Some Proficiency questions

[Sutek]

OK, ambushes with ranged sneak attacks can work, that's true.
Still, an ambush with bows within 30 feet is quite close, as you will often be well within striking range when your opponents retaliate (unless you set the ambush in a place where you can't be charged, of course).

That's how hunting with bows is traditionally done. Except for Japanese mountted stag or native American buffalo hunts (lol) I can't think of any pre-industrial bow hunting culture that didn't do it stealthily. However, in both contrast and to further my point somewhat, modern bow hunting is now done almost exclusively with compound bows. Just ask Nugent. (hehe)

Anyway, I really don't want to argue this forever. My point with the sneak attack stuff is this:
Sneak attacking with a melee weapon is something you can build a combat-strategy around, because you can use it in several ways: ambushes, high initiative so you catch opponents flat-footed, moving into flanking positions and feinting.
Sneak attacking with a ranged weapon is much, much more restricted; there will be many more situations when you won't be able to use it. If I were to build a character that was good at archery, I'd definitely not go for sneak attack (being a soldier with lots of feats seems better than a thief to me).

But it isn't much more restricted.

All a target has to do is be denied Dodge and/or Parry and he can be Sneak Attacked. Archers can easily sneak to a sniping position and then, with Precise Shot, shoot into melee combat and use thier Sneak Attack ability because arrows cannot be Parried; the target is denied Parry and so can be Sneak Attacked, no flanking necessary.

 

[Trodax]

But it isn't much more restricted.

All a target has to do is be denied Dodge and/or Parry and he can be Sneak Attacked. Archers can easily sneak to a sniping position and then, with Precise Shot, shoot into melee combat and use thier Sneak Attack ability because arrows cannot be Parried; the target is denied Parry and so can be Sneak Attacked, no flanking necessary.

Now you've lost me. A target that is engaged in melee is not denied Dodge; even if he is totally surrounded by enemies he only takes a -2 penalty to Dodge defense (but is still quite able to dodge). Therefore, he cannot be sneak attacked.

The only situations that I can think of when someone can be targeted by a ranged sneak attack in an ongoing combat (when everyone has ceased to be flat-footed) are if the target is blinded or stunned (basically never happens in Conan) or if the target is grappled (but then you have to roll randomly for who you hit - not a good idea if its a close friend doing the grappling!).

 

[Sutek]

I didn't say "denied a dodge", I said "denied a parry", and that was in reference to the archer. Arrows cannot be parried, therefore the target of an arrow is denied a parry towards that attack and is succeptible to sneak attacks.

You gotta remember that the only criteria for sneak attack is, really, that the target is denied Dodge or Parry. Shooting from range denies Parry.

The add ranged finesse where the AP of the arrow isn't dropping due to excessive range and you got a nasty little sniping trick.

 

[Trodax]

You gotta remember that the only criteria for sneak attack is, really, that the target is denied Dodge or Parry. Shooting from range denies Parry.

This is incorrect. To be able to sneak attack, your opponent must be unable to defend himself (meaning that he must be unable to Dodge and unable to Parry).

I see where your reading is coming from ("target must be unable to Dodge or Parry"), but I'm very certain it is wrong.

(But I do see now that, with your reading, ranged sneak attckas would be much more common. In fact, they would happen all the time.)

 

[slaughterj]

(But I do see now that, with your reading, ranged sneak attckas would be much more common. In fact, they would happen all the time.)

Which should be a clue that his interpretation is incorrect...

 

[Sutek]

Read the Balance skill.

 

[Oly]

Read the Balance skill.

Yes being denied the ability to dodge, e.g balancing, does mean that you can be sneak attacked with a range attack.

However being in melee combat, even being completely surrounded, does not stop you dodging so you are not sneak attacked by ranged weapons without there being some other cause (e.g. you are balancing and surrounded).

Arrows cannot be parried, therefore the target of an arrow is denied a parry towards that attack and is succeptible to sneak attacks.

No. Just no. Reading the rules both literally and with some thought will result in a no.

Your own example of the balance rules clearly points out how the rules are meant to be. They categorically give a very clear example where dodging is impossible and that, rather than the inability to parry, causes the ranged sneak attack.

If all ranged attacks, because you cannot parry them, are sneak attacks then why bother pointing that out? Why not just have an all encompassing "all ranged attacks are sneak attacks" sentence? Because they're not meant to be and even with an imaginative reading of the rules they're not written to be.

 

[Sutek]

Alright.

You guys wanna be nasty, go right ahead, but I can only tell you I used to think the same way you do over a year or so ago, even before AE came out. In the first edition, DV was a miced bag of when to apply EX bonus and when not to, and AE clarified it by cleaning things up.

Namely, in regards to that, was to stipulate things like when opponents were the equivalent of "being denied DEX bonus" as it was termed in the first edition rules. Thus, splitting defense into Dodge and Parry entirely and just suggesting that when a target is deinied them, they are succeptible to certain other rules, like flat-footed and sneak attack.

Balance is written to clarify that a person who is trying ot ballance, for whatever reason, is indeed denied thier ability to Dodge, and is therefore succeptible to sneak attacks. They can still Parry, but cannot Dodge, and being denied only one of the two prompts being open to sneak attacks.

It's right there.

In print.

No interpretive creativity necessary.

Now, because of this, it reinforces the idea that targets only need to be denied either Dodge or Parry. It has nothing to do with being surrounded or being in melee or whatever. When they are denined either Dodge or Parry they are in trouble.

This notion is further reinforced by Reflexive Parry, but I didn't want to bring that up specifically because it is an exclusively melee-oriented Feat and doesn't apply in ranged combat, mainly because nobody can Parry range weapons.

Only the Dodge defense can be used against ranged attacks. There fore, if an attacker has a ranged weapon (bow, dart, blowgun, dagger, etc.) and the sneak attack ability, then he can sneak attack individuals because they are denied thier Parry defense.

 

[slaughterj]

I don't think anybody is being nasty, but let's work through this because it is important.

Sutek, you mention the Balance skill, so I am looking at it. When Balancing, you can't dodge, but you can parry. Because you can't dodge, "against ranged attacks, you have no effective defense and can therefore be sneak attacked." That is clear and makes sense.

However, regular dudes standing around aware of a ranged combatant can dodge ranged attacks. Therefore, they are not denied their defense and cannot be sneak attacked. Do you see the difference?

Sure, regular dudes can't parry the ranged attack, but the inability to parry the ranged attack is not the reason they have no defense against ranged attacks and can be sneaked attacked while Balancing. It is because they were denied their dodge defense.

Dodge defense is broader than parry defense, since dodge applies to melee and ranged, while parry just applies to melee. Therefore, if parry is denied, so what, the person can still dodge. However, if dodge is denied but parry is not, that is what is significant, because then ranged attacks are not being defended against and a sneak attack can still occur through ranged attacks. This is how the Reflexive Parry feat works.

The Atlantean Edition (PG p. 270) has a section on Sneak Attack. It says "a sneak attack can only be made against a character who is unable to use Dodge Defense or Parry Defense to defend himself, or is being flanked." If you read that section alone, you *might* say to yourself, "aha, if I stop either one from working, I get to sneak attack," but that interpretation is wrong for several reasons. Further in the text of Sneak Attack it says "If a character able to defend himself with either Dodge Defense or Parry Defense ... then he is not susceptible to a sneak attack, unless the sneak attack is of a kind that the chosen defense cannot help against."

Therefore, if I can Dodge (even if I can't Parry, i.e., against a ranged attack), I cannot be sneak attacked (unless flanked). If I can only Parry (i.e., flatfooted but have Reflexive Parry), I cannot be sneak attacked in melee (unless flanked), but I can be sneak attacked by ranged attacks because I was denied my only means of defense, i.e., Dodge.

Sutek, take a little time and read through these sections again with a fresh mind and you'll figure it out.

 

[Oly]

You guys wanna be nasty, go right ahead

I'll apologise now in case something I said came out wrong and offended you. I promise that it wasn't meant and I hope it doesn't tar the discussion.

Balance is written to clarify that a person who is trying ot ballance, for whatever reason, is indeed denied thier ability to Dodge, and is therefore succeptible to sneak attacks. They can still Parry, but cannot Dodge, and being denied only one of the two prompts being open to sneak attacks.

Balance makes clear that they're only open to sneak attacks from ranged attacks not all weapons.

Against ranged attacks you have no effective defence and therefore can be sneak attacked.

It's not being denied one of the two that did it, it's being denied the only one that could defend you against ranged attacks.

The rules doesn't say the simpler "you can be sneak attacked while balancing" because that's not the intention. Against a melee combatant if you can still parry then they can't sneak attack you.

However if the balancer didn't have something to parry with then he could be sneak attacked, he can't fall back on dodge as he usually might as the balancing stops him.

 

[Oly]

Balance is written to clarify that a person who is trying ot ballance, for whatever reason, is indeed denied thier ability to Dodge, and is therefore succeptible to sneak attacks. They can still Parry, but cannot Dodge, and being denied only one of the two prompts being open to sneak attacks.

Furthermore if all ranged attacks (within 30ft) count as sneak attacks then why would the balance skill point that out again and give a bizarre (blaming it on dodge when the inablity to parry the attack would usually be the cause) reason for it?

 

[Sutek]

"If a character able to defend himself with either Dodge Defense or Parry Defense ... then he is not susceptible to a sneak attack, unless the sneak attack is of a kind that the chosen defense cannot help against."

The Parry defense cannot help against ranged attacks. Therefore, if he can Dodge but not Parry, he is succeptible to sneak attack. That last sentance that you qoted is the caveat.

Therefore, if I can Dodge (even if I can't Parry, i.e., against a ranged attack), I cannot be sneak attacked (unless flanked). If I can only Parry (i.e., flatfooted but have Reflexive Parry), I cannot be sneak attacked in melee (unless flanked), but I can be sneak attacked by ranged attacks because I was denied my only means of defense, i.e., Dodge.

This point is erroneous since flanking denies both in melee combat. It's also irrelevant to the discussion of ranged sneak attacks or the denial of separate or inclusive means of defense.

Sutek, take a little time and read through these sections again with a fresh mind and you'll figure it out.

I will, but, like I said, my eyes were opened to this way back when AE first came out. There were many threads discussing this very thing as far back as a year ago. Because of taht fact, it's hard for me to pin point an actual thread because there are so many started on tangential topics.

The only place I can find a confirmatio nof what I'm saying is, ironically, one of my own posts, referring back to other discussions, and I can't find those original threads.

I'll take a thurough look in the book tonight. i forgot to grab it today when I was leaving the house.

 

[slaughterj]

"If a character able to defend himself with either Dodge Defense or Parry Defense ... then he is not susceptible to a sneak attack, unless the sneak attack is of a kind that the chosen defense cannot help against."

The Parry defense cannot help against ranged attacks. Therefore, if he can Dodge but not Parry, he is succeptible to sneak attack. That last sentance that you qoted is the caveat.

I do not understand your last sentence - do you mean the last clause of the sentence quoted?

Therefore, if I can Dodge (even if I can't Parry, i.e., against a ranged attack), I cannot be sneak attacked (unless flanked). If I can only Parry (i.e., flatfooted but have Reflexive Parry), I cannot be sneak attacked in melee (unless flanked), but I can be sneak attacked by ranged attacks because I was denied my only means of defense, i.e., Dodge.

This point is erroneous since flanking denies both in melee combat. It's also irrelevant to the discussion of ranged sneak attacks or the denial of separate or inclusive means of defense.

Your response makes no sense as what I said there has nothing to do with flanking - I have flanking mentioned in quotes to note it as a separate exception, otherwise it has nothing to do with the substance of my point.

Sutek, take a little time and read through these sections again with a fresh mind and you'll figure it out.

I will, but, like I said, my eyes were opened to this way back when AE first came out. There were many threads discussing this very thing as far back as a year ago. Because of taht fact, it's hard for me to pin point an actual thread because there are so many started on tangential topics.

The only place I can find a confirmatio nof what I'm saying is, ironically, one of my own posts, referring back to other discussions, and I can't find those original threads.

I'll take a thurough look in the book tonight. i forgot to grab it today when I was leaving the house.

We should just pause at this point until you can look back and reflect on the points made above then.

 

[Sutek]

Balance is written to clarify that a person who is trying ot ballance, for whatever reason, is indeed denied thier ability to Dodge, and is therefore succeptible to sneak attacks. They can still Parry, but cannot Dodge, and being denied only one of the two prompts being open to sneak attacks.

