Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Raven Crowking]

That is just bass-ackwards logic. The penalties for being flanked assume that you are ALREADY making the best possible defense in the situation.

No. The rules assume that you are dividing your attention evenly between opponents. That is why they all get the same bonus.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

That's what I ruled, yes. DC 10 + damage inflicted.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

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

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)

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

No, you are talking about concentrating your defense on the ogre, at the expense of your defense against the kobold. Clear as beans.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

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).

Nope. That's the difference between an enemy and an ally. If you cannot even figure out that distinction, then you are destined to never be able to understand the rules.

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.

You do not lose your shield modifier to Dexterity when you are flat-footed. And you are correct - your Dexterity bonus is set to 0. However, you miss my point, if you were truly unable to react to anything your opponent did when you were flat-footed then your Dexterity itself would be treated as if it were 0 - just as it is when you are helpless, and you would have a -5 penalty to your AC as a result of your inability to react at all.

This is, however, clearly not the case when you are flat-footed. You simply lose the benefits of a high Dexterity when you are flat-footed (and may be sneak attacked). This implies some level of responsiveness to the attacks, one which is certainly higher than if one were to be actively ignoring an opponent.

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

I'm not confusing them. They are simply the same condition. A flat-footed creature retains some ability to react. A creature completely unable to react does not.

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.

No, it isn't. Because if it was, then your Dexterity would be 0 when you are flat-footed. Your Dexterity modifier would be -5, not merely 0. Basically, your argument holds no water, because you forget that a flat-footed opponent still retains some ability to react, wheras an opponent who completely ignores you cannot - otherwise he would be distracted and your ally would gain a flanking bonus.

Either you are paying enough attention to an enemy to react to him, even minimally, and thus both flanking enemies gain a flanking bonus, or you are not, and you are completly unable to react to anything your enemy does, and thus you are helpless with respect to that enemy. You cannot have it both ways. You are trying to meta-game the system by retaining a defense against an enemy but not suffering the negative consequences of having that defense. That is a dishonest position to take.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nope. That's the difference between an enemy and an ally. If you cannot even figure out that distinction, then you are destined to never be able to understand the rules.

Clever, clever, clever retort. Doesn't answer the point, but there you go.


Imagine that you are engaged in combat, with one creature in front of you and another behind you.

Either (1) having creatures in these positions automatically provides flanking bonuses or (2) it does not. Posit: Since one or both creatures could be allies, it is demonstrably true that (2) applies.

Either (1) you must actively ignore a creature to avoid flanking bonuses or (2) you do not have to actively ignore a creature to prevent it from granting a flanking bonus to another creature. Posit: Again, the fact that you can have an ally as either or both creatures, without granting a flanking bonus, and without actively ignoring either demonstrates that (2) is correct.

Either (1) any non-allied creature in either position automatically grants a flanking bonus to any non-allied creature in the other position or (2) it does not. Posit: If (1), then a bystander provides a flanking bonus. Posit: If (1), then a mouse provides a flanking bonus. Posit: If (1) then a baby provides a flanking bonus. As this would be rather silly, I conclude that (2) is correct.

Conclusion: If you do not have to actively defend against a creature, such as an ally, a non-combatant (mouse, bystander), or an insignificant creature (mouse, housefly), it does not provide a flanking bonus to another creature.

Either (1) you are completely helpless against a creature you that does not provide a flanking bonus or (2) you are not. Posit: A bystander, ally, or mouse would not automatically hit you under these conditions. Posit: A bystander, ally, or mouse would not automatically coup de grace you in these conditions. Tests of Posits: Tell your PCs that they are flanked due to a mouse. Test of Posits: Tell your PCs that they are given an automatic coup-de-grace by a bystander. See how they react.

Conclusion: While you are not actively defending against any of these creatures, neither are you helpless against them.

Conclusion: The flanking rules assume that you are actively defending against creatures in both positions.

Posit: You can not actively defend against a creature that threatens you. For example, your ally can threaten the space you are in without providing flanking bonus.

Conclusion: If you are not actively defending against a creature, it does not provide a flanking bonus.

HOUSE RULE ADDENDUM: In the RAW it is not specifically possible to avoid actively defending against a creature that you are both aware of, and aware of as an opponent. If you allow a character to not actively defend, you must provide rules to model this.

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. Test of Posit: Have an NPC do this to a PC. Does the NPC automatically hit for maximum damage? Does the NPC automatically coup-de-grace? Why not?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Either you are paying enough attention to an enemy to react to him, even minimally, and thus both flanking enemies gain a flanking bonus, or you are not, and you are completly unable to react to anything your enemy does, and thus you are helpless with respect to that enemy. You cannot have it both ways. You are trying to meta-game the system by retaining a defense against an enemy but not suffering the negative consequences of having that defense. That is a dishonest position to take.

Flat-footed against an enemy that you are not actively defending against is a negative consequence, Storm Raven. It has also been the negative consequence I have championed from the first post. Because we do not concur on the consequences of not actively defending against a particular opponent does not mean that either one of us is suggesting that there are no consequences.

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.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Flat-footed against an enemy that you are not actively defending against is a negative consequence, Storm Raven. It has also been the negative consequence I have championed from the first post. Because we do not concur on the consequences of not actively defending against a particular opponent does not mean that either one of us is suggesting that there are no consequences.

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 you react in any way to the "ignored" opponent, you are not ignoring them. 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.

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.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I'm not confusing them. They are simply the same condition. A flat-footed creature retains some ability to react. A creature completely unable to react does not.

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.

 

[Storm Raven]

Clever, clever, clever retort. Doesn't answer the point, but there you go.

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.

[snip inapplicable example built upon the house of cards that an "ally" and an "enemy" are somehonw not treated differently throughout the rules].

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).

You go wrong right here. Just because you are not expecting an attack from an ally does not mean that you are actively ignoring them. Everything else about your chain of illogic falls apart at this point, because it depends on this false statement being true.