga line of death. Have the monsters coming at the party down a corridor - wide enough for one or two abreast. The front line monsters will engage in melee while the rear line uses ranged weapons or spells. Even if the rogue gets behind the other monsters (using tumble or magic) they still won't be flanking.

LIGHTNING BOLT!!! the advantage of a balanced party is a counter for every attack ;) just countered the conga line effectively on a fortress wall. 3 six opponent patrols decimated every round :)

[paddyfool]

3 six opponent patrols decimated every round :)

You only killed 0.6 opponents each round? :P

[Siosilvar]

You only killed 0.6 opponents each round? :P

That's 1.8, silly.

Which is actually not half bad for a melee character.

[true_shinken]

That's 1.8, silly.

Which is actually not half bad for a melee character.

Pffft.
You are obviously hanging with the wrong crowd of melee characters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159708).

[Draig]

First, it was not my intention to insult anyone, if you were I apologize. its frustrating having posts like "why" when I ask a question.

Second. I've heard that there is a feat that a rogue can replace sneak attack damage for ability damage or decreases to damage rolls and AC. If this is true then what books would it be in and what are the benefits to this in your opinion?

[AslanCross]

It's helpful to understand the terms used in the game.
Displacement uses "as if" to denote an analogy is being used for the miss chance. The spell can't provide total concealment if it doesn't block line of sight. Since the subject appears somewhere, it's obviously still in line of sight. There's no concealment of any kind; just a miss chance.

I guess you're right, though the problem in wording could have been avoided completely if they'd just said "there's a 50% miss chance; but you can still target him." The analogy is kind of pointless since it has a glaring and important exception.

I just thought it made more sense to read it that way, as blur grants concealment (This one explicitly does).

[ffone]

I think the clause in the spell is just to help explain to players what a miss chance is and how it works. Agree it's bad wording that could be clearer. To me, the 'as if it had concealment' says that it is not, in fact, concealment. Whenever anyone says or writes as if (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=as%20if) they are saying that X is not Y, but has one trait typical for Y.

"Michael Jackson looks as if he's a woman". No one would use this wording if he WERE a woman. "Ozzy Osbourne speaks as if he's had a lobotomy." etc.

(Which in some ways is good for the displacement-user...it means that Blur and a minor cloak of displacement combine for a 36% miss chance. Very popular for AC-sinking characters like Shock Trooper ubercharges. Permanent Blur can be had for 18K gold via an armor property from MIC. It's +2 base price bonus but if you Shock Trooper constantly, regular AC enhancement to armor is a lost cause. Displacement and Blur still don't effectively combine, since any attacker can cap a miss chance at 50% by closing their eyes, unless the miss chance has a nonvisual component such as Blink does.)




Telling Blow does not explicitly state anything which would contradict the statement which Curmudgeon just quoted. In other words, Telling Blow makes critical hits another way to activate sneak attack, other than denied dex bonus or flanked. Concealment still negates it.

But sneak attack is also negated by the target 'not being flanked or denied their Dex bonus to AC'. By your reasoning, Telling Blow is a dead feat. The only reason you would intuit that Telling Blow bypasses the flanked-or-Dex-denied requirement but not the no-concealment requirement is that we think of the former as being the 'typical' one and thus what Telling Blow must be bypassing....in other words it's a guess about author intent, not a distinction in the RAW. There is no logical distinction between flanking / Dex-denying enabling sneak attack and the lack of one of those conditions disabling it.

I note also that Telling Blow says 'you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage', not 'it's a sneak attack'. (Hrm, which makes me wonder whether the damage from Craven or a Sword of Subtety would apply. If they do apply at all, they will be multiplied by the crit.)

[ffone]

To all of you that gave me real answers I thank you, I have more questions about that but will have to ask later when I'm off. To anyone who questioned this please carefully read the first post, I did not say "I want to take away his usefulness" I asked how to avoid flanking and sneak attacks sometime BECAUSE I want each character to shine at different points also, if u believe that a rogues only usefulness is sneak attack then clearly hack and slash is your default playstyle and you should be playing an mmorgp and not dnd. A rogue's usefulness is not just limited to battle and that is what I'd like to get across to my players not just "how can I do the most damage in combat" My campaigns are a story, with challenges as well as combat, its like skipping the dialogue in a final fantasy game, yeah your killing monsters and enemies yet you have no idea why.

This is the Stormwind Fallacy (the contrapositive thereof). Making combat harder doesn't make it less important. In fact, trying to make sure certain PCs do less damage (by overusing one of the sneak attack foils) will make combat last *longer* and so probably decrease the percentage of time they spend in social interaction scenes.

Instead, try making more interesting 'social encounters' and things they can't solve by fighting, instead of trying to make combat less fun so the other stuff seems better by comparison.

(Of course, harder combat need not be less fun - but that's my point, I think you're conflating the two dimensions, and trying to use one to solve the other.)