Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2774091" data-attributes="member: 20805">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?&nbsp;&nbsp; Helpless is not the condition to apply to a target that is unaware of your attacks.&nbsp; Many RAW examples exists, sniping, invisible, etc.. all of these deny dex to the target and grant a bonus to hit to the atacker.&nbsp; 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'&nbsp;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?&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2774091, member: 20805"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification