Blinding with a cape, then sneak attacking

[Voltumna]

I was thinking about this: if a thief character wants to throw his cape at an oponent's face to blind him, then sneak attack, how would you treat this?

What I thought was to allow him to make an attack roll with a -4 penalty for using the cape as an improvised weapon, which won't do any damage. Then allow the sneak attack if he succeeds with the cape.

If the target is blinded, how long does he remain so? I thought that if the attack roll succeds normally, he remains blinded for a single turn, by the end of which he manages to get rid of the cape, or just long enough to receive a single sneak attack. If the attack roll with the cape is a natural 20, and then the critical roll succeeds, then the target would be entangled, and it would be more difficult for him to get rid of the cloth. How would you determine how long does it take for him to get rid of it? If any one has rules for nets, that could be a start.

 

[InsomNY]

I'd say it was simply using the Bluff skill to feint, probably adding a +2 circumstance bonus for good roleplay and having a good prop handy. After all, that's pretty much the sort of thing feinting is designed to represent.

 

[Voltumna]

True enough, but a development like hitting a critical with the cape could open more possibilities to the thief, who after all is taking a harsh penalty for improvising a weapon. Given their relatively not so good attack bonuses, he could be better off trying to pull out a feint. Besides, a thief that has more than 2 attacks, could make the rest of his attacks after throwing his cape to his opponets face, as opposed to using improved feint, given he has that feat, which will only allow him to make the bluff, and then a single attack that turn, wether he made it or not on the bluff roll.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmm ... this has the potential to be fairly potent.

Off the top of my head, I think that, if the cape attack is successful, the victim should get a Reflex Saving throw (DC = 10 + Half Thief Class Level + Dex bonus) to negate the effects. If he fails, then he counts as blind until taking a move-equivalent action to remove the cape. On a critical (and assuming the Save is failied) he is flatfooted until his next action as well.

Since blinded (which is the effect the cape actually has) does not equate to flat-footed, I don't believe that being flat-footed should be the default result; not without the expenditure of a feat, at least. Adding an entangled from above result might also be appropriate.

 

[Voltumna]

what do you mean by:

not without the expenditure of a feat,

per the blind-fight feat:

Normal: regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you loose your dexterity bonus to dv.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sorry, that wasn't very clear.

To be more precise, I believe that if you are going to allow a character to make a target flat-footed with a straight attack roll (even one at -4), then they should have to expend a feat slot for the ability. Even then, it is overly powerful without some further drawbacks.

 

[InsomNY]

True enough, but a development like hitting a critical with the cape could open more possibilities to the thief, who after all is taking a harsh penalty for improvising a weapon. Given their relatively not so good attack bonuses, he could be better off trying to pull out a feint. Besides, a thief that has more than 2 attacks, could make the rest of his attacks after throwing his cape to his opponets face, as opposed to using improved feint, given he has that feat, which will only allow him to make the bluff, and then a single attack that turn, wether he made it or not on the bluff roll.

He's not improvising a weapon, though, unless you specifically ask to use the cloak as a net. Using the cape as an offhand weapon to distract an enemy and foul his weapon isn't a new idea; it was taught in fencing schools back when fighting with a sword was a means of staying alive.
That's why I suggested a circumstance bonus to the bluff check, not a penalty to an attack roll.

If you succeed, your opponent is DV 10 and has no parry or dodge bonus, so he may be sneak-attacked. You can probably do enough damage to force a Massive Damage check. If you're butch enough to have the Improved Feint feat, you can do it in one round instead of two. What more do you need?

 

[Voltumna]

The chance to sneak attack someone once is good enough for a thief, but I was thinking about the chance to get as many sneak attacks as you can, after all this is what happens when you are flanking someone, with the added detriment to him that he has an aditional oponent.

So, the trick seems to be to specificaly ask to use the cape as a net, thus improvising a net, which I belive is used with an attack roll; would you allow the use of the cape as a net?

Besides, I am also thinking about the possibility to get the opponent sufficiently bussy trying to get free, as to allow the thief to flee the scene totally unseen. Here you could also use a bluff check to create a diversion, then a hide check to sneak away, with a -10 penalty, and to a place within 1 foot per rank in hide. Teh -10 penalty is very harsh, and then you could only hide if there was a palce to do so, within your rank range. I am thinking of ways to maximize the beguiling ways of my thief. It would be more disorienting and perplexing to the character traped in the cape, that the thief has totaly disappeared when he finaly gets rid of it. He doesn't even have a clue as to which direction the thief went.

