Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2781842" data-attributes="member: 18280">Arguments as I understand them Part IIIn the case of the question, &quot;Can one make a good house rule that allows an opponent to ignore an enemy for the purposes of flanking&quot; itself relies upon several related questions:(1)&nbsp; Can such a house rule ever be &quot;good&quot;?&nbsp; The general fear here seems to be that such a house rule would make the rogue's sneak attack class ability worthless.&nbsp; Storm Raven went so far as to claim that there could be no other purpose for such a rule, and that claiming otherwise was dishonest.The primary use of flanking, however, is not to give one particular class a bonus.&nbsp; It is to grant a +2 bonus to hit the creature flanked.&nbsp; Of course, rogues do gain one of their most important class abilities by either flanking or sneaking up on an opponent, so it should be reasonable to say that any house rule that &quot;nerfs&quot; this ability (prevents its use in a wide variety of circumstances) would not qualify as a &quot;good&quot; house rule.Not nerfing sneak attack is an important goal for any such house rule.In addition, there is a +2 flanking bonus to consider.&nbsp; Denying a bonus to creatures without taking some corresponding penalty would also prevent this from being a &quot;good&quot; house rule.There must also be an associated penalty.(2)&nbsp; What exactly do the current flanking rules represent?To be expanded.(3)&nbsp; What is meant by &quot;ignoring an opponent&quot; in this context?To be expanded.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2781842, member: 18280"] [b]Arguments as I understand them Part II[/b] In the case of the question, "Can one make a good house rule that allows an opponent to ignore an enemy for the purposes of flanking" itself relies upon several related questions: (1) Can such a house rule ever be "good"? The general fear here seems to be that such a house rule would make the rogue's sneak attack class ability worthless. Storm Raven went so far as to claim that there could be no other purpose for such a rule, and that claiming otherwise was dishonest. The primary use of flanking, however, is not to give one particular class a bonus. It is to grant a +2 bonus to hit the creature flanked. Of course, rogues do gain one of their most important class abilities by either flanking or sneaking up on an opponent, so it should be reasonable to say that any house rule that "nerfs" this ability (prevents its use in a wide variety of circumstances) would not qualify as a "good" house rule. [B][I]Not nerfing sneak attack is an important goal for any such house rule.[/I][/B] In addition, there is a +2 flanking bonus to consider. Denying a bonus to creatures without taking some corresponding penalty would also prevent this from being a "good" house rule. [I][B]There must also be an associated penalty.[/B][/I] (2) What exactly do the current flanking rules represent? To be expanded. (3) What is meant by "ignoring an opponent" in this context? To be expanded. [/QUOTE]

Verification