Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imre" data-source="post: 3364898" data-attributes="member: 36183">I think there are two aspects to flanking:1) The division of attention of the victim;2) The coordination of efforts by the flankers.1) is clearly still in place in the &quot;three-party system&quot; while 2) is questionable.&nbsp; Monte Cook put forth a house rule (in some book or other) that allows a flanked creature to ignore one attacker and focus on the other.&nbsp; In this case, the ignored attacker counts as invisible while the other gains no benefits at all.The coordination part is important because it stops the possibility of arguments like the one given above &quot;well, evil things turn on each other all the time!!&quot;&nbsp; If two hostile parties knowingly attacked a mutually hostile third party, I would give flanking benefits.&nbsp; To my mind, the flankers are &quot;effectively allied for the purposes of combat benefits&quot;, including flanking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imre, post: 3364898, member: 36183"] I think there are two aspects to flanking: 1) The division of attention of the victim; 2) The coordination of efforts by the flankers. 1) is clearly still in place in the "three-party system" while 2) is questionable. Monte Cook put forth a house rule (in some book or other) that allows a flanked creature to ignore one attacker and focus on the other. In this case, the ignored attacker counts as invisible while the other gains no benefits at all. The coordination part is important because it stops the possibility of arguments like the one given above "well, evil things turn on each other all the time!!" If two hostile parties knowingly attacked a mutually hostile third party, I would give flanking benefits. To my mind, the flankers are "effectively allied for the purposes of combat benefits", including flanking. [/QUOTE]

Verification