Can I Ignore An Opponent?

[Primitive Screwhead]

IMHO...

Per RAW, unconsience fighter on the ground.. two enemies gain a bonus to hit because they are directly opposite each other. WHy? because they coordinate attacks. Is this silly? Yes. Would/have I house ruled it away? Yes.
Why? Because, in my mind, Flanking incorperates an element of the defender having to 'face' {despite lack of facing rules} opponents 180 degrees out. This is an active change in the defenders response to the attack.
Why does it not stack? For simplicities sake.

So.. assuming at least part of Flanking has to do with the defenders increased focus on distinct enemies.
RAW allows, with a special ability, to negate Flanking in certain circumstance.
RAW allows, with regard to the medusa, limited 'turn your back on' mechanics.

Why not rule similarly to allow a character to negate part of the Flanking tactic while incurring a reasonable level of risk? Something in between the Flanking and Uncanny Dodge {thereby not Feat worthy level mechanic}.

The two important parts that I think have been mostly ignored in this rather entertaining thread are these:
DnD Rules are a "close approximation" approach, with the heavy leaning towards simplicity in mechanics. Digging in detail will uncover paradox and sillyness eventually.
As a RolePlaying Game, the rules should support taking actions that the player wants to take, giving them a framework for in-character decisions instead of providing a CRPG/war gaming with miniatures experience where intimate knowledge of the rules is required for making decisions.

The real test of whether a reasonable HR needs to be made here is the litmus test of: 'Is this something a complete N00b would ask to do in character?'
I think the answer is yes...
The real test of whether a HR is reasonable is the litmus tests of:
- does the mechanic appear/work similar to other rules for similar situations?
- is the mechanic not a 'good every time' or 'good at no time' choice?
- does the extra complication of the rule slow down or otherwise impair entertaining game play?


Anywho...

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Please go back and read the house rule.

Do the ogre and kobold still have an advantage for being on opposite sides of me?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Go back and read the house rule. Do I get my full defensive capability against the enemy I am "ignoring"? Do you consider being flat-footed "full defensive capability"?

Storm Raven, if you don't actually have anything to say, I am simply going to ignore your future posts.

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?

Did you even read the example I posted? I guarantee that no one would ever reach 7th level using the tactics you describe above if I was DMing!

7th level rogue holds action. 7th level fighter makes touch attack with +2 flanking bonus for grapple (your effective AC is now 8, so the 7th level fighter is pretty sure to hit). If you make an opposed grapple check, you lose the benefits of ignoring an opponent, and the rogue uses his held action to perform his sneak attack. If you continue to "ignore" the opponent, you lose your Dexterity bonus due to being grappled, and the rogue performs his sneak attack. In the later case, you are also grappled and may soon be pinned, allowing the rogue free reign.

This is not only obvious, it is in no way different from the case I previously described.

Again, if you don't actually have anything to say, I am simply going to ignore your future posts.


RC

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Please go back and read the house rule.
Do the ogre and kobold still have an advantage for being on opposite sides of me?

Ignore Opponent: In some cases, you may feel that an opponent is completely unable to harm you, or that whatever harm that opponent can do is relatively meaningless. As a free action, you can make a Concentration check (DC 10 + any damage that opponent has given you since your last turn) on your turn to ignore that opponent. An ignored opponent doesn’t count when determining whether or not you are flanked and cannot successfully use the Aid Another action to help another combatant’s attack against you. However, you cannot take attacks of opportunity against an ignored opponent, and you are considered to be flat-footed against that opponent’s attacks. Ignoring an opponent is active until your next turn.

My point, ultimately, is that if you are going to allow something like this at all it should be as a feat. Look at Improved Uncanny Dodge which prevents a character from being flanked. It is an ability that barbarians don't get until 5th level and rogues don't get until 8th, either of which can then still be sneak attacked by a rogue that is 4 levels higher. It makes no attempt to explain how/why it works other than the name - an improved dodging ability. It does not savagely mistreat the concept of maintaining a basic minimal defense against all attackers at all times. Note also that it still does not provide an absolute elimination of penalties to being flanked as it can be overcome by the right opponent - and the type of opponent most able and most reliant upon the sort of advantage that flanking gives you.

While I would be HIGHLY reluctant to allow all characters access to what ought to be a protected class ability (I am personally a big believer in maintaining a strong distinction between classes by doing so) if you wanted to allow access to all you could do a lot worse than to use that as your basis and NOT the notion of "Ignoring" an attacker which continues to be unrealistic and ruthlessly destroys my own suspension of disbelief. For that I would still aver that the penalty ought to be rather more severe than merely being flat-footed. Being subject to coup de gras is still far more reasonable given the base concept of "ignoring" the attacker. Your house rule may work for you (and good on ya) but IMO its unacceptable, all the more so for the admitted rarity with which it should ever even come up.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

7th level rogue holds action. 7th level fighter makes touch attack with +2 flanking bonus for grapple (your effective AC is now 8, so the 7th level fighter is pretty sure to hit). If you make an opposed grapple check, you lose the benefits of ignoring an opponent, and the rogue uses his held action to perform his sneak attack. If you continue to "ignore" the opponent, you lose your Dexterity bonus due to being grappled, and the rogue performs his sneak attack. In the later case, you are also grappled and may soon be pinned, allowing the rogue free reign.

This is not only obvious, it is in no way different from the case I previously described.

It's also a very interesting, and quite specialized means of negating the specialized circumstances that your own house rule is supposedly intended to make viable.

Again, if you don't actually have anything to say, I am simply going to ignore your future posts.

Just a little more attitude there than I care to continue following along with. I'm done.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

It's also a very interesting, and quite specialized means of negating the specialized circumstances that your own house rule is supposedly intended to make viable.

The speciliazed circumstance that the HR is intended to make viable is to counter the presence of an insignificant flanking enemy. In the suggested case above, the 7th level fighter is not an insignificant flanking enemy, so the tactic allowed by the house rule is, at best, sub-optimal.

This HR answers the player when the character becomes flanked with a CR equivelent threat on one side and a being that would not even count as an encounter on its own... on the other. One that has proven itself to be incapable of causing harm, either from low BAB or DR. The question? "Why does the enemy gain an advantage in this case?"

GM - Uh, cause they coordinate attacks....thats what the rules say.
PC - But its an unintelligent, animated chair whacking me with its cushion!!! {grumble grumble, stupid game!!!}


If you want, we can jump into semantics and declare that in this case the game term 'threaten' includes the addendum of 'being capable of causing harm'...but we probably don't want to go down that road.

I agree that the tone in this thread has meandered into the hostile territory.. but we are also on page 4 with no real change to either sides argument.

Argument A: Active defense is a part of the Flanking deal and the Flankee should have a viable tactical option when flanked by an {apparently} insignificant foe.

Argument B: Flanking has nothing to do with the Flankee, and instead of offering a viable HR or simply Rule 0, I will allow an 'option' that no-one will ever take anyway.

3.X is about Options, not Restrictions.
I am sure I read that somewhere.. oh ya, the Developers column at WOTC!

Options are good for the player, good for the game.
Tactical choices within a coherent rules framework can provide a better gaming experience.

I agree that Uncanny Dodge like ability should be a feat.. that sort of automatic tactical denial with no additional risk should cost a feat slot. A "maybe it will work, and if it does I might get hosed" tactical option should not cost a feat slot.

But, I get the impression the two sides are arguing completely different concepts...
As a player, I think I would be much more comfortable in Raven Crowking's game in having my character attempt things not clearly defined in the RAW than I would at Storm Raven's table...at least thats the impression I get from this thread.

Anywho...IMHO, YMMV, and all them other silly acronyms to say free speech is a wonderful way to get people annoyed with you

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, if you don't actually have anything to say, I am simply going to ignore your future posts.

Just a little more attitude there than I care to continue following along with. I'm done.

(Shrug) OK. But clearly, SR's attitude didn't bother you (or at least not enough to mention). There are lots of ways to deal with abusive attitudes, but "say something worth paying attention to, or I will simply ignore you" is probably the least offensive. It's such a good option that it's the one you decided on!



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Arguments as I understand them

Okay, the way that I see this, this thread has opened up some meta-topics. The first of these is based upon rules interpretations, and is specifically Storm Raven's contention that one cannot make an extrapolation as to what a rule means except by the text of said rule. The second is, given a ruleset and story content, which takes precedence? In other words, should you modify the ruleset to aid storytelling, or should your storytelling be limited to what the RAW allow? The third is, given than one does not accept Storm Raven's contention, what makes a good house rule?

The core contention of the first of these meta-topics, IMHO, would reduce a role-playing game to something like chess. Obviously, in order to have story, we extrapolate from the rules and give those rules meaning. Even in the course of subsequent argument, Storm Raven consistently extrapolated from the rules (i.e., determined what he believed the rules to represent). Moreover, an inability to extrapolate from the rules would tend to deny any changes (tweaking, house rules) to the RAW. This would be an ironic conclusion to draw in a House Rules forum. Finally, most people accept that the rules do not have to be explicit about core assumptions that almost every person would accept. For instance, there is no rule that states explicitly that a dropped object lands on the ground. I think, therefore, that we can safely conclude that most people would agree that one can make an extrapolation as to what a rule is means by making educated guesses as to what the rules seems to represent, through the interaction of rules, and by extrapolation from similar rulesets.

The second question arises from the contention that any modification to the flanking rules that allows a character to effectively prevent one character from providing a flanking bonus to another "nerfs" the rogue's sneak attack ability (or steps upon the toes of characters with class abilities that negate flanking). This seems to follow the edge of "gamist" and "simulationist" philosophies. The general "gamist" idea behind this seems to be that the designers have carefully balanced 3.X, and that any changes could negatively affect that balance.

The counters to this are threefold:

(1) To some, a nearer simulation (to fiction, movies, or whereever that person draws inspiration) is preferable to balance. This includes the idea that some types of balance are undesirable, either (a) elminating the value of choices or (b) creating a super-symmetry that defies suspension of disbelief. The classic examples of (b) is the "If we create a spell/class/race of Energy Type X, we must also create the same for Energy Types Y, Z, and K" and "If there is a Lawful (or Good) form of X, there must be a Chaotic (or Evil) form also".

(2) The game designers did not necessarily create the perfect balance. Just as 3.5 was intended to resolve design problems from 3.0, it is fair to assume that there is a 4.0 lurking somewhere in D&D's future. As many are fond of pointing out, there is no such thing as a perfect ruleset. Complicating this, as WotC puts out additional (non-Core) books, many players and DMs alike have reported balance issues with integrating parts of the new material.

(3) House rules are not necessarily unbalanced. The fear that "If you change rule X, you will unbalance the game" is not necessarily well founded. Certainly, if you change a rule, you will change the balance of the game. However, that it the point of many house rules -- to change a balance from the game designers' personal preference to the DM's or the group's personal preference. Considering that Unearthed Arcana includes discussions of the designers' house rules, and that Monte Cook has put out at least two alternatives to the Player's Handbook already, I would argue that this counter-assertion is well supported.

Finally, what makes a good house rule?

This is a pretty difficult question, because within this contest the term "good" is fairly subjective. However, if one is willing to accept the subjectivity, then I would claim that a good rule is a good rule. House rules are the rules used by a particular house (in this case, DM or gaming group). If you use only the core rulebooks, for example, that is a house rule. Determining what is a good "house" rule therefore requires only that a rule meet the needs and style of whoever is using it.

A "good rule" is probably a little less subjective, though. If it were not, all gaming suppliments would sell based on price rather than content. I would argue that a "good" rule is one which satisfies both the gamist and the simulationist. An "okay" rule satisfies one or the other (and is likely to be tweaked by whichever side it does not satisfy), and a "bad" rule satisfies neither (and is therefore almost certainly either tweaked or ignored by the vast majority of players).

Dealing with (or at least being aware of) these meta-topics might make it easier to deal with individual rules & house rules questions, such as the flanking question that this thread is related to.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I like the house rule, I was trying to come up with one based on the CR of the creature. Something like if a creature's CR was less than 1/2 your level you could ignore them. But I couldn't get it to work. the HR in this thread is much better.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Arguments as I understand them Part II

In the case of the question, "Can one make a good house rule that allows an opponent to ignore an enemy for the purposes of flanking" itself relies upon several related questions:

(1) Can such a house rule ever be "good"? The general fear here seems to be that such a house rule would make the rogue's sneak attack class ability worthless. Storm Raven went so far as to claim that there could be no other purpose for such a rule, and that claiming otherwise was dishonest.

The primary use of flanking, however, is not to give one particular class a bonus. It is to grant a +2 bonus to hit the creature flanked. Of course, rogues do gain one of their most important class abilities by either flanking or sneaking up on an opponent, so it should be reasonable to say that any house rule that "nerfs" this ability (prevents its use in a wide variety of circumstances) would not qualify as a "good" house rule.

Not nerfing sneak attack is an important goal for any such house rule.

In addition, there is a +2 flanking bonus to consider. Denying a bonus to creatures without taking some corresponding penalty would also prevent this from being a "good" house rule.

There must also be an associated penalty.

(2) What exactly do the current flanking rules represent?

To be expanded.

(3) What is meant by "ignoring an opponent" in this context?

To be expanded.