Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Storm Raven]

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.

Because, for the purpsoes of the rules, they are different. There doesn't need to be any more. Your ally is not your foe's ally, and thus your foe does not meet the conditions of flanking, whther you pay attention to your ally or not. End of story. This line of argument is a loser for you, you should drop it and move on.

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".

Yes, it is. Because there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say. They make a clear distinction, one which you keep trying to ignore. Thus, your argument is fatally flawed.

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.

Defend equally is a standard of your own creation. And it is clearly inapplicable. If you are flanked by two sets of opponents (i.e. you are surrounded by four flankers) their flanking bonuses don't go up because you are now dividing your attention between four opponents instead of merely two. The flanking bonus accrues when you have to spend any amount of attention on a foe.

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?

To treat you as helpless with respect to that opponent - because you must completely ignore them to negate the distraction caused by flanking.

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.

Your initial premise is flawed. That means your chain of illogic doesn't hold up at all.

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."

And if you spend any effort at all defending against them you are distracted, and thus flanked. Thus, to ignore them, and avoid being flanked, they get to treat you as being helpless.

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.

To grant a flanking bonus, your ally must become your attackers ally. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how much attention you pay to your ally.

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 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.

It doesn't work that way. You are not actively ignoring the NPC ally. Hence, no coup de grace. In other words, your hypothetical never comes up, and you are just inventing a strawman.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Not a similar situation, because you are not completely ignoring them. They occupy some level of your attention, but they are not an ally of your attacker, and grant him no flanking bonus as a result.

If you are completely ignoring an enemy (and thus not defedning against them at all), then you are helpless against them. Otherwise, the two foes will flank you.

 

[DonTadow]

whats the AC of a tree?

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

whats the AC of that same human that is helpless?

Which matches the tree?

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.
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'

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?

I think it is better to have a ruling that fits in line with how similar situations are treated in the RAW. What is more similar than being in combat and having an invisible foe sneak up into flanking position? Add some extra disadvantage for the ability to effectively stop flanking and call it good.

I have no idea how you are getting that ignoring an attacker is a meta-gamey rules twisting. Many popular stories include combatants ignoring insignificant foes. Using the ruling I proposed upthread {refined courtesy of RC and Firelance in the original thread on this} gives the defender a significant choice to make when faced with a flanking situation. He can either suck up the flanking bonus and potential SA, or risk injury by granting one opponent a definate advantage in combat.

Ah, yet us already complicate the 3.5 meshing of 5 foot steps, grappling and bullrush. I love giving players more combat options, but what you're suggesting is throwing away flanking and allowing players to determine how much their character is paying attention to his opponents. This is sure to bring about a ton of arguments at the table, no I was blocking dude A 66 percent and dude b 33 percent, so they don't flank me.

Regardless of how much you pay attention to a foe, you're still flanked. As previously said its as much about your opponents as it is you. Your opponents are working in tandam to attack you, allowing one free reign just allows that opponent to better distract you more, as you swing your sword he holds on to it, allowing the player youre paying full attention to to stab you dead in your armpit. There's no decision a player can make that can make a decision for other players, thus once you are surrounded you are pretty much subjected to the penalities of being flanked.

Plus look at the postion of being flanked, its when two opponents are on opposite sides of you. Now why is that considered flanking and its not on the other two sides of you. That is because where as it is easier to make 45 degree turns and blocks when fighting, it becomes very difficult to make 180 turns continiousley in battle. Especially when your opponents are working together to attack you.

Now, in the interest of giving a player a choice, I could see allowing this player to concentrate his defense and attacks on one foe, but that would also mean he would have to completely be ignoring the other opponent. He'd still be flanked, for the purposes of being flanked, but the other opponent wouldn't get the +2, however opponent being ignored would get free reign. It's the only way to keep the balance of flanked intact and give it a resemblance of making any sense at all and even then its stretching it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because, for the purpsoes of the rules, they are different. There doesn't need to be any more. Your ally is not your foe's ally, and thus your foe does not meet the conditions of flanking, whther you pay attention to your ally or not. End of story. This line of argument is a loser for you, you should drop it and move on.

Again, easily testable: NPC foe pretends to be an ally. Put him in flanking position. What happens?

From what you are saying, it seems that I am to understand that, in effect, because there is no rule for what I am attempting to model, my argument is therefore fatally flawed? Every text, whether it be a rules text, a novel, or a textbook, includes within it both an explicit text (what is said) and an implicit text (what is implied by what is said). For example, the rules do not need to tell you that you must touch the ground in order to walk. This does not mean that your characters float.

You say that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say." I say that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say, what they imply, and how well they function related to what you wish to model." This may be a fundamental difference in our approach.

