Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Goolpsy" data-source="post: 2343954" data-attributes="member: 31769">I would strongly suggest you NOT to use &quot;Ignore Foe&quot; first of all it will probably criple every Thief, and will reduce players &quot;tactical Maneuvers&quot; .. why use a turn to get into flanking position, if it doesn't work? - Game IssuesIf you think of it, Having one opponent in your back really reduce your concentration to fight, and it &quot;limits your space&quot; as he is RIGHT behind you, kicking you, hitting you.And the opponent your fighting will likely Use that disadvantage in the best way posible, Hence the &quot;loss of Dex to Ac&quot; and availability of Sneak attacks.You do make a penalty for ignoring a Foe,&nbsp; but i would suggest a Concentration check or something to make it work, and taking the penalty if he succeed, while he is just plain flanked on a failed check.Still i suggest not adding this Combat Action</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Goolpsy, post: 2343954, member: 31769"] I would strongly suggest you NOT to use "Ignore Foe" first of all it will probably criple every Thief, and will reduce players "tactical Maneuvers" .. why use a turn to get into flanking position, if it doesn't work? - Game Issues If you think of it, Having one opponent in your back really reduce your concentration to fight, and it "limits your space" as he is RIGHT behind you, kicking you, hitting you. And the opponent your fighting will likely Use that disadvantage in the best way posible, Hence the "loss of Dex to Ac" and availability of Sneak attacks. You do make a penalty for ignoring a Foe, but i would suggest a Concentration check or something to make it work, and taking the penalty if he succeed, while he is just plain flanked on a failed check. Still i suggest not adding this Combat Action [/QUOTE]

Verification