Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2778787" data-attributes="member: 20805">IMHO...&nbsp;Per RAW, unconsience fighter on the ground.. two enemies gain a bonus to hit because they are directly opposite each other. WHy? because they coordinate attacks. Is this silly? Yes. Would/have I house ruled it away? Yes.&nbsp; Why? Because, in my mind, Flanking incorperates an element of the defender having to 'face' {despite lack of facing rules} opponents 180 degrees out. This is an active change in the defenders response to the attack.Why does it not stack? For simplicities sake.&nbsp;So.. assuming at least part of Flanking has to do with the defenders increased focus on distinct enemies. RAW allows, with a special ability, to negate Flanking in certain circumstance. RAW allows, with regard to the medusa, limited 'turn your back on' mechanics.&nbsp;Why not rule similarly to allow a character to negate part of the Flanking tactic while incurring a reasonable level of risk? Something in between the Flanking and Uncanny Dodge {thereby not Feat worthy level mechanic}.The two important parts that I think have been mostly ignored in this rather entertaining thread are these:&nbsp;&nbsp; DnD Rules are a &quot;close approximation&quot; approach, with the heavy leaning towards simplicity in mechanics. Digging in detail will uncover paradox and sillyness eventually.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a RolePlaying Game, the rules should support taking actions that the player wants to take, giving them a framework for in-character decisions instead of providing a CRPG/war gaming with miniatures experience where intimate knowledge of the rules is required for making decisions.&nbsp;The real test of whether a reasonable HR needs to be made here is the litmus test of: 'Is this something a complete N00b would ask to do in character?'&nbsp;I think the answer is yes...The real test of whether a HR is reasonable is the litmus tests of:&nbsp;- does the mechanic appear/work similar to other rules for similar situations?&nbsp;- is the mechanic not a 'good every time' or 'good at no time' choice?&nbsp;- does the extra complication of the rule slow down or otherwise impair entertaining game play?Anywho...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2778787, member: 20805"] IMHO... Per RAW, unconsience fighter on the ground.. two enemies gain a bonus to hit because they are directly opposite each other. WHy? because they coordinate attacks. Is this silly? Yes. Would/have I house ruled it away? Yes. Why? Because, [I]in my mind[/I], Flanking incorperates an element of the defender having to 'face' {despite lack of facing rules} opponents 180 degrees out. This is an active change in the defenders response to the attack. Why does it not stack? For simplicities sake. So.. assuming at least part of Flanking has to do with the defenders increased focus on distinct enemies. RAW allows, with a special ability, to negate Flanking in certain circumstance. RAW allows, with regard to the medusa, limited 'turn your back on' mechanics. Why not rule similarly to allow a character to negate part of the Flanking tactic while incurring a reasonable level of risk? Something in between the Flanking and Uncanny Dodge {thereby not Feat worthy level mechanic}. The two important parts that I think have been mostly ignored in this rather entertaining thread are these: DnD Rules are a "close approximation" approach, with the heavy leaning towards simplicity in mechanics. Digging in detail will uncover paradox and sillyness eventually. As a RolePlaying Game, the rules should support taking actions that the player wants to take, giving them a framework for in-character decisions instead of providing a CRPG/war gaming with miniatures experience where intimate knowledge of the rules is required for making decisions. The real test of whether a reasonable HR needs to be made here is the litmus test of: 'Is this something a complete N00b would ask to do in character?' I think the answer is yes... The real test of whether a HR is reasonable is the litmus tests of: - does the mechanic appear/work similar to other rules for similar situations? - is the mechanic not a 'good every time' or 'good at no time' choice? - does the extra complication of the rule slow down or otherwise impair entertaining game play? Anywho... [/QUOTE]

Verification