Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wolfen" data-source="post: 985627" data-attributes="member: 12717">That is a clearly spelled out rule that imparts a fantastic skill to a character.&nbsp; If he can't be flanked he can't be flanked.&nbsp; I think with uncanny dodge, you must assume that they always have such an indication, and are therefore not flanked.&nbsp; However, a normal character might also see this coming (per DM).&nbsp; I think this is where the DM must rule -- and where WOTC cops out.&nbsp;Your questions are all excellent. I think people must think through the flanking issue.&nbsp; A person fighting two people in front of him (a la 3 Musketeers) is not flanked.&nbsp; Flanking is advantageous precisely BECAUSE there is facing.&nbsp; It's not as though WOTC has an arbitrary flanking term applied to their combat system -- their combat system is trying to reflect real combat.So if you accept that fact, then you see that a ranged attack MUST (logically) have the same flanking benefits as a melee if your target is engaged in melee with somone on their opposite side.&nbsp; Imagine a target is flanked...now just move flanker#1&nbsp; 20ft directly away from them, but still 180degrees opposite from flanker #2.&nbsp; Now place a throwing axe in flanker#1 hand.&nbsp; Now think -- is the target threatened from opposing directions?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Does it really matter if he knows this in the above circumstance?&nbsp; Logically, it would obviously be more advantageous to flanker#1 if the target DIDN'T feel threatened from that direction!&nbsp; Why should a ranged attack not get a flanking bonus in this circumstance?&nbsp; Whether the target recognizes it or not, he's flanked.Aircraft carriers, tanks, bows, machine guns...all were created because ranged attacks DO threaten larger areas than a sword.&nbsp; WOTC is being inconsistent in their use of flanking.&nbsp; I'm not sure why, but it doesn't really matter.&nbsp; Anyone who cares to have a more realistic system just has to recognize the truth of the simulated situation and adjust from there.Yes, rogues become more powerful -- but so does everyone else.&nbsp; And in a real &quot;Braveheart-esque&quot; battle, everyone's gotta watch their back because double-flanking is a PITA.&nbsp; A and C flank B, but B and D flank C.I am willing to concede that, for simplicity's sake, it might be best to create a sniper rogue subclass.&nbsp; But in the long term I hope WOTC publishes optional rules for DM's to make combat more realistic, as was done with 2E.Anyway, thanks for entertaining my house rule.&nbsp; I feel bad for hijacking the thread, but it is quite relevant to the use of a halfling rogue/monk.&nbsp; I'll stop posting to it, now, and maybe one day someone will create a new thread around this issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wolfen, post: 985627, member: 12717"] That is a clearly spelled out rule that imparts a fantastic skill to a character. If he can't be flanked he can't be flanked. [B] [/B] I think with uncanny dodge, you must assume that they always have such an indication, and are therefore not flanked. However, a normal character might also see this coming (per DM). I think this is where the DM must rule -- and where WOTC cops out. [B] [/B] Your questions are all excellent. I think people must think through the flanking issue. A person fighting two people in front of him (a la 3 Musketeers) is not flanked. Flanking is advantageous precisely BECAUSE there is facing. It's not as though WOTC has an arbitrary flanking term applied to their combat system -- their combat system is trying to reflect real combat. So if you accept that fact, then you see that a ranged attack MUST (logically) have the same flanking benefits as a melee if your target is engaged in melee with somone on their opposite side. Imagine a target is flanked...now just move flanker#1 20ft directly away from them, but still 180degrees opposite from flanker #2. Now place a throwing axe in flanker#1 hand. Now think -- is the target threatened from opposing directions? Yes. Does it really matter if he knows this in the above circumstance? Logically, it would obviously be more advantageous to flanker#1 if the target DIDN'T feel threatened from that direction! Why should a ranged attack not get a flanking bonus in this circumstance? Whether the target recognizes it or not, he's flanked. Aircraft carriers, tanks, bows, machine guns...all were created because ranged attacks DO threaten larger areas than a sword. WOTC is being inconsistent in their use of flanking. I'm not sure why, but it doesn't really matter. Anyone who cares to have a more realistic system just has to recognize the truth of the simulated situation and adjust from there. Yes, rogues become more powerful -- but so does everyone else. And in a real "Braveheart-esque" battle, everyone's gotta watch their back because double-flanking is a PITA. A and C flank B, but B and D flank C. I am willing to concede that, for simplicity's sake, it might be best to create a sniper rogue subclass. But in the long term I hope WOTC publishes optional rules for DM's to make combat more realistic, as was done with 2E. Anyway, thanks for entertaining my house rule. I feel bad for hijacking the thread, but it is quite relevant to the use of a halfling rogue/monk. I'll stop posting to it, now, and maybe one day someone will create a new thread around this issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification