Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, but I can't find anyone else whose doing this and I need advice (i posted a thread got no responses. I guess i need controversy huh???) Are you using the unearthed DR and AC hybrid or your own?

My own hybrid, but mainly built out of Unearthed Arcana. I enjoy rewiring rules systems until they do exactly what I want them to. Link me to your thread or ask your questions. Even if you don't like my answers, I might spark some form of debate......

 

[DonTadow]

Link

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=158016

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

RC.. weapon skills thread? where!!!

Er..
Felnar, in my version I force the choice at the start of the characters round. This is to avoid the "I attack the guy kobold then ignore him". Ignoring a foe is a full turn event... no wishy washy ignoring only when convienant.

Glad to see the tone of the thread lightening up!

 

[DonTadow]

RC.. weapon skills thread? where!!!

Er..
Felnar, in my version I force the choice at the start of the characters round. This is to avoid the "I attack the guy kobold then ignore him". Ignoring a foe is a full turn event... no wishy washy ignoring only when convienant.

Glad to see the tone of the thread lightening up!

I thought that would be a given. I don't even let my players tell me who their dodging past their turn.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hey RC, no problem at all. I think I might have been jumping to conclusions online again (a habit I'm trying to break). So (not that I think you have) plaese don't pay any mind to what could've been seen as snarkiness on my behalf, either.

By the way, "intellectual dishonesty"? Ridiculous. I haven't seen that from you at any point, that I can recall. Just for the record, 'n all.


Hm, one small detail that caught my eye. . .

Using your house rule, I would presume that the sneaky &^%@ would get a free attack that automatically hits, doing maximum damage. This is because I assume a similarity between conditions wherein a person does not gain a flanking bonus, and I further assume that "full concentration" means the same thing whether you are casting a spell or giving someone your full concentration in battle.

No, I was going with the whole coup de grace thing too, not max. damage. Not that I have a definite house rule anyway (carved in stone kinda thing).

It's all been pretty much up in the air.

To be honest, I'm going to have to give this one a bit more thought. . . a fair bit more, perhaps.



edit --- I can see some relevance to the Concentration check idea. Oh, and *gah* . What a fantastic mess RPG's can make when they omit crucial details (such as the ability to ignore an opponent).

 

[Storm Raven]

Speaking of smokescreen tangents, "ally" and "enemy" are not game terms. If you are going to argue on the basis of what the RAW says, I recommend you pay closer attention to it.

You are going to have to do better than that, especially since the term ally crops up all the time in the rules.

I don't want to pay "full attention" to one foe any more than I would be paying "full attention" to one foe when faced by two foes who are not in flanking position. Nor is this any more "full attention" than the "full attention" which is required for spellcasting. You are correct, however, when you say that (given a situation with only two foes), the character in question would retain full AC against the foe not being "ignored" while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to).

You don't want to pay full attention to an enemy, but you want to get your full defensive capability against him. And you don't want to sacrifice paying any attention to the enemy who is in flanking position with his buddy. That's getting something for nothing. You want to have your cake, and defend against the pie too.

I understand that you believe that this exceeds a character's total attention ability, but this is really no different than what occurs during spellcasting. The SRD says, under Magic Overview, that "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect." Under the Concentration skill, 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."

None of this has anything to do with being threatened by flanking opponents and ignoring one. Nor is it analogous in any way, despite your tortured attempts to describe in such a manner. Basically, this has nothing to do with anything that is being dicussed here. You see, concentrating on a spell causes you to drop your guard momentarily, but does not cause you to ignore those opponents around you enough that you suffer any other penalties to your defense while you do so. Casting a spell isn;t actually ignoring your opponent, it is being momentarily distracted, but not long enough for you to, for example, lose your Dexterity bonus to AC while you cast.

Read the example in my last reply to DonTadow regarding getting "something for nothing." As I suggested before, and merely for fun, give the house rule a try in two or three mock combats. If you can use it to get something for nothing, please describe for us exactly how the combat went. I mean that seriously because (1) it would help me refine the house rule, and (2) I'd like to be wowwed by your tactics. Prove me wrong, and I promise to applaud.

You are flanked by a 7th level rogue and a 7th level fighter. You are in full plate, and have no Dexterity bonus to your AC. You ignore the fighter and focus all of your attention on the rogue. You are flat-footed against the fighter, but this is of no consequence to you, since his attacks are no more effective against you when you are flat-footed than when you are not. You avoid being sneak-attacked by the rogue. Over the course of the fight, for no loss to you whatsoever, you avoid being struck multiple times for +4d6 sneak attack damage.

How's that?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

You are flanked by a 7th level rogue and a 7th level fighter. You are in full plate, and have no Dexterity bonus to your AC. You ignore the fighter and focus all of your attention on the rogue. You are flat-footed against the fighter, but this is of no consequence to you, since his attacks are no more effective against you when you are flat-footed than when you are not. You avoid being sneak-attacked by the rogue. Over the course of the fight, for no loss to you whatsoever, you avoid being struck multiple times for +4d6 sneak attack damage.

Please read the suggested HR again..and catch that RC has adopted the 'any action draws an AoO'. I use the Invisible option instead of Flatfooted for the result to look like this:

You ignore the Fighter, he gains +4 to hit {invis} and +2 to hit {Flanking}... You strike at the Rogue.. Fighter AoOs you with 6 'free' points into Power Attack.
Or he trips you..
Or he grapples you..

Something for nothing? How so?

In the case of an insignificant foe, for instance a summoned badger providing flanking for the 7th level Rogue.., you can counter the tactical choice of your enemy with a tactical choice of your own.

The main objection I have to the coup-de-gras variant of this is that no-one would ever take that option as the risk/reqard is to far off. Even a summoned badger.. a CR-6 encounter..can be lethal with that option. Making the 'option' not a real option.
I prefer to offer my players a choice. The RAW partially addressed ignoring an opponent with the part on the Medusa, creating a need to HR an equivilent ruling for similar situations.

For the record, since this first came up 6 months or so ago I have not had an in-game situation where a character used this.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

That, of course, is what feats are for since clearly that sort of thing is NOT the standard bag of tricks.

 

[DonTadow]

Please read the suggested HR again..and catch that RC has adopted the 'any action draws an AoO'. I use the Invisible option instead of Flatfooted for the result to look like this:

You ignore the Fighter, he gains +4 to hit {invis} and +2 to hit {Flanking}... You strike at the Rogue.. Fighter AoOs you with 6 'free' points into Power Attack.
Or he trips you..
Or he grapples you..

Something for nothing? How so?

In the case of an insignificant foe, for instance a summoned badger providing flanking for the 7th level Rogue.., you can counter the tactical choice of your enemy with a tactical choice of your own.

The main objection I have to the coup-de-gras variant of this is that no-one would ever take that option as the risk/reqard is to far off. Even a summoned badger.. a CR-6 encounter..can be lethal with that option. Making the 'option' not a real option.
I prefer to offer my players a choice. The RAW partially addressed ignoring an opponent with the part on the Medusa, creating a need to HR an equivilent ruling for similar situations.

For the record, since this first came up 6 months or so ago I have not had an in-game situation where a character used this.

I agree, I think two attacks a turn and limited to only pcs with dr are enough limitations to give the HR some support. Add to that that the declation must be done at the beginning of the players turn ala dodge and a difficult concentration check and you have a pretty balanced mechanic.

I can't say I agree with all of RC's rational, (ally and enemy are old game mechanics from wargame days) I think the rule is just. By the way, if we followed the constitution on the rationale that every defintions and meaning has to be included in order to give meaning to particular articles, we'll still be under King John... or even worse canadian burrrrrrr. Just kidding love you guys north of the border AYE!!!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

But that of course assumes that a PC never provides a defense against an ally. The game, however, assumes that if an ally who is standing on one side of you, for whatever reason, should suddenly turn on you and attack that your defenses would be the same as for the enemy on the other side. The argument is that the option to CDG would come only when, despite good sense and the effortless ability to do so, a character chooses to deliberately abandon defense against one opponent. The opposing supposition being presented is that abandoning defense against one opponent should afford you an increased ability to defend against another opponent or at least negate their advantages. However, the assumption already in place is that your ability to defend at least minimally against ALL opponents, no matter where they are or who they are, is not affected by how many opponents you face.

Let me put it this way: I can be surrounded by 8 kobolds and I can still defend against all of them just as easily as only one of them. They have their chances of successful ATTACK improved by their positions on opposite sides of me - but my given level of defense is NOT AFFECTED. If I have a fighter with a BAB of +5, that fighter goes up a level and his BAB becomes +6 my attack has improved - but that Mimic will still have an AC of 15, it's defensive ability is unchanged. My improved advantage certainly hasn't actually DECREASED his defenses. If my fighter gets a +2 circumstance modifier to hit it does not decrease a kobolds AC of 15 - its defenses remain the same. If my fighter is flanked by an Ogre and a Kobold then they get a bonus to their attack rolls - but my ability to defend against them both is unchanged compared to if there were only the Ogre. I don't therefore see how ignoring the Kobold, is supposed to prevent both the kobold and the Ogre from gaining an advantage over me, much less specifically negate the Ogres advantage, much less IMPROVE my defenses against anyone. Nor does it in any way alter my ability to attack in return.

When you are flanked by two opponents they have an increased advantage against you. Period. You can't make that advantage go away by simply pretending it isn't there. The ONLY thing you can accomplish by doing so is to place yourself at an even greater risk - but the entire time you face flanking opponents your capacity for defending yourself to the best of your ability has never been affected. An increase to their attack roll is NOT the same as a reduction of your defenses.

The idea of, "I want to lower my defenses against the kobold so that the kobold and ogre will no longer have an advantage for being on opposite sides of me," just has no logic to it because it cannot alter the fact that they ARE on opposite sides of you and that DOES give them an advantage. Negating that advantage just cannot be done by lowering your defenses/ignoring one opponent.