Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2780260" data-attributes="member: 20805">The speciliazed circumstance that the HR is intended to make viable is to counter the presence of an insignificant flanking enemy. In the suggested case above, the 7th level fighter is not an insignificant flanking enemy, so the tactic allowed by the house rule is, at best, sub-optimal. This HR answers the player when the character becomes flanked with a CR equivelent threat on one side and a being that would not even count as an encounter on its own... on the other. One that has proven itself to be incapable of causing harm, either from low BAB or DR. The question? "Why does the enemy gain an advantage in this case?"GM - Uh, cause they coordinate attacks....thats what the rules say.PC - But its an unintelligent, animated chair whacking me with its cushion!!! {grumble grumble, stupid game!!!} If you want, we can jump into semantics and declare that in this case the game term 'threaten' includes the addendum of 'being capable of causing harm'...but we probably don't want to go down that road.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> I agree that the tone in this thread has meandered into the hostile territory.. but we are also on page 4 with no real change to either sides argument. Argument A: Active defense is a part of the Flanking deal and the Flankee should have a viable tactical option when flanked by an {apparently} insignificant foe. Argument B: Flanking has nothing to do with the Flankee, and instead of offering a viable HR or simply Rule 0, I will allow an 'option' that no-one will ever take anyway.3.X is about Options, not Restrictions.I am sure I read that somewhere.. oh ya, the Developers column at WOTC!Options are good for the player, good for the game. Tactical choices within a coherent rules framework can provide a better gaming experience. I agree that Uncanny Dodge like ability should be a feat.. that sort of automatic tactical denial with no additional risk should cost a feat slot. A "maybe it will work, and if it does I might get hosed" tactical option should not cost a feat slot.But, I get the impression the two sides are arguing completely different concepts... As a player, I think I would be much more comfortable in Raven Crowking's game in having my character attempt things not clearly defined in the RAW than I would at Storm Raven's  table...at least thats the impression I get from this thread.Anywho...IMHO, YMMV, and all them other silly acronyms to say free speech is a wonderful way to get people annoyed with you <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification