Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 2774438" data-attributes="member: 22622">Ah, yet us already complicate the 3.5 meshing of 5 foot steps, grappling and bullrush.&nbsp; I love giving players more combat options, but what you're suggesting is throwing away flanking and allowing players to determine how much their character is paying attention to his opponents.&nbsp; This is sure to bring about a ton of arguments at the table, no I was blocking dude A 66 percent and dude b 33 percent, so they don't flank me.&nbsp; Regardless of how much you pay attention to a foe, you're still flanked.&nbsp; As previously said its as much about your opponents as it is you.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your opponents are working in tandam to attack you, allowing one free reign just allows that opponent to better distract you more, as you swing your sword he holds on to it, allowing the player youre paying full attention to to stab you dead in your armpit. There's no decision a player can make that can make a decision for other players, thus once you are surrounded you are pretty much subjected to the penalities of being flanked. &nbsp;Plus look at the postion of being flanked, its when two opponents are on opposite sides of you.&nbsp; Now why is that considered flanking and its not on the other two sides of you.&nbsp; That is because where as it is easier to make 45 degree turns and blocks when fighting, it becomes very difficult to make 180 turns continiousley in battle.&nbsp; Especially when your opponents are working together to attack you.&nbsp; &nbsp;Now, in the interest of giving a player a choice, I could see allowing this player to concentrate his defense and attacks on one foe, but that would also mean he would have to completely be ignoring the other opponent.&nbsp; He'd still be flanked,&nbsp; for the purposes of being flanked, but the other opponent wouldn't get the +2, however opponent being ignored would get free reign.&nbsp; It's the only way to keep the balance&nbsp; of flanked intact and give it a resemblance of making any sense at all and even then its stretching it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DonTadow, post: 2774438, member: 22622"] Ah, yet us already complicate the 3.5 meshing of 5 foot steps, grappling and bullrush. I love giving players more combat options, but what you're suggesting is throwing away flanking and allowing players to determine how much their character is paying attention to his opponents. This is sure to bring about a ton of arguments at the table, no I was blocking dude A 66 percent and dude b 33 percent, so they don't flank me. Regardless of how much you pay attention to a foe, you're still flanked. As previously said its as much about your opponents as it is you. Your opponents are working in tandam to attack you, allowing one free reign just allows that opponent to better distract you more, as you swing your sword he holds on to it, allowing the player youre paying full attention to to stab you dead in your armpit. There's no decision a player can make that can make a decision for other players, thus once you are surrounded you are pretty much subjected to the penalities of being flanked. Plus look at the postion of being flanked, its when two opponents are on opposite sides of you. Now why is that considered flanking and its not on the other two sides of you. That is because where as it is easier to make 45 degree turns and blocks when fighting, it becomes very difficult to make 180 turns continiousley in battle. Especially when your opponents are working together to attack you. Now, in the interest of giving a player a choice, I could see allowing this player to concentrate his defense and attacks on one foe, but that would also mean he would have to completely be ignoring the other opponent. He'd still be flanked, for the purposes of being flanked, but the other opponent wouldn't get the +2, however opponent being ignored would get free reign. It's the only way to keep the balance of flanked intact and give it a resemblance of making any sense at all and even then its stretching it. [/QUOTE]

Verification