 

[Voltumna]

SableWyvern, what feat or feats are you thinking of? What further drawbacks? I understand as you say that this has the popential to be very potent. I am not given to power gaming, but am interested in the role playing possibilities of this.

Does anyone have rules for nets in combat?

 

[AZZA]

I don't think I would allow anyone to benfit from the using a cape to distract someone for multiple attacks. I ca say from experience that flinging your cape over someone during a sword fight doesn't distract for long at all! and more often than not it wasn't successful anyway.
I don't think I would allow entangling with a cloak either. It's just not big enough to cause that much of a problem. Would it be practical wearing a net around? Way to big to pass as a cloak. You'd probably entangle yourself as much as anyone else.
I like InsomNY's idea of using it as part of a feint. If there is a rule in place that comes pretty close to covering what you want to do why invent a new one? There are plenty of rules in D20 already.
I would be more inclined to add cloak as an item with a couple of extra rules like.
Cloak. Can be used as an off hand weapon. Takes a moe action to prepare. +1 Dodge defense. Can be used to aid in feint teste or bluff test to distract an opponet. +1 or +2 if you actually throw the cape at your opponent and it doens't provoke an attack of opportunity. May only be used in conjunction with finesse attacks.

If you want a feat how about
Sword and Cloak proponent.
Prerequiste: two weapon fighting,combat expertise, martial weapon prof.
Benefit: You can prepare a cloak as free action and use it to distract an opponent as part of a move action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. I.e. you could move your full movement, attempt a bluff and attack. Or use the cape to distract someone and make a double move away.
Disadvantage: If your opponent knows who you are through the reputation rules or has fought you before and you used the cape to distract him he gains +2 Sense motive against your cape bluff attempts.

Since you have to have the cape to use this feat you can make it a little more versatile than improved feint. If your good enough with the cape I suppose you could flick it into someones eyes distracting them momentarily without having to cast the cloak at them.

Aaron.

 

[argo]

I could only see myself allowing one of two uses for a cape in combat. (And I like to encourage my players to try crazy stunts like this!)

If he wants to try to distract his opponent to get a sneak attack off I would allow him to use it as part of a Feint attempt (Bluff vs Sense Motive + BAB) as per the normal feinting rules but with a +2 bonus for the prop.

Or if he wants to use it as a distraction to get away I would let him use it as an improvised net (-4 penalty for improvised weapon, unless he has prepared the cape to be used in this manner by sewing weights and such into the lining, in which case treat it as a net and he takes a -4 penalty for using an exotic weapon that he is not proficient in! :lol: ). A successful net attack entangles the target which means he moves at half speed and cannot run or charge. That should give you enough of a head start to get away. Heck, because I like cool stuff like this I would even let a player make a hide check without the usual -10 penalty for being under observation (but still the other restrictions).

But I would not let the player use the cape to blind the target. Blinding someone is very powerful in combat, espically if there is someone with sneak attack around. For example look at Stygian Tomb Dust; it costs 400sp per dose and offers the target a Ref save to avoid the blindness. Using a cape trick to blind is too good. Maybe if he grappled the target first and tied the cape on....

Hope that helps.

 

[Mayhem]

I see no reason not to simply use the rules for Feinting.

 

[SableWyvern]

I see no reason not to simply use the rules for Feinting.

In general, I agree. However, if a player would like to make this his signiature manoeuvre, I could see it as potentially worthwhile to provide him with some unique mechanics.

Voltumna: I was thinking of making this particular manoeuvre a feat, not considering any pre-existing feats.

Although Conan does not cover nets, the d20 standard version (converted a little to fit Conan) goes something like:

Standard thrown weapon attack vs Dodge.
On success, the opponent is entangled, requiring a DC 20 Str check (standard action) or Escape Artist (Full Round action) to escape.

If the net thrower maintains a hold on a trailing rope, he can prevent the victim from moving more than 10' away with an opposed Str check. Either party can attempt to drag the other (up to half base move) with an opposed Str check, although the net-wielder can simply release the trailing rope if he loses such a check.

IIRC, Conan already has rules for entanglement.

 

[Johannixx]

Fighting with a cloak in your off-hand is more difficult than people think. I'd make it an EWP, but with serious benefits. For one, I'd allow proficient users to use it as a buckler (wrapping the cloak around one's arm), and I would allow it to provide a +2 or +4 equipment bonus to Bluff checks made for Feinting.

While I have seen people successfully perform disarms with a cloak, it's VERY difficult. It's even more difficult to throw it just right and entangle your opponent. I've seen it done, but only a few times.

 

[Voltumna]

Great ideas, all of them, thanks! I think this got pretty interesting, I will come back to summarize.