Furthermore if all ranged attacks (within 30ft) count as sneak attacks then why would the balance skill point that out again and give a bizarre (blaming it on dodge when the inablity to parry the attack would usually be the cause) reason for it?

Most references to being denied Dodge/Parry revolve around melee combat. Therefore, Dodge is highlighted in Ballance are to do with its effect in melee.

However, it does still speak to an individual being denied only one defense and still being succeptible to sneak attacks.

 

[slaughterj]

"If a character able to defend himself with either Dodge Defense or Parry Defense ... then he is not susceptible to a sneak attack, unless the sneak attack is of a kind that the chosen defense cannot help against."

The Parry defense cannot help against ranged attacks. Therefore, if he can Dodge but not Parry, he is succeptible to sneak attack. That last sentance that you qoted is the caveat.

I just looked back at this, and you need to read this closer, and answer the following questions:

1. Can a character use Dodge Defense against a ranged attack (under normal circumstances, i.e., not Balancing, Flatfooted, etc.)?

2. If yes to #1, then why can a character not select to use his Dodge Defense against a ranged attack, and therefore not be sneak attacked?

 

[Trodax]

It's been quoted before, but this is really the rule that says it all:

If a character is able to defend himself with either Dodge Defence or Parry Defence (such as a character with the Reflexive Parry feat who is attacked when flat-footed) then he is not susceptible to a sneak attack, unless the sneak attack is of a kind that the chosen defence cannot help against. For example, a flat-footed character with Reflexive Parry could still be sneak attacked by a character using a bow, because ranged attacks cannot be parried.

If you are flat-footed and have Reflexive Parry you can Parry, but not Dodge.

As the quote above says, such a character:

1) Cannot normally be sneak attacked (because he can use his Parry Defence to defend). Note that it does not matter that such a character cannot Dodge, he is still immune to sneak attacks because he can Parry them (IOW, loosing one Defence doesn't matter).

2) Can be sneak attacked with a ranged attack (because you can never parry a ranged attack, and Parry is the only Defence this character has). Against ranged sneak attacks this character is screwed because he cannot Dodge and he cannot Parry (IOW, if you loose both your Defences, you are open to being sneak attacked).

In more general terms, I don't see the logic in your interpretation, Sutek: when you are attacked in combat you can choose to Dodge or Parry the attack. If you Dodge, your Parry Defence becomes totally unimportant. Why would it then matter if you lost just one of your defences, as you could always fall back on the other one?

 

[slaughterj]

I have two questions about weapon proficiencies (well #1 isn't really a question, but rather a proposed houserule):

1) Bow Proficiencies
I have a problem with how the proficiencies for exotic bows (Hyrkanian/Shemite/Stygian/Bossonian) work. In my last game, one of the players played an archery-specialized Bossonian soldier. When he had his Bossonian longbow, he kicked a lot of ass, but when he was without it, not so much. He even got his hands on a Stygian longbow at one point, but couldn't really use it. He really didn't feel like a great archer at all; just a Bossonian longbow specialist, which he thought was a bit uncool. What we didn't like was this: good archers in Conan are always very specialized and committed to one type of bow, usually based on their race. Part of the problem here is that the hunting bow is so very weak that its not really an option if you want to be an effective archer, you basically have to stick to your racial weapon.

So, to my proposed houserule: How do you think it would work to have only one feat (Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Compound bow) that covered all of the Hyrkanian, Shemite, Stygian and Bossonian bows? These races would then gain this feat for free, so a Bossonian, for example, would be proficient with all bows, not just the Bossonian one. Any problems with that houserule?

2) Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword
What is the basis in the REH tales for the greatsword being a Hyborian-specific weapon (IOW, why do Hyborians gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword for free)?
IIRC, the Nemedian Adventurers wielded greatswords, but is there anything other than that?

FYI, in case you missed it, the sidebar about Bows says that ALL bows have STR ratings, therefore even if the Bossonian loses his longbow, he could still pick up a STR-bonus Hunting Bow somewhere and do pretty good. (Note, the description of every bow but Hunting Bow notes that they have STR ratings, but that lack of a mention doesn't seem to mean an exception once you get to the sidebar. Further, only a couple of the bows mention a STR penalty applying, but I would presume such would apply to all bows as well.)

