Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Aus_Snow]

Raven Crowking, that 'example' (I use the term here very loosely) contains more of your own (to me) rather odd assumptions about rules and play style - or mock assumptions. . . or a mixture of both - than it would be worth my time disentangling and sorting through.

If you think you are right concerning your particular chosen house ruling (that's what it is), cool. I don't, for what it's worth.

If you don't think I'm right concerning my particular chosen house ruling (yes, I know that's what it is), just leave it at that, eh? I'm sure I can live with that.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Wow.. step away for a day and its amazing how fast a thread can travel..

My bad on the whole tree thing up there.. I was thinking base AC...

I agree with Aus Snow, we have two distinct HR's for two distinct gaming style. While I disagree with one version, mainly because its a ruling that would never be used in play.. essentially a rule 0 of 'you cant do that', I appreciate the feedback and conversation.


I think Hypersmurph summed up the reasoning quite well in his post above.

Yup.. thats about all I have to add today

 

[Felnar]

remind me when you can initiate "ignoring" of an opponent
does it have to be on your turn?
could you do it in response to a badger being summoned? (before the rogue sticks you)

 

[DonTadow]

Lets' see:





Note please that you threaten everything in all squares adjacent to your space, not "you threaten everything except your allies." Anyone who thinks that you can't have an "ally" in a fight suddenly attack you is fairly naive. That person also doesn't read enough books or watch enough movies. Heck, that person obviously missed the earlier days of D&D where The Village of Hommlet made the "supposed henchmen who attacks you by surprise" such a gaming trope that many D&D players simply refused to allow NPCs into the party.

Note also that you don't have to be in combat. You just have to have a weapon out, and be aware of what's going on.

BTW, if "limited help" meant "aid", then why would "aid" be under the definition of "helpful", which is one step better disposed to you? Perhaps the word "limited" is operative here.

In fact, it becomes painfully clear that everyone involved in this discussion is (by necessity) interpretting the rules based upon what they believe the rules to model. This is, despite the opposition of some, evaluating the rules based on something other than what the rules actually say. That's not a bad thing; it is an absolutely necessary thing. To claim otherwise.......



RC

What WE are doing is interpreting the rules based on the context and how they interact with other rules, thus an interpreation. What you are trying to do is chop up the rules and discard parts of them in order to make your house rule mechanically feasable (which it isn't.) And I don't even think most of us have gotten on that part of this conversation. Your house rule is very broken. I've touched on it earlier that you are asking and begging for group arguments and abuse with this. YOu are also weakening sneak attack and flanking in general. You're also limiting the value of lesser opponents in battle. I know some of us have our disagreements with 3.5 but these guys weren't drinking and lolligagging when they balanced some of these rules.

Now, you are attempting to use the SRD arguement of flanking to justify your house rule. However, what you've done is broken up the rule into two phrases and attempted to make them operate separtely which they dont. Then you're trying to leave the ruling only at its mechanics so you can take advantage of it.

Flanking only occurs when you and a person whom is friendly towards you are threatening a square with melee weapons. Can another enemy threaten his comrades space... yes. Can he flank his comrade no why because he can not be friendly towards you and friendly towards him.

Now, thats all mechaincal stuff, ok, lets look at this logically. I know you enjoy throwing that little nod out of the window in hopes of power gaming your rule to unbalance a game, but go with me here.

Flanking is not just someone standing there and looking at an opponent while his buddy attacks. He his distracting the opponent by menacing him. By coordinating the attacks. In your example, the sheep is not friendly until he does an action that proves he is friendly, thus helping him attack in combat. A being does not have to be intelligent to flank, only provide enough of a melee distraction for the other person.

 

[Khairn]

I think I would allow my PC's to ignore a certain opponent, but rule that then allows him to get in a coup de grace attack. Afterall you're not making any attempt to avoid him, so your helpless to his attack.

