Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Storm Raven]

whats the AC of a tree?

2.

whats the AC of an unarmored human that is flat-footed?

10.

whats the AC of that same human that is helpless?

1.

Which matches the tree?

Neither.

Helpless is not the condition to apply to a target that is unaware of your attacks. Many RAW examples exists, sniping, invisible, etc.. all of these deny dex to the target and grant a bonus to hit to the atacker.

Ignoring an opponent is more than simply being unarawe of his attacks. Even against an opponent you are unaware of, you react to his blows in some manner. If you did not, your Dexterity itself (and not just your Dexterity bonus) would be reduced to 0 against their attacks.

Granting free coup-de-gras against someone ignoring an opponent is the same as saying 'no, that will not happen in my game world no matter what you have to say'

I did say that the rule was intended to be punitive. If you want to meta-game the rules and gain large benefits, then you will suffer large consequences.

Why are folks so vehement about a suggested house rule that allows more tactical options on the battlefield.. and one that is admitted by its proponents to be used very rarely?

Because, if allowed, it will be used any time a rogue flanks an individual in combat. It will not be used "rarely", it will be used often.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Being flat-footed has some negative conseqences, but you still retain your defenses against that opponent. You are, to some extent, still paying minimal attention to the opponent: your Dexterity does not drop to 0 against them for example. You still react to their blows in some manner, moving at least in a minimal fashion. Hence, their ally should get a flanking bonus against you.

If that were true, then any non-allied creature in either position would automatically grants a flanking bonus to any non-allied creature in the other position. As pointed out earlier, flanking bonuses would be caused by (1) a bystander, a mouse, a baby, etc.

You also give minimal attention to an ally or an additional adjacent opponent not in flanking position. Obviously, you can pay minimal attention without providing a flanking bonus.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To claim, therefore, that I am trying to "retain a defense against an enemy but not suffer the negative consequences of having that defense" is a dishonest position to take.

Given that this is what you are trying to do, it isn't. It is a true statement concerning what you are trying to do.

Sorry, Storm Raven, I was unaware that you were the Official Voice of the Rules. The Mighty Oz Has Spoken and I have failed to notice.

Because I do not agree that "If you pay any more attention to them than reducing your effective Dexterity to 0 and accepting a further -4 penalty to your AC, and placing yourself completely at their mercy, then you are reacting to them and their ally still gets a flanking bonus" does not mean that I am not accepting that there is an approriate negative consequence.

What it does mean is that I think your "negative consequences" are inappropriate. I have given plenty of reasons why I think that way.


RC

 

[Henry]

Storm Raven, I saw your comments to Raven Crowking as very rude. Gents, let's stop the insulting people over rules questions, please? I'm sure we can discuss rules without sinking to this level.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, it does. There are many instances in the rules where a clear distinction is made between an ally and an enemy. This is one of them.

It doesn't answer the question, because the specific question is why the distinction is made here, not whether or not the distinction is made.

Going through the rules, with full knowledge that enemies and allies (as well as those who are neither) are treated differently under different situations is not a "house of cards". It is, rather, the only rational means by which one can determine why a rule makes that difference. Is it because of space concerns? No. If it were, they would be treated the same. Is is because you have to actively ignore a creature to prevent it from granting a flanking bonus to another creature? No, or you would have to actively ignore your ally. Is it because you are trying to defend equally against two threats that divide your attention? Obviously, yes.

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?

Claim that this is a "chain of illogic" if you like, but I am pretty certain that it holds up pretty well or you would have actually responded to that chain of reasoning.

As you say, "Just because you are not expecting an attack from an ally does not mean that you are actively ignoring them." You will note that I agree with this fully. Now, I say "Ignoring an Opponent is the title of a house rule, and does not mean that you are actively ignoring him. It means, rather, that you are not actively defending against him so that you may concentrate your defense elsewhere."

I have pointed out concrete problems implied by your ruling. Most obvious example: An enemy is anyone who attacks you. You do not know that your "ally" is an "ally" for certain. If you treat your "ally" as an ally, then he is in the same position as a foe that you are ignoring. Consequently, the same rules should apply to the "ally" if he attacks you as to the foe you are ignoring.

My house rule, or that of Primitive Screwhead, model this. Applying this to your house rule demonstrates either that (1) your house rule is less elegant (in that your rule needs to specify which type of foe it applies to, rather than applying to all foes equally) or (2) you'd have angry players if you tried to impliment your house rule and you tested it. This is a position that is easily testable. Have an NPC foe pretend to be an ally. Put him in flanking position. Proceed to give the PC an automatic coup-de-grace. Enjoy the rest of your evening dealing with the reaction of your players.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

Wouldn't the same, then, be true if I snuck up on you while invisible?





If we were only talking about the space available, then wouldn't your allies cause the same problem?

1. Question: No. An invisible attack assumes you do not know of the attacker but, if you were, you would react. The invisible attack rule is there to give the one being attacked the benefit of hte doubt. There is still a chance the attacker can sense (by hearing, feeling the wind)ect of a weapon coming near him (particularly your head, thus the person being attacked only loses his dex but it not subjective to a coup de grace. This rule factors in the natural reacton humans have to cover up vital areas, like their head, based on instinct.

However, in the case of the person ingoring his attacker, he is doing just that. He does not care what type of attack is coming from that other person, he would be focusing his entire attention on dude b. He knows and is aware that Dude as is behind him, but he is choosing to disregard him. Dude has chosen not to defend him. The point of this is choice. Thus, Dude A gets an automatic hit as he aim directly for the head without any defense from Dude.

2. As far as space, your allies are aware of you and it is assumed they are not menancing you with weapons so you are not steadily dodging and weaving their attacks (unless you got pcs whom are always at each others throats as I do). Flanking assumes your enemies are closing your space and menacing you, causing you to focus less. Because they are on opposite sides you have to make a 180 degree turn to properly defend them and even then you half it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because, if allowed, it will be used any time a rogue flanks an individual in combat. It will not be used "rarely", it will be used often.

Thus far, the rule I have described has been used twice since it was allowed into the game (a little over a year ago). Both times, the creature using it had some pretty steep penalties. Once was an NPC gargoyle, once was a PC. The PC decided after one round that ignoring an opponent was not worth it.

Yes, there are cases where this is a good tactic. No, they do not come up often. At least, not in the games I am running.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

If that were true, then any non-allied creature in either position would automatically grants a flanking bonus to any non-allied creature in the other position. As pointed out earlier, flanking bonuses would be caused by (1) a bystander, a mouse, a baby, etc.

You could rule that, but you would be wrong. To grant a flanking bonus, the creature opposite you must both threaten you and be an ally of the attacker.

You also give minimal attention to an ally or an additional adjacent opponent not in flanking position. Obviously, you can pay minimal attention without providing a flanking bonus.

They are not an ally of the attacker, hence they provide no flanking bonus whether you pay attention to them or not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. Question: No. An invisible attack assumes you do not know of the attacker but, if you were, you would react. The invisible attack rule is there to give the one being attacked the benefit of hte doubt. There is still a chance the attacker can sense (by hearing, feeling the wind)ect of a weapon coming near him (particularly your head, thus the person being attacked only loses his dex but it not subjective to a coup de grace. This rule factors in the natural reacton humans have to cover up vital areas, like their head, based on instinct.

However, in the case of the person ingoring his attacker, he is doing just that. He does not care what type of attack is coming from that other person, he would be focusing his entire attention on dude b. He knows and is aware that Dude as is behind him, but he is choosing to disregard him. Dude has chosen not to defend him. The point of this is choice. Thus, Dude A gets an automatic hit as he aim directly for the head without any defense from Dude.

"Ignoring an Opponent" is the title of a house rule, and does not mean that you are actively ignoring him. It means, rather, that you are not actively defending against him so that you may concentrate your defense elsewhere.

This is extremely similar to what you are doing with your allies. You are not actively defending against them; you are not actively ignoring them. It is harder to not actively defend against someone who might menace you, hence the Concentration check.

You are paying, in fact, exactly the same amount of attention to the foe you are "ignoring" as you are to your allies. You are not actively defending. Period.

Again, which rule is better is easily testable: Have an NPC foe pretend to be an ally. Put him in flanking position. Proceed to give the NPC an automatic hit against the PC's head. See how your players react. Then explain the situation to them, and see what they think is appropriate. I would wager that close to 100% of your players would agree that they were flat-footed against the NPC attack, but that close to 0% would agree that they were helpless.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

They are not an ally of the attacker, hence they provide no flanking bonus whether you pay attention to them or not.

Again, easily testable. NPC ally of your foes pretends to be ally of you. Let the automatic coup-de-graces begin. Explain it to your players. See what they think.


RC