Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Hypersmurf]

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

Savage Species had a rule where a tiny creature with a reach weapon threatened 5 feet, but not its own square. Can't recall if it applied to diminutive creatures or not

-Hyp.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Interesting thread.

I'd be inclined to not allow ignoring, as I feel that it just cuts a pretty useful tactic (flanking and sneak attack). And then it does start bringing up questions of how, and how far ignoring goes. Plus, being able to simply 'shut down' another player's tactical decision somehow seems like it undermines some of the aspects of play.

So, if it wasn't for an important issue, I'd probably just gloss over it and press on.

RC's got a pretty good method there (though, funnily enough, it seems to favor wizards). And I think any method that I'd go with would have to be fairly rough to make up for being able to arbitrarally take away a rogue's sneak attack. Which, in my expierence takes enough work to set up to be kind of sad whenever its lost.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I'd not really noticed the element that a flanker has to be friendly to you. I'd always assumed that the issue was that they were an enemy of the person you are attacking. e.g. if Albert, Bobby and Charles hate each others guts, and they find themselves arranged

ABC

Then Bobby is flanked by two enemies and thus Albert and Charles both get a flanking bonus against him (he is distracted).

Is it actually the case that Albert and Charles do not get a flanking bonus in this situation? If so, it rather implies that it is not the distraction of being physically flanked that causes Bobby the problem, but rather a conscious co-ordination of activities?

Just wondering aloud here.

 

[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.

Why is the sun hot? Because it has a high temperature. Drop it and move on.


The SRD states: "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." (emphasis mine)

It does not say "your ally". It does not say "your foe". "Friendly" is defined in the SRD as "Wishes you well" and willing to "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate". It does not mandate that the creature is helpful to you (i.e., your ally who "Will take risks to help you" and "Protect, back up, heal, aid").

Your supposed "ally" can certainly be "friendly" to your "foe".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

i'll go on record saying i like Crowking's(et al) house rule, the Concentration check is a nice touch.

Thanks, Felnar. You understand exactly what the house rule is intended to emulate, and exactly why attempting to abuse it would have lethal consequences. I am don't see why making Concentration a class skill for any class would cause a problem.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

You do know, I hope, that comments like these seem rather desperate? Especially coupled with comments like "you should just drop it" and "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say". You do know that this is a House Rules forum, right? People who devise house rules seldom believe that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say".

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.

If, as you say, "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say," please point this out in the rules to me.

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.

That's not actually what the rules say. It seems that you are extrapolating. And, as you know, "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say".

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.

If you truly believe that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say" then please point out to me where the rules say "you are not actively ignoring the NPC ally". Otherwise, it is a pretty clear extrapolation that a creature can be in the flanking position without you ignoring them, and without them granting a flanking bonus to another creature.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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*.

Incorrect. The words "completely" and "no matter what" don't come up, except in your counter argument. As I said before:


"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.

 

[DonTadow]

Why is the sun hot? Because it has a high temperature. Drop it and move on.


The SRD states: "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." (emphasis mine)

It does not say "your ally". It does not say "your foe". "Friendly" is defined in the SRD as "Wishes you well" and willing to "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate". It does not mandate that the creature is helpful to you (i.e., your ally who "Will take risks to help you" and "Protect, back up, heal, aid").

Your supposed "ally" can certainly be "friendly" to your "foe".


RC

You seemed to skip over the most important parrt of that friendly definition huh?--- offers limited help and threatened. LImited help means what it says. To help as in to aid the person they are friends with. You can certainly be friendly to two people, which is why the "threatened" part of the definition is important.

To threaten a creature, a creature has to be engaged in melee combat with them. The SRD states that allies can not threaten other allies (thus allowing them to move in and out of each others spaces). So thus two peopel have to be theratening an opponent. I don't expect my ally to be threatening and menancing me with his sword.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You seemed to skip over the most important parrt of that friendly definition huh?--- offers limited help and threatened. LImited help means what it says. To help as in to aid the person they are friends with. You can certainly be friendly to two people, which is why the "threatened" part of the definition is important.

To threaten a creature, a creature has to be engaged in melee combat with them. The SRD states that allies can not threaten other allies (thus allowing them to move in and out of each others spaces). So thus two peopel have to be theratening an opponent. I don't expect my ally to be threatening and menancing me with his sword.

Lets' see:

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Note please that you threaten everything in all squares adjacent to your space, not "you threaten everything except your allies." Anyone who thinks that you can't have an "ally" in a fight suddenly attack you is fairly naive. That person also doesn't read enough books or watch enough movies. Heck, that person obviously missed the earlier days of D&D where The Village of Hommlet made the "supposed henchmen who attacks you by surprise" such a gaming trope that many D&D players simply refused to allow NPCs into the party.

Note also that you don't have to be in combat. You just have to have a weapon out, and be aware of what's going on.

BTW, if "limited help" meant "aid", then why would "aid" be under the definition of "helpful", which is one step better disposed to you? Perhaps the word "limited" is operative here.

In fact, it becomes painfully clear that everyone involved in this discussion is (by necessity) interpretting the rules based upon what they believe the rules to model. This is, despite the opposition of some, evaluating the rules based on something other than what the rules actually say. That's not a bad thing; it is an absolutely necessary thing. To claim otherwise.......



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

A Thought Experiment

Bob the 3rd level rogue is angry at Olaf, the 20th level fighter. Olaf has now semi-retired and owns a sheep ranch. Bob hires a 5th level fighter to challenge Olaf to a non-lethal duel. He then drinks a polymorph potion and disguises himself as one of the sheep. We'll call the 5th level fighter Lemmony Joe.



DM: As you are tending your sheep, Lemmony Joe arrives. He is brandishing his sword and challenges you to a duel. Just a duel to first blood, of course. Lemmony Joe isn't suicidal.

Olaf's Player: Sure! I turn to face Lemmony Joe and draw my sword. Even without my armor on, my magic ring of protection, high initiative, and dodge bonus should make this easy enough.

DM: Don't forget that Lemmony Joe has a flanking bonus because there is a sheep behind you.

Olaf's Player: Sheep don't give flanking bonuses, do they.

DM: Well, because it has natural attacks and is large enough, it technically threatens your space, and Lemmony Joe is always hanging around here, so it could be considered friendly to him.....

(The DM knows that the sheep, really Bob the Rogue, is friendly to Lemmony Joe, and really is intent on making a sneak attack if he gets the opportunity.)

Olaf's Player: Can I just step away from the sheep?

DM: It seems determined to follow you.

Olaf's Player: Look, I don't need to pay any attention to the sheep, okay? If I just ignore it, the flanking bonus goes away, right?

DM: Well, yeah, I suppose. But you'd have to totally ignore it. You'd be unable to react to it in any way. Are you sure that's what you want to do?

Olaf's Player: It's not like the sheep is going to attack me. Yeah, I ignore it.

DM: In that case, the sheep delivers a coup-de-grace.

Olaf's Player: WTF?!?!