Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Speaking of smokescreen tangents, "ally" and "enemy" are not game terms. If you are going to argue on the basis of what the RAW says, I recommend you pay closer attention to it.

You say you want the ability to "rebalance" your attention between your foes.

Okay, now you are finally responding to what I wrote (rather than simply making personal attacks).

Since you are drawing the distinction, what I say is that I am granting PC and NPC alike the ability, if they make a Concentration check, to not actively defend against a single opponent.

I don't want to pay "full attention" to one foe any more than I would be paying "full attention" to one foe when faced by two foes who are not in flanking position. Nor is this any more "full attention" than the "full attention" which is required for spellcasting. You are correct, however, when you say that (given a situation with only two foes), the character in question would retain full AC against the foe not being "ignored" while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to).

I understand that you believe that this exceeds a character's total attention ability, but this is really no different than what occurs during spellcasting. The SRD says, under Magic Overview, that "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect." Under the Concentration skill, the SRD says "You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity."

Needless to say, in rules terms "full attention" cannot easily be parsed into neat percentiles. Since casting a spell provokes an AoO against your normal AC, the "full attention" required obviously doesn't prevent you from having a modicum of defense. In fact, the "full attention" required for casting a spell is less attention than required to not actively defend against an opponent in the house rule I cited, because the spellcaster is not flat-footed.

Read the example in my last reply to DonTadow regarding getting "something for nothing." As I suggested before, and merely for fun, give the house rule a try in two or three mock combats. If you can use it to get something for nothing, please describe for us exactly how the combat went. I mean that seriously because (1) it would help me refine the house rule, and (2) I'd like to be wowwed by your tactics. Prove me wrong, and I promise to applaud.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

... 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

There are only two choices involved here. And one is unpalatable well over 90% of the time.

RC


EDIT: I will come back to this in terms of weapon skills in another thread, though, because there the answer is a resounding "Yes". I have devised a weapons skill ruleset that you would probably hate . It allows you to use weapon skill ranks in one of six "combat modes" each round. The combat mode determines what those ranks modify (such as attack rolls, damage rolls, and your AC). Not every weapon skill allows for every type of combat mode....you cannot fight using the "Fully Defensive" combat mode with a battle axe, for example, even though you can still use the "Full Defense" combat option.

I like giving my players options.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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)

Felnar,

Sorry about taking so long to get back to you.

I listed it as a "free action". IMC, I am using the rule from Incarnum that says a free action occurs during your action, and a reaction can occur at any time. So, you may wish to read that as "As a free action on your turn...."

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

The entire point of the example is that Olaf not know that the sheep is a definite threat (DM rolled Disguise check vs Spot secretly). Replace the sheep with a doppleganger that infiltrated your party. There are many, many ways in which an "ally" can turn "foe" when it gets to their action in a round.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

Speaking of smokescreen tangents, "ally" and "enemy" are not game terms. If you are going to argue on the basis of what the RAW says, I recommend you pay closer attention to it.





Okay, now you are finally responding to what I wrote (rather than simply making personal attacks).

Since you are drawing the distinction, what I say is that I am granting PC and NPC alike the ability, if they make a Concentration check, to not actively defend against a single opponent.

I don't want to pay "full attention" to one foe any more than I would be paying "full attention" to one foe when faced by two foes who are not in flanking position. Nor is this any more "full attention" than the "full attention" which is required for spellcasting. You are correct, however, when you say that (given a situation with only two foes), the character in question would retain full AC against the foe not being "ignored" while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to).

I understand that you believe that this exceeds a character's total attention ability, but this is really no different than what occurs during spellcasting. The SRD says, under Magic Overview, that "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect." Under the Concentration skill, the SRD says "You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity."

Needless to say, in rules terms "full attention" cannot easily be parsed into neat percentiles. Since casting a spell provokes an AoO against your normal AC, the "full attention" required obviously doesn't prevent you from having a modicum of defense. In fact, the "full attention" required for casting a spell is less attention than required to not actively defend against an opponent in the house rule I cited, because the spellcaster is not flat-footed.

Read the example in my last reply to DonTadow regarding getting "something for nothing." As I suggested before, and merely for fun, give the house rule a try in two or three mock combats. If you can use it to get something for nothing, please describe for us exactly how the combat went. I mean that seriously because (1) it would help me refine the house rule, and (2) I'd like to be wowwed by your tactics. Prove me wrong, and I promise to applaud.


RC

Ah, I see this cold must be getting to me. I was reading the initial posters comments, didn't get to your first comment until much further down.

