Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2776307" data-attributes="member: 18280">Speaking of smokescreen tangents, &quot;ally&quot; and &quot;enemy&quot; are not game terms.&nbsp; If you are going to argue on the basis of what the RAW says, I recommend you pay closer attention to it.Okay, now you are finally responding to what I wrote (rather than simply making personal attacks).Since you are drawing the distinction, what I say is that I am granting PC and NPC alike the ability, if they make a Concentration check, to not actively defend against a single opponent.I don't want to pay &quot;full attention&quot; to one foe any more than I would be paying &quot;full attention&quot; to one foe when faced by two foes who are not in flanking position.&nbsp; Nor is this any more &quot;full attention&quot; than the &quot;full attention&quot; which is required for spellcasting.&nbsp; You are correct, however, when you say that (given a situation with only two foes), the character in question would retain full AC against the foe not being &quot;ignored&quot; while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to). I understand that you believe that this exceeds a character's total attention ability, but this is really no different than what occurs during spellcasting.&nbsp; The SRD says, under Magic Overview, that &quot;To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.&quot;&nbsp; Under the Concentration skill, the SRD says &quot;You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity.&quot;Needless to say, in rules terms &quot;full attention&quot; cannot easily be parsed into neat percentiles.&nbsp; Since casting a spell provokes an AoO against your normal AC, the &quot;full attention&quot; required obviously doesn't prevent you from having a modicum of defense.&nbsp; In fact, the &quot;full attention&quot; required for casting a spell is less attention than required to not actively defend against an opponent in the house rule I cited, because the spellcaster is not flat-footed.Read the example in my last reply to DonTadow regarding getting &quot;something for nothing.&quot;&nbsp; As I suggested before, and merely for fun, give the house rule a try in two or three mock combats.&nbsp; If you can use it to get something for nothing, please describe for us exactly how the combat went.&nbsp; I mean that seriously because (1) it would help me refine the house rule, and (2) I'd like to be wowwed by your tactics.&nbsp; Prove me wrong, and I promise to applaud.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2776307, member: 18280"] Speaking of smokescreen tangents, "ally" and "enemy" are not game terms. If you are going to argue on the basis of what the RAW says, I recommend you pay closer attention to it. Okay, now you are finally responding to what I wrote (rather than simply making personal attacks). Since you are drawing the distinction, what I say is that I am granting PC and NPC alike the ability, if they make a Concentration check, to not actively defend against a single opponent. I don't want to pay "full attention" to one foe any more than I would be paying "full attention" to one foe when faced by two foes who are not in flanking position. Nor is this any more "full attention" than the "full attention" which is required for spellcasting. You are correct, however, when you say that (given a situation with only two foes), the character in question would retain full AC against the foe not being "ignored" while retaining a modicum of defense against the other (the one you decided you should be flat-footed with respect to). I understand that you believe that this exceeds a character's total attention ability, but this is really no different than what occurs during spellcasting. The SRD says, under Magic Overview, that "To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect." Under the Concentration skill, the SRD says "You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity." Needless to say, in rules terms "full attention" cannot easily be parsed into neat percentiles. Since casting a spell provokes an AoO against your normal AC, the "full attention" required obviously doesn't prevent you from having a modicum of defense. In fact, the "full attention" required for casting a spell is less attention than required to not actively defend against an opponent in the house rule I cited, because the spellcaster is not flat-footed. Read the example in my last reply to DonTadow regarding getting "something for nothing." As I suggested before, and merely for fun, give the house rule a try in two or three mock combats. If you can use it to get something for nothing, please describe for us exactly how the combat went. I mean that seriously because (1) it would help me refine the house rule, and (2) I'd like to be wowwed by your tactics. Prove me wrong, and I promise to applaud. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification