Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2776244" data-attributes="member: 18280">Don,C'mon man.  Go back and read the house rule I posted.  Did I suggest ignoring an opponent was easy?  No.  Obviously, the opponent is attempting both to injure you and distract you.  Did I suggest that not actively defending against an opponent allowed you to retain your normal defense against that opponent?  No.  I said you were flat-footed against that opponent, and could take no AoOs against him.I didn't start parsing rules until it became necessary to do so in order to establish some baseline of what "flanking" means in descriptive terms.  In other words, what are the flanking rules attempting to model?Frankly, if you are going to make an argument based upon "definitions" or make a claim that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say" (as Storm Raven did), then you ought to be prepared for someone to parse those rules to see what they do say.You have only to read through the responses to realize that what they do say and what people believe they are intending to convey are, generally speaking, two different things.  It doesn't require a belief that the designers were "drinking and lolligagging" to believe that the designers intended some common sense to prevail when interpreting the rules.  Nor does it require a belief that the designers were "drinking and lolligagging" to believe that they did not always write the best possible rule for all circumstances.  The designers of 2nd Ed weren't "drinking and lolligagging," yet most players decided that the revisions to their rules were welcome.  The designers of 3.0 weren't "drinking and lolligagging," and yet along came 3.5.These kinds of arguments, along with your "power gamer" slur, don't actually contribute anything meaningful to the discussion at hand.  Now, I will agree that this weakens sneak attack to some small degree.  But it is a very, very small degree, and one that occurs only when flanking probably shouldn't be allowed anyway.  Earlier, I pointed out that how this changes the game is easily testable:  run a few mock combats.  Have you tried this?  I have.  And, if anything, those who say "Why bother with a rule that will almost never be used?" have the right of it.  Once you see how it works in combat, the only way you'd want to use it is if you absolutely know that one opponent is truly insignificant (and I am talking more insignificant than a kobold when otherwise facing a 10th level rogue here -- in other words, a "placeholder" flanker of the worst sort) or when using the combat rules to emulate something non-lethal, such as a sporting event (again, if you go back to the original post, I cite Tournaments & Fairs [which I think is the right title, but I am at work and cannot check] as my inspirational resource).Honestly, if you can use the house rule I presented to power game, you are a better tactition than I.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> On the other hand, when you sayI have to disagree.  It is quite easy to conceive of a situation where two of your friends are fighting.  I have been the DM in far too many situations where PCs oppose PCs while other PCs try to decide what to do to agree with you there.Insulting me doesn't make my position any less valid.Moreover, if you believe that I wish to powergame and unbalance the rules, whyever would I suggest (on another thread) that the DM shouldn't fudge dice in the players' favor?  Wouldn't that be a much easier way to allow me to power game?  I DM.  Every once in a while, I play.  Two game sessions in the last five years, I got to be a player for.  I DM.  I don't go out of my way to make things easier for my players.  I don't go out of my way to nerf their abilities.  If you want, I can link you to many of the classes I have rewritten for my campaign...if I wanted to nerf the rogue, I'd have done it then.  Actually, the rogue was one of the few classes I didn't have to tinker with.I believe that the DM has the right to make decisions regarding his campaign.  His table, his rules.  I may disagree with practices some DMs engage in (fudging rolls without telling the players) but I agree that the DM can tell players he's going to fudge (house rule) and then do it to his heart's content.I believe that if the players don't like playing with a given DM, they should walk.  Even if there is no other game.  Your DM sucks?  Vote with your feet.I believe that if a player sucks (is detrimental to the game and the DM's playing style, not merely new at it), the DM should give him the boot.  I believe that the internal consistency of what you are trying to model with a ruleset takes precedence over the letter of the rules.  Always, and without exception.  (But I understand that others feel differently, and they can play their own way.)I do not believe in breaking a ruleset to give yourself a temporary advantage.  I do not belive in a perfect ruleset, but I do believe that you can make one better for your own purposes.  I believe that the DM has a right (and, if necessary, an obligation) to modify any ruleset in order to make it better reflect that DM's vision of the world she is modelling.Granted.  But certainly you can accept that, sometimes, the creature you are using to flank simply isn't menacing.  The sheep in my silly example isn't menacing.  Let's look at coordinated attacks for a second.In 3.X, there is an action called Aid Another, which can be used to give a circumstance bonus to attacks.  That circumstance bonus is +2, exactly like the flanking bonus.  However, if three people aid you, the bonus rises to +6.  If three people flank, the bonus is still only +2.  Aid Another is described in the SRD:  "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent."  This seems to be what you are describing.The SRD describes the penalties of being flat-footed:  "You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed.  A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity."If you have uncanny dodge, and you are facing two rogues, you could use my house rule to avoid sneak attacks from one, but not both.  The opponent you are not actively defending against still gains a flanking bonus from the opponent that you are focusing on.  Moreover, since you are flat-footed with respect to that opponent, you can enter his space, initiate a grapple, initiate a trip attempt, cast a spell, etc., without provoking an AoO.  The character you are focusing on can still use Aid Another to help the character you are not actively defending against.In effect, while you have lost the general benefit of coordinating your attacks for one character, you have increased the range of ways you can specify that you are coordinating your attacks for both characters.For example:  Three characters, Al, Bob, and Charlie, are fighting.  Al and Bob are allied rogues, fighting Charlie.  Al and Bob move into flanking position, and Charlie decides to ignore Bob.On his initiative, Al holds his action.  On Bob's initiative, Bob starts a grapple against Charlie.  Charlie is flat-footed with respect to Bob, so Bob has to make a touch attack against AC 10 (Charlie gains no Dex bonus), for which he gains a +2 flanking bonus from Al.  There is no AoO because Charlie is flat-footed with respect to Bob.Charlie cannot both make an opposed grapple check and ignore Bob, as making the check requires an active defense.  If Charlie decides to make the check, Al uses his held action to immediately sneak attack.  If Charlie decides not to make the check, he has now lost his Dexterity bonus due to being grappled, and Al uses his held action to immediately sneak attack.Yup, that nerfed sneak attack, all right.  Ruined flanking and coordinated attacks, too.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> RC</blockquote>

Verification