All of this raw, ally and threatneed stuff has confused my position. I assumed your house rule was what the original poster posted, which is the ability to ignore an opponent completley. What you're suggesting is with pcs whom have DR, they are able to make a concentration check to ignore someone being flanked. That changes things a bit because you're putting restrictions on it as opposed to what I originally thought which would be that you'd allow it free willy nilly.

Given that I've read your house rule now, it doesnt seem broken given the restrictions. Well I might add that the person gives up their DR for that round or that person can reduce their dr by X and add X to their concentration score before the dice is rolling. But given a second look it seems feasable.

We'll always disagree on what flanking is, but (and i'm not going to blame anyone) somehow this conversation has gone on to these theoritical conversations as opposed to the orignal poster and Raven's house rule. I've already seen a thread a few months ago on flanking and it was pretty much undecided there.

Oh, and sorry for insulting you, but if your rule didn't have self imposed restrictions, I would think that you were DEFINATLY power gaming the rules. However, I was wrong, I'll admit it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, and sorry for insulting you, but if your rule didn't have self imposed restrictions, I would think that you were DEFINATLY power gaming the rules. However, I was wrong, I'll admit it.

That's why I love 'ya, you big galloot!

Seriously, if I had been saying "Yeah, just ignore the flanker" you would be right. I try to be reasonable, and to have some logical basis to my position. Where my position is demonstrably wrong, I try to admit it. Where there are easy ways to test a theory (and I can think of them) I try to provide them.

In the event that you ever impliment such a house rule, I have decided to adopt Primitive Screwhead's refinement about AoOs against someone ignoring you. It made sense to me, and was fully in keeping with what I was trying to do. Even a foe is insignificant, the added AoO is also insignificant. If the foe is not insignificant, you get what you deserve.

Take care of that cold and have a great weekend.

RC

 

[DonTadow]

That's why I love 'ya, you big galloot!

Seriously, if I had been saying "Yeah, just ignore the flanker" you would be right. I try to be reasonable, and to have some logical basis to my position. Where my position is demonstrably wrong, I try to admit it. Where there are easy ways to test a theory (and I can think of them) I try to provide them.

In the event that you ever impliment such a house rule, I have decided to adopt Primitive Screwhead's refinement about AoOs against someone ignoring you. It made sense to me, and was fully in keeping with what I was trying to do. Even a foe is insignificant, the added AoO is also insignificant. If the foe is not insignificant, you get what you deserve.

Take care of that cold and have a great weekend.

RC

I don't know, it would need some play testing. We're convening our campaign in a week and reconvening January 16th. At taht time, we'll be implementing a number of new rules including armor as DR instead of AC. I'd probably rule though that the person can not declare or make a concentration check until the round after they are flanked. It does add some weight to the concentration skilll and I"m always game for combat options that utilize skills. I need to go over my Iron heroes book and make sure theres not a stunt or challenge that already covers this though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Don,

I am using Armor as DR coupled with Armor as AC. Armor DR is modest, but it is important in the event of a critical hit because I am using Wounds/Vitality. It's a bit more complicated, I admit. Because I am using Wounds/Vitality, a critical hit absorbed by your armor's DR actually damages the armor, lowering your AC until it is repaired.

RC

 

[DonTadow]

Don,

I am using Armor as DR coupled with Armor as AC. Armor DR is modest, but it is important in the event of a critical hit because I am using Wounds/Vitality. It's a bit more complicated, I admit. Because I am using Wounds/Vitality, a critical hit absorbed by your armor's DR actually damages the armor, lowering your AC until it is repaired.

RC

HIJACK... er.. AGAIN

Sorry, but I can't find anyone else whose doing this and I need advice (i posted a thread got no responses. I guess i need controversy huh???) Are you using the unearthed DR and AC hybrid or your own?

BTW liked the wounds vitality thing but my objective is to speed up combat and with half the group still wet behind the ears that'll probably slow it down a bit. (plus i think my fighter likes saying ( have 170hp)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't know, it would need some play testing.

Sure. I don't expect that anyone will necessarily agree with me. There are lots or rules or house rules that are good rules, but don't necessarily work for what I am trying to model in my game. I assume the same for everyone else.

BUT (and there is always one of those, right? ) I do expect that some level of rules consistency can be fairly called a universally good thing, and I do expect that, when someone does disagree with me, they come to the table with something other than "you don't understand the rules, and you suck, and your reasoning is a chain of illogic for reasons that I cannot or will not explain." That sort of thing, when repeated, doesn't do anyone any good.

(and I am not talking about you here)


RC