Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2775947" data-attributes="member: 18280">Hey, Aus, I'm well aware of the difference between a house rule and the RAW!  In general, I tend to think that a house rule should be judged on the merits of "If this rule was in the book, would I use it?  Would I modify it?  How?  Why?" rather than "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say."If I was a little snarking with my "example" and it offended you, then I apologize to you.  I've had the joy of reading many of your posts, and I have nothing but respect for you.OTOH, I have to admit that I am more than a bit tired of being accused of intellectual dishonesty because I believe that you can extrapolate from existing rules.  Or being told that an examination of where flanking applies/does not apply is "irrelevant" or a "chain of illogic" when discussing flanking.Not you, I know.  But having been told that the situation in my "thought experiment" could never occur, I thought I might demonstrate that it can occur.  Is the example silly?  Yes.  Is the meat of the example any different that what was set up in The Village of Hommlet (guy/npc/creature you think harmless or ally attacks you at least opportune moment)?  No.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.If I was in your campaign, and playing a rogue, I would certainly be willing to try to gain a foe's confidence to pull of exactly this stunt.  In Storm Raven's campaign, I would assume that such a stunt would allow me to deliver a coup-de-grace....I would build characters to pull of that stunt.  In my campaign, you could expect to be flat-footed against the sneaky &^%@ for the first round, which is a lot less of a penalty, but you would be a fool to allow yourself to remain flat-footed indefinitely against even a reasonably competent opponent.In my campaign, your assumption would be correct.  I am not at all certain whether or not my assumptions about your or Storm Raven's campaigns would be correct.  If would be correct (simular situation = same ruling) your rule would be as elegant as mine (elegance in this case being the applicability of a rule to cover similar situations, such as the d20 core mechanic covering almost every "can I do it?" situation encountered).  I'll be the first to admit that elegance does not equal correctness, nor does elegance always give the most satisfying ruleset.  However, as a player, when "similar situation =/= simular ruling" I like to know why.  Mostly, this is because the decisions I am making are based upon the assumption that similar situations will produce similar rulings, and that therefore I can extrapolate from past experience to make present decisions.  I find that most players have similar expectations to mine.In some ways, this discussion is similar to the "Can I intentionally take a 5-foot step into thin air (so as to cause falling)" discussion.  In order to answer the question, you have to determine what a 5-foot step models, and then decide what answer grants both the best consistency with the model (rules) and with what the rules are modelling (descriptive elements).Different people answer those questions differently.  Which is why we have different house rules.  Actually, it is why house rules exist at all.  I have a hard time suffering the attentions of those who claim those questions are completely irrelevant, though.My house rule models "not actively defending against an opponent so that you may concentrate your defense elsewhere" which is, I believe, the gist of the original post.  Your house rule models "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction".  Two different things.  I suppose, if my house rule was intended to model "completely ignoring any possible danger from an entire direction" I would agree with you.  Also, my silly example would apply (though with an automatically successful attack causing maximum damage rather than a coup de grace, and probably a different response from Olaf's player).I still wouldn't agree with Storm Raven, though.  Olaf may be ignoring the sheep, but he is not completely at its mercy.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> RC</blockquote>

Verification