Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2773655" data-attributes="member: 32740">The bonuses given to the attackers attack rolls for having a defender flanked comes not JUST from a defender having to split his concentration.&nbsp; At least in part, if not actually in large part, the flanking bonuses come from being able to coordinate attacks to a better effect.&nbsp; One attacker bats aside the defenders shield, knocks him slightly off balance, draws attention away or obstructs vision in such a way that the other attacker can take advantage of it in his own attack - and then returns the favor.&nbsp; Now part of that does come from the defender having to divide his concentration, and part of it comes from the fact that facing - while no longer directly addressed in the rules - is still a significant factor in how combat is conducted.What people seem to want with this &quot;ignoring the flanker&quot; business is, &quot;Well, I don't REALLY want to ignore him.&nbsp; I want to still defend against his attacks and all, but I want to simply be able to decide to not be distracted by his attacks in any way and thus effectively prevent them from having an advantage for having me flanked.&quot;&nbsp; It's gaming the rules.&nbsp; It's seeking meta-game logic for tearing down perfectly sensible and utilitarian rules that there is just no valid reason to question.&nbsp; You can be sure that if I, as a DM, insisted to players that my BBEG cannot be flanked simply because he chooses not to be distracted by one of two PC's they'd hang me by my Buster Browns.&nbsp; It's all the more silly because the +2 attack bonus for flanking is simply not so great an advantage as deserves this degree of hullaballoo trying to get around it.One thing I can say is that I would not have a problem with a player wanting to devote a feat to the ability to counteract being flanked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 2773655, member: 32740"] The bonuses given to the attackers attack rolls for having a defender flanked comes not JUST from a defender having to split his concentration. At least in part, if not actually in large part, the flanking bonuses come from being able to coordinate attacks to a better effect. One attacker bats aside the defenders shield, knocks him slightly off balance, draws attention away or obstructs vision in such a way that the other attacker can take advantage of it in his own attack - and then returns the favor. Now part of that does come from the defender having to divide his concentration, and part of it comes from the fact that facing - while no longer [I]directly [/I]addressed in the rules - is still a significant factor in how combat is conducted. What people seem to want with this "ignoring the flanker" business is, "Well, I don't REALLY want to ignore him. I want to still defend against his attacks and all, but I want to simply be able to decide to [I]not be distracted [/I]by his attacks in any way and thus effectively prevent them from having an advantage for having me flanked." It's gaming the rules. It's seeking meta-game logic for tearing down perfectly sensible and utilitarian rules that there is just no valid reason to question. You can be sure that if I, as a DM, insisted to players that my BBEG cannot be flanked simply because he chooses not to be distracted by one of two PC's they'd hang me by my Buster Browns. It's all the more silly because the +2 attack bonus for flanking is simply not so great an advantage as deserves this degree of hullaballoo trying to get around it. One thing I can say is that I would not have a problem with a player wanting to devote a feat to the ability to counteract being flanked. [/QUOTE]

Verification