Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Is it possible for a character to simply ignore a specific opponent, so that the opponent's ally wouldn't flank?

That is just bass-ackwards logic. The penalties for being flanked assume that you are ALREADY making the best possible defense in the situation. Pretending one opponent isn't there is not going to IMPROVE your defense in ANY possible fashion simply because you're not dividing your attention. You're assumed to be dividing your defensive efforts against these two opponents because to NOT do so is... unthinkable. There is no rule that deals with ignoring a flanking opponent because it is incomprehensible to think that there is any advantage EVER in ignoring an opponent in combat.

The way to eliminate the penalty of being flanked is to NOT BE FLANKED anymore. Just because you decide not to defend against it shouldn't make you safer, or better able to conduct attacks. It should make you insanely vulnerable.

I'm interested in how anybody handles this in their campaign.

I would like to think that noone in my campaigns would be so silly as to try this foolishness because they understand that "gaming the rules/system" like this is not going to win the DM's approval for your cleverness. If anyone DID try it I would likely make some kind of spot decision - but that decision as to the effects would be disastrous for the character. Yes, I'd eliminate the attackers advantages for flanking but the ignored attacker would have FANTASTIC bonuses instead up to and including a free coup-de-grace. Yes, it's that important. Treating the ignored attacker as invisible is a good idea and would perhaps be the minimum of what would result.

 

[Azlan]

Interesting. So, if one is allowed to ignore an opponent, and if that opponent attacks and inflicts damage, should one have to make a Concentration check to continue ignoring that opponent?

 

[Azlan]

That is just bass-ackwards logic. The penalties for being flanked assume that you are ALREADY making the best possible defense in the situation. Pretending one opponent isn't there is not going to IMPROVE your defense in ANY possible fashion simply because you're not dividing your attention. You're assumed to be dividing your defensive efforts against these two opponents because to NOT do so is... unthinkable. There is no rule that deals with ignoring a flanking opponent because it is incomprehensible to think that there is any advantage EVER in ignoring an opponent in combat.

I disagree with that statement. If, say, I were a heavily armored fighter and I were confronted with a kobold and an ogre, flanking me, I would completely ignore the kobold while I concentrated my attacks/defenses on the ogre. Nothing unthinkable or incomprehensible about that.

 

[DonTadow]

That is just bass-ackwards logic. The penalties for being flanked assume that you are ALREADY making the best possible defense in the situation. Pretending one opponent isn't there is not going to IMPROVE your defense in ANY possible fashion simply because you're not dividing your attention. You're assumed to be dividing your defensive efforts against these two opponents because to NOT do so is... unthinkable. There is no rule that deals with ignoring a flanking opponent because it is incomprehensible to think that there is any advantage EVER in ignoring an opponent in combat.

The way to eliminate the penalty of being flanked is to NOT BE FLANKED anymore. Just because you decide not to defend against it shouldn't make you safer, or better able to conduct attacks. It should make you insanely vulnerable.
I would like to think that noone in my campaigns would be so silly as to try this foolishness because they understand that "gaming the rules/system" like this is not going to win the DM's approval for your cleverness. If anyone DID try it I would likely make some kind of spot decision - but that decision as to the effects would be disastrous for the character. Yes, I'd eliminate the attackers advantages for flanking but the ignored attacker would have FANTASTIC bonuses instead up to and including a free coup-de-grace. Yes, it's that important. Treating the ignored attacker as invisible is a good idea and would perhaps be the minimum of what would result.

I got to agree, it sounds kinda like a silly concept. Flanking is a rule set up to display how hard it is to defend against two opponents even when they are at their best. That's not to say the house rule is not plausible just useless. I'd say if someone is not defending themselves it is not even a coup de grace but an automatic hit for the other guy. Even the armor does not stop him because if someones ignoring me, i can aim for the head for an automatic critical hit. As for the other guy, well hedoesnt get his flanking bonus. But the victim of the flank gets no bonus's as he treats the person he's paying full attention to as any other opponent he'd be paying full attention to.

However, the character would still be considered flanked because he is surrounded by two opponents and does not have much room to maneuver, even if he's ingnoring the guy at his back. (i hate saying that considering there are no facing rules in d and d)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Addendum to my previous post:

Ah yes I think I remember now. I was discussing this somewhere at the time The Sage made the ruling that invisible opponents cannot participate in flanking. Regarding flanking in particular I suppose it MIGHT depend somewhat on how you choose to believe the flanking benefits come about. Personally, I don't see how that should matter, in part because one of the reasons FACING was eliminated is that it was in every way sensible to assume that a combatant would at all times put up his best defense possible against all potential attackers regardless of their positioning around him. The defender is assumed to position himself optimally at all times, just as an attacker is assumed to SEEK optimal positioning for attack. The exceptions or added penalties TO HIS DEFENSE (that is to his AC) then only apply when opponents otherwise have him at an ever greater vulnerability. So the Sages idea of an invisible opponent not being able to help flank (IIUC) comes from the assumption that invisibility means not even knowing where to defend in the first place, and thus the advantages to the invisible attacker in essense already reflect both the defenders best possible defense and the attackers best advantages. In a sense it supersedes the benefits of flanking as much as prevents them from applying.

Myself I kinda think that's bunk since there is also an inherent assumption that even against an invisible opponent a defender gets SOME idea at some point where the attacks are coming from because he CAN defend AT ALL against the invisible attacks. You can't KNOW where the invisible attacker is as such but you can get a good enough idea to not only defend against his attacks but to initiate attacks back at him. Thus, ruling that an invisible attacker can't help flank only creates unnecessary questions about how flanking advantages apply in the first place - and silly ideas like "I'll just ignore one of them" in the second place.

One thing that might help the discussion - if anyone still thinks this NEEDS discussing - is to define quite specifically what is meant by "Ignoring an attacker". Some people are proposing solutions to the dilemma that quite obviously still assume that the defender maintains an awareness and a basic level of defense against even an "Ignored" attacker and that goes quite against any basic understanding I have of what it means to "Ignore" an attacker. If you "Ignore" someone then you IGNORE them. Thus the only time I think it could even theoretically make sense to do so is if the ignored attacker is utterly non-threatening in the first place.

In D&D rules it is plainly possible for your minimal defenses to be so good that an attacker effectively cannot cause you harm. It thus seems that you don't need to even TRY to defend against such an attacker but that again ignores the assumption that you are putting up your best defense against potential attackers at all times, however minimal that may be. Attackers don't just wail away at you hoping that at some point you slip up and their mindless attack gets through. They attack with the specific intent of avoiding and reducing as much of your defense as possible. If you ignore them you cease to even put up minimal defense at least as far as the ignored individual is concerned.

Gotta get moving for work now but one more thing that might help to remember is that flanking is not a penalty to your defense - it is a bonus to the opponents attack roll. That is not insignificant.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I disagree with that statement. If, say, I were a heavily armored fighter and I were confronted with a kobold and an ogre, flanking me, I would completely ignore the kobold while I concentrated my attacks/defenses on the ogre. Nothing unthinkable or incomprehensible about that.

But that's just it - you're not talking about ignoring the Kobold, discounting him completely from your consideration. You still maintain the best possible awareness of him and defend against him. What you're talking about here is concentrating YOUR attacks, not about lowering your defenses.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

However, the character would still be considered flanked because he is surrounded by two opponents and does not have much room to maneuver, even if he's ingnoring the guy at his back. (i hate saying that considering there are no facing rules in d and d)

The bonuses given to the attackers attack rolls for having a defender flanked comes not JUST from a defender having to split his concentration. At least in part, if not actually in large part, the flanking bonuses come from being able to coordinate attacks to a better effect. One attacker bats aside the defenders shield, knocks him slightly off balance, draws attention away or obstructs vision in such a way that the other attacker can take advantage of it in his own attack - and then returns the favor. Now part of that does come from the defender having to divide his concentration, and part of it comes from the fact that facing - while no longer directly addressed in the rules - is still a significant factor in how combat is conducted.

What people seem to want with this "ignoring the flanker" business is, "Well, I don't REALLY want to ignore him. I want to still defend against his attacks and all, but I want to simply be able to decide to not be distracted by his attacks in any way and thus effectively prevent them from having an advantage for having me flanked." It's gaming the rules. It's seeking meta-game logic for tearing down perfectly sensible and utilitarian rules that there is just no valid reason to question. You can be sure that if I, as a DM, insisted to players that my BBEG cannot be flanked simply because he chooses not to be distracted by one of two PC's they'd hang me by my Buster Browns. It's all the more silly because the +2 attack bonus for flanking is simply not so great an advantage as deserves this degree of hullaballoo trying to get around it.

One thing I can say is that I would not have a problem with a player wanting to devote a feat to the ability to counteract being flanked.

 

[Azlan]

But that's just it - you're not talking about ignoring the Kobold, discounting him completely from your consideration. You still maintain the best possible awareness of him and defend against him. What you're talking about here is concentrating YOUR attacks, not about lowering your defenses.

Well, if I could lower my Dex bonus from my AC, for the kobold, and allow the kobold a +2 flanking attack bonus and maybe even an attack of opportunity (since I'm not threatening him), just so the ogre wouldn't get the +2 flanking attack bonus, that's what I'd do.

Of course, the rules don't presently allow for that sort of thing... which is why we're talking about it here, in the House Rules forum.

 

[Warbringer]

Yeah you can ignore, but you are now flat-flooted to that opponent, giving the opponent all the benefits that entails.

Issue is does that negate the flank? No, you are still flanked if two opponents are in such a position to cause the flanking; you do not need to be aware of them.

Consider, 2 invisible rougues flank you. You are unaware of both, "ignoring" their actions - by default). Both sneak attack, both flank.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, you do. Otherwise he is enough of a distraction that you are treated as being flanked. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. If you react to the "ignored" opponent in any way, you are not actually ignoring them sufficiently to avoid them gaining a flanking bonus against you.

Since you are responding to my statement, "Clearly, even you agree that you do not have to entirely tune out a creature in a flanking position in order to ignore them enough to avoid the flanking penalty," which referenced an ally in the flanking position, you must therefore be arguing that standing back-to-back with an ally either (1) grants a foe a flanking bonus or (2) disallows you from reacting to your ally (such as casting cure light wounds on him when he is injured).

Yes, there is. Your Dexterity is not reduced to 0 for those attacks for example. If you were completely unable to react to an opponent in any fashion, then it would be.

Your Dexterity bonus is reduced to 0. While you do not have a Dexterity penalty (i.e., you are not stumbling Clouseau-like into an attack, neither are you able to leap out of the way. All you have is your base AC (10 for a medium creature), any size modifier, and any armor bonus. The base AC + size modifier are how hard it is to hit an object of your size, and nothing more. The armor modifier is how hard it is to damage that target once you hit it, and nothing more. You do not get to use your shield. You do not get to use your Dexterity.

Once more, do not confuse "completely helpless" with "unable to react".

One assumes that a helpless opponent who is "otherwise at your mercy" is at your mercy in a manner similar to being "bound, sleeping, paralyzed, or unconscious" rather than, say, merely not actively defending against you. In fact, not actively defending against you is exactly what being flat-footed is.

If this is a silly argument, it is merely so because you want "helpless" to mean one thing in one context and another thing in a different context. Simply put, if I were a player in your campaign, and I turned coat and attacked Fred the Other PC while we were fighting back-to-back, you wouldn't decide that Fred was helpless. Trying to make any other kind of argument is just dishonest.

Is the purpose of ignoring an opponent to avoid a thief's sneak attack. Quite possibly, yes. But the standard flanking rules assume that you give equal attention to all opponents, and if you are fighting two opponents, one of whom is clearly a superior combatant, then you are an idiot. IMC, this has only come up once, in a fight with a gargoyle, where only one PC was using a weapon that offered a significant threat. I ruled then as I rule now -- and my PCs are smart enough to take advantage of a flat-footed opponent with non-damaging attacks, if that is what is required.


RC