Contrary to what you claim, I do not "keep trying to ignore" the difference between ally and foe within the rules. I am, rather, using that difference within a number of scenarios to demonstrate that there are subtexts implied by where those differences are explicit in the rules. This is something, in contrast, that you explicitly deny to exist.

I say "If we examine what is happening in the rules, we can work out some idea of why the rules exist the way they exist, and then use that structure to model something not included in the rules as written."

You deny that this is conceptually possible. Yet at the same time, you claim that "To treat you as helpless with respect to that opponent - because you must completely ignore them to negate the distraction caused by flanking." which is, in itself, a function of that same process.

Defend equally is a standard of your own creation. And it is clearly inapplicable. If you are flanked by two sets of opponents (i.e. you are surrounded by four flankers) their flanking bonuses don't go up because you are now dividing your attention between four opponents instead of merely two. The flanking bonus accrues when you have to spend any amount of attention on a foe.

Do they get different bonuses or the same bonus? Sounds like defending equally to me.

It doesn't work that way. You are not actively ignoring the NPC ally. Hence, no coup de grace. In other words, your hypothetical never comes up, and you are just inventing a strawman.

No, I am suggesting very clearly that it is possible to create a house rule in which a creature pays as much attention to an opponent as it does to an NPC ally, and no more. You claim that this is somehow impossible. I demonstrated a means by which such a conclusion could be devised. You said "No" and came up with an alternate conclusion without providing any chain of reasoning behind it.

The initial question that began this thread was (paraphrased): Can you devise a house rule that allows you to ignore an opponent enough to avoid a flanking bonus? The answer is, obviously, yes. We both agree that such a rule is possible. We both agree on a certain division of attention. What we disagree on is what division is possible, and what the consequences of such a division are.

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

Your answer seems to be that attention is "all or nothing" and that "nothing" implies "helpless".

Meanwhile, 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."

If you were right, then casting a spell would require your "full attention" -- and "full attention" means "all of it" to most people. In other words, giving your attention to nothing else. In other words, ignoring everything else. Casting a spell wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity; it would provoke a coup de grace.


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

The question in many ways hinges on whether one adopts Skip Williams' rule about invisible creatures being unable to provide a flanking bonus for an ally, or not.

As written in the PHB:

A fighter in full plate armour is unconscious on the floor. His AC against a melee attack is 5: 10 base, +8 (armor), -5 (Dex of 0), -4 (helpless), -4 (prone).

A commoner with a club goes to hit him (not a CDG). He needs to roll a 5.

If another commoner with a club stands on the other side, waiting for his own turn to hit the fighter, the first commoner only needs to roll a 3.

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner."

Since the commoners fulfil all of the conditions for flanking even though the fighter is unconscious, it's clear that a conscious fighter who chooses to ignore someone is still unable to prevent flanking. They still flank when he's oblivious to everything, so they will flank when he's trying to be deliberately oblivious to one of them.

-----

Using Skip Williams' rule:

A ranger and a rogue stand on opposite sides of a fighter. The rogue can sneak attack; his ally (the ranger) means he is flanking the fighter.

The ranger activates his ring of invisibility. The rogue can no longer sneak attack; his ally (the ranger), being invisible, is unable to provide the benefits of flanking to the rogue.

Figuring this out, the ranger deactivates the ring.

If the fighter is able to treat the ranger as invisible, he will once again deny the rogue flanking. To this end, he makes the assumption that the ranger is really a disguised medusa.

An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent.

By turning his back on the ranger-who-might-be-a-medusa, the fighter grants the ranger total concealment. The fighter can no longer see the ranger; he loses his Dex bonus to AC and cannot make AoOs where the ranger is concerned. The ranger-who-might-be-a-medusa, under Skip's ruling, is no longer able to grant the rogue the benefits of flanking; the rogue can no longer sneak attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, in the interest of giving a player a choice, I could see allowing this player to concentrate his defense and attacks on one foe, but that would also mean he would have to completely be ignoring the other opponent. He'd still be flanked, for the purposes of being flanked, but the other opponent wouldn't get the +2, however opponent being ignored would get free reign. It's the only way to keep the balance of flanked intact and give it a resemblance of making any sense at all and even then its stretching it.

Hence, flat-footed against the other opponent. Hence, unable to react with an AoO to that opponent if that opponent does step into his space and grab his sword arm (initiate a grapple).


RC


EDIT: BTW, increasing the options from one to two, with the second almost never a good decision, is hardly throwing away flanking. If you really want to test it (as I did), get some players together and run some mock combats. I guarantee you that your players will not find the "Ignoring an Opponent" rule to be an easy fix against sneak attack.

In fact, what you will find is that players might appreciate being able to choose to be flat-footed against a rooster animal companion pecking at their legs when a dire bear is trying to kill them. This sounds like an extreme situation, I know, but it is really the only type of situation where this sort of rule is tactically sound.

(And, sad to say, this sort of thing does come up in game play. Unless you allow such a rule, any druid with half a brain will get one souped up animal companion and one dinky one, then use the dinky one to flank so that the souped up one can cause damage. Even if the dinky one cannot cause damage, such as with the proverbial mouse and the 20th level fighter, the RAW allow it to provide a flanking bonus.)

(Of course, some would let that mouse initiate a coup de grace, killing the 20th level fighter 5% of the time....)

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

As written in the PHB:

A fighter in full plate armour is unconscious on the floor. His AC against a melee attack is 5: 10 base, +8 (armor), -5 (Dex of 0), -4 (helpless), -4 (prone).

A commoner with a club goes to hit him (not a CDG). He needs to roll a 5.

If another commoner with a club stands on the other side, waiting for his own turn to hit the fighter, the first commoner only needs to roll a 3.

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner."

Since the commoners fulfil all of the conditions for flanking even though the fighter is unconscious, it's clear that a conscious fighter who chooses to ignore someone is still unable to prevent flanking.

It is also clear from the example that your opponent need only be "threatened by a character or creature friendly to you"; the creature need not know that the flanker is your ally. The creature might think that the flanker is its own ally. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action."

Which is why, from a rules consistency standpoint, an enemy that you are not actively defending against, and an enemy that you think is an ally, are exactly the same thing.


RC

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even if the dinky one cannot cause damage, such as with the proverbial mouse and the 20th level fighter, the RAW allow it to provide a flanking bonus.)

"Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."

A mouse with a longspear, maybe?

It is also clear from the example that your opponent need only be "threatened by a character or creature friendly to you"; the creature need not know that the flanker is your ally.

As long as the creature is friendly to you and threatens your opponent from the right position, you're flanking when you make your melee attack. Under the PHB rules, at least.

-Hyp.

 

[Felnar]

As written in the PHB:

A fighter in full plate armour is unconscious on the floor. His AC against a melee attack is 5: 10 base, +8 (armor), -5 (Dex of 0), -4 (helpless), -4 (prone).

A commoner with a club goes to hit him (not a CDG). He needs to roll a 5.

If another commoner with a club stands on the other side, waiting for his own turn to hit the fighter, the first commoner only needs to roll a 3.

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner."

Since the commoners fulfil all of the conditions for flanking even though the fighter is unconscious, it's clear that a conscious fighter who chooses to ignore someone is still unable to prevent flanking. They still flank when he's oblivious to everything, so they will flank when he's trying to be deliberately oblivious to one of them.
-Hyp.

haha
its easier to hit an immobile object when your buddy stands on the opposite side
makes me think of those old time lumberjacks with a 2-man saw "flanking" a redwood
also make me think about your supervisor at work
maybe i'm weird
----

i'll go on record saying i like Crowking's(et al) house rule, the Concentration check is a nice touch.
helps with the fighter being flanked by summoned badgers
a 15th level rogue should be happy when his 15th level fighter buddy is ignored. First the fighter lays into the flatfooted enemy, they fail their conc check, then the rogue gets sneak attack anyway
if you ignore an actual threat you'll be dead
Crowking, would you support making concentration a class-skill for the non-casting classes?

as for the side proposing coupdegraces or autohits for ignoring,
i imagine a huge+ dragon could waltz thru peasents, like a peasent waltz's thru an ant hill.
Should dragons be coup'd when they ignore non-threats? (a peasent is generally a non-threat to a dragon)

"Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."

A mouse with a longspear, maybe?

referring to a reach weapon doubling the natural reach of zero?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Query: What rules best model not actively defending against a creature which you are aware of? Posit: This would be the same bonus given to a PC if they suddenly attacked an adjacent ally (changing sides during combat). Posit: This is best modelled by the flat-footed condition.

Incorrect.

Why? Easy: In the one case, the PC *is going to try to be aware of any danger at all times*, naturally. In the other (ignoring an opponent), it is a *deliberate*, *conscious* decision on their behalf to completely ignore any possible danger from an entire direction.

Makes sense, I think.

Put another way, 'flat-footed' represents *circumstances* being somewhat against you. Completely ignoring a real source of danger (deliberately) is another thing entirely.


A (kind of) similar situation would be just standing there while the nearest wizard fireballs the area you happen to be in. Oh sure, you are theoretically capable of movement and therefore a Ref save, *but your intent and commitment is to not bother, no matter what*.