 

[Trodax]

FYI, in case you missed it, the sidebar about Bows says that ALL bows have STR ratings, therefore even if the Bossonian loses his longbow, he could still pick up a STR-bonus Hunting Bow somewhere and do pretty good. (Note, the description of every bow but Hunting Bow notes that they have STR ratings, but that lack of a mention doesn't seem to mean an exception once you get to the sidebar. Further, only a couple of the bows mention a STR penalty applying, but I would presume such would apply to all bows as well.)

Yeah, I've seen this (rather unclear) stuff, and came to the conclusion that the hunting bow does not have a Strength rating. I based this on that the description of all the compound bows have the text "this bow has a Strength rating (see sidebar)" while the hunting bow only says "if you have a Strength penalty, apply it to damage".

This is how I've played it so far, and as I've said, it makes the hunting bow a very weak weapon. I'll probably start allowing Strength ratings for hunting bows from now on and, as you point out, its not really clear (to me at least) what the RAW says.

 

[Sutek]

Sometimes you cannot dodge or parry at all. If you cannot react to a blow, such as when an opponent takes you by surprise and you are ‘flat-footed’, then you can use neither Dodge Defense nor Parry Defense. Equally, if you cannot move freely, then defending yourself is also impossible; a character is unable to use either his Dodge Defense or Parry Defense when he is clinging for life on the edge of a mile-high cliff-top. Under these circumstances, you are vulnerable to sneak attacks.

That's from somewhere in the combat section, but I went and walked out the door, all prepared from last night to quote away (lol). Crud. But I found this in the thread history from the "old to AE" edition thing I created. so I know for sure it's in the AE book.

In the first part, it says that "if you cannot react" then you can use neither you Dodge or Parry Defense.

In the secod part, it says that "if you are unable to move freely" and unable to use either Dodge or Parry Defense, "you are vulnerable to sneak attacks."

Dodge bonuses: Some other bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Wearing armor does not limit these bonuses the way it limits Dexterity bonus to Dodge Defense. Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other. Dodge bonuses only apply to a character’s Dodge Defense. They do not add to the character’s Parry Defense at all. If you are in a situation where you cannot dodge, then your dodge bonuses do not apply.

This is another place where Dodge Bonuses are separated from Parry bonuses.

The point that one could just opt to use Dodge instead of Parry when attacked from range is valid, but sometimes Dodging isn't possible (no clear squares, etc.). Further, that has nothing to do with Sneak Attack. Flat-footed begets denial of Dodge/Parry, not the other way around. Likewise, "unable to use" and "denied" are not the same thing. Characters are unable to use Parry against a ranged attack - this we all agree on.

Now, what throws everything off is the example of "clinging to a cliff", which implies that you have to be hanging on for dear life or being sat on top of or hand-cuffed or whatever. The actual key point is "unable to use either his Dodge Defense or Parry Defense", clearly meaning if either one can't be used, then you are succeptible to sneak attacks. In the case given, clining to a mile-high cliff (it could be a 15 foot cliff - the height is irrelevant; the example is jsut dramatic liscence) that is an example where one of the Defense Types is "unable to be used"; in that case, Dodge. He could still Parry, but he can't Dodge, and is therefore succeptible.

In a situation where someone is unable to use one or the other, either Dodge or Parry, they are succeptible. Versus ranged attacks, targets are unable to use their Parry. They dont' have to be Flat-footed, and since Flat-footed begets denial of Dodge/Parry that isn't even what I'm talking about. It's situations where either is unable to be used that makes targets succeptible tha I'm referring to.

 

[slaughterj]

In a situation where someone is unable to use one or the other, either Dodge or Parry, they are succeptible. Versus ranged attacks, targets are unable to use their Parry. They dont' have to be Flat-footed, and since Flat-footed begets denial of Dodge/Parry that isn't even what I'm talking about. It's situations where either is unable to be used that makes targets succeptible tha I'm referring to.

No one EVER gets to use their Parry against Ranged attacks. But if their Dodge is able to be used, then it applies, and Ranged attacks do not count as sneak attacks. Please succinctly respond directly to the questions I posed above.