However, in your example above you should have made it clear to Olaf that the sheep was a definate threat. If I was playing Olaf and you tried that manuever on me (the way you described it) I would have a major problem with it as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hey, Aus, I'm well aware of the difference between a house rule and the RAW! In general, I tend to think that a house rule should be judged on the merits of "If this rule was in the book, would I use it? Would I modify it? How? Why?" rather than "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say."

If I was a little snarking with my "example" and it offended you, then I apologize to you. I've had the joy of reading many of your posts, and I have nothing but respect for you.

OTOH, I have to admit that I am more than a bit tired of being accused of intellectual dishonesty because I believe that you can extrapolate from existing rules. Or being told that an examination of where flanking applies/does not apply is "irrelevant" or a "chain of illogic" when discussing flanking.

Not you, I know. But having been told that the situation in my "thought experiment" could never occur, I thought I might demonstrate that it can occur. Is the example silly? Yes. Is the meat of the example any different that what was set up in The Village of Hommlet (guy/npc/creature you think harmless or ally attacks you at least opportune moment)? No.

Using your house rule, I would presume that the sneaky &^%@ would get a free attack that automatically hits, doing maximum damage. This is because I assume a similarity between conditions wherein a person does not gain a flanking bonus, and I further assume that "full concentration" means the same thing whether you are casting a spell or giving someone your full concentration in battle.

If I was in your campaign, and playing a rogue, I would certainly be willing to try to gain a foe's confidence to pull of exactly this stunt. In Storm Raven's campaign, I would assume that such a stunt would allow me to deliver a coup-de-grace....I would build characters to pull of that stunt. In my campaign, you could expect to be flat-footed against the sneaky &^%@ for the first round, which is a lot less of a penalty, but you would be a fool to allow yourself to remain flat-footed indefinitely against even a reasonably competent opponent.

In my campaign, your assumption would be correct. I am not at all certain whether or not my assumptions about your or Storm Raven's campaigns would be correct. If would be correct (simular situation = same ruling) your rule would be as elegant as mine (elegance in this case being the applicability of a rule to cover similar situations, such as the d20 core mechanic covering almost every "can I do it?" situation encountered).

I'll be the first to admit that elegance does not equal correctness, nor does elegance always give the most satisfying ruleset. However, as a player, when "similar situation =/= simular ruling" I like to know why. Mostly, this is because the decisions I am making are based upon the assumption that similar situations will produce similar rulings, and that therefore I can extrapolate from past experience to make present decisions. I find that most players have similar expectations to mine.

In some ways, this discussion is similar to the "Can I intentionally take a 5-foot step into thin air (so as to cause falling)" discussion. In order to answer the question, you have to determine what a 5-foot step models, and then decide what answer grants both the best consistency with the model (rules) and with what the rules are modelling (descriptive elements).

Different people answer those questions differently. Which is why we have different house rules. Actually, it is why house rules exist at all. I have a hard time suffering the attentions of those who claim those questions are completely irrelevant, though.

My house rule models "not actively defending against an opponent so that you may concentrate your defense elsewhere" which is, I believe, the gist of the original post. Your house rule models "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction". Two different things. I suppose, if my house rule was intended to model "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction" I would agree with you. Also, my silly example would apply (though with an automatically successful attack causing maximum damage rather than a coup de grace, and probably a different response from Olaf's player).

I still wouldn't agree with Storm Raven, though. Olaf may be ignoring the sheep, but he is not completely at its mercy.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

Hey, Aus, I'm well aware of the difference between a house rule and the RAW! In general, I tend to think that a house rule should be judged on the merits of "If this rule was in the book, would I use it? Would I modify it? How? Why?" rather than "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say."

If I was a little snarking with my "example" and it offended you, then I apologize to you. I've had the joy of reading many of your posts, and I have nothing but respect for you.

OTOH, I have to admit that I am more than a bit tired of being accused of intellectual dishonesty because I believe that you can extrapolate from existing rules. Or being told that an examination of where flanking applies/does not apply is "irrelevant" or a "chain of illogic" when discussing flanking.

Not you, I know. But having been told that the situation in my "thought experiment" could never occur, I thought I might demonstrate that it can occur. Is the example silly? Yes. Is the meat of the example any different that what was set up in The Village of Hommlet (guy/npc/creature you think harmless or ally attacks you at least opportune moment)? No.

Using your house rule, I would presume that the sneaky &^%@ would get a free attack that automatically hits, doing maximum damage. This is because I assume a similarity between conditions wherein a person does not gain a flanking bonus, and I further assume that "full concentration" means the same thing whether you are casting a spell or giving someone your full concentration in battle.

If I was in your campaign, and playing a rogue, I would certainly be willing to try to gain a foe's confidence to pull of exactly this stunt. In Storm Raven's campaign, I would assume that such a stunt would allow me to deliver a coup-de-grace....I would build characters to pull of that stunt. In my campaign, you could expect to be flat-footed against the sneaky &^%@ for the first round, which is a lot less of a penalty, but you would be a fool to allow yourself to remain flat-footed indefinitely against even a reasonably competent opponent.

In my campaign, your assumption would be correct. I am not at all certain whether or not my assumptions about your or Storm Raven's campaigns would be correct. If would be correct (simular situation = same ruling) your rule would be as elegant as mine (elegance in this case being the applicability of a rule to cover similar situations, such as the d20 core mechanic covering almost every "can I do it?" situation encountered).

I'll be the first to admit that elegance does not equal correctness, nor does elegance always give the most satisfying ruleset. However, as a player, when "similar situation =/= simular ruling" I like to know why. Mostly, this is because the decisions I am making are based upon the assumption that similar situations will produce similar rulings, and that therefore I can extrapolate from past experience to make present decisions. I find that most players have similar expectations to mine.

In some ways, this discussion is similar to the "Can I intentionally take a 5-foot step into thin air (so as to cause falling)" discussion. In order to answer the question, you have to determine what a 5-foot step models, and then decide what answer grants both the best consistency with the model (rules) and with what the rules are modelling (descriptive elements).

Different people answer those questions differently. Which is why we have different house rules. Actually, it is why house rules exist at all. I have a hard time suffering the attentions of those who claim those questions are completely irrelevant, though.

My house rule models "not actively defending against an opponent so that you may concentrate your defense elsewhere" which is, I believe, the gist of the original post. Your house rule models "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction". Two different things. I suppose, if my house rule was intended to model "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction" I would agree with you. Also, my silly example would apply (though with an automatically successful attack causing maximum damage rather than a coup de grace, and probably a different response from Olaf's player).

I still wouldn't agree with Storm Raven, though. Olaf may be ignoring the sheep, but he is not completely at its mercy.


RC

House rules should be judged on one criteria only. Does it break the game or modify it in a way such that it greatly dimishes other aspects of the game. Previously stated... this one does.

 

[Storm Raven]

Now, note that "defend equally" is the division of attention implied in the flanking rules. This implication includes within it the idea that there can exist a house rule wherein attention is not divided equally. Is this a house of cards? Obviously not.

The only question then becomes IF you allow a house rule that allows for a different division of attention WHAT is the best way to model that division?

Here's the main problem with your argument. Before you got off on the smokescreen tangent regarding "ally" and "enemy" and demonstrated that you don't understand the distinction between them, the fundamental flaw with your idea is right here.

You say you want the ability to "rebalance" your attention between your foes. But you actually don't. You want the ability to pay full attention to one foe (the one not being ignored) while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to). That exceeds your total attention ability.

So, for example, if being flanked means that you pay 50% attention to enemy A, and 50% attention to enemy B, then paying 100% attention to enemy A (and getting full defensive bonuses against them) should mean that you pay 0% attention to enemy B. Your house rule amounts to saying "I should pay 100% attention to enemy A, and 10% attention to enemy B".

That is getting something for nothing.

 

[DonTadow]

Here's the main problem with your argument. Before you got off on the smokescreen tangent regarding "ally" and "enemy" and demonstrated that you don't understand the distinction between them, the fundamental flaw with your idea is right here.

You say you want the ability to "rebalance" your attention between your foes. But you actually don't. You want the ability to pay full attention to one foe (the one not being ignored) while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to). That exceeds your total attention ability.

So, for example, if being flanked means that you pay 50% attention to enemy A, and 50% attention to enemy B, then paying 100% attention to enemy A (and getting full defensive bonuses against them) should mean that you pay 0% attention to enemy B. Your house rule amounts to saying "I should pay 100% attention to enemy A, and 10% attention to enemy B".

That is getting something for nothing.

... I'll reiterate my first statement. Do you really want a game where your pcs are telling you how much of a percentage their paying to other npcs. This just sounds like a breeding ground for trouble

 

[Raven Crowking]

What WE are doing is interpreting the rules based on the context and how they interact with other rules, thus an interpreation. What you are trying to do is chop up the rules and discard parts of them in order to make your house rule mechanically feasable (which it isn't.)

Don,

C'mon man. Go back and read the house rule I posted. Did I suggest ignoring an opponent was easy? No. Obviously, the opponent is attempting both to injure you and distract you. Did I suggest that not actively defending against an opponent allowed you to retain your normal defense against that opponent? No. I said you were flat-footed against that opponent, and could take no AoOs against him.

I didn't start parsing rules until it became necessary to do so in order to establish some baseline of what "flanking" means in descriptive terms. In other words, what are the flanking rules attempting to model?

Frankly, if you are going to make an argument based upon "definitions" or make a claim that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say" (as Storm Raven did), then you ought to be prepared for someone to parse those rules to see what they do say.

You have only to read through the responses to realize that what they do say and what people believe they are intending to convey are, generally speaking, two different things. It doesn't require a belief that the designers were "drinking and lolligagging" to believe that the designers intended some common sense to prevail when interpreting the rules. Nor does it require a belief that the designers were "drinking and lolligagging" to believe that they did not always write the best possible rule for all circumstances. The designers of 2nd Ed weren't "drinking and lolligagging," yet most players decided that the revisions to their rules were welcome. The designers of 3.0 weren't "drinking and lolligagging," and yet along came 3.5.

These kinds of arguments, along with your "power gamer" slur, don't actually contribute anything meaningful to the discussion at hand.

Now, I will agree that this weakens sneak attack to some small degree. But it is a very, very small degree, and one that occurs only when flanking probably shouldn't be allowed anyway. Earlier, I pointed out that how this changes the game is easily testable: run a few mock combats. Have you tried this? I have. And, if anything, those who say "Why bother with a rule that will almost never be used?" have the right of it. Once you see how it works in combat, the only way you'd want to use it is if you absolutely know that one opponent is truly insignificant (and I am talking more insignificant than a kobold when otherwise facing a 10th level rogue here -- in other words, a "placeholder" flanker of the worst sort) or when using the combat rules to emulate something non-lethal, such as a sporting event (again, if you go back to the original post, I cite Tournaments & Fairs [which I think is the right title, but I am at work and cannot check] as my inspirational resource).

Honestly, if you can use the house rule I presented to power game, you are a better tactition than I.

On the other hand, when you say

Flanking only occurs when you and a person whom is friendly towards you are threatening a square with melee weapons. Can another enemy threaten his comrades space... yes. Can he flank his comrade no why because he can not be friendly towards you and friendly towards him.

I have to disagree. It is quite easy to conceive of a situation where two of your friends are fighting. I have been the DM in far too many situations where PCs oppose PCs while other PCs try to decide what to do to agree with you there.

Now, thats all mechaincal stuff, ok, lets look at this logically. I know you enjoy throwing that little nod out of the window in hopes of power gaming your rule to unbalance a game, but go with me here.

Insulting me doesn't make my position any less valid.

Moreover, if you believe that I wish to powergame and unbalance the rules, whyever would I suggest (on another thread) that the DM shouldn't fudge dice in the players' favor? Wouldn't that be a much easier way to allow me to power game?

I DM. Every once in a while, I play. Two game sessions in the last five years, I got to be a player for. I DM. I don't go out of my way to make things easier for my players. I don't go out of my way to nerf their abilities. If you want, I can link you to many of the classes I have rewritten for my campaign...if I wanted to nerf the rogue, I'd have done it then. Actually, the rogue was one of the few classes I didn't have to tinker with.

I believe that the DM has the right to make decisions regarding his campaign. His table, his rules. I may disagree with practices some DMs engage in (fudging rolls without telling the players) but I agree that the DM can tell players he's going to fudge (house rule) and then do it to his heart's content.

I believe that if the players don't like playing with a given DM, they should walk. Even if there is no other game. Your DM sucks? Vote with your feet.

I believe that if a player sucks (is detrimental to the game and the DM's playing style, not merely new at it), the DM should give him the boot.

I believe that the internal consistency of what you are trying to model with a ruleset takes precedence over the letter of the rules. Always, and without exception. (But I understand that others feel differently, and they can play their own way.)

I do not believe in breaking a ruleset to give yourself a temporary advantage.

I do not belive in a perfect ruleset, but I do believe that you can make one better for your own purposes. I believe that the DM has a right (and, if necessary, an obligation) to modify any ruleset in order to make it better reflect that DM's vision of the world she is modelling.

Flanking is not just someone standing there and looking at an opponent while his buddy attacks. He his distracting the opponent by menacing him. By coordinating the attacks. In your example, the sheep is not friendly until he does an action that proves he is friendly, thus helping him attack in combat. A being does not have to be intelligent to flank, only provide enough of a melee distraction for the other person.

Granted. But certainly you can accept that, sometimes, the creature you are using to flank simply isn't menacing. The sheep in my silly example isn't menacing.

Let's look at coordinated attacks for a second.

In 3.X, there is an action called Aid Another, which can be used to give a circumstance bonus to attacks. That circumstance bonus is +2, exactly like the flanking bonus. However, if three people aid you, the bonus rises to +6. If three people flank, the bonus is still only +2. Aid Another is described in the SRD: "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent." This seems to be what you are describing.

The SRD describes the penalties of being flat-footed: "You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed. A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity."

If you have uncanny dodge, and you are facing two rogues, you could use my house rule to avoid sneak attacks from one, but not both. The opponent you are not actively defending against still gains a flanking bonus from the opponent that you are focusing on. Moreover, since you are flat-footed with respect to that opponent, you can enter his space, initiate a grapple, initiate a trip attempt, cast a spell, etc., without provoking an AoO. The character you are focusing on can still use Aid Another to help the character you are not actively defending against.

In effect, while you have lost the general benefit of coordinating your attacks for one character, you have increased the range of ways you can specify that you are coordinating your attacks for both characters.

For example: Three characters, Al, Bob, and Charlie, are fighting. Al and Bob are allied rogues, fighting Charlie. Al and Bob move into flanking position, and Charlie decides to ignore Bob.

On his initiative, Al holds his action. On Bob's initiative, Bob starts a grapple against Charlie. Charlie is flat-footed with respect to Bob, so Bob has to make a touch attack against AC 10 (Charlie gains no Dex bonus), for which he gains a +2 flanking bonus from Al. There is no AoO because Charlie is flat-footed with respect to Bob.

Charlie cannot both make an opposed grapple check and ignore Bob, as making the check requires an active defense. If Charlie decides to make the check, Al uses his held action to immediately sneak attack. If Charlie decides not to make the check, he has now lost his Dexterity bonus due to being grappled, and Al uses his held action to immediately sneak attack.

Yup, that nerfed sneak attack, all right. Ruined flanking and coordinated attacks